|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 07/03/2001 : 10:47:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
At risk of bringing the wrath of The Board upon me: an embargo doesn't have to be devastating; we have lots of oil to use if we were allowed to do so. WAIT! DON'T SHOOT ME! I'm not really for the total and complete destruction of the Alaskan Wilderness...
Once gas blew over $5 a gallon and was headed for $10, puplic opinion would change dramatically and Alaskan drilling would be enthusiastically encouraged. But the days of cheap gas would be long gone and that would probably help inits own way.....
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 10:49:47 [Permalink]
|
TIME IS RUNNING OUT ON THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE! But not for the reasons, you've been lead to believe. Here are mine.
1. Attention span - American culture is not geared to long winded debates with iffy results. I predict 5 years, 10 years tops, before the American public generates a collective yawn. The response to a scientifically calculated result of one half degree global warming will be "Big Wup".
2. What are those GENES doing in my corn flakes? - The GM food debate will overtake global warming. You can just FEEL your body trying to repulse those microbes, can't you? Certainly more attention-getting than dry temperature statistics.
3. What's that CLONE doing in my neighborhood? - Cloning for fun and profit will compete with GM foods for the short American attention span.
4. Eco-terrorism - You hear it more and more. And WHEN, not if, people get killed, the gloves will come off government agencies and the law enforcement community. And that will put the ky-bosh on environmental sympathies. At least, it will put a significant dent in it. Remember SDS?
5. Do you think for one moment that the Russians, Chinese, and Indians, with the bulk of the Earth's population will give up the quest for the "good" life at the expense of generating more greenhouse gasses? Nope. We Americans could stop all our emissions tomorrow, but since we generate 40% of greenhouse emissions, that still leaves us in the minority, even if we're only one nation.
There is no "fix" for global warming, whether it actually exists or not. The planet doesn't come with interchangeable parts that can be swapped out when they malfunction. There are only intelligent choices on how one is going to live one's life that reasonably impacts the environment.
All scientific and political debate must answer the question, "Okay. What's it going to cost me?" A scientist with the wrong answer will be ignored. A politician with the wrong answer will get booted out of office. The right answer, of course, is not necessarily the TRUTH, but what my perception of the right answer should be.
(:raig |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 11:42:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And if it matters, I've followed your posts on other threads and find them quite thoughtful and educational. In this particular thread, you have me outclassed regarding personal qualifications because I am not a scientist.
Garrett,
Thank you for the kind comments. I find your posts to be well reasoned even if I don't always agree. I think that the defensiveness in modern debate stems from the fact that tabloid media in-your-faceism (my term) has permeated everyday conversation. It appears as though reasoned debate is difficult. I often rewrite my posts to try make them less caustic than they initially are. I think about the days when issues of the day were discussed by men like William F. Buckley and Dick Cavett, now all we have is Rush Limbaugh and Geraldo Rivera.
I would like to clarify the reason that I posted my scientific background. It was not to suggest any expertise in this issue or to try to intimidate (my background is not particularly impressive). I was trying to make the point that I have been around scientists in industry for a while and fully understand the personal value judgments that need to be made. I could only guess what kind of conscience wrestling one would need to go through to develop chemical weapons.
I just wanted to clarify things here and will get back to the discussion at hand when I have more time later.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 12:15:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1. Attention span - American culture is not geared to long winded debates with iffy results. I predict 5 years, 10 years tops, before the American public generates a collective yawn. The response to a scientifically calculated result of one half degree global warming will be "Big Wup".
A good point. Take the hole in the ozon layer for example. Once people heard that 'it's rate of growth ain't accelerating as fast anymore' they immediately forgot about the whole thing, thinking the danger was over. A similar trend is visible in the publics perception of AIDS.
The reluctance of developing nations to go an environment sensitive way is understandable when you see it from their perspective. We ruined the entire world, including the part they happen to live in, in order to get as rich, as we are today, and now we want to keep them from doing the same.
To Garrette:
I'm in northern Germany near Hannover.
I'm not saying that we could somehow counteract things like fluctuating solar activity anymore then we could counteract earthquakes. I just think we should not dismiss it even if it not caused by man. Many people seem to think that natural=good. And if global warming has manly natural causes we should not automatically dismiss it as harmless.
The analogy about the broke and fixed planet and the demand to lessen our impact on the environment fails to see the point. The Planet doesn't not have a broken or fixed state. And we don't try preserve the environment in it's current state for purely altruistic reasons.
Our environment is a very complex dynamic system. We are a part of it. Nothing we can do will seriously 'harm' nature. Nature 'survived' far worse things then us. Our problem is not for nature to survive but for mankinds position in it. We have to treat carefully because everything we do has the ability to harm ourselves .
P.S.: Could somebody please explain me what GIGO is?
Edited by - Lars_H on 07/03/2001 12:25:02 |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 12:28:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
P.S.: Could somebody please explain me what GIGO is?
GIGO represents "garbage in, garbage out". It's a term from the earlier days of computer programming; if you put nonsensical information into a system, all you're going to get out of it is nonsense.
