Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2    4  ..  9
Author: Subject: Say Goodbye to Global Warming
Endimion17
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline

Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second

[*] posted on 1-11-2011 at 15:28


Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
"Only the dumbest of the laymen lump everything together."

You fail to mention the even dumber laymen. Those who see only through a tiny window yet think they know all things and cannot possibly be mislead.

I forgot about them.
Here's a supposedly Persian proverb I like a lot:
"He who knows he who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool, shun him; He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child, teach him. He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep, wake him. He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise, follow him."


Quote:

I forgot to ask. Are you a layman? After all clearly you lump all Americans together.

I was clearly adressing to a nation, and not implying that every single person was passive. Please don't use semantic sophisms, they're not useful and I find them annoying.



Quote:

"Global warming is a proven fact"Prove it while showing your work.

No, I don't have to prove anything just like I don't have to prove evolution, the roundness of the Earth, etc.


ps: I'm not one of the "Al Gore"-people, and I think it's sad that every single "climate skeptic" American I've talked with thinks that Al Gore is "the king of global warming" appreciated by people who know something about the climate.
The guy's a dumbass and he's nothing in the world of science. He's an American politician that is being ignored by serious people and institutes.
If your TV is filled with certain dumbasses, don't think mine is, too. If he wasn't a presidential candidate, I might've never hear of him. Wake up, your country is not on the top of the world.

[Edited on 1-11-2011 by Endimion17]




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1913
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 1-11-2011 at 16:02


"I was clearly adressing to a nation, and not implying that every single person was passive. Please don't use semantic sophisms, they're not useful and I find them annoying."

You are trying to come off all wise and intelligent. Possibly you simply do not have a good handle on the English language. Being a super genius (implied by your mannerisms in the words you speak here), one would assume at least you can use a spell checker. However this was not the point I wish to address. The word 'America' is in reference to a nation. Or 'America's' as in North and South. The term 'Americans' can only be used to describe people either in group or individual terms. In the context of your statement what was clear was your opinion of the people, not the nation. Nations seldom represent the people especially in this day and age. If not being 'annoyed' is your desire it would help if you reciprocate to us 'Americans' by not being so annoying yourself.

On the concept of not needing to prove things you state as facts, I can add in the many years I have been a member of SCM one thing I have learned is people here are less likely to respect your opinion if you preach something you cannot or will not verify. Far more wise is the simple addition of a delimiter that you believe a thing is a fact rather than berating anyone who refuses to agree with your 'facts'.

Example you do not need to prove the earth is round. As a scientist you should be more specific. Not hard to prove it bulges at the equator and there are mountains. Giving you the benefit of doubt one must assume you were not implying you meant a perfect sphere. In science some things can be greatly altered by tiny variations so it helps to set ground rules, being specific. Of all the items being looked at in science GW is the most preached and least proven concept I have yet seen. From nearly 60 years of experiencing four seasons one thing I can say is there is not a big difference other than it seems to be getting colder not warmer. But hey, maybe I just hurt everywhere more who knows.

I hope this was helpful.




“Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity.” - NIKOLA TESLA
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 11 years of madness
*********




Posts: 2905
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 1-11-2011 at 18:04


Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
Of all the items being looked at in science GW is the most preached and least proven concept I have yet seen. From nearly 60 years of experiencing four seasons one thing I can say is there is not a big difference other than it seems to be getting colder not warmer. But hey, maybe I just hurt everywhere more who knows.


I don't know what your standard of proof is that global warming is the least proved concept around. If you search journals with e.g. Google Scholar you will find an overwhelming support for a warming trend since the Industrial Revolution and little to none for a cooling trend. Everyone here seems to more-or-less rely on peer reviewed scientific literature except for this one topic, when it's suddenly time to cite newspapers and politicians instead of journal publications.

It's true that writing something accepted by journals isn't proof it is correct. But when multiple groups and multiple peer reviewed publications report a warming trend, over a period of years, I am inclined to believe them even though I don't have the resources or background to reproduce the work from first principles. Likewise, I believe that neutrinos exist even though I don't have my own detector or even access to somebody else's detector, because different groups writing in different journals have over a period of years offered a convincing narrative of their existence and nature. You too are probably not a neutrino skeptic, even though it's unlikely that you have a few thousand tons of water surrounded by photomultiplier tubes in a deep mine to detect them without reliance on third parties.

The greenhouse effect is real and experimentally observed: it's why the surface of Venus is hotter than Mercury despite Venus being further from the sun and having a higher albedo. The rise in Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration in recent history is also real and directly observed. The temperature trend is noisy, which requires incorporating many temperatures sampled at different times and places. I think this is usually where global warming critics start to get suspicious. But as far as I can tell, peer-reviewed analysis of this data doesn't support a flat or downward temperature trend in modern history: there is instead a warming trend. Unusual cold in some places doesn't refute a general statistical trend any more than the vigorous 90 year old who smokes like a chimney refutes the statistical association between cigarettes and lung cancer.




