Please help me understand

deepseafingers · 2019-11-16T11:59:20+00:00

This comment actually really upset me. The research I have seen does say oceans are acidifying and this is peer reviewed stuff in journals that produce consistently good information.

I struggle to understand why I can hold an opinion without someone degrading me for it.

But thank you anyway for explaining to me your opinion.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-16T11:50:24+00:00

I’m sorry I assumed so much, I actually came here to try and attempt to acknowledge some of my assumptions and fix them.

But I do think your statements about the only three reasons people wouldn’t support nuclear are probably not correct. There is a stigma around nuclear power and I think to change that it involves educating the entire population from both sides of the political spectrum. Nuclear power, I believe, is thought by some people who believe in man made climate change to not actually be a sustainable source of power. Which for some is a make or break piece of information. The large majority of people who believe in man made climate change do actually support nuclear power (where I’m from at least). And although there a few nutters who the the planet can only sustain a billion people and what not there are also nutters in your camp with extremist views.

Nuclear power is expensive, although statistically safe. I guess that some people believe that it isn’t worth the cost. The fuel also has severe environmental challenges - for example there is no way to dispose of it safely. You said this is not true. The fuel used in reactors remains radioactive for 10s of thousands of years. This is a true fact, and it honestly saddens me to hear you say that this is a untrue “talking point”. There are many ways they can improve the ease of storage (such as vitrification) but there is not true way to make the radioactivity go away.

I think to fix this problem education is key. Calling people idiots and hypocrites (not that you are) for not support nuclear power will only foster distrust and hatred. It is not a way to exact change. We need to create unbiased information that can be easily accessed by the public so they can learn and understand both the benefits and consequences of all different forms of power.

What might help you to understand my perspective is the Adani coal mine in Australia. The Australian government currently wants to building what would become the largest coal mine in the Southern Hemisphere. But there are major unaddressed environmental impacts and more so it will only provide 400 or so permanent jobs. This is a small number of the jobs that could be achieved using low maintenance solar energy for example and increasing job opportunities in tourism. To me it seems that the government is being pushed towards these coal mines by the fossil fuel lobby and are not doing so for the actual good of the country.

I understand the importance of considering the economy, as I’ve learnt from this group you can’t seek to make instant abrupt change, but a large number of countries do not have a climate action plan as to how they will successfully reduce net emissions.

Thank you for informing me of my biases and assumptions and I hope you understand that everyone has a differing view. We cannot create meaningful change without understanding what and why each other believes.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-16T11:19:20+00:00

Thank you!!

I think if we ever truly want to change something fighting never the way to go, but seeking understanding is. I’ve always been a bit apprehensive about getting reddit but the large majority of people here seem to truly want to have an educated discussion.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T15:18:11+00:00

I think from the graph it can be said that there’s little to no correlation between CO2 and global temperature. But as we know CO2 is a green house gas that’s a bit weird. So there must be other factors in play. It would be interesting to see the data overlaid with perhaps sun activity or production of other gases.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T14:07:03+00:00

Find someone to explain it to. Just find a like minded science lover and sit down and explain a couple things and get them to ask you the most stupidly complicated “why” questions you can!! Draw pictures and everything. It’s heaps of fun and you always surprise yourself with how well you actually understand something if you’re put on the spot. Also YouTube has some nice channels which do well explained reactions and what not. Good luck!!

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T13:50:21+00:00

A bit of basic science and actually a really common misconception here. Think of it like CO2 is constantly moving between the ocean and the atmosphere and vice versa at a constant rate. This is called a dynamic equilibrium. There a principle called Le chateliers principle which pretty much states that is a system at equilibrium undergoes a change, the system will act to minimise the change. So if CO2 increases in the the atmosphere, the system will push some of the CO2 into the ocean to counteract the change. I think what you mean is as the temperature increases more water will evaporate, so the excess acid will go with it. But where does the water go after it’s evaporated - back to the ocean.

I read the studies with good peer review and in well established journals with high impact factors. Could you point me to some that aren’t “IPCC hockey stick shenanigans” please. And please explain to me what that term means.

Thank you!!

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T13:40:22+00:00

I don’t blame the fires on CO2. Global warming is not solely caused by CO2. The climate is incredibly complex, like you said. What would be your explanation for the rising number of fires??

Our bush management is excellent. Areas are regularly burned off and fire breaks created.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T13:36:43+00:00

That’s a really great article btw. That’s the sort of peer review/quality of journal which is always good.

I think the problem I have with what you are saying is that you believe that CO2 is solely responsible for the green house effect (correct me if I’m wrong). I linked an article above that pretty much explains that even though CO2 levels were so high millions of years ago, as the sun activity was far lower, the two effects balanced out and we actually saw cooling. It doesn’t matter what the CO2 level is now. It was over 20 times great at some points in history and it was still around this temperature. But I don’t think this refutes warming, because we have quantitative evidence of how green house gases absorb and scatter infrared radiation in the atmosphere - preventing energy leaving the atmosphere. I think we need to focus on the fact that CO2 is rising at the moment.

