View Full Version : Houston we have problem
49 ex-Nasa scientists including two former directors distantiated themselves from the greatest scientific hoax since the last greatest hoax that is acid rain. Of course we are talking about having to be absolutely terrified of CO2. Oh yay lucky us I mean we survived having our faces washed of by acid rain, the hole in the ozon layer isn't burning us to death, and nature in general doesn't care about manmade laws. The ancient Egyptians had 10 plagues, what is finally going to KILL us ALL?
Down with religion, especially manmade global warming. You idiots, yes you. No apocalyps you apocalyptoloco's.
gaelic cowboy
04-12-2012, 12:23
Usually someone posts a reply like "link or it didnt happen"
I find it amusing though that you feel that this even if true would then disprove an entirely different theory though.
Your trying too hard Frag you need to let go or you will give yourself an ulcer.
Usually someone posts a reply like "link or it didnt happen"
I find it amusing though that you feel that this even if true would then disprove an entirely different theory though.
Your trying too hard Frag you need to let go or you will give yourself an ulcer.
I was kinda thinking you would be happy since you are not going to be washed away by nature's wrath, even if it means you get to live longer in Scotland, being alive is always better than nothing. Why ask for a link, did I ever lie to you?
"Lie" is such a harsh, unforgiving word. Couldn't we instead say, "Operated from an alternate factual system wherein causality is inoperative"?
Down with religion, especially manmade global warming. You idiots, yes you. No apocalyps you apocalyptoloco's.
I don't know about that. As people are starting to develop farming ... in Greenland ... I find myself unable to dismiss the idea of global warming. Forget the yearly temperature measurements, forget the current fluctuations and just take a look at Greenland.
In the 80s it was an icebox through and through. Nowadays you have this, at least in the south of it http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html
I don't know about that. As people are starting to develop farming ... in Greenland ... I find myself unable to dismiss the idea of global warming. Forget the yearly temperature measurements, forget the current fluctuations and just take a look at Greenland.
In the 80s it was an icebox through and through. Nowadays you have this, at least in the south of it http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html
That's the thing...
Farming on Greenland happened during the Viking age, but was discontinued due to global freezing in the late 13th century. Normalization would be a better term for Global warming.
That's the thing...
Farming on Greenland happened during the Viking age, but was discontinued due to global freezing in the late 13th century. Normalization would be a better term for Global warming.
Call it what you will, Normalization, Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever. Whether it's manmade or not is also irrelevant, because either way it must be stopped. Why? Because the modern civilization has been built around the 19th-20th century climate with its rainfall patterns, ocean levels, hurricane seasons, etc. A significant change in climate will be a catastrophe for about half of the world's population: they won't care if the climate change is natural or man made, as they'll be facing the prospect of droughts in some places and going below sea level in others. Manmade or not, this process must be stopped.
gaelic cowboy
04-12-2012, 14:10
I was kinda thinking you would be happy since you are not going to be washed away by nature's wrath, even if it means you get to live longer in Scotland, being alive is always better than nothing. Why ask for a link, did I ever lie to you?
Well Ireland would survive even a total melting which I have heard is about a 65m rise, but the country would be then 50% smaller due to the shannon alone.
Call it what you will, Normalization, Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever. Whether it's manmade or not is also irrelevant, because either way it must be stopped. Why? Because the modern civilization has been built around the 19th-20th century climate with its rainfall patterns, ocean levels, hurricane seasons, etc. A significant change in climate will be a catastrophe for about half of the world's population: they won't care if the climate change is natural or man made, as they'll be facing the prospect of droughts in some places and going below sea level in others. Manmade or not, this process must be stopped.
lmao, desperate man...just desperate. Funny how humans have survived much more drastic climate change over the years. Wouldn't you think that a smarter thing to do than trying to force an entire planet to do what we want, would be to restructure our civilization around it? Which is easier, restructuring our society, cities, and way of life, or restructuring an entire planet? In the scheme of things, humans are pretty insignificant. It is quite arrogant to think that we have the power to craft an entire planet to our liking.
lmao, desperate man...just desperate. Funny how humans have survived much more drastic climate change over the years. Wouldn't you think that a smarter thing to do than trying to force an entire planet to do what we want, would be to restructure our civilization around it? Which is easier, restructuring our society, cities, and way of life, or restructuring an entire planet? In the scheme of things, humans are pretty insignificant. It is quite arrogant to think that we have the power to craft an entire planet to our liking.
To adapt is good, to control is better. Human civilization has been at the mercy of the elements for its entire lengths of existence. It is time to run the tables imho. Technological progress is here for a reason: if we are to survive and thrive, we have to be able to exert control over our environment. More control == safer environment. Furthermore, as the population grows, any sort of natural disaster will result in very high casualties. More control will allow us to prevent or at least reduce the casualty rate.
Rhyfelwyr
04-12-2012, 14:33
It is quite arrogant to think that we have the power to craft an entire planet to our liking.
Not the entire planet, just its surface. We already did it in Africa without any modern technology, humans made the savannahs.
To adapt is good, to control is better. Human civilization has been at the mercy of the elements for its entire lengths of existence. It is time to run the tables imho. Technological progress is here for a reason: if we are to survive and thrive, we have to be able to exert control over our environment. More control == safer environment. Furthermore, as the population grows, any sort of natural disaster will result in very high casualties. More control will allow us to prevent or at least reduce the casualty rate.
Controlling the world around us is better up to a point. That is, point where you would spend more resources controlling than you would adapting. For instance, it is a good investment to build up higher banks around a river that keeps flooding, rather than rebuilding each year. It is not, however, smart to try to control an entire planet's weather patterns (which we do not even understand) over the course of thousands of years, to try to stop gradual changes that happen over the course of every couple hundred years. Forgetting feasibility, it is just not cost-effective (and therefore, hardly the better option).
Even if we wanted to though, who is to say that we could? The earth is a force a lot bigger than us. It is great that we can play around with clouds and get it to rain when we want, but the amount of control we have over this earth is extremely limited, with even the best of our technology. (and probably always will be)
It is not feasible, and even if it were, it would not be cost-effective. Why then should we do it when we have a feasible, and comparatively cheaper way of dealing with it? (slowly adapting our way of life over time)
Controlling the world around us is better up to a point. That is, point where you would spend more resources controlling than you would adapting. For instance, it is a good investment to build up higher banks around a river that keeps flooding, rather than rebuilding each year. It is not, however, smart to try to control an entire planet's weather patterns (which we do not even understand) over the course of thousands of years, to try to stop gradual changes that happen over the course of every couple hundred years. Forgetting feasibility, it is just not cost-effective (and therefore, hardly the better option).
Even if we wanted to though, who is to say that we could? The earth is a force a lot bigger than us. It is great that we can play around with clouds and get it to rain when we want, but the amount of control we have over this earth is extremely limited, with even the best of our technology. (and probably always will be)
It is not feasible, and even if it were, it would not be cost-effective. Why then should we do it when we have a feasible, and comparatively cheaper way of dealing with it? (slowly adapting our way of life over time)
The problem with the cheaper approach is that it puts billions of lives in jeopardy. That's provided that the tension amongst nations caused by the climate change does not spark a global conflict for resources and unflooded living space. That would be putting the civilization itself in danger.
Not the entire planet, just its surface. We already did it in Africa without any modern technology, humans made the savannahs.
Managing the flora and fauna is one thing, changing long-term weather trends is something else entirely.
The problem with the cheaper approach is that it puts billions of lives in jeopardy. That's provided that the tension amongst nations caused by the climate change does not spark a global conflict for resources and unflooded living space. That would be putting the civilization itself in danger.
Oh, come on, isn't that a bit dramatic? First of all, the long term trends we are talking about happen gradually, giving people plenty of time to adapt their way of life to the area they are living in, or to move to another area. Most of the landmass on earth is unsettled. I think the apocalysm is hardly called for.
