From Yankie's post on the God thread:
"Well once again you heard it wrong . Particulate matter in our air world wide has grown leaps and bonds starting in the 1970's , its true America's particulate matter
fell off from what it had been . But while we were falling off in the 70's the rest of the worlds particulate matter was really taking off .
For anyone to suggest the cooling trend from the 1930's to the mid 70's was due to increasing particulate matter is incorrect . If this was the case our cooling trend would have continued with the the increasing levels of particulate matter . If anything this growth of particulate matter could suggest it was the cause of global warming and not any cooling affect if you consider the time frame .
I hope you read this Chas , but promise me you will scroll to the bottom sheet and look at the chart of proportion and time frame concerning particulate matter increase .
Listen Chas , I will we be adding to this post with other info I want you to check out , please look at this stuff also . I do think its probable as you say a game of Russian roulette is going on , as Lara arva said , scrutinize the facts , yup befor you pull the trigger.
http://ies.lbl.gov/drupal.files/ies.lbl.go...ndbox/50881.pdf
this statement below comes from a study that James Hansen ( your hero) was involved with .
Results show that the global sulfate burden doubles from 1875 to 1950, and again from 1950 to 1990. Black carbon, which has a substantial biomass burning fraction, increases by about 30% between 1875 and 1950, and by another 50% between 1950 and 1990. Since sulfate increases faster than the carbonaceous aerosols, the global fraction of the aerosol mass that is sulfate also increases (doubles) from 0.2 to 0.4 during the century.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/pollution2002/d2_koch.html
You can check out the rest of the study , but I think it is very safe to say particulate matter through out the last century was constantly increasing upwards and there was never a downward trend that might support your assumptions you gave to me concerning a global cooling trend.
So the question still remains , with the ever raising Co2 levels from the 30's -70's why was there a cooling trend during the same time period ? This cooling trend contradicts at the very roots of the global warming theory , that with increased Co2 levels temperature will increase .
If the global warming theory can not account and explain past known conditions that took place , it certainly shouldn't be used to predict the future of unknown conditions . The pieces dont fit the puzzle Chas as I see it . Can you show me one or two pieces of the global warming puzzle we can call fact with out any exception or explanation ? Isn't this what good science is suppose to do , answer questions ?
Questions ? If you cant answer my questions than your just as stupid as I am . Fact is Chas you MIGHT be stupider cause you're not even asking any that I ever heard or really checking out the answers from what I can tell . "
Chaster's response:
While "Blow it out your ass, bonehead" might be one reasoned and appropriate response to the above, let us endeavor to maintain the high standards of this forum and deal with the points raised above in a thoughtful circumspect manner.
The topic is now re-opened.
This isn't a private fight. All are welcome.
Full Version: climate butt-heads rave on
| QUOTE (chaster @ Feb 10 2008, 07:57 PM) |
| If the global warming theory can not account and explain past known conditions that took place , it certainly shouldn't be used to predict the future of unknown conditions . The pieces dont fit the puzzle Chas as I see it . Can you show me one or two pieces of the global warming puzzle we can call fact with out any exception or explanation ? Isn't this what good science is suppose to do , answer questions ? |
You raise some points that need some looking into. First, though, I take some exception to the above point.
The standard of proof in a claim that "human activity is altering climate" has to be a very high standard. The theory on which that claim is based has to prove that it can explain past events to a high standard. No argument there. At the same time, though, the bar shouldn't be set to infinity.
The claim that there is substantial risk in some activity doesn't require that everything about that risk has to be understood perfectly. When it comes to risk, we never have the luxury of complete understanding, and yet our survival depends using the best understanding we have at the moment.
"That's thin ice your heading onto" doesn't require that you characterize every last detail of the elasticity and tensile strength of thin ice, because the consequence of falling through thin ice is severe. The more severe the consequence, the more it's best to err on the side of caution.
The claim that human activity is altering climate is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof. The thing that gets missed, though, is that the claim that humans can fundamentally alter the makeup of the atmosphere and there's no substantial risk in this. That is even more extraordinary a claim.
That's not to dismiss your point but to qualify it a bit.
QUOTE (chaster @ Feb 10 2008, 12:57 PM)
The topic is now re-opened.
This isn't a private fight. All are welcome.
| QUOTE |
| "Blow it out your ass, bonehead" |
Hey Chas thats a good one , you wouldn't be upset if I use it from time to time would you ?
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your feed back , its a real learning opportunity to compare my views with you and hopefully others .
Bye.
Yankie-
Some questions for you:
Do you honestly believe there is no consequence to action? No cause/ effect? Do really think we can pour carbons and whatever else we want to into the atmosphere without it effecting a thing?
Some questions for you:
Do you honestly believe there is no consequence to action? No cause/ effect? Do really think we can pour carbons and whatever else we want to into the atmosphere without it effecting a thing?
Well Chas , because you started this new thread I think it a good time as any to tell you where I stand on climate change .
I think you will agree over the last century there has been a One degree increase in temperature and its this one degree increase that we now call climate change or Global warming . So yes I agree our climate has changed . I believe in climate change .
Where we would differ is I'm not convinced this one degree increase was necessarily caused by man .
What I'd like to do is for now just focus on the cause of this one degree increase we have had . I agree with your thoughts we shouldn't raise the bar unreasonably but I do feel because climate change has taken place several times in past and these warming or cooling trends were caused by nature this bar should held to include the possibilities of nature also .
OK Chas , my first question , How do we know this one degree increase wasnt caused by nature ? During the Medieval warming period its said the temperature then was 2-3 degrees higher than now . Why couldn't it be Nature now as it was then ? Have there been any studies to rule out Nature as the cause of this one degree increase over the last century ?
| QUOTE (bbgae @ Feb 10 2008, 05:30 PM) |
| Yankie- Some questions for you: Do you honestly believe there is no consequence to action? No cause/ effect? Do really think we can pour carbons and whatever else we want to into the atmosphere without it effecting a thing? |
Well of course I believe in cause and affect , I see a whole planet that has been impacted by mans affect and we can demonstrate and give complete answers for the cause . I can see natures cause and affect as well .
Part of my not understanding the global warming theory is because of this very cause and affect regarding climate change . More C02 is the cause, more temperature should be the consistent affect , Always . But this hasnt taken place in any sort of pattern to suggest c02 was the cause . For over a 40 year trend the opposite took place . It got colder while c02 was shooting through the roof .
Also, see if you can get Chaster to say acid rain and then ask him about cause and affect , even today . To chas acid rain is so 1970's and to me I haven't left , still beating the acid rain drum.
Here is a quote from wikipedia on "Global cooling" (of course, Wikipedia is the ultimate authority on all subjects, but hey, I can quote it without copyright worries, can't I? Jim, is this the case?)
Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the Earth. More specifically, it refers to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Earth as a whole has not been cooling in recent decades, but is in a period of global warming.
Maybe you should read this whole article.
Yankee, what converted me was the sudden realization that I never understood what I was taught in junior high--the law of conservation of matter (barring nuclear reactions). When I saw it in that light, I quit looking at it from an angle of "well, plankton in the ocean exhale a lot of CO2, etc.", and I started realizing that we need to balance our carbon budget.
Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the Earth. More specifically, it refers to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Earth as a whole has not been cooling in recent decades, but is in a period of global warming.
Maybe you should read this whole article.
Yankee, what converted me was the sudden realization that I never understood what I was taught in junior high--the law of conservation of matter (barring nuclear reactions). When I saw it in that light, I quit looking at it from an angle of "well, plankton in the ocean exhale a lot of CO2, etc.", and I started realizing that we need to balance our carbon budget.
| QUOTE (furnace @ Feb 10 2008, 10:11 PM) |
| Maybe you should read this whole article. Yankee, what converted me was the sudden realization that I never understood what I was taught in junior high--the law of conservation of matter (barring nuclear reactions). When I saw it in that light, I quit looking at it from an angle of "well, plankton in the ocean exhale a lot of CO2, etc.", and I started realizing that we need to balance our carbon budget. |
While you are reading wikipedia read up on super volcanos too, and then explain why the abnormally high carbon, sulfate and co2 was followed by a volcanic winter.
In fact according to the "science" this is how these atmospheric conditions were originally invented, as near as I can tell.
The Algoracles want to have it both ways. As long as this defrost cycle is urgent, catastrophically imminent and the blame is properly affixed, primarily on the USA.
I did notice they have changed the rhetoric to "Climate Change" instead of Global Warming. But it's still all about "man did it" and he should be taxed by the UN to pay for it. If you really think their interest goes beyond that (and keeping their huge scientific study grants) you are just another one of their useful idiots.
Don't waste your money on solar panels, buy their science and movies if you really want to support their crusade. Get the word out... and vote to make sure that no alternate thinking gets into the schools and textbooks.
| QUOTE (furnace @ Feb 10 2008, 10:11 PM) |
| Here is a quote from wikipedia on "Global cooling" (of course, Wikipedia is the ultimate authority on all subjects, but hey, I can quote it without copyright worries, can't I? Jim, is this the case?) Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the Earth. More specifically, it refers to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Earth as a whole has not been cooling in recent decades, but is in a period of global warming. Maybe you should read this whole article. Yankee, what converted me was the sudden realization that I never understood what I was taught in junior high--the law of conservation of matter (barring nuclear reactions). When I saw it in that light, I quit looking at it from an angle of "well, plankton in the ocean exhale a lot of CO2, etc.", and I started realizing that we need to balance our carbon budget. |
I really dont have much time right now , take a look at these charts of temp. and the patterns .
http://www.eblanchette.com/letter/WorldFFCons%201.jpg
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Don't bother with those false web sites of Yankie. Those are of Satan. Here are the web sites of the restored truth for this dispensation.
No, seriously. If you are genuinely interested in getting educated on the science of the topic, here are a few links to get you started:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html
www.realclimate.org
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
No, seriously. If you are genuinely interested in getting educated on the science of the topic, here are a few links to get you started:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html
www.realclimate.org
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
| QUOTE (chaster @ Feb 11 2008, 09:31 AM) |
| Don't bother with those false web sites of Yankie. Those are of Satan. Here are the web sites of the restored truth for this dispensation. No, seriously. If you are genuinely interested in getting educated on the science of the topic, here are a few links to get you started: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html www.realclimate.org http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 |
See, just like I toldja. Have your credit card ready when you check these links. These guys are all selling their science.
Hey Furness NASA's charts show a cooling trend ,I think If you look further around wikipedia you'll find the more charts like the one I have used that also show the same info .
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://www.eblanchette.com/letter/WorldFFCons%201.jpg
Also , when you look at this temp graph, if you add the up all the cooling trend time spans you'll see for about 40 years our earth was in a cooling trend from time to time . Basically , forty percent of the time we were cooling and 60 percent our earth temp gaining . I find this very interesting , I mean does this mean global warming during the last century was a 40/60 time ratio ?
Now take a look at the other chart on world fossil fuel consumption . Wow , during the last century we were putting out a lot of co2. Look at the hundreds of percent increase we had over the last 100 years .
Your looking at mans affect , but in a cause and affect manner and co2 being the cause does this chart follow the temp chart if temp is the affect ? Remember , for near forty years the temp was in falling stage's on the temp graph .
Another thing I find interesting is during the last century co2 raised from 288 ppm's to 360ppms or increased 27 % from the total ppm's at the first of the century to the year 2000
Man increased co2 into our atmosphere by hundreds and hundreds of percent of increases and yet the net increased co2 was at 27%. I'm not sure what this means , but if you look at this ratio from a cause and affect issue I think a smart person would say What gives here ?
Anyway compare the cause ( fossil fuel ) chart with the affect (temp chart ) and tell me if you see a consistent pattern .
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://www.eblanchette.com/letter/WorldFFCons%201.jpg
Also , when you look at this temp graph, if you add the up all the cooling trend time spans you'll see for about 40 years our earth was in a cooling trend from time to time . Basically , forty percent of the time we were cooling and 60 percent our earth temp gaining . I find this very interesting , I mean does this mean global warming during the last century was a 40/60 time ratio ?
Now take a look at the other chart on world fossil fuel consumption . Wow , during the last century we were putting out a lot of co2. Look at the hundreds of percent increase we had over the last 100 years .
Your looking at mans affect , but in a cause and affect manner and co2 being the cause does this chart follow the temp chart if temp is the affect ? Remember , for near forty years the temp was in falling stage's on the temp graph .
Another thing I find interesting is during the last century co2 raised from 288 ppm's to 360ppms or increased 27 % from the total ppm's at the first of the century to the year 2000
Man increased co2 into our atmosphere by hundreds and hundreds of percent of increases and yet the net increased co2 was at 27%. I'm not sure what this means , but if you look at this ratio from a cause and affect issue I think a smart person would say What gives here ?
Anyway compare the cause ( fossil fuel ) chart with the affect (temp chart ) and tell me if you see a consistent pattern .
Chas , when you tranceferd my post from the God thread to this one something happened . Can you change my link on your post to the link I had used ?
the top one is the one I want .
http://ies.lbl.gov/drupal.files/ies.lbl.go...ndbox/50881.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ies.lbl.gov/drupal.files/ies.lbl.go...ndbox/50881.pdf
the top one is the one I want .
http://ies.lbl.gov/drupal.files/ies.lbl.go...ndbox/50881.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ies.lbl.gov/drupal.files/ies.lbl.go...ndbox/50881.pdf
OK I done er, Yankie. I hope that's the one you wanted on there.