PGP Key and corresponding e-mail
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Mr. Wizard
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1037
Registered: 30-3-2003
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 1-11-2011 at 19:21


I do believe in the theory of global warming, and I do realize that water vapor, methane, and various other gasses, such as CO2 are not transparent to the long wave IR that emanates from the surface. Water vapor contributes 95% of the greenhouse effect. As the water warms it increases it's partial pressure. It sounds like the recipe for a runaway thermal meltdown :o But wait there is the reflectivity of clouds, snow to limit the effect. Carbon Dioxide is supposed to contribute about 3.618 % Out of that only 3.22% is man made. Total man made greenhouse gas (all gasses) effect is figured to be about 0.28%. Let me put that another way. The man made contribution is 0.0028 out of a total of 1 or 28/10000.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

of the total. From this figure we are supposed to ignore the overwhelming effects of water vapor, assume our sun isn't giving us more or less energy, ignore unknown effects and linkages, and extrapolate and iterate projections of fractions of a degree into decades in the future.

Weather professional can't predict weather or temperature for a week in advance, it's too dynamic and chaotic, yet we are supposed to put our faith, welfare, and fiscal well being into their capable hands. The politicians who cheat on their wives, write self serving laws, and pass laws that help their campaign donors, will suddenly have this divine inspiration to save the world through Carbon Footprint taxes. Am I the only one that smells a rat?

Then there is the amount of CO2 dumped from volcanoes, methane from the ocean, sulfates from volcanoes, sunspots, and the perception that the CO2 concentration seems to actually rise after the temperature rises when old cores are examined.

I'm willing to listen to arguments about the theories, the effects, and the possible outcomes. What I'm not ready to do is call it a proven theory.

Let me also ask, what is that wrong with a few degree rise in temperature? When it has happened in the past, life on Earth flourished, with many more species than now. Imagine the great northern areas now too cold for crops covered with forests, and well watered crops. We will adapt. What I worry about is global cooling, nobody will be happy about that. We have written history about it's effects.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1913
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 1-11-2011 at 20:11


Actually Polverone the political misuse of the science is more of a problem to me than the science itself. Yet I have difficulty believing something is proven when politics forces science to falsify evidence. Blaming people and creating draconian conditions hurting lives over something barely noticeable as yet. Yet ignoring the fact that all the planets are warming up but I see no one forcing carbon taxes on martians thus far. I remember the same debate decades ago that we were heading for an ice age. Same political grabbing for power, one group of 'scientists' fighting against other groups pro and con. Not knowing how old you are I cannot say if you have the benefit of having been there to seen the same things going on in the opposite direction. Again blaming people and again trying to force regulations degrading lifestyles prematurely.

Decades ago a woman wrote a book about DDT using false science and millions died since that time from Malaria who did not need to. Again, because green forces saw a chance to grab power and influence. After decades of watching the same scenario being played out over one thing after another you develop the attitude maybe the response to these ideas should be measured and tempered with reason and wisdom.

Rather than creating disasters with poorly thought out modifications caused by knee jerk reactions like the coming starvation caused by burning up the worlds supply of corn. I am still waiting for the UN to do something to stop the cutting down and burning of the rain forest but thus far nada. Obama killing off the oil and coal industry in the US which will drive up the cost of oil hitting the poorest among us the worst. They have the greatest trouble paying for heating/cooling, the fuel to get to work, the cost of food on the rise. Not to mention the fewer jobs for them to get to. What the hell does the rich elite care they can afford it and usually they find ways to get what they wish off the backs of the working taxpayers anyway. Al Gore is the worst of the worst in the GW agenda and has made tens of millions in personal wealth pushing this agenda. His home uses more energy and that combined with his air travel creates more carbon pollution than I and likely most the people I have known ever will. All this gives me insight into his motivation for backing GW yet reduces the chance I will stop calling him a most vile corrupt liar.

Pushing electric cars as if the juice comes magically out of sockets while ignoring the need to produce the power they run on. Or the carbon pollution resulting from the need to power these less efficient means of transportation. At the same time halting the creation of nuclear plants going for wind and solar yet the science is not there for these methods to power the world today. The result of the green agenda is to trash the quality of life globally simply because they want their results now not later and they have no time to let science catch up thereby bringing change at a more reasonable pace to lessen the suffering which is and will be created by the rapid implementation of change.

All the ice is melting. Oh wait no it's not. The Polar bears are dying. Oh wait their population is on the rise. Put MTBE in the gas. Oh wait, I used to be able to see South mountain in Phoenix in January and it's only a mile from here. If you do not know that one it was caused by the formaldehyde creating a brown curtain over the valley which stuck in place for months. Older people getting sicker and younger ones coming up with asthma and new allergies in numbers never before seen. All this suffering and degradation to life created by green forces using poorly thought out science in the name of cleaner air.

I could go on but the point is changes need to be studied and their consequences thought out before things are forced on people which drastically affect the quality of life. I see this going on today more than ever before in a most cavalier manner, the consequences to people especially those least able to cope be damned. All in the name of global warming. So yes I have a real problem with it but as I stated this does not mean I do not believe the earth is warming. However I will be equally unsurprised if we find ourselves heading into another ice age.

"Boogie Man Remediation Services is often times a fully owned subsidiary and affiliate of the Boogie Man Manufacturers Association."

Rosco your starting to worry me all my stock is in that company.

"What I worry about is global cooling, nobody will be happy about that. We have written history about it's effects. "

Especially after the energy supply has been destroyed by the rich elite politicians on their GW agenda. No one else will have the money (or the energy) to heat their homes.


[Edited on 11-2-2011 by IrC]




“Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity.” - NIKOLA TESLA
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Endimion17
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline

Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second

[*] posted on 1-11-2011 at 21:18


Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  
I'm willing to listen to arguments about the theories, the effects, and the possible outcomes. What I'm not ready to do is call it a proven theory.

