Balls 0
Recommended Posts
Who would you pin it on then. You cant deny that in the last 100 years more man made pollutants have been introduced into the environment than in all of human history. And to say that these will not have any affect on the environment, however minute, is insane.
billvon 2,454
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>So where did the global cooling stuff come from?
No idea. I never took them seriously.
No idea. I never took them seriously.
n23x 0
A little thing known as the brown starfish? 
.jim
.jim
"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC
Amazon 7
Hmmm
Ever thought about clearing out all the forest debris around the cabin whist its still the wet season.. and have some small controlled burns to rid yourself of the accumulating forest duff???
QuoteI would certainly hate losing my cabin on the hill to fire.....but I have already lost 27 150 foot Spruces to the beetles.
Ever thought about clearing out all the forest debris around the cabin whist its still the wet season.. and have some small controlled burns to rid yourself of the accumulating forest duff???
Quote
Ever thought about clearing out all the forest debris around the cabin whist its still the wet season.. and have some small controlled burns to rid yourself of the accumulating forest duff???
Is that an option for many people?
I imagine/hope there are controls on every cabin owner doing their own 'controlled' burn.
Clearing out debris doesn't seem good either - that stuff is supposed to decay and be used by what's living there. Until the next fire.
Amazon 7
The very best decay is for it to do as was done for millions of years.. small fires set off by lightning...every few years... it releases the nutrients back into the soil.. until we restore that balance... the fuels build up so the trees burn instead of just the undergrowth and duff...
This would be FAR better protection for the cabin... then if a fire does come thru it does not burn the cabin.. OR his trees.
This would be FAR better protection for the cabin... then if a fire does come thru it does not burn the cabin.. OR his trees.
bozo 0
QuoteHmmm
QuoteI would certainly hate losing my cabin on the hill to fire.....but I have already lost 27 150 foot Spruces to the beetles.
Ever thought about clearing out all the forest debris around the cabin whist its still the wet season.. and have some small controlled burns to rid yourself of the accumulating forest duff???
Thats done on a regular basis.....although controlled burns in a National Forest wont be performed by me.
As for the "wet season" you mention.....my cabin is at 9500'........estimated 8 feet of snow there right now.
bozo
bozo
Pain is fleeting. Glory lasts forever. Chicks dig scars.
Amazon 7
QuoteAs for the "wet season" you mention.....my cabin is at 9500'........estimated 8 feet of snow there right now.
You know what I meant you silly old fart.
I know plenty of peeps here in WA who do this on a regular basis.. thin out the stunted or dead trees and brush.. let the healthy trees grow... and it gets rid of the probability of a catastrophic fire....and yeah.. doing a controlled burn in the Natioanl Forest would NOT be a good thing.. ALTHOUGH you can sometimes prod them into taking action in your district to do some small burns in late spring. It does not hurt to check with the local Ranger district.
Gawain 0
Quote>However, pinning humans as the sole cause of this cycle of change, I
>believe is irresponsible.
Not sole cause, but main cause. The science isn't that hard to understand.
But the science doesn't even say we're the main cause. The science also says that these events of environmental change have happened before in an almost cyclical pattern.
Now, has man created localized changes based on where they live, etc., I'll say yes. Are there enough of these to create a global affect? I'm not convinced the answer is yes.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
billvon 2,454
>But the science doesn't even say we're the main cause.
Yes it does. Climactic forcing from anthropogenic CO2 is ~2.4 watts per square meter; far higher than any other influence (even solar variability.) To claim that we are NOT the main cause means coming up with some as-yet-unknown process that completely counters that - and yet ANOTHER as-yet-unknown process that just happens to be heating up the earth at the same rate that we would have, had imaginary process #1 not stopped us.
>The science also says that these events of environmental change have
>happened before in an almost cyclical pattern.
Not cyclical - the big changes come in very irregular patterns. And yes, such things have happened before. Large meteors and massive volcanic eruptions can cause such rapid changes (for different reasons.)
Smaller pertubations, like the el nino cycle, are definitely cyclic though.
>Are there enough of these to create a global affect? I'm not convinced the answer is yes.
What would it take to convince you?
Yes it does. Climactic forcing from anthropogenic CO2 is ~2.4 watts per square meter; far higher than any other influence (even solar variability.) To claim that we are NOT the main cause means coming up with some as-yet-unknown process that completely counters that - and yet ANOTHER as-yet-unknown process that just happens to be heating up the earth at the same rate that we would have, had imaginary process #1 not stopped us.
>The science also says that these events of environmental change have
>happened before in an almost cyclical pattern.
Not cyclical - the big changes come in very irregular patterns. And yes, such things have happened before. Large meteors and massive volcanic eruptions can cause such rapid changes (for different reasons.)
Smaller pertubations, like the el nino cycle, are definitely cyclic though.
>Are there enough of these to create a global affect? I'm not convinced the answer is yes.
What would it take to convince you?
Flygurl 0
>Solar variation causes a 'radiative forcing' (i.e. imbalance in energy budget)
>of .3w/m^2 at worst. This is very easy to quantify; the solar panels on
>satellites measure this directly.
>CO2 increases, at the current levels, cause a radiative forcing of ~2.4 watts
>per square meter, or 8 times what the solar variability does. So if CO2 is like
>adding a blanket, solar forcing is like adding one sock.
Where may I find the source of your numbers (i.e. who's GCM are you quoting?).
Satellites exist in a variety of orbits. What level of atmospheric orbit are
you referencing for panel readings? The sun easily keeps the moon's surface at
100C. Where a sample reading is taken makes a big difference in estimates.
>Of course. One way to make that happen is to set up a condition that ends the
>CO2 imbalance; humans going extinct would solve that. Best hope that the
earth's
>ecosystem is not _too_ good at correcting imbalances.
>More likely we will simply kill a lot of people off, until a) there are fewer
>users of fossil fuels left or b) we finally figure out what they are doing to
us
>and use something else. Again, it would be better if we figured it out before
>too many people die.
Do you not believe that overpopulation is causing climatic change? The pure
number of organisms, man and beast, more often than not unnaturally protected
from their environment by science and technology? As it stands, the world is
unable to efficiently support the volume of homo-sapiens who already exist. If
there were fewer people, there would be fewer people using fossil-fuels.
Evolution is a harsh mistress, and earth is a dynamic system. They WILL find a
way to Balance, no matter how smart we think we are.
>A massive wave of vulcanism can cause a dramatic increase in CO2 and
>a resulting mass extinction. Again, is that really what you want to emulate? I
>mean, a meteor could kill us all in a massive fireball. Does that mean arson is
>natural, or that we shouldn't put out burning cities?