Oh, come on, isn't that a bit dramatic? First of all, the long term trends we are talking about happen gradually, giving people plenty of time to adapt their way of life to the area they are living in, or to move to another area.
Yes, but we're talking about a couple of billion people migrating. It'll be Hell.
Most of the landmass on earth is unsettled. I think the apocalysm is hardly called for.
Most of the unsettled lands are less than suitable for human life. The suitable lands are rather limited.
We can and should be control the environment or at the very least its effects on us. Look at the Dutch, they've been giving rising sea levels a finger for centuries now. They have a country where the North Sea should be. That is control over the environment. We can do that now on a grander scale if we take the problem seriously enough.
Yes, but we're talking about a couple of billion people migrating. It'll be Hell.
Most of the unsettled lands are less than suitable for human life. The suitable lands are rather limited.
We can and should be control the environment or at the very least its effects on us. Look at the Dutch, they've been giving rising sea levels a finger for centuries now. They have a country where the North Sea should be. That is control over the environment. We can do that now on a grander scale if we take the problem seriously enough.
Except that with warmer weather in many cold, formerly unsuitable climates, a lot of that land will become suitable for human life. Also, we are not talking about a mass migration of billions of people. IF (and that is a big if), scientists have predicted trends correctly, it is going to happen over a long period of time, and not over night. Which means you will have a bunch of really small migrations over a long period of time. Hardly as hectic as billions of people just pulling stakes and moving.
Except that with warmer weather in many cold, formerly unsuitable climates, a lot of that land will become suitable for human life.
Except that it's not as easy as packing up and leaving. We have countries, societies. So, maybe Arabian Peninsula becomes a lush rain forest. Does that mean that people there will let the refugees in? Unlikely. They are far more likely to tell 'em to take a hike. Same deal with, say, Russia. Suppose Siberia becomes more hospitable, you think Russians will let outsiders settle there? Why should they? Why would they? Don't forget that just about every coastal country will have its own refugees to deal with. Will India take in 150 million Bangladeshis who are already getting flooded on a yearly basis?
Global warming will be a disaster.
Wow. 49 former NASA employees. And they have about a 1000 years combined professional experience!
23 administrators
8 astronauts
7 engineers
5 technicians
4 scientists
Climate science experience: 0, nil, nada, zilch
But why am I being so picky when one of them has 16 years experience of being "Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention"
Except that it's not as easy as packing up and leaving. We have countries, societies. So, maybe Arabian Peninsula becomes a lush rain forest. Does that mean that people there will let the refugees in? Unlikely. They are far more likely to tell 'em to take a hike. Same deal with, say, Russia. Suppose Siberia becomes more hospitable, you think Russians will let outsiders settle there? Why should they? Why would they? Don't forget that just about every coastal country will have its own refugees to deal with. Will India take in 150 million Bangladeshis who are already getting flooded on a yearly basis?
Global warming will be a disaster.
Even if some countries don't, others will. Why would Russia let refugees in? Hmmmm, maybe so they can have people to work the recently opened farm land, or people to work in their factories. If you haven't noticed, Russia's population is in steep decline, and they are in pretty desperate need of immigrants.
Even if some countries don't, others will. Why would Russia let refugees in? Hmmmm, maybe so they can have people to work the recently opened farm land, or people to work in their factories.
Russia has the same anti-immigrant sentiment as the rest of Europe. They're not gonna just open up and let everyone in: those fields may lay fallow, they aren't hurting anyone.
If you haven't noticed, Russia's population is in steep decline, and they are in pretty desperate need of immigrants.
They already have all the immigrants they'll ever need or want.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-12-2012, 16:26
Climate science experience: 0, nil, nada, zilch
But why am I being so picky when one of them has 16 years experience of being "Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention"
How much do you have?
gaelic cowboy
04-12-2012, 16:36
It is quite arrogant to think that we have the power to craft an entire planet to our liking.
The fine agricultural land in America begs to differ Vuk if left alone it will revert the wild in a few years.
That by the way is an awful lot of land which would affect local climate.
How much do you have?
How much do you need to recognize that agriculture in the former icebox known as Greenland is a sign that things are changing?
How much do you have?
With the Pogo stuff? Was that not a computer game from the late 70's? In that case a lot.
Apart from going through a few of the claims made by deniers, I have absolutely no experience. Which is why I prefer to listen to scientists and even prefer having a whole bunch of scientist agree on stuff. Yes, I know I'm being silly and I should just listen to conspiracies, gut instinct, minority opinions, and even opinions from people who have not demonstrated why I should listen to them in the first place.
This is just yet another case of Argumentum ad verecundiam (oh boy he goes for fancy Latin to sound important!) : they are NASA dudes (some even landed on the Moon!) and therefore must know a lot of stuff and we should listen to them.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-12-2012, 17:26
Mostly their letter was objecting to NASA getting involved in the debate.
I wouldn't mock them unless I knew a ton about climate science myself.
This is just yet another case of Argumentum ad verecundiam (oh boy he goes for fancy Latin to sound important!) : they are NASA dudes (some even landed on the Moon!) and therefore must know a lot of stuff and we should listen to them.
Hey, it works in commercials!
Fred Thompson likes reverse mortgages... m-must g-get one! N-now!
Tellos Athenaios
04-12-2012, 18:01
Mostly their letter was objecting to NASA getting involved in the debate.
I wouldn't mock them unless I knew a ton about climate science myself.
If that is their main point of contention then they just don't get it. Research on Earth is proxy for research on planet X: know how climates work on Earth and you're able to spot & explain similar patterns on planets such as Jupiter, Saturn. Clearly within NASA's scope.
Not to mention that they're one of the very few science outfits with both the brains and the satellites to spare for the task.
The fine agricultural land in America begs to differ Vuk if left alone it will revert the wild in a few years.
That by the way is an awful lot of land which would affect local climate.
That is a complete and total myth. Indians had been working the land all across the current United States for hundreds of years before Europeans arrived. Following a sharp population decline after the first Europeans arrived (due mostly to diseases that were accidently transfered), much of North America was unmanaged for a short amount of time, but what came in that time period was a direct result of earlier Indian settlement and agriculture. There is no such thing as a 'natural' or 'wild' state for land to revert back to, because since before we have history it has been shaped by humans, and no matter what happens later, it will be the result of human influence.
I am not denying that humans have the power to affect the land they are living in, by reshaping the land, irrigating, transporting soil, digging canals, etc, etc, but that is a far step from controlling global weather patterns.
I am not denying that humans have the power to affect the land they are living in, by reshaping the land, irrigating, transporting soil, digging canals, etc, etc, but that is a far step from controlling global weather patterns.
We can try. For instance, large volcanic eruptions that that spew a whole bunch of ash into the atmosphere are known to significantly reduce global temperatures for a year or two. We can at least attempt to do something similar it the need arises. Heck, remember when Saddam lit up all those oil wells in Kuwait back in 1991? Kuwait didn't have much of a summer that year. Now that's a local example of course, but the point is that it can be done.
We can try. For instance, large volcanic eruptions that that spew a whole bunch of ash into the atmosphere are known to significantly reduce global temperatures for a year or two. We can at least attempt to do something similar it the need arises. Heck, remember when Saddam lit up all those oil wells in Kuwait back in 1991? Kuwait didn't have much of a summer that year. Now that's a local example of course, but the point is that it can be done.
I know we can effect global weather patterns somewhat, but I still am not convinced that we can significantly slow or halt global weather patterns.
I know we can effect global weather patterns somewhat, but I still am not convinced that we can significantly slow or halt global weather patterns.
We won't for sure if we never try.
Mostly their letter was objecting to NASA getting involved in the debate.
We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled
So they clearly have an opinion about the current scientific results and claim that there is data to support that opinion. And tens of thousands of scientists who apparently have a similar opinion. Big and bold words from people who has no professional experience in such matters. They do write that the NASA administrator can just ask for the info so we will see.
We won't for sure if we never try.
And will it ever be cost effective even if it is possible? Probably not.
