Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Physical Sciences

Physical Sciences Dangerous meddling in things man was not meant to know. Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2015, 11:28 AM   #2517241  /  #1
Old Dan
Senior Member
 
Old Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: the holla mohalla
Posts: 10,182
Old Dan
Default Which'll kill us off first: climate change or an asteroid?

Yall got two climate change threads in this here forum, with, I reckon, varyin degrees of concern fer whether or not Manhattan's gonna be under water in 50 years. But what about asteroids? Aint yall listenin to Neil deGrasse Tyson? That feller goes on and on about how we're wastin our time and resources battlin the effects of climate change, but aint nobody workin on a solution to "what if an asteroid is comin our way?"

Tyson seems convinced that asteroids pose a greater threat, yall, 'cause we're discoverin new ones all the time, plenty of 'em are close to Earth, and we might be due fer another big hit, which'll fuck up the whole world and kill off more humans faster than climate change could even dream about.

Tyson done made the plea to governments (and NASA, which aint got no budget) fer an "Anti-Asteroid Task Force" or somethin, I dunno, gettin Bruce Willis ready to fly out there and drill that fucker and stick a bomb in it before it reaches Earth.

So whether or not yer skerred of climate change, how's yer feelins towards asteroids? Yall feel safe? Aint no concern? Or are any of yall a lil troubled that none of our governments got a game plan fer the day we discover an asteroid aimed straight at us?

Which one do ya reckon is more of a threat to the existence of humanity and other life on Earth? Climate change (and a new Ice Age?) or an iron giant hurtlin through the cosmos, comin right down here and wipin us out?

No matter which one ya think is more of a threat, do yall reckon that governments need to collaborate on an anti-asteroid game plan?
Old Dan is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 12:27 PM   #2517246  /  #2
Cephus0
This other bloke
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,346
Cephus0
Default

Jesus christ give yourself a break OD. We've only just started sawing the head off the climate catastrophe zombie with a rusty hacksaw blade. Go dance barefoot in the grass for a while.
Cephus0 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 12:57 PM   #2517250  /  #3
Old Dan
Senior Member
 
Old Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: the holla mohalla
Posts: 10,182
Old Dan
Default

Didja just tell me to go Earthing? I aint no crunchy mama. I just really wanna know if anyone on TR supports Tyson's efforts to get governments to form a task force on asteroids, and if ya think the asteroid threat is greater or lesser than the climate change threat. dag I'm just curious.
Old Dan is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 01:09 PM   #2517256  /  #4
Cephus0
This other bloke
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,346
Cephus0
Default

There isn't a climate change threat. At least not outside of natural variation and there is fuck all we can do about that. There are all kinds of potential mass extinction threats ranging from super volcanism to gamma ray bursts to oceanic anoxia events and on and on and all of them natural and fuck all we can do about any of them. There is, in theory at least, a possibility that we could in fact actually do something about a potential bolide impact and I'm with Tyson in thinking we should be active in investigating that. And, in the words of the immortal Bard - "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly."

Eta: I'm going to dance barefoot in the grass for a while.

Last edited by Cephus0; 05-26-2015 at 01:14 PM.
Cephus0 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 01:25 PM   #2517262  /  #5
Old Dan
Senior Member
 
Old Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: the holla mohalla
Posts: 10,182
Old Dan
Default

Glaciers are meltin, sea levels are risin, and lakes are dryin up, so I do see climate change as a threat. But I also think Tyson knows his shit and our governments need to collaborate on creatin a response if an asteroid comes our way. I just dunno which threat is worse or more imminent.
Old Dan is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 01:34 PM   #2517266  /  #6
RAFH
Robot Architect From Hell
 
RAFH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lori's Place.
Posts: 31,663
RAFH
Default

It's been a good long while since the last big bolide. And it didn't wipe out everything, none have. And given that any bolide big enough to do the job, it's unlikely there is anything one could do about it. Play with some of the bolide impactor models available online. We are talking about something 20 or more KM in diameter.

It would not be possible to blow it up. We don't have anything even close to that sort of capability. And doing so would just result in thousands upon thousands of smaller chunks that would probably do a lot more damage.

A supervolcano is more likely, but again, what could we do about it? We are not going to stop it. I dunno, maybe if we set off a bunch of nukes we could defuse it some. Or make it worse.