Do you know what is a theory? I'm asking that because it seems like you don't.


Quote:

Let me also ask, what is that wrong with a few degree rise in temperature? When it has happened in the past, life on Earth flourished, with many more species than now. Imagine the great northern areas now too cold for crops covered with forests, and well watered crops. We will adapt. What I worry about is global cooling, nobody will be happy about that. We have written history about it's effects.

Global warming means more energy in the atmosphere. More energy means more storms (rainstorms, snowstorms, hailstorms, etc.). Local temperatures can, and do, vary significantly. Early winter in NY is not a proof the global warming does not exist, and anyone saying the opposite is either an ignorant or a fool.

The average temperature is growing, the total heat is growing, and the wind energy is growing.
Local temperatures show positive and negative records, and so do the values of precipitation. Seeing an early snowstorm and thinking "it's a conspiracy" is a clear sign someone didn't do their homework.

You're asking about what's frong with "a few degree rise"? You think that's nothing, do you? The atmosphere/hydrosphere is not a beaker. It is a vastly huge system operated in sense of a deterministic chaos. One degree means a hell lot more than it means in a beaker. Few degrees means huge deforestation, large changes in precipitation, extreme storm phenomena, relocation and death of multitude of species, huge waste of money and lots of dead people.
I don't know where exactly do you live, but I live in a part of the planet that (still) hasn't been very affected by the climate change. One of the eerie signs we have here are anomalous appearances of jellyfish swarms and sometimes even species that have never been seen here.
Other than that, we've got temperature records, but no floods. That might change.

Do you inform yourself on the floods in the world? They're getting worse by the year.

What about the polar ice melting and the sea rising? Arctic won't contribute to it, because it's essentially ice on water, but Antarctica will.
10 cm and Netherlands has to spend immense amounts of money.
10 cm, tide and storm, and New York is flodded.
Imagine what does it mean to flood a subway system in a huge city.

What about the viruses and bacteria? Malaria still exists and is carried by mosqitoes.

Laughing at "few degrees" is clearly a sign you don't know a lot about this.
Yes, we will adapt. We won't disapper. The biosphere will survive, the planet isn't going anywhere.
But the price of these changes is high.



Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
Here's the Skinny people..... We have NO data to back ANY of you up.... STFU about this shit already. The ones noting warming trends since industrial revolution means NOTHING because its such a short time frame the data is relatively useless right now.... We are in a cold period in the earth so of course its warming up... that's what happens when we come out of an ice age.

A warming trend connected to the ice age exists and is measured (oxygen isotopes in ice layers, etc.), but the warming we're experiencing right now is different. It is way more rapid and correlates nicely with anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

But you're missing the point. There are people that not only think it's not human fault - they think the warming doesn't exist at all!


Quote:

But none of this matters because not a single scientist on the face of this planet will be able to say for sure that man is the cause of all of this for another hundred to one thousand years or so...

You clearly don't understand how science works. The whole methodology is completely foreign to you.

Quote:

PS: I would like to help it on its way to getting locked by telling that asshole up top that hates Americans because blah blah blah..... SUCK IT BUDDY, I'm better then you because I don't judge what I don't know! I hate Americans for all the right reasons... I am one, your just a stupid ass troll that knows jack about what he speaks of and tries to hide his short comings with fancy words.

If you're referring to me, I'd like you to quote me saying I hate Americans. Your post has been reported.




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
bquirky
National Hazard
****




Posts: 315
Registered: 22-10-2008
Location: Perth Western Australia
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 06:08


I love reading a GW thread :)

and i love asking the falsify-ability question.

What experimental result would falsify the AGW hypothesis ? There has to be one for it not to be pseudoscience.

One of the things that sets of peoples BS detectors is that the answer to that question is being changed constantly. The models prediction didnt happen. the ice dosnt melt. the polar bares dont die. and it didnt stop snowing in europe but the barrier for falsify-ability keeps being moved.

View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1913
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 07:32


My BS detector works on this principle. You make a declaration. It turns out to not be true, especially if there is evidence of falsification of records, and/or if it aids in some or another agenda which gives gain to another.

The Ice is vanishing: true or false?

Polar bear population is lower, true or false?

Question: what precisely is the temperature increase in the last 50 years, the last 100 years. How is this determined precisely.

Does this increase thus far justify:

Destroying the worlds energy supply,

Destroying the food supply,

Destroying globally the quality of life,

Destroying business with regulations,

Driving up all costs including transportation of people and goods?

What are the total implications and what is the total cost in pain and suffering and how many people will be made to suffer now and within the next 50 years to accommodate this green agenda?

Is all the above as well as many more as yet known or unknown consequences worth it for this proven 'increase' in temperature both now and in the next 50 years. Also in the next 50 years how much of this self created loss and human suffering could have been avoided by a less hysterical approach giving science time to catch up and create better energy supplies over the next 50 years.

I live in an area where the economy greatly depended upon drilling in the Gulf. Due to the green agenda I have seen in the last 2 years over one third of the employers in my area go out of business and close creating severe poverty here. In less than 2 years! My business depended upon the local people having money as well as the trucking industry doing well. My income in the last year is half what is was three years ago and costs only increase as time goes by.

So tell me about your BS detector mine is working overtime.