Meanwhile, I sent an email to one of the eggheads at the “Focusing the nation” symposium of which "Focusing Cache" was a part I attended a couple of weeks ago. I’d thought I’d share the exchange with yall:
Dr. Garret:
I attended the "Focusing Cache" symposium in which you spoke, and I have a question for you. A thing that's been on my mind, I think there's a bit of a need for education somewhere between the PHD level and the power point graphic with planet earth and the squiggly lines of radiation coming in and going out. Nothing wrong with that power point graphic. That's simple and effective. But for me personally and for maybe a lot of others it'd be really good to have sort of a physics 101 of climate science, pretty much exactly that two pages of calculations you talked about that predict the warming effects of increasing atmospheric CO2. There are a lot of people like me who have B.S. degree level of education in some technical field and could deal with the climate science at that level. We engineer types, stuff is a lot more real and practical to us when we have some kind of mathematical handle on it. But, the problem is, I rather partied too much through college and didn't pay much attention to thermodynamics class. Dang. I wish I could remember my thermodynamics class better.
Anyway, if you could supply me some calculations at the sort of B.S. degree college level or steer me toward where I could find that, it'd be useful to me and perhaps some others. I'm not looking to build a comprehensive climate model but just cover the basics of how the physical properties of CO2 result in warming an atmosphere. Kind of a climate physics 101 for boneheads.
Charles
Charles,
Thankyou for you question. I think you make a worthwhile point. There
are many educated people who remain unconvinced by climate scientists,
perhaps because there is an absence of good explanations between
squiggly lines and "we've got gazillions of Ph.D.s working on incredibly
complex models - so trust us", which has always struck me as profoundly
condescending and unscientific.
The problem with my two page calculation is that it is two pages
*assuming* quite a lot of background, much of it dealing with radiative
transfer and quantum mechanics. Its not crazy hard, but, at least at the
level I teach it, it does require a presupposition of familiarity with
calculus and physics - much of the equations would in fact be very
familiar to an electrical engineer as they are the same as those for LCR
circuits with an AC power supply.
There are perhaps two approaches to the explanation problem. One is a
bit black box, but a simple kitchen top experiment with thermometers, a
heat lamp, two containers, and baking soda and vinegar, can be used to
show that a container with CO2 absorbs thermal energy better than
ordinary air.
Beyond that, the key point is that molecules absorb radiation at
particular electromagnetic frequencies determined by particular quantum
mechanical rules. For CO2, one of these absorption modes leads to
molecular vibrations at frequencies associated with where a lot of
energy is emitted by the earth - around 15 um wavelength. We can
calculate the amount of absorption that would be expected based on the
vertical distribution and quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can also
calculate how the absorption would change if the concentrations were to
change - it goes roughly as the square root of concentrations. The
reason scientists are so confident in these calculations is that quantum
mechanics is the most successful theory we've ever had - it's the
technological foundation of most everything in our modern world -
measuring concentrations is straightforward, particularly for CO2, and
it is very easy to estimate how much CO2 would be emitted by people for
the amount of energy we consume.
The above is all the key points required for the CO2 forcing component
(H20 is the real kicker though). Getting to those key points is harder,
but I can open up internet links to my class notes next week.
Hope this helps
Tim
Meanwhile, I sent an email to one of the eggheads at the “Focusing the nation” symposium of which "Focusing Cache" was a part I attended a couple of weeks ago. I’d thought I’d share the exchange with yall:
Dr. Garret:
I attended the "Focusing Cache" symposium in which you spoke, and I have a question for you. A thing that's been on my mind, I think there's a bit of a need for education somewhere between the PHD level and the power point graphic with planet earth and the squiggly lines of radiation coming in and going out. Nothing wrong with that power point graphic. That's simple and effective. But for me personally and for maybe a lot of others it'd be really good to have sort of a physics 101 of climate science, pretty much exactly that two pages of calculations you talked about that predict the warming effects of increasing atmospheric CO2. There are a lot of people like me who have B.S. degree level of education in some technical field and could deal with the climate science at that level. We engineer types, stuff is a lot more real and practical to us when we have some kind of mathematical handle on it. But, the problem is, I rather partied too much through college and didn't pay much attention to thermodynamics class. Dang. I wish I could remember my thermodynamics class better.
Anyway, if you could supply me some calculations at the sort of B.S. degree college level or steer me toward where I could find that, it'd be useful to me and perhaps some others. I'm not looking to build a comprehensive climate model but just cover the basics of how the physical properties of CO2 result in warming an atmosphere. Kind of a climate physics 101 for boneheads.
Charles
Charles,
Thankyou for you question. I think you make a worthwhile point. There
are many educated people who remain unconvinced by climate scientists,
perhaps because there is an absence of good explanations between
squiggly lines and "we've got gazillions of Ph.D.s working on incredibly
complex models - so trust us", which has always struck me as profoundly
condescending and unscientific.
The problem with my two page calculation is that it is two pages
*assuming* quite a lot of background, much of it dealing with radiative
transfer and quantum mechanics. Its not crazy hard, but, at least at the
level I teach it, it does require a presupposition of familiarity with
calculus and physics - much of the equations would in fact be very
familiar to an electrical engineer as they are the same as those for LCR
circuits with an AC power supply.
There are perhaps two approaches to the explanation problem. One is a
bit black box, but a simple kitchen top experiment with thermometers, a
heat lamp, two containers, and baking soda and vinegar, can be used to
show that a container with CO2 absorbs thermal energy better than
ordinary air.
Beyond that, the key point is that molecules absorb radiation at
particular electromagnetic frequencies determined by particular quantum
mechanical rules. For CO2, one of these absorption modes leads to
molecular vibrations at frequencies associated with where a lot of
energy is emitted by the earth - around 15 um wavelength. We can
calculate the amount of absorption that would be expected based on the
vertical distribution and quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can also
calculate how the absorption would change if the concentrations were to
change - it goes roughly as the square root of concentrations. The
reason scientists are so confident in these calculations is that quantum
mechanics is the most successful theory we've ever had - it's the
technological foundation of most everything in our modern world -
measuring concentrations is straightforward, particularly for CO2, and
it is very easy to estimate how much CO2 would be emitted by people for
the amount of energy we consume.
The above is all the key points required for the CO2 forcing component
(H20 is the real kicker though). Getting to those key points is harder,
but I can open up internet links to my class notes next week.
Hope this helps
Tim
Thinking out loud here. I think I'll email this to Dr. Garrett:
Dear Dr. Garrett:
Maybe the scope of what I asked earlier is a bit too ambitious, as the atmosphere itself is quite a tall order to characterize through the simplistic bonehead math such as I am capable of. Consider the kitchen table experiment you mentioned. Consider a one liter bottle of air exposed to sunlight such as we might experct here in Northern Utah for example. Could you take me through the math by which we could approximate the heating in watts per liter within that bottle of air as a function of CO2 concentration?
For me, if I could do that level of math and then run the experiment and get results that are in the ball park of the math, I think there'd be substantial educational value to that. There are some speciffic crumudgeons I know of who might - a very tenuous might - might be persuaded by such a demonstration to consider with more confidence our ability to characterize the far more complex case.
By the way, I have access to slightly more than the kitchen talbe apparatus. I have a data logger and thermocouples and I could lay my hands on an IRGA.
Geez, the IRGA. There's the physical property of CO2 gas bieng opaque to infrared right there. If I could understand the physics by which an IRGA works well enough to characterize it mathematically, I'd have what I'm looking for here.
Still, I'd like to build a system that would work with sunlight, air, and CO2 by which I could make a solid impression on the many conservative crumudgeons who surround me.
Charles
Dear Dr. Garrett:
Maybe the scope of what I asked earlier is a bit too ambitious, as the atmosphere itself is quite a tall order to characterize through the simplistic bonehead math such as I am capable of. Consider the kitchen table experiment you mentioned. Consider a one liter bottle of air exposed to sunlight such as we might experct here in Northern Utah for example. Could you take me through the math by which we could approximate the heating in watts per liter within that bottle of air as a function of CO2 concentration?
For me, if I could do that level of math and then run the experiment and get results that are in the ball park of the math, I think there'd be substantial educational value to that. There are some speciffic crumudgeons I know of who might - a very tenuous might - might be persuaded by such a demonstration to consider with more confidence our ability to characterize the far more complex case.
By the way, I have access to slightly more than the kitchen talbe apparatus. I have a data logger and thermocouples and I could lay my hands on an IRGA.
Geez, the IRGA. There's the physical property of CO2 gas bieng opaque to infrared right there. If I could understand the physics by which an IRGA works well enough to characterize it mathematically, I'd have what I'm looking for here.
Still, I'd like to build a system that would work with sunlight, air, and CO2 by which I could make a solid impression on the many conservative crumudgeons who surround me.
Charles
No, scratch that.
Here's the deal. The sun radiates at about 6000 Kelvin. From the black body formula
wavelength of peak radiation in microns = Plank's constant ~ 2900 / degrees K of black body
that gives a center wavelength in the visible at about 0.5 microns.
The two broad absorption bands of CO2 are at about 2.5 microns and another at about 3.4 microns. Absorptionn goes from close to 0% to close to 100 % at these wavelenghs. CO2 doesn't absorb much of sunlight coming in. Rather, visible light warms the surface, the warm objects re-radiate the heat with a lot of energy at 2.5 and 3.4 microns. That's what gets absorbed.
Now I get why two of the demos I've tried already to demonstrate the greenhouse effect didn't work.
Here's the deal. The sun radiates at about 6000 Kelvin. From the black body formula
wavelength of peak radiation in microns = Plank's constant ~ 2900 / degrees K of black body
that gives a center wavelength in the visible at about 0.5 microns.
The two broad absorption bands of CO2 are at about 2.5 microns and another at about 3.4 microns. Absorptionn goes from close to 0% to close to 100 % at these wavelenghs. CO2 doesn't absorb much of sunlight coming in. Rather, visible light warms the surface, the warm objects re-radiate the heat with a lot of energy at 2.5 and 3.4 microns. That's what gets absorbed.
Now I get why two of the demos I've tried already to demonstrate the greenhouse effect didn't work.
Yankie-
| QUOTE |
| Part of my not understanding the global warming theory is because of this very cause and affect regarding climate change . More C02 is the cause, more temperature should be the consistent affect , Always . But this hasn't taken place in any sort of pattern to suggest c02 was the cause . For over a 40 year trend the opposite took place . It got colder while c02 was shooting through the roof . Also, see if you can get Chaster to say acid rain and then ask him about cause and affect , even today . To chas acid rain is so 1970's and to me I haven't left , still beating the acid rain drum. |
According to the "Snow ball Earth" theory, volcanoes and acid rain are exactly what would save us and bring the temperatures back up from an entirely frozen earth. We are talking worse than the worst ice- age. Of course this is only after a very, very long time. The theory started because scientists wanted to know if the earth was capable of recovering from a nuclear winter and just how much the earth could take before being forced into a nuclear winter. So they ran a complex equation and were terrified by what they found. Their first model showed that if too much nuclear activity occurred, the earth would become completely covered in snow and ice and never recover. It stood like that for some time until another scientist looked at the equation and thought of volcanoes. Eventually the carbon build- up from the volcanoes would heat the earth to the point that there would be a gigantic acid rain storm which would begin the thawing process.
In that case, volcanoes would cause global warming which would save us from being a frozen rock of ice forever- but only AFTER the worst nuclear winter ever.
This plays on the discovery channel all the time. It's called "Snowball Earth."
| QUOTE (chaster @ Feb 12 2008, 02:51 PM) |
| No, |
Boy Chaster , your sure got your hands full I'd have to say . Had to laugh about wishing you wouldn't of partied so much in college , seems we all can look back and see how things could of been better. I never went to college , OK thats pretty obvious , you're most likely wondering if I ever went to high school , well most of the time so am I . But I have earned my DS degree , yup and its a degree you have too look back to see how much you didn't learn , just like you looking back and wishing now.
OK enough of the small talk . Got some questions for you , its about the 60/40 ratio of the last century's climate changes , both increasing temperature and decreasing temperatures NASA's chart indicates . 60 years temp raising and 40 years temp falling .
Is it fare to say during the last century the global warming theory can only account for and explain 60% of the climate change that took place ?
Do you find it strange people like Al Gore or Jim Hansen can be so absolutely sure they know what causes temperature to go up but have not given any reason that I'm aware what makes temperature go down over the same time frame , using the same theroy they say makes temp raise?
Chas, a 60/40 ratio accounting for known conditions isn't good science to even suggest we have a theory. Is this good science to you ?
But it gets even worse ,climate change is a two part equation Chas , a 50% temp raising and 50% temp falling = climate change .
To call something a theory based on good science that only explains 60% on half or 50% of the equation or possibilities is a Joke .
Thats like saying 60% of the time you understand what makes a elevator go upwards but haven't any clue what makes this same elevator go down .
Chas, you really need to raise the climate theory bar to at least 75 -80 % certain if you want me to think your theory isn't junk science .
Heck the way I see it your not even 35% certain of anything . thats so bad , I mean 50/50 is at the level of a decent guess.
Chas will you think about this and tell me where my DS degree is failing me ?
| QUOTE (bbgae @ Feb 12 2008, 05:40 PM) |
| Yankie- According to the "Snow ball Earth" theory, |
Well thanks so much BBgae, I'll have to check that out . By chance , have you ever read " Hitchhikers guide to galaxy ? "
Well , in a way Global warming theory has some comparisons , and we're all on a journey to find some answers , hope its not the number 7 .