And will it ever be cost effective even if it is possible? Probably not.
Survival is always cost effective.
We can try. For instance, large volcanic eruptions that that spew a whole bunch of ash into the atmosphere are known to significantly reduce global temperatures for a year or two. We can at least attempt to do something similar it the need arises. Heck, remember when Saddam lit up all those oil wells in Kuwait back in 1991? Kuwait didn't have much of a summer that year. Now that's a local example of course, but the point is that it can be done.
Wait a minute, burning fossil fuels causes global cooling? I thought it caused global warming. Now I am confused.
Survival is always cost effective.
That would be true if it were the only way to survive, but it is not. Slow adaptation is a much less costly way to survive, and won't burden people nearly as much.
Wait a minute, burning fossil fuels causes global cooling? I thought it caused global warming. Now I am confused.
It wasn't a clean burn. The wells generated tons of ash and soot.
That would be true if it were the only way to survive, but it is not. Slow adaptation is a much less costly way to survive, and won't burden people nearly as much.
Less costly in terms of resources perhaps, but surely more costly in terms of lives.
Less costly in terms of resources perhaps, but surely more costly in terms of lives.
There, I am afraid we disagree.
There, I am afraid we disagree.
Then I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.
Then I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.
Agreed. ~;)
Papewaio
04-12-2012, 23:40
Vuk I have to agree with you.
Humans have been shaping the local environments for thousands of years. When the Australian Aborogines came to Australia he local mega fauna soon died out, the burning of the rain forests changed the local environment to being dominated by gum trees which flourish in burn offs.
New Zealand has on local scales filled in entire valleys with slurry, changed where rivers flow (there was more steam boats dredging NZ rivers for gold then there was steamboats on the Mississippi), in the search for gold they created locally the worlds largest man made desert. Later they modified land into the worlds largest non native pine plantations.
As a undergrad I stood beside the mile deep Kalgoolie mine. I've stood on a mine site in equatorial Borneo and seen how a river was redirected from one side of a mountain to the other so that the gold could be mined underneath the old river bed. I spent my 26th birthday in Mount Newman which they are mining for iron ore will become a local lake when the mining is finished.
Australian land is becoming useless as salt rises in the soil due to local clear felling of all the forest. Localised replanting of scrub and larger trees is required to reverse the salty water table rising.
One farmer proved that by planting trees on his dusty land that it is now a lush green farm with a lake and wetlands. So local change is possible and can be planned.
I agree that we have and continue to impact our local environment.
I also agree that we can affect our weather patterns and the content of our atmosphere. Most of it so far has been accidental but even from the time of the Romans you can look at ice samples in Mont Blanc and verify which minesite the lead was mined in by the isotope ratio. For more recent leaded gas we can trace the lead to the country of origin based on the isotopic ratio in the lead just like a fingerprint. We can see in ice core samples from around the world lead from gas and we can tell if it is from Europe, US or other refineries. We can see the amount of lead peak and diminish as the supply of leaded fuel diminishes.
Likewise for ozone in the atmosphere we can see the amount increase as the various CFC bans took place, there is a much longer tail on this due to the time it takes and other chemicals that are also depleting Ozone.
What I believe is that if we align up enough local environmental changes we have global change.
Montmorency
04-13-2012, 03:01
I'm interested in hearing about the ups and downs of geo-engineering again. Lemur?
a completely inoffensive name
04-13-2012, 03:37
I'm interested in hearing about the ups and downs of geo-engineering again.I have actually read of a few theoretical geo-engineering ideas that don't sound *that* far-fetched.One of them were a fleet of cheap long vertical tubes that pumped cold water from below up to the surface to cool surface temperatures down. They were powered by extracting energy from the waves if I remember correctly. Not exactly practical but not a giant space mirror to reduce the sunlight hitting the earth.Also, idk if this counts as geo-engineering but there were trials (I think) with artifical cloud seeding to promote water droplet formation and rain in dry areas.
gaelic cowboy
04-13-2012, 10:39
That is a complete and total myth. Indians had been working the land all across the current United States for hundreds of years before Europeans arrived. Following a sharp population decline after the first Europeans arrived (due mostly to diseases that were accidently transfered), much of North America was unmanaged for a short amount of time, but what came in that time period was a direct result of earlier Indian settlement and agriculture. There is no such thing as a 'natural' or 'wild' state for land to revert back to, because since before we have history it has been shaped by humans, and no matter what happens later, it will be the result of human influence.
I am not denying that humans have the power to affect the land they are living in, by reshaping the land, irrigating, transporting soil, digging canals, etc, etc, but that is a far step from controlling global weather patterns.
I never wrote anything about Indians.
Wild state merely means unmanaged the natural state is of course something we can never again achieve.
A managed eco system will affect local climate and that local means the continental united states. (and thats fairly big yes/no)
Now to some ideas you wrote which I have picked on about control, really we should be using the terms Intereference or Change, this does not imply actual control merely application of certain processes.
It is these processes which shape and change the enviroment then later humans adapt there society to fit within the resultant new parameters.
Thats why global warming is so dangerous because if the resultant parameters are TOO harsh then humanity may be incapable of adapting sufficiently. Humans are basically changing the parameters TOO fast and likely by TOO much, it does not mean that life will be extinguished but we could send it all the way back to bacteria floating around hot vents.
We cannot actually control even the processes that we unleash, in fact in some cases we cannot even stop them. Eventually the change will self regulate by use of natural feedback loops leading to a new equilibrium, does this mean we must attempt to engineer a new equilibrium I would say NO.
We have interfered to much by spreading over the whole planet and changing everything, basically we need to stop or attempt to reduce our adding to the feedback.
Possibly then we can adapt to the new hotter world we are gifting our great grand children.
gaelic cowboy
04-13-2012, 11:09
I have actually read of a few theoretical geo-engineering ideas that don't sound *that* far-fetched.One of them were a fleet of cheap long vertical tubes that pumped cold water from below up to the surface to cool surface temperatures down. They were powered by extracting energy from the waves if I remember correctly. Not exactly practical but not a giant space mirror to reduce the sunlight hitting the earth.Also, idk if this counts as geo-engineering but there were trials (I think) with artifical cloud seeding to promote water droplet formation and rain in dry areas.
Probably the easier geo engineering project would be to paint large areas of the earth to reflect sunlight, this would hopefully encourage the growth again of land ice.
Sure it's a big undertaking but it has a simplicity about it and would need no to low energy input once done, also crucially we dont need much in the way of adavnced tech either to do it.
Happily it would not have any unforeseen affects on our climate unlike many of the other projects I have heard about over the years.
Its established science that the earth will go through long-term climate changes. If the human race survives for 100,000 more years, we'll witness drastic climate change. This is a fact.
This fact has existed since the birth of this planet. Whether by human influence or not, the climate changes and will do so for the unforeseeable future.
Agriculture existed on Greenland a millenia ago and will so again and there is probably nothing we can do about it.
Grapes were found on the North of the east coast of America and perhaps they will be found again.
Lush forests were found on Spitsbergen at one time, maybe this will occur again? We mine its remnants today and releases the carbon they bound in coal burning power plants.
As humans we move around where the nature will let us settle. We follow the retreating glacier and remove ourselves from their advances.
We have done so since the dawn of man... it is only now that we want to impose our will on a ever changing nature. We want it stagnate and controlled.
gaelic cowboy
04-13-2012, 11:29
This fact has existed from the birth of this planet. Whether by human influence or not, the climate changes and will do so for the unforeseeable future.
Agriculture existed on Greenland a millenia ago and will so again and there is probably nothing we can do about it.
Grapes were found on the North of the east coast of America and perhaps they will be found again.
Lush forests were found on Spitsbergen at one time, maybe this will occur again? We mine its remnants today and releases the carbon they bound in coal burning power plants.
As humans we move around where the nature will let us settle. We follow the retreating glacier and remove ourselves from their advances.
