Starship Asterisk*

derekpbhs23 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:44 pm Climate Change is Real, but I don't think we as humans actually contribute to changing the climate. It's all natural.

Jacob

You are wrong. It's as simple as that. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming, which is why it is uncontested among climate scientists.

Hi Chris, I'm almost sure you are arguing with robots, here. I have deleted the URLs from their posts. Be wary of users who pop in, post 1 thing, and have a URL in their only post. I've also updated the anti-spam robot question since we seem to be getting increasing numbers of them.

geckzilla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:01 am Hi Chris, I'm almost sure you are arguing with robots, here. I have deleted the URLs from their posts. Be wary of users who pop in, post 1 thing, and have a URL in their only post. I've also updated the anti-spam robot question since we seem to be getting increasing numbers of them.

Thanks. I wasn't sure. At least one link went to what appeared to be an ostensibly reasonable information page. I imagined someone might just be interested in driving traffic there, but couldn't be certain.

Yeah, I checked them too. Who knows what kind of tactic they're using, but it's probably easier to fool people when you post links that look somewhat legitimate and not obviously commercial.

In short: Yes!

Climate Change is real and it's happening. Every living species are suffering from it. Global warming, pollution, waste etc. contributes to climate change. It must be controlled before it controls us.
From my research of past few months I have come to know that parts of Europe have been affected. Not only Europe but whole world is suffering. Many people argue that climate change is not happening but, I can show you proof with the help of data and figures -

Here is the source - https://www.earthreminder.com/climate-c ... condition/

After reading it you will come to know how slowly and gradually things are changing to bad or worse.

Is it wrong to take a gas-guzzling cruse ship to see glaciers calving? Although this one is advancing.

Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:57 pm
Is it wrong to take a gas-guzzling cruse ship to see glaciers calving?

• Or even to see cows calving?

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=cruse wrote:
cruse (n.) "small vessel for liquids," late 13c., of uncertain origin; perhaps in Old English, or perhaps from Old Norse krus "pot, tankard," both apparently from a general Germanic root (compare Middle Dutch cruese, Dutch kroes "cup, pot, mug," Middle Low German krus, Danish krus "mug, jug," German Krause "jug, mug") of uncertain connection.

https://www.brighthubengineering.com/naval-architecture/100758-cruise-ship-fuel-efficiency/ wrote:

• Cruise Ship Gas Mileage

Naval Architecture & Ship Design for Marine Engineers / By Erik Hinrichsen / Marine Engineering

<<The MS Oasis of the Seas, completed in 2010, has a total length of 361.8 meters, a height of 72 meters above the sea line, and room in its 16 passenger decks for 6,296 passengers. At its cruising speed of 26 mph, the Oasis of the Seas burns 11361 gallons of fuel each hour. The fuel efficiency, then, is 0.0023 mpg, or 12.08 feet per gallon! The Oasis of the seas, when fully occupied, gets 14.40 mpg per passenger.

Cruise ships in the Voyager class are about 311 meters in length, but have a tonnage of "just" 138,000 Tons. Assuming an efficiency of about 30% means the boat is burning roughly 1.84 gallons of fuel per second, or 6640 gallons per hour. Since the ship's cruising speed is 27.3 mph, the cruise ship's fuel efficiency is roughly 0.004 mpg. Since the ship carries 3114 passengers, its gas mileage is 12.79 mpg/passenger.

To put these figures into perspective: The Boeing 747-400 seats 624, cruises at 567 mph, and has a range of 8357 miles. With a total fuel capacity of 57,285 gallons, the 747-400 has a gas mileage of about 0.15 mpg. Taking passengers into account, the figure is 91 mpg/passenger!>>

Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:57 pm Is it wrong to take a gas-guzzling cruse ship to see glaciers calving? :?
Glacier Calf.JPG
Although this one is advancing. :wink:

I think almost anything is ethically responsible if you find the least impactful way of managing it.

Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:57 pm Is it wrong to take a gas-guzzling cruse ship to see glaciers calving?

Eventually we as a species will have to figure out how to exist on what is effectively a zero-sum world. We're going to go through a very hard time getting there, but we'll either figure that out or die off.

As for travelling to see natural phenomena, I understand the urge but do you really need to? Think of watching the world series or similar: you can pay a lot to be there and enjoy the entire zoo experience, but you'll see the plays a lot better, and with instant replay, watching it at home on TV. Same with glaciers: you'll feel the chilly air and hear (and feel) the awesome sound in person, but you can see calving of many different glaciers in more detail and slow motion on any computer connected to the internet. I suspect virtual travel will be the norm in the future.