Bestonnet says "Climate Models aren't perfect, but [they're] not GIGO either"...meaning that, while they may be flawed, the models can yield good information.
Does that help?
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 13:42:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think about the days when issues of the day were discussed by men like William F. Buckley and Dick Cavett, now all we have is Rush Limbaugh and Geraldo Rivera.
I miss Buckley, too (he's on too rarely now and at times that are inconvenient for me). I can do without Geraldo. I find Rush useful, though, if you get past the bluster and just write down his sources and go straight to them yourself. Whatever else you may say about him, he's well informed.
quote:
I'm in northern Germany near Hannover.
Near the Bismarck statue? I lived in Frankfurt for 4 years and used to visit Hamburg a lot. Had occasion to return for a week last year to the Heidelberg area. The autobahn has traffic now which was a surprise; and there's graffiti in the cities which was a shock. Still a gorgeous country, and you can't beat the holiday season there.
quote:
The Planet doesn't not have a broken or fixed state. And we don't try preserve the environment in it's current state for purely altruistic reasons.
Our environment is a very complex dynamic system. We are a part of it. Nothing we can do will seriously 'harm' nature. Nature 'survived' far worse things then us. Our problem is not for nature to survive but for mankinds position in it. We have to treat carefully because everything we do has the ability to harm ourselves .
Exactly. This is something I haven't had rise to mention here but which I have said to many acquaintances in person; most simply look back at me with a puzzled look.
quote:
I would like to clarify the reason that I posted my scientific background. It was not to suggest any expertise in this issue or to try to intimidate (my background is not particularly impressive). I was trying to make the point that I have been around scientists in industry for a while and fully understand the personal value judgments that need to be made.
That's how I took it. I made mention of my own background in a thread about voting because it was relevant.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 13:54:48 [Permalink]
|
PBS/Frontline ran a two hour program on Global Warming a few months ago. I found a link, below, to that episode:
From the site, FAQ's........
To sum up--there's no smoking gun to prove beyond doubt we are already changing the climate. But, if current trends continue, the amount of CO2 entering and accumulating in the atmosphere will go on rising. Given the vast reserves of fossil fuels, sooner or later we will put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to force a climate change. Just what this climate change will be, nobody knows. But once we have changed the atmosphere, it will take hundreds of years to return to the way it was before the industrial revolution.    
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/
-Randy
Today's Borrowed Thought:
"Men will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails
of the last priest."
-Denis Diderot, "Dithyrambe sur la fete de rois"
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 01:50:10 [Permalink]
|
Lets start with what we do know.
We have been putting CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere at a rate far higher then natural since only a little after the start of the industrial revolution.
It is likely that a 1.5 to 4.5 Celcius temperature rise will occur from a doubling of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The Oceans have a thermal memory of over 1000 years and serve a role in the regulation of the earth's temperature that can make global warming look like it is going slower then it really is.
CO2 generated by fossil fuels lasts about 100 years in the atmosphere.
Sulphate particles and aerosols do have a cooling effect that partially counteracts global warming, however these are removed from the atmosphere much faster then CO2 is.
The areas of diagreement over Global Warming is over the effects (i.e. will plants grow better or will the ice caps melt).
As well as what would be needed to reduce emissions which comes under economics (which is about where physics was in the middle ages).
There is also some disagreement over the role of sun spots and whether they are significant.
One thing we can agree on is that we can't live without affecting the environment.
But we may as well try to make sure the effect we have isn't going to destroy.
Abondon Drugs, say no to Religion |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 11:10:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The areas of diagreement over Global Warming is over the effects (i.e. will plants grow better or will the ice caps melt).
Or - Will we be able to grow oranges oround Philadelphia and Paris? Or - Will the upper 1/3 of the continental US become a Sahara-like desert? Or...
IMHO, scientists who are willing to make statements about global climate change based on economic models are irresponsible in the extreme. Scientists don't know what all of the climatalogical effects of global warming will be, how can we extrapolate that to economic well-being? The warming of the oceans - a necessary consequence of atmospheric warming - is quite likely to produce more frequent and more devistating hurricanes. What was the cost to the US economy alone from one severe hurricane - Andrew. Increased temperatures are likely to cause more covection currents in the atmosphere that will increase also the frequency of non-tropical severe weather. Put that in your economic models and extrapolate it.
In the world peace area, what would the effects to political instability be if, for example, a significant portion of China's agricultural regions were affected by long term severe drought.
The governments of the world need to take this seriously. The US (and yes the other industrialized nations, Japan, UK, Germany...) need to take a leadership role in dealing with this issue. First, long term and significant funding of research - One estimate I've seen is $25 Billion globally - An article in Scientific American suggests that with world commitment, we could have a pretty good handle on the cause/affect relationship by 2050. Second is a reassessment of our fossil fuel use with a look at reduction and use of nuclear power as an alternative. Nuclear power is problematic because no one wants it in their backyard but it needs to go into someone's. It's also vulnerable to terrorism. In the US, we need to make a commitment to mass trasportation that would involve a large redistribution of money from highway building and maintenance to rail and other forms of mass transit.