Comparing vulcanism and meteoric impacts to arson and burning cities is a
straw-man fallacy. You can't compare natural occurrences with human-caused
events. Try this instead --> Would you extinguish a lightning-caused wildfire
to save a town? If so, you are exerting your influence on the natural
progression of the environment to protect your species and causing ripples in a
dynamic system. (See next paragraph below). Do you disagree that the use of
fossil fuels has protected the homo-sapien from the naturally-occuring events in
the environment? How many humans are you willing to sacrifice to protect the
environment for humans?
>Why yes! And why did we get our chance to _become_ us? Because a massive
>extinction about 65 million years ago killed off the previous dominant top
>predators. Another good reason to not have another massive extinction (unless
>you want us to get out of the way for the next dominant life on the planet,
that
>is.)
Ahhh -- you've arrived at my end point. Let's discuss the basic concept of
global warming.
You propose that a massive extinction event is exactly why homo-sapiens evolved.
Tell me, if you could have prevented the K-T event and "preserved the
environment" and the billions of organisms that died, would you have done that
at the expense of an unknown future (i.e. homo-sapiens)? Or would you let the
extinction occur because it was of 'natural' causes?
What's my point? That homo-sapiens ARE natural, and by default so are their
actions. Anything we do is natural, because the origin of species says we
evolved here. If you believe we evolved here, what right do you have to say
that a natively evolved species of a planet can cause "unnatural" changes to its
own biosphere? If global warming melts the icecaps and submerges Hong Kong and
New York City, the "unnatural" changes are simply damaging or reversing other
"unnatural" changes humans have made to the biosphere. It's a vicious cycle --
change begats change and I challenge you to justify how some human-caused
changes are okay, and others aren't, because everything we do is part of a
dynamic system.
>>>By the way, the people who cry loudest about **humans** causing
>>>global warming stand to gain money and power from the hysteria.
>I will be most interested to hear you tell me how I will gain power and money
>through my belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary driving
force
>behind climate change. (It's a nice sound bite, but effectively meaningless.)
I'm intrigued by the assumption that my statement refers to you, and also by
your coarse allegation that my statement is meaningless. Indisputably, the
loudest cries about global warming are by those involved in electoral politics,
in which case my statement is completely accurate. Are you one of those people?
Since the scientific world is not unified on the primary cause of global
warming, I'm not interested in debating this topic ad-infinitum, especially in
an online-forum. Go ahead and respond to my questions above, but if you would
care to continue in a slightly different direction, I am genuinely interested in
the details of your proposal for solving the "anthropogenic CO2 crisis", with
due attention given to the rise of Communist China as the world's soon-to-be
leading energy consumer. Please also include the expected level of economic
impact to both 1st and 3rd world countries as a result of your proposed
action(s).
-cura ut valeas-
>of .3w/m^2 at worst. This is very easy to quantify; the solar panels on
>satellites measure this directly.
>CO2 increases, at the current levels, cause a radiative forcing of ~2.4 watts
>per square meter, or 8 times what the solar variability does. So if CO2 is like
>adding a blanket, solar forcing is like adding one sock.
Where may I find the source of your numbers (i.e. who's GCM are you quoting?).
Satellites exist in a variety of orbits. What level of atmospheric orbit are
you referencing for panel readings? The sun easily keeps the moon's surface at
100C. Where a sample reading is taken makes a big difference in estimates.
>Of course. One way to make that happen is to set up a condition that ends the
>CO2 imbalance; humans going extinct would solve that. Best hope that the
earth's
>ecosystem is not _too_ good at correcting imbalances.
>More likely we will simply kill a lot of people off, until a) there are fewer
>users of fossil fuels left or b) we finally figure out what they are doing to
us
>and use something else. Again, it would be better if we figured it out before
>too many people die.
Do you not believe that overpopulation is causing climatic change? The pure
number of organisms, man and beast, more often than not unnaturally protected
from their environment by science and technology? As it stands, the world is
unable to efficiently support the volume of homo-sapiens who already exist. If
there were fewer people, there would be fewer people using fossil-fuels.
Evolution is a harsh mistress, and earth is a dynamic system. They WILL find a
way to Balance, no matter how smart we think we are.
>A massive wave of vulcanism can cause a dramatic increase in CO2 and
>a resulting mass extinction. Again, is that really what you want to emulate? I
>mean, a meteor could kill us all in a massive fireball. Does that mean arson is
>natural, or that we shouldn't put out burning cities?
Comparing vulcanism and meteoric impacts to arson and burning cities is a
straw-man fallacy. You can't compare natural occurrences with human-caused
events. Try this instead --> Would you extinguish a lightning-caused wildfire
to save a town? If so, you are exerting your influence on the natural
progression of the environment to protect your species and causing ripples in a
dynamic system. (See next paragraph below). Do you disagree that the use of
fossil fuels has protected the homo-sapien from the naturally-occuring events in
the environment? How many humans are you willing to sacrifice to protect the
environment for humans?
>Why yes! And why did we get our chance to _become_ us? Because a massive
>extinction about 65 million years ago killed off the previous dominant top
>predators. Another good reason to not have another massive extinction (unless
>you want us to get out of the way for the next dominant life on the planet,
that
>is.)
Ahhh -- you've arrived at my end point. Let's discuss the basic concept of
global warming.
You propose that a massive extinction event is exactly why homo-sapiens evolved.
Tell me, if you could have prevented the K-T event and "preserved the
environment" and the billions of organisms that died, would you have done that
at the expense of an unknown future (i.e. homo-sapiens)? Or would you let the
extinction occur because it was of 'natural' causes?
What's my point? That homo-sapiens ARE natural, and by default so are their
actions. Anything we do is natural, because the origin of species says we
evolved here. If you believe we evolved here, what right do you have to say
that a natively evolved species of a planet can cause "unnatural" changes to its
own biosphere? If global warming melts the icecaps and submerges Hong Kong and
New York City, the "unnatural" changes are simply damaging or reversing other
"unnatural" changes humans have made to the biosphere. It's a vicious cycle --
change begats change and I challenge you to justify how some human-caused
changes are okay, and others aren't, because everything we do is part of a
dynamic system.
>>>By the way, the people who cry loudest about **humans** causing
>>>global warming stand to gain money and power from the hysteria.
>I will be most interested to hear you tell me how I will gain power and money
>through my belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary driving
force
>behind climate change. (It's a nice sound bite, but effectively meaningless.)
I'm intrigued by the assumption that my statement refers to you, and also by
your coarse allegation that my statement is meaningless. Indisputably, the
loudest cries about global warming are by those involved in electoral politics,
in which case my statement is completely accurate. Are you one of those people?
