Jump to content

Greta Thunberg's Groupie


Axl's Agony Aunt

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

 

So you argue that we can do it locally, but someone, when you combine all this local efforts to the global scale, it collapses? That is very insightful. And how about our global effort of making houses with a different indoor temperature than the outdoors? That's fighting entropy on a global scale, right?

the climate isn't a local phenomenon, it's global per definition. As the climate is a global phenomenon it's pointless arguing wether we can change it locally. 

Lots of things can have entropy, climate being one of them. But no, the climate can not be changed.

When I say that entropy can be fought locally, I mean in an experimental setting. I'm sure you can alter entropy under such conditions.

As is increasingly apparent, you don't fully seem to understand some basic concepts here and I'm not really sure if you do this on purpose just to wind me up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, action said:

the climate isn't a local phenomenon, it's global per definition. As the climate is a global phenomenon it's pointless arguing wether we can change it locally. 

Lots of things can have entropy, climate being one of them. But no, the climate can not be changed.

When I say that entropy can be fought locally, I mean in an experimental setting. I'm sure you can alter entropy under such conditions.

No one is arguing whether we can change the climate locally. Are we? We were talking about whether you can reduce entropy locally, and how this wouldn't be a global effect if we did it everywhere.

"Lots of things can have entropy" - from a guy who suggested I should read up on entropy :lol:

You don't "alter entropy". That's like altering gravitation or magnetism. But you can make stuff fly be expending energy. And you can create systems with higher entropy. But thanks for telling us what you are sure of. Very helpful with such dilletante musings.

Fact is that some hundred years ago more of earth's carbon was sequestered in reservoirs in the ground and in living creatures and soil. You could argue that the entropy was higher back then. It had come to be like that because enormous amounts of energy had been spent to make it so. The question is then, can we stop the trend of burning fossil fuels and shopping down trees and thus preventing the entropy from decreasing further? Or even use energy to sequester carbon again (CO2 capture] and to plant more trees, and thus increase the entropy again? Of course we can. Almost everything we do is opposed to entropy. Everything we create is in opposition to entropy. We simply expend energy and create stuff. Whether that is biomass or captured carbon. 

44 minutes ago, action said:

As is increasingly apparent, you don't fully seem to understand some basic concepts here and I'm not really sure if you do this on purpose just to wind me up.

Marvellous!

Edited by SoulMonster
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No one is arguing whether we can change the climate locally. Are we? We were talking about whether you can reduce entropy locally, and how this wouldn't be a global effect if we did it everywhere.

"Lots of things can have entropy" - from a guy who suggested I should read up on entropy :lol:

You don't "alter entropy". That's like altering gravitation or magnetism. But you can make stuff fly be expending energy. And you can create systems with lower entropy. But thanks for telling us what you are sure of. Very helpful with such dilletante musings.

Fact is that some hundred years ago more of earth's carbon was sequestered in reservoirs in the ground and in living creatures and soil. You could argue that the entropy was higher back then. It had come to be like that because enormous amounts of energy had been spent to make it so. The question is then, can we stop the trend of burning fossil fuels and shopping down trees and thus preventing the entropy from decreasing further? Or even use energy to sequester carbon again (CO2 capture] and to plant more trees, and thus increase the entropy again? Of course we can. Almost everything we do is opposed to entropy. Everything we create is in opposition to entropy. We simply expend energy and create stuff. Whether that is biomass or captured carbon. 

Marvellous!

you can prevent the entropy from decreasing further, yes, but you can not revert what has been done.

And even then, you've got the climate which is a whole different beast with different workings. To alter in on a global scale is a massive undertaking which only an advanced alien civilisation would be capable of. So maybe ask the aliens to help us out? :lol:

I said that experimentally, you could try to fuse energy to lower entropy, maybe (I'm not sure about this I admit), but what I am sure of, is it's impossible to do it on a global scale. Well, if it was then I'm sure we would have already done that :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, action said:

you can prevent the entropy from decreasing further, yes, but you can not revert what has been done.

And even then, you've got the climate which is a whole different beast with different workings. To alter in on a global scale is a massive undertaking which only an advanced alien civilisation would be capable of. So maybe ask the aliens to help us out? :lol:

I said that experimentally, you could try to fuse energy to lower entropy, maybe (I'm not sure about this I admit), but what I am sure of, is it's impossible to do it on a global scale. Well, if it was then I'm sure we would have already done that :lol:

Of course you can increase entropy. Again, every time we plant a tree we do that. Again, you are speaking about things you simply don't understand.