[Edited on 11-2-2011 by IrC]




“Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity.” - NIKOLA TESLA
View user's profile View All Posts By User
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 08:16


Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
"Global warming is a proven fact"

Prove it while showing your work.
I don't feel a need to, since Richard Muller's group, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, has just done so. There are preliminary papers, all their data, and the analysis programs all on their site. http://berkeleyearth.org/

Just so there's no room for the lazy, there's a two page summary of their results. And given that there will be those who can't be bothered even to click, here's the beginning of their summary:
Quote:
Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1 °C since the mid-1950s.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ScienceSquirrel
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 1861
Registered: 18-6-2008
Location: Brittany
Member Is Offline

Mood: Dogs are pets but cats are little furry humans with four feet and self determination! :(

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 08:24


It is possible to argue about the time scale and extent of global warming and really it could be anything from quite mild and slow to severe and fairly rapid.
There are other factors like variations in the output of the sun, etc that may make the situation better or worse.
One fact is undeniable and that is that pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere will have a long term effect.
We are conducting an interesting long term experiment on the climate of the planet that we live on.
Let us hope that it turns out well!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ScienceSquirrel
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 1861
Registered: 18-6-2008
Location: Brittany
Member Is Offline

Mood: Dogs are pets but cats are little furry humans with four feet and self determination! :(

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 09:06


One sure result of another 100 years worth of pumping carbon dioxide at the rate that we are at the moment will be climate change on a scale that I doubt that we could live with.
Assume that the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, etc want to join the rich people's club of the US and Europe on a similar scale and it is pretty certain that there will not be enough resources to go round or if there is the effect will be magnified several fold.
Easter island beckons so put the foot down hard on the gas pedal to extinction so we get there quicker!


[Edited on 2-11-2011 by ScienceSquirrel]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ScienceSquirrel
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 1861
Registered: 18-6-2008
Location: Brittany
Member Is Offline

Mood: Dogs are pets but cats are little furry humans with four feet and self determination! :(

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 09:54


I doubt that we can double or even treble the amount of fossil fuel that we pump out of the earth on an annual basis but that is the one of the underlying assumptions of the carry on as at present plus add in the rest of the world view.
Liberating all this carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere will change the climate.
If the change is catastrophic then we will have to live with it, there will be no going back.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bahamuth
National Hazard
****




Posts: 380
Registered: 3-11-2009
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline

Mood: Infected

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 10:05


Red hot stuff this man made climate change, or not as some contest.

Tried in the longest to not respond to this thread, but couldn't take it anymore..

If or if not the climate change is man made, (and here I'm going out on a limb here) can we afford the long term effects of the way we have polluted our planet, even if we disregard climate change all altogether?

My point is, trends show that there is very likely that the human race is the cause of the climate change (though may or may not be the only cause), and predictions for the future is bleak considering those trends.
Additionally reviews of the litterature shows approx. 97-99% of the learned on the field agrees that climate change is man-made, and the rest is either undecided or against the consensus.
As science is self correcting and the best tool we have for drawing such conclutions I say we should follow through and impose measures (if not to late) to try to halt or reverse the effect in question, either it is cooling or warming of the planet.

I for one share the consensus of the majority of the learned in the field, though I am not yet a scientist by schooling (but feel that I am by heart), nor am I particularly interested in that field. Neither will I stand idle by while idiots (lets hope we do not determine this fact) or not , claims that it is not man made and the planet turns inhabitable in some centuries because the greedy and stupid is willing to kill most of the life on the planet for momentarily wealth and power.

Personally I'm not a gambler and like to play it safe if the stakes is high, also do I genuinly believe that a stop or massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could be not only achieved(within let's say 20 years), but also pave way for a tremendous boost in technology in all fields of science.

As a conclusion I will state that it is time the greedy/narrow-minded is de-throned from power in these matters as they have caused enough damage and let the data at hand speak(though scientists have been terribly wrong before, and it will happen again, it is the ONLY tool we have and must therefore be obeyed until evidence demands a revision of said data)


Sincerely Yours


The Tree Hugger




Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
argyrium
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 82
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Pacific
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 10:17


Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes  
Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
"Global warming is a proven fact"

Prove it while showing your work.
I don't feel a need to, since Richard Muller's group, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, has just done so. There are preliminary papers, all their data, and the analysis programs all on their site. http://berkeleyearth.org/

Just so there's no room for the lazy, there's a two page summary of their results. And given that there will be those who can't be bothered even to click, here's the beginning of their summary:
Quote:
Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1 °C since the mid-1950s.


I guess this just slipped past.


"Prof Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and Prof Curry, who chairs the Department Of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at America’s Georgia Institute of Technology, were part of the BEST project that carried
out analysis of more than 1.6 billion temperature recordings collected from more than 39,000 weather stations around the world.

Prof Muller appeared on Radio 4’s Today Programme last Friday where he described how BEST’s findings showed that since the Fifties global temperatures had risen by about 1 degree Celsius, a figure which is in line with estimates from Nasa and the Met Office.

When asked whether the rate had stopped over the last 10 years he said they had not. “We see no evidence of it having slowed down,” he replied and a graph issued by the BEST project suggests a continuing and steep increase.

But this last point is one which Prof Curry has furiously rebuttted. In a serious clash of scientific experts Prof Curry has accused Prof Muller of trying to “hide the decline in rates of global warming”.

She says that BEST’s research actually shows that there has been no increase in world temperatures for 13 years.