Things are not going to get better if all we do is bury our heads in our pillows and repeatedly say 'it's not a problem'.
You have just heard Greg Andol's Bicentennial (+25 year) Moment.
Happy 4th all, including those outside the US.
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 18:29:49 [Permalink]
|
Nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel would probably not be a good idea. Not so much because they might have an accident, but because they leave waste products. CO2 can be a minor problem compared to the disposal of radioactive waste.
Where did you get the idea that Nuclear power-plants are vulnerable to terrorist attacks?
I normally don't nitpick like this bestonnet_00 but you don't measure a temperature rise in Celsius, you use Kelvin for that.
Edited by - Lars_H on 07/04/2001 18:31:03 |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 21:10:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
CO2 can be a minor problem compared to the disposal of radioactive waste.
That's a good point. I guess what I should have said is to look into using nuclear as an alternative. Back in the 70's, there was some research going on as to recycling of N-waste and the use of breeder reactors. I wonder whatever bacame of that work?
quote:
Where did you get the idea that Nuclear power-plants are vulnerable to terrorist attacks?
They're excellent targets. Maximum fear factor. I'm sure that this is considered by all countries that have them.
quote:
you don't measure a temperature rise in Celsius, you use Kelvin for that.
The temperature scales are such that Delta-T is the same in one scale as the other. A two degree change in temperature on the Celsius scale corresponds to a two degree change on the Kelvin scale.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 22:00:43 [Permalink]
|
Whatever is happening, either warming or cooling, is at least partially due to the Sunspot Cycle, the semiregular fluctuation of the number of sunspots over a period of 11 years (or 22 years if one is going to take the entire Sunspot Cycle into consideration). The rise to a sunspot maximum actually takes a shorter time than the fall to a sunspot minimum. It is hotter at maximum and cooler at minimum. When the Sun goes through periods of fewer sunspots, the earth is cooler. There was a period called *The Maunder Minimum* from 1645 to 1715 when the sunspot cycle had very few sunspots for that entire length of time, which has also been called the *Little Ice Age* for its terrible cold weather during that period when the sunspots were missing almost entirely.
So, it is entirely possible that the sun plays a real part in the solar warming and cooling cycles.
I just wanted to throw that monkey wrench into the debate as a plausible (and scientifically recorded) means for warming and cooling periods. Just blame everything on our Sun!
ljbrs
If the Sun knew better, it would do better!
Edited by - ljbrs on 07/04/2001 22:04:04
Edited by - ljbrs on 07/04/2001 22:06:54
Edited by - ljbrs on 07/04/2001 22:09:09 |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 22:23:56 [Permalink]
|
If I knew better, I would not need to edit the darned thing twice and then to click again because the second correction came up with a blank page.
However, I simply wanted to add that little bit of fact to the debate. People who might be somewhat ignorant of solar astronomy would not be expected to know about the Sunspot Cycle.
Now, it is time for me to duck all of the varieties of fruit and tomatoes which might be thrown my way. I am going to take a head start... Bye now! Night, night.
ljbrs
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 04:07:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Where did you get the idea that Nuclear power-plants are vulnerable to terrorist attacks?
They're excellent targets. Maximum fear factor. I'm sure that this is considered by all countries that have them.
Yes that is why they are built as they are. When they were built they took everything into consideration from earthquakes (even if they were built nowhere near a faultline) to small planes crashing into it. They also tend to have a really tight security to keep people out. The inside of a modern Nuclear plant is one of the safest (civilian) places you can be during a terrorist attack.
quote:
quote:
you don't measure a temperature rise in Celsius, you use Kelvin for that.
The temperature scales are such that Delta-T is the same in one scale as the other. A two degree change in temperature on the Celsius scale corresponds to a two degree change on the Kelvin scale.
Sorry that I am taking this minor thing so serious, but this is a pet peeve of mine. You don't technically measure Delta-T in the Fahrenheit or Celsius or Kelvin or Réaumur temperature scale. Everybody knows what you mean when you say it is two °C warmer. But it is wrong terminology.
Think of it as giving a duration of time in absolute terms like two o'clock. Or giving a distance by naming a location. You measure temperature differences in Kelvin and the Kelvin scale is just measuring the Temperature difference from the absolute zero-point.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 04:08:12 [Permalink]
|
Nuclear waste is actually quite minor and very easy to handle compared to what coal plants put out.
The only reason we even have a nuclear waste problem is because the nuclear industry is the only industry that handles all of its waste.
Every other industry dumps some of it.
As for terrorism, good luck making a western reactor do a Chernobyl, even if you get it to melt down that containment shell can be pretty annoying.
Since there are people who don't want me using Celcius I will restate it in Kelvin.
1.5 to 4.5K Dt.
As for the sunspot cycle it is likely to have only a minimal effect on global warming due to the magnitude of it, its cyclic nature and the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Abondon Drugs, say no to Religion |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