Again, we are not talking about changing all aspects of the climate, just reducing carbon emissions. You get so easily confused.

Uhm, I think you mix reducing entropy and increasing entropy. When carbon is released from reservoirs and we end up with a more homogenous state, the entropy has been reduced. When we instead use carbon to build temporary structures like living organisms or bind it in more energetically rich chemicals like petroleum, we increase the entropy (compared to it being in the form of atmospheric CO[sub2[/sub]. 

Anyway, we increase the entropy of systems at any time we expend energy to create something. Your house is a bleeding violation of entropy. So is your phone. So are plants. So are captured carbon. We spend energy and create stuff that "violates" entropy. This is not just experimental and entirely hypothetic musings, but reality. All human activity that is creative is an increase in entropy on a global scale. There is absolutely no sound reasons why this wouldn't be applicable to carbon as well, unless you happen to not understand anything of this, including what entropy, the carbon cycle and how atmospheric carbon affects temperature. In fact, we can easily demonstrate it IS possible to do this by simple planting a tree - and voila! we have captured carbon and increased the entropy! (energy from the sun sustains a higher entropy state). You simply don't get this and speak about things just hoping something will stick.

Edited by SoulMonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course you can increase entropy. Again, every time we plant a tree we do that. Again, you are speaking about things you simply don't understand.

Again, we are not talking about changing all aspects of the climate, just reducing carbon emissions. You get so easily confused.

Uhm, I think you mix reducing entropy and increasing entropy. When carbon is released from reservoirs and we end up with a more homogenous state, the entropy has been reduced. When we instead use carbon to build temporary structures like living organisms or bind it in more energetically rich chemicals like petroleum, we increase the entropy (compared to it being in the form of atmospheric CO[sub2[/sub]. 

Anyway, we increase the entropy of systems at any time we expend energy to create something. Your house is a bleeding violation of entropy. So is your phone. So are plants. So are captured carbon. We spend energy and create stuff that "violates" entropy. This is not just experimental and entirely hypothetic musings, but reality. All human activity that is creative is an increase in entropy on a global scale. There is absolutely no sound reasons why this wouldn't be applicable to carbon as well, unless you happen to not understand anything of this, including what entropy, the carbon cycle and how atmospheric carbon affects temperature. In fact, we can easily demonstrate it IS possible to do this by simple planting a tree - and voila! we have captured carbon and increased the entropy! (energy from the sun sustains a higher entropy state). You simply don't get this and speak about things just hoping something will stick.

but to make your phone (a miniscule increase of entropy) you had to release massive amounts of energy (engineers, machines, transport,...) . so the end result is not an increase of entropy, but a massive decrease.

I admit, I'm not the biggest expert on this (I expect you to be more knowledgeable in this), but surely anyone can see that to create something, you need to spend energy, and that in the case of reforesting areas for example, the amount of energy needed to do so would result in a net decrease of entropy.... thus the climate would be further hurt in stead of helped!!

Edited by action
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, action said:

but to make your phone (a miniscule increase of entropy) you had to release massive amounts of energy (engineers, machines, transport,...) . so the end result is not an increase of entropy, but a massive decrease.

I admit, I'm not the biggest expert on this (I expect you to be more knowledgeable in this), but surely anyone can see that to create something, you need to spend energy, and that in the case of reforesting areas for example, the amount of energy needed to do so would result in a net decrease of entropy.... thus the climate would be further hurt in stead of helped!!

The entropy of the materials going into the phone is increased. You see, the entropy of the universe is always constant. We are looking at entropy changes of closed systems. Like a phone. Or a house. Or carbon atoms on earth. By adding energy you can increase the entropy of any such closed system. By taking molecules and making a phone. Or a house. Or by storing carbon in less homogenous ways. That is what happens when Earth is bombarded by sun allowing plants to capture carbon to build their cells. That is what happens when we spend energy (that ultimately derives from the sun), to build machines that capture carbon. Or when we use energy to build systems that allows us to use solar energy for locomotion and not fossil fuels.

No, we have infinite amounts of energy available to us. Because the sun keeps shining. Thus we can continue to create systems with higher energy here on earth. In fact, it was the sun that originally created the carbon cycle with large amounts of carbon sequestered in oil and gas (through creating plants that eventually were eaten by dinosaurs that were eventually transformed into hydrocarbon chains (=fossil fuel)). We would just be doing the same thing again, just with an intent. 

And as we have talked about before: reducing climate change isn't about to revert to how things was before the industrial revolution. Just to lower the atmospheric CO2[/sub] below that threshold where it results in decreasing temperature. It is not about reverying to stone age living, just getting it back under control. It is not like we have to capture all the carbon we have released and pump it back into the oil reservoirs. 