She has called Prof Muller’s comments “a huge mistake” and has said that she now plans to discuss her future on the project with him. “There is no scientific basis for saying that global warming hasn’t stopped,” she says.

“To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.” New research also seems to back up Prof Curry rather than Prof Muller."

http://tinyurl.com/4xmo8fm

View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 5083
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Online

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 10:29


Just to clear the air here I am definitely not a GW "denier" and in fact I would even say that major wars have had an effect on climate just as volcanic activity, industrial pollution, and dozens of other factors. But what I don't have is an alarmist view that a GW "judgement day" is coming unless environmentally sinful man "repents" of his polluting ways "right now" with some sweeping changes that have the urgency that alarmists are preaching as the "new religion" of
global hygiene. This seems to be a hitchhiker hysteria and spinoff of the 70's "nuclear winter" nuclear disarmament hysteria, but has even less scientific basis. GW "radical response" proponents act like they are "first responders"
like some sort of "environmental paramedics" having arrived on scene at an
environmental disaster where the earth is the dying patient to which they must render not just first aid .....but a roadside complete organ transplant from
a dead alien donor who suffered a fatal head injury on the celestial interstate after being run down by a human population carelessly piloting the earth while intoxicated and running down said poor alien victim who is the happy organ donor. He has an organ donor card of course.

Yes the entire scenario is just simply unreal, but I fear the point
of what I say here is lost on the "futurists" among us.

[Edited on 2-11-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ScienceSquirrel
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 1861
Registered: 18-6-2008
Location: Brittany
Member Is Offline

Mood: Dogs are pets but cats are little furry humans with four feet and self determination! :(

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 10:29


The Daily Express is hardly an independent voice. It has spent the last few years picking up and fostering anyone that will attack climate change.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
argyrium
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 82
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Pacific
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 10:52


my thoughts are along the lines of Rosco's above.

I do find it pretty funny/humorous that sometimes the messenger (The Daily Express in this case) is attacked because it quotes a message by a reputable peer ( Prof Curry) of Prof Muller.

Aloha - Off to work in the sunny (partially) Hawaiian Islands.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1913
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 11:35


"BTW, did someone actually decry the banning of DDT, or is my fevered imagination in overdrive?"

Don't think so. In the article I post below do not overlook the line: " A scientific review board of the EPA showed that DDT is not harmful to the environment and showed it to be a beneficial substance that "should not be banned.".

You have convinced me you support every possible green agenda item in existence. Is this because you have come to believe what you were told by instructors and others of like mind over years, or is it from direct research on your part. Decades ago the Sierra Club was going for the idea of saving the planet through population reduction. While hard to prove or pin down it becomes part of the public mindset when you read comments to this effect by many different members of such groups and in hundreds of articles over nearly a half century. Not just them but also many green thinking groups and organizations. After an unknown but very large number of reinforcing sources for longer than likely most members here have lived it is ingrained common knowledge. From this vast experience of hearing and reading things to this effect, I and many others just know for a fact the green movement wants nothing more than to get rid of all humans to save the planet. Items like famous scientists proclaiming the desire to reincarnate as a deadly to humans only virus to save the planet only serve to reinforce the common belief that in the end this is the true green agenda goal. Of course as always they would save the 'deserving special people', and of course they and those they like are the only inhabitants of said list. The lady who wrote the book on eliminating DDT was in those years also well known in the public minds eye as one of those 'special worthy to be saved elect few'. I have no doubt getting on the Arc list included all those who gave large money support to organizations such as the Sierra Club. Following is an article by one who did not hold these views.

"Wrongful ban on DDT costs lives
The fact that DDT saves lives might account for part of the hostility toward it.
by Walter Williams

Ever since Rachel Carson's 1962 book "Silent Spring," environmental extremists have sought to ban all DDT use. Using phony studies from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental activist-controlled Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT in 1972. The extremists convinced the nation that DDT was not only unsafe for humans but unsafe to birds and other creatures as well. Their arguments have since been scientifically refuted.

While DDT saved crops, forests and livestock, it also saved humans. In 1970, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved more than 500 million lives during the time it was widely used. A scientific review board of the EPA showed that DDT is not harmful to the environment and showed it to be a beneficial substance that "should not be banned." According to the World Health Organization, worldwide malaria infects 300 million people. About 1 million die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa, and most are children.

In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today. More than 100,000 people died during malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s, following the suspension of DDT house spraying. After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu-Natal province skyrocketed from 8,000 to 42,000. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Now that DDT is being used again, the number of deaths from malaria in the region has dropped from 340 in 2000 to none at the last reporting in February 2003.

In South America, where malaria is endemic, malaria rates soared in countries that halted house spraying with DDT after 1993 -- Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela. In Ecuador, DDT spraying was increased after 1993, and the malaria rate of infection was reduced by 60 percent. In a 2001 study published by the London-based Institute for Economic Affairs, "Malaria and the DDT Story," Richard Tren and Roger Bate say that "Malaria is a human tragedy," adding, "Over 1 million people, mostly children, die from the disease each year, and over 300 million fall sick."

The fact that DDT saves lives might account for part of the hostility toward it. Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990:

"My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."

Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,

"People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any."

Spraying a house with small amounts of DDT costs $1.44 per year; alternatives are five to 10 times more, making them unaffordable in poor countries. Rich countries that used DDT themselves threaten reprisals against poor countries if they use DDT.

