Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 11:40 AM
397 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, halibut, jar, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo, Tangle (10 members, 387 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,890 Year: 27,496/21,208 Month: 1,409/1,714 Week: 252/365 Day: 21/73 Hour: 4/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   Human Induced Global warming is just another conjob for the ignorant.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19228
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 16 of 65 (716124)
01-12-2014 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NosyNed
01-12-2014 4:12 PM


CO2 at record levels
http://news.yahoo.com/...s-annual-record-high-112637382.html

quote:
GENEVA (AP) — World carbon dioxide pollution levels in the atmosphere are accelerating and reached a record high in 2012, the U.N. weather agency said Wednesday.

The heat-trapping gas, pumped into the air by cars and smokestacks, was measured at 393.1 parts per million last year, up 2.2 ppm from the previous year, said the Geneva-based World Meteorological Organization in its annual greenhouse gas inventory.

That is far beyond the 350 ppm that some scientists and environmental groups promote as the absolute upper limit for a safe level.


We know we produce a massive amount of CO2 -- enough that it affects 14C readings for modern materials, and that this production has been accelerating since the beginning of the industrial age.

We also know that we can reduce this and can make systems to remove it from the atmosphere.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2014 4:12 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Pollux, posted 01-12-2014 5:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6030
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 17 of 65 (716128)
01-12-2014 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NosyNed
01-12-2014 4:12 PM


Re: Clear Problem
I almost agree. What I don't agree with is "exact". We don't have to distinguish between human activity causing 50 % of the problem and our activity causing 35 or 65 %. Anywhere in that range makes us significant in my view. Others might say anywhere from 20 % upwards but I'm not going to fuss about the exact number.

I agree that something above 20% from human activity would certainly be a problem, and one that we could work to reduce.

I do agree we need to understand our contribution to the climate change that is underway as we type here.

What is much more difficult to determine is how serious the consequences will be. The speed with which we take action and the magnitude of the resources we commit should be based on the seriousness of the consequences. Which I think is implied by your comment.

The consequences of sea level rise are serious. Close to a majority of the US population lives along the coast, or soon will, although not all of those are within a meter of two of the current sea level.

If CO2 levels keep climbing without mitigation then we know that we'll have a 200 foot rise in sea level. We just don't know how fast. We'd better figure that out really, really soon. If we don't want to commit too many resources to mitigation yet then we sure has hell should be committing lots to determining what the risks are.

I agree. That really is my main point.

And the current atmosphere, in which global warming proponents literally demonize anyone who suggests that, is both unhealthy and unscientific.

Perhaps now is the time to really emphasize nuclear power, using the newer designs that are now available.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2014 4:12 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2014 6:36 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2014 11:46 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 201
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 18 of 65 (716129)
01-12-2014 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
01-12-2014 4:24 PM


Re: CO2 at record levels
The problem of CO2 has been known and warned about for decades. The changes that are already being seen are coming in at the upper end of IPCC predictions and as has been said there are possible tipping points that will accelerate change.
I saw recently that effects on the Polar Vortex are such that they will be deeper and last longer so that there will be worse cold spells as well as worse hot spells.

Then regardless of human-induced warming, there is the increasing acidification of the oceans, which is definitely caused by us through increased solution of CO2, with possible dire effects on the food chain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2014 4:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


(9)
Message 19 of 65 (716132)
01-12-2014 6:14 PM


Is It Real?

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29622
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(3)
Message 20 of 65 (716134)
01-12-2014 6:26 PM


It is still true that we can only address the human induced part.
The fact remains that slowing the rate of global warming that we can address is the human induced components. Reducing those may not avoid or stop global warming but it will change the time line to deal with the effects and consequences.

Right now, we are not doing anything about either global warming itself or the consequences but instead arguing about whose fault it is.

Utterly stupid behavior.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ramoss, posted 01-14-2014 4:17 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8800
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 9.9


(10)
Message 21 of 65 (716135)
01-12-2014 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
01-12-2014 5:14 PM


Demonizing
And the current atmosphere, in which global warming proponents literally demonize anyone who suggests that, is both unhealthy and unscientific.

