Aussie tech giant Atlassian has unveiled plans for a multi-story timber HQ in Sydney https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/atlassian-central/36458

I am interested in looking at the possible solutions and working out which ones are likely to be effective and which ones are likely to be ineffective. — Agree to Disagree

Suddenly we’ve changed our stance, I see…

Please tell me some of the "plenty of solutions", and I will tell you why they won't work. — Agree to Disagree

Good to know you’re now miraculously “looking at which solutions are effective.”

Tell me some, and I’ll tell you how they’re complete crap, then support my claim with solid “evidence” like this: “Good luck with that.”

This office / residential building in Norway is mostly wood -- all vertical and horizontal loads are carried by wood structures. There may be some diagonal bracing using steel; lots of metal fasteners; exteriors on wood buildings may not be wood, owing to harsh weather. Wood has lots of advantages, and some disadvantages. 1) because it is light weight, it offers less resistance to forces acting on the building. So, heavy wooden pieces need to be used in tall structures. 2) wood is not completely moisture resistant. Miami might not be a good place to use wood for high rises. 3). repair can be difficult



How the laminated pieces will hold up over 100 years... I don't know. Probably pretty well, assuming the building is consistently maintained. There are 60 to 80 year old buildings with laminated supports that are doing fine.

Has any of this data been peer-reviewed or published? How are we to judge the truth or falsity of this analysis, which seems at odds with the mainstream consensus? — Quixodian

My data has not been peer reviewed or published (except on my website which no longer exists). I decided that trying to get it peer reviewed would be a huge waste of my time because it is "at odds with the mainstream consensus".

Anybody can look at my data and see if it is reasonable and makes sense. Anything wrong with the data would stick out like a sore thumb.

As I said before, I grouped the data into 216 countries. I would have liked to also group it into the 50 states of America but it was already a huge task grouping it into 216 countries. Just within the last few days I have found data for the states of America on Wikipedia. I am about to analyse this data to see if it is consistent with my analysis of the 216 countries. If you are interested then I can post some results on this discussion. Anybody will be able check my results using the data on Wikipedia.

Anything wrong with the data would stick out like a sore thumb. — Agree to Disagree

Compared to what?

I decided that trying to get it peer reviewed would be a huge waste of my time because it is "at odds with the mainstream consensus". — Agree to Disagree

Typical conspiracy theorist thinking.

You challenged climate science and scientists many times in this thread based on data which you claim is valid without any support. It seems to me that your sole aim in posting in this forum is to cast doubt on climate science.

Newtonian mechanics was undisputed (only had one side) for a long time. And then this denier called Einstein came alon — Agree to Disagree

That was a paradigm shift but neither contested the existence of gravity. So a shitty analogy.

I decided that trying to get it peer reviewed would be a huge waste of my time because it is "at odds with the mainstream consensus".
— Agree to Disagree

Typical conspiracy theorist thinking. — Quixodian

Climate-change/global-warming is a very "emotional" issue. Look at how many times I have been called a Denier on this discussion even though I have clearly stated that I don't dispute that climate change is happening.

Newtonian mechanics was undisputed (only had one side) for a long time. And then this denier called Einstein came alon
— Agree to Disagree

That was a paradigm shift but neither contested the existence of gravity. So a shitty analogy. — Benkei

In the 17th century Newton concluded that objects fall because they are pulled by Earth's gravity. Einstein's interpretation was that these objects do not fall. According to Einstein, these objects and Earth just freely move in a curved spacetime and this curvature is induced by mass and energy of these objects.

The equations that he presented in 1915 not only led to a completely different interpretation of events around us but also ... — The Conversation

Climate-change/global-warming is a very "emotional" issue. Look at how many times I have called a Denier on this discussion even though I have clearly stated that I don't dispute that climate change is happening. — Agree to Disagree

It provokes strong emotions because it's a real danger to civilisation. Countries need to work together to address it and doing so is going to be extremey challenging. So calling the science into question doesn't help to do that, other than from serious scientists who have constructive criticisms. And there are many vested interests who do have a climate-change denial agenda, so it is hardly surprising that the appearance of such claims provokes strong emotions. There is much at stake.

And while you say you agree that it happens, you also call the science into question:

"Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly" (x2)

"Who was the “genius” who decided that the Little Ice Age (otherwise known as pre-industrial times) was the perfect temperature for the whole Earth? ... It was a Climate Scientist who doesn’t look at actual temperatures."

"Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies"

"Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year"


"are you saying that sometimes (climate) scientists get it wrong? That their assessment of the speed of change was not correct.

How do we know that they are not wrong about other things?"

"I think that burning gigatons of fossil fuels causes some problems. ....There are many other important problems that also need our attention" — Agree to Disagree

I really don't agree that you're posting in good faith. First, you only ever post in this topic, second, with the sole purpose of questioning the science. I think it's an example of the motte-and-baily fallacy. This occurs when someone advances a controversial claim—one that's difficult to defend—and when challenged retreats to an uncontroversial claim. The bold claim is the bailey, the safe claim the motte. Here, your 'safety position' is the agreement that climate change is occuring. The bailey claim is that the scientists have it all wrong, and that you know better. That is really the only thing you show any interest in discussing.