We have done so since the dawn of man... it is only now that we want to impose our will on a ever changing nature. We want it stagnate and controlled.
What exactly does that prove apart from :daisy: happens, the aim for humainty should always be to try to interfere as little as possible. Things will change on there own but at least we might have time to adapt due to our technology and intellectual capacity.
We may not have enough time to change to what were unleashing in the future and yes maybe we will adapt in time but it's a big guess.
Also it will likely be 7 or 8 billion people by then and thats not likely to be able to be moved easily, a massivge enough change could kill 2 or 3 billion. However the big danger is climate change and wars waged by nations litterally for survival in the resultant changed climate.
That could give us drastic climate change and nuclear war which would likely either extinguish or severely stunt humanity.
And what was the estimated human population last time we ran away from the glaciers? What were the settlement patterns?
gaelic cowboy
04-13-2012, 11:52
And what was the estimated human population last time we ran away from the glaciers? What were the settlement patterns?
Probably a few hundred thousand maybe even a few million globably essentially not a large ammount and with plenty room to move into.
But the thing is we actually moved into the ice sheets we didnt run away from them at all, academics are now even asking if people may have crossed from Europe to America on the early ice sheets across the North Atlantic.
Why they moved into the ice sheets is because they had the technology and social structure to survive in the enviroment, and the flora and fauna had time to adapt or move. Take Oak trees as an example they will not have time to move north quick enough if we rise the temperature fast enough, this would severly restict the birds and animals that depend on them for food and shelter.
This would mean only the animals and plants that can move quick enough will survive and that may be a severly stunted eco system. Basically it might take millions of years to develop new flora and fauna to fill the empty niches, however it's likely we will prevent most of them being filled.
Now to some ideas you wrote which I have picked on about control, really we should be using the terms Intereference or Change, this does not imply actual control merely application of certain processes.
It is these processes which shape and change the enviroment then later humans adapt there society to fit within the resultant new parameters.
Thats why global warming is so dangerous because if the resultant parameters are TOO harsh then humanity may be incapable of adapting sufficiently. Humans are basically changing the parameters TOO fast and likely by TOO much, it does not mean that life will be extinguished but we could send it all the way back to bacteria floating around hot vents.
We cannot actually control even the processes that we unleash, in fact in some cases we cannot even stop them. Eventually the change will self regulate by use of natural feedback loops leading to a new equilibrium, does this mean we must attempt to engineer a new equilibrium I would say NO.
We have interfered to much by spreading over the whole planet and changing everything, basically we need to stop or attempt to reduce our adding to the feedback.
Possibly then we can adapt to the new hotter world we are gifting our great grand children.
This is the biggest load of BS I have ever read. What do they teach kids now adays?
Seriously, you sound like the wacko religious fanatics, hiding in their basements, awaiting the end of the world. I guess apocalyptism has never went out of vogue.
REPENT! GIVE UP YOUR SUVs OR GOD MOTHER EARTHTM WILL SEND US BACK TO THE STONE AGES!
I am having a hard time thinking of how to seriously reply to this, because I cannot convince myself that you'd believe it!
Dude, you're drinking the cool-aid. Try water, it is a lot more satisfying.
Strike For The South
04-13-2012, 15:41
Definition of HUBRIS: exaggerated pride or self-confidence
gaelic cowboy
04-13-2012, 16:06
This is the biggest load of BS I have ever read. What do they teach kids now adays?
Seriously, you sound like the wacko religious fanatics, hiding in their basements, awaiting the end of the world. I guess apocalyptism has never went out of vogue.
REPENT! GIVE UP YOUR SUVs OR GOD MOTHER EARTHTM WILL SEND US BACK TO THE STONE AGES!
I am having a hard time thinking of how to seriously reply to this, because I cannot convince myself that you'd believe it!
Dude, you're drinking the cool-aid. Try water, it is a lot more satisfying.
man engages in certain process which affect the system resulting in a new equilibrium within which he must reside
Do you understand what that statement means Vuk
I am amused you think this is some kind of milinarian codology, when it is provable fact that man can affect his enviroment and therefore his climate.
Enviroment is influenced by the climate then as a result of this the enviroment influences the climate back. Man is a part of the enviroment therefore logically he is both influenced by and an influencer of the climate.
Acknowledging this fact does not require one to accept humans will be definately extinguished by climate change, but it does require you to accept that it can happen if left unchecked.
Also the only check we have is to try not to add too much to it, as we cant actually ever fully stop our influence on the climate.
This also doesnt require you to believe climate change is caused by man rather that it is happening and that it is happening very quickly. The earth is finite therfore the energy man can use to live is also finite, this will limit his ability to survive drastic shifts in climate if his entire society is dependent on adding to climate change through enviromental destruction.
Askthepizzaguy
04-14-2012, 10:28
This is the biggest load of BS I have ever read. What do they teach kids now adays?
Feedback is a real phenomenon, they'll teach you about in real science classes in colleges. Which are schools for adults.
Allow me to explain one basic feedback process. Did you know that certain chemicals are found inside forests, and inside the ground itself? It's true.
When great amounts of ice melt as a result of warming, less heat gets reflected back into space. Which, in turn, causes more ice melting. It's a minor feedback process in itself.
But, when the temperature changes enough, or deforestation occurs, and certain places such as rainforests which are massive repositories for carbon begin to deteriorate, less carbon gets absorbed by plantlife, and the dead plantlife turns back into carbon.
And, when certain other processes take place, carbon which is in the very soil itself gets released into the atmosphere, and because carbon is a greenhouse gas (not hocus-pocus, but an actual fact you can't argue with) that causes the planet to retain more heat.
So you see, processes that occur when the planet gets hotter, cause it to get hotter still. That's why the Earth was once covered almost entirely with ice, but the slight tipping point where it began to melt, released a whole heck of a lot of carbon into the atmosphere, turning an ice world into one with rainforests and deserts.
That was caused by feedback loops. These are real phenomena. It can drastically affect the planet. You know, causing ice ages, or causing hot periods, both of which can cause mass extinctions and greatly affect farmland, which is important to species which base their entire economies on the ability to farm food. Because without farms, we'll have difficulty feeding the billions of people on the planet. It's hard to farm in ice, or where there's no water, like in deserts. Or how about underneath the rising ocean, that's a difficult place to grow crops.
Seriously, you sound like the wacko religious fanatics, hiding in their basements, awaiting the end of the world. I guess apocalyptism has never went out of vogue.
The difference being, religious fanatics believe the world is going to end because a zombie will rise and smite us with chariots.
Scientists believe the world could become less hospitable to human life due to real processes which are hard to ignore, since they've factually happened before. Several times. Science and history... who knew?
It's the difference between knowledge and wacky magic.
I am having a hard time thinking of how to seriously reply to this, because I cannot convince myself that you'd believe it!
Dude, you're drinking the cool-aid. Try water, it is a lot more satisfying.
I seem to recall telling you something like this recently, except I spelled Kool-Aid correctly.
Askthepizzaguy
04-14-2012, 11:30
You can learn more about feedback processes here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Positive_and_negative_feedbacks_in_glacial_periods).
One of the reasons such feedback processes might be accelerated is because, while natural emissions from forest fires and volcanic activity, and other normal events have been playing into this since long before man got involved, it's only been during the most recent years of the industrial revolution that we've been adding to it with the burning of fossil fuels.
These sources of carbon aren't just on the surface being naturally released or deposited, they're being dug up and released into the atmosphere by the tons. So you've got carbon from deep below the surface, in addition to the carbon on the surface, being released simultaneously, and not by a naturally occurring process, but by the combined efforts of an industrialized species across the planet, each contributing to the burning of fossil fuels.
That is, fuels that come from under the rocks. Carbon, under the rocks, going into our air. From a solid or liquid form, into a dispersed gas. But no less present.
That would be a significant change in the biosphere. And it's not just carbon, we've got plenty of other things we dump into the air constantly.