One really wonders about religious groups, the Congressional Black Caucus, government and non-government organizations, politicians and others who profess concern over the plight of poor people around the world while at the same time accepting or promoting DDT bans and the needless suffering and death that follow. Mosquito-borne malaria not only has devastating health effects but stifles economic growth as well.
_______________

About the Author: Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles. He teaches economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia."

What I perceive in your question about DDT is that you are merely repeating a mantra you have been trained to believe.

I like Rosco and others are smart enough to know people are increasing the pollution and temperature by some finite amount but with common sense and wisdom know we can repair any harm we do over time without the need to destroy civilization and the quality of life to do it.

It never ceases to amaze me how the left which supports this agenda claim to care the most for the poor and needy while pursuing regulations and changes which hurt the poorest and weakest both more and sooner than others.


[Edited on 11-2-2011 by IrC]




“Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity.” - NIKOLA TESLA
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 11 years of madness
*********




Posts: 2905
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 13:01


As for why anyone should prefer a world with the temperatures of 1900 as opposed to a few degrees higher and double or triple the CO2:

It wouldn't matter much at all if we were space colonists now discovering an Earth-2 similar to our own, but with no people and slightly warmer climate. We'd just put down roots where it was most convenient, even if those places didn't correspond to the historical human developments of our own Earth. The problem is that we do have historical baggage on our own Earth, and that's the one warming. We already enjoy eating seafood that will have a harder time surviving when ocean surface pH is lower. We've already got a lot of cities in areas that will eventually flood in a slightly warmer Earth. We already have large investments in areas that will suffer more from extreme weather on a slightly warmer Earth. We already farm land that will be less productive in a slightly warmer Earth. The new fertile land that will develop far north in a warmer Earth may make for some very prosperous Canadian farmers eventually, but it will take centuries for a good layer of top soil to form in those rocky areas after the climate warms. There is no transcendent moral purpose to fighting GHG emissions, merely the reckoning that it will force huge and destructive changes on human societies if left unchecked, considerably more disruptive than merely curbing GHG emissions.

As to the bad company attracted by global warming:

It is true that there are some unpleasant characters attached to the political/social movement around global warming. My number one irritant in this vein is nuclear-prohibitionist greens who are shooting themselves in the foot; I will be astonished if Germany's nuclear reactors are eliminated without increasing fossil fuel consumption. My number two irritant is probably politicians who want to continue payoffs as usual with new lip service (e.g. corn-to-ethanol subsidies). My number three irritant, which would be higher except they have minimal electoral support, is hair-shirt greens who consider industrial prosperity a sin and want to eliminate it instead of re-optimize industry in light of climate science. But none of these irritant groups have any bearing on the validity of climate science observations.

As to the likelihood of actually moderating atmospheric CO2 increases in the next few decades:

It seems to be slim to none. China has been the #1 CO2 emitter since 2006, continues to grow rapidly, and its economy is considerably more reliant on coal than even the USA's. The Chinese line seems to be that their highly populous nation has no obligation to emissions cuts because richer, less populous nations emit more per capita. France has the lowest emissions per capita in Europe, largely due to heavy use of nuclear power, but few greens are interested in following their example. Efficiency improvements are a more cost-effective way to curb emissions than any new energy production, but the incentives are poorly aligned: landlords pay for building improvements, but tenants reap the utility savings from improved efficiency. Solar arrays are photogenic, thicker insulation isn't.

I expect that we're going to see atmospheric CO2 soar well beyond 600 ppm before the trend can be reversed. And if it is reversed, I expect it's going to take serious geoengineering rather than mere emission-cuts; by then we'll be too far into feedback loops (e.g. thawing permafrost, microbial activity releasing carbon from warmer soils) to just ease up on the accelerator. The ultimate carbon sink is the geological carbon cycle, weathered silicates binding CO2 as magnesium and calcium carbonates. The reaction is thermodynamically favorable for many common minerals but the kinetics are terrible. It can be artificially accelerated by crushing minerals for higher surface area and/or applying electrochemistry, but in that case it requires a large extra energy input, which must be cheap and low-carbon to do net good. There is a bit of a sliding scale of tradeoffs between fast kinetics and energy input.

In any case we are talking truly vast scales: I once calculated that reducing atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm (to roughly "pre-industrial" level) via basalt weathering would consume 2100 cubic kilometers of rock, about half the total volume of the volcanic shield of the island of Kauai. Gentlemen, start your von Neumann machines.

It may be possible to get substantial medium-term relief at lower energy cost, and some permanent relief, by injecting CO2 into the deep ocean, or (alternatively) artificially increasing mixing of deep ocean water with the surface. The oceans could comfortably hold most human CO2 without harming sealife if the composition were uniform, but life-rich surface water is getting the brunt and takes a long time to equilibrate with more abundant deep water. I don't doubt that there will be a few interesting surprises along the way from any project or combination of projects on the necessary scale. I'm a little sad that I probably won't live long enough to see this truly vast Mad Science.




PGP Key and corresponding e-mail
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Dr.Bob
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 734
Registered: 26-1-2011
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 13:05


The global warming issue will eventually solve itself, since we appear to be nearing the peak oil limit, as well as getting closer to the end of easily mined, cheap, coal.