Since the scientific world is not unified on the primary cause of global
warming, I'm not interested in debating this topic ad-infinitum, especially in
an online-forum. Go ahead and respond to my questions above, but if you would
care to continue in a slightly different direction, I am genuinely interested in
the details of your proposal for solving the "anthropogenic CO2 crisis", with
due attention given to the rise of Communist China as the world's soon-to-be
leading energy consumer. Please also include the expected level of economic
impact to both 1st and 3rd world countries as a result of your proposed
action(s).
-cura ut valeas-
________________________________________
"One out of every four American's are suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you."
"One out of every four American's are suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you."
Gawain 0
QuoteWhat would it take to convince you?
Unifed data from the meteorologic and scientific community.
A tall order, for sure. There is just too much conflicting data out there.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
billvon 2,454
>Where may I find the source of your numbers (i.e. who's GCM are you quoting?)
You're confusing two things, I believe. A GCM is a model; some are better than others. I'm talking plain ol irradiance data; it's from NASA.
>The sun easily keeps the moon's surface at 100C. Where a
>sample reading is taken makes a big difference in estimates.
Again, you're confusing two things here. Heat does not equal energy. A black car gets hotter than a white car; doesn't mean that the sun is stronger there. It means that the amount of absorption is different.
>Do you not believe that overpopulation is causing climatic change?
Directly? No. Indirectly? Yes. As we as a species burn more fuel and clear more forest, that changes the climate.
> As it stands, the world is unable to efficiently support the volume of
> homo-sapiens who already exist. If there were fewer people, there
> would be fewer people using fossil-fuels. Evolution is a harsh
> mistress, and earth is a dynamic system. They WILL find a
> way to Balance, no matter how smart we think we are.
I agree 100%! We should avoid having nature make this adjustment, and instead make it ourselves. In terms of CO2, the ecosphere doesn't care if the elimination of the imbalance comes from humans dying off or from humans switching to other sources of power. But we care very much (or at least we should.)
>Do you disagree that the use of fossil fuels has protected the
>homo-sapien from the naturally-occuring events in
>the environment?
Not at all! They were extremely useful when we had no alternatives.
> How many humans are you willing to sacrifice to protect the
>environment for humans?
Try the following experiment -
Turn on the electric heat in a house in Pennsylvania on a cold night. Set the thermostat for 70F. Now turn on the electric heat in a house in France. Set the thermostat for 70F.
Will you freeze to death in either place? Nope. (Try it!) But in Pennsylvania, that power came from burning coal. In France, it came from fissioning nuclei (and hence no CO2 production.)
Now, if you're adventurous, try the same thing in a passive solar house. You will note that you stay warm without either one.
>You propose that a massive extinction event is exactly why
>homo-sapiens evolved. Tell me, if you could have prevented the K-T
>event and "preserved the environment" and the billions of
>organisms that died, would you have done that at the expense of
>an unknown future (i.e. homo-sapiens)?
If I was a dinosaur, say one of the bigger carnivores? Yes, I would prevent the incident that caused my own extinction.
>What's my point? That homo-sapiens ARE natural, and by default so
> are their actions.
Oh, nonsense. By that logic, nuclear waste is organic food.
>If global warming melts the icecaps and submerges Hong Kong and
>New York City, the "unnatural" changes are simply damaging or
>reversing other "unnatural" changes humans have made to the
> biosphere. It's a vicious cycle -- change begats change and
>I challenge you to justify how some human-caused
>changes are okay, and others aren't, because everything we do is
>part of a dynamic system.
You are starting to get close to the answer here! (And I note you have now accepted that we are driving climate change.) Yes, we have a big influence on the environment. We should carefully plan that influence so it does not destroy that part of the ecosphere we depend on.
Most people live in a house. By living in a house you affect it; you wear the carpets, cause dust, get the shower wet every day etc. A wise person takes care of their house. A fool breaks windows, lets the bathroom molder, overloads his electrical system, doesn't clean the gutters etc. Both the wise homeowner and the fool are part of a dynamic system, but the wise homeowner makes sure that his actions do not destroy what he relies on in the house.
We should be as wise when we approach our home on this planet.
>>>By the way, the people who cry loudest about **humans** causing
>>>global warming stand to gain money and power from the hysteria.
>I'm intrigued by the assumption that my statement refers to you . . .
I am the 'loudest' person on this board who believes that humans cause climate change. So I am 'the people' you are talking about.
>and also by your coarse allegation that my statement is meaningless.
It's like the sound bite that the problems in Iraq are all caused by the lying liberal media, or all pro-war people are chickenhawks who sit at home while others die. Good for a quick gotcha, but no real meaning.
I know several of the people who are leaders in the renewable energy field. Windy Dankoff, a leader in renewable energy. Amory Lovins, the leader of the Rocky Mountain Institude, who warns incessantly about a human-created climactic disaster. Neither of these people want power or money; they want to stop what they see as a coming disaster. So do I.
So unless you know some of these people who are crying about anthropogenic warning, and who simply want to create hysteria to profit from it, I stand by my statement that it's a pretty meaningless thing to say.
>Since the scientific world is not unified on the primary cause of global
>warming . . . .
Which is like the creationists saying that the scientific world is not unified on whether evolution is a fraud, or like a conspiracy theorist saying that top scientists disagree that the Apollo missions really happened. It's easy to find someone who dissents if you look hard enough - especially since most energy companies have a vested financial interest in there NOT being any connection between humans and climate change. The question is - are they credible?
>I am genuinely interested in the details of your proposal for solving
>the "anthropogenic CO2 crisis", with due attention given to the rise of
>Communist China as the world's soon-to-be leading energy consumer.
Start here. We produce the most CO2; reducing our emissions will have by far the biggest effect. We already have the technology - efficient vehicles, natural gas vehicles, solar hot water and power, geothermal, biofuels.
Then create a treaty; agree with other nations to hold CO2 emissions to a certain level. Provide financial incentives to countries that are not yet very developed. Give them free CANDU or thorium-based nuclear reactors. Provide incentives for wind and solar power.
Last night I bought 40 gallons of ethanol for our cars. Our water is heated by the sun. Our power comes from the sun; I generate more than I use, and I 'donate' the rest to the power company. I bike to work, either on a regular bike or an electrically powered one that goes about 30mph. We compost our waste and turn it into dirt. We re-use our grey water for irrigation. It can be done, and done easily.
Economic impact would be similar to, say, the Iraq war. We are currently shouldering that burden. Overall, if we can really get it to work, the savings will far outweigh the cost. (How much will a Katrina a year cost us?)
You're confusing two things, I believe. A GCM is a model; some are better than others. I'm talking plain ol irradiance data; it's from NASA.
>The sun easily keeps the moon's surface at 100C. Where a
>sample reading is taken makes a big difference in estimates.
Again, you're confusing two things here. Heat does not equal energy. A black car gets hotter than a white car; doesn't mean that the sun is stronger there. It means that the amount of absorption is different.