At the end of the series of books the answers to life's greatest question that the biggest and baddest giant size computer ever built in the universe reasoned that the number seven was the answer to all the questions there ever was.
Its been a while since I read these books so I'm kinda going by memory .
Talk at you later , bye.
From the blog site of our local paper. By the way, sparky is another incarnation of Chaster:
When ‘science’ contradicts itself
Published:
Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:02 AM CST
To the editor:
The mental image formed as you read, the image your mind constructs when listening and watching presentations, determines how you will understand the message.
Today, presentations manipulate our mental images to create an impression of correctness. No longer do these presentations put forth information that requires us to synthesize a conclusion. The goal is not information but indoctrination. We, as an audience, are expected to accept, without question, the presentation as “truth.”
Sophism is not new. It pops up frequently throughout history. Today we experience an infusion of data in ways those in the past could not anticipate but would have relished the opportunity to employ. Making a business out of “wisdom” is still a lucrative endeavor even in our world of 2008.
Envisioning processes clamor for our attention (but mostly for our money) as they promote their wisdom of the moment. Their slogans appear and fade away as they search for the emotional queue that will move us to action. Will it be dirty air, loss of quality of life, resource utilization or competing in the world market? In the final result we will find the template, envisioned everywhere else the process is applied, to be the choice of the participants. We could ask, “Why not just take the results from Washington County and apply it here?” Thus saving significant money with the same results!
Everywhere we turn we are trying to become “smart.” We pursue smart cars, smart growth, smart education and smart just about anything else you can contemplate. We are so busy doing the “RIGHT THING” we may outsmart ourselves.
As of this month, 780 mayors have signed on to the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. These mayors are said to represent around 80 million Americans. What the mental image invokes here is massive public support for the agreement. But, the reality is quite different. There are approximately 30,000 incorporated cities in the United States; 780 signatures means less than 3 percent of the mayors have signed the agreement. Claiming that everyone in your city is represented by your signature is just utilizing another one of those deceptive mental images.
The only thing that stands between us and us outsmarting ourselves is science. But, even science is in danger from purveyors of sophism. It is the presentation of science that we are being given the wrong mental images to work with.
“The science is settled” conjures another mental image that is false. “The science” informs us that if we eliminated every source of man-made CO2 the atmosphere would continue to warm for about 100 years. The “other” science says warming has stopped! When confronted with these two opposing mental images we may well draw a blank.
Pete Brunson
Logan
(The blog site of our local paper allows posters to respond to letters to the editor. My response here wasn't in the paper but was on the blog site.)
sparky wrote on Feb 13, 2008 10:39 AM:
" Well of course ole sparky has to respond to this one. To agree. To agree? Well, sort of kind of. I think there is a gap in public education on climate science. There's the education at the PHD level and then for the public at large there's this power point graphic that has the earth and there're these squiggly lines of radiation coming in and these other squiggly lines of radiation going out. There's very little education of climate physics between those two. I think there is a genuine need for climate physics education at the level of the sort of kind of technically literate. In trying to get that I've encountered a certain amount of "Well, this is just so crazy complex, forget about the details, but trust us. We have a gazillion PHDs working on gazillion dollar super computer climate models, and - take my word for it - there's a there there." I don't as, Mr. Brusnon seems to, suspect this is some kind of conspiracy among closet socialists posing as climate physicists to pull the wool over our eyes. Climate physics really is crazy complex and really does require a PHD to get a handle on it. Still, seems to me there ought to be more of climate physics education between the PHD level and the power point graphic of planet earth and the squiggly lines. Nothing wrong with that power point graphic. It covers the basic situation that solar radiation comes in as predominantly visible light centered around about the 0.5 micron wavelength. CO2 gas has an absorption band at 2.7 microns and another at 4.3 microns. A small portion of the solar radiation coming in is absorbed by CO2 but another part of the picture is the squiggly lines of radiation going out. Visible light encounters the earth surface, is absorbed, warms the surface, and then is re-radiated out, and here’s the rub, re-radiated out in radiation rich in wavelengths in the 2.7 micron and 4.3 micron wavelength. The consequence of this has to be that the atmosphere has to come to a higher temperature in order that the squiggly lines going in equals the squiggly lines going out. This simple reality isn't in dispute except by those to whom the Dark Ages are over is news. Thing is, it gets complicated. Water vapor, for example, has more and broader absorption bands at 1.8 microns, 2.7 microns, and a very wide one centered at 6 microns. By the way I'm getting this from "The Infrared Handbook" published by those rabid socialists of the Office of Naval Research Dept. of the Navy. I'm doing what Mr. Brunson and others should be doing. I'm trying to fill in that gap by looking into the science myself. But I do have to agree with Mr. Brunson in that there's a need here for better public education on climate physics 101 for the semi-technically literate public. "
When ‘science’ contradicts itself
Published:
Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:02 AM CST
To the editor:
The mental image formed as you read, the image your mind constructs when listening and watching presentations, determines how you will understand the message.
Today, presentations manipulate our mental images to create an impression of correctness. No longer do these presentations put forth information that requires us to synthesize a conclusion. The goal is not information but indoctrination. We, as an audience, are expected to accept, without question, the presentation as “truth.”
Sophism is not new. It pops up frequently throughout history. Today we experience an infusion of data in ways those in the past could not anticipate but would have relished the opportunity to employ. Making a business out of “wisdom” is still a lucrative endeavor even in our world of 2008.
Envisioning processes clamor for our attention (but mostly for our money) as they promote their wisdom of the moment. Their slogans appear and fade away as they search for the emotional queue that will move us to action. Will it be dirty air, loss of quality of life, resource utilization or competing in the world market? In the final result we will find the template, envisioned everywhere else the process is applied, to be the choice of the participants. We could ask, “Why not just take the results from Washington County and apply it here?” Thus saving significant money with the same results!
Everywhere we turn we are trying to become “smart.” We pursue smart cars, smart growth, smart education and smart just about anything else you can contemplate. We are so busy doing the “RIGHT THING” we may outsmart ourselves.
As of this month, 780 mayors have signed on to the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. These mayors are said to represent around 80 million Americans. What the mental image invokes here is massive public support for the agreement. But, the reality is quite different. There are approximately 30,000 incorporated cities in the United States; 780 signatures means less than 3 percent of the mayors have signed the agreement. Claiming that everyone in your city is represented by your signature is just utilizing another one of those deceptive mental images.
The only thing that stands between us and us outsmarting ourselves is science. But, even science is in danger from purveyors of sophism. It is the presentation of science that we are being given the wrong mental images to work with.
“The science is settled” conjures another mental image that is false. “The science” informs us that if we eliminated every source of man-made CO2 the atmosphere would continue to warm for about 100 years. The “other” science says warming has stopped! When confronted with these two opposing mental images we may well draw a blank.
Pete Brunson
Logan
(The blog site of our local paper allows posters to respond to letters to the editor. My response here wasn't in the paper but was on the blog site.)
sparky wrote on Feb 13, 2008 10:39 AM:
" Well of course ole sparky has to respond to this one. To agree. To agree? Well, sort of kind of. I think there is a gap in public education on climate science. There's the education at the PHD level and then for the public at large there's this power point graphic that has the earth and there're these squiggly lines of radiation coming in and these other squiggly lines of radiation going out. There's very little education of climate physics between those two. I think there is a genuine need for climate physics education at the level of the sort of kind of technically literate. In trying to get that I've encountered a certain amount of "Well, this is just so crazy complex, forget about the details, but trust us. We have a gazillion PHDs working on gazillion dollar super computer climate models, and - take my word for it - there's a there there." I don't as, Mr. Brusnon seems to, suspect this is some kind of conspiracy among closet socialists posing as climate physicists to pull the wool over our eyes. Climate physics really is crazy complex and really does require a PHD to get a handle on it. Still, seems to me there ought to be more of climate physics education between the PHD level and the power point graphic of planet earth and the squiggly lines. Nothing wrong with that power point graphic. It covers the basic situation that solar radiation comes in as predominantly visible light centered around about the 0.5 micron wavelength. CO2 gas has an absorption band at 2.7 microns and another at 4.3 microns. A small portion of the solar radiation coming in is absorbed by CO2 but another part of the picture is the squiggly lines of radiation going out. Visible light encounters the earth surface, is absorbed, warms the surface, and then is re-radiated out, and here’s the rub, re-radiated out in radiation rich in wavelengths in the 2.7 micron and 4.3 micron wavelength. The consequence of this has to be that the atmosphere has to come to a higher temperature in order that the squiggly lines going in equals the squiggly lines going out. This simple reality isn't in dispute except by those to whom the Dark Ages are over is news. Thing is, it gets complicated. Water vapor, for example, has more and broader absorption bands at 1.8 microns, 2.7 microns, and a very wide one centered at 6 microns. By the way I'm getting this from "The Infrared Handbook" published by those rabid socialists of the Office of Naval Research Dept. of the Navy. I'm doing what Mr. Brunson and others should be doing. I'm trying to fill in that gap by looking into the science myself. But I do have to agree with Mr. Brunson in that there's a need here for better public education on climate physics 101 for the semi-technically literate public. "
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Feb 13 2008, 02:19 AM) |
| OK enough of the small talk . Got some questions for you , its about the 60/40 ratio of the last century's climate changes , both increasing temperature and decreasing temperatures NASA's chart indicates . 60 years temp raising and 40 years temp falling . Is it fare to say during the last century the global warming theory can only account for and explain 60% of the climate change that took place ? Do you find it strange people like Al Gore or Jim Hansen can be so absolutely sure they know what causes temperature to go up but have not given any reason that I'm aware what makes temperature go down over the same time frame , using the same theroy they say makes temp raise? Chas, a 60/40 ratio accounting for known conditions isn't good science to even suggest we have a theory. Is this good science to you ? But it gets even worse ,climate change is a two part equation Chas , a 50% temp raising and 50% temp falling = climate change . To call something a theory based on good science that only explains 60% on half or 50% of the equation or possibilities is a Joke . Thats like saying 60% of the time you understand what makes a elevator go upwards but haven't any clue what makes this same elevator go down . Chas, you really need to raise the climate theory bar to at least 75 -80 % certain if you want me to think your theory isn't junk science . Heck the way I see it your not even 35% certain of anything . thats so bad , I mean 50/50 is at the level of a decent guess. Chas will you think about this and tell me where my DS degree is failing me ? |
It's not fair to characterize the state of climate science today that it's worse than a 50 - 50 guess. I'll have to do some digging to back this up, but the climate models DO account for the ups and downs in temperature over the past century. They do it with a high degree of precision. Yes, a highly simplistic model of CO2 is going up, and therefore temperatures are going up, doesn't fully explain the 20th century's temperature data, but give these eggheads some credit, Yankie. They've taken a highly complex system and they're making solid headway on being able to characterize it with precision.
Why aren't you as skeptical about other eggheads in general, Yankie? What's so specail about climate physicists? What about, oh say, the eggheads who study subatomic particles? Who knows, maybe they're trying to mislead us too. Course, those eggheads aren't telling us stuff we don't like hearing. Maybe that's the difference.
The problem with you and me both, Yankie, is we've got just barely enough knowledge to make simplistic assumptions and get things wrong. If we're to overcome this, we just have to get a better handle on the science.
I'll grant you that there is a gap in the public education on climate physics and this gap invites being filled by all sorts of boneheaded claims. I'll even grant that Al Gore has been operating in that gap to a degree.
Well, if we do our homework on these things and genuinely get a better understanding of it, perhaps we can start to filling that gap with knowledge instead of boneheadedness. That'd be good. Especially, seeing as our lives may depend on getting it right.
| QUOTE (bbgae @ Feb 13 2008, 12:40 AM) |
| This plays on the discovery channel all the time. It's called "Snowball Earth." |
I kind of have a love-hate relationship with the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. They put on some excellent well made documentaries, but then they'll put out stuff that is so trashy they ought to be embarrassed about it. About the best thing you can say for some of their programming is it's entertaining. Entertainment, of course, is their business. That's what sells the hair gel, the beer, and the motor cars that go varrooooom.
Makes me appreciate PBS more. Then again, it kind of seems that PBS lately has been trending toward the info-tainment to a degree too. It stems back to 1981 when Ronald Reagan pulled the plug on underwriting PBS. Ronald Reagan, the father of the PBS fund raiser. Thanks a bunch, Ron.
In my paranoid moments I see this a vast right wing plot to gain power and control through fostering public ignorance.
Well, maybe it's not so bad, provided you get a well rounded education from a variety of scources. What scares me is that a genuine outlet of knowledge gets undercut here, displaced there, silenced here, forced to teach "intelligent design" there, and, after a few decades of this, you have a boneheaded superstition ridden populace easily led and controlled by superstition peddlars.
QUOTE (chaster @ Feb 13 2008, 11:46 AM)
It's not fair to characterize the state of climate science today that it's worse than a 50 - 50 guess.
Well this may be true but at the end of the day the cause claimed for global warming is increasing man mad co2 is it not ? The current cry to stop global warming is reduction , reduction and even more reduction of Co2 . The only cure for stopping global warming I hear is stopping emissions of Co2 . Is this too a simplest view for me to have and base my thoughts on ?