Now, if the Earth gets naturally hotter, or cooler, depending on how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, or how much of it is trapped inside plants or below the surface, as part of a natural process that is unrelated to mankind, that would be one thing. We'd still be headed toward heating or cooling periods.
But what if we double or triple the effect by adding to that process with CO2 that wasn't going to be naturally released? And what if, every minute of every day, we continue doing so, for decades, or centuries?
Let me put it another way. Forest fires happen from time to time. Perfectly natural.
Now, suppose we dump a billion drums of oil and gasoline into the forest, to dispose of it. Well, a forest fire might naturally occur. But since we've contributed to the natural process with an unnatural amount of fossil fuels, the fire might be a little bit hotter this time. In fact, it could burn so hot that it sterilizes the soil and it could cause not only the forest to burn down, but it could take a while for anything to grow there again.
Can mankind really affect the environment? Well, we do dam up rivers, which can wreck entire ecosystems. And that's just a river. We do dump toxic pollutants into the ground and water and release it into the air. We have hunted things to extinction or otherwise caused extinctions. And we're changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere, which if altered enough causes world-wide effects, effects which are real and have occurred before by natural processes. But here, we're adding to it, and not by an insignificant amount.
It's easy to paint scientists as alarmists, because we've got plenty of those. People who are convinced that the world is coming to an end.
Well the world is going to be just fine. But even minor environmental disasters like an oil spill, or flood, or drought, wreak havoc on entire populations. And these are "disasters" so small, the earth as a whole doesn't even notice. It's just part of normal life on Earth. It's just that when we dump countless tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we don't have a real good idea of how to undo that process. And furthermore, while it might take years or decades for us to see serious effects, we've already seen minor effects. And global temperature change, even slight change, can cause massive effects.
You know, there's not a whole lot of temperature difference between freezing and near-freezing. But when we're talking about ice sheets that are thousands of years old, and we're talking about near-freezing, then we're also talking about that ice sheet disappearing completely. And that is not a minor event. And that is only one event, among thousands, which will re-shape the entire planet. Deforestation, rising oceans, deserts expanding, and the shifting of locations for good farmland. Sure, you might farm more in Greenland, but you'll farm a lot less in the middle of the United States, for example.
Even minor changes can destroy ecosystems. It doesn't have to be temperature; Every one of them has a tipping point. Too little oxygen in parts of the ocean causes dead zones where fish do not live. It's a minor change from a tiny amount of O2 and not enough. Very minor. But dead zones in the ocean do occur, and many are expanding.
But we're not really talking about minor changes. An increase in the median temperature of the planet by 10 degrees will make things quite different. Life is kind of delicately balanced like that.
I remember watching a documentary where they discussed how certain honey bees react to a wasp entering their nest. Most are defenseless, but a certain kind of honey bee has a defense; they surround the invading wasp and simply wiggle their bodies to generate heat. The wasp dies at a certain temperature. The honey bees die at a temperature one or two degrees higher. They use that to nearly kill themselves, but definitely kill the wasp. It is only a matter of a degree difference. So if the temperature on an average day in July is 90-100 degrees, and it increases to 100-110 degrees, and all of a sudden there are no more honeybees in an entire region, that could affect our ability to pollinate using honeybees, which is kind of an important part of our ability to feed ourselves, because bees do it much more efficiently than we do. That's one aspect out of countless thousands of how temperature change can cripple ecosystems and economies and nations, and species.
A couple degrees difference causes extinctions and can make things a lot harder on us. 10 degrees will render the world pretty unrecognizable, and largely inhospitable for most of us. Droughts and famine are bad enough, but if they didn't end because it was a fairly permanent change in the biosphere, that will ruin nations. Some nations don't have much land to farm as it stands, and if the climate changes such that they have none, what's the solution? What's the quick fix? How is that not a big deal?
Just wondering, because it's not something we lay schmucks are likely to solve, considering the scientists which we consider our brightest minds haven't been able to think of a solution, with decades of thinking about it.
I guess it's easy for people to dismiss things as nonsense without knowing much about it. I know I am not an expert. But I also know that there are people who are experts, and they've explained it to me using college textbooks, documentaries, news articles, and other repositories of knowledge, that the problem is not imaginary and is not an easy fix. It's sort of like cancer. Preventing or detecting cancer early is the solution... trying to fix cancer when it's advanced to a certain stage has been mostly futile. Maybe that will change, but for now, it's the case that prevention or early detection is your best solution.
When it comes to removing countless tons of carbon from the atmosphere because the planet is too hot, the best cure is prevention, not actually trying to cure it. The alternative, which is a combination of ignorance, denial, and prayer, isn't much appealing to me.
10 degrees?? Oh dear, yeah that is sure to have an effect. Luckily for us the 0.2 degrees celcius rise in the past hundreds year has almost none.
Askthepizzaguy
04-14-2012, 12:29
10 degrees?? Oh dear, yeah that is sure to have an effect. Luckily for us the 0.2 degrees celcius rise in the past hundreds year has almost none.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Global warming is the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. Since the early 20th century, Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.[7][A]
So, not 0.2 degrees, but 0.8 Celsius or about one and a half degrees Fahrenheit which is the scale I'm referring to. Mostly in a few decades, not centuries.
Now, that represents an acceleration. That means a change in the rate at which something happens. If that continues to accelerate, then you could see temperature changes of multiple degrees difference within a few decades, or less. If it does not accelerate, it doesn't really matter, because you'll still get the same effect, just a few decades later.
So, if we're talking really insane and unrealistic numbers, which assume no feedback, acceleration, population growth, or economic development, (which would represent a dramatic shift in not only global birth rates, economics, and um.... the laws of physics) then yeah, it will take longer than I'm talking about. And yet, it will still happen.
Instead, we look at projections, which take into account that a more developed society will have more people using fossil fuels, or more of them, than we presently do. We also see a larger population than we presently have doing that. Because unless people stop having sex or using fuel, that's what's going to happen. We also see feedback within the biosphere due to changes in temperature and chemical composition of the atmosphere, which is what you'd have to factor into things to begin to predict events.
Differences in temperature are small on the order of a year or decade, sure. And, you know, sometimes it snows, which conflicts with the idea that the earth as a whole is getting warmer, because even when global temperatures change, for some unknown reason, there are still seasons. That makes it hard for some people to understand climate. That's why people have to go to school and study this stuff to begin to know what they're talking about.
A lay person can hear a climate skeptic point to a piece of data and say that it's all alarmist nonsense. Fooling people with data is quite easy to do, especially when the provided data are inaccurate. But even the real data doesn't mean much to the average person, because they don't know what it means.
You can hear 1.4 degrees and go, so what? The temperature changed 30 degrees between lunch and midnight. Nothing is really happening.
But that's not climate. When we're talking about climate, 1.4 degrees median difference matters. And especially because it's not going to be 1.4 degrees, it's going to be more than that, because we're talking about a mathematical progression, not static numbers in a static system. 1.4 represents the eventual 5 or 10 degrees difference, easily. 1.4 plus 1.4 plus 1.4 equals 4.2, and that's just for starters. That's again not factoring in population growth or economic trends, or feedback loops, or the acceleration of the trend. That's not hard for most people to comprehend, but it's easier to suggest that it is meaningless than to explain how it is not meaningless.
Climate scientists (or lay advocates such as myself) need to convey pages of information in order to make their point, skeptics can pick a number, take it out of context, and cry conspiracy theory/alarmism and they don't need to use facts or reasoned arguments to make their point. It's simpler, and simpler appeals to simple people.
Fahrenheit/celcius mixup de moi. But It stopped, so the cummulative effect just isn't there. Instead we will more likely get the mini ice-age of ultimate doom, it's chilling.
Askthepizzaguy
04-14-2012, 12:54
I have traveled for one second, and I have traveled just over three percent of the distance to my eventual destination, increasing the rate at which I travel by double every second, as a steady curve. In how many more seconds will I reach my destination, or 100% of the distance?