>Do you not believe that overpopulation is causing climatic change?
Directly? No. Indirectly? Yes. As we as a species burn more fuel and clear more forest, that changes the climate.
> As it stands, the world is unable to efficiently support the volume of
> homo-sapiens who already exist. If there were fewer people, there
> would be fewer people using fossil-fuels. Evolution is a harsh
> mistress, and earth is a dynamic system. They WILL find a
> way to Balance, no matter how smart we think we are.
I agree 100%! We should avoid having nature make this adjustment, and instead make it ourselves. In terms of CO2, the ecosphere doesn't care if the elimination of the imbalance comes from humans dying off or from humans switching to other sources of power. But we care very much (or at least we should.)
>Do you disagree that the use of fossil fuels has protected the
>homo-sapien from the naturally-occuring events in
>the environment?
Not at all! They were extremely useful when we had no alternatives.
> How many humans are you willing to sacrifice to protect the
>environment for humans?
Try the following experiment -
Turn on the electric heat in a house in Pennsylvania on a cold night. Set the thermostat for 70F. Now turn on the electric heat in a house in France. Set the thermostat for 70F.
Will you freeze to death in either place? Nope. (Try it!) But in Pennsylvania, that power came from burning coal. In France, it came from fissioning nuclei (and hence no CO2 production.)
Now, if you're adventurous, try the same thing in a passive solar house. You will note that you stay warm without either one.
>You propose that a massive extinction event is exactly why
>homo-sapiens evolved. Tell me, if you could have prevented the K-T
>event and "preserved the environment" and the billions of
>organisms that died, would you have done that at the expense of
>an unknown future (i.e. homo-sapiens)?
If I was a dinosaur, say one of the bigger carnivores? Yes, I would prevent the incident that caused my own extinction.
>What's my point? That homo-sapiens ARE natural, and by default so
> are their actions.
Oh, nonsense. By that logic, nuclear waste is organic food.
>If global warming melts the icecaps and submerges Hong Kong and
>New York City, the "unnatural" changes are simply damaging or
>reversing other "unnatural" changes humans have made to the
> biosphere. It's a vicious cycle -- change begats change and
>I challenge you to justify how some human-caused
>changes are okay, and others aren't, because everything we do is
>part of a dynamic system.
You are starting to get close to the answer here! (And I note you have now accepted that we are driving climate change.) Yes, we have a big influence on the environment. We should carefully plan that influence so it does not destroy that part of the ecosphere we depend on.
Most people live in a house. By living in a house you affect it; you wear the carpets, cause dust, get the shower wet every day etc. A wise person takes care of their house. A fool breaks windows, lets the bathroom molder, overloads his electrical system, doesn't clean the gutters etc. Both the wise homeowner and the fool are part of a dynamic system, but the wise homeowner makes sure that his actions do not destroy what he relies on in the house.
We should be as wise when we approach our home on this planet.
>>>By the way, the people who cry loudest about **humans** causing
>>>global warming stand to gain money and power from the hysteria.
>I'm intrigued by the assumption that my statement refers to you . . .
I am the 'loudest' person on this board who believes that humans cause climate change. So I am 'the people' you are talking about.
>and also by your coarse allegation that my statement is meaningless.
It's like the sound bite that the problems in Iraq are all caused by the lying liberal media, or all pro-war people are chickenhawks who sit at home while others die. Good for a quick gotcha, but no real meaning.
I know several of the people who are leaders in the renewable energy field. Windy Dankoff, a leader in renewable energy. Amory Lovins, the leader of the Rocky Mountain Institude, who warns incessantly about a human-created climactic disaster. Neither of these people want power or money; they want to stop what they see as a coming disaster. So do I.
So unless you know some of these people who are crying about anthropogenic warning, and who simply want to create hysteria to profit from it, I stand by my statement that it's a pretty meaningless thing to say.
>Since the scientific world is not unified on the primary cause of global
>warming . . . .
Which is like the creationists saying that the scientific world is not unified on whether evolution is a fraud, or like a conspiracy theorist saying that top scientists disagree that the Apollo missions really happened. It's easy to find someone who dissents if you look hard enough - especially since most energy companies have a vested financial interest in there NOT being any connection between humans and climate change. The question is - are they credible?
>I am genuinely interested in the details of your proposal for solving
>the "anthropogenic CO2 crisis", with due attention given to the rise of
>Communist China as the world's soon-to-be leading energy consumer.
Start here. We produce the most CO2; reducing our emissions will have by far the biggest effect. We already have the technology - efficient vehicles, natural gas vehicles, solar hot water and power, geothermal, biofuels.
Then create a treaty; agree with other nations to hold CO2 emissions to a certain level. Provide financial incentives to countries that are not yet very developed. Give them free CANDU or thorium-based nuclear reactors. Provide incentives for wind and solar power.
Last night I bought 40 gallons of ethanol for our cars. Our water is heated by the sun. Our power comes from the sun; I generate more than I use, and I 'donate' the rest to the power company. I bike to work, either on a regular bike or an electrically powered one that goes about 30mph. We compost our waste and turn it into dirt. We re-use our grey water for irrigation. It can be done, and done easily.
Economic impact would be similar to, say, the Iraq war. We are currently shouldering that burden. Overall, if we can really get it to work, the savings will far outweigh the cost. (How much will a Katrina a year cost us?)
speedy 0
QuoteWe produce the most CO2; reducing our emissions will have by far the biggest effect.
For a start the globe doesn't respond neatly to simple increment in greenhouse gases - don't misunderstand, greenhouse gases have increased and have been doing so since the industrial revolution but the world has been rather taciturn where response is concerned. Since the 1976 PDO positive phase shift, for example, the globally averaged mean temperature has been rising (trend 0.17 °C/decade, that is, if the trend were to continue for a hundred years the world would warm 1.7 °C). The preceding three-decade period, however, has been re-evaluated to 0.02 °C/decade (0.2 °C over 100 years). The trend throughout the available series (since 1880) is a much more conservative 0.04 °C/decade (0.4 °C over 100 years). The net result, according to the GHCN-ERSST Data Set at least, has been 0.5 °C rise over the entire period of record while the GHCN Land Surface Data Set suggests almost 0.9 °C since 1880. Whether such a warming is to be considered unusual is difficult to determine since we have so little data over longer periods. The Central England Temperature record dates from 1659 and appears to be reasonable proxy for northern hemisphere temperature and it contains warmings of greater amplitude and more aggressive trend in both the early 18th and early 19th Centuries than that which we believe occurred during the 20th despite minimal disturbance in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels at those times.