I mean if your saying there might be other factors involved more than co2 , well what are they ? Could these factors include more than co2 ? Some thing like Nature causing both warming and cooling . I mean Chas when you look at the temp charts of the last century we had two periods up to ten years long of cooling . Isn't ten years just a little bit long to suggest a lag time ?
As complex as our climate is a lag time is the only thing you have if you want to explain the cooling trends and stay in tune with the global warming theory that man made co2 is the cause for global warming , am I right ?
Could it be that perhaps the global warming theory is too simplistic by suggesting co2 as the only cause in a very complex system ? Is this perhaps why the theory only can account for 60% of the last centuries known Conditions and why 40% remains unknown and contradicts the premise of the global warming theroy ?
Listen Chas , I have nothing against eggheads , I work with them all the time , and yes what I dont understand I ask them questions all the time . I'll agree most of the questions I ask would come across as a stupid question to those I ask . But never to me if I learn something . And never to them when the question needed to be asked and answered .
Well you said you would provide me some answers that I haven't been able to find for myself , Thanks , I'll take your offer as a promise if thats all right by you .---Waiting .
| QUOTE |
| Yes, a highly simplistic model of CO2 is going up, and therefore temperatures are going up, doesn't fully explain the 20th century's temperature data, but give these eggheads some credit, Yankie. They've taken a highly complex system and they're making solid headway on being able to characterize it with precision. |
Well this may be true but at the end of the day the cause claimed for global warming is increasing man mad co2 is it not ? The current cry to stop global warming is reduction , reduction and even more reduction of Co2 . The only cure for stopping global warming I hear is stopping emissions of Co2 . Is this too a simplest view for me to have and base my thoughts on ?
I mean if your saying there might be other factors involved more than co2 , well what are they ? Could these factors include more than co2 ? Some thing like Nature causing both warming and cooling . I mean Chas when you look at the temp charts of the last century we had two periods up to ten years long of cooling . Isn't ten years just a little bit long to suggest a lag time ?
As complex as our climate is a lag time is the only thing you have if you want to explain the cooling trends and stay in tune with the global warming theory that man made co2 is the cause for global warming , am I right ?
Could it be that perhaps the global warming theory is too simplistic by suggesting co2 as the only cause in a very complex system ? Is this perhaps why the theory only can account for 60% of the last centuries known Conditions and why 40% remains unknown and contradicts the premise of the global warming theroy ?
Listen Chas , I have nothing against eggheads , I work with them all the time , and yes what I dont understand I ask them questions all the time . I'll agree most of the questions I ask would come across as a stupid question to those I ask . But never to me if I learn something . And never to them when the question needed to be asked and answered .
Well you said you would provide me some answers that I haven't been able to find for myself , Thanks , I'll take your offer as a promise if thats all right by you .---Waiting .
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Feb 14 2008, 12:14 AM) |
| Could it be that perhaps the global warming theory is too simplistic by suggesting co2 as the only cause in a very complex system ? Is this perhaps why the theory only can account for 60% of the last centuries known Conditions and why 40% remains unknown and contradicts the premise of the global warming theroy ? |
Yes, it's a simplistic theory. Kind of along the lines of smoking causes cancer.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Feb 14 2008, 09:55 AM) |
| Yes, it's a simplistic theory. Kind of along the lines of smoking causes cancer. |
Ouch , that was a good one Chas , and clever . But my skin cancer came from the Sun , The Sun ? um maybe thats whats causing global warming on Mars ? Some say it is . Some even say the earth .
Anyway , the true fact of global warming is most people have made up their mind , and most people find this topic boring from what I can tell .
I've listed just a few reasons why I dont buy into global warming as a co2 theory , I feel these are very good reasons to give a second look at what so many believe to be true . I'm not stubborn or skeptical as much as I'm unconvinced .
For now Chas , maybe we need to stop boring Folks , dont look now but were driving people away I think , just like last time .
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Feb 14 2008, 06:50 PM) |
| Ouch , that was a good one Chas , and clever . But my skin cancer came from the Sun , The Sun ? um maybe thats whats causing global warming on Mars ? Some say it is . Some even say the earth . |
I didn't know that, Yankie. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope it's going well for you.
Yeah, it's a heck of a deal when the females just get bored and wander off while the males are butting heads. That's the thanks we get.
Aside from butting heads, though, I really would like to do a well written write-up on the basic physics behind AGW. It's not as you say, Yankie, just a matter of opinion. Basic science isn't just a matter of opinion. It's a lot more solid than that. It just needs to be explained better. I think I can do that if I can get motivated to do so.
QUOTE (chaster @ Feb 15 2008, 10:06 AM)
I didn't know that, Yankie.
Well thanks for the concern , but really it isn't much to worry about , lots of people get a scrape scape here or burn burn there , just got to stay on top of things . Heck I bet there's some in your own family who have the same thing .
Corrections Chaster , I never said that or even suggested such nonsense .
Basic science is the major element behind engineering be it mechanical, electrical or structural . Each of these tasks are bound by laws of physics if you want to do the job right . From the geological soils report of ground conditions befor footings to the last joist to be placed EVERYTHING has been engineered by facts or knowledge of known conditions and expectations .
A engineering stamp on a set of plains isn't a opinion . Its a statement of fact , even our courts agree concerning liability should something go wrong .
Opinions are for colors or coverings but the core of what I do is based on known facts and can be support by the very basics of science befor the building is started.
Nothing is done on a guess or a opinion and if any type of engineer was to say its just my opinion he'd be laughed out of the business. Imagine if you will a engineers stamp with the exclusion that all my work was based only on my opinion . ---- Good lord , where would we be ? I'll tell ya , a life time of court and lawyers , Hell in other words .
Gees Chaster I know you think me a fool for questing the current global warming theory , but I dont live in a world of opinions if facts are needed .
And thats the problem I see with the global warming theory presently ,
The known conditions of what has happened does not support the theory of just co2 as cause for the increase or decrease of this one degree temperature swing we have had the last century .
But I'm really interested in seeing your numbers you say you can produce , If your numbers back the science and known conditions 75-80% then I will believe you have a theory and gladly join the choir . Until then best we sing this global warming song amongst ourselves .
Well thanks for the concern , but really it isn't much to worry about , lots of people get a scrape scape here or burn burn there , just got to stay on top of things . Heck I bet there's some in your own family who have the same thing .
| QUOTE |
| It's not as you say, Yankie, just a matter of opinion. Basic science isn't just a matter of opinion. |
Corrections Chaster , I never said that or even suggested such nonsense .
Basic science is the major element behind engineering be it mechanical, electrical or structural . Each of these tasks are bound by laws of physics if you want to do the job right . From the geological soils report of ground conditions befor footings to the last joist to be placed EVERYTHING has been engineered by facts or knowledge of known conditions and expectations .
A engineering stamp on a set of plains isn't a opinion . Its a statement of fact , even our courts agree concerning liability should something go wrong .
Opinions are for colors or coverings but the core of what I do is based on known facts and can be support by the very basics of science befor the building is started.
Nothing is done on a guess or a opinion and if any type of engineer was to say its just my opinion he'd be laughed out of the business. Imagine if you will a engineers stamp with the exclusion that all my work was based only on my opinion . ---- Good lord , where would we be ? I'll tell ya , a life time of court and lawyers , Hell in other words .
Gees Chaster I know you think me a fool for questing the current global warming theory , but I dont live in a world of opinions if facts are needed .
And thats the problem I see with the global warming theory presently ,
The known conditions of what has happened does not support the theory of just co2 as cause for the increase or decrease of this one degree temperature swing we have had the last century .
But I'm really interested in seeing your numbers you say you can produce , If your numbers back the science and known conditions 75-80% then I will believe you have a theory and gladly join the choir . Until then best we sing this global warming song amongst ourselves .
| QUOTE (chaster @ Feb 15 2008, 10:06 AM) |
| Aside from butting heads, though, I really would like to do a well written write-up on the basic physics behind AGW. It's not as you say, Yankie, just a matter of opinion. Basic science isn't just a matter of opinion. It's a lot more solid than that. It just needs to be explained better. I think I can do that if I can get motivated to do so. |
Chaster, this should give you a dynamic rush thrill, almost as good as Utah getting voted down on their effort to teach creationism.
http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_8269190
QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Feb 15 2008, 08:30 PM)
Chaster, this should give you a dynamic rush thrill, almost as good as Utah getting voted down on their effort to teach creationism.
http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_8269190
Oh its you Sayit , thank god , commere we need to talk .
As you know we Jack Mormons have been studying the behavior of certain environmentalists groups . Well I dont know how to tell you this, you'd better sit down .
We Jacks have always know global warming was based on science , but not science of climate as many believe , nope political science 100% through and through . The promoting of this political science in the form of climate science was to gain a political edge and to secure self serving grants . You know , kinda like the BIA, CIA NSA and others do where the survival of the bureaucracy is more important than the original cause .
No big deal right ? Happens all the time you say . Way wrong Sayit , I've studied these enviro folks for over 30 years and in all this time I aint ever seen any thing like this . There actually mutating , you heard me mutating .
It all started with Gore when he came on as a self appointed Laymen or prophet talking about morals and the end of the world hail and brimstone talk .
Those who where in truth political science followers shortly became "radical science followers , Not much different then those Scientology goofs . So whats the big deal you ask ? Who cares you say ?
Well you should care Sayit cause I seen very strong indication they are starting to mutate one more time . Yes Sayit that's right , again .
Its been a very thankless job but in order to study these global mutating goons closer, for the last 2+years I posted on this web site to befriend one and learn all I could , at first it was incredibly boring . But this last year all hell has broken loose , with intense obsession as if from the gate of hell is this Sci-globing mutant . But I hung in there and through diverse ways of water boarding I discovered this next mutation right befor my eyes.
From radical science or a cheap form of Scientology they are becoming fanactical science followers or sciencegodagist
Don't believe me well look at this
and dont tell me you cant see through this statement
See , they now have completely perverted both God and science in one fell swoop ,
Blasphemy I tell you , only God and not science has the right to work in mysterious ways Help me Sayit we must take action . Good Lord , Al Gore as the returning white God as if a creation story in our school books ?
If it isnt stopped a couple of generations from now our descendants will be mutants as well . and our science ? What science I tell ya
http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_8269190
Oh its you Sayit , thank god , commere we need to talk .
As you know we Jack Mormons have been studying the behavior of certain environmentalists groups . Well I dont know how to tell you this, you'd better sit down .
We Jacks have always know global warming was based on science , but not science of climate as many believe , nope political science 100% through and through . The promoting of this political science in the form of climate science was to gain a political edge and to secure self serving grants . You know , kinda like the BIA, CIA NSA and others do where the survival of the bureaucracy is more important than the original cause .
No big deal right ? Happens all the time you say . Way wrong Sayit , I've studied these enviro folks for over 30 years and in all this time I aint ever seen any thing like this . There actually mutating , you heard me mutating .
It all started with Gore when he came on as a self appointed Laymen or prophet talking about morals and the end of the world hail and brimstone talk .
Those who where in truth political science followers shortly became "radical science followers , Not much different then those Scientology goofs . So whats the big deal you ask ? Who cares you say ?
Well you should care Sayit cause I seen very strong indication they are starting to mutate one more time . Yes Sayit that's right , again .
Its been a very thankless job but in order to study these global mutating goons closer, for the last 2+years I posted on this web site to befriend one and learn all I could , at first it was incredibly boring . But this last year all hell has broken loose , with intense obsession as if from the gate of hell is this Sci-globing mutant . But I hung in there and through diverse ways of water boarding I discovered this next mutation right befor my eyes.
From radical science or a cheap form of Scientology they are becoming fanactical science followers or sciencegodagist
Don't believe me well look at this
| QUOTE |
| Don't bother with those false web sites of Yankie. Those are of Satan. |
and dont tell me you cant see through this statement
| QUOTE |
| Yankie. They've taken a highly mysterious system and they're making solid headway on being able to worship it with unperfection |
See , they now have completely perverted both God and science in one fell swoop ,
Blasphemy I tell you , only God and not science has the right to work in mysterious ways Help me Sayit we must take action . Good Lord , Al Gore as the returning white God as if a creation story in our school books ?
If it isnt stopped a couple of generations from now our descendants will be mutants as well . and our science ? What science I tell ya
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Feb 16 2008, 02:17 AM) |
| Oh its you Sayit , thank god , commere we need to talk . As you know we Jack Mormons have been studying the behavior of certain environmentalists groups . Well I dont know how to tell you this, you'd better sit down . We Jacks (yankie and the mouse in his pocket) have always know global warming was based on science , but not science of climate as many believe , nope political science 100% through and through . The promoting of this political science in the form of climate science was to gain a political edge and to secure self serving grants . You know , kinda like the BIA, CIA NSA and others do where the survival of the bureaucracy is more important than the original cause . |
Well yankie I've always been as sure Chaster was wrong as he is that he is right, so whats left to say?
This is how their science work:
There was a crooked man
who walked a crooked mile
found a crooked sixpence
upon a crooked stile.
He had a crooked cat
which caught a crooked mouse
and they all lived together
in a little crooked house.
(and gleefully watched scary Algore movies)
Just replace "crooked" with "science". I suppose you could replace it with "religious" too, but it just doesn't have the sting for some reason. See it all feeds on the original premise of having their "crooked" opinion peer reviewed.