The answer is, approximately five seconds. But I'm not even 1/25th of the way there. It's not easy to conclude that my journey is 1/6th over.
Just take the number 100 and divide it by two six times, and you'll see that 3 percent can actually be 1/6th of the way there, assuming a certain rate of change.
As with accelerating trends in climate, which represents a rate of change, if I've only gone 14 percent of the way to my eventual destination of 10 degrees difference, in a matter of 30 years, then this isn't a big problem to most people. But realistically, I am much further along than it appears.
It's not blindingly obvious, but it's mathematics, due to rate of change.
What the precise rate of change is, with regards to climate, is up for debate. But if we assume a steady change for no reason whatsoever, 14 percent is still a significant progression towards the end result of 10 degrees difference. That's the completely unfounded and entirely unreasonable assumption of steady change. There hasn't BEEN steady change. So it's actually worse.
I can't tell you how much worse it is, precisely. But I don't think 1/4th or 1/3rd of the way there is an unreasonable assumption to make, considering the relatively dramatic shift and recent changes. If we're not assuming steady change, then even a minor acceleration can put you at 1/4th progression, with only 14% of the distance traveled.
Debatable is the rate of change, not debatable is that the earth is warming, and that the warming is becoming more rapid. Even if it weren't becoming more rapid, the end result is still nasty. But it is becoming more rapid.
Deniers would have more plausibility if they were trying to argue that it won't get bad for 100-200 years. They'd still be wrong, but at least they could use bad math to argue their point, which is better than nothing at all. Instead, they argue total nonsense entirely.
The difference being, religious fanatics believe the world is going to end because a zombie will rise and smite us with chariots.
Scientists believe the world could become less hospitable to human life due to real processes which are hard to ignore, since they've factually happened before. Several times. Science and history... who knew?
It's the difference between knowledge and wacky magic.
First of all, that 'zombie' is a religious figure of extreme importance to many millions of people. As I have gotten infractions many times for insulting a certain prophet, my guess is saying things like that are against the rules. You may want to show some respect.
The difference between knowledge and wacky magic? lmao, I can't tell you how funny that is. Of course everyone thinks their beliefs are factual. Christians bracing for Armageddon throughout history have also based their beliefs in 'fact'. The corruption in the world around them, the fact that God exists and that the all of secular history bears that out, the fact that current events coincide with prophecy, etc, etc.
Now you may argue that those are facts, but I would argue that the voodoo science of global warming is not factual either. Point is, everyone thinks that the facts back up their wacko apocalyptic beliefs and that everyone else is just a superstitious peasant. Greek 'science' and observation backed up a lot of BS too, so it is not just religion. Don't forget that eugenics and race science was supported by 90% of the scientific community, and if you argued with it, you were arguing with science. They taught it at schools, and had plenty of 'scientific' data and arguments to support it, that were plenty water-tight looking to fool the average bozo college student. Are we forgetting all the science backing up the fact that by 2010 half the landmass on earth would be covered in ice? How did that turn out? People went to college and learned a bunch of BS voodoo science like you have to make it look real, but that did not make it any more factual, did it?
It is all scare tactics. You may not like being compared to those fanatical religious people, but you are no different. Since the beginning of large, organized societies people have profited from end-of-the-world scares. They were orchestrated in Europe a few hundred years ago so that the people behind them could profit, and that is just what is happening now. The only thing that has changed is what they lie about. They used to lie and say that religion supported their arguments (which it didn't), and now they lie and say science does (which it doesn't). Both are very complicated subjects that even the most knowledgeable do not come close to fully understanding, so it is incredibly easy for them to make you believe whatever they want you too. I could argue with you all day about the 'why's', but I am not getting in to that, because I don't have the time and I would not change your opinion anyway. Suffice it to say, I think you should be a little more critical of what you believe.
Montmorency
04-14-2012, 20:52
Are we forgetting all the science backing up the fact that by 2010 half the landmass on earth would be covered in ice? How did that turn out?
No such claims were ever put forth.
I think you should be a little more critical of what you believe.
Hypocrisy?
gaelic cowboy
04-14-2012, 21:38
First of all, that 'zombie' is a religious figure of extreme importance to many millions of people. As I have gotten infractions many times for insulting a certain prophet, my guess is saying things like that are against the rules. You may want to show some respect.
The difference between knowledge and wacky magic? lmao, I can't tell you how funny that is. Of course everyone thinks their beliefs are factual. Christians bracing for Armageddon throughout history have also based their beliefs in 'fact'. The corruption in the world around them, the fact that God exists and that the all of secular history bears that out, the fact that current events coincide with prophecy, etc, etc.
Now you may argue that those are facts, but I would argue that the voodoo science of global warming is not factual either. Point is, everyone thinks that the facts back up their wacko apocalyptic beliefs and that everyone else is just a superstitious peasant. Greek 'science' and observation backed up a lot of BS too, so it is not just religion. Don't forget that eugenics and race science was supported by 90% of the scientific community, and if you argued with it, you were arguing with science. They taught it at schools, and had plenty of 'scientific' data and arguments to support it, that were plenty water-tight looking to fool the average bozo college student. Are we forgetting all the science backing up the fact that by 2010 half the landmass on earth would be covered in ice? How did that turn out? People went to college and learned a bunch of BS voodoo science like you have to make it look real, but that did not make it any more factual, did it?
It is all scare tactics. You may not like being compared to those fanatical religious people, but you are no different. Since the beginning of large, organized societies people have profited from end-of-the-world scares. They were orchestrated in Europe a few hundred years ago so that the people behind them could profit, and that is just what is happening now. The only thing that has changed is what they lie about. They used to lie and say that religion supported their arguments (which it didn't), and now they lie and say science does (which it doesn't). Both are very complicated subjects that even the most knowledgeable do not come close to fully understanding, so it is incredibly easy for them to make you believe whatever they want you too. I could argue with you all day about the 'why's', but I am not getting in to that, because I don't have the time and I would not change your opinion anyway. Suffice it to say, I think you should be a little more critical of what you believe.
None of that is even remotely connected to what was put to you in the first place.
The picture below explains what we have being talking about.
5179
The process is affected by the input which then gives an output that then influences the original input by means of feedback.
Basically what people have been trying to get you to understand is that change happens all the time and our very presence has an effect on it.
Incidently this does not have to mean that man is doomed at all, so you can dispence with the theories that we are doompornographers. However we are part of the eco-system that is both caused by and a cause of the climate back on itself.
Naturally this means because we have an outsize effect on our environment we therefore logically affect the climate.
The only constant is flaggalism. During the medieval warmth, as the name suggests, it was warmer than it is now despite a total lack of a industrial age. Apocalyptic religions are nothing new and charlatans have always benefitted from faith. What happened to the hole in the ozon layer, was it fixed. Of course not people just lost interest because they stopped hearing about it. Enter acid rain. People lost interest because they stopped hearing about it. Enter global warming, people are losing interest because of the financial crisis.
Hoaxes have cycles they come and go. But always, always, down with capitalism
gaelic cowboy
04-15-2012, 13:25
Hoaxes have cycles they come and go. But always, always, down with capitalism
My acceptance Climate Change was influenced by my time in college by learning things like engineering science or later on with thermo and fluid dynamics.
Not Doompornography
My acceptance Climate Change was influenced by my time in college by learning things like engineering science or later on with thermo and fluid dynamics.
Not Doompornography
Sounds fascinating, I would love to hear more but I have been dead since 2000. It was the acid rain that did it, it led to major food-shortages and ultimatily resulted in WW3, the world burned it was a nightmare
First of all, that 'zombie' is a religious figure of extreme importance to many millions of people. As I have gotten infractions many times for insulting a certain prophet, my guess is saying things like that are against the rules. You may want to show some respect.
So basically, you demand respect when someone insults your personal religious figure, but you're not willing to extend the same kind of respect to other religious folks. That's cool. I'm not a Christian, but I don't know, I'm not sure he would have wanted people to go around and insult other people. Might just be me.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-16-2012, 14:13
No such claims were ever put forth.