I haven't seen anyone saying that be demonized but I'm sure it happens. Those who are being 'demonized' are those who are denying there is a problem and don't want to spend anything to determine the risks we face even without talking about actually doing anything.

We have reached the point where we have enough information to tell us to take some freakin' action! There might still be room to argue about how much and how fast but the door is swinging shut fast.

ABE
Actually those who are being demonized and should be strung up are those who are trading in deliberate misinformation and lies.

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2014 5:14 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3046
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 22 of 65 (716307)
01-14-2014 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
01-12-2014 3:42 PM


Re: Why?
I agree things will be expensive if we can do anything about it , but don't.

However, I think people are short sighted, and greedy. It won't be unless there is immediate economic reasons to do it that people will. It has to be good for their short term economic issues, because they won't believe the long term issues (propaganda by the oil companies).

Now, I think a con job is being done. I just disagree on who is doing the con job.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2014 3:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2014 5:40 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3046
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 23 of 65 (716311)
01-14-2014 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
01-12-2014 6:26 PM


Re: It is still true that we can only address the human induced part.
I disagree. There are some countries out there that are making signifigent strides.. (The US is not one of them). Germany has moved a lot of their power production to solar.

There are also some emerging technologies that might be interesting.

For example http://www.proterro.com/ has bioengineered blue-green algae to produce to 'sweat' sucrose instead of having to extract it. This allows them to produce sugar at about 5 cent a pound.. and they are building a pilot facility in Flordia that does so http://www.proterro.com/...t-International-Sugar-Journal.pdf

Now, if this takes off, they can make ethanol, or there are companies that use sugar to convert it directly to gasoline. Depending on the success of that, we can get source of carbon neutral gasoline that does not depend on fossil fuels.

Then, there is the advances in Fuel Cells.. ... Redox power has found a way to make fuel cells operate at a much lower temperature, which lets them make them using steel casing, instead of more exotic and expensive alloys (potentially.. they are bringing products online this year).

http://www.greenbiz.com/...ake-fuel-cells-go-power-buildings

There is also the potential for the graphene super capacitors to make battery storage much more effective and cheaper.. and also the quest to make cheap hydrogen production.

There are a lot of exciting technologies that are showing up.. and one or the other is likely to succeed (much to the oil companies dismay).

Right now, it is looking to see which of these technologies can make it in the market place. They all have their advantages, and all have their pit falls. But, with oil only getting harder to extract from the gorund and more expensive, one of these technologies will succeed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 01-12-2014 6:26 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2014 5:48 PM ramoss has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2014 7:07 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19228
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 24 of 65 (716323)
01-14-2014 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ramoss
01-14-2014 4:03 PM


Re: Why?
... It won't be unless there is immediate economic reasons to do it that people will. It has to be good for their short term economic issues, because they won't believe the long term issues ...

There may well be no economy when that happens. Consider the effects we saw of a few bankers causing near world wide economic collapse.

I am afraid that we will need to learn to base decisions on something other than bottom dollars ... something like social justice perhaps.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ramoss, posted 01-14-2014 4:03 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19228
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 25 of 65 (716325)
01-14-2014 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ramoss
01-14-2014 4:17 PM


Quinone batteries
There are a lot of exciting technologies that are showing up.. and one or the other is likely to succeed (much to the oil companies dismay).

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ips..sympV....B

quote:
Rechargeable quinone battery for load levelling
Binder, H.; Knoedler, R.; Koehling, A.; Sandstede, G.; Walter, G.
International Power Sources Symposium Committee, International Power Sources Symposium, 10th, Brighton, England, Sept. 13-16, 1976, Paper. 10 p.

A rechargeable battery system with solid quinones as active masses, which are insoluble in acids, is described. Oxanthranol (anthrahydroquinone) is used for the negative plate, and chloranil (tetrachloro-p-benzoquinone) for the positive plate. Overvoltage is small in the charge and discharge modes even at high current densities. More than 90% of the quinones can be utilized at a discharge rate of 10 h. For a laboratory model with a storage capacity of about 20 mA h/sq cm, a current yield of about 98% and an energy yield of about 90% were measured at a discharge rate of about 10 h. Lifetime does not appear to be limited by deep discharges or quick recharges. After more than 100 cycles, electrodes with chloranil showed no loss in capacity.