Edited by SoulMonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, soon said:

Antarctic temperature rises above 20C for first time on record 

Scientists describe 20.75C logged at Seymour Island as ‘incredible and abnormal’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/13/antarctic-temperature-rises-above-20c-first-time-record

somehow, reducing carbon emissions will revert this. yeah right... I don't know who the hell people like soul are kidding.

this is a massive problem and is way past the point of being containable. earth is doomed and we can do nothing about that. it's pointless to even try. we have had countless of opportunities to change our ways, we didn't do that, and now it's time to face the consequences.

you know, when the titanic sank and these people were facing their last moments? the orchestra kept playing. Soulmonster would be like the person who asks people to gather buckets and start throwing water back in sea. so listen to my advice: enjoy your time here while it lasts and don't listen to people like greta and soulmonster: it's far too late to start acting.

Edited by action
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, action said:

somehow, reducing carbon emissions will revert this. yeah right... I don't know who the hell people like soul are kidding.

this is a massive problem and is way past the point of being containable. earth is doomed and we can do nothing about that. it's pointless to even try. we have had countless of opportunities to change our ways, we didn't do that, and now it's time to face the consequences.

you know, when the titanic sank and these people were facing their last moments? the orchestra kept playing. Soulmonster would be like the person who asks people to gather buckets and start throwing water back in sea. so listen to my advice: enjoy your time here while it lasts and don't listen to people like greta and soulmonster: it's far too late to start acting.

Its always fascinating to hear your uniformed musings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, action said:

somehow, reducing carbon emissions will revert this. 

So now you are denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, too? 

There is something petulant about your refusal to accept the scientific consensus that humans are worsening the climate but that this is reversible. Every argument you have is misinformed and based in ignorance, yet you just keep in sprouting nonsense as if constantly being corrected has no affect on you. Do you have no pride or integrity? Are you okay with acting like a clown? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

So now you are denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, too? 

There is something petulant about your refusal to accept the scientific consensus that humans are worsening the climate but that this is reversible. Every argument you have is misinformed and based in ignorance, yet you just keep in sprouting nonsense as if constantly being corrected has no affect on you. Do you have no pride or integrity? Are you okay with acting like a clown? 

if something does not fit in your fairy tales, it's misinformed. Its against my policy to post sources (since everyone has access to google anyway), but here are a few. All the respected sources are here: your guardians, CNN's, national geographics etc:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-scientists.html

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/earth-tipping-point/

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/28/health/climate-crisis-global-tipping-point-intl-hnk/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, action said:

if something does not fit in your fairy tales, it's misinformed. Its against my policy to post sources (since everyone has access to google anyway), but here are a few. All the respected sources are here: your guardians, CNN's, national geographics etc:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-scientists.html

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/earth-tipping-point/

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/28/health/climate-crisis-global-tipping-point-intl-hnk/index.html

But those sources don't at all doubt the scientific foundation of climate change :lol:

Those sources are just pessimistic about whether we will be able to do it, they don't refute the science. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

But those sources don't at all doubt the scientific foundation of climate change :lol:

Those sources are just pessimistic about whether we will be able to do it, they don't refute the science. 

yeah, exactly what I said. I don't doubt climate change (I've said so many times in this thread), but I am pessismistic wether we are able to revert it (for which you called me a clown, but in the face of the sources I posted you now seem to agree).

if anyone is the clown, it's you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, action said:

yeah, exactly what I said. I don't doubt climate change (I've said so many times in this thread), but I am pessismistic wether we are able to revert it (for which you called me a clown, but in the face of the sources I posted you now seem to agree).

It is one thing to be pessimistic about whether we as a species will rally around soon enough to affect necessary changes. That's a valid opinion regarding political will and humanity's ability to come together in crises. I don't share it, but I can't blame you for being pessimistic. It is a very different thing to throw out ignorant attacks on the scientific foundation of both climate change and how we can reverse the trend, like when you argued that it would violate thermodynamics, or entropy, or even questioned the correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming, and generally exposed a complete lack of grasp on the carbon cycle and how climate change happens. Your entire contribution to this thread has been an impotent -- yet hilarious -- attempt at arguing against the scientific consensus, probably because you feel your apathy and pessimism isn't enough to excuse your lazy and irresponsible ways, you also need to convince yourself that you are right and 10,000 scientists are wrong. Ah, the hubris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It is one thing to be pessimistic about whether we as a species will rally around soon enough to affect necessary changes. That's a valid opinion regarding political will and humanity's ability to come together in crises. I don't share it, but I can't blame you for being pessimistic. It is a very different thing to throw out ignorant attacks on the scientific foundation of both climate change and how we can reverse the trend, like when you argued that it would violate thermodynamics, or entropy, or even questioned the correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming, and generally exposed a complete lack of grasp on the carbon cycle and how climate change happens. Your entire contribution to this thread has been an impotent -- yet hilarious -- attempt at arguing against the scientific consensus, probably because you feel your apathy and pessimism isn't enough to excuse your lazy and irresponsible ways, you also need to convince yourself that you are right and 10,000 scientists are wrong. Ah, the hubris.