They most certainly were, about 50 years ago.
I think it's increasingly clear that the Climate-change lobby has basically lost the popular argument, there are several reasons for this, none of which are directly linked to the science.
1. Fatigue: Banging on about something like this year in year out ends up turning people off, you become part of the background noise people just tune out. The fact is, humans can only plan ahead a few years at a time in their own lives, although we can concience of works completed in our children's or grandchildren's day we aren't good with far off danger. This is probably an evolved trait, there's no point worrying about the snow six months from now when you have the current drought.
2. Loss of trust: Scientists have been caught several times fundging figures, and making outlandish claims. I seem to recall that around the year 2000 is was claimed their would be no Northern Ice cap by 2020, that now looks highly unlikely, and in fact the mediun size of the ice cap has been constant for 50 years or so, although it has become thinner in recent decades. Fluctuations during the Roman and Medieval period are still mostly ignored, despite there being ample evidence for previous repaid changes in temperature of several degrees over a few centuries. The problem is further compounded by lack of accurate date even 100 years ago.
3. Lack of any actual plan: This is the big problem, there has been no concerted effort to answer the question of how we will generate energy in the future, Japan showed how precarious Nuclear Power is and right now we have no convincing alternatives to fossil fuel. Instead, we get unrealistic demands for individual users to limit their personal usage when the real issue is industrial and gimmicks like those stupid lightbulbs that don't work properly and contain Mercury.
4. Wrong message: The message currently is, "The End will be Nigh, at some point." In fact, the end has been Nigh several times, several times we have broken supposed temporal or quantative polution limits at which point the whole Earth is supposed to go "Bang", take a look at Sci-Fi 30 years ago and you'll see films about people leaving Earth because Acid Rain, something nobody is all that worried about these days.
On the other hand, pumping loads of crap into the atmosphere is pretty much the definition of a Bad Idea if we want our children to live here. We shouldn't be polluting the environment, but that should a no brainer Climate Change or no.
Greyblades
04-16-2012, 15:34
I have found myself unable to sympathise with the enviromentalists when they tell us to "turn off your needless lights" when I am surrounded by shops that keep thiers at supernova after closing time, and even at 3 AM. I have yet to hear anyone propose a nighttime blackout on the highstreets.
None of that is even remotely connected to what was put to you in the first place.
The picture below explains what we have being talking about.
5179
The process is affected by the input which then gives an output that then influences the original input by means of feedback.
Basically what people have been trying to get you to understand is that change happens all the time and our very presence has an effect on it.
Incidently this does not have to mean that man is doomed at all, so you can dispence with the theories that we are doompornographers. However we are part of the eco-system that is both caused by and a cause of the climate back on itself.
Naturally this means because we have an outsize effect on our environment we therefore logically affect the climate.
I was not arguing against the principle of feedback. I was saying that claiming that if we don't actively try to engineer our environment all life will be wiped out except bacteria in vents is complete BS. Sure, we have an impact, but all the doom and gloom is completely uncalled for. People are making too much of too little. Change will come, but it won't be nearly as drastic as some suppose, and it will happen over a long period of time, giving people plenty of time to adapt.
So basically, you demand respect when someone insults your personal religious figure, but you're not willing to extend the same kind of respect to other religious folks. That's cool. I'm not a Christian, but I don't know, I'm not sure he would have wanted people to go around and insult other people. Might just be me.
No, I am simply saying that if I must respect other people's religious figures (even if I don't want to), then so must he. I have no respect at all for the supposed prophet, but the rules here on the Org rigidly stop me from saying what I think about him (I have gotten infractions even for quoting muslim holy texts and making quite obvious interpretations), even when I am arguing about the history of the religion, and not making value judgments. People on the Org rip apart Christian religious figures all the time with impunity though. I know the mods will do nothing about him, so I am asking him to play by the same rules that those who dislike Islam are forced to.
Strike For The South
04-16-2012, 16:43
I'll just move to Des Monies, marry a fat girl, and start farming corn
They most certainly were, about 50 years ago.
Even if we assume that 50 years ago the scientific consensus supported cooling, so what? Better theories backed by new data has a tendency to shift scientific opinions about most stuff.
A survey (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf) of studies made from 1965 to 1979 showed a clear majority talked of global warming and not cooling.
A New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf) from 1956:
According to a theory which was held half a century ago, variation in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide can account for climatic change. The theory was generally dismissed as inadequate. Dr. Gilbert Plass re-examines it in a paper which he publishes in the American Scientist and in which he summarizes conclusions that he reached after a study made with the support of the Office of Naval Research. To him the carbon dioxide theory stands up, though it may take another century of observation and measurement of temperature to confirm it.
He mentions humans adding 30% of CO2 in every century while it is more like 50 or 60% now.
Fluctuations during the Roman and Medieval period are still mostly ignored They have not been ignored. Global Signatures and Dynamical (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf)Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf) and here is the public release for a quicker read (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/ps-prc112309.php)
gaelic cowboy
04-17-2012, 13:32
I'll just move to Des Monies, marry a fat girl, and start farming corn
I will let my cousin know immediately
Vladimir
04-17-2012, 17:39
"Lie" is such a harsh, unforgiving word. Couldn't we instead say, "Operated from an alternate factual system wherein causality is inoperative"?
Sorry, late to the game.
Just had to repost this for its brilliance. :bow:
gaelic cowboy
04-17-2012, 18:59
I have found myself unable to sympathise with the enviromentalists when they tell us to "turn off your needless lights" when I am surrounded by shops that keep thiers at supernova after closing time, and even at 3 AM. I have yet to hear anyone propose a nighttime blackout on the highstreets.
Thats simply answered by a bit of common sense in reality.
How many shops are there where you live and by how much are they outnumbered by residential dwellings.
What year were said residential dwellings and business mostly constructed in the same area.
These two questions will answer a lot of your concerns.
Thats simply answered by a bit of common sense in reality.
How many shops are there where you live and by how much are they outnumbered by residential dwellings.
What year were said residential dwellings and business mostly constructed in the same area.
These two questions will answer a lot of your concerns.
Questions do not provide answers, they only demand more.
You realize it is all BS don't you? Two of my bros are electrical power engineering technicians, and they told me that when power plants are looking at how much power they need to generate, they do not even take residential usage into account because it is so insignificant. The vast majority (I don't know off-hand how much, but my guess is well over 95%) of power generated is used for industrial purposes, and then stepped-down for residential usage. Have your lights on all day, don't have 'em on at all; it makes no difference. The entire amount of power that is generated for non-industrial use is completely insignificant.
If you wanted to save energy, you would have to do it on the manufacturing and industrial side of things. That is where real power is used, and if you wanted to make any real change, that is where you would start. Of course no one ever tells you that the environmental impact of producing something like a Prius instead of, say, a gasoline powered Focus far out-weighs the difference in environmental impact of running them.
The largest environmental impact is not made by the consumer, but the producer. If you wanted to lessen your impact on the environment, you focus on buying things that were produced with the smallest environmental impact. For instance, over the long term, standard incandescent light bulbs have a lot less impact on the environment than modern ones. Why? The manufacturing. Have you ever taken one of those things apart? Chip boards, diodes, inductors, capacitors, etc, etc. You gotta use your brain. Most of the environmentally friendly BS out there, actually has a much bigger impact on the environment being produced, for small savings being used. They normally do not last as long, and therefore many more have to be produced in the same time period, making them have an even greater environmental impact.
Of course all of this is neither here nor there, as the entire problem we are trying to solve is not a problem. It is amusing, nonetheless, to see idiots running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to solve a none existent problem, and accomplishing the exact opposite of what they intend.
Ironside
04-17-2012, 20:10
Questions do not provide answers, they only demand more.