And they should be cheaper than metal batteries.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ramoss, posted 01-14-2014 4:17 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 26 of 65 (716328)
01-14-2014 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ramoss
01-14-2014 4:17 PM


Re: It is still true that we can only address the human induced part.
I disagree. There are some countries out there that are making signifigent strides.. (The US is not one of them). Germany has moved a lot of their power production to solar.

But as Fox & Friends explained, that's only because "They've got a lot more sun than we do."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ramoss, posted 01-14-2014 4:17 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 27 of 65 (716333)
01-14-2014 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
01-12-2014 12:02 PM


Coyote writes:

Right now, we don't know the exact percentages from natural and human contributions.

Yes and no. We have multiple glaciation cycles we can look at, and CO2 seems to top out at around 300 ppm during the warm interglacial periods.

We were also at that maximum prior to the Industrial Revolution. In just 150 years we have gone from 300 ppm to nearly 400 ppm, a level of atmospheric carbon dioxide never seen in the ice cores. We have also seen a change in the carbon isotope makeup of that atmospheric CO2, and it matches the ratios found in fossil fuels.

I would call that extremely strong evidence that humans are the cause for the spike in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years. Is all of that extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels? Probably not. There are also feedbacks that would release other naturally occuring resevoirs, such as an initial increase of CO2 causing the oceans to warm and release more CO2. Nonetheless, our role seems to be obvious to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2014 12:02 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by frako, posted 01-15-2014 7:23 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2715
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 28 of 65 (716361)
01-15-2014 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Taq
01-14-2014 7:58 PM


http://www.drexel.edu/...0Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx

No amount of data and facts can fight a billion dollar a year propaganda against climate change.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 01-14-2014 7:58 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by AZPaul3, posted 01-16-2014 10:22 AM frako has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


(4)
Message 29 of 65 (716421)
01-16-2014 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by frako
01-15-2014 7:23 AM


Koch Bros to the Rescue
There is no surprise that in this study of Denier Funding the Koch Foundations are prominently listed. The Koch Brothers have been well known to be very active in denying man-caused global warming. Note this study spans 2003-2010.

In 2011 Charles Koch funded a study ($150,000) by Berkeley Earth and its founder, well known anthropomorphic warming skeptic from the science community, Dr. Richard Muller, Physics Professor, UC-Berkeley, with other skeptics of anthropomorphic warming.

As the study progressed Muller wrote:

quote:
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to validate those published by these groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some of those who advocate for man-caused global warming. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real but caused mostly by solar variation. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate, though we made no independent assessment of that.

In July 2012 the final Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study knocked the Denier community on its ass.

quote:
Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Denier scientists with denier funding. Kudos to Berkeley Earth, Muller and staff for being real scientists in following where the data led despite their previous views and the views of their patron.

quote:
Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.


Of course a large portion of the (now smaller) denier cabal continue to insist that anthropomorphic warming is a hoax. Their objections no longer have any scientific foundation but are seen as strictly political/moneyed interests in denial of the demonstrated reality.

Oops. Forgot references.

A Rather Pointed Article

BEST Findings

Richard Muller Bio

Edited by AZPaul3, : add references


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by frako, posted 01-15-2014 7:23 AM frako has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


(1)
Message 30 of 65 (716438)
01-16-2014 1:34 PM


Repent! The end is nigh!
Move along, Citizens.

Nothing to see here.

Edited by AZPaul3, : da usual

Edited by AZPaul3, : proof read then post ... proof read then post ... OK, got it.

Edited by AZPaul3, : again?

Edited by AZPaul3, : last one ... i promise

Edited by AZPaul3, : Ohh, bad. Bad, bad , bad.


Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ProtoTypical, posted 01-17-2014 9:40 AM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 01-17-2014 6:59 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017