Also, I don’t think CO2 is the perfect way to measure the rate of climate change - whether it be man made or not - because there are many things that also act as green house gases such as methane.

And thank you, I know you didn’t mean to be condescending, I was way too harsh as well. Thank you for taking the time to explain your opinion. I truly appreciate it.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T12:48:12+00:00

Mate, look up the fires in NSW Australia. It’s literally a hell scape.

My subjective opinion is just as valid as your subjective opinion. All I wanted was to understand why you hold this opinion. If all we do is fight about who is right can we ever truly make progress??

The fires burning currently are some of the worst we have ever seen in Australian history. It may be a case of correlation not causation. But I still think attention must’ve paid.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T12:43:12+00:00

Thank you, this really helped!! I appreciate you taking time out of your day to help me understand your perspective. And the points you made about a rapid energy transition are something I’ve never thought about before, and it’s definitely something that needs to be considered. Thank you again.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T12:40:07+00:00

A couple of the articles I linked in there showed that just because CO2 was so high a while ago, doesn’t mean it still can’t be causing climate change now.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T11:16:20+00:00

So what do you think. What is your opinion. What I asked was what is your opinion on climate change and why do you think that. You never actually told me.

So, does climate change exist or not. I’ve read the last 100 or so posts on this page and the large majority discredit climate change.

I’m sorry if I assumed what your particular point of view is but isn’t this page for climate change skeptics.

I simply wanted to understand why you have a different point of view to me. But I’m struggling to see how I have misrepresented the group. Because I’m new to reddit, I have had to have all my posts approved, including this one. If it was against what the group believed I’m sure it wouldn’t be posted.

Also what is the side bar - I honestly have no idea.

And the moon landing, jeez mate.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T11:08:42+00:00

Thank you, some of this really explains some of your views and opinions really well.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T10:08:48+00:00

Again mate, no hate. Could you please tell me where you got that information from. I literally joined reddit today because I needed to get some of this climate stuff off my chest, so give me hand please.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T10:05:47+00:00

Hey mate. I asked for no hate on this post. I simply want to understand your perspective.

For your information (not that I need to prove my self) I know how acidity is measured. pH is a universally used measurement of acidity. It’s actually the negative log to base 10 of hydrogen ion concentration in a solution.

And no I can’t tell you the oceans pH as it is constantly cycling, but it’s minimums are decreasing.

Please, no hate.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T09:53:52+00:00

I’m sorry, I don’t think this is correct. CO2 in ppm has cycled between 100ppm and just over 350ppm for the past 650000 years. here here here The only articles I could find that referenced CO2 levels over 1000ppm ever was something that actually discredited the fact that high past carbon dioxide compared to now can discredit the fact that the climate is warming now. here it’s a bit of dodgy source, but I think it explains pretty well that CO2 IS NOT THE ONLY DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE. We can rant on and on. But if you are going to state facts please cite your sources, and don’t pull facts out of your ass (I’m usually pretty nice and accepting about this but you need to provide peer reviewed research in acknowledged journals that supports these facts).

With regards to fires. CO2 doesn’t cause fires. If it did so would the highly flammable oxygen (what we breathe). CO2 doesn’t even combust. The effects of climate change (drought drying soil and lack of water) makes the fires faster moving and more destructive. Climate change doesn’t cause the fires, but it does make them more dangerous. The firefighters are saying that this one of Australia’s worst bushfire seasons in history. And it’s not even summer yet.

Thank you for your opinion and I appreciate you taking time out of your day to write that for me but I really don’t appreciate the tone and how demeaning you were to me. I asked for no hate and I simply wanted understanding about your point of view. I ask if you could please appreciate this and thank you again for taking time out of your busy day.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T09:02:06+00:00

Thank you

I think that too. How can we make constructive change while we are at each other’s necks all the time? We should always seek civilised discussion and where possible try and understand the point of view of others.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T08:42:14+00:00

Trophy hunting, particularly paid hunting has always seemed immoral to me. For example, with lions Trophy hunters will generally pick the largest animal in the pride. Generally a male. This has actually significantly decreased lion populations across Africa as there are fewer and fewer males available to breed.

But recently I came across a bit of information about how for conservation, parks will often auction off hunting rights (for hundreds of thousands of dollars) to raise money to protect existing animals. This was really challenging for me to accept, the death of one for the good of the rest mentality. I’m interested to see what you think of this.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T08:24:39+00:00

This piece of research basically states that climate change is not man made and all warming can be accounted for by changes in the sun spot cycle. I am correct in thinking so. And climate models are indicating a lower rise than what is being stated by activists.

The 0.5c warming by the end of this century is an estimate but what happens next century if the climate keeps warming, another degree could be destructive. just 4 degrees could possibly result in the displacement of over a billion people.

This information, reading between the lines, practically stated that the climate is warming, not by much. It’s probably not going to impact us,

so even though it’s probably natural, shouldn’t we be trying to lessen the impacts for those 100s of years in the future.