The crooked house would be a university, and the religious a church. But you see, They both want them to be the White House... and they want' to burn down the others. But the Left's biggest fear now is that someone religious might get into politics and they might actually be influenced by it. (that could directly affect the budget)
So you are right, science has finally won. Bureaucracies always end up causing the very problem they were created to solve. So when they make a Department of Climate Awareness.. the DCA, then you'll know they have "arrived" at the full political potentiality. Look at all the disasters that are caused by FEMA. It's imminent now for sure.
And since your (our) opinion, although it is a good one here, has not been peer reviewed and published in a crooked neoglobal scientific journal, you don't get a Nobel Prize for it, and we just can't put much stock in it. Sorry, (it just isn't scary enough yet) I hope you understand, but being right is just not good enough any more.
We could call it "The Chaster's Dilemma" and start a whole new branch of philosophy.
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Feb 16 2008, 02:17 AM) |
| Oh its you Sayit , thank god , commere we need to talk . As you know we Jack Mormons have been studying the behavior of certain environmentalists groups . Well I dont know how to tell you this, you'd better sit down . We Jacks have always know global warming was based on science , but not science of climate as many believe , nope political science 100% through and through . The promoting of this political science in the form of climate science was to gain a political edge and to secure self serving grants . You know , kinda like the BIA, CIA NSA and others do where the survival of the bureaucracy is more important than the original cause . |
Yank, I've only been half following this topic because I am getting so tired of reading the same old same old over and over. Say don't trust science because it doesn't tell him what his religion wants to believe. You are this allegedly uneducated working guy who got enough plain sense to see through them libral science hacks. Both of you are just so full of crap.
Splain something to me here, with your uncommon common sense. The AZ Republic this morning has a short article about Crabs moving into the warming waters of the Antartic for the first time in 40 million years.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/n...rctica0216.html
You been telling us it was warmer during the medieval cooling period. OK, why didn't those crabs move south then?
That is only one thing that is going on right now that is unprecidented in recent geological times. The Artic ice sheet is shrinking both in area and thickness and may well disappear in the next century or so. When did that happen last? If the polar bears go extinct, as they may well do, how did they survive all those other warm periods you claim have been going on?
Same thing with the melting permafrost. That didn't happen in the medieval warming. It seems like the warming is greater at the poles.
You spoke of how in the past hundred years, only 60 or so have actually been warmer. Come on man, you are smart enough to know that in any track that varies as much as weather, any year is bound to be quite a ways off the norm. It's meaningless to the long term average.
I just get sick of reading about how them scientists are just librals pushing some mysterious agenda. That's total nonsense. You want to see an agenda being pushed, look at your so called experts who are promoting the coal/oil industry agenda. There's money behind them, and a purpose. Your "libral scientists seeking grant money" would be piss ants compared to the bucks your extractive industries bring to bear.
I'd recommend you guys both go rent a movie called "Thank you for smoking". It's funny and entertaining, and it has a good deal of truth in it. The fact is it's a pretty accurate portrayal of how the tobacco companies have reacted to hard science that showed they were killing people. And it's also a fact that industries who are facing environmental consequences have adopted the tactics the tobacco companies pioneered.
If you want to impress me quit trying to parse charts and explain to me one simple thing. How can 6 billion people dump CO 2 and methane and god knows what else in the atmosphere at the rate we are doing it and NOT have global warming?
I will agree with you that CO2 is only the tip of the iceberg. Humanity is hell bent for election to extinct itself.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Feb 16 2008, 07:42 AM) |
| Well yankie I've always been as sure Chaster was wrong as he is that he is right, so whats left to say? This is how their science work: There was a crooked man who walked a crooked mile found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile. He had a crooked cat which caught a crooked mouse and they all lived together in a little crooked house. (and gleefully watched scary Algore movies) Just replace "crooked" with "science". I suppose you could replace it with "religious" too, but it just doesn't have the sting for some reason. See it all feeds on the original premise of having their "crooked" opinion peer reviewed. The crooked house would be a university, and the religious a church. But you see, They both want them to be the White House... and they want' to burn down the others. But the Left's biggest fear now is that someone religious might get into politics and they might actually be influenced by it. (that could directly affect the budget) So you are right, science has finally won. Bureaucracies always end up causing the very problem they were created to solve. So when they make a Department of Climate Awareness.. the DCA, then you'll know they have "arrived" at the full political potentiality. Look at all the disasters that are caused by FEMA. It's imminent now for sure. And since your (our) opinion, although it is a good one here, has not been peer reviewed and published in a crooked neoglobal scientific journal, you don't get a Nobel Prize for it, and we just can't put much stock in it. Sorry, (it just isn't scary enough yet) I hope you understand, but being right is just not good enough any more. We could call it "The Chaster's Dilemma" and start a whole new branch of philosophy. |
First off, you're not right. You are wrong. Secondly, you ought to quit ridiculing my brother. You don't know Chas. I do. He's a very quiet thoughtful and kindly guy who has been reading up on this stuff for about 40 years and is very concerned, as am I, that we are heading toward destruction. You might disagree with him and you have that right, but you don't need to act like a 6 grade school yard kid in the process.
Having said that, I would also acknowledge and agree that Chaster has unloaded on Yank a time or two that was completely inappropriate. Bottom line is grown men ought to could discuss things they disagree on without acting like little pricks.
OK, maybe I been a bit of a prick a time or two too.
Chas thinks now that maybe he's got a thing called Asperger's Syndrome. That is a moderate form of autism that, among other things, makes a person tend to become obsessive. The thing is that Chaster's obsession with climate is out of a well founded concern and can be very positive. It does give him kind of a missionary zeal that can be a bit harsh at times.
QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Feb 16 2008, 08:36 AM)
First off, you're not right. You are wrong. Secondly, you ought to quit ridiculing my brother. You don't know Chas. I do. He's a very quiet thoughtful and kindly guy who has been reading up on this stuff for about 40 years and is very concerned, as am I, that we are heading toward destruction. You might disagree with him and you have that right, but you don't need to act like a 6 grade school yard kid in the process.
I'm just as sure you are wrong as you are that you are right too.
I appreciate your sticking up for Chaster.. really I like him too, and mostly it's all in good fun when I pick on him. He seems pretty competent to dish it back. He was the one who named this tread butt-heads don't forget. How rude was that?
You could almost read that like I was sticking up for him too if you wanted. I do understand the polarities of this dilemma better than you might think.
We only disagree fundamentally on what is the CAUSE of this effect. So it does no good to point out that crabs are migrating into warmer water for the first time. Even according to YOUR billion year old science, the crabs are "evolving" too.
You shouldn't really get the impression that I don't like science either. I just object to a lot of things being called science that are in fact pretty conjectural at best, and highly interpretive. And yankie is right about how it is morphing all the time, especially into an extremely more politicized version. Someone got paid damn good to make this observation of crustacean migration, and also to put it into the "news" at this timely juncture. So don't go getting all self-righteous about "agenda".
btw, that is good news, I don't know about the ecological balance, but crab is an excellent food source. Maybe there is a positive trade off? Maybe we can "earmark" some funds to figure it out.
Aren't the poles of Mars warming too? It's probably from all the excess heat radiating from Earth and warming up the whole rest of the solar system. Whoever gets the Nobel Prize for figuring that out should share the prize money with me because It was my idea first.
Since I am an End Times subscriber, I think that global warming is probably one of the least of our worries. What would vaporizing a large city or two in a matter of a few minutes do to the global co2 levels and atmospheric pollution?
I'm just as sure you are wrong as you are that you are right too.
I appreciate your sticking up for Chaster.. really I like him too, and mostly it's all in good fun when I pick on him. He seems pretty competent to dish it back. He was the one who named this tread butt-heads don't forget. How rude was that?
You could almost read that like I was sticking up for him too if you wanted. I do understand the polarities of this dilemma better than you might think.
We only disagree fundamentally on what is the CAUSE of this effect. So it does no good to point out that crabs are migrating into warmer water for the first time. Even according to YOUR billion year old science, the crabs are "evolving" too.
You shouldn't really get the impression that I don't like science either. I just object to a lot of things being called science that are in fact pretty conjectural at best, and highly interpretive. And yankie is right about how it is morphing all the time, especially into an extremely more politicized version. Someone got paid damn good to make this observation of crustacean migration, and also to put it into the "news" at this timely juncture. So don't go getting all self-righteous about "agenda".
btw, that is good news, I don't know about the ecological balance, but crab is an excellent food source. Maybe there is a positive trade off? Maybe we can "earmark" some funds to figure it out.
Aren't the poles of Mars warming too? It's probably from all the excess heat radiating from Earth and warming up the whole rest of the solar system. Whoever gets the Nobel Prize for figuring that out should share the prize money with me because It was my idea first.
Since I am an End Times subscriber, I think that global warming is probably one of the least of our worries. What would vaporizing a large city or two in a matter of a few minutes do to the global co2 levels and atmospheric pollution?
| QUOTE |
| Your "libral scientists seeking grant money" would be piss ants compared to the bucks your extractive industries bring to bear. |
No argument there either, but there is a difference between industry making and paying taxes and academia spending it. I'm not saying none of is justified either. Let's all get our priorities straight... on both sides, and not subsidizing special interest would probably help everybody.
| QUOTE |
| Bottom line is grown men ought to could discuss things they disagree on without acting like little pricks. |
Oh pull your head out of your ass will ya . Whats going on here is the shoe is on the other foot and you dont like it .
What I see is a very small boy who for years has dished out disrespect but cant take it in . Little advise for you , if you dont like it then stop doing it, your one way hissy fit is pathetic . So we poked a little fun at you , boohoo , thats not fair, only I can do that boohoo.
I dont know why the crabs are moving , and I dont know why different scientist disagree over global warming and the cause , I couldn't tell you .
But what I do know these are just symptoms and not answers . Symptoms that something isn't right whether its the science and the scientist or global warming and the cause .
I've ask some questions and Chaster agrees these questions should be answered with out assumptions , Ask Chaster the importance of these questions , I'd try to tell why I think they are important for science to demonstrate , but anything I try to say is hard to do speaking through 90lbs of butt fat and a closed mind .
Boys. Boys. It's getting a tad roudy here.
Thanks, Cactus, for coming to my aid. Kind of. I think.
Thomas Jefferson had Aspberger's syndrome too, you know. So does Howard Blume, a guy who's been in several movies playing a smart sexy person.
I can live with all the charges except boring. Dang. I hate to be boring. It seems to drive off the women. So therefore, I will endeavor to only post again on this thread when I have something original, educational, and above all to the best of my ability not boring.
Thanks, Cactus, for coming to my aid. Kind of. I think.
Thomas Jefferson had Aspberger's syndrome too, you know. So does Howard Blume, a guy who's been in several movies playing a smart sexy person.
I can live with all the charges except boring. Dang. I hate to be boring. It seems to drive off the women. So therefore, I will endeavor to only post again on this thread when I have something original, educational, and above all to the best of my ability not boring.
QUOTE (chaster @ Feb 16 2008, 04:37 PM)
I can live with all the charges except boring.
| QUOTE |
| Dang. I hate to be boring |
That post was meant to be tongue and cheek , light and not anything but that . Please take the word boring in that context . Deal ?
I'm going to take a stab at something I'm pretty sure I'm right about , more then a long time really .
It would be my guess most of the people would take you talking about your Aspberger as a humble thing to do . But I'm different than most people and I see it as you dealing with your fear.
I know this fear. At best you can learn to deal with it , but the fear in its self is you will never conquer it or make this demon go away . Its apart of you and always will be . Your a brave man Chas , Braver than allot of folks would be my guess.
Chas , I meant every word I just said , and I didn't talk just to talk . Far from that .
| QUOTE (chaster @ Feb 16 2008, 04:37 PM) |
| Boys. Boys. It's getting a tad roudy here. |
Chaster check out this poem , and if you will write us a poem about aspberger , yeah its hard but you just never know what you may learn , poetrys good for that you know , like taking layers of dust of a window to look inside , or out side or both and if your lucky at the same time , you just never know .
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/alone-5/
There are eyes that switch places
and ears do the same .
Distorting information
berfor meeting the brain.
Next time they'll raise hands
and share verbal views
but next time will flee
from Poe's demon on blue .
Well, it's clear I haven't missed much since my last post. Just lots of testosterone.
Yankie, Say:
Can't you see that even if global warming was the propagated lie you are so terrified of, the things the everyone is urging to be done about it are common sense and and smart- things we should really be doing anyway, if you only stopped to think about it?
Now who's afraid? The liberals who want to save the world before it's too late or the conservatives who think the liberals have been deceived by a corrupt government? It sounds to me like the pot is calling the kettle black.
Yankie, Say:
Can't you see that even if global warming was the propagated lie you are so terrified of, the things the everyone is urging to be done about it are common sense and and smart- things we should really be doing anyway, if you only stopped to think about it?
Now who's afraid? The liberals who want to save the world before it's too late or the conservatives who think the liberals have been deceived by a corrupt government? It sounds to me like the pot is calling the kettle black.
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Feb 16 2008, 07:59 PM) |
| Chaster check out this poem , and if you will write us a poem about aspberger . |
Ok maybe that was a bit to ask from you , maybe this isn't the time or place , maybe someday .
QUOTE (bbgae @ Feb 18 2008, 04:48 PM)
Well, it's clear I haven't missed much since my last post. Just lots of testosterone.