You realize it is all BS don't you? Two of my bros are electrical power engineering technicians, and they told me that when power plants are looking at how much power they need to generate, they do not even take residential usage into account because it is so insignificant. The vast majority (I don't know off-hand how much, but my guess is well over 95%) of power generated is used for industrial purposes, and then stepped-down for residential usage. Have your lights on all day, don't have 'em on at all; it makes no difference. The entire amount of power that is generated for non-industrial use is completely insignificant.
Wiki gives your vast majority to about 25% and shrinking (compare to about 40% in Sweden). Comercial use is only slighty less than residential use though, about 30% compared to 35%.
Your bros might be working in an extremely heavy industrial area, but national data is different.
Greyblades
04-17-2012, 20:32
Thats simply answered by a bit of common sense in reality.
How many shops are there where you live and by how much are they outnumbered by residential dwellings.
What year were said residential dwellings and business mostly constructed in the same area.
These two questions will answer a lot of your concerns.
Ok I understand the first one, number of housing and subsiquent power usage far outweighs number of shops but the second confuses me.
Also it doesnt really help much seeing as these 9-5 shops have thier lights on at full blast, all night, for no apparant reason, the only one I could think of is attracting attention for advertisment purposes and that really becomes moot after midnight.
Ok I understand the first one, number of housing and subsiquent power usage far outweighs number of shops but the second confuses me.
Also it doesnt really help much seeing as these 9-5 shops have thier lights on at full blast, all night, for no apparant reason, the only one I could think of is attracting attention for advertisment purposes and that really becomes moot after midnight.
Just because they are wasting energy, it does not obligate you to follow suit. There's really no good reason to burn lights if *you* don't need them.
Greyblades
04-17-2012, 20:41
I dont, generally, I feel like somethings gone wrong when I'm yelled at for not turning off my energy saver lightbulb in the livingroom every now and then, when noones commenting on the 200+ mini spotlights lighting up clearly empty shops at the dead of night.
I dont, yet I fail to see the distiction between my energy saver lightbulb in the livingroom I'm constantly reminded to turn off and the 200+ industrial spotlights lighting up clearly empty shops, especially when its me getting yelled at.
You're not getting yelled at. The appeal is made to the public, because public is directly in control of their power usage. There are no CEO, no management to consult with. You are in control of your switch. Your contribution however small *will* make a difference. Gotta start somewhere.
Greyblades
04-17-2012, 20:50
Wait, they're buisnesses, there's almost by definition a CEO to consult with. So why arent they getting pettitioned to turned thier lights off?
Wait, they're buisnesses, there's almost by definition a CEO to consult with. So why arent they getting pettitioned to turned thier lights off?
Why does it matter?
Greyblades
04-17-2012, 20:59
Well the simple principle of: "I get told off for leaving a light on and those jerks dont, why not? Grr grr"
Well the simple principle of: "I get told off for leaving a light on and those jerks dont, why not? Grr grr"
You're still entitled to burn as much energy as you like, whether you need it or not. The question is, why do it if you don't need it?
Greyblades
04-17-2012, 21:03
...What's that got to do with them? I'm not complaining that I should save energy, I've got two sets of blooming solar panels on my roof for that, I'm complaining why buisnesses seem to get a free pass to go unprotested as far as I see.
...What's that got to do with them?
It's not about them, it's about you.
Greyblades
04-17-2012, 21:09
...What?
gaelic cowboy
04-18-2012, 01:29
Ok I understand the first one, number of housing and subsiquent power usage far outweighs number of shops but the second confuses me.
Also it doesnt really help much seeing as these 9-5 shops have thier lights on at full blast, all night, for no apparant reason, the only one I could think of is attracting attention for advertisment purposes and that really becomes moot after midnight.
I was thinking in terms of what construction techniques were used, is there insulation in the walls or the copper tank, did they follow good plans for natural light etc etc. Is it of brick, block or even massed concrete construction they all have different energy needs to run as a building.
I agree it is annoying to see lights on all night but then your coming to a situtation of work out for energy in, is the energy used properly and has it been used in a way that paid for itself. (efficiently)
gaelic cowboy
04-18-2012, 01:33
...What's that got to do with them? I'm not complaining that I should save energy, I've got two sets of blooming solar panels on my roof for that, I'm complaining why buisnesses seem to get a free pass to go unprotested as far as I see.
Well businesses are nowadays a bit more serious about energy use, purely because it is a part of there costs they can change with a bit of effort unlike wages.
gaelic cowboy
04-18-2012, 01:45
I dont, generally, I feel like somethings gone wrong when I'm yelled at for not turning off my energy saver lightbulb in the livingroom every now and then, when noones commenting on the 200+ mini spotlights lighting up clearly empty shops at the dead of night.
If I had to guess there probably LED downlights basically only a couple of watts at most. 4 maybe 5 watt instead of 40 or 50 watt halogen
gaelic cowboy
04-18-2012, 02:32
Questions do not provide answers, they only demand more.
I trusted that Greyblades had the ability to figure the answer for himself as he was clever enough to spot the inconsistency in the first place.
You realize it is all BS don't you?
IT???? the entire observable universe encompassing all matter and energy created many billions of years ago, or just the idea of climate change or just the human ability to cause any.
Two of my bros are electrical power engineering technicians, and they told me that when power plants are looking at how much power they need to generate, they do not even take residential usage into account because it is so insignificant. The vast majority (I don't know off-hand how much, but my guess is well over 95%) of power generated is used for industrial purposes, and then stepped-down for residential usage. Have your lights on all day, don't have 'em on at all; it makes no difference. The entire amount of power that is generated for non-industrial use is completely insignificant.
Power companies most certainly take residential power into account otherwise no one could have a coffee during the first add break of a new simpsons episode.
If you wanted to save energy, you would have to do it on the manufacturing and industrial side of things. That is where real power is used, and if you wanted to make any real change, that is where you would start. Of course no one ever tells you that the environmental impact of producing something like a Prius instead of, say, a gasoline powered Focus far out-weighs the difference in environmental impact of running them.
Actually they do tell us because it is one of the most quoted facts people spout on the internet in relation to energy use.
Let me be clear here there is NO free energy and certainly no production without some kind of carbon release. Often it's downstream and sometimes it is upstream but somewhere in a products lifecycle there is carbon release.
The largest environmental impact is not made by the consumer, but the producer. If you wanted to lessen your impact on the environment, you focus on buying things that were produced with the smallest environmental impact. For instance, over the long term, standard incandescent light bulbs have a lot less impact on the environment than modern ones. Why? The manufacturing. Have you ever taken one of those things apart? Chip boards, diodes, inductors, capacitors, etc, etc. You gotta use your brain. Most of the environmentally friendly BS out there, actually has a much bigger impact on the environment being produced, for small savings being used. They normally do not last as long, and therefore many more have to be produced in the same time period, making them have an even greater environmental impact.
As a mechanical engineer I am well aware of where large energy use occurs in our society, has it occured to you that consumerism is the cause of overly large industrial footprints. Industry wouldnt need such huge energy if they didnt have to make many of the items we crave, our consumption is the cause of the carbon release by the producer for the consumer.
Your point about the energy saving bulbs while well made misses the point that the aim here is to efficiently use the energy for the same output. This will mean the power company pollutes less for the same amount of lights left on. An incandessant bulb is simple but it is wasteful of energy, that doesnt mean there are not reasons to use incandessant bulbs though.
The point should always be to asses your consumption of energy and draw up a plan and to make changes based on that, select the proper tools or systems of use required to achieve the goal.
Tellos Athenaios
04-18-2012, 02:46
If I had to guess there probably LED downlights basically only a couple of watts at most. 4 maybe 5 watt instead of 40 or 50 watt halogen
Quite. It's all about the amps, anyway and most of these lights work with small currents. (An indication LED needs about 10mA for instance, which is still a lot.)
For instance large neon signs don't require particularly much power, they work similar to LED's only at much bigger voltages. So if you have a neon sign which operates at 10-20kV voltage, and assuming current draw is about the same as an indication LED (surely wrong but you get the point) then that's still only 10-20W of power.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.