Better we simply try to end wars and control diseases and work on the food supply and simply not fuck things up.
__________________
Invent the Future
RAFH is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 01:50 PM   #2517271  /  #7
Cephus0
This other bloke
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,346
Cephus0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Dan View Post
Glaciers are meltin, sea levels are risin, and lakes are dryin up, so I do see climate change as a threat. But I also think Tyson knows his shit and our governments need to collaborate on creatin a response if an asteroid comes our way. I just dunno which threat is worse or more imminent.
I'm really sorry that them alarmists have been causin you consternation OD. But you see the glaciers have always been meltin and retreatin - and then freezin and advancin - and then ... for all of the long 1.5 million years of the Pleistocene. And the sea levels goin up and down and the lakes a dryin and a floodin. That's what happens you see and it has nothing at all to do with anthropogenic CO2. Didya know that for most of Earth's long long history there ain't even been no ice at all!? Ice is actually very very unusual for this here planet. You are looking at right now and just believin the alarmist bullshit that something desperately unusual is happening in the fact that some glaciers retreated for a short while. It isn't so quit panickin willya.

Last edited by Cephus0; 05-26-2015 at 02:10 PM.
Cephus0 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 01:54 PM   #2517273  /  #8
buttershug
Hung
Zaptonia Defense Champion, Summer Sports Match Champion, Attack Of The Fan Girls Champion, Budapest Defenders Champion, When Penguins Attack TD Champion, Flash RPG Tower Defense Champion
 
buttershug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,371
buttershug
Default

What about acid rain?
Did we have an effect on it?
__________________
Quote:
Only the madman is absolutely sure.

Robert Anton Wilson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3YQ24i1wP0
buttershug is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 01:57 PM   #2517275  /  #9
Heinz Hershold
Superior Member
 
Heinz Hershold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,601
Heinz Hershold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post
Better we simply try to not fuck things up.
Yeah, that’s it.
We should probably be more worried about things we create in the lab, like genetically modified viruses, than anything coming our way naturally.
Heinz Hershold is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 02:00 PM   #2517277  /  #10
Cephus0
This other bloke
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,346
Cephus0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post
It's been a good long while since the last big bolide. And it didn't wipe out everything, none have. And given that any bolide big enough to do the job, it's unlikely there is anything one could do about it. Play with some of the bolide impactor models available online. We are talking about something 20 or more KM in diameter.

It would not be possible to blow it up. We don't have anything even close to that sort of capability. And doing so would just result in thousands upon thousands of smaller chunks that would probably do a lot more damage.
Ya, I've not researched this but you would guess that everything depends on the mass, how early you make a detection, the accuracy of your trajectory prediction and if you have the tech to deflect it anyway. Always generally thought that if was far enough away and not too massive and you could lay a nuke on it in time you would only need a tiny deflection to cause it to miss. At least it's something worthwhile researching.

Quote:
A supervolcano is more likely, but again, what could we do about it? We are not going to stop it. I dunno, maybe if we set off a bunch of nukes we could defuse it some. Or make it worse.

Better we simply try to end wars and control diseases and work on the food supply and simply not fuck things up.
Ya.
Cephus0 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 02:08 PM   #2517279  /  #11
Cephus0
This other bloke
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,346
Cephus0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buttershug View Post
What about acid rain?
Did we have an effect on it?
Nesb was asking about that and I answered here. I think we do indeed need to be scrubbing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide out of emissions and various other nasties too. None of this is CO2 related though. It's a red herring which is costing us a fucking Universe of money and going in entirely the wrong direction with all kinds of actually disastrous consequences.
Cephus0 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 02:17 PM   #2517283  /  #12
borealis
cruel but fair
Admin
 
borealis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 26,769
borealis
Default

Since pretty much nobody is doing a damn thing about climate change, Cephus, I question the universe of money being spent.
__________________
“What is important is to spread confusion, not eliminate it.”
― Salvador Dalí
borealis is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 02:33 PM   #2517289  /  #13
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 31,364
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

to answer the OP: Idiots like Cephus0
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 02:35 PM   #2517290  /  #14
Cephus0
This other bloke
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,346
Cephus0
Default

Pick your own source I guess for estimates of how much has been 'invested' in climate research. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't really mean climate research, I meant the somewhat narrower goal of artificially propping up the always ridiculous and now falsified AGW hypothesis. No other aspect of the climate is even considered. But anyway, somewhere between $50 - 100 billion conservatively?

