Good point. So 30+ years have passed and whats happened? How many more failed predictions of catastrophe and the planet going underwater should we endure?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot
- Thread starter davis_unoxx
- Start date
- Status
October82
Well-Known Member
Long time reader, first time poster, but as an "ivory tower academic", it seemed appropriate to respond to this thread.
Although my job isn't to study climate change, I know many people whose professional life is spent studying the climate. It's difficult for me to imagine my friends as part of some globalist plot to reallocate resources, but I don't imagine that will prove convincing to those that do think so. Let's set aside politics for a moment, and talk about something that is apolitical - physics.
The usual way in which climate change is talked about goes something like this. CO2 emissions from human activity somehow "traps" heat in the atmosphere, leading to a rise in temperature. We call this the "greenhouse" effect, and as early as the mid-1800s, this idea was well understood and quantified. The everyday concept of energy is all that is necessary to understand the arguments that were made then, and why climate change is a requirement of basic physics. To do this, one straightforwardly balances the energy entering the Earth's atmosphere with the energy exiting it. Since greenhouse gases "trap energy", the presence of greenhouse gases means more energy, and hence a higher temperature. It turns out that the relationship between these quantities is very simple to state:
T ~ ln(C)
where T is the temperature and C is the relative concentration of a greenhouse gas. This approach is called "radiative balance", and the simplest treatment predicts that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperatures by 5-6 degrees. None of this controversial, but it does pose a particular problem.
Suppose that you're correct (wdisney or others) and climate change isn't occurring. Why would that be? A basic prediction of simple physics is that increasing the concentration of CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere should increase global average temperature. We know that this is the case because we understand that a) energy is conserved and that b) greenhouse gases impact the energy balance. We know that the effect should be substantial, since we have had relationships between CO2 concentration and temperature for ~200 years. If it isn't, that is an incredible mystery in itself, and something that physicists would surely award the highest honors to the person who discovers.
Further, arriving at this conclusion doesn't require knowing anything about the paleo-climate, satellite based temperature and CO2 measurements, or climate modeling on supercomputers. That said, all of these are valuable things, that matter if you want to study the climate in its full complexity, but they aren't required to predict that the temperature of the planet should be changing. Of course, satellite studies do show a direct link between temperature and greenhouse gas concentration. Paleoclimate studies show that the current change in the climate is not explainable in terms of any previous mechanism, and supercomputer modeling has produced a consistent track record of reliable climate predictions.
The conclusion is also apolitical - it doesn't tell us anything about what we should do. All it tells us is that the composition of the atmosphere matters for global temperature.
I'm happy to answer any questions about the above comments or other questions you might have. I also recognize that there are a large number of important reasons that go beyond the simple arguments that people have for doubting the scientific consensus. It turns out that the response of oceanic and polar ice is not intuitive, and as most people already know, the press does a poor job of commenting on science and politics. What I hope is that the above has provided some context as to why there is such consensus among scientists as to the fact that climate change is occurring and to the reason. It has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with physics and chemistry.
Last edited:
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
My god there are crazy people around here. It's no wonder we may end up with a fascist bigot of a President. It is amazing the lengths people will go to in order to support their crackpot conspiracy theories so they don't have to change anything about their own actions and beliefs.
I am frightened for our future.
Whether or not they build a roller coaster in Future World is the least of our worries.
I am frightened for our future.
Whether or not they build a roller coaster in Future World is the least of our worries.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Politics are off limits around here. You can bash Hillary Clinton somewhere else.
see what I did there?
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I would think the announcement would come before the ride is closed.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
And then we all freak out because construction won't start until months later. Lol.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
They probably will follow the same pattern of "destroy before they complain" by Disney on big attractions, I suppose?
And then make a big "announcement". Then shovel in dirt (a la Avatar but with Groot and Rocket) ?
And then 4 years of constructions to spread costs?
Pam Hates Penguins
Well-Known Member
So when is it closing?
Pam Hates Penguins
Well-Known Member
And I am guessing the opening date is early 2019?
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Ahh ok. Thought I read on here it was for some reason.
Pam Hates Penguins
Well-Known Member
I doubt if people would freak out if construction won't start for a while. Why because it's GOTG! Nobody wants it. The longer the better!
Also WDWMagic deleted my comment taking about being on topic, because they deleted it for being off topic.
Last edited:
As it stands later.
It was a very old proposal but was reported as news.
tl77
Well-Known Member
I doubt if people would freak out if construction won't start for a while. Why because it's GOTG! Nobody wants it. The longer the better!
Also WDWMagic deleted my comment taking about being on topic, because they deleted it for being off topic.
I'm starting to wonder if this Guardians rumor is just a decoy to get the internet nerds all wound up, so that when they finally announce the actual "mediocre" attraction people will go "well? at least it's not Guardians at Epcot" ...but that's assuming they actually care what their most loyal fans think
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
Not a fan of how this thread did not delete all the offtopic threads. some remained with no retort..what?... anyway...
Makes me wonder Marni, will they do an "expedite" demo like they did with Horizons? or they could take their long time like with Backlot and Star Wars land at DHS?
Pam Hates Penguins
Well-Known Member
I'm not marni, but this is involving just a ride. Not a whole land. Another thing, they couldn't have started construction with SWL unannounced. Which brings me to the question: Why did the Backlot Tour close so early?
CanadianGordon
Well-Known Member
I think a lot of closing Backlot Tour was to get things ready without having the tour go through; to save some money on costs of casting and the special effects as well.
- Status