Yankie, Say:
Can't you see that even if global warming was the propagated lie you are so terrified of, the things the everyone is urging to be done about it are common sense and and smart- things we should really be doing anyway, if you only stopped to think about it?
Now who's afraid? The liberals who want to save the world before it's too late or the conservatives who think the liberals have been deceived by a corrupt government? It sounds to me like the pot is calling the kettle black.
This is a good question . I see liberals more afraid of Nuclear power than even Global warming . I see liberals more interested in reducing carbon emitting fuel for our cars than stopping it .
Most liberals talk about reducing air pollution by using less oil or coal.
Most Conservatives talk about stopping all types of air pollution with nuclear or hydrogen as a fuel source .
Whats best , reducing a problem or stopping a problem ?
It irks me when common sense is so obvious and these people hold back progress and say they are so moral and blame others . Liberals are not standing on the high ground concerning our envirment if you think about it ,or even co2 caused global warming for that matter , and haven't been since the days of Jimmy Carter . Why they cant see this I dont know Maybe they are afraid to look . LOL. Bye .
Yankie, Say:
Can't you see that even if global warming was the propagated lie you are so terrified of, the things the everyone is urging to be done about it are common sense and and smart- things we should really be doing anyway, if you only stopped to think about it?
Now who's afraid? The liberals who want to save the world before it's too late or the conservatives who think the liberals have been deceived by a corrupt government? It sounds to me like the pot is calling the kettle black.
| QUOTE |
| Now who's afraid? |
This is a good question . I see liberals more afraid of Nuclear power than even Global warming . I see liberals more interested in reducing carbon emitting fuel for our cars than stopping it .
Most liberals talk about reducing air pollution by using less oil or coal.
Most Conservatives talk about stopping all types of air pollution with nuclear or hydrogen as a fuel source .
Whats best , reducing a problem or stopping a problem ?
It irks me when common sense is so obvious and these people hold back progress and say they are so moral and blame others . Liberals are not standing on the high ground concerning our envirment if you think about it ,or even co2 caused global warming for that matter , and haven't been since the days of Jimmy Carter . Why they cant see this I dont know
Maybe they are afraid to look . LOL. Bye .
Actually, Yank,
I am all for nuclear power. We just need to find a safer way to process it. I also think it can be used for better and more efficient space travel than what we are using now.
Seems to me when looked at in this light, you are saying both Conservative and Liberals want to fix the same problem, they just have different methods for fixing it. And you think your way is better? Maybe it is. But in stopping CO2 omissions it would ALSO be necessary to revert to other power sources- nuclear included.
Why can't we do both? Why can't we be green, use solar panels, and halogen lights, fuel efficient cars AND use nuclear power. Maybe we don't need to FIND an alternative fuel source- maybe we just need to find a BETTER PROCESS for one we already have.
And, since you say we both want to fix the same problem, maybe we should stop fighting over the method and DO SOMETHING.
I am all for nuclear power. We just need to find a safer way to process it. I also think it can be used for better and more efficient space travel than what we are using now.
Seems to me when looked at in this light, you are saying both Conservative and Liberals want to fix the same problem, they just have different methods for fixing it. And you think your way is better? Maybe it is. But in stopping CO2 omissions it would ALSO be necessary to revert to other power sources- nuclear included.
Why can't we do both? Why can't we be green, use solar panels, and halogen lights, fuel efficient cars AND use nuclear power. Maybe we don't need to FIND an alternative fuel source- maybe we just need to find a BETTER PROCESS for one we already have.
And, since you say we both want to fix the same problem, maybe we should stop fighting over the method and DO SOMETHING.
Who says we can't process the nuclear waste? Carter in 1977 because of worries about sneaking a little waste off to make bombs with. The technology is there to deal with the waste, but we have an executive order not allowing it, and it is cheaper to turn it into glass beads and bury these beads deep in the earth.
The breeder reactor can be done with helium or neutron inert salts instead of liquid sodium, and can be much safer than existing breeders. Breeding doesn't have to be as dangerous as the liquid sodium breeders. Thorium can be bred into a nuclear fuel instead of using uranium, which is what India is doing. Why breed throrium when its cheaper to use uranium? Well, thorium breeding into nuclear fuel and "buring" this fuel has an order of magnitude less waste, especially the transuranic wastes, (and India doesn't have uranium like they have thorium--see, it's all about economics). Would India be breeding thorium if they had uranium? Probably not, even though it does put out much less waste.
It may even be possible to use fusion to transmutate our waste into harmless material, even if we don't reach break-even in a TOKAMAK, and we may even exceed break-even if our waste releases its radioactive energy while being bombarded with high-speed neutrons in a TOKAMAK.
I don't think the waste is a technological issue. It's an economic and political one. First, we need to undo Carter's '77 executive order so that we can even handle the stuff instead of burying it. Then we need Liberals to actually want us to go forward as a society (nuclear all the way, it's necessary) instead of having one child per family or less until 98% of the world's population dies off and then the rest can live on renewable waterwheels and buffalo.
The breeder reactor can be done with helium or neutron inert salts instead of liquid sodium, and can be much safer than existing breeders. Breeding doesn't have to be as dangerous as the liquid sodium breeders. Thorium can be bred into a nuclear fuel instead of using uranium, which is what India is doing. Why breed throrium when its cheaper to use uranium? Well, thorium breeding into nuclear fuel and "buring" this fuel has an order of magnitude less waste, especially the transuranic wastes, (and India doesn't have uranium like they have thorium--see, it's all about economics). Would India be breeding thorium if they had uranium? Probably not, even though it does put out much less waste.
It may even be possible to use fusion to transmutate our waste into harmless material, even if we don't reach break-even in a TOKAMAK, and we may even exceed break-even if our waste releases its radioactive energy while being bombarded with high-speed neutrons in a TOKAMAK.
I don't think the waste is a technological issue. It's an economic and political one. First, we need to undo Carter's '77 executive order so that we can even handle the stuff instead of burying it. Then we need Liberals to actually want us to go forward as a society (nuclear all the way, it's necessary) instead of having one child per family or less until 98% of the world's population dies off and then the rest can live on renewable waterwheels and buffalo.
| QUOTE (furnace @ Feb 21 2008, 01:43 PM) |
| I don't think the waste is a technological issue. It's an economic and political one. First, we need to undo Carter's '77 executive order so that we can even handle the stuff instead of burying it. Then we need Liberals to actually want us to go forward as a society (nuclear all the way, it's necessary) instead of having one child per family or less until 98% of the world's population dies off and then the rest can live on renewable waterwheels and buffalo. |
I agree with most of what you say there, Furnace.
That last point gives me pause though. If you're looking at nuclear, as I suspect many are, as the magic bullet by which human population expansion can continue merily on just like petroleum provided for us a hundred years ago, I think that's a solid delusion. I mean look at where petroleum has taken us. It has been a God send to us in terms of increased productivity, but there've been some hidden costs to it that are just now starting to become apparent.
And so now we're looking toward nuclear as being the next great thing after petroleum. The operating assumption we're going on here is that science will always be there with the next great thing so that we never have to give a second thought about where we're going with this path we're on. That's wishful thinking. I'll grant you that in a world ideally optimized for that agenda, and if we were to embark on a crash program to build nuclear power plants at about one per week, we might could keep the population expansion going awhile longer. Thing is, the sheer numbers of exponential expansion just kill you. Sooner or later, we just have to face up to that exponential population growth on a planet with finite resources is just plain old unsustainable.
I agree that's it's not only a technological issue; it's a cultural issue.
Let’s review. A warming trend is in progress. Doesn’t seem like it today in Cache Valley of February 2008, but globally average temperatures have risen 0.6 deg C over the 20th century (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article I). Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree. I think we all can take as fact that a global warming trend is in progress.
Another well documented fact is that there has been an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppmv to 380 ppmv over the 20th century. The longest continuous instrumental measurement of carbon dioxide mixing ratios began in 1958 at Mauna Loa. Since then, the annually averaged value has increased monotonically by approximately 21% from the initial reading of 315 ppmv, as shown by the Keeling curve, to over 380 ppmv in 2006.
So, a couple of questions arise from this. One, is the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial age began human caused? Secondly, is this increase in atmospheric CO2 a factor in the warming trend we’re having?
Another well documented fact is that there has been an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppmv to 380 ppmv over the 20th century. The longest continuous instrumental measurement of carbon dioxide mixing ratios began in 1958 at Mauna Loa. Since then, the annually averaged value has increased monotonically by approximately 21% from the initial reading of 315 ppmv, as shown by the Keeling curve, to over 380 ppmv in 2006.
So, a couple of questions arise from this. One, is the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial age began human caused? Secondly, is this increase in atmospheric CO2 a factor in the warming trend we’re having?
One, is the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial age began human caused? Secondly, is this increase in atmospheric CO2 a factor in the warming trend we’re having?
I’m going to explore the 2nd question first. If the answer to question 2 above is no, then who cares about question 1?
I readily acknowledge that question 2 is fraught with just crazy complexity and well beyond the street level scientist of my abilities. I generally defer to the genuine eggheads on it. Still, I’d like to understand the physics well enough to get a handle on the ball park we’re in. I might be able to manage do that.
So, in setting out to do that, the first thing I tried was to build a simple model that would illustrate just the basic principle of CO2 being a “greenhouse gas”. I constructed a mylar chamber and inserted a thermometer inside. To measure air temperature inside the chamber, I wired several thermocoples in series and connected these to a data logger. The cold junctions of the theromcouples were thermally bonded with the logger terminal block which has its own platinum resistance thermometer to provide cold junction compensation for the chamber temperature readings.
I placed this apparatus in the sun on a bright July day, got a base line temperature reading, and then injected CO2 into the chamber. I’d wait for the chamber temperature to come to equilibrium again and then log the temperature. Then I would purge the chamber with fresh ambient air using an air compressor, and then allow the system to come to equilibrium again and log that temperature. Over a period of hours I alternated between fresh air samples and CO2 elevated air samples inside the chamber.
In that experiment I failed to discern an effect of the CO2 elevated case from the general noise of the temperature readings.
So why did that experiment fail?
One lesson learned: perhaps the sequence of ready, aim, fire has some advantages to the approach I applied of fire, ready, aim.
Having consulted some actual eggheads and the literature they pointed me to, I found that CO2 gas has two absorption bands, one centered at 2.7 micro-meters, and one at 4.2 um. I borrowed an IR sensor from one of these egghead friend sof mine and found right off that my mylar plastic sheets are completely opaque in that region. Naturally, this completely masked out any effect the CO2 gas would have had.
Another problem. Our atmosphere itself absorbs almost all the light at 2.7 um and 4.2 um. Why? Why, of course, because it has a lot of CO2 in it. Duh.
So the thing to do is
One. Find a material that is somewhat transparent at 2.7 um and 4.2 um and construct a chamber so that it has at least a sizable window of this material.
From there I can break the experiment into 2 parts. Part one, show that CO2 is absorbent at those wavelengths. I can do this by placing an IR source such as one of those bad old inefficient light bulbs that create a whole bunch more IR than visible light inside the chamber. I can then demonstrate that, when CO2 is injected into that chamber with the light bulb energized, the chamber will rise to a higher equilibrium temperature as a function of CO2 concentration as a consequence of conservation of energy.
And then, the second part of the experiment would be to show that visible light can be re-radiated as IR light. To do that, I might place a big black aluminum heat sink inside the chamber, put it out in the bright sun. Visible light entering the chamber will strike the heat sink, cause it to heat up, and then it will re-radiate IR, some of which will be absorbed by the CO2 gas. It’s not the light entering the chamber that warms it but rather the re-radiated IR that is absorbed on the way out from the chamber. That would demonstrate the basic reality of what the climate eggheads are telling us about planet earth and increasing concentrations of CO2.
Thirdly, I’d like to get a handle on the physics of this at least well enough to get in the ball park of predicting the amount of heating as a function of increasing CO2 within the chamber.
If I can pull this off, even though this is a highly simplistic model, I think I’ll have a higher level of confidence in what the climate eggheads are saying and maybe I’ll even get some additional traction with some other bonehead types who shall remain our Yankie and our Say.
So, Suppliers for IR transparent materials.
http://www.ispoptics.com/
http://www.hawk-ir.com/
http://www.crystran.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.cyber.rdg.ac.uk/ISP/infrared/home.htm
http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/IRwindows.html
My pledge: If this experiment falls on its ass and I can’t demonstrate the effects I have predicted, I will faithfully report as such. Naturally, you’d then understand that it might be another case of fire, ready, aim on my part.
I’m going to explore the 2nd question first. If the answer to question 2 above is no, then who cares about question 1?
I readily acknowledge that question 2 is fraught with just crazy complexity and well beyond the street level scientist of my abilities. I generally defer to the genuine eggheads on it. Still, I’d like to understand the physics well enough to get a handle on the ball park we’re in. I might be able to manage do that.
So, in setting out to do that, the first thing I tried was to build a simple model that would illustrate just the basic principle of CO2 being a “greenhouse gas”. I constructed a mylar chamber and inserted a thermometer inside. To measure air temperature inside the chamber, I wired several thermocoples in series and connected these to a data logger. The cold junctions of the theromcouples were thermally bonded with the logger terminal block which has its own platinum resistance thermometer to provide cold junction compensation for the chamber temperature readings.