This is a philosophy forum, on which there happens to be a thread discussing climate change. If you really want to call the science into question, then why don't you join one of the many climate change discussion forums that do have the resources to check your data, which may, for all we know, be entirely spurious. The moderators have discussed your posts, and while we're in agreement that you're in the wrong, you're not as yet breaching the terms of service, although at least one mod believes that if you have joined for the sole purpose of propogating your climate-change views, that you might have done so.

In any case, and as far as I'm concerned, you are not welcome to use this platform to disseminate your spurious opinions, and I am not going to respond to your claims henceforth.

You challenged climate science and scientists many times in this thread based on data which you claim is valid without any support. It seems to me that your sole aim in posting in this forum is to cast doubt on climate science. — Quixodian

Scientific people, and scientists, should be skeptical. They shouldn't just accept everything that they are told.

Whenever I am told something I immediately try to think of a way that I can prove that it is incorrect. Like falsifiability. I tend to question everything.

I really don't agree that you're posting in good faith. — Quixodian

:100:

It reminds me of the old trope "I'm not a racist, but..." where whatever follows the 'but' is bound to be something racist.

Countries need to work together to address it and doing so is going to be extremey challenging. — Quixodian

Isn't me talking about Russia possibly not wanting to fight climate-change an example of that?

Isn't my initial example of methane from cows an example of the difficulty of fighting climate-change.

I am definitely challenging the ability to fight climate-change.

Isn't my initial example of methane from cows an example of the difficulty of fighting climate-change. — Agree to Disagree

Unless I'm mistaken, the cow-fart angle is from the 1990s? Or 1980s? This makes me think you've got some age on you?

My question is: do you remember days before people made a big deal out of climate change? Like a few people knew about it, but most people were completely unaware?

If so, what was that shift like: toward a kind of fervor developing around it?

It provokes strong emotions because it's a real danger to civilisation. — Quixodian

But most people seem to refuse to accept personal responsibility for the problem. They claim that it is all the fault of the oil companies. Climate change will not be solved with that attitude.

Here's a picture so maybe you can understand it.



I repeat. There was no disagreement on the existence of gravity. So your analogy is still shit.

‘The devil quotes holy scripture’ - wise saying

But most people seem to refuse to accept personal responsibility for the problem. They claim that it is all the fault of the oil companies. Climate change will not be solved with that attitude. — Agree to Disagree

Neither will it be solved by doing nothing. Humanity should be trying every reasonable approach consistent with good ecological practice to counteract what it knows to be contributing factors to climate change. It may well be that some types of remediation are more effective than others. That's why they need to be tried. Now is not the time for quietism. The will to effect change is essential. As solutions are tried our understanding of the mechanics of the problem will grow, leading to new, better solutions. That's how it works.

Unless I'm mistaken, the cow-fart angle is from the 1990s? Or 1980s? This makes me think you've got some age on you?

My question is: do you remember days before people made a big deal out of climate change? Like a few people knew about it, but most people were completely unaware?

If so, what was that shift like: toward a kind of fervor developing around it? — frank

The cow fart angle is still a current concern. Somebody has just developed a food supplement for cows that is meant to reduce methane by about 30%.

You are correct, I do have some age on me. And I have a very good memory. I remember in 1976 (my first year at university, doing Chemistry Honours, Physics, and Biology) when the news of a possible pending Ice Age came out. I can remember being in a lecture theatre and thinking "I will worry about an Ice Age if it happens".

I have seen (and lived through) many existential threats to humanity.
- All through my childhood the doomsday clock was sitting at 5 minutes to 12 (fears about nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R)
- fear of the Y2K bug (I was given the job of checking the software of the company that I worked for)
- fear of the impending ice age
- fear of Halley's comet
- fears about the Large Hadron Collider
- predictions of worldwide famine in the 1970s and 80s
- Malthusian panic and the population bomb
- various pandemics
- The Mayan Calendar prediction of 2012
- Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
- Peak Oil In 2000
- Peak Oil in 2010
- Peak Oil in 2020
- Pending depletion and shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
- Oceans dead in a decade (prediction made in 1970)
- etc

This is probably what made me initially skeptical about global warming (before it became climate change). However, I changed my mind and accepted that global warming/climate change is happening.

I think that the awareness of global warming grew out of the work of some scientists (e.g. James Hansen) and was picked up by the environmental movement that was already worried about (non-CO2) types of pollution and other environmental disasters (deforestation, mining, loss of habitats, extinction of species, etc).