your strategy to pinpoint me as a clown that neglects scientific findings has just been exposed since I just posted 4 links to scientific findings (that are in line with the scope of my argument in this thread).

Please stop doing so. I hope we can continue this discussion without further personal insults from your side

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, action said:

your strategy to pinpoint me as a clown that neglects scientific findings has just been exposed since I just posted 4 links to scientific findings (that are in line with the scope of my argument in this thread).

Please stop doing so. I hope we can continue this discussion without further personal insults from your side

What? You are a clown because you keep trolling this thread with ill-informed and ignorant amateur musings on climate change despite knowing you have no clue and despite being fully aware that your inn-conceived opinions goes against thousands of professional experts who dedicate their lives to figuring these things out. Yet you keep doing it again and again, raffling through one stupid argument after the other (probably from your Facebook feed), hoping that at least one will eventually stick, tossing scientific buzzwords (entropy, thermodynamics) around as if they are confetti but with no understanding of what they mean. And with a remarkable lack of concern over how stupid this stragey makes you look as each of your arguments gets shot down in flames. Posting four links from other people who also express pessimism over whether we will manage to turn the tide, doesn't really change anything in regards to your flawed arguments and misunderstanding of science. A clown taking off his makeup was still a clown five minutes ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't deny that reducing CO2 emissions has a positive impact on the climate, but the thing with "tipping points" (see the 4 scientific articles I posted) is that once crossed, reducing CO2 emissions will NOT have an impact anymore: it is too late.

that is my point, which I have consistently argued in this thread, but which seems too hard to swallow for soulmonster

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

What? You are a clown because you keep trolling this thread with ill-informed and ignorant amateur musings on climate change despite knowing you have no clue and despite being fully aware that your inn-conceived opinions goes against thousands of professional experts who dedicate their lives to figuring these things out. Yet you keep doing it again and again, raffling through one stupid argument after the other (probably from your Facebook feed), hoping that at least one will eventually stick, tossing scientific buzzwords (entropy, thermodynamics) around as if they are confetti but with no understanding of what they mean. And with a remarkable lack of concern over how stupid this stragey makes you look as each of your arguments gets shot down in flames. Posting four links from other people who also express pessimism over whether we will manage to turn the tide, doesn't really change anything in regards to your flawed arguments and misunderstanding of science. A clown taking off his makeup was still a clown five minutes ago.

what a prat you are sometimes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, action said:

I don't deny that reducing CO2 emissions has a positive impact on the climate, but the thing with "tipping points" (see the 4 scientific articles I posted) is that once crossed, reducing CO2 emissions will NOT have an impact anymore: it is too late.

that is my point, which I have consistently argued in this thread, but which seems too hard to swallow for soulmonster

No, that is not your entire point (in fact, this is the first time you have even started talking about "tipping points") in this thread. And as I have said, that is not what I have bothered to object to. It is the antiscientific nonsense that you consistently sprout without better judgment that I object to. Like your dribble about entropy where you basically take a term you know nothing about and then just claim that it would prevent us being able to reverse the trend. You cannot now act all indignant pretending like the only thing you have said in this thread was to espouse a skepticism in regard to the tipping points, when I call out on your bullshit arguments and trolling. That's just more stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

No, that is not your entire point (in fact, this is the first time you have even started talking about "tipping points") in this thread. And as I have said, that is not what I have bothered to object to. It is the antiscientific nonsense that you consistently sprout without better judgment that I object to. Like your dribble about entropy where you basically take a term you know nothing about and then just claim that it would prevent us being able to reverse the trend. You cannot now act all indignant pretending like the only thing you have said in this thread was to espouse a skepticism in regard to the tipping points, when I call out on your bullshit arguments and trolling. That's just more stupidity.

I have litterally acknowledged that you know more about entropy than me, and have refined my argument accordingly, since not everyone is a scientist. 

you act like a complete douche about this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...