So, we are moderately sure that the world has been warming although our precision for measuring same is not high. We are not sure about baseline temperatures and we have no way of telling what should be considered the 'correct' temperature. In addition to this we have some discrepancy between where we expect to find warming in accord with the enhanced greenhouse warming hypothesis and what we can actually observe. Then there is still a wide disparity between atmosphere-derived temperatures and near-surface ones so we are not yet convinced about being able to remove the effect of irrigation schemes, for example, and their regional temperature and humidity perturbations and so derive the effect of emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Nor are we assured of having adequately dealt with the urbanisation of temperature recording points so it is possible, even likely that some of the estimated temperature increment of recent decades is due to urban heat island - this remains contentious, to say the least.
On top of all this we have to contend with the misuse of process models attempting to divine the future and producing somewhat extraordinary 'projections' that are paraded as though they constitute data. Worse, these "projections" rely on "positive feedbacks" (multiplier fudges) whose very existence is uncertain and the net sign of the combined feedback mechanisms is unknown. These fudges are necessary because the climate forcing of a small rise in a trace gas like carbon dioxide is known to be quite small on its own.
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
rasmack 0
Quote>So where did the global cooling stuff come from?
No idea. I never took them seriously.
Actually you should. If you look at Earth's climate at a large time-scale (think ice-core drillings) the climate tends to order itself into metastable sets of conditions lasting tens of thousands of years. In fact we are presently living in a rather warm epoch. The climate can shange from one set of conditions to another over one human life-time. Now, it seems reasonable to assume that a such change is triggered by some sort of perturbation, but we do not know the mechanism behind those changes. It is thus not improbable that human triggered global warming might act as a such perturbation changing our climate radically, but predicting the direction of change is a b*tch. It might be an age of deserts and global storms. It might be an ice age. It is all about how the heat is going to be distributed in atmosphere and oceans.
HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...
billvon 2,454
>So, we are moderately sure that the world has been warming
>although our precision for measuring same is not high. We are not
> sure about baseline temperatures and we have no way of telling
> what should be considered the 'correct' temperature.
An interesting comment. Why do you think there is a 'correct' temperature at all? There have been several periods where the worldwide average climate was well below freezing; was that correct? It was certainly pretty stable, until volcanoes caused a runaway greenhouse effect that rapidly swung the planet in the opposite direction.
There have also been periods where temperatures have been much higher than today, due (we believe) to the release of massive amounts of CO2 by vulcanism, and the threshold effect brought about by tundra methane and release of methane clathrates.
So I don't think there is a 'correct' temperature. Indeed, the ecosystem that we live in often sees temperature swings, and by and large adapts to the slower ones. We know that the faster ones cause mass extinctions, since there is a limit to how fast plants and animals can adapt.
Thus the goal of any anthropogenic change mitigation plan should NOT be to freeze the planet's temperature at some level. It's not possible anyway. It should be to ensure that the change we are seeing is no faster than the planet would see naturally, without catastrophic pertubations (like mass vulcanism or meteor impacts.) The rates we are seeing now are rates that have been, in the past, associated with mass extinctions, so it would be a good idea to slow it down to a more survivable rate.
>although our precision for measuring same is not high. We are not
> sure about baseline temperatures and we have no way of telling
> what should be considered the 'correct' temperature.
An interesting comment. Why do you think there is a 'correct' temperature at all? There have been several periods where the worldwide average climate was well below freezing; was that correct? It was certainly pretty stable, until volcanoes caused a runaway greenhouse effect that rapidly swung the planet in the opposite direction.
There have also been periods where temperatures have been much higher than today, due (we believe) to the release of massive amounts of CO2 by vulcanism, and the threshold effect brought about by tundra methane and release of methane clathrates.
So I don't think there is a 'correct' temperature. Indeed, the ecosystem that we live in often sees temperature swings, and by and large adapts to the slower ones. We know that the faster ones cause mass extinctions, since there is a limit to how fast plants and animals can adapt.
Thus the goal of any anthropogenic change mitigation plan should NOT be to freeze the planet's temperature at some level. It's not possible anyway. It should be to ensure that the change we are seeing is no faster than the planet would see naturally, without catastrophic pertubations (like mass vulcanism or meteor impacts.) The rates we are seeing now are rates that have been, in the past, associated with mass extinctions, so it would be a good idea to slow it down to a more survivable rate.
Being a scuba diver I'm deeply saddened by the lost of coral even if it didn't have other ramifications (which it does). I'm not sure if there is a fix. There is certainly not a quick fix. 
steveOrino
steveOrino
ExAFO 0
QuoteBeing a scuba diver I'm deeply saddened by the lost of coral even if it didn't have other ramifications (which it does). I'm not sure if there is a fix. There is certainly not a quick fix.
The Navy is sinking (or already has sunk) an old Aircraft Carrier in the Gulf of Mexico to provide a reef...it's a start....
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.
Quote
Unifed data from the meteorologic and scientific community.
A tall order, for sure. There is just too much conflicting data out there.
It took centuries for concensus on the heliocentric model.
QuoteQuoteBeing a scuba diver I'm deeply saddened by the lost of coral even if it didn't have other ramifications (which it does). I'm not sure if there is a fix. There is certainly not a quick fix.
The Navy is sinking (or already has sunk) an old Aircraft Carrier in the Gulf of Mexico to provide a reef...it's a start....
Artificial reefs of that sort don't serve the same needs. The little fish that live (and hide) within the intricate coral types can't use a big ship. Those are better suited towards larger creatures, and simpler life that just needs a surface to live on.
Flygurl 0
> You're confusing two things, I believe. A GCM is a model; some are better than
> others. I'm talking plain ol irradiance data; it's from NASA.
You avoided the question. No source, no credibility. Tell me specifically where you obtained those numbers -- name of the NASA report, url, whatever.
> Again, you're confusing two things here. Heat does not equal energy. A black car
> gets hotter than a white car; doesn't mean that the sun is stronger there. It
> means that the amount of absorption is different.
Heat is a form of energy. I asked at what altitude the satellite data you were quoting was captured from. How much resistance and absorption energy encounters on its way to a destination DOES matter.
> Will you freeze to death in either place? Nope. (Try it!) But in Pennsylvania,
> that power came from burning coal. In France, it came from fissioning nuclei
> (and hence no CO2 production.)
Ahh.. nuclear waste. Greenpeace would be upset with you. They say nuclear power damages the environment. Or are they "not credible", like those moon conspiracy people? Are you planning to build nuclear reactors for unfriendly countries, or will the North Koreans be forced to use wind-farms?
> Now, if you're adventurous, try the same thing in a passive solar house. You
> will note that you stay warm without either one.
With sunny weather, you will get heat from solar, but not anywhere near enough electricity. I suppose Vancouver and Seattle would need to rely on nuclear?
>
> >What's my point? That homo-sapiens ARE natural, and by default so
> > are their actions.
>
> Oh, nonsense. By that logic, nuclear waste is organic food.