Looking at the oil production figures for the world, all but four countries have passed peak oil production (Saudia Arabia and 3 of its neighbors), so combined with China and India's new thirst for oil, I expect that oil prices will continue to climb ever higher, albeit with some variations. Coal prices will follow as well, although we do have more of it, but the estimates for the US's coal reserve at 100 years were based on usage numbers from the 80's which we have exceeded. So those two fuels will get more scarce and higher priced with time, which will help lower their usage. Natural gas has become more plentiful due to frack'ing, so it may be able to take up the slack, and it has fewer emissions (ignoring the frack'ing debate), so that may actually help lower emissions of all pollutants.

Long term, however, there is a huge economic reward for both conserving fuel usage, no matter what the reason, so I don't see why anyone would want to pay higher electric or gas bills, no matter what their politics. So the simple solution is to let higher fuel prices continue to encourage people to save fuel via conservation. As solar, wind and other alternative energy sources get better and cheaper, they will find more uses, and nuclear will have to continue to be used, despite people's objections. There is no way practical to replace all of the electricity produced by nuclear power at this time. So if people would just use some simple objective logic and reasoning, they will see that the most vocal people on both sides of the GW debate are not realistic. People won't stop burning fuel if it lowers their standard of loving, and fuel prices will continue to rise, so the people who think no change in energy usage is needed are ignoring the cost of energy.

Bob
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ScienceSquirrel
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 1861
Registered: 18-6-2008
Location: Brittany
Member Is Offline

Mood: Dogs are pets but cats are little furry humans with four feet and self determination! :(

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 13:05


I remember the days when DDT plus Aldrin, Dieldrin, BHC and other cheap as chips insecticides were freely applied. At one time DDT was subsidised for Colorado beetle control so it was almost free for most farmers and as it kills aphids, caterpillars, etc, it found wide application.
This was before the days of residue analysis so it was applied on a generous basis.
They killed the bad bugs but drove dozens of species of entirely blameless flies and beetles to the edge or beyond of extinction. It also affected the birds, small mammals, etc as it slaughtered their food supply.
The wildlife has recovered to a certain extent but there are huge gaps.; solitary bees, some moths and dozens of other once common species are virtually extinct.
Swallows, swifts,and sparrows are not there in such numbers but we have more crows and magpies.
I have been sea fishing since my teens so that is is a good thirty years now. I had a cheap rod and reel and a few bits of kit costing a few pounds and I could catch a few good fish in a two hour session.
Now I use four rods and it is a challenge to catch something worth eating in a five hour session.
Last time I was down at my local supermarket there were mackerel the size of sardines on sale. I doubt that they had ever thought of sex, let alone got on with the business of breeding.



[Edited on 2-11-2011 by ScienceSquirrel]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1913
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 13:34


"They killed the bad bugs but drove dozens of species of other entirely blameless flies and beetles to the edge or beyond of extinction."

"It also affected the bird life, small mammals, etc as it slaughtered their food supply"

There is truth in this because DDT was so good at killing bugs, far better than the more human harmful pesticides used since. The fact that food for any bug eater was getting scarce is true but could have been avoided. When I was a child in school it was common when out on the playground in the late 50's to see aerial spraying right over our heads. Knowing what I do today about chemistry and always striving to minimize exposure I for one would have been happy with a warning so I could go play indoors. The government can actually be blamed for this by promoting too great of a free and liberal use among farmers, as well as spraying they themselves carried out. Not just here but governments worldwide. A more careful controlled use of DDT could have easily avoided this problem. I have watched people eat spoonfuls of DDT to prove just how human safe it was. No they did not die horribly and prematurely after years of suffering. Not much if any effects were observed in these people over time. Of course the studies died out from early banning of the chemical so I cannot say if any of their offspring came out as gorillas but I doubt it. There is a lot of real scientific studies out there if one searches.

"It's more the inevitable consequence of being afflicted by occasional bouts of consciousness ."

Just saw this, that was funny.

"My number one irritant in this vein is nuclear-prohibitionist greens who are shooting themselves in the foot"

No kidding mine also. Just do not build them on small shaky islands, nor near coasts or other proven disaster prone areas. Up the safety the cost is worth it. We can deal with picking 10,000 year storage depots for the waste if we really tried. Nothing within reach today which is able to power the world and reduce pollution to safe levels exists thus far other than nuclear power. It is suicidal to allow politics to shove the world into darkness and war caused by poverty and starvation guaranteed to result if the world stays on this course of wrecking the energy infrastructure. Nuclear power could save us by eliminating coal, powering a better lifestyle, and as we are very close to real advances in electric transportation even removing all the fuel burned in our vehicles. I can see other than air travel we already have the technology to achieve this goal.

"Gentlemen, start your von Neumann machines."

I would but it wont run and nothing I do seems to work. It is really pissing me off. Not my fault I suck at programming I was so good playing Duke Nukem in the early 90's. Still have the Plutonium edition.



[Edited on 11-2-2011 by IrC]




“Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity.” - NIKOLA TESLA
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ScienceSquirrel
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 1861
Registered: 18-6-2008
Location: Brittany
Member Is Offline

Mood: Dogs are pets but cats are little furry humans with four feet and self determination! :(

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 14:13


The amount of oil, gas, coal, etc that can be extracted from the earth is limited but we have an increasing population with an expectation of an increasing standard of living requiring more energy.
Prices will go up to the point where other fuel sources are viable and long term we have to do more with less energy.
If China and India had the same number of cars as Europe and the US we would need a lot more oil per year, If they had cars at the same rate per head as Europe and the US then we would need unbelievable amounts of oil.
Calculate world demand for fuel and food on the basis of every Chinese consuming oil and food at the same rate as every American and you will realise that it will not work.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1913
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 17:46


Be real Rosco. No they did not make the movie they were too afraid to expose their plans and we know they control the movie industry...