I placed this apparatus in the sun on a bright July day, got a base line temperature reading, and then injected CO2 into the chamber. I’d wait for the chamber temperature to come to equilibrium again and then log the temperature. Then I would purge the chamber with fresh ambient air using an air compressor, and then allow the system to come to equilibrium again and log that temperature. Over a period of hours I alternated between fresh air samples and CO2 elevated air samples inside the chamber.
In that experiment I failed to discern an effect of the CO2 elevated case from the general noise of the temperature readings.
So why did that experiment fail?
One lesson learned: perhaps the sequence of ready, aim, fire has some advantages to the approach I applied of fire, ready, aim.
Having consulted some actual eggheads and the literature they pointed me to, I found that CO2 gas has two absorption bands, one centered at 2.7 micro-meters, and one at 4.2 um. I borrowed an IR sensor from one of these egghead friend sof mine and found right off that my mylar plastic sheets are completely opaque in that region. Naturally, this completely masked out any effect the CO2 gas would have had.
Another problem. Our atmosphere itself absorbs almost all the light at 2.7 um and 4.2 um. Why? Why, of course, because it has a lot of CO2 in it. Duh.
So the thing to do is
One. Find a material that is somewhat transparent at 2.7 um and 4.2 um and construct a chamber so that it has at least a sizable window of this material.
From there I can break the experiment into 2 parts. Part one, show that CO2 is absorbent at those wavelengths. I can do this by placing an IR source such as one of those bad old inefficient light bulbs that create a whole bunch more IR than visible light inside the chamber. I can then demonstrate that, when CO2 is injected into that chamber with the light bulb energized, the chamber will rise to a higher equilibrium temperature as a function of CO2 concentration as a consequence of conservation of energy.
And then, the second part of the experiment would be to show that visible light can be re-radiated as IR light. To do that, I might place a big black aluminum heat sink inside the chamber, put it out in the bright sun. Visible light entering the chamber will strike the heat sink, cause it to heat up, and then it will re-radiate IR, some of which will be absorbed by the CO2 gas. It’s not the light entering the chamber that warms it but rather the re-radiated IR that is absorbed on the way out from the chamber. That would demonstrate the basic reality of what the climate eggheads are telling us about planet earth and increasing concentrations of CO2.
Thirdly, I’d like to get a handle on the physics of this at least well enough to get in the ball park of predicting the amount of heating as a function of increasing CO2 within the chamber.
If I can pull this off, even though this is a highly simplistic model, I think I’ll have a higher level of confidence in what the climate eggheads are saying and maybe I’ll even get some additional traction with some other bonehead types who shall remain our Yankie and our Say.
So, Suppliers for IR transparent materials.
http://www.ispoptics.com/
http://www.hawk-ir.com/
http://www.crystran.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.cyber.rdg.ac.uk/ISP/infrared/home.htm
http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/IRwindows.html
My pledge: If this experiment falls on its ass and I can’t demonstrate the effects I have predicted, I will faithfully report as such. Naturally, you’d then understand that it might be another case of fire, ready, aim on my part.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Feb 21 2008, 09:47 AM) |
| I agree with most of what you say there, Furnace. That last point gives me pause though. If you're looking at nuclear, as I suspect many are, as the magic bullet by which human population expansion can continue merily on just like petroleum provided for us a hundred years ago, I think that's a solid delusion. I mean look at where petroleum has taken us. It has been a God send to us in terms of increased productivity, but there've been some hidden costs to it that are just now starting to become apparent. And so now we're looking toward nuclear as being the next great thing after petroleum. The operating assumption we're going on here is that science will always be there with the next great thing so that we never have to give a second thought about where we're going with this path we're on. That's wishful thinking. I'll grant you that in a world ideally optimized for that agenda, and if we were to embark on a crash program to build nuclear power plants at about one per week, we might could keep the population expansion going awhile longer. Thing is, the sheer numbers of exponential expansion just kill you. Sooner or later, we just have to face up to that exponential population growth on a planet with finite resources is just plain old unsustainable. I agree that's it's not only a technological issue; it's a cultural issue. |
So, would you rather have a romantic dream of some day terraforming another planet and doing space travel, or should we have Liberals try to constipate our resources so that we starve a healthy portion of the planet until they learn to get their breeding ratio less than one?
| QUOTE (furnace @ Feb 21 2008, 06:43 AM) |
| Who says we can't process the nuclear waste? Carter in 1977 |
All right MR Furness GREAT post . But didn't Reagan lift Carters 77 act? Anyway , Gosh its good to hear another nuclear supporter , Heck that makes four of us on this little site , BBgae, you , me and I'm pretty sure Sayit , ol Sayit always keeps a person guessing , something to do with his nature if you ask me , cant help himself I figure .
And Chaster , um , maybe I should be a little , well taken back that you are trying to help me and Sayit . I just saw this post about your co2 efforts .
So with this in mind instead of the word shallow I used in another post today , I think its more applicable to say "directionally challenged ". You seem always to be looking forward and never backward . Current trends seem to be your focus of interests and past trends are over looked .LOL.
Here's a completely unrelated climate question. Don't get me wrong; I believe G.W. is real.
If we painted the entire Sahara black with photovoltaics to supply the world's energy needs, would that have a greater effect on climate than CO2 is currently having?
If we painted the entire Sahara black with photovoltaics to supply the world's energy needs, would that have a greater effect on climate than CO2 is currently having?
furnace, your more the techie than me , but way I see it, if the desert was covered with a theoretical black black body absorber the heat would have to go somewhere or the whole shebang would melt. the point being, that the heat will have to be re radiated into the surrounding environment. now the GW theory says the heat buildup from CO2 is a result of heat in the form of infrared light being held in by the CO2 and not re radiating back into space. So without the CO2, the desert would get hotter but not the whole world, and the heat would go back into space at night (like it does now) they say it gets colder'n hell there at night even in summer. now with the solar cell thing, the heat energy wold be spread around the world in the form of electricity which would be turned back into heat for the most part, but would be re radiated back into space at night. Since I aint the brightest light on the Christmas tree, this blast is more of a question than answer. 
uncaduff
uncaduff
| QUOTE (uncaduff @ Feb 24 2008, 02:36 PM) |
| heat in the form of infrared light |
I'm even less of a scientist than you uncaduff, but isn't this what heat is?
So I am not so sure this "trapped" theory has all the merit they would ascribe to it.
Co2 is going to trap the light in the form of infra red heat.. uh huh. Next we'll have to worry about the world becoming too bright. (the sky, not the people, although I get the impression a lot of these scientists think they are going there too)
You can't see the light, or feel or measure the heat, but it's there trust me... the ice is melting.
And for this we need to pay the UN for the privilege to exist, and buy Algores movies, and go on a solar panel panic. It's all the same heat... coming and going.
If this black mass and all these solar panels actually started working, these same people would be figuring out how to shut that down too.. until you paid them for the privilege to use it, just like they do the nuke plants, oil, gas, and coal.
Come on say, motion sensors "see" infrared. I check my children's temperature with an infrared thermometer. I can measure temperature of hot objects from a distance with an infrared thermometer (with a semiconductor laser so I can see what I am measuring). We can indeed measure it and "see" it with the proper instruments.
Uncaduff, even with CO2, we have as much infrared energy radiating out into space as the U.V. energy that comes in to heat the ground. As you say, we can't have a buildup--basic conservation of energy laws here. It's just that now the earth has to be a little warmer than it used to in order to force the heat back into space because the CO2 slows down the release of energy.
Now, the point that irks me about this whole climate thing is the solution (nuclear) is always downplayed by those telling us how bad G.W. is. They'll tell us "renewable, no matter what the cost, even if EROEI is less than one, it will spur R&D on that particular form of energy." When pointing out that the waste can be dealth with, the most sensible of the G.W. advocates will simply state "nuclear isn't economical, even if we can deal with the waste". The rest oppose it. And Greenpeace, I feel, is downright dishonest with regard to nuclear power "facts". Let's face it. The G.W. advocates want us to accept that G.W. is real (which I believe), but then they say, "let's starve people by worshipping some damned critter so that people will learn to respect nature and not overrun this earth. People need to quit expanding, so we will find some mosquito breeding ground to prevent people from expanding". G.W. advocates don't want a solution, or they would embrace nuclear as a godsend. "Too bad your children will die of starvation. You shouldn't have had so many. The earth is overpopulated." To me, the right thing to do is to quit lying about nuclear power and let people know it is a feasible energy source with a higher EROEI than any renewable (not counting hydro, and a few limited geothermal sites), and the only non-green-house energy source that is more effective than spitting in the wind.
Uncaduff, even with CO2, we have as much infrared energy radiating out into space as the U.V. energy that comes in to heat the ground. As you say, we can't have a buildup--basic conservation of energy laws here. It's just that now the earth has to be a little warmer than it used to in order to force the heat back into space because the CO2 slows down the release of energy.
Now, the point that irks me about this whole climate thing is the solution (nuclear) is always downplayed by those telling us how bad G.W. is. They'll tell us "renewable, no matter what the cost, even if EROEI is less than one, it will spur R&D on that particular form of energy." When pointing out that the waste can be dealth with, the most sensible of the G.W. advocates will simply state "nuclear isn't economical, even if we can deal with the waste". The rest oppose it. And Greenpeace, I feel, is downright dishonest with regard to nuclear power "facts". Let's face it. The G.W. advocates want us to accept that G.W. is real (which I believe), but then they say, "let's starve people by worshipping some damned critter so that people will learn to respect nature and not overrun this earth. People need to quit expanding, so we will find some mosquito breeding ground to prevent people from expanding". G.W. advocates don't want a solution, or they would embrace nuclear as a godsend. "Too bad your children will die of starvation. You shouldn't have had so many. The earth is overpopulated." To me, the right thing to do is to quit lying about nuclear power and let people know it is a feasible energy source with a higher EROEI than any renewable (not counting hydro, and a few limited geothermal sites), and the only non-green-house energy source that is more effective than spitting in the wind.
| QUOTE |
| Now, the point that irks me about this whole climate thing is the solution (nuclear) is always downplayed by those telling us how bad G.W. is. They'll tell us "renewable, no matter what the cost, even if ERORI is less than one, it will spur R&D on that particular form of energy." The most sensible of the G.W. advocates will simply state "nuclear isn't economical, even if we can deal with the waste". The rest oppose it. Look at Al Gore. He want's to do every imaginable renewable energy, but he made the above statement about nuclear power. And Greenpeace, I feel, is downright dishonest with regard to nuclear power "facts". Let's face it. The G.W. advocates want us to accept that G.W. is real (which I believe), but then they say, "let's starve people by worshipping some damned critter so that people will learn to respect nature and not overrun this earth. People need to quit expanding, so we will find some mosquito breeding ground to prevent people from expanding". G.W. advocates don't want a solution, or they would embrace nuclear as a godsend. "Too bad your children will die of starvation. You shouldn't have had so many. The earth is overpopulated." To me, the right thing to do is to quit lying about nuclear power and let people know it is a feasible energy source with a higher ERORI than any renewable, and the only non-green-house energy source that is more effective than spitting in the wind. |
Hey Furnace, don't know if I mentioned this before but you sound like a guy who could appreciate that I used to work at Hoover Dam. Cool eh? That place was something.
Well Barack OBama's web site has a page on his energy program, but it's a PDF file so I can't cut and paste. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf
In part he says that nuclear is 70% of our non-carbon based energy and we can't get to nirvana without it. Then he goes on about how he'd make sure it's safe from proliferation and that Yucca Mtn isn't the answer to disposal, which is disappointing considering the Billions we've dumped down that hole.
What it amounts to is if you want the scared mommies of Las Vegas to vote for you you have to promise them that you won't put any scary nuke stuff a hundred miles away in an utterly inaccessible hole that is about 40 miles from the closest business, a combination gas station and Whore House. Now, I remember when Henderson Nevada literally exploded like a nuke bomb went off because of a rocket fuel plant located on top of a gas pipeline. And I've been there when there was a railroad tank car of Chlorine sprung a leak and the town was semi-evacuated. Never mind that those things could kill more people in a day than Yucca mtn could in 10,000 years worst case. Thing is, you gotta have Harry Reid's support and he needs those scared mommies votes.
Anyway, liberal ol Barack is for Nuclear power, at least in the short run, but he also loves scared mommies.
Hillary Clinton's told the Nuclear Energy Institute that she realized Nukes play a part but she loves the scared mommies too. http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/4909
Here's the 3 Dems at a debate; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE
Bottom line is none of these people are stupid (except George Bush) and whoever wins will face the same reality checks. What's coming is at least a continuation of nuclear power, probably some more Nuke permits with newer technologies, and more alternatives and more conservation.
<Deleted> How can I totally delete it?
sayit, heat is energy,so says all the physics books. thing is, other than some vague reference to: "the ability to do work" they neglect to tell me what energy is. it's kinda like the "true Gospel", everybody knows what it is, but nobody understands it.