Another straw-man fallacy via an unexplained correlation. If you are going to insult my statements, do me the courtesy of describing your reasoning.
> >If global warming melts the icecaps and submerges Hong Kong and
> >New York City, the "unnatural" changes are simply damaging or
> >reversing other "unnatural" changes humans have made to the
> > biosphere. It's a vicious cycle -- change begets change and
> >I challenge you to justify how some human-caused
> >changes are okay, and others aren't, because everything we do is
> >part of a dynamic system.
>
> You are starting to get close to the answer here! (And I note you have now
> accepted that we are driving climate change.) Yes, we have a big influence on
> the environment. We should carefully plan that influence so it does not destroy
> that part of the ecosphere we depend on.
Your note is a false accusation. I referred to "human-caused changes". I said no such thing as "we are driving climate change".
I do not appreciate you continuing to tell me what I believe and attributing words to me that I did not say. I did not do that to you, and I expect the same courtesy in return.
> >>>By the way, the people who cry loudest about **humans** causing
> >>>global warming stand to gain money and power from the hysteria.
>
> >I'm intrigued by the assumption that my statement refers to you . . .
>
> I am the 'loudest' person on this board who believes that humans cause climate
> change. So I am 'the people' you are talking about.
Do you base all your points off telling people what they mean? You are making false attributions *again*. I said nothing about you or "this board" -- I said people in ELECTORAL POLITICS. Between putting words in my mouth and projecting an incredibly self-important image, it's become quite difficult to take you seriously.
> I know several of the people who are leaders in the renewable energy field.
> Windy Dankoff, a leader in renewable energy. Amory Lovins, the leader of the
> Rocky Mountain Institute, who warns incessantly about a human-created climactic
> disaster. Neither of these people want power or money; they want to stop what
> they see as a coming disaster. So do I.
Never heard of them, and neither has the public. I have heard of Al Gore and John Kerry.
> So unless you know some of these people who are crying about anthropogenic
> warning, and who simply want to create hysteria to profit from it, I stand by my
> statement that it's a pretty meaningless thing to say.
>
> >Since the scientific world is not unified on the primary cause of global
> >warming . . . .
>
> Which is like the creationists saying that the scientific world is not unified
> on whether evolution is a fraud, or like a conspiracy theorist saying that top
> scientists disagree that the Apollo missions really happened. It's easy to find
> someone who dissents if you look hard enough - especially since most energy
> companies have a vested financial interest in there NOT being any connection
> between humans and climate change. The question is - are they credible?
Nope. My point holds true. Last I checked, the scientific world was unified on the theory of gravity, the atomic weight of a Hydrogen molecule, the process of evaporation, how fast light-speed is, how the earth orbits the sun, the effects of radiation on human tissue, and many other causes and effects of observable phenomena. So why not the primary cause of global warming? Wait, let me guess -- is it because those scientists who see things differently than you are "not credible"? Or is it because the ecosphere is an incredibly complex and dynamic system that humans aren't even close to understanding?
> Start here. We produce the most CO2; reducing our emissions will have by far the
> biggest effect. We already have the technology - efficient vehicles, natural gas
> vehicles, solar hot water and power, geothermal, biofuels.
>
> Then create a treaty; agree with other nations to hold CO2 emissions to a
> certain level. Provide financial incentives to countries that are not yet very
> developed. Give them free CANDU or thorium-based nuclear reactors. Provide
> incentives for wind and solar power.
So much for my genuine interest. You avoided mentioning any economic ramifications of your grand plan. But then again, 65 words is far from "details". You repeat enviro-political "soundbites" that I've heard thousands of times from talking-heads in the media. Treaties? The Kyoto treaty is an enormous joke. Russia has gained hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon credits while they continue to pollute at near American levels. Time and time again throughout history treaties are shown to be ineffective; a temporary crutch for those who think words and signatures will make everyone behave properly.
Whether or not I think you are "right" in what you believe is far less important to me than how you have arrived at your beliefs and how you defend them in the face of criticism. In my view you have utterly failed to justify your position with any sort of logical process. I still respect you as a person who has strong convictions, at least as far as I can when you throw 1-liners referring to my opinions as "meaningless" and "nonsense", bolster your position by attributing things to me that I did not say, and continue to insist on telling me what I am talking about.
On the up-side, you write well -- a rare and valuable skill these days. With that, I believe you could be much more persuasive if you articulated your convictions in a less offensive manner.
That's all I have to say to you on this matter.
> others. I'm talking plain ol irradiance data; it's from NASA.
You avoided the question. No source, no credibility. Tell me specifically where you obtained those numbers -- name of the NASA report, url, whatever.
> Again, you're confusing two things here. Heat does not equal energy. A black car
> gets hotter than a white car; doesn't mean that the sun is stronger there. It
> means that the amount of absorption is different.
Heat is a form of energy. I asked at what altitude the satellite data you were quoting was captured from. How much resistance and absorption energy encounters on its way to a destination DOES matter.
> Will you freeze to death in either place? Nope. (Try it!) But in Pennsylvania,
> that power came from burning coal. In France, it came from fissioning nuclei
> (and hence no CO2 production.)
Ahh.. nuclear waste. Greenpeace would be upset with you. They say nuclear power damages the environment. Or are they "not credible", like those moon conspiracy people? Are you planning to build nuclear reactors for unfriendly countries, or will the North Koreans be forced to use wind-farms?
> Now, if you're adventurous, try the same thing in a passive solar house. You
> will note that you stay warm without either one.
With sunny weather, you will get heat from solar, but not anywhere near enough electricity. I suppose Vancouver and Seattle would need to rely on nuclear?
>
> >What's my point? That homo-sapiens ARE natural, and by default so
> > are their actions.
>
> Oh, nonsense. By that logic, nuclear waste is organic food.
Another straw-man fallacy via an unexplained correlation. If you are going to insult my statements, do me the courtesy of describing your reasoning.
> >If global warming melts the icecaps and submerges Hong Kong and
> >New York City, the "unnatural" changes are simply damaging or
> >reversing other "unnatural" changes humans have made to the
> > biosphere. It's a vicious cycle -- change begets change and
> >I challenge you to justify how some human-caused
> >changes are okay, and others aren't, because everything we do is
> >part of a dynamic system.
>
> You are starting to get close to the answer here! (And I note you have now
> accepted that we are driving climate change.) Yes, we have a big influence on
> the environment. We should carefully plan that influence so it does not destroy
> that part of the ecosphere we depend on.
Your note is a false accusation. I referred to "human-caused changes". I said no such thing as "we are driving climate change".
I do not appreciate you continuing to tell me what I believe and attributing words to me that I did not say. I did not do that to you, and I expect the same courtesy in return.
> >>>By the way, the people who cry loudest about **humans** causing
> >>>global warming stand to gain money and power from the hysteria.