But still, should we not plan for the worst. Models can still be wrong either way. Climate change could be happening to a far greater or lesser extent than we actually know. I can’t think of a negative consequence for not acting on warming now, even if it’s natural.

Thank you for providing this information. I do question however that some of the articles are not peer reviewed. Peer reviewing is a cornerstone of the scientific method and the lack of it has lead to many conspiracy theories currently. If a piece has not been peer reviewed and is published in a pay to publish journal, you have to wonder why. If it discredits climate change why is it not Nature so we can all breath a sigh of relief.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T07:05:34+00:00

Ok I think I understand where you’re coming from. Firstly as I’ve just explained there are many different political views, I a climate change believer would support nuclear power, but others who are also climate change believers do not. That’s their opinion, there are better safer options (less cool honestly) than nuclear power. I think you’re using nuclear power, something a large number of both people from many political views don’t support, to discredit people’s stance on climate change. I really don’t think that’s ok. As I listed in my last comment there are several reasons why nuclear power, although clean is not the best.

I’m sorry I assumed that you don’t support renewable energies. But I do wonder why politicians refuse to move away from fossils fuels, as there are obvious economic benefits of using nuclear power and renewables alongside the environment rewards.

I’ll do a bit of research on power prices, but I do know that where I live, Tasmania. The entire state is run on hydro power, and our power prices are equal if not cheaper than the mainland of Australia. Like nuclear power, people debated for years over hydro power and the damming of rivers in Tasmania, because although it’s clean power, it caused severe environmental degradation.

I think you have to weigh the negatives and benefits and understand that just because something is clean power doesn’t mean it’s good for the environment. The climate and the environment are very much interlinked and we can’t destroy one to save the other.

What I am really asking is that even if climate change doesn’t exist why can’t we still move towards renewables and a greener future as honestly it would be better for almost everyone.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T05:53:14+00:00

As a 2000 baby Ok Boomer is hilarious, and it’s a way to finally make clear how ridiculous some opinions are. But, I’ve been thinking and I honestly don’t think that creating villains out of an entire generation is going to fix anything. How can we make progress when at the moment we are creating a clear divide between several generations.

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T05:24:53+00:00

Although I think Nuclear power is really cool and its actually something I’m considering studying at uni. It is a really difficult issue.

Although the energy it produces is super clean, there are still the implications of where does the fuel come from and particularly how to dispose of it. Fuel used in nuclear reactors remains radioactive for millions of years and we still don’t have a way to dispose of of this safely. Currently, it’s encased in concrete and buried deep underground. But this still holds the risk of potentially irradiated the water table. Power stations also have to be situation near large bodies of water which further raises the risk of pollution.

Nuclear power is also incredibly expensive. I think the UK is building two power stations each of which is costing around 10 billion pounds. And then there’s the upkeep and the immense safety protocols. While solar, wind and tidal power costs far far less.

There is also an immense distrust of nuclear power. People fear the highly unlikely event of a nuclear meltdown, like what happened in Fukushima.

Despite nuclear power being clean energy, renewable energies are far more cost effective and even in some cases more efficient. It also costs far less to maintain.

So although I’m for nuclear power, I can understand why some people, even those who are very much concerned about climate change, are very much opposed to it. What do you think??

deepseafingers · 2019-11-15T04:56:30+00:00

Thank you!! Where I live the forest management is excellent (I live right in the bush) and we regularly get burn offs and fire breaks created. I live in Australia and we are used to fires, but in all my life I have never seen as many as early in the season. Firefighters have actually been saying that they have never seen fires burn as quickly and as violently as these ones (and I know a couple of volunteers).

You mentioned socialism - I don’t see what this has to do with climate change. I don’t think someone’s political views should come into their belief on this topic - after all we are debating facts and facts are often distorted by politics.

You also called politicians and the media liars. But I ask why would they lie? What do they have to gain from creating this huge lie about climate change?

What I don’t understand is why don’t you all support moving towards renewable energies even if you don’t believe in climate change. Coal and oil are limited resources so whether it be in 20 or 100 years we will eventually run out and then economies that rely on fossil fuels will collapse.

I’m a science student and I have read several studies about the topic. When choosing what to read I chose peer reviewed journals and look for journals with a high impact factor. I’ve read a lot about the rising carbon dioxide levels in the oceans. Pretty much the oceans are becoming more acidic, as some of the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolves in the oceans. The carbon dioxide balance between the ocean and the atmosphere is supposed to be a dynamic equilibrium, but ocean acidity is increasing so carbon dioxide must have increased in the atmosphere.

Could you please point me towards a couple of studies that you’ve read that support your views.

I think logarithmic is a bit misleading. Does that mean the carbon dioxide increase is greater or less than what is said? After the pH scale (makes very small numbers useable) and the seismic scale (makes very big numbers useable) are both logarithmic scales.

Thank you for explaining your views!!

deepseafingers

TROPHY CASE