Furnace
I was a kid when "nookyeler" energy was gonna be the salvation of mankind, we were gonna have atomic rockets take us to the planets , we were gonna have cars with little reactors in em, no more gas pumps, and it was gonna make electricity so cheep that the power Co. wouldn't bother to read the meter, just charge everybody a flat rate.
then came the environmental movement.
now were talkin bout "alternative" energy. OK lets go with "the holey grail" uv "alternative" energy, HYDROGEN. lets assume a economical source uv H, ok, know whats a worse "greenhouse gas" than CO2? water vapor. thats what comes outa whatever burns hydrogen. Moe an Brew's cows a fartin an my ol Dodge pickup, an Limbaugh's cloud's a aromatic cigar smoke, wont be what's bringin on armagedon, anymore it's gonna be "alternative freakin energy".
sumpn else, the city uv Tarsus, where St. Paul wuz frum, was a seaport back when he wuz preachin the good word. two thousand years ago. now its three miles inland. cuz the ocean aint full as it useta be! wonder what them damn Romans wuz doin ta global warm.
Furnace
I was a kid when "nookyeler" energy was gonna be the salvation of mankind, we were gonna have atomic rockets take us to the planets , we were gonna have cars with little reactors in em, no more gas pumps, and it was gonna make electricity so cheep that the power Co. wouldn't bother to read the meter, just charge everybody a flat rate.
then came the environmental movement.
now were talkin bout "alternative" energy. OK lets go with "the holey grail" uv "alternative" energy, HYDROGEN. lets assume a economical source uv H, ok, know whats a worse "greenhouse gas" than CO2? water vapor. thats what comes outa whatever burns hydrogen. Moe an Brew's cows a fartin an my ol Dodge pickup, an Limbaugh's cloud's a aromatic cigar smoke, wont be what's bringin on armagedon, anymore it's gonna be "alternative freakin energy".
sumpn else, the city uv Tarsus, where St. Paul wuz frum, was a seaport back when he wuz preachin the good word. two thousand years ago. now its three miles inland. cuz the ocean aint full as it useta be! wonder what them damn Romans wuz doin ta global warm.
| QUOTE (furnace @ Feb 24 2008, 08:05 PM) |
| Come on say, motion sensors "see" infrared. I check my children's temperature with an infrared thermometer. I can measure temperature of hot objects from a distance with an infrared thermometer (with a semiconductor laser so I can see what I am measuring). We can indeed measure it and "see" it with the proper instruments. |
Come on?
And just what is it these sensors are measuring? IR Infrared Radiation.
It's the "heat signature" of invisible (to the human eye) light.
I can measure temperature of hot objects from a distance
Yep.. even light years distance... because it is light spectrum that is being measured. Energy, and things that "glow in the dark and go bump in the night" lol
QUOTE (uncaduff @ Feb 25 2008, 08:13 AM)
sayit, heat is energy,so says all the physics books. thing is, other than some vague reference to: "the ability to do work" they neglect to tell me what energy is. it's kinda like the "true Gospel", everybody knows what it is, but nobody understands it.
I think it is very closely related to intelligence, and yep, nobody seems to have much of it anymore. Maybe it's all been "converted" to secularism, hot feminists, and hot air that causes this greenhouse effect.
The Romans were so damn cold hearted that it piled all the water as ice at the poles and left them high and dry. Climate change is always "man made" ... can't you get that through your thick skull?
Some Lardbutt oil baron is sitting on those backyard nukular plants and the 100 mpg engine blueprints, until they've sucked the planet dry of their expensive oil. They are trying to block out the Sun too, thats why they pump all that carbon black crap into the air... and spray chemtrails.
I think it is very closely related to intelligence, and yep, nobody seems to have much of it anymore. Maybe it's all been "converted" to secularism, hot feminists, and hot air that causes this greenhouse effect.
| QUOTE |
sumpn else, the city uv Tarsus, where St. Paul wuz frum, was a seaport back when he wuz preachin the good word. two thousand years ago. now its three miles inland. cuz the ocean aint full as it useta be! wonder what them damn Romans wuz doin ta global warm. |
The Romans were so damn cold hearted that it piled all the water as ice at the poles and left them high and dry. Climate change is always "man made" ... can't you get that through your thick skull?
Some Lardbutt oil baron is sitting on those backyard nukular plants and the 100 mpg engine blueprints, until they've sucked the planet dry of their expensive oil. They are trying to block out the Sun too, thats why they pump all that carbon black crap into the air... and spray chemtrails.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Feb 25 2008, 09:05 AM) |
| I think it is very closely related to intelligence, and yep, nobody seems to have much of it anymore. Maybe it's all been "converted" to secularism, hot feminists, and hot air that causes this greenhouse effect. The Romans were so damn cold hearted that it piled all the water as ice at the poles and left them high and dry. Climate change is always "man made" ... can't you get that through your thick skull? Some Lardbutt oil baron is sitting on those backyard nukular plants and the 100 mpg engine blueprints, until they've sucked the planet dry of their expensive oil. They are trying to block out the Sun too, thats why they pump all that carbon black crap into the air... and spray chemtrails. |
You know Say, I don't think you actually realize how stunningly ingnorant you come across as. I mean, IR and the greenhouse effect are the kindergarten stage of the GW debate. There is a wise old saying that goes "When you remain silent people may wnder if you are a fool, but when you speak you remove all doubt".
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Feb 25 2008, 11:48 AM) |
| You know Say, I don't think you actually realize how stunningly ingnorant you come across as. I mean, IR and the greenhouse effect are the kindergarten stage of the GW debate. There is a wise old saying that goes "When you remain silent people may wnder if you are a fool, but when you speak you remove all doubt". |
I'm patronizing you genius. I'm laughing my ass off how quick you are to "explain" the freaking obvious to the stunningly ignorant.
I could post shit from wikipedia and sound like an Algoracle.
Cactus Jim, I heard those “The end of environmentalism” guys you were referring to on the Aimoo board on NPR’s “City Arts and Lectures” this morning.
I think they are basically where I am on anthropogenic climate change. The science phase of kind of a done deal but for a few knuckle dragging hold outs. The baton has been handed to the policy makers. These are the guys who are taking the baton now. Their main focus is on economics and politics.
I think my effort on educating knuckle draggers, though, still has a place, and I’ll continue with that effort. Let’s face it, the knuckle draggers are the ones who actually do the heavy lifting.
I think the main point of “the end of environmentalism” is that fear tends to make people more conservative and less inclined to depart from the status quo. So why are we environmentalists still attempting to hit people over the head with fear?
One analogy they cited, it was Martin Luther’s King’s “I have a Dream” speech, not his “I have a Nightmare” speech. Course they also pointed out that that same speech began as an “I have a nightmare” speech but then someone in the crowd shouted out, “Martin, tell them about the dream.”
Thing is, as those guys pointed out, this environmental challenge is orders of magnitude beyond what we’ve faced before. With acid rain, for example, we installed a few scrubbers on some power plants. With weaning ourselves off petroleum, we’re going to need 30 new nuclear reactors, gazillions more Gigawatts of solar and wind power, 70 new coal fired power plants with carbon sequestration Per Year or something like that to get to a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The optimistic view that all we need do to make solar power take off is to make carbon energy just slightly more expensive, they said, isn’t realistic. You’d have to make carbon energy more expensive than is likely to be politically doable.
Bottom line: We’re not going to be able to regulate ourselves out of this one. We’re going to have to innovate ourselves out of this one. To this end, we need a new Apollo project along the lines of the 60s era goal of putting a man on the moon. To fund this, yes, the carbon tax. A carbon tax is pretty much going to happen.
Unless, that is, Ralph Nader continues to get guys like GW Bush elected. Fortunately, this time around, I don’t think that’s going to happen. If anything, this time around, Nader will steal some independents from McCain and elect Obama.
So it’s on to Apollo II, mission to planet earth, and is there intelligent life there?
I’m betting one son there is.
For I have a dream. I see the day that Yankie and Say have installed solar panels on their houses. “Thanks dad,” say their children.
I may not get there with you. But I have seen the promised land and it is largely solar powered.
I think they are basically where I am on anthropogenic climate change. The science phase of kind of a done deal but for a few knuckle dragging hold outs. The baton has been handed to the policy makers. These are the guys who are taking the baton now. Their main focus is on economics and politics.
I think my effort on educating knuckle draggers, though, still has a place, and I’ll continue with that effort. Let’s face it, the knuckle draggers are the ones who actually do the heavy lifting.
I think the main point of “the end of environmentalism” is that fear tends to make people more conservative and less inclined to depart from the status quo. So why are we environmentalists still attempting to hit people over the head with fear?
One analogy they cited, it was Martin Luther’s King’s “I have a Dream” speech, not his “I have a Nightmare” speech. Course they also pointed out that that same speech began as an “I have a nightmare” speech but then someone in the crowd shouted out, “Martin, tell them about the dream.”
Thing is, as those guys pointed out, this environmental challenge is orders of magnitude beyond what we’ve faced before. With acid rain, for example, we installed a few scrubbers on some power plants. With weaning ourselves off petroleum, we’re going to need 30 new nuclear reactors, gazillions more Gigawatts of solar and wind power, 70 new coal fired power plants with carbon sequestration Per Year or something like that to get to a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The optimistic view that all we need do to make solar power take off is to make carbon energy just slightly more expensive, they said, isn’t realistic. You’d have to make carbon energy more expensive than is likely to be politically doable.
Bottom line: We’re not going to be able to regulate ourselves out of this one. We’re going to have to innovate ourselves out of this one. To this end, we need a new Apollo project along the lines of the 60s era goal of putting a man on the moon. To fund this, yes, the carbon tax. A carbon tax is pretty much going to happen.
Unless, that is, Ralph Nader continues to get guys like GW Bush elected. Fortunately, this time around, I don’t think that’s going to happen. If anything, this time around, Nader will steal some independents from McCain and elect Obama.
So it’s on to Apollo II, mission to planet earth, and is there intelligent life there?
I’m betting one son there is.
For I have a dream. I see the day that Yankie and Say have installed solar panels on their houses. “Thanks dad,” say their children.
I may not get there with you. But I have seen the promised land and it is largely solar powered.
Our LDS apostle Boyd K. Packer has instructed us that we would do well to be avid students of history, with the understanding that we see our history within a wholesome faith promoting light. So, in keeping with that, here is a bit of our history that I think has relevance to problems we face today.
My first awareness of this history came from my venerable grandfather, who when I had come to know him, was the grand patriarch over our large extended family of many aunts, uncles, and cousins within Millard County, Utah, where we lived. He related to us many fascinating aspects of earlier days. He told us, for example, accounts of the terrible spring floods of the early 20th century we had on our Chalk Creek. “You don’t see floods like that now days,” he said. “But some of those we had sure put the fear of God into us all right and had us wondering whether we’d been living right.” He spoke of how in some of those spring floods, there’d be this low rumble you’d hear all over town of big boulders being swept down Chalk Creek.
The problem was, the saints had been so cheerfully eager in building up God’s kingdom on earth that they had slightly overlooked some of the consequences of overgrazing and clearcutting their water sheds. Hence, the destructive spring floods.
Here was one of the Mormon settlers’ first environmental crises, and the wisdom and foresight with which the saints responded to it serves as a model for us today as we face environmental problems on a far larger scale. My Mormon ancestors took one look at this problem and promptly put their shoulders to the wheel with a heart full of song in responding effectively to this challenge. They saw the problem as an opportunity, an opportunity to show how genuine true restored conservative principles well grounded in ethical values are far and away the superior way for people to respond to any kind of problem. Mormons, see, had put aside the false conservatism of the past in favor of genuine restored true conservatism in which a people well grounded in ethical values behave well, a very positive thing in itself, but also having the benefit that less governance and taxation are required of such people. They knew that these benefits of conservatism are only possible through hard work from everyone in the community. They knew better than to be taken in by the hollow temptations of false conservatism that promises something for nothing, lower taxes and less obtrusive government through the dishonest practice of ignoring problems. They knew that such maladaptive behavior only makes problems far more expensive and difficult to deal with in the long haul. My ancestors felt sorry for the sorry state of such false
My first awareness of this history came from my venerable grandfather, who when I had come to know him, was the grand patriarch over our large extended family of many aunts, uncles, and cousins within Millard County, Utah, where we lived. He related to us many fascinating aspects of earlier days. He told us, for example, accounts of the terrible spring floods of the early 20th century we had on our Chalk Creek. “You don’t see floods like that now days,” he said. “But some of those we had sure put the fear of God into us all right and had us wondering whether we’d been living right.” He spoke of how in some of those spring floods, there’d be this low rumble you’d hear all over town of big boulders being swept down Chalk Creek.
The problem was, the saints had been so cheerfully eager in building up God’s kingdom on earth that they had slightly overlooked some of the consequences of overgrazing and clearcutting their water sheds. Hence, the destructive spring floods.
Here was one of the Mormon settlers’ first environmental crises, and the wisdom and foresight with which the saints responded to it serves as a model for us today as we face environmental problems on a far larger scale. My Mormon ancestors took one look at this problem and promptly put their shoulders to the wheel with a heart full of song in responding effectively to this challenge. They saw the problem as an opportunity, an opportunity to show how genuine true restored conservative principles well grounded in ethical values are far and away the superior way for people to respond to any kind of problem. Mormons, see, had put aside the false conservatism of the past in favor of genuine restored true conservatism in which a people well grounded in ethical values behave well, a very positive thing in itself, but also having the benefit that less governance and taxation are required of such people. They knew that these benefits of conservatism are only possible through hard work from everyone in the community. They knew better than to be taken in by the hollow temptations of false conservatism that promises something for nothing, lower taxes and less obtrusive government through the dishonest practice of ignoring problems. They knew that such maladaptive behavior only makes problems far more expensive and difficult to deal with in the long haul. My ancestors felt sorry for the sorry state of such false