"Nuclear power sounds nice, but personally, I'd rather not put my faith in someone whose primary motivation is profit."

I can see this but there is no reason all nuclear plants cannot be owned, operated, and maintained by the governments of the world removing capital interests forever.

"If the plants and waste storage could somehow be proven to be utterly 100% failsafe (very doubtful), it might be a different story."

Dead is dead. If we pollute the planet until we die we are still dead. You are afraid to risk the Kevorkian pill yet comfortable with arsenic slowly over a long time. See above 'dead is dead'. Nuclear power is safer than any other form we have over the long haul assuming we are talking about a source which can realistically power the planet. Nuclear power is not well researched we use designs 40 or more years old to this day. Merely for cost/profit margins since the industry was private from the start, a very poor excuse for governing on the part of those who set these things in motion way back when.

"The consequences of failure are just too great with nuclear things (both power and weaponry) for me to see them as worthwhile."

Wrong again. Every method of massive power production is rife with danger whether or not you see it because it took 100 or more years to exterminate us all. Nuclear power averaged over the GW-hours produced is the safest power on earth. You take an ice pick and with PCP'ed out great force you can punch a hole in the surface of a 767. You travel 550 miles an hour or more in this thin assed body over 5 miles off the ground and think you are safe. Averaged over the miles traveled guess what, you are compared to driving on the ground at 60. The fear of Nuclear power is a sociologically programmed mindset without basis in scientific fact. Why you ask? Because over the total power production in a half century I can only think of three bad examples, every one of which could have been avoided. Russians doing tests with poorly trained staff on a crappy design was the only real major killer thus far. Nobody died in Three Mile and almost no radiation escaped. Again human error on the part of a for profit system where we know corners are cut due to costs VS profit. Could have been avoided but again no one hurt and no deaths. How many deaths have occurred in the worlds refinery's (or coal mines) as comparison?

Japan? See my previous post about do not put them on the coast especially in an area grade school science class could have taught was going to get dunked by Tsunami sooner or later. If you can snorkel a pickup why cannot backup power be so designed as to keep cooling going under 50 feet of water?

"Hissingnoise was right when he said the coming collapse may be the best thing to happen to the earth's environment."

No he isn't he is proving my opinion about being brainwashed by the left. The left never ever thinks things through to logical conclusions. The result of the poverty, misery, and starvation will and indeed must result in global war where nuclear winter is the inevitable conclusion. Just exactly how happy will the green earth be then? Or do you really think 7 billion people with inbred tendencies for survival are going to line up and die of starvation while holding hands and singing comb bai ah? As incredible as it sounds this is exactly the way the hippie-groupie occupying mindless zombies think and yes even believe. I lived the 60's don't tell me this is not what they believe I have seen it uncountable times. They would not know common sense if it was a 7 foot joint biting them in the ass. No Hissingnoise I am not including you in this group but I do believe you have been brainwashed by leftist professors.


[Edited on 11-3-2011 by IrC]




“Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity.” - NIKOLA TESLA
View user's profile View All Posts By User
497
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

[*] posted on 2-11-2011 at 18:03


Well the miscomunication lies in the causes of the collapse. It will have little to do with the environment. Most realistically the phoenix that rises will be a despot... But I can hope right?

Apperently environmental conciousness and ethics are laughable to some. It's true that their current incarnations are far from what the words would lead you to believe. That doesn't mean you can dismiss an entire concept as impossible/impractical because some have abused it. It makes "America" look even worse than it already does.

Edit:
Three more posts appeared while I was writing this one.. Damn.

Quote:
I can see this but there is no reason all nuclear plants cannot be owned, operated, and maintained by the governments of the world removing capital interests forever.


So now you trust the government? How do you propose that many governments all over the world can ensure the safety of their reactors? Just because we've only had a handful of meltdowns in 40 years with it providing 6.3% of the worlds energy does not mean we can supply anywhere near the 85% share that fossil fuels do without more failures. Even if the US can manage to prevent them, someone else screw it up. Governments cut corners. That will never change.

Quote:
Dead is dead. If we pollute the planet until we die we are still dead.


I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Radiation is not that comparable to other pollution. Other releases of pollution are gradual and more predictable. Just counting the number of deaths is not a realistic way to analyze the danger of something. Is there still a vast no man's land around a refinery that blows up?
It is true that under certain circumstances (away from coast, etc) it may be done more safely, but in the real world those guidelines won't be followed. There is no way to enforce that over the entire world. It's not really a very relevant issue anyway, because public opinion on nuclear power is unlikely to improve any time in our lifetimes. We have proven we are able to life perfectly fine without nuclear power, why bother with it?

I wasn't that serious about the global economy collapsing improving the environment (and I doubt hissingnoise was either.) The obvious results such as nuclear war, complete loss of environmental regulations, etc would most definitely not be an improvement. There

You guys are scientists, you have to be willing to accept that in the near future there will the technology to produce sources of energy that do not cause much pollution, right? Pollution from energy sources is not going to be our long term problem.


[Edited on 3-11-2011 by 497]




A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-414-hyperinflation-spe...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2    4  ..  9

  Go To Top