>
> >I'm intrigued by the assumption that my statement refers to you . . .
>
> I am the 'loudest' person on this board who believes that humans cause climate
> change. So I am 'the people' you are talking about.
Do you base all your points off telling people what they mean? You are making false attributions *again*. I said nothing about you or "this board" -- I said people in ELECTORAL POLITICS. Between putting words in my mouth and projecting an incredibly self-important image, it's become quite difficult to take you seriously.
> I know several of the people who are leaders in the renewable energy field.
> Windy Dankoff, a leader in renewable energy. Amory Lovins, the leader of the
> Rocky Mountain Institute, who warns incessantly about a human-created climactic
> disaster. Neither of these people want power or money; they want to stop what
> they see as a coming disaster. So do I.
Never heard of them, and neither has the public. I have heard of Al Gore and John Kerry.
> So unless you know some of these people who are crying about anthropogenic
> warning, and who simply want to create hysteria to profit from it, I stand by my
> statement that it's a pretty meaningless thing to say.
>
> >Since the scientific world is not unified on the primary cause of global
> >warming . . . .
>
> Which is like the creationists saying that the scientific world is not unified
> on whether evolution is a fraud, or like a conspiracy theorist saying that top
> scientists disagree that the Apollo missions really happened. It's easy to find
> someone who dissents if you look hard enough - especially since most energy
> companies have a vested financial interest in there NOT being any connection
> between humans and climate change. The question is - are they credible?
Nope. My point holds true. Last I checked, the scientific world was unified on the theory of gravity, the atomic weight of a Hydrogen molecule, the process of evaporation, how fast light-speed is, how the earth orbits the sun, the effects of radiation on human tissue, and many other causes and effects of observable phenomena. So why not the primary cause of global warming? Wait, let me guess -- is it because those scientists who see things differently than you are "not credible"? Or is it because the ecosphere is an incredibly complex and dynamic system that humans aren't even close to understanding?
> Start here. We produce the most CO2; reducing our emissions will have by far the
> biggest effect. We already have the technology - efficient vehicles, natural gas
> vehicles, solar hot water and power, geothermal, biofuels.
>
> Then create a treaty; agree with other nations to hold CO2 emissions to a
> certain level. Provide financial incentives to countries that are not yet very
> developed. Give them free CANDU or thorium-based nuclear reactors. Provide
> incentives for wind and solar power.
So much for my genuine interest. You avoided mentioning any economic ramifications of your grand plan. But then again, 65 words is far from "details". You repeat enviro-political "soundbites" that I've heard thousands of times from talking-heads in the media. Treaties? The Kyoto treaty is an enormous joke. Russia has gained hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon credits while they continue to pollute at near American levels. Time and time again throughout history treaties are shown to be ineffective; a temporary crutch for those who think words and signatures will make everyone behave properly.
Whether or not I think you are "right" in what you believe is far less important to me than how you have arrived at your beliefs and how you defend them in the face of criticism. In my view you have utterly failed to justify your position with any sort of logical process. I still respect you as a person who has strong convictions, at least as far as I can when you throw 1-liners referring to my opinions as "meaningless" and "nonsense", bolster your position by attributing things to me that I did not say, and continue to insist on telling me what I am talking about.
On the up-side, you write well -- a rare and valuable skill these days. With that, I believe you could be much more persuasive if you articulated your convictions in a less offensive manner.
That's all I have to say to you on this matter.
________________________________________
"One out of every four American's are suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you."
"One out of every four American's are suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you."
"Yep, just confirms my belief that the world isn't going to be around forever. I can't wait for heaven! "
That has to be in the top ten of the stupidest things typed to this forum.
That has to be in the top ten of the stupidest things typed to this forum.
billvon 2,454
>Tell me specifically where you obtained those numbers -- name of
>the NASA report, url, whatever.
A good overview:
Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties (2005)
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC)
I would direct your attention specifically to page 3, which shows the relative forcings of the various climactic factors. Solar variability is shown as .2w/m^2, with error bars to .1 and .5w/m^2. You may also be interested in the references at the end.
>How much resistance and absorption energy encounters on its way
>to a destination DOES matter.
That's exactly correct - and why CO2 is such a big deal in terms of climate change.
>I asked at what altitude the satellite data you were quoting was captured from.
Doesn't really matter; space is effectively transparent at the levels we are talking about. (The atmosphere is another story of course.) But some of the satellites used were the Solar Max and the UARS. The bigger problem than transparency is consistent calibration. Satellites only remain aloft for 10-15 years, which means we can barely capture one sunspot cycle, and different satellites may give you different results.
>Ahh.. nuclear waste. Greenpeace would be upset with you. They say
> nuclear power damages the environment. Or are they "not credible",
> like those moon conspiracy people? Are you planning to build
> nuclear reactors for unfriendly countries, or will the North Koreans be
> forced to use wind-farms?
I don't really care what Greenpeace, Earth First! or the Flat Earth society thinks. Nuclear waste is dangerous; so was the ore that the original uranium came from. It's easy to deal with, fortunately. Put it on a slab in the middle of the desert and leave it there forever.
Nuclear reactors for unfriendly countries? Why not? A CANDU reactor works with natural uranium; you can give them a CANDU reactor and make sure they never build any enrichment equipment. No enriched uranium or plutonium = no bombs.
>With sunny weather, you will get heat from solar, but not anywhere
>near enough electricity.
I generate more than I use.
>I suppose Vancouver and Seattle would need to rely on nuclear?
Nope. Hydro, like they do now.
> I am the 'loudest' person on this board who believes that humans cause climate
> change. So I am 'the people' you are talking about.
>Do you base all your points off telling people what they mean?
If you don't want your statements discussed - don't bring them up. I am the loudest person here concerning anthropogenic climate change. I see you have now requalified your statement to include "people in electoral politics" and that's fine; your statement no longer includes me. In the future, stating such things up front can help avoid confusion.
>Never heard of them, and neither has the public. I have heard of Al
>Gore and John Kerry.
I have spoken to Al Gore about his clean car initiative, and he had some solid ideas about how to accomplish his goals. He has a pretty good book out about how to achieve his environmental goals. I don't agree with all of his points, but he makes them in a logical fashion.
How do you conclude that he wishes to cause hysteria to further his fortune or political power? Such statements sound exactly like the "talking head enviro-political soundbites" you accuse me of making.
I don't know Kerry so I can't comment on him.
>Nope. My point holds true. Last I checked, the scientific world was
> unified on the theory of gravity . . . .
Are you kidding? I never know if people are kidding here. Pick up a year's worth of New Scientist, or even Nature. You will see three new theories on gravity. It is _extremely_ safe to say that there is no consensus on how gravity works. (However, I expect that you believe that it _does_ work!)