Rob

Of course it is real, in Europe up to +50С in some places... like Middle East temperature. It is not normal.

Illono wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:50 am Of course it is real, in Europe up to +50С in some places... like Middle East temperature. It is not normal.

And it seems to be getting Really real, real fast, doesn’t it.

I live around the 60 degree latitude and I can say yes, given my own empirical observation of shorter winters, hotter summers, strange dry spells, and very odd variable snow fall, that climate change is happening. I was born up here in the arctic and remember through my childhood the very cold, dark somber winters. I left for a decade for the dry deserts, beaches and surf so when I returned the weather greatly surprised me. I can't help but feel it may have been more impactful for me to see the change than others since the change may have seemed more gradual for those who haven't taken a break for as long as I have but I will say many people up here are shaking their heads wondering how people could deny it at this point unless you're gulping down some very strong kool aid from the denier camp.

By Halloween, there was always snow, usually a foot. Now we're lucky if we get that in November. There were a couple winters here that I missed where there was hardly any snow and when it did it would melt and sleet. That is truly strange because this is cold country and the temperatures growing up always hovered around 20 to -15 degrees F with a usual winter having around I think 10 feet of snow. Break up would last into April and sometimes into May with freakish snowfalls in June in memory. Now break up ends in mid March. June and July were the hottest with weeks on end of no rain and 80 degree to 90 degree temperatures. We sold out of fans this last summer, people were forming lines around stores to get them. Our homes are built to keep heat IN so as you can imagine it was uncomfortable to say the least. We broke 90 here for the first time ever in recorded history. Right now in September we're still in the 60's. September is when it starts to frost over night and you have to start wearing coats because the temps are in the 40's and 50's during the days. It's certainly not frosting and the mornings are in the late 40's to 50's, although the rest of the month has to play out to see if it adjusts to normalcy.

Seems to me by just coming back up to my stomping grounds that the climate is most definitely changing. Those heat waves hit several places in the arctic from what I was reading with Greenland losing billions of tons of water.

I should back up my claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/ ... edirect=on
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alas ... SKCN1RR02Z

avinash wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:35 am Yes, climate change is real. As being business analyst, we need to think about it.

Like, for example, buying Greenland Makes sense if you expect the glaciers to disappear, especially if you sell coastal properties to fund the purchase

tauparsec wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:51 pm I should back up my claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/ ... edirect=on
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alas ... SKCN1RR02Z

Nothing wrong with doing so, but the reality of human caused climate change is so well established scientifically that those who make that claim have no burden to support the claim. Only deniers have an evidentiary burden to demonstrate that AGW isn't real.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:51 pm

tauparsec wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:51 pm I should back up my claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/ ... edirect=on
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alas ... SKCN1RR02Z

Nothing wrong with doing so, but the reality of human caused climate change is so well established scientifically that those who make that claim have no burden to support the claim. Only deniers have an evidentiary burden to demonstrate that AGW isn't real.

That depends on one's audience. If you're speaking or writing to the well informed, I agree.

Evidently, some who claim to be AGW deniers are disingenuous.

BDanielMayfield wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:22 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:51 pm

tauparsec wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:51 pm I should back up my claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/ ... edirect=on
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alas ... SKCN1RR02Z

Nothing wrong with doing so, but the reality of human caused climate change is so well established scientifically that those who make that claim have no burden to support the claim. Only deniers have an evidentiary burden to demonstrate that AGW isn't real.

That depends on one's audience. If you're speaking or writing to the well informed, I agree.

Evidently, some who claim to be AGW deniers are disingenuous.

There may be value in providing sources, but there is never any burden to do so... regardless of audience. (That said, the reality is that those who are still denying AGW will not accept evidence in any case. Indeed, the more the evidence contradicts their dogma, the harder they resist it. It's a pathology.)

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:51 pm

tauparsec wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:51 pm I should back up my claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/ ... edirect=on
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alas ... SKCN1RR02Z

Nothing wrong with doing so, but the reality of human caused climate change is so well established scientifically that those who make that claim have no burden to support the claim. Only deniers have an evidentiary burden to demonstrate that AGW isn't real.

Yeah I figured it would be best to give some context just so I don't sound alarmist, or giving an exaggerated picture of what it was like up here. Thankfully we've finally got our first frost just a couple days ago so it appears we're going back to normal temps. According to https://www.almanac.com/gardening/frost ... /Anchorage we are around normal for the date of the first overnight frost. There was a sudden drop in temperature though, similar like it was last year when there was a 20 degree drop that literally happened overnight in October. It was strange.