The cow fart angle is still a current concern. Somebody has just developed a food supplement for cows that is meant to reduce methane by about 30%. — Agree to Disagree

I didn't know that. So they really think cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions? As it turns out, there's another problem with American beef. They feed them corn, which makes American beef unusually fatty. It tastes good but it contributes to obesity, heart disease, and strokes. If they just stopped feeding them corn, Americans would be healthier, and not just slightly healthier, a lot more.

If cattle are also contributing to global warming, that would be another good reason to just cut back on producing beef. Or stop it altogether?

have seen (and lived through) many existential threats to humanity.
- All through my childhood the doomsday clock was sitting at 5 minutes to 12 (fears about nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R) — Agree to Disagree

So you have literally never known a world that didn't have doom hanging over it. Does that mean you had to get comfortable with doom? How did you deal with that?

fear of the impending ice age — Agree to Disagree

Right. I've read about that, but you lived through it?

I think that the awareness of global warming grew out of the work of some scientists (e.g. James Hansen) and was picked up by the environmental movement that was already worried about (non-CO2) types of pollution and other environmental disasters (deforestation, mining, loss of habitats, extinction of species, etc). — Agree to Disagree

Was acid rain abd ozone depletion also part of it? I read that there was overlap with those things and an amplified greenhouse effect. Same scientists?

I didn't know that. So they really think cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions? — frank

Most people do think that cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. But most people don't understand the Biogenic Carbon Cycle. If you are interested there is a very good article here:
https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle

Here is a quote from the article

Methane emitted by ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats is recycled into carbon in plants and soil, in a process known as the biogenic carbon cycle. It’s an important natural cycle that’s been happening since the beginning of life.

Cows (and other ruminant animals like sheep) are often linked to climate change because they emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG).

But the fact is, this methane is part of a natural – or biogenic – carbon cycle, in which the methane breaks down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water after about 12 years. Grass then absorbs the CO2 through photosynthesis, cows eat the grass and the cycle continues.

I remember in 1976 (my first year at university, doing Chemistry Honours, Physics, and Biology) when the news of a possible pending Ice Age came out. — Agree to Disagree

:lol:

I think that’s climate denial bingo.

Most people do think that cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. — Agree to Disagree

Mmm, I don't think so. Most people don't know the US government once did a massive study on cow farts to determine it's environmental effects.

But it's not true that their farts are absorbed by plants. Methane is lighter than air, so it travels from their butts straight up to the stratosphere.

I remember in 1976 (my first year at university, doing Chemistry Honours, Physics, and Biology) when the news of a possible pending Ice Age came out.
— Agree to Disagree

:lol:

I think that’s climate denial bingo. — Mikie

No, that's you not knowing anything about history.

The cow fart angle is still a current concern. — Agree to Disagree

It’s not “cow farts.” Try reading about the subject.

It reminds me of the old trope "I'm not a racist, but..." where whatever follows the 'but' is bound to be something racist. — unenlightened

Right. No one is a climate denier these days — at least according to climate deniers.

Just like racism is a thing of the past — according to Fox News.

THE MYTH OF ThE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

For anyone who wants to learn about this very common, very tired, very stupid denialist trope.

Also, this is funny (and accurate):

If cattle are also contributing to global warming, that would be another good reason to just cut back on producing beef. It stop it altogether? — frank

The previous link that I gave you shows that cattle don't contribute much to the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is another article which explains some of the positive aspects of cattle farming:
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein

Here are some quotes from the article:

Inedible feed to edible protein
The feedlot sector increasingly uses by-products that humans can’t eat, while still meeting the nutritional requirements of cattle. Examples include spent grain from bio-alcohol, feed-grade grain and cottonseed.

Grass-fed cattle (that may eat very small amounts of grain) produce almost 1600 times the human-edible protein they consume. Cattle that graze only on grass or hay their whole lives don’t eat any human-edible protein at all. Their net protein contribution to the human nutritional supply is so high it's literally off the scale.

Not competing for land
Part of the efficiency equation for Australian beef is that cattle mainly graze on land we can’t grow crops on. This is because of its terrain or soil type. In fact, Australian Bureau of Statistics' land use data show that since 2010 less than four per cent of Australia's agricultural land is used for growing crops.

A cow needs to eat around 25 kilograms of feed to produce one kilogram of beef. But us humans can eat none or only some of that 25 kilograms. So in terms of human-edible protein – one kilogram in and 1.96 kilograms out – the perspective looks quite different.

All up our work suggests that cows can be a good use of agricultural land for contributing valuable protein to our food supply.

Yea, I don't think anyone thinks cattle farming is the culprit. It's fossil fuel consumption.

The previous link that I gave you shows that cattle don't contribute much to the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions. — Agree to Disagree

Cattle are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable

They contribute a good deal to global warming. Try learning about the subject.

It’s not “cow farts.” Try reading about the subject — Mikie

Yes, I know that most of the methane is from "burping". Frank said "the cow fart angle" and I just used the same name to avoid more explanation. Most people jokingly call it the cow fart problem.