Conversation

Notices

1. Dave Lane 🇳🇿 (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2023 09:48:42 JST Dave Lane 🇳🇿

   Fascinating: https://mastodon.social/@Snoro/111009719372820276 But not sure I'd take this approach without direct provocation from drivers. That said, it might influence people's vehicle purchasing decisions... Disclosure: I've used this (non-destructive but inconvenient) approach on a couple occasions when I've come across cars whose drivers have previously put my safety (as a cyclist obeying all road rules) at risk for their own convenience or out of ignorance of their responsibilities...

   • djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2023 09:48:39 JST djsumdog

     in reply to
     I think it's dumb and childish. You're accomplishing nothing, and not drawing people to your ideology. These climatetologists could learn a thing or two about grace and humility from the fucking Mormons.
     
     You can preach your religion by going door to or and talking to people who listen. Deflating peopes' tires won't win anyone over because who wants to support evangelists who are massive fucking assholes.
     cool_boy_mew likes this.
   • Dave Lane 🇳🇿 (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2023 13:27:43 JST Dave Lane 🇳🇿

     in reply to

     • djsumdog

     @djsumdog also, I think that likening this initiative to something daft like religion is just going to get people's backs up (i.e. not the accomplishing result you desire). But this is probably going to end up in violence because most people happy with their blissful ignorance.

   • Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2023 23:04:33 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • djsumdog

     So we agree on those 2 points? Awesome.

     @djsumdog
     > You realize CO2 makes up < 0.03% of all gas in the entire atmosphere, right?

     Again, you're picking irrelevant numbers that suit your ideological bias. The ratio of gases doesn't matter. Look up how much sunlight each molecule of carbon-based gas converts to heat per day.

     Then look again at those 2 points we agree on. Now you understand climate change.

     @lightweight

   • djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2023 23:04:34 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • Strypey

     Understanding climate change is simple. No numbers required. You just need to understand two things

     Explain to me how you didn’t just acknowledge it’s a religious belif

     Human activities are adding carbon-based gases to the atmosphere

     You realize CO2 makes up < 0.03% of all gas in the entire atmosphere, right?

   • Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2023 23:04:36 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • djsumdog

     @djsumdog
     > explain to me in your own words what this means

     It means you're failing to see the forest for the trees.

     Understanding climate change is simple. No numbers required. You just need to understand two things;

     1) The Greenhouse Effect; carbon-based gases convert sunlight into heat

     2) Human activities are adding carbon-based gases to the atmosphere

     What you've done is start with a claim that fits your ideological bias, and made a big pile of numbers that fit that bias.

     @lightweight

   • djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2023 23:04:37 JST djsumdog

     in reply to
     You have? Do you have the raw UAH data for remote climate satellites? Can you tell be the resolution of NOAA temperature sensor sites used for calibration per square kilometer (or the equivalent of NOAA in literally any country)? Can you tell me how the calibrations for the RSS data held by UAH were made and why they were adjusted/re-calibrated (spoiler alert, you can because the raw data isn't available).
     
     You say you've done the maths, but I don't think you have. I've been on RSS projects where I've talked about this with professors and there are an absolute insane amount of gaps and an incredibly amount of pure guesswork and magic.
     
     I wish I could publish stuff on this, but some things were under NDA and some projects I had to leave because I found better paying work.
     
     Also, explain to me in your own words what this means:
   • Dave Lane 🇳🇿 (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2023 23:04:39 JST Dave Lane 🇳🇿

     in reply to

     • djsumdog

     @djsumdog I've done far more maths than most. I'm disappointed in your position on climate change.

   • djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2023 23:04:40 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     gov’ts continue to be actively counter-productive in the face of existential crisis.

     I don’t think you understand, there is no “existential crisis” … it’s literally (not figuratively) the exact same thing as a Christian saying Jesus is coming back. The idea the climate is being changed in an accelerated manor by man is a pure ideology.

     Look at this math. Do you understand these maths?

     https://djsumdog.com/objects/25cc9db7-255a-4ea9-979f-4a993540bed5

     It’s not remotely verifiable. You can’t get raw satellite sensor data. The data used in the IPCC papers are all totally different, and non-comparable.

     This list of things haven’t happened yet:

     https://extinctionclock.org/

     And more than anything .. anything at all .. every single policy offered by every government to “stop climate change” destroys the environment. We have non-recyclable wind turbines that end up in landfills, telling people to buy brand new electric cars filled with rare earth metals, Australia’s carbon taxes which Chinese companies lobbed for so Australians couldn’t process their own ore, and instead sent ore on ships to China, wasting a shit ton more diesel fuel (that was back during the Julia Gilard days).

     It is a religious ideology. You haven’t done the maths, you simply believe what you’ve been told by authority.

   • Dave Lane 🇳🇿 (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2023 23:04:41 JST Dave Lane 🇳🇿

     in reply to

     • djsumdog

     @djsumdog interesting response. I'm not advocating that approach, however it might be necessary to achieve the needed change in behaviour. You might want to read Kim Stanley Robinson's The Ministry for the Future. He imagines how these things might escalate (e.g. people shooting down private jets & even long-haul passenger jets) if gov'ts continue to be actively counter-productive in the face of existential crisis. Shit has to change & some powerful people will need to accept far lower profits.

   • djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Sep-2023 23:05:14 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • Strypey

     Again, you’re picking irrelevant numbers that suit your ideological bias. The ratio of gases doesn’t matter

     You are deciding this point is irrelevant, because it suits you needs. Explain why the ratio of gases doesn’t matter. It’s literally a trace gas, and it is the fuel sourced use to create nearly all of the mass of all plants and trees (source: https://youtu.be/2KZb2_vcNTg), so it’s a tiny amount that’s being constantly consumed. Why is everyone ignoring water vapor, which is a sizable larger greenhouse gas?

     Look up how much sunlight each molecule of carbon-based gas converts to heat per day.

     You going to quantify that? First, is this measurable? Second, how do you measure it? Third, what is the measurement?

     Most people don’t realize the Earth dissipates over 99.9% of the energy of the sun. If it didn’t the earth would be boiling. We don’t get energy from the sun, we get entropy: https://youtu.be/DxL2HoqLbyA

     Then look again at those 2 points we agree on. Now you understand climate change.

     There were 38C winters in Chicago in the 1920s. There are countless records of forest fires in the 1800s in California. Weird weather is actually pretty common, because weather is highly unpredictable due to the entropy we get from the sun.

     There have been glaciers in Illinois. There have been seas in Nevada. This has happened within 10,000 years. Every 10,000 ~ 12,000 years is a cycle of ice ages. That’s a massive range, because the rates can vary massively. The idea that human beings are able to affect that is hubris as much as it is unprovable.

     Climate change requires faith.