Eta: x post - yarp boy is weighing in with some evidence free commentary.
Cephus0 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 02:43 PM   #2517291  /  #15
Old Dan
Senior Member
 
Old Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: the holla mohalla
Posts: 10,182
Old Dan
Default

Old Dan is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 03:03 PM   #2517296  /  #16
Cephus0
This other bloke
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,346
Cephus0
Default

Lol. Well I'll just leave you to it then. See if you can get some detailed apocalypse planning from JB. And remember - it's out of that automobile and on yer bike ma'am!
Cephus0 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 03:03 PM   #2517297  /  #17
Old Dan
Senior Member
 
Old Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: the holla mohalla
Posts: 10,182
Old Dan
Default

So, yer in the asteroid camp, then, son.
Old Dan is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 03:10 PM   #2517300  /  #18
Cephus0
This other bloke
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,346
Cephus0
Default

Yes I am. I'll take my chances with an honest asteroid every time
Cephus0 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 03:29 PM   #2517305  /  #19
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 31,364
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

I like the way that people like Cephus0 are cleverer than 99% of the scientific community. It's a good job we have people like him to save us from the experts.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 04:01 PM   #2517309  /  #20
Cephus0
This other bloke
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,346
Cephus0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
I like the way that people like Cephus0 are cleverer than 99% of the scientific community. It's a good job we have people like him to save us from the experts.
Don't be an eejit JB. Are you really such a sucker that you're falling for that '99% of cats prefer global warming' propaganda? I'm in the scientific community thanks and unless I'm in some freakishly weird heretical enclave that 99% figure is as much baloney as everything else AGW-wise. Show the poll data if you like. But anyway, if they actually had anything solid, do you really think it would always come down to this 99% of cats crap.
Cephus0 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 04:08 PM   #2517312  /  #21
BenTheBiased
Doctor Impossible
 
BenTheBiased's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Soon I Will Be Invincible
Posts: 1,190
BenTheBiased
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus0 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
I like the way that people like Cephus0 are cleverer than 99% of the scientific community. It's a good job we have people like him to save us from the experts.
Don't be an eejit JB. Are you really such a sucker that you're falling for that '99% of cats prefer global warming' propaganda? I'm in the scientific community thanks and unless I'm in some freakishly weird heretical enclave that 99% figure is as much baloney as everything else AGW-wise. Show the poll data if you like. But anyway, if they actually had anything solid, do you really think it would always come down to this 99% of cats crap.
It's actually 97% of climate scientists - the people who are actually doing the research - and it's based on what the peer-reviewed papers they publish say...

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

And if you don't want to rely on just the fact that they agree, then why don't you take a look at some of those papers? Find out what some of that peer-reviewed research actually shows, and see why so many of the people who study this stuff agree with the conclusions.
BenTheBiased is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 04:31 PM   #2517325  /  #22
Cephus0
This other bloke
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,346
Cephus0
Default

Ben, did you read the link you just posted? Here's the abstract - my emphasis.

Quote:
Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Look at the bold. 64% expressed no opinion on AGW and 32.6% endorse AGW. 97.2% of authors with self-rated papers expressing an opinion on AGW endorsed the consensus. And in a 'climate' where you are shown the door for expressing the merest of doubts I don't find the find the final sentence particularly astonishing. And this is your grand consensus?

Anyway, I don't care if each and every scientist on god's green earth except me agrees, if the 'science' is non-science, which it is, they can all fuck off as far as I'm concerned.

Last edited by Cephus0; 05-26-2015 at 06:04 PM.
Cephus0 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 05:28 PM   #2517351  /  #23
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,389
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus0 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post
A supervolcano is more likely, but again, what could we do about it? We are not going to stop it. I dunno, maybe if we set off a bunch of nukes we could defuse it some. Or make it worse.

Better we simply try to end wars and control diseases and work on the food supply and simply not fuck things up.
Ya.
I'll go with c) Supervolcano.

Yellowstone is due one of these decades (in the next 100,000 or so years).
Mike PSS is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 06:00 PM   #2517358  /  #24
Old Dan
Senior Member
 
Old Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: the holla mohalla
Posts: 10,182
Old Dan
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike PSS View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cephus0 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post
A supervolcano is more likely, but again, what could we do about it? We are not going to stop it. I dunno, maybe if we set off a bunch of nukes we could defuse it some. Or make it worse.

Better we simply try to end wars and control diseases and work on the food supply and simply not fuck things up.
Ya.
I'll go with c) Supervolcano.

Yellowstone is due one of these decades (in the next 100,000 or so years).
Oh, yeah, son, that's another scary possibility. Mount Saint Helens sure did a lotta damage, just imagine if some bigger, badder volcano started shootin lava everywhere and ash into the sky. Could be trouble.
Old Dan is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 05-26-2015, 06:09 PM   #2517361  /  #25
Cephus0
This other bloke
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,346
Cephus0
Default

When I said 'asteroid camp' that was a generalisation for non-AGW camp. If betting I'd go with Mike PSS and Yellowstone.
Cephus0 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Reply

  TalkRational > Discussion > Physical Sciences

Tags
shut up stopper, stopper, ya bet yer sweet asteroid

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2016, TalkRational.org