Gravity is a good example here. We're not sure how it works, but we know it does work. We know mass is the big driver. We can accurately predict its effects. Rarely, some part of the theory is proven wrong or inaccurate (Einstein changed our understanding of it a bit) and people use that to integrate it into a _new_ theory of gravity.
Similarly, we know a lot about how the climate works; we are learning more all the time. We know CO2 is a big climactic forcing factor. We know that solar variability is a smaller one. We know we have been increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know the planet has been warming. None of these are seriously in doubt. We still don't understand completely how it all ties together. But just as it would be foolish to jump without a parachute and say "hey, scientists can't agree on how gravity works - I might be fine!" it's foolish to say "hey, scientists can't agree on the details of cloud formation - we might be fine!"
>So much for my genuine interest. You avoided mentioning any
>economic ramifications of your grand plan.
Perhaps reading it again will reveal my comments on its cost.
>But then again, 65 words is far from "details".
This is a skydiving discussion forum; I try not to write novels. What do you want more details on? Construction of CANDU reactors? Locations for potential windfarms? Cost per kilowatt hour of wind power? The relative merits of different kinds of CO2 reduction incentives? The life costs of hybrids? I'd be happy to answer, but I have to know the question you want answered. (And I certainly don't have all the answers - just a few of them.)
>The Kyoto treaty is an enormous joke.
Then propose a better one.
>Time and time again throughout history treaties are shown to
>be ineffective; a temporary crutch for those who think words and
>signatures will make everyone behave properly.
The Clean Air Act did a pretty good job. NATO helped out quite a bit during the Cold War. Temporary crutches, perhaps, but crutches work.
>Whether or not I think you are "right" in what you believe is far less
> important to me than how you have arrived at your beliefs and how
> you defend them in the face of criticism.
Can I take it, then, that you are more interested in debating than the substance behind the debate? If so, then I have misunderstood your posts, and I apologize.
>the NASA report, url, whatever.
A good overview:
Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties (2005)
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC)
I would direct your attention specifically to page 3, which shows the relative forcings of the various climactic factors. Solar variability is shown as .2w/m^2, with error bars to .1 and .5w/m^2. You may also be interested in the references at the end.
>How much resistance and absorption energy encounters on its way
>to a destination DOES matter.
That's exactly correct - and why CO2 is such a big deal in terms of climate change.
>I asked at what altitude the satellite data you were quoting was captured from.
Doesn't really matter; space is effectively transparent at the levels we are talking about. (The atmosphere is another story of course.) But some of the satellites used were the Solar Max and the UARS. The bigger problem than transparency is consistent calibration. Satellites only remain aloft for 10-15 years, which means we can barely capture one sunspot cycle, and different satellites may give you different results.
>Ahh.. nuclear waste. Greenpeace would be upset with you. They say
> nuclear power damages the environment. Or are they "not credible",
> like those moon conspiracy people? Are you planning to build
> nuclear reactors for unfriendly countries, or will the North Koreans be
> forced to use wind-farms?
I don't really care what Greenpeace, Earth First! or the Flat Earth society thinks. Nuclear waste is dangerous; so was the ore that the original uranium came from. It's easy to deal with, fortunately. Put it on a slab in the middle of the desert and leave it there forever.
Nuclear reactors for unfriendly countries? Why not? A CANDU reactor works with natural uranium; you can give them a CANDU reactor and make sure they never build any enrichment equipment. No enriched uranium or plutonium = no bombs.
>With sunny weather, you will get heat from solar, but not anywhere
>near enough electricity.
I generate more than I use.
>I suppose Vancouver and Seattle would need to rely on nuclear?
Nope. Hydro, like they do now.
> I am the 'loudest' person on this board who believes that humans cause climate
> change. So I am 'the people' you are talking about.
>Do you base all your points off telling people what they mean?
If you don't want your statements discussed - don't bring them up. I am the loudest person here concerning anthropogenic climate change. I see you have now requalified your statement to include "people in electoral politics" and that's fine; your statement no longer includes me. In the future, stating such things up front can help avoid confusion.
>Never heard of them, and neither has the public. I have heard of Al
>Gore and John Kerry.
I have spoken to Al Gore about his clean car initiative, and he had some solid ideas about how to accomplish his goals. He has a pretty good book out about how to achieve his environmental goals. I don't agree with all of his points, but he makes them in a logical fashion.
How do you conclude that he wishes to cause hysteria to further his fortune or political power? Such statements sound exactly like the "talking head enviro-political soundbites" you accuse me of making.
I don't know Kerry so I can't comment on him.
>Nope. My point holds true. Last I checked, the scientific world was
> unified on the theory of gravity . . . .
Are you kidding? I never know if people are kidding here. Pick up a year's worth of New Scientist, or even Nature. You will see three new theories on gravity. It is _extremely_ safe to say that there is no consensus on how gravity works. (However, I expect that you believe that it _does_ work!)
Gravity is a good example here. We're not sure how it works, but we know it does work. We know mass is the big driver. We can accurately predict its effects. Rarely, some part of the theory is proven wrong or inaccurate (Einstein changed our understanding of it a bit) and people use that to integrate it into a _new_ theory of gravity.
Similarly, we know a lot about how the climate works; we are learning more all the time. We know CO2 is a big climactic forcing factor. We know that solar variability is a smaller one. We know we have been increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know the planet has been warming. None of these are seriously in doubt. We still don't understand completely how it all ties together. But just as it would be foolish to jump without a parachute and say "hey, scientists can't agree on how gravity works - I might be fine!" it's foolish to say "hey, scientists can't agree on the details of cloud formation - we might be fine!"
>So much for my genuine interest. You avoided mentioning any
>economic ramifications of your grand plan.
Perhaps reading it again will reveal my comments on its cost.
>But then again, 65 words is far from "details".
This is a skydiving discussion forum; I try not to write novels. What do you want more details on? Construction of CANDU reactors? Locations for potential windfarms? Cost per kilowatt hour of wind power? The relative merits of different kinds of CO2 reduction incentives? The life costs of hybrids? I'd be happy to answer, but I have to know the question you want answered. (And I certainly don't have all the answers - just a few of them.)
>The Kyoto treaty is an enormous joke.
Then propose a better one.
>Time and time again throughout history treaties are shown to
>be ineffective; a temporary crutch for those who think words and
>signatures will make everyone behave properly.
The Clean Air Act did a pretty good job. NATO helped out quite a bit during the Cold War. Temporary crutches, perhaps, but crutches work.
>Whether or not I think you are "right" in what you believe is far less
> important to me than how you have arrived at your beliefs and how
> you defend them in the face of criticism.
Can I take it, then, that you are more interested in debating than the substance behind the debate? If so, then I have misunderstood your posts, and I apologize.
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites