The Kyoto Treaty is bullshit. [Archive] - The Lone Star Command Message Boards

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 12:29 PM

http://www.climate2003.com/
this is not a 'polished' site, but it seems to be strong on science... which is what I'm after... I have dozens of sources... this is just one I came upon today... sort of set me off...
The principal focus to date has been on analyzing the reconstruction by Mann et al. in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) and 1999, because this reconstruction was used by the International Panel on Climate Change, especially in its Third Assessment Report (2001) to support claims that the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium, and was applied in the main promotional graphics used by IPCC, as shown below. However, we are in the process of examining the other major multi-proxy studies (Jones et al. (1998), Crowley and Lowery (2000), Briffa et al. (2001), Esper et al. (2002), Mann and Jones (2003)).
Despite the extensive policy reliance on this presentation, IPCC did not itself audit or verify the data and methods of MBH98 and MBH99. To our knowledge, other than our efforts, no other person or institution has attempted any replication or verification. (See here for some comments on replication standards.)

When we attempted to replicate the results of MBH98, we encountered many data errors and defects in the underlying data set to which we had been directed, which we reported on in McIntyre and McKitrick (October 2003). These errors and defects appeared to include collation errors, use of obsolete data, incorrect principal components calculations for tree ring networks, unjustified truncation or data, geographical mislocations etc. We re-collated tree ring data from original sources and obtained updated versions wherever possible. (See SI.) When we carried out our own re-construction, we obtained quite different results - with high early 15th century values, which prevented the MBH98 claim of 20th century uniqueness, as shown in the diagram below:
http://www.climate2003.com/images/figure8.gif

LardGibs

Jan 27, 2005, @ 01:19 PM

Kyoto on the face of it is bullshit yes. However, what it may serve a role for is creating a carbon emissions trading market, which will help mitigate CO2 emissions much like SO2 emissions are managed today. When these 'invisible hand' type forces are applied technological solutions are usually quickly found.

My doctoral research is on applied technology for carbon dioxide sequestration and I attended the GHGT-7 conference in Vancouver last year. The long and the short of it is the oceans are getting acidified, energy consumption is on an exponential trend, and no fixes in sight until 2100 barring major innovation.

Major innovation is what is needed, and that requires money. Carbon taxes can provide a pool for getting some stuff done. I went to an interesting presentation the other day on how to make hydrocarbons out of lignocellulosic biomass with a decent (70%) yield and about 30 times less net CO2 emissions because all the carbon comes from the biosphere. http://www.iags.org/biofine.htm

My pessimistic outlook is that the type of technology that needs to be developed is one that pulls the CO2 directly out of the atmosphere or ocean, solar or nuclear powered. Because of the low concentrations it's going to be difficult but it's not impossible as plants do it routinely. Then we can send China the bill for pulling the billions of tons of CO2 out of the air, remanufacture it into fuels, and sink their economy.

<3's china.

LG

stats

Jan 27, 2005, @ 01:24 PM

http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/overheads/pdfs/Fig9.pdf

This is climate change due to volcanic eruptions - shows u different figuers than either of those for the same time period...

climate change is largely theoretical. But if the Gulf stream shut down it would be a disaster for the northen hemesphere - wich is what most people are scared of at the moment. It absolutely would not happen anything like it didin 'The day after tommorow' that film was pure fiction and the science behind it was laughable. But salinity in the the key sink in the gulf stream (Where the current sinks and returns to mexico area) is dropping, this is due to glacia melts from green land (or iceland - i forget which one) and from increased rain fall in .. er ... siberia i think, somewhere like that. If the salinity drops too low then the gulf stream will no longer be able to sink. If it cant sink then it will not be able to return to mexico are, if it cant do that then it will simply shut down - or so the theory goes. And if that happens then northen europe will become a whole lot colder very quikly - it will probably only last 100 years or so, but it will be snow in the summer time sort of thing. You would think we could survive this.. We have central heating etc, but the fact is it would cripple our inferstructures, power lines would become laden with ice and break, fuel pipes and the likes could crack under the cold and farming would not really be very easy. I dont know how much of this is true. One thing i am certain of is that the salinity of the sink point in the gulf stream has dropped 20% since 1970. Hopefully this is just a natrual fluctuation. If its not then we are probably fucked sooner or later.

Kyoto may not be perfect, it may be bullshit - but rather than america saying 'nah bollox to it - u guys go ahead if you want to' america and other nations should try and make it perfect. America is too hungry for fuel though - your cars are inefficient and large and ur fuel prices are cheap and ur energy policy is cheapness over greeness. so are many other countries. But if america makes a move, other countries will sit up and take notice. ATM bush doesnt care. simple as that.

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 01:30 PM

Kyoto on the face of it is bullshit yes.
Then don't expect us to sign it.

As to the rest, I don't really see the need for it...

I recently watched a video where they were talking about how the smog in LA is destorying the forests in the mountains to the east... it was nonesense... I hike in those mountains... The only thing that makes them unhealthy is that we prevent them from burning... we have a lot pine.

If you want to create a carbon trading economy, then I need to see why CO2 is so evil... it's a pretty basic component of the atmosphere and most life on earth very very very used to it.

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 02:01 PM

http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/overheads/pdfs/Fig9.pdf

This is climate change due to volcanic eruptions - shows u different figuers than either of those for the same time period...
From that graph it looks like it got cold really quickly before each major eruption, then it warmed up again...

It's just strange because it would like the cooling as a possible cause of the eruptions...

Beyond that I didn't see much of a change... Furthermore, those eruptions put out more then our industry.

climate change is largely theoretical. But if the Gulf stream shut down it would be a disaster for the northen hemesphere - wich is what most people are scared of at the moment.
Yeah, but it's a silly thing to be afraid of... it's like that stupid movie where the world's magnetic field shuts down and they have to drill to the center of the earth to get core spinning again...

it's just retarded.

If anything, our data shows that the northern hemisphere will benefit much like it did before the mini ice age... when Europe had the huge population boom and decided to use that wealth to start the crusades...

It absolutely would not happen anything like it didin 'The day after tommorow' that film was pure fiction and the science behind it was laughable.
It's more amusing then you know. The guy that helped write it does a radio show from midnight to 4 am in the US. He talks about aliens and men in black... good entertainment...
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

Seriously check it out... the guy they have now is called George somethingorother, but the guy that helped write that stupid movie was "Art Bell"... Very good show... but he deals exclusively in aliens, ghosts, and junk science.

But salinity in the the key sink in the gulf stream (Where the current sinks and returns to mexico area) is dropping, this is due to glacia melts from green land (or iceland - i forget which one) and from increased rain fall in .. er ... siberia i think, somewhere like that. If the salinity drops too low then the gulf stream will no longer be able to sink.
why would it not be able to sink? Furthermore, the engine of that system is a temperature exchange...

Warm water will flow north... and cold water will flow south... that isn't going to stop.

You would think we could survive this.. We have central heating etc, but the fact is it would cripple our infrastructures, power lines would become laden with ice and break, fuel pipes and the likes could crack under the cold and farming would not really be very easy. I don’t know how much of this is true. One thing i am certain of is that the salinity of the sink point in the gulf stream has dropped 20% since 1970. Hopefully this is just a natural fluctuation. If its not then we are probably fucked sooner or later.
First, the Gulf stream has been functioning fine... if what you say is true, then the there should be fractional reductions in the efficiency of the stream as it becomes less and less able to maintain itself.

However, it has remained constant. This leads me to think that the salt isn't even a deciding factor. Second law of thermodynamics says that these two will mix. Energy will become less organized. Ergo the north will flow to the south and the south to the north. Europe benefits in that the warm water flows along their coast while the Americas likely suffer because the cold water flows along our coast. If the system changes at all, what will happen is that we'll get the heat and the Canadians will start growing wine in Quebec.

... that would likely suck for you, but I don't see why I should get excited. You're not going to see anything in Europe that you haven't had to deal with over the last 900 years.

Kyoto may not be perfect, it may be bullshit - but rather than america saying 'nah bollox to it - u guys go ahead if you want to' america and other nations should try and make it perfect.
I'm still not convinced that there is a problem. The developing world needs to control their pollution... the developed world is generally pretty good about it.

America is too hungry for fuel though - your cars are inefficient and large and ur fuel prices are cheap and ur energy policy is cheapness over greeness.
Again, we don't get why you're killing yourselves.

You do know that your trains over all pump out about as much as our cars do right?

Do you know how much fuel it takes to propel a train?... Your fast trains are WAY worse then our SUVs... and I AM taking into consideration the numbers of people that use each mode.

Trains are not as eco friendly as they've been sold to be... maybe if they were really slow and you reduced their weight... but until then you're just kidding yourselves.

Your cars however are very good. A good fuel efficient car is way better for the environment then just about any train in europe... if you car pool, then ridiculously so.

so are many other countries. But if america makes a move, other countries will sit up and take notice. ATM bush doesn’t care. simple as that.
America went to Iraq and I keep getting told that the world told the US to go fuck itself. Why should hte world decide to suicide its economy just because the US does?

LardGibs

Jan 27, 2005, @ 03:03 PM

If you want to create a carbon trading economy, then I need to see why CO2 is so evil... it's a pretty basic component of the atmosphere and most life on earth very very very used to it. the oceans are getting acidified, placeholder for the reference that many crop plants fail to thrive at slightly increased CO2 concentrations. CO2 is an acid. It affects any moist tissue, if it's sufficiently unbuffered the effects on proper enzyme function are to be expected, deleterious.

If you don't find increased sea levels, climate alterations due to alterations in ocean currents OR THE SLIGHTEST POSSIBLITY THEREOF THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES THAT REASONABLE PEOPLE SUGGEST worthy of further consideration, then hey that's you but you are you right. we know you.

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 03:48 PM

Do you know how much fuel it takes to propel a train?... Your fast trains are WAY worse then our SUVs... and I AM taking into consideration the numbers of people that use each mode.
Facts please

If you're wrong about the lack of problem - the entire world will die. No fucking about, it will all end. All of it. That's not something I care to chance with, and I would rather fuck the economy a LOT and be sure that we're not all going to die, than live like I am now for a 20 years then watch my children suffer till I die early.

Fresh water does not sink as easily as salty water.

I'm still not convinced that there is a problem.
Once again - the destruction of the world is a pretty big risk to take based on not being sure it will happen or not. Russian Roulette?

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 03:50 PM

placeholder for the reference that many crop plants fail to thrive at slightly increased CO2 concentrations. CO2 is an acid. It affects any moist tissue, if it's sufficiently unbuffered the effects on proper enzyme function are to be expected, deleterious.
Not CO2... you pump that into green houses.

Are you talking about something else...

If you don't find increased sea levels, climate alterations due to alterations in ocean currents OR THE SLIGHTEST POSSIBLITY THEREOF THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES THAT REASONABLE PEOPLE SUGGEST worthy of further consideration, then hey that's you but you are you right. we know you.
Consideration?... sure... it's interesting.

However, I don't see how we get to from consideration or study to "HOLY SHIT THE WORLD IS GOING TO END *runs around in a circle panicking*."

CO2 isn't even close to being the biggest green house gas... Water vapor is much more significant.

hell, methane from cow fats is likely more significant.

So why focus on one of the MOST common and harmless gases in our atmosphere? It's also the hardest for us to stop pumping out. There is no way for us to reduce this gas without cutting back major... which just isn't practical. Bitch about toxic substances... radiation... the hole in the ozone layer (which got smaller last year)...

Bitching about CO2 is just crazy... it's the hardest to make a case that it's a real problem and its the hardest for us to stop producing.

It makes ZERO sense to make this attack on this issue from a political or environmental perspective.

WHY?

And before you cite more climate change stuff, note that the people that are talking "global warming" today, were talking "Global cooling" twenty years ago.

If you're going to ask us to destroy our economy, then we're going to need case worth the paper it's printed on to that effect. Science didn’t' get respect by bullying people. It got respect by showing results.

I have yet to see good information. Even their most extreme and likely bogus charts only show a rise in temperature by a degree... Global temperatures have changed far more then that over the millennia... If this thing is shifting, I'm more inclined to think that it's because of natural factors then us.

stats

Jan 27, 2005, @ 04:01 PM

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 04:19 PM

The way I hear it, is that there is a shit load of methane that is trapped at one of the poles (or perhaps both). The CO2 is enough to melt the ice that is trapping the methane. The methane will fuck us royally.

http://ghg.unfccc.int/graphics/graph1.gif

I cant find any stats on the global production of greenhouse gasses, per country, over the last 10/20 years. If anyone sees it, I would love to take a gander.

As a side note, I realised that 20 years ago people were talking about stuff being fucked in 40-50 years. Now they're talking about stuff being fucked 20-30 years. At least these people are consistant.

I thought we were always talking about the greenhouse effect...however that isn't the point to me. Just because scientists are not sure about WHAT effect emissions and dimming etc are having on the environment, does not mean that we're not affecting it.

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 04:57 PM

When Co2 mixes with water it forms H2CO3 Carbonic acid. its a natrually accuring reaction, your body will use it to transport CO2 out of your body. It happens just as easily in the atmosphere with water present there.
I understand that, but its also very common.

The acid that causes damage to the environment is sulfuric and nitric acid. Carbonic acid is a slow reactor and never completely converts... and it balances back to CO2 rather easily as well.

The best idea for getting CO2 out of the air that I've heard is massive algae blooms in the ocean... As the algae dies, it should take the carbon down into the ocean... by the time it decomposes it should be at a depth and pressure that it will stay down there. There is already a large layer of the ocean that is saturated with carbon and has been building up for millions of years... so our industry isn't going to impact that for millions of years at least.
=======================
The way I hear it, is that there is a shit load of methane that is trapped at one of the poles (or perhaps both). The CO2 is enough to melt the ice that is trapping the methane. The methane will fuck us royally.
unlikely... the amount needed to cause that kind of problem couldn't be kept under the cap.

I cant find any stats on the global production of greenhouse gasses, per country, over the last 10/20 years. If anyone sees it, I would love to take a gander.
http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_series_results.asp?rowID=576&fID=r15&cgID=

I don't trust these figures, because the UN often gets activists to do their research... but this was the easiest to find.

As a side note, I realised that 20 years ago people were talking about stuff being fucked in 40-50 years. Now they're talking about stuff being fucked 20-30 years. At least these people are consistant.
Not really, their numbers tend to go farther and farther away... likely in the hope that they'll die before anyone says "what gives?"

I thought we were always talking about the greenhouse effect...however that isn't the point to me. Just because scientists are not sure about WHAT effect emissions and dimming etc are having on the environment, does not mean that we're not affecting it.

I need to know what's going on before I destroy my country's economy.

Expecting otherwise is insane. I must have more information. CO2 is not bad pollutant... Again, focus on sulfur or chromium. CO2 is what I exhale with every breath... methane is what we give off when we pass gas.

Pick something that isn't so fundamentally natural and common to the environment throughout nearly all of earth’s history.

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 05:43 PM

http://millenniumindicators.un.org/...6&fID=r15&cgID=

I don't trust these figures, because the UN often gets activists to do their research... but this was the easiest to find.
As you also pointed out, CO2 is not the only problem. We'd need figures for methane, and all the other gasses too. Ideally in fact, adjusted output in terms of "pollutants", where 1 tonne of CH4 is worth 31 tonnes of CO2.

The last 2 or 3 articles I've seen on TV or read in the paper have been saying twenty - thirty years. Fact. Whether they're right, or whether that's all they're saying is another matter, but that's what I've seen.

Pick something that isn't so fundamentally natural and common to the environment throughout nearly all of earth’s history.
Like water?
We've already halved again, the amount of C02 on the planet.
If we halve again the amount of water in the oceans, we'd all be dead.

The fact it's natural makes no odds.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2004-03-21-co2-buildup_x.htm
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 05:56 PM

As you also pointed out, CO2 is not the only problem. We'd need figures for methane, and all the other gasses too. Ideally in fact, adjusted output in terms of "pollutants", where 1 tonne of CH4 is worth 31 tonnes of CO2.
No, because the green house effect is the last thing I care about.

unless you can prove it... until then, I'll care more about toxicity.

The last 2 or 3 articles I've seen on TV or read in the paper have been saying twenty - thirty years. Fact. Whether they're right, or whether that's all they're saying is another matter, but that's what I've seen.
If it's 20~30 then they're 50~60 years old... ie dead when it comes due.

Like water?
We've already halved again, the amount of C02 on the planet.
If we halve again the amount of water in the oceans, we'd all be dead.
What specifically are you talking about?

The fact it's natural makes no odds.
The fact that it has always been abundent in the atmosphere does make a difference. This gas is nothing new to our planet... we've had this much in the atmosphere before humans even evolved.

Edit: they've been scolded for using gas data by those volcanos in the past...

as to the methane in ice article, I don't think you understand how much you'd have to produce to make a big impact... think of all the cow fart globally... think of the volume of that gas... there would have to more then 10 times the annual amount of that to cause a significant effect before it was reabsorbed by natural process.

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 06:01 PM

No, because the green house effect is the last thing I care about.
unless you can prove it... until then, I'll care more about toxicity.

By the time it's proven it could be too late. I think we need to care about all these things.

If it's 20~30 then they're 50~60 years old... ie dead when it comes due.
people dont really tend to die aged 50-60 in Western Civilisations anymore. Haven't done for a long time.

What specifically are you talking about?

The following statement

"CO2 is not bad pollutant... Again, focus on sulfur or chromium. CO2 is what I exhale with every breath... methane is what we give off when we pass gas.

Pick something that isn't so fundamentally natural and common to the environment throughout nearly all of earth’s history."
Your implication that things that occur

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 06:29 PM

By the time it's proven it could be too late. I think we need to care about all these things.
You assume that it is true. It might not be true.

Do you believe in god? Do you live according to the teachings of Jesus Christ or some other diety? If not, why? Can you prove that they do not exist?

Why do you not alter your life when in most cases it wouldn't impact it significantly in your time or in your personal life?

You expect us to destroy our economy based on nothing. We do not have your faith in it being true. In fact, explain your faith? Why do you believe in it without knowing? Is it a religion?

people dont really tend to die aged 50-60 in Western Civilisations anymore. Haven't done for a long time.
50~60 + 20~30 = 70~90
If they are 50~60 now, how old will they be in 20~30 years?
Your implication that things that occur
what does that have to do with the doomsday picture you painted?

LardGibs

Jan 27, 2005, @ 09:50 PM

. Second law of thermodynamics says that these two will mix. Energy will become less organized. Ergo the north will flow to the south and the south to the north.
This statement shows an ignorance of applying thermodyamics to real systems. Thermodynamics says that if I put a piece of zinc in contact with a piece of copper, it will turn into brass. Come back in a million years and get your brass. The governing mechanism is that of transport, which relies on convective transport from density effects, and liquid phase/ionic diffusion, which is kinetically controlled by the thermodynamic temperature.

The clathrate hydrate on the seafloor may not seem like a lot, but if the hydrate transition temperature is reached, it will all melt and release the methane, instantaneously. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and only slowly mopped up by hydroxyl radicals in the upper atmosphere.

You don't know much about CO2, do you, go fill up a room with it and hang out for a while and see how harmless it is. Take a farting cow in there with you for good measure.

The pH of seltzer water is about 3.3, which would classify it as a hazardous waste were it to be discharged untreated as a wastewater. Furthermore, you claim it's a slow acid? There is no such thing, ionization occurs on a femtosecond scale. The actual equilibrium between dissolved carbonic acid, dissolved carbon dioxide, and gaseous carbon dioxide is what makes it a weak acid, but the equilbrium is not slow. ~5% of dissolved carbon dioxide is ionized.

Ocean fertilization is pseudoscience. While the algae blooms sequester carbon dioxide, the matter is colloidal and does not sink to the seafloor, but is rather entrained in surface water and sloshed about.

I don't even understand how a young guy like yourself could be a fossil fuel advocate: the resource is finite, and future generations will wonder why we were so hot to burn it when there were alternatives. I guess you just want to stir shit up with your antieuropean fantasies about the bold conservative future.

LardGibs

Jan 27, 2005, @ 09:55 PM

here, check my work and get back to me.

http://www.coe.neu.edu/~pswett/n00b.gif

shutupandshave

Jan 28, 2005, @ 12:40 AM

50~60 + 20~30 = 70~90
If they are 50~60 now, how old will they be in 20~30 years?

wtf - lol. Keep adding those years on.

Yeah someone that contributes to ideas was 30 years old when we started this conversation. Now they're 70 years old.

I have admitted I was wrong when I have been (and that includes admitting that we both interpreted an account differently

however you clearly implied, to back up your argument, that the human race only lived to 60 yrs old. If you take that back, plz respond to the point I made then.

Morpheus

Jan 28, 2005, @ 01:08 AM

That's not something I care to chance with, and I would rather fuck the economy a LOT and be sure that we're not all going to die, than live like I am now for a 20 years then watch my children suffer till I die early.

Fresh water does not sink as easily as salty water.

Once again - the destruction of the world is a pretty big risk to take based on not being sure it will happen or not. Russian Roulette?

Agreed. Hell, I'd even vote for a "tree-hugger" for a president....

I'd pay higher taxes to keep this country cleaner. Go ahead and bakrupt the oil businesses by not using gasoline anymore. They siezed all the political power and are unwilling to even slowly convert from using the gasoline. All this talk about hydrogen - it seems that even after we convert to using it, it will still be derived from oil and the monopoly and corruption will go on....

Karmashock

Jan 28, 2005, @ 10:50 AM

This statement shows an ignorance of applying thermodyamics to real systems. Thermodynamics says that if I put a piece of zinc in contact with a piece of copper, it will turn into brass. Come back in a million years and get your brass. The governing mechanism is that of transport, which relies on convective transport from density effects, and liquid phase/ionic diffusion, which is kinetically controlled by the thermodynamic temperature.

The clathrate hydrate on the seafloor may not seem like a lot, but if the hydrate transition temperature is reached, it will all melt and release the methane, instantaneously. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and only slowly mopped up by hydroxyl radicals in the upper atmosphere.
No, actually it says more for the fact that you didn’t read what I put up very carefully.

Specifically, I was saying that the GULF STREAM was powered by a temperature exchange. The Gulf stream can’t shut down based on salinity alone. I don’t care if there is ice cold kool ad in the arctic and hot chocolate milk at the equator – they must mix. The temperatures compel that. Now the stream might reverse so that North America warms up and Europe freezes, but the it cannot shut down so long as that temperature differential exists.

You don't know much about CO2, do you, go fill up a room with it and hang out for a while and see how harmless it is. Take a farting cow in there with you for good measure.

The pH of seltzer water is about 3.3, which would classify it as a hazardous waste were it to be discharged untreated as a wastewater. Furthermore, you claim it's a slow acid? There is no such thing, ionization occurs on a femtosecond scale. The actual equilibrium between dissolved carbonic acid, dissolved carbon dioxide, and gaseous carbon dioxide is what makes it a weak acid, but the equilbrium is not slow. ~5% of dissolved carbon dioxide is ionized.

Ocean fertilization is pseudoscience. While the algae blooms sequester carbon dioxide, the matter is colloidal and does not sink to the seafloor, but is rather entrained in surface water and sloshed about.
Is it pseudosceince?
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/e/r/erm144/
That seems to say it’s part of the f’ing cycle… As far as I understand it, there is a thick layer of it that has built up over millions of years and there is no reason why it can’t take some more.

The US would be ok signing on to a program to take as much out of the air as we put in, if it weren’t very expensive. From what I’ve heard of this, algae can take something like 300 carbon atoms out of the air for every one iron atom you give it… so a molar ratio of 300:1 isn’t so bad… we can do that.

This is a solution we could go with… Kyoto is not.

I don't even understand how a young guy like yourself could be a fossil fuel advocate: the resource is finite, and future generations will wonder why we were so hot to burn it when there were alternatives. I guess you just want to stir shit up with your antieuropean fantasies about the bold conservative future.
Because there is currently nothing better and it still makes sense for at least most of my lifetime. Oil reserves are expected to hold out for at least another 150 years. In a 150s we should have good alternatives in place. Forcing them now isn’t reasonable.

As to anti euro, I’m not… I’m rather pro euro. But I’m not pro stupid… Many of these policies aren’t reasonable when put into perspective or held up to the light of day… and I generally resent the insinuation.
===============================
wtf - lol. Keep adding those years on.

Yeah someone that contributes to ideas was 30 years old when we started this conversation. Now they're 70 years old.

I have admitted I was wrong when I have been (and that includes admitting that we both interpreted an account differently

however you clearly implied, to back up your argument, that the human race only lived to 60 yrs old. If you take that back, plz respond to the point I made then.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve re-read my post and I’m not seeing it. If there was a miscommunication, then you now know what I meant.

All I was saying is that these guys are going to be dead before their predictions come to fruition… which is largely true of all the but the youngest and newest of these fellows. The ones that were prediction global cooling in the 1960s and 70s are now predicting global warming. They have younger protégé to take the fall… sucks for them if they were wrong.

On the bright side, the sky won’t have fallen and we can stop panicking over nothing.
===============================
Agreed. Hell, I'd even vote for a "tree-hugger" for a president....

I'd pay higher taxes to keep this country cleaner. Go ahead and bakrupt the oil businesses by not using gasoline anymore. They siezed all the political power and are unwilling to even slowly convert from using the gasoline. All this talk about hydrogen - it seems that even after we convert to using it, it will still be derived from oil and the monopoly and corruption will go on....
Easy to say that when you live in a rich economy that runs on a lot of this stuff.

I doubt you’d be so strident if we lost our wealth and the ability to coop that comes with it. Seriously... at the first sign of economic collapse, your tree hugger leader would kicked out of office by popular demand... Remember that line about civilization only being 4 days of hunger from barbarism?

How much will people care when the lights go out?

As always,
Love and Peace, Karmashock.

stats

Jan 28, 2005, @ 10:59 AM

An influx of fresh water would also dilute the North Atlantic’s salinity. At a critical but unknown threshold, when North Atlantic waters are no longer sufficiently salty and dense, they may stop sinking. An important force driving the Conveyor could quickly diminish, with climate impacts resulting within a decade.

In an important paper published in 2002 in Nature, oceanographers monitoring and analyzing conditions in the North Atlantic concluded that the North Atlantic has been freshening dramatically—continuously for the past 40 years but especially in the past decade.4 The new data show that since the mid-1960s, the subpolar seas feeding the North Atlantic have steadily and noticeably become less salty to depths of 1,000 to 4,000 meters. This is the largest and most dramatic oceanic change ever measured in the era of modern instruments.

At present the influx of fresher water has been distributed throughout the water column. But at some point, fresh water may begin to pile up at the surface of the North Atlantic. When that occurs, the Conveyor could slow down or cease operating.

Signs of a possible slowdown already exist. A 2001 report in Nature indicates that the flow of cold, dense water from the Norwegian and Greenland Seas into the North Atlantic has diminished by at least 20 percent since 1950.5

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.html

Your veiw on thermo dynamics driving the conveyor is a bit to simplistic karmamate, you should read up on it more.

Karmashock

Jan 28, 2005, @ 11:38 AM

That’s just unproven theory.

We have no records on the salt content of the north Atlantic over time. We don't know what could happen.

It could be just as likely that I'm completely right and their theory, while interesting, is nothing more.

Heat will be exchanged.

I'm in a room... if my room is hot and the out side is cold then the air will mix rather quickly when I open the window... especially if I open one at each side of the room allowing a current like the gulf stream. It doesn't matter if the air in my room is mostly argon and the out side is radium gas...

oh sure the heavier gas isn't going to make it over the window sill, but in the ocean there are no things to get over.

The two will mix... the most efficient way for them to mix is with a current. Just like the way that you can't pour milk if air can't get into the bottle as you do so...

It’s very simple and totally unstoppable.

I AM NOT SAYING IT WON"T CHANGE!!! I'm just saying that the two must mix. The Gulf Stream cannot stop unless the temperature differential between the equator and the arctic equalize.

Look, I’m not an expert. I made this thread primarily to learn something. But this gulf stream stuff is old hat to me… I know most of it and I can’t believe that all that cold water is going to stay at the pole and the hot water at the equator JUST because the cold water up north gets slightly less dense as result of diluting. Furthermore, it’s diluting the whole ocean… it will equalize. Worst case the Gulf Stream slows down a bit for a year or so as it equalizes.

Seriously, just go through my reasoning… it seems bullet proof.

If we have any climatologists(sp)or ocean specialists then that would be great… also any really good info.

I like equations, statistics (preferably ones that go back for a while), and really broad theory.

Anyway… good conversation so far. :)
=============================
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ocns12.shtml
here is another article on ocean algae. They think it will work... but they think the iron might pollute the ocean or that the algae might disrupt the other nutrient systems.

that's legitimate... However, pseudosceince it is not.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

stats

Jan 28, 2005, @ 12:17 PM

shutupandshave

Jan 28, 2005, @ 12:44 PM

wtf - lol. Keep adding those years on.

Yeah someone that contributes to ideas was 30 years old when we started this conversation. Now they're 70 years old.

I have admitted I was wrong when I have been (and that includes admitting that we both interpreted an account differently

however you clearly implied, to back up your argument, that the human race only lived to 60 yrs old. If you take that back, plz respond to the point I made then.

I have no recollection of making this post.

Karmashock

Jan 28, 2005, @ 01:26 PM

Their reasoning is also pretty bullet proof. The water MUST sink in order to return to the warmer regions, But if it is diluted with fresh water and becomes less dense then it will not be able to return. You must be able to see it? You must realize where they are coming from? The water cannot travel back to the gulf of mexico on the surface. It just cant. If it tried to it would be cold water encountering warm water in the middle.
Atlantic
States ------hot-----> Equilibrium <-----cold----- Europe

Thats a paradox if ever i saw one, it just doesnt work, therefore it wont.

Atlantic
States -------------------------------------------------------------hot-----> Equilibrium
<-----cold------------------------------------------------------------- Europe

This does..
I'm not getting either of your text graphics...

http://www.alertes-meteo.com/vague_de_chaleur/gsmap.jpg
This is all I'm talking about... you've got high energy at the equator and low energy at the pole. The two are going to mix... and relative density can only hope to slow it down...

Worst case, it slows down for a while, then the whole system has relatively comparable density and everything is fine again.
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/publications/polyakov.etal.2004.pdf - This is quite a good paper if you want to understand how the conveyor works. I've only browsed it. Dont take it on face value - use it to help you find out more...
I read about five pages of this... I didn't see an 'ah ha' moment in it anywhere... no conclusions.... I saw the data... and tried to pick out some clear and relevent trends... but it all seemed either obvious or obscure.

I think you need to stop thinking of nature as one big whole and start looking at it as lots of seperate parts that work together. Saying things like. "temperature has only risen 1oC" while being completely right wont give you a picture of whats going on, looking at what has accured seprately in different parts of the globe to give rise to that change, will..
I also think we need to look at the world as being older then 200 years.

This planet is two billion years old +... it has gone through lots of big shifts without meteors striking it or new forms of life arising... some things just change... and then change back... some times it goes through a hickup...

there is the sun
there is the orbit
there is the reflective nature clouds and ice
there is <infinite> reasons for things to change as all of these things interact with each other.

The point I'm making is that saying the gulf stream is going to shut down is totally unknown. It's a theory and nothing more. Getting excited about it isn't sensible. Asking us to shut down our economy is absurd.

I further don't see why the water absolutely must sink as it goes south... I can see that it would trend to be deeper... but I don't see that that would stop it from flowing south. Also its going to distribute salt evenly as the temperature of the water equalizes to the new environment... this means that water at the equatior will become less salty fairly quickly... and therefore equalize the system as it comes north as warmer water.

I just don't see any justification for this doom and gloom speech.

LardGibs

Jan 28, 2005, @ 01:27 PM

/me pulls hair.

Listen, my final words on the subject. There's a reason they use supercomputers to simulate ocean currents and climate, it's not just a boondoggle. Common sense and reasoning can only take you so far on complex phenomena.

Karmashock

Jan 28, 2005, @ 01:35 PM

I'm aware of that... and so far the computers have also offered up a lot of mixed results.

So what does that mean?

If the most powerful computers in the world are giving you gibberish, then maybe you should review what you're telling the machine to do.

or build a computer the size of a planet... which ever makes more sense.

Karmashock

Jan 28, 2005, @ 01:47 PM

here is an article by a canadian that says that the arctic isn't even thinning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1311007.stm

We need strong information before we kill our economy...

and if there isn't a problem at all... well... we're going to be peeved.

stats

Jan 28, 2005, @ 03:54 PM

My pont karma, is that hot water travels to europe on the suface, The cold travels back to the gulf on the bottom(ish) of the ocean. fresh water is poured into the ocean then (for a while atleast) it will float to the top - because it is less dense than the salty water at the bottom. If the surface water is less saline, then so will be the current of warm water (less saline that is). So instead of being able to sink and return to the gulf it will remain on the surface. And if it tries to return to the gulf on the surface... it will meet the warm water coming in the opposite direction and shut it down.

I was hoping that article would give you a better idea of how the conveyor works karma. not what is or is not going to happen to it.

Karmashock

Jan 28, 2005, @ 04:19 PM

... IT CAN"T SHUT DOWN!

I don't care if your got motor oil for the arctic ocean and concentrated acid at the equator. They MUST exchange energy if they're put in contact with each other.

If the north is 'lighter' then the south, then that means that the artic water will travel at a higher level as it goes south... then it will heat up in the south and come north again... with a higher salt content... it will then ride lower in the water it typically does.

I see things changing... not jamming.

What you're describing would be like stalling a car with an automatic transmission... I suppose it might be theoretically possible... but it's not fucking likely.

As to the paper you gave me, did you read it?

Because I read a good chunk of it... it was talking about these things... but it wasn't making points.

stats

Jan 28, 2005, @ 05:47 PM

I skimmed it dude. i read so many papers thats just what you do after a while.. I gave it to you because i thought it would give you a good insight on how the gulf stream worked. no other reason than that. And it can shut down. there are other ways for the energy to be exchanged... i dont know what they are but there always is.

Karmashock

Jan 28, 2005, @ 06:24 PM

Other ways for the temperature differential to be neutralized?...

Clearly psychic power transmutation by the aliens living at the bottom of the sea...

Minus that... no, I can't think of anything else either... except for them mixing... but that's a mad conclusion that only an idiot come to (which I guess is me in this pageant).

I know it sounds ridiculous for someone with no serious training to stare right into the eyes of dozens of UN science panels and say they're wrong.

But there ARE scientists that agree with my position. Furthermore, despite the patient arrogance of this, I don't think this is so complicated that I shouldn't be able to understand it. The fact is that, if you're right, then I don't get it. There is clearly some force that is able to prevent these two forces from mixing... and that force is some measly difference in ocean salinity... it makes no sense to me.

Above and beyond that, it's linked to Global warming, which I'm pretty damn skeptical of too... It seems like they're trying to scare the shit of the European public so they can shut down industry, up regulations, and confiscate cars. Every time they scare them, another set of regulations go through… to what end?… I don’t know… total state control… name your conspiracy theory…

How many studies have you seen into the fuel efficiency of public trains? Damn near none. Do you know how much they kick out?... how much gas they use per person and how much CO2 they kick out? It’s huge... Suvs start to look green when look at those numbers... and I'm talking about per person traffic. Is it pollution they care about or individualistic capitalist decadence?… because that’s the button it pushes in my head… a kind of social equalization… a reaction to the spoils of wealth…

Also, did you read the bit where the Canadian scientist had them look at the whole ice sheet instead of just the part in international waters that the US is allowed take its subs under?

he says it just went to Canada... I mean... if you can show that the ice isn't even thinning, then some people are going to get bitch slapped on principle alone.

stats

Jan 28, 2005, @ 06:51 PM

Most of our trains, certainly near me, are electric.

And why would europe actively do something that puts them at a SERIOUS economical disadvantage with nations like the states if we didnt think it was likely...

Karmashock

Jan 28, 2005, @ 10:19 PM

You tell me... It makes no sense from my perspective, so I have to infer something else is going on.

Electric aren't any better unless you're running them on clean generators... even then the power usage is pretty ridiculous... That said, subways/city trains tend to have very high usage, which makes them pretty good. However, they’re the exception. Inter-city trains tend to have very low passenger occupancy (below 50 % in most of Europe, below 10% in the US) and run on giant diesel engines… which makes their per person fuel economy fairly outrageous... planes can complete with most trains for fuel economy when it comes to moving people.

Again, what did you think of the article I posted? Do Europeans believe in global warming because they automatically go blind and deaf when contradictory evidence is provided?

Morpheus

Jan 29, 2005, @ 04:31 AM

Drunk once posted this link. I found it quite interesting. Something tells me you're going to like it, Karma.

http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/energy.htm

Karmashock

Jan 29, 2005, @ 06:24 AM

I stopped after I read this...
The West’s capitalistic ideology has transformed a traditional deadly sin, greed, into a virtue, and the racketeering impulse has guided the creation of all capitalistic empires. Every significant industry and profession is largely a self-serving racket, and the larger and more powerful the industry or profession is, the more it resembles an outright racket, something I discovered that the hard way during my adventures.
To say that is to not understand capitalism.

I mean... it's even called "CAPTIALISM" and they still don't get it.

What is capital?... that's what it's all about.
Yes, capital is technically 'money' too... but capital is NOT gold. Capital is the about production, growth, and wealth generation. Capitalist economies try to generate wealth… internally… not subsist as under the feudal system or hoard wealth from other parts of the world… Generate it yourself.

Capitalism is the cold fusion of economics… bitching about it and then talking about the virtues of older systems is like pointing at an old coal generator and saying “that’s an ‘honest’ machine, not like your cold fusion generator that runs on ‘witchcraft’”… tards.

It focuses in on that as what should be acquired. The old system of Mercantilism was about acquiring gold... and any other commodity that was really of value... but really, that was just a means to get more gold. That was the system before capitalism.

Before that we had a smattering of feudal trade economies that were based less on what you'd call economics then politics... ie, do what you're told or I'll stab you.

Vast generalizations... but not even a Marxist would be so f'ing stupid...

If he wants to talk about the environment, then fine... but he just lost all credibility on economics.

just none.

Wicksy

Jan 30, 2005, @ 05:05 AM

Karmashock

Jan 30, 2005, @ 06:23 AM

Extracting billions and billions of tons of carbon from the Earth's crust over a period of 150+ years, oxidising it and then pumping the resultant CO2 up into the atmosphere. Not to mention the 6 billion humans all exhaling millions of tons of CO2 EVERY DAY.
... your numbers aren't in context. The earth is a very very very big system and is very resilent and flexible. None of us would have survived to evolve were that not the case.

You think that'll have no effect whatsoever?
What kind of effect? You assume something horrible will happen. I assume nothing. Maybe the extra carbon will mean increased forest growth... maybe my SUV is saving the rain forest right now...

how the hell can you prove otherwise without respectable date?

My belief is that some systems will change to compensate... some weather patterns might alter... some places might become marginally cooler and others marginally warmer. Over all, I don't see any reason to panic.

I need data... I need really really really good data.

The chances of getting killed are greater if you step outside your home. In the house you're far far safer. The farther and more you travel the more endangered you are. There are millions of things we do every day that are more dangerous. But we take that risk because the chances of it happening are low and the benifits are great.

We currently have poor info for Global Warming and the cost of just the kyoto protocal would kill our economies.

Until we see good information, it's worth the risk.

Earth's climate is a delicate equilibrium. What the human race has done to this planet is nothing short of rape. Am I innocent? No, I'm just as guilty. Will we change? I doubt it. We rely on serious amounts of energy. The only thing that will solve our problems is nuclear fusion. Anything else that we do to generate power (fission, burning fossil fuels) just upsets the balance (fission is an option, but what to do with the waste?). Even if we manufactured millions of wind farms or solar cells - how much energy is required to manufacture them? It's self-defeating.
Nuclear fission is actually less attractive then you'd think... How abundent do you think that stuff is?... It's very rare.

To make reactors sensible for the global economy we're going to need "breeder' reactors... which are extremely f'ing dangerious.

The US has 2000 years of domestic Coal reserves... and 400 years of Fissionable material... estimates are around 180 years of Petriolium.

Solar cells are needed in the long term. Petriolium and coal for the short term.

Fissionable materal will be used throughout... Though we'll soon be making all of this stuff.

We already can make Petriolium FROM coal. The South Africans do it all the time. So we might have well over 2000 years of gas made from coal.

All current climate models suggest that if we hit roughly 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, this will cause irreversible climate change. If anyone has better climate models than the best scientists on the planet, I'd like to see them. Currently we're at 380ppm and rising at 2ppm per year. This means crunch time comes in 10 years.
give me a link.

Weather patterns are already becoming more extreme and unpredictable. It's not going to get any better. Especially since the West already consumes vast amounts of energy, and India and China's energy consumption is growing exponentially. Soon the World will be demanding oil (carbon) faster than we can pump it out of the ground and burn it.
This isn't true. Weather has always been irradic. It's just that 200 years ago, people would say "god did it" and now they say even more mindlessly "global warming did it".

Talk to old people... they'll tell you about a storm or winter or that was worse.

Morpheus

Jan 30, 2005, @ 07:26 AM

...Until we see good information, it's worth the risk..

And suppose 15 years from now we find out that it was true, we did cause irreversable damage to the climate? We just adapt and go on, like nothing happened? I really don't like your "trial and fail" method of finding out results on such scale as the whole planet Earth.

Karmashock

Jan 30, 2005, @ 07:51 AM

You can't expect us to round up a posse every time the little boy crys wolf.

They've already admited that they were wrong about global cooling and they tried to drive us crazy with that one.

They've changed their minds.

We can't afford to be wrong about this. If we kill our economies, then there will be damage to our civilization. This is a fact.

If the environment changes then our civilizations might be damaged. We won't die... the world will not end. There will just be damage to some eco systems, but more probably we'll just lose some coastal property and farmland.

Furthermore, Kyoto won't stop global warming. It would have to be THIRTY times stronger then it is to do anything. It will not be a step in the right direction because one thirtith of what is needed will hurt us so badily that we won't go much farther.

If you want us to listen, then come up with a few certianites.

Come up with precisely what is happening and precisely what we can do about it.

Then live with the fact that we're going to choose an option that allows us to fix the problem without commiting economic suicide.

algae cultivation in the great oceans is something that we could live with. We could afford millions of tons algae fertilizer. We could afford it, not only for ourselves, but for the whole world.

But we can't shut down industry... it's like asking a person to stop breathing because they're using up all the air. We can't stop. We need another option... and frankly, we need a reason to trust these theories. They're highly suspect... the people pushing them tend to have public political affliations and spotty scientific papers (I posted an article a while ago about how the UN's report was based on highly filtered data... ie contradicting data removed.).

This is a major step... we need more and we need you to accept that no matter what, industry must go on.

shutupandshave

Jan 31, 2005, @ 11:35 AM

They've already admited that they were wrong about global cooling and they tried to drive us crazy with that one.
link?

stats

Jan 31, 2005, @ 11:46 AM

Wow, WicksyBiB?? hi mate!

shutupandshave

Jan 31, 2005, @ 12:11 PM

/me agrees with Wix.

Nuclear fission is actually less attractive then you'd think... How abundent do you think that stuff is?... It's very rare.
We have 250-300 years of fission, hopefully enough time to figure out the fusion issues.

I dont know ANY non-corp sponsored surveys that say the planet is not on the verge of being fucked, where as I know many that say it is.

Karmashock

Jan 31, 2005, @ 01:17 PM

link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness about carbon dioxide's effects: at the time garbage, chemical disposal, smog, particulate pollution, and acid rain were the focus of the public concern. However, not long after the awareness reached the public press in the mid-1970s the temperature trend stopped going down. Even by the early 1970s there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects [1] (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/quat_res_1972.html#schneider), and it was known that both natural and anthropogenic effects caused variations in global climate.

We have 250-300 years of fission, hopefully enough time to figure out the fusion issues.
So... you're against using petrolium because it will only last 180 years... but you advocate using a source that will only be around for about twice as long?

Furthermore, while gas can be MADE rather easily WITHOUT petriolium, fissionable material is very very hard to make.

We can make gas with hydro electric generators or solar power... it's very very hard to do that with fissionable material... huge super colliders would have to be used... or breeder reactors...

both would be rather dangerious to use if put to industrial output levels.

I dont know ANY non-corp sponsored surveys that say the planet is not on the verge of being fucked, where as I know many that say it is.
Cite a credible one that says the world is doomed.

shutupandshave

Jan 31, 2005, @ 03:03 PM

There's nothing in your link that states the global warming scientists admitted they were wrong about global cooling, sorry.

There is no proof that petroleum will last for 180 years. The estimates I have read are between 20-100. Perhaps you're thinking about the figured that were around before it was discovered that the estimates were falsified to drive up stock prices?

By gas I am assuming you mean, what we call petrol? You'll have to explain to me
1) How you can make it easily with solar power
2) Why you would need to make it to begin with

I think the whole idea was that we're getting away from burning things....

Links:
here's a piccy to get you started
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GIS_Global_1880_2005.gif
Now this is a graph of the greenhouse gas emission
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/carbondioxideonrise.gif

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=409061
This is about global dimming, which is something I mentioned. It's talking about the same program.

You say there is no evidence for global warming, however
"The conclusions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the most authoritative scientific voice on the issue" disagree with you.

Karmashock

Jan 31, 2005, @ 03:44 PM

There's nothing in your link that states the global warming scientists admitted they were wrong about global cooling, sorry.
The article says that they said the world would cool in the 1970s.

What are they saying today?

They were wrong, get over it.

There is no proof that petroleum will last for 180 years. The estimates I have read are between 20-100. Perhaps you're thinking about the figured that were around before it was discovered that the estimates were falsified to drive up stock prices?
No, those are the proven reserves for my country. I don't know how long the world has, but the US has 180 years.

By gas I am assuming you mean, what we call petrol? You'll have to explain to me
1) How you can make it easily with solar power
2) Why you would need to make it to begin with
The current means is Coal liquification... or gasification... But all you really need is carbon, water, and energy.

Again, the US has 2000 years of Coal... We've got more coal then the middle east has oil.

I think the whole idea was that we're getting away from burning things....
Burning things makes a lot of sense though. More then half of the fuel for such a reaction is in the air. So that means your power source is light and compact.

Furthermore, gas releases a LOT of energy very quickly. Our engines run on it because it makes sense.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=409061
This is about global dimming, which is something I mentioned. It's talking about the same program.
So which is it? Is europe going to freeze because the gulf stream shuts down or burn because of global warming?

This is what I'm talking about... they're just speculating...

I'm not ruining my economy for your speculation.

You say there is no evidence for global warming, however
"The conclusions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the most authoritative scientific voice on the issue" disagree with you.
I think you'll see over the 10 years that that group gets torn to pieces. More and more scientists are looking to make names for themselves by poking holes in their theories... and once that gets started the truth will out.

Whatever it is...

shutupandshave

Jan 31, 2005, @ 04:44 PM

The article says that they said the world would cool in the 1970s.
No, the global cooling scientists said the world would cool, not the global warming scientists.
So you're wrong, get over it.

No, those are the proven reserves for my country. I don't know how long the world has, but the US has 180 years.
We were talking about the world, not just the US.

All you really need for fusion powered cars is hydrogen...

No, nuclear fusion produces lots of energy very quickly, burning gasoline produces a fair bit of energy and a lot of pollutants.

So which is it? Is europe going to freeze because the gulf stream shuts down or burn because of global warming?
I dont know. Does it mean it's not going to happen? No.
I think you'll see over the 10 years that that group gets torn to pieces. More and more scientists are looking to make names for themselves by poking holes in their theories... and once that gets started the truth will out.

More scientists, paid by more corporations to try and hide the truth from the American people.

The top experts in the world think this is going to happen, and you dont. *shrugs*

You've seen the Greenhouse gas emission graphs, against the temperature graphs and that is no evidence to you.

shutupandshave

Jan 31, 2005, @ 04:51 PM

Whoops

Karmashock

Jan 31, 2005, @ 05:40 PM

No, the global cooling scientists said the world would cool, not the global warming scientists.
So you're wrong, get over it.
First, I believe that some of them are teh same people.
Second, either way, the climate people have two stories.

Which is it?

We were talking about the world, not just the US.
Well, the UK has lots of reserves too... France will obviously prefer nukes...

Everyone will deal in their own way. The US is sitting on huge coal reserves... so that's where we'll be going if we don't have anything else.

All you really need for fusion powered cars is hydrogen...
and fairy dust...

No, nuclear fusion produces lots of energy very quickly, burning gasoline produces a fair bit of energy and a lot of pollutants.
Nuke engines are huge... and gas engine of that size would easily produce more. Nukes are just better in that the fuel is more compact.

But as I said, its more limited, and can't be easily replaced.

Nukes are not renewable energy.

I dont know. Does it mean it's not going to happen? No.
Does it mean it is?

Here's a theory for you... we'll get global cooling and warming at the SAME TIME! And instead of having two horrible tragidies, the two will cancel each other out. :D

More scientists, paid by more corporations to try and hide the truth from the American people.

The top experts in the world think this is going to happen, and you dont. *shrugs*

You've seen the Greenhouse gas emission graphs, against the temperature graphs and that is no evidence to you.
somethings to consider...
http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3667979.stm

I further need infromation taht goes back for at least a few thousand years... get it from tree rings or sediment... just make sure its accurate and don't throw out data when it tells you things you don't wnat to hear.

stats

Jan 31, 2005, @ 07:10 PM

Coal, gas nukes....

there alot of other potentials that dont get invested in because coal and gas and oil are already here...

Take, solar thermal generators, there are some of these in spain

http://magnet.consortia.org.il/ConSolar/stepp.html

Or geothermal, that could be good with a little investment

http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/

Tidal power, my god is that china and america cooperating:

http://www.tidalelectric.com/News%20China.htm

And why cant we put these on our house roofs?

http://www.siliconsolar.com/solar_panels.htm

There is the potential to use methangenic bacteria or archea (three life groups are prokaryote, eukaryote and archea-most of you wont of heard of archea) Although i couldnt find any good links on this... Feel free to look for yourselves.

Found one: http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/biogas.shtml

This one really is almost limitless...

Hydrogen powered cars do not need fairy dust...

http://www.hybridcars.com/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars.html

Same technology can be used to power phones or laptops

http://www.techreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_hoffman010305.asp

There are many many more out there. So why the fuck are we risking the planet atall? Why, for the economy? Develope a new one, based on newer technologies. When you say things along the lines of:

"We will not risk our economy for what ifs and maybes"

Your not risking the economy, your just changing the power balance from the oil barrons to the inventive, and if the oil barrons are clever - they'll be able to adapt.

Karmashock

Jan 31, 2005, @ 07:16 PM

we have solar thermal in Cali... I think we invented them... but that might jsut be my hubris.

geothermal can only be used at a few key places

tidal power is very expensive, hard to maintain, and prone to destruction.

solar should become a huge power source... but we have to use it EVERYWHERE for it to work... and we need away to store power for the night.

As to hydrogen, it's not as easy to use as gas, isn't as well developed, and still needs to generated by another system... preferably solar.

stats

Jan 31, 2005, @ 07:54 PM

Well i prefer bioelectricity. probably coz im biased though.

Karmashock

Feb 1, 2005, @ 02:09 AM

Bioelectrics are very inefficient... and very susceptible to disease...

At least, I'm thinking of the marine version. If you got a land based plant to work like that, then it might be worth something... but that's a lot of genetic engineering beyond what we have.

Karmashock

Feb 1, 2005, @ 04:41 AM

the cabal is starting to crack.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/columnists/story.html?id=0b640715-bbdd-4b42-a047-7e2d90b8e495

stats

Feb 1, 2005, @ 10:42 AM

As far as microbiology, no amount or level of genetic engeneering is beyod us karma.

Karmashock

Feb 1, 2005, @ 11:03 AM

Many currently are... we need more then recombine things... we need to code entirely new dna... from scratch.

stats

Feb 1, 2005, @ 11:19 AM

er.... what?

shutupandshave

Feb 1, 2005, @ 11:19 AM

And you take each report that agrees with global warming with as much importance?

There is more hydrogen for Fusion, that America has coal reserves. I guarantee it. America may be a great country, but it's not that great.

Karmashock

Feb 1, 2005, @ 01:41 PM

Stats, industial scale bioelectrics would require significant engineering well beyond anything we currently have... at least that was my understanding. That is at least a hundred years off... if we're talking about the same thing.

Suas,
unfortunately we only have a very limited supply of fairy dust and we're using that to power the intersteller space defense grid that we use to keep off the alien invasion from klandactoo.

We'll feed our energy needs one way or another. Currently we do it primarily with coal, hydro electric, nuclear, and solar. We don't use gas turbines much. They're mostly used to pick up slack on the grid... powering up and down as we need juice. Nuke plants and hydro electric plants don't like being spun up and down...

Anyway, we'll use fusion for our power generation as soon as we can find a process that doesn't require more energy to run then you get out or it... or fairy dust...

stats

Feb 1, 2005, @ 02:18 PM

There are plenty of bacteria and archea that will produce the methane needed for bio electricity very very readily. And as for contructing DNA and insirting genes. Well thats just childs play - seriously. Protiens are the core for everything. DNA codes fro protiens. proteins are made up of subunits called amino acids, each amino acid is coded for by a codon(a triplet of dna base's) - we know every codon, all of them. so if we decide we need a specific protein we can easily make the dna to code for it. This dna can EASILY be inserted anywhere we want it, anywhere! we could put it in a plasmid (extra chromosomal dna) and make - force the bacteria to take it up and the bacteria will then make the protein. and we can switich off any genes we want to so, anytime - any of them.

what i am trying to say is - we can do anything we want to bacteria. They are our bitches. It's not 100 years off - it happened yesterday!

humans and multicellular organisms are much more complex however, but were not talking about that.

in 100 years karma, there wont be any desease, none, atall. there will be nothing that is beyond bioscience by then. we will have cracked biology, genetics and such completely and uterly by then. Trust me

Karmashock

Feb 1, 2005, @ 02:33 PM

There are plenty of bacteria and archea that will produce the methane needed for bio electricity very very readily.
I thought you meant, ACTUAL bioelectristy... not gas but electrical charge.... something we have considered.
we will have cracked biology, genetics and such completely and uterly by then. Trust me
I'm ready for the brave new world.

stats

Feb 1, 2005, @ 02:50 PM

I did think that maybe thats what you meant - and yes that would be a monster to crack, because you need - probably to use eukaryotic genes in prokaryotic bacteria or the cells themselves (wich isnt viable because prokaryotes reproduce and metabolise much much faster than eukayotes)

But it's not 100 years off - no way. with proper investment it could probably be done in 5, i imagine that sort of thing has little or no funding atall atm - so more likely 10 till someone makes a breakthrough natrually, and probably by accident and then another 5 - 10 to develope? i dont know, its all just guess work.

Biomethane electricity is probably more viable anyway because it combines exsisting technology anyway with a new one. and its very easy to do...

Be ready for the new world though karma because biolotechnology now moving faster than the computer technology did... much faster.

sorry, habbit.

Prokaryote, anything bacteria ETC
eukaryote, anything with a nucleus - animal, plant or fungi etc

Karmashock

Feb 1, 2005, @ 03:14 PM

I did think that maybe thats what you meant - and yes that would be a monster to crack, because you need - probably to use eukaryotic genes in prokaryotic bacteria or the cells themselves (wich isnt viable because prokaryotes reproduce and metabolise much much faster than eukayotes)
the idea is to have biological solar cells. Your lawn feeding power to your home. Complex systems are better unless you want to create electrical potental in the tanks themselves.

But it's not 100 years off - no way. with proper investment it could probably be done in 5, i imagine that sort of thing has little or no funding atall atm - so more likely 10 till someone makes a breakthrough natrually, and probably by accident and then another 5 - 10 to develope? i dont know, its all just guess work.
nope... it's a long way off.

Biomethane electricity is probably more viable anyway because it combines exsisting technology anyway with a new one. and its very easy to do...
but methane is bad... global warming and such...

Be ready for the new world though karma because biolotechnology now moving faster than the computer technology did... much faster.

as big to biology as teh invention of sex.

stats

Feb 1, 2005, @ 04:35 PM

but methane is bad... global warming and such...

Nope - because you can use the products of the burning of methane and give it back to the bacteria or whatever in your bioreator and they will turn it back into methane for you.... (tell me thats not cool as fuck!) seriously

Karmashock

Feb 1, 2005, @ 04:44 PM

hmmm... on a mass level there will be a consiquence or a huge energy in lay...

Morpheus

Feb 1, 2005, @ 04:49 PM

shutupandshave

Feb 1, 2005, @ 05:15 PM

Suas,
unfortunately we only have a very limited supply of fairy dust and we're using that to power the intersteller space defense grid that we use to keep off the alien invasion from klandactoo.

And I remind you or what you said before Karma...something like:
"those with nothing to say resort to childish comments"

Wicksy

Feb 1, 2005, @ 06:42 PM

/me agrees with Wix.
OMG break out the champagne!! ;) :toast:

Maybe the extra carbon will mean increased forest growth... maybe my SUV is saving the rain forest right now...
I might agree with you, except we're destroying the rain forests at a rate of about 20,000km2 per year. So, we're squeezing the Earth from both directions.

So which is it? Is europe going to freeze because the gulf stream shuts down or burn because of global warming? This is what I'm talking about... they're just speculating... I'm not ruining my economy for your speculation

This is not speculation. There are hard figures to support the assumption.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/impact/gulf_stream.shtml
"At the end of the last Ice Age, when the ice sheet covering North America melted, the sudden increase in fresh water reduced the salinity of the north Atlantic surface water and therefore less 'dense water' sank and moved towards the equator. This reduced, or even shut-down completely, the warm gulf stream. Temperatures in north-west Europe fell by 5C in just a few decades

Recent observations have shown that since 1950 there has been a decrease of 20% in the flow of cold water in the Faeroe Bank channel between Greenland and Scotland. This is one source of cold dense water that drives the density-based component of the gulf stream. There may be an increase in flow from other cold water sources, but, if not, it could be the start of the slow down of the gulf stream."

You could say "look! it says 'there may be an increase in flow from other cold water sources'". Well that would be YOUR speculation. The current data (which is not in dispute) is that the salinity of the North Atlantic is decreasing, caused by the melting of the polar ice cap.

Stick an ice-cube in a glass of water. What happens? The cube melts as it absorbs energy from the water. But more importantly, the water temp decreases to near zero. Actually you can stick a bunsen burner under the glass; the water will not increase in temperature UNTIL the ice has melted. Its called "latent heat". What this means is that the ice provides a "buffer" so that excess energy does not increase the temp of the water. This is also what the polar ice caps do. Atmospheric warming is absorbed by the polar ice sheets - UNTIL such a time as the ice has completely melted.

Well guess what? The ice sheets are melting faster than ever before! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2558319.stm).
So they may continue to protect us against further temperature increases for the time being (even though global temperatures ARE increasing in tandem with CO2 levels) but once the sheets have melted, real disaster will follow. Disaster will already have visited, however, because the melting of the Greenland ice sheet alone will cause sea levels to rise by 7m.
But the loss of the ice buffer will cause temps to rise even faster. Plus there's yet another effect: ice sheets reflect sunlight back into space. With their demise, even more sunlight will be absorbed by the Earth, again raising temps. Couple this with the increased CO2 which traps the energy in the atmosphere.

We're screwed mate.

I don't believe solar panels are the answer. Its a very nice idea of course to cover all our houses with them, but you still need energy to manufacture them and obtain raw materials. Fission is an option providing we can figure out where the hell we're gonna put the waste. Fusion is the only answer I can see, and that's probably 20-30 years away. We need to do something much sooner than that. I actually agree with SUAS on this :toast: ... fission can be a stop-gap until we obtain fusion power.

The only other option is to go back to small localised communities where everyone keeps chickens and the local farms can support the local populations. ie. we go back to pre-industrial methods. No more mega-cities, no more supermarkets, no more vehicles. Farms, communities, horses. Oh and we'll also need to cut the human population by about 4 billion in the process. Somehow.

Papa Smurf

Feb 1, 2005, @ 06:57 PM

Karma are the gases produced Inert by any of the methods you have mentioned?????

Karmashock

Feb 2, 2005, @ 05:20 AM

I'll beleive the changes when I see them. Somehow I doubt those oil barrons are going to give up their control over fuel market. Our internal combustion engines remained with little to no change since they were first created, due to improvement patents being bought off and put on the shelf to gather dust. California is the only state who sees the light sometimes(hybrids), but it seems that right now it's recieving strong opposition from car manufacturers.
What oil barons?
================================
And I remind you or what you said before Karma...something like:
"those with nothing to say resort to childish comments"
Don't be such a drama queen, I answered your question... I was amused by the other comment... take it how it was offered.

YOU're talking about using a technology that doesn't exist... that's just nutty.

I might as well suggest we switch to antimatter warp reactors.
=================================
Karma are the gases produced Inert by any of the methods you have mentioned?????
specify.

Critta

Feb 2, 2005, @ 01:38 PM

Bitching about CO2 is just crazy... it's the hardest to make a case that it's a real problem and its the hardest for us to stop producing.

It makes ZERO sense to make this attack on this issue from a political or environmental perspective.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4226917.stm

Take a read - come back and tell me that there is no enviromental perspective that could cause this issue to be a problem.

Kind screws up your "well we can put it all in the sea" idea to resolve CO2 emissions.

Karmashock

Feb 2, 2005, @ 01:51 PM

Do you know how many times the coral reefs have died?... if you knew shit about coral, then you wouldn't be bringing this up.

shutupandshave

Feb 2, 2005, @ 02:19 PM

YOU're talking about using a technology that doesn't exist... that's just nutty.

*looks at the sun*

*looks at Karma*

Actually there have been fusion reactors built, and working on the earth.... just not sustained.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

I am sure I will get my apology any moment....

http://www.fusion.org.uk/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4044895.stm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1209/p15s01-stss.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1209/p15s01-stss.html

Karmashock

Feb 2, 2005, @ 02:46 PM

*cracks open SUAS head and looks at the complex biological computer inside*

*looks at computer scientists*

well? BUILD IT!... dude the games I can play on suas's head should own!

or maybe your logic was pathetically flawed.

The titles of your articles were as follows...

A simple guide to what Fusion Power is all about, why we need it, and how we hope to achieve it.
so... you don't have it then...
EU gets tough on fusion reactor
basically about the EU trying to stop the japanese/US venture or co opt it... its a test or demo reactor. No one knows if it will work.
Fusion: Stepping closer to reality
again... it's becoming more practical. When it IS practical, we'll build thousands... perhaps millions of them.

the last article was repeated...

Look, we're putting money into it. Don't pretend that you're the only ones working on this, everyone is... it however does not currently work.

When it does, we'll likely make a lot of things that run on it.

shutupandshave

Feb 2, 2005, @ 02:56 PM

Papa Smurf

Feb 2, 2005, @ 03:07 PM

LoL Karma you quote this:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/columnists/story.html?id=0b640715-bbdd-4b42-a047-7e2d90b8e495

as being a meaningful repost to climate warming when all Stephen McIntrye is saying is that the statistical bases of the analysis was fundamentally flawed, he does not say the the conclusion is wrong he leaves that to his ever so fair collegue, only that the MBH98 algorithm in 99% of cases gives the hockey stick result even when feeding it random numbers. This is a topic of hot debate in staticics circles, and the majority of statistians still say the MBH98 algorithm is correct in its revised form. He even admits this on his own website: http://www.climate2003.com/

Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies, so even he is not exactly fair minded he has money invested in fossel fuels. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada. Hello vested interest you see Karma you can bend the truth anyway you want but the fact about global sea level and rising temprates are just that fact, the 90's where the hotest decade we have ever recorded, yes i am aware that the is the pine cone pulse in the 15th century, but that is not primary evidence it is secondary and we do not know the situation at that time, therefore only dubious conclusions can be drawn at best. But he looks positivly respectable when you look at the other author of the paper.

Back ground to Ross McKitrick:

In 1998, Exxon devised a plan to hold off action on global warming. The strategy was outlined in an internal memo, titled Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan, which promised, "Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom" for "average citizens" and "the media." The company would recruit and train new scientists who lack a "history of visibility in the climate debate" and pay them to develop materials depicting supporters of action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as "out of touch with reality."

see it here:http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3860_GlobalClimateSciencePlanMemo.pdf

Ross McKitrick i mean for a start he is an economist not even a statastician, however i will not hold that aginst him.

And how much have the funded him $155,000.00 YAY he obviously takes a completely objective view lol

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=21084385&CFTOKEN=29888831

You see Karma i do not say Global warming is definate i know about previous climate shifts and the Milankovitch Cycles. There is quite alot i would like to say about Milankovitch's cycles and the dramatic effects that this could have on us, admitadly these are worst case senarios, but ill just give this link:(i am not happy with it but its the best i could find on google in 10 seconds)

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

if we warm the planet we will alter the obital pattern of the earth, its physics.

However it is very very likely that Global warming is a real, to take no action is suicidal for the human race, to ignore it condems all our children, and childrens children to a very nasty situaton, are you really that blinded by greed and money that you would rather have a few and i do mean a few extra dollars in your pockets, Kyoto would of made little if any diffrence to your economy, if anything it would of actually made you money as both you and us are the world leaders in scrubber technology oh and the pesky Germans. The non adoption of Kyoto had less to do with the American economy and more to do with George Bush and his energy cronies wanting to profit more at any cost (you asked where are the oil barons, LMFAO look in the white house, there are a few there, just because they no longer wear stetsons they are still oil barons just like the saudi's or big multi nationals like our own BP). We produce NOx gases, Sulphide gases and then pump them into the air, and what do we expect, well we hope for nothing in reality we produce acid rain is this also untrue? These gases are far from inert Karma, they are very dangrous, we seem to be very much of the opinion we if it does not affect america who gives a fuck (thus you are the target for so many terroroists, but thats another topic) so ill give you an example from your own door step.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/20/eveningnews/main650393.shtml

So we have established that burning fossil fuel releases gases these gases are reactable when released into the enviroment (ie as soon as they hit water varpour in the air) this is simple chemistry you can not dispute that, you could go and do it in your science class room that is if the are not trying to teach you intelligent creation LMFAO.

Now greenhouse gases include any gas in the atmosphere that is capable, as a result of its particular molecular structure, of absorbing infrared radiation or heat. They are called greenhouse gases because they behave like glass in a greenhouse gas, allowing sunlight to pass through but trapping the heat formed and preventing it from escaping, thereby causing a rise in temperature. Natural greenhouse gases include water vapour or moisture, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and even ozone, which is more commonly associated with the ozone layer and ultraviolet radiation.

This too is an obvious statement its just a defination and some of the chemical properties, you still with me Karma? with these grouped together under the greenhouse gases tag, and we have been increasing these gases concentration in the atmosphere. Now where we differ is do these gases produce a warming in the climate, yes? I say yes they probably do, you say no they probably do not.

Now you base your assertion on what? you put down the evidence yet you offer nothing in counter.

I would say that the following is pretty good evidence that global warming, and is real evidence collected by the world leaders in paleoclimatology;

'In June of 1999 the latest ice core data from the Vostok site in Antarctica were published by Petit et al in the British journal Nature. These new data extended the historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present (BP). The ice cores were drilled to over 3,600 meters. This is just over 2.2 miles deep. These new data double the length of the historical record.

The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation.

Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing.

The graph below includes data from the Nature paper, plus data from other studies referenced below. Notice how CO2 concentration rises vertically at the end of the time series. The increase appears vertical because of the large time scale, but it actually occurs over the past 150 years, which corresponds to the age of fossil fuels (the modern industrial age). Notice too that there hasn't been a corresponding increase in temperature during this time period. This is probably due to the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink, and thereby delay the increase in atmospheric temperatures. However, there are recent indications that the oceans are now warming, which will reduce their ability to act as a heat sink

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

Other interesting patterns in the data include the extreme increases and decreases in temperature preceding and following the interglacial phases (the five high temperature phases in the graph). Some possible reasons for this pattern are explained in the research papers referenced below. In particular, positive feedback mechanisms are instrumental in rapid temperature increases. In any case, the current interglacial period is the longest on record. The current interglacial is also unique in that maximum temperatures have not increased above +2C relative to the mid-20th century benchmark (0C) for very long. It would appear that the +2C threshhold must be exceeded for some period of time to initiate a new glacial phase. Or perhaps the threshold is +1C, but for a longer period of time. The present mean temperature is about +.8C. Recent peak temperatures have been in the +1.4C to +1.6C range. See the Data 4 graph on the next page.

continued...............

Papa Smurf

Feb 2, 2005, @ 03:09 PM

Paleoclimatologists theorize that interglacial periods come to an end when polar ice caps melt rapidly (due to high atmospheric temperatures) and increase the amount of fresh water in the sub-polar oceans, thereby altering the thermohaline circulation patterns which govern global climate. The thermohaline "conveyor belts" essentially shut down and stop moving warm water and air away from the equator toward the poles. The net result is colder water and air temperatures. These colder temperatures deepen and continue despite high GTG concentrations left over from the previous interglacial phases.

Given all the new ice core data, what changes can we anticipate for our climate? If CO2 has increased over the past 150 years as much as it normally increases over thousands of years leading up to an interglacial phase (about 80 ppmv), then we could expect as much as a corresponding 10-12C increase in temperature. But if half the historical temperature increases have been due to orbital forcing and other factors, then we should expect an increase of "only" about 5-6C, or 9-11F.

Most computer models don't predict either of these magnitudes of temperature change for the new century. They typically cite evidence indicating that overall global temperatures have not changed as much as polar temperatures, where the ice cores were taken, and that increases of only 2-3C should be anticipated. Unfortunately, new evidence from high-elevation tropical ice cores indicates that this is not really the case. The latest data show that the amplitude of sub-polar temperature changes has been in the range of 8-12C, which is not all that different from the 10-12C found at the poles.

Thus we seem to be headed for some very large climate changes. Temperatures could increase rapidly, and then decrease just as rapidly--as they have repeatedly over the past 420,000 years. Another possibility is that there will be so much GTGs in the atmosphere that they will actually override historical patterns of thermohaline circulation and climate change. It's noteworthy in this context that the current atmospheric methane level is about 230% of its pre-industrial maximum (contrasted with CO2 being about 130% of its pre-industrial maximum). For closer looks at the ice core data for the 18,000 year, 200 year, and 50 year time frames.

The previous diagram shows ice core data for temperature variability and CO2 concentration over the past 420,000 years. Because of the large time scale, the details of how temperature and CO2 have changed in more recent times are not apparent. The graphs on this page are of the same data, but with progressively smaller time scales in order to show those changes. The ranges in temperature variation and CO2 concentration have also been narrowed to highlight changes.

The first graph (Data 2) in this post is for the past 18,000 years. This time period roughly corresponds to the time since the last glacial maximum, that is, when temperatures and CO2 concentrations were lowest. It shows how temperatures and CO2 levels then rose, reached a plateau at the beginning of the present Holocene interglacial phase, and then rose again to above +2C over the plateau around 8,000 years ago. These brief high temperatures triggered a short relapse of colder conditions for about 200 years, but were evidently not hot enough or long enough to trigger another glacial phase.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/IceCores2.gif

This relapse was more pronounced in the northern hemisphere, as was another glacial relapse known as the Younger Dryas around 11,000 BP. It seems the northern hemisphere is affected more by global temperature changes than the southern hemisphere. This could be explained by the fact that the North Polar sea ice is much thinner and much less extensive than the South Polar continental ice, and is therefore much more susceptible to melting under warm conditions, thereby precipitating shifts or shutdowns in the thermohaline circulation. The mass of North Polar sea ice has thinned by at least 50% in just the past 30 years.

The second graph (Data 3) is for the past 200 years. This time period includes all of the Industrial Revolution which began in the mid-1800s. The start of the Industrial Revolution marked the beginning of the large-scale exploitation of fossil fuels. The small dip in temperature in the early 1800s was caused by volcanic eruptions which reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. CO2 inflection points are visible at around 1860, 1950 and 1975. After 1958, the data are from annual air measurements, not ice core proxies, and are therefore of higher quality.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/IceCores3.gif

The third graph (Data 4) illustrates the most recent data set of actual air measurements. It shows how temperatures and CO2 concentrations have increased in recent times. A linear trend line fitted to the temperature data would indicate that the critical +2C level would be reached in about 40 years. But we don't know that the trend is linear. Recent research indicates that it is probably exponential. Or it may be that peak temperatures are more important than mean temperatures. In either of these cases the +2C threshold would be reached much sooner.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/IceCores4.gif

As Wallace Broecker likes to say, the Earth's climate system is "an angry beast" and one that we should not be poking with sticks, which of course is exactly what we are doing with all our carbon dioxide and other GTG emissions. We don't know exactly when or how "the beast" will react, but we do know that it eventually will. It's not a matter of whether, it's only a matter of when and how. Those of you who live in geographcal regions affected by the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation should be especially aware of how sensitive this part of "the beast's" anatomy is to poking and prodding.

Critta

Feb 2, 2005, @ 03:21 PM

Do you know how many times the coral reefs have died?... if you knew shit about coral, then you wouldn't be bringing this up.

But if the coral reefs are dying because of the acidity of the water... the water isn't going to get any less acidic whilst it is still soaking up CO2.

Basically, if this kills them, there is no chance they can come back... the entire coral ecosystems, homes to many hundreds if not thousands of species of sea plants and creatures will ALL be dead.

How do you intend to reduce the acidity of the sea Karma? I don't see that it's feasably possible.

shutupandshave

Feb 2, 2005, @ 03:24 PM

He's going to use his warp drive.

Papa Smurf

Feb 2, 2005, @ 03:36 PM

*cracks open SUAS head and looks at the complex biological computer inside*

*looks at computer scientists*

well? BUILD IT!... dude the games I can play on suas's head should own!

or maybe your logic was pathetically flawed.

Wow Karma you just convinced me..................................

.... you are a total idiot, congratulations.

I was having trouble understanding weather you were just being an idiot to try and annoy people, or weather you were some kind of Idiot American Hilter trying to bring about a true america based on pure evil (affraid GW beat you there though). This second state could of be named as simple idiot but i liked the nazi refrence, after all the mighty Nazis were unstoppable by all the rest of the world, thank god America saved us! still LMFAO

Karmashock

Feb 2, 2005, @ 04:44 PM

It works, but it's not commercial yet... there's a difference between the technology not existing, and it not being commercially viable.

Of course, you would know that being an economist, wouldn't you?
Nope, if we had the technology, then we would have built or designed it already. If that were the case, then no one would be talking about 'possible', they would just say we have.

That is unless you mean PRODUCES MORE POWER THEN IT USES to mean economical. Currently we have no such fusion reactor.

Years and years ago, WE made one that used lasers to bring the temperature of a small region to around that of the sun. We got a stable fusion reaction...

we've been working on this...

however, the MASSIVE machine used more power then it could produce. Ergo, it was not a means for generating power, but of fusing hydrogen atoms together.
=================================
Papa smurf,
that's a lot of data to go through... This is exactly what I wanted.

Give me a few days to do it justice.
=================================
But if the coral reefs are dying because of the acidity of the water... the water isn't going to get any less acidic whilst it is still soaking up CO2.

Basically, if this kills them, there is no chance they can come back... the entire coral ecosystems, homes to many hundreds if not thousands of species of sea plants and creatures will ALL be dead.

How do you intend to reduce the acidity of the sea Karma? I don't see that it's feasably possible.
My understanding is that coral requires a very specific environment to live. If you change just about anything it dies. As a result, it dies a lot. However, later generations adapt to the new conditions and the coral thrives again. That is at least until things change and most of it dies off again. This process goes on and on... it adapts to warmer water, the water cools, it dies, it adapts to cooler water, that warms, the coral dies, and so on

from what I understand this goes for things like acidity... as well. Those huge reefs are built up upon the 'bones' of countless generations of coral that died... for various reasons...
============================
He's going to use his warp drive.
You know, you think you're cute with these little statements, but they just show that I hurt your feelings.

I bring up fairy dust when you talk about fusion power generators, because such things do not as yet exist.

So you come back and hound me with these sad little cheap shots until you feel vindicated. It's positively childish. I don't like the flames but this sort of thing is just flame bait. Knock it off.

Love and peace (*hint* Fucking *hint*), Karmashock.

Edit,
Papa, don’t ruin your good post above with a stupid post that doesn’t do your obvious ability to reason any justice. Suas was implying that because the SUN is a stable fusion reaction that we should be able to make a tiny fusion reactor here on earth… more or less by just copying or something.

I showed how silly that was by pointing out that computer scientists can’t make a computer as sophisticated at his brain just by looking at it. And it could be argued that the computer scientists would have better chance to study his brain then the physicist do the sun… which you obviously can’t take apart (all exotic observation methods noted.).

The nazi references don’t do you any credit either… invoking that is more or less a guarantee that you’re a lightweight.

Anyway, I should hope we can talk about things without devolving to childish remarks that are counter productive to the conversation. I mean, when I insult I typically at least make a point. Did you make one? No. That was an utterly pointless post designed to do no more then wound an untouchable ego. You cannot hurt my feelings… seriously.

shutupandshave

Feb 2, 2005, @ 04:50 PM

Nope, if we had the technology, then we would have built or designed it already. If that were the case, then no one would be talking about 'possible', they would just say we have.

That is unless you mean PRODUCES MORE POWER THEN IT USES to mean economical. Currently we have no such fusion reactor.

Years and years ago, WE made one that used lasers to bring the temperature of a small region to around that of the sun. We got a stable fusion reaction...

we've been working on this...

however, the MASSIVE machine used more power then it could produce. Ergo, it was not a means for generating power, but of fusing hydrogen atoms together.
It seems we have made a bit more progress in the UK then.

Anyway, seeing as you compared it with the antimatter warp drive, then I would like to see how the "uneconomical" version of that is coming along? Of course, you wouldn't be trying to belittle me with those comments - you must have a basis for it... unless you really are pond scum....!?

Karmashock

Feb 2, 2005, @ 05:38 PM

you don't have a NET power generating fusion reactor... so you have nothing.

closer to the goal? perhaps... we're ALL working on it.

shutupandshave

Feb 2, 2005, @ 05:46 PM

Still waiting for links or an apology.

The actual reactoin was gave off 16MW... but I cant find any evidence of what went in...
4MW is a lot of energy to put INTO a system per second... however you must be confident that they did, else you wouldn't have made your claim?

I have no idea what they put in, but then I am not claiming that it has never be done :)

So please, how much energy did they put in per second to maintain the field.

Karmashock

Feb 2, 2005, @ 06:22 PM

which one? ours? how much energy did we put into the fusion reactor? Or is this yours?

either one didn't output enough to even self sustain.

they use far more then they generate.

appologize for what?... pfft.

Karmashock

Feb 2, 2005, @ 07:23 PM

This comments on this 20 degrees nonsense you've just posted.
Climate Cartoon: Simplify and Exaggerate
By Anthony Lupo,Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

A new study published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature [1] late last week, made headlines with the claim that the climate of our world may be more sensitive than we previously thought.

The study, authored by a group based at Britain's Oxford University, indicated the Earth's climate might -- itself too strong a term -- warm as much as 11 degree Celsius (about 20 degree Fahrenheit) under certain scenarios with a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Coming on the heels of a another report from Britain, Meeting the Climate Challenge, stating that the "point of no return" for forestalling disastrous climate change would be reached in 10 years, the mainstream media made the sensational 11 degree C warming scenario the lead subject [2].

What to make of this? As the author Michael Crichton (whose recent book State of Fear pillories undue environmental alarmism) jokingly told a Washington audience last week, "The mass media's dictum is to simplify and exaggerate; the same thing Walt Disney told his cartoonists." The unfunny thing is that is exactly what is going on with the study in Nature.

Indeed, the authors of the study, more than likely, did not intend to highlight the extreme scenario, which almost doubled a high-end estimate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 6 degrees C (about 11 degree F) by the year 2100.

The real point of the Nature article was more boring. The study created a database involving more computer generated General Circulation Model (GCM) climate simulations than ever before. The authors refer to this collection as a "super-ensemble." They accomplished the task of creating it by allowing volunteers to download a computer program that: 1) brought in the GCM to the volunteer's computer, 2) generated a model simulation and 3) uploaded the results back to Oxford. This procedure allowed the scientists to take advantage of unused computing power available worldwide in order to advance science. That is the newsworthy fact -- the ability to take advantage of unused computer power worldwide -- not the results of running the model simulations.

Indeed, the results actually bolster a point made by scientists who are more skeptical of an impending climate disaster. Prominent "skeptics" have pointed out that the large majority of model-generated climate change scenarios point to a more modest warming on the order of 1.4 - 2.8 degrees C (2 - 5o F) by 2100.

In the Nature article, too, the overwhelming majority of the "super-ensemble" simulations show a global warming of 2-4 degrees C within 15 years of doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This tendency for the majority of the simulations to fall into the lower portion of the projected climate change range is consistent with the critique of the skeptics. What's more, despite the extreme range for future warming (1.9 - 11.5 degree C) reported in the article, the global temperatures in the model stabilize after these 15 years

As for the higher end warming, most of the media reports neglected that the GCM used for the study was fairly crude. The experimental design consisted of the equivalent of "hitting the model with a hammer," as The Economist observed, by imposing an instantaneous doubling of CO2 at a point 30 years after the start of the model run. In short, it is on the order of having several volcanic explosions or some other huge unlikely event dump huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere all at once. GCM results that demonstrate lower climate sensitivity generally raise the CO2 concentration gradually to better simulate reality. In addition, the study's doubling of CO2 concentration was beyond even those expected by 2100 (about 650 parts per million) under a "business as usual scenario" (that is if nothing happens that limits CO2 emissions, such as new and better technology).

Finally, the media also fail to understand that the study's increase in warming range is simply a result of using more computer model simulations, a consequence of Chaos Theory.

The real atmosphere is a system that displays "chaotic" tendencies. Model simulations of any system that is considered to be "chaotic" are particularly sensitive to the conditions set for the simulations. There is even an acronym to describe the situation -- SDIC, for sensitively dependent on the initial conditions. To scientists, that is like a warning label on a medicine to be cautious in how something is used. In the case of climate models, the initial conditions are the data that are used at the start of the model simulation. SDIC means that even two sets of a system's initial conditions that are very similar, or even the same, can evolve along widely divergent paths. Thus, the more model simulations that are used or the longer the time line of the simulation or both occur, the greater the range of results that can be expected.

So, the real news of this study published in Nature consists of those things which generally have gone unreported - that the study was able to make use of unused computer power worldwide, that most model simulations showed somewhat modest temperature changes and that the models showed temperature stability after the warming took place.

Those things are a little more complicated to report than a cartoonish 20 degree F warming, thus validating what Crichton jokingly called the media's prime dictum -- to simplify and exaggerate.

The author is professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

NOTES

[1] Stainforth, D.A., T. Aina, C. Christensen, M. Collins, N. Faull, D.J. Frame, J.A. Kettleborough, S. Knight, A. Martin, J.M. Murphy, C. Paini, D. Sexton, L.A. Smith, R.A. Spicer, A.J. Thorpe, and M.R. Allen, 2005: Uncertainty in Predictions of the Climate Response to Rising Levels of Greenhouse Gases. Nature, 433, 403 - 406. (27 January Issue).

[2] Kerr, R.A., Climate Modelers See Scorching Future as a Real Possibility. Science, 307, 497)

shutupandshave

Feb 3, 2005, @ 02:39 AM

You're the one telling me they output less than they input, you tell me what it input.

Wicksy

Feb 3, 2005, @ 02:52 AM

Actually an exothermic fusion reaction did occur at JET, but it was only for about 15 seconds or something.

I'm trying to find the article I read a few months ago that described it. I think it was in Nature. Fusion is on its way, but not for another 20 years or so, at an estimate.

I still say it's the answer, with fission used to plug the gap.

JADezimar

Feb 3, 2005, @ 09:19 AM

How many threads is saus gonna change the subject to lame global warming? Despite the weird fetish going on here or extreme interest in 1 subject. Can we keep it in 1 thread. Global warming bores me and should not be in every thread, there is a reason for topic titles.

(And yes I realize this is the global warning thread)

Karmashock

Feb 3, 2005, @ 01:03 PM

shutupandshave

Feb 3, 2005, @ 01:10 PM

yeah, I just object to people saying we should just build them now when we don't even have the technlogy.
Yeah I would object to that too... however as no one said "build them now", I wonder what you were actually disagreeing with.

I bring up fairy dust when you talk about fusion power generators, because such things do not as yet exist.
You asked me what I wanted you to apologise for, and that was one of the statements... now we've agreed that they do exist.

Incidentally, was the following quote where I said we should immediately build fusion reactors *grins*
We have 250-300 years of fission, hopefully enough time to figure out the fusion issues.

JAD, if you are going to complain about global warming posts, I suggest you do it in a non-global warming thread.

Karmashock

Feb 3, 2005, @ 01:31 PM

There is more hydrogen for Fusion, that America has coal reserves. I guarantee it. America may be a great country, but it's not that great.
the hydrogen is meaningless until it can be used.

Oil is described in the bible... it was just sticky crap in those days... an annoyance.

shutupandshave

Feb 3, 2005, @ 01:34 PM

Indeed it is. Hopefully though, the coal will become irrelevant.

Morpheus

Feb 3, 2005, @ 05:43 PM

I'm still very much against experimenting on the planet and just wait and see what happens. If the prediction is correct and our climate will go to hell, what are we going to say? Ooooops? And if it is not, what bad is going to happen from us putting alot more pressure on increasing emmision and fuel consumption standards? And getting away from oil altogether before it runs out? Our economy may have to adjust a little faster than now, with these baby steps we're doing, but that's about it.

Karmashock

Feb 3, 2005, @ 07:00 PM

how long did it take us to switch from using horses to trains (where trains make sense)?

how long did it take us to switch from coal to gas?

how long did it take planes to become the prime means of inter continental travel after the invention of the first plane?

How long did it take after the invention of a first decent guided rocket for us to put a man on the moon?

We can move very quickly when the technology is there.

180 years is a long time... furthermore, we can gasify coal as we need more later on. Both the US and Russia have the largest reserves of coal. The US has about 2000 years of it and I believe russia has about half of that.

The climate is one thing, the energy is another. We have enough energy.

As to CO2, we can't stop that... sorry, we can't stop. It's like asking us to hold our breath. We need accelerate the planet's ability to digest it if anything. Store it some how...

Asside from algae blooms, I don't know how we're going to do that. Any mechanical system that I know of either uses too much energy or works too slowly.

Again, the US could and would fund and direct a system to suck excess CO2 out of the the atmosphere all by itself if we had something practical. However, we can't stop producing CO2 at huge levels. Even if we changed all power generation to something that produced very little, we'd still have the cars - we're not getting rid of them.

So help us find a solution we can all live with... we can't stop producing.

Papa Smurf

Feb 3, 2005, @ 07:02 PM

Antony Lupo

$95,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Support

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corporate/giving_report.pdf

Now why would he be saying that, oh because his pay masters want him too, hired scientic guns thats all he is, you are quote a scientific no body, against the best in their fields from around the world. Man that is weak is that the best repost you can find.

Yes they are other fluctuations in temp not related to GHG, there are a plethara of explainations possible the most common is volcanic eruption, dust particulates cool the global temprate, however they also lower the potential energy avaliable on the planet, but the undeniable fact is that greenhouse gases have a direct effect on temprate there is a slight delay of about 30 - 50 years then the temp rises i mean look at it Karma and tell me i am wrong. There is a direct corralation between GHG and temprature.

More greenhouse gases = higher temp

if not why?

Are you saying that greenhouse gases do not warm the earth? It is a long established fact that the only reason we are able to survive on the planet is because our atmosphere is capable of trapping energy and thus warming the planet, otherwise it would be a tad cold here, it aint warm in space.

Ice sheets and glaciers form the largest component of perennial ice on Earth. Over 75% of the world's fresh water is presently locked up in these frozen reservoirs.

A Glacier is any large mass of perennial ice that originates on land by the recrystallization of snow or other forms of solid precipitation and that shows evidence of past or present flow. A glacier occupying an extensive tract of relatively level land and exhibiting flow from the center outward is commonly called an ice sheet. Glaciers form when snow accumulates on a patch of land over tens to hundreds of years. The snow eventually becomes so thick that it collapses under its own weight and forms dense glacial ice. When enough of the ice is compacted together it succumbs to gravity and begins to flow downhill or spread out across flat lands. What makes glaciers unique is their ability to move. Due to sheer mass, glaciers flow like very slow rivers.

More than 90 percent of the 33 million cubic kilometers of glacier ice in the world is locked up in the gigantic Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

All this ice means higher sea levels its on land at the moment but it does not look like it going to stay there.

Morpheus

Feb 4, 2005, @ 04:25 PM

Karma, how long did we have internal combustion engines? I don't believe for a second that noone has been able to come up with something that is at least twice as efficient as our current car engines(hybrids don't count, they use electricity).

And does anyone else remember the stink car manufacturers brought up when hybrids were first being introduced? "We can't sell that, we can't make that, noone will buy that", and even something closer to the truth - "It is not as profitable". We need to fight all that bs more aggressively.

JADezimar

Feb 4, 2005, @ 04:37 PM

We need to fight all that bs more aggressively.

It is not bs. When a technology firsts comes out its expensive. Remember when computers were only owned by people with a good deal of money? Or are you too young to realise the price of what new technology can costs?

shutupandshave

Feb 4, 2005, @ 04:51 PM

Yet they still built them, and now lots of people have one.

You're suggesting people should have just given up on computers then?

Karmashock

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:02 PM

Name one thing better for powering a car then an internal combustion engine. Even turbine engines aren't as good.

Internal combustion gives you more power, more quickly, at lower weight, and lower cost.

Nothing can compete when you're talking about small engines that have to rev up and down. Electric power can get close, but the source of it's power tends to be about 5 times the size and weight of the gas tank.

there is no conspiracy... Have you ever driven a car that didn't run on an internal combustion engine? I've driven electrical cars and hydrogen powered cars. In the first case, it had very poor performance and couldn't go very far. In the second case, it had even poorer performance, weighed an extra ton, smelled bad, and cost half a million dollars. I've talked to people that have driven turbine powered cars, they're very rare, and trust me you don't want one of those for anything but perhaps trains or long haul trucks.

Our civilization is not stupid and there is no conspiracy. Research these technologies and understand that each has its virtues.

JADezimar

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:04 PM

Yet they still built them, and now lots of people have one.

You're suggesting people should have just given up on computers then?

Do not be a nag Suas. Look at the quote im responding too. He was saying the car companies were lying about people buying them and them being to expensive to make for a profit.

shutupandshave

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:07 PM

yeah, and you used computers as an example of why that's not true. I used your example. If you think computers shouldn't be used as an example then why did you use them?

JADezimar

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:09 PM

You fucking fool. I never was making a claim about or supporting the fact I did not think they should be made? Stop being a faggot with a dick in his ass reading words into my posts that are not there. I was talking about technology being expensive when it firsts comes out. Seriously saus I know you enjoy irritating me and debating with me. If you want to contine the ability to do that stop fucking purposely trying to misinterpret my posts or I will ignore you.

shutupandshave

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:14 PM

So why did you start talking about computers? I thought you were trying to draw a comparison between the high prices of new technology by using computers and hybrid engines as examples.

If you weren't, then sorry - but I would like to know what you were talking about?

JADezimar

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:16 PM

I was you retard. Morph like i fucking said was calling the car companies liers, when they said that hybrid cars would be outragously expensive to make and of little or no profit. Since they have made those claims is has been a few years, and now your finally starting to see them and they still are expensive as hell. NEW TECHNOLOGY when they were NEW.

COMPUTERS when they were NEW were also extremely expensive THE COMPARISON is becuase they were NEW TECHNOLOGY.

Karmashock

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:18 PM

computers weren't forced on people. the analogy is false. try again.

JADezimar

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:22 PM

hmmmm. No im not saying computers were forced on people. But nor were hybrid cars. That is what I am talking about here. Not whatever the hell you guys are:P

shutupandshave

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:39 PM

Yes the analogy is false.

JAD, you do realise that I never said they shouldn't be made?

JADezimar

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:41 PM

-_-. I never said computers should not be made. i never claimed any of you said that. You wanna continue this sharade?

YOU dill weeds. The whole point of the analogy was technology is expensive to make and produce when it firsts comes out. So it is not readily available and affordable for the general public. THAT is all I WAS saying.

shutupandshave

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:43 PM

Ignore me JAD, as you threatened too.

JADezimar

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:44 PM

You are here by ignored.

Karmashock

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:46 PM

Yes the analogy is false.
you are aware that the analogy was yours? :confused:

shutupandshave

Feb 4, 2005, @ 05:47 PM

No, It was JAD's.

Remember when computers were only owned by people with a good deal of money? Or are you too young to realise the price of what new technology can costs?

Karmashock

Feb 4, 2005, @ 06:06 PM

actually, his version isn't false. Computers came into their own without being forced. That is valid visa ve the internal combustion engine which was not forced. The analogy is only false if you take the > sign and arbitarly switch around to be <, which you are unfortunately guilty of. The analogy can't be used to demonstrate that technology should be forced, which is what you're suggesting.

Give us an example of technology that was forced that is accepted and regarded as superior today? Then you'll have a counter analogy. Until then, you do not. Know however, that you're unlikely to do well with this argument. Hayek himself disproved your statement. I can provide links to that effect if you'd like, though you'd likely lack the context to use the information.

He termed what you are suggesting as the "fatal conceit" of governments to believe themselves in possession of prophetic knowledge and superior understanding of aspects that the millions of people working in markets and industry do not.

You can't force technology. Either it makes sense and is adapted for use, or it does not and remains in development… or in some cases is rightly scrapped.

There are very very few instances where the market was wrong and in NONE of them did any government correct the mistake. There is a first time for everything, but that leaves you without a real world analogy to fall back on. You’ll have to argue the merits of your case on theory alone. This will prove difficult as you don’t seem to understand exactly how good internal combustion engines are for the niche in our system.

savvy?

Morpheus

Feb 4, 2005, @ 06:43 PM

Give us an example of technology that was forced that is accepted and regarded as superior today?

Perhaps it is too early to say, but I think hybrids were. One can argue that hybrids were forced into US market.

About technology - it very easily can be stopped here, in US. If I own Exxon/Mobbile and one day I find out that you came up with a solution to make internal combustion twice as effective, can I not go and offer you $100K for the patent?

I have no need to go looking around for any suspicious evidence that current engines are being put on "hold" on purpose. I just have to check out the computer parts price guide and go "Wow, they put on another .1 Ghz on that new processor in a month". We advance very fast to support economy, we really drag our feet when it comes to environment.

Wicksy

Feb 4, 2005, @ 06:47 PM

The argument about technology in both cars and computers is virtually the same. Neither were forced on to market. Their development was driven by market forces demanding CHEAP (and dirty) transport and CHEAP computing power.

The argument about environmentally friendly cars is different. As long as oil-based vehicles are CHEAPER then the market will favour them. The economics of producing hydrogen/whatever based cars will not favour those vehicles for many years, meaning oil-based cars could continue to dominate.

The difference is, we now have another force dictating the solution (besides market forces): the environmental force.

Market forces will (well, they SHOULD) become irrelevant in this matter, because we either change our vehicle technology quickly or we'll screw the Earth.

Wicksy

Feb 4, 2005, @ 06:56 PM

The risks from global warming are more serious than previously thought, a major climate conference has concluded.

In its final report, the committee which organised the UK Met Office meeting said the impacts of climate change were already being felt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4234467.stm

Karmashock

Feb 4, 2005, @ 07:14 PM

Perhaps it is too early to say, but I think hybrids were. One can argue that hybrids were forced into US market.
I think it is too earily to say. Hybrids will become standard at some point, but not because of the government.

There is no conspiracy. Hybrids cost too much. Look at their cost. THey add about 10,000 dollars to the cost of any vehicle and that is WITH the government tax breaks. They're not currently feasible. We have lots of gas and the technology is going along just fine. Further, while hybrids make sense on larger vehicles, they don't make much sense on anything where performance is important. Perhaps again, good for little minis that get damn near 50 miles to the gallon anyway, but not so much for sports cars that don't work as well with all that extra weight.

Furthermore, I have yet to see anyone bother to note the fact that most trains use more gas/energy then if the passengers were driving... this is true in both the US and Europe. In the US the very low passenger rate on trains makes the per person mileage appalling. In Europe, while you have much better traffic on your trains, your cars are also so much more fuel efficient as to cancel that out. The only case for trains is that they take up less space in dense cities then a bunch of people in cars... beyond that, there isn't much point.

Currently in the US, most of shipping is done with trucks over trains. The reason for this is that trucks cost less to ship things then trains do... the only exception being heavy freight like live stock, timber, and coal... which are still transported by train.

I repeat, we are not stupid and there is no conspiracy. Chill out.

Morpheus

Feb 4, 2005, @ 11:09 PM

Karmashock

Feb 4, 2005, @ 11:19 PM

Hybrids do cost more, but did you include cost saving from using less gasoline? For some reason people buy hybrids very well in here. And I doubt many people drive formula 1 on the streets much, the other "sports" cars need to be taxed to death so that people pay for their extra pollution.
As to hybrids, they don't make sense in the US. I don't know if they make sense in europe. Your fuel costs are almost 5 times our own.

As to sports cars, the pollution they kick out must be put into a larger perspective. Once you tax them consider cruise ships? Or consider air planes? Consider the energy cost of the thousands of things we do.

You're deciding what is allowed and what is not on a grand scale that you lack the unified morality to do accurately.

If I understood this right, in Europe there are more people on trains and cars are more fuel efficient, which means that there's less pollution from engines. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Not entirely. While trains make sense in urban areas, they're less efficient for inter city travel then cars are in general. This is true in the US and europe. Look at the per person fuel consumption of trains and compare it with cars... normal cars are more efficient and your economy cars are far far more efficient.

As for the trucks - hybrids may not be the answer to them, but even then, converting regualr cars to hybrids to reduce pollution doesn't have any bad sides, at least to me.
Actually, I was saying that hybrids make the most sense for trucks.

As to the cost of total conversion, the added weight often eats up whatever savings you might have otherwise made from fuel savings and the initial outlay of capital is still too high. We'll have to wait until they can be integrated more cheaply.

Wicksy

Feb 4, 2005, @ 11:32 PM

We'll have to wait until they can be integrated more cheaply.

In other words, wait until we all wake up one day and realise that actually, we could do something about climate change. Unfortunately by then its far too late.

There is no time.

Karmashock

Feb 4, 2005, @ 11:45 PM

hybrid cars could never and will never be enough. Kyoto is 1/30 the number required if the numbers from the doomsayers is accurate... and the accuracy of those numbers is increasingly suspect.

this doomsaying is just ridiculous.

Stop panicing.

or continue and sign up for the sequal.
http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/

Honestly, at this point, this hysteria has creeped out the US public. We're not doing shit until we get very very hard science. Those are the facts.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Morpheus

Feb 5, 2005, @ 01:45 AM

Actually I'm not even talking about doomsaying. Do the cars release carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide to the atmosphere? One is an asphyxiate, the other is a poison. Getting away from oil is best, but that's not immidiate(doesn't mean we don't need to actively pursue it). Hybrids help, period. Economical for people, less profitable for car manufacturers and expecially gasoline companies, perioid.

What do you propose? Wait one hundred years to come up with something good, in mean time do nothing? I'm yet to see your solution(or even concern) for pollution. If you think there's no problem, then we have nothing to talk about.

Karmashock

Feb 5, 2005, @ 03:31 AM

one happens to be one of the most common elements in our atmosphere and the sustain ace of plants.

the other is mostly taken care of by the catalytic converter and is in any case not very toxic and very short lived.
--------------------------------
as to profit, the car makers have nothing to do with it. It is the people that have to buy this crap. If we were all billionaires, the car companies would sell us dozens of super cars a piece. The cost control of car companies has very little to do with their bottom line, at least when it comes to hybrid cars. The simple fact is that people, if given a choice between the two, choose the non-hybrid car. They remain too expensive to justify the outlay and AGAIN they don't have as much of a fuel savings as you'd think. A small car with a reasonable engine can get damn near 50 miles to the gallon. Very few hybrids can claim more then that, and those that do don't do much better. Considering that they cost roughly 10,000 dollars more AT LEAST, there is no logic in that outlay. Likely what ever energy savings in the running of the car will be consumed by industry in making the hybrid components in the first place. Did you consider that?

Don't force it. Industry is working on ways around this and even if they fail, we have no energy problems for centuries there after. I don't know how many times I have to tell you about the international coal supply which vastly out stripes our oil reserves. Furthermore, the US specifically has the cleanest coal in the world. It has a very very low sulfur content.

We need solar, hydro electric, and thermal power. Everything else is far more finite.

Solar requires cells placed just about everywhere. You'd need them on every roof top on every building in every country. they're far far too expensive to be used like that. So that technology needs to improve.

Hydro electric is going to require new damns just about everywhere. People are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the nature of the world around them is going to have to service this need. If it ruins your view or makes it hard for fish to spawn, then that's tough. We can do our best to make things easier on the fish and maybe put some interesting architecture on the damns... but they must be built.

Thermal power is a big out lay of capital. We’ll likely need to drill down to get at the hot rocks near the magma. But this power source is excellent and abundant. The earth’s core might cool a little faster, but that’s marginal.

There are also some ideas about sky hooks which can generate power by making use of electrical differentials in the atmosphere.

On and on. It’s a mistake to think you know the future. You do not. Think of what people knew of the future a hundred years ago. Not 60 but 100. What we’re doing right now is total science fiction to those people. Don’t shackle the present with your false nightmares of the future. That nonsense has never come true and I don’t think it shall. People of the past predicted that the growing populations would cause humanity to forever remain in hunger and misery. However, even before he died that theorist had to concede that humanity was generally getting better and better fed despite the growing population.

The power seems like an all critical need, but it might be as abundant as food is now. And before you tell me that’s crazy, consider how crazy the situation with food would seem to someone from even 200 years ago.

The future is bright, lets not get all bend out of shape by this nonsense.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Morpheus

Feb 5, 2005, @ 04:04 AM

*Sigh* Could've just said plain and simple "I don't think there's a problem". None of that lengthy essay convinced me, anyways.

Karmashock

Feb 5, 2005, @ 04:37 AM

did you read it? it was quite a bit more complicated then that. The really interesting stuff is always in the longer ones ;)

JADezimar

Feb 5, 2005, @ 04:39 AM

If you feel humanities technology will not improve to handle these problems in the future morph, I would hate to see where we truly are in 200 years. The fact of the matter is look at how fasts technology has advanced in the last 50 years alone? We are making incredible leaps and jumps, there have always been people freaking out about the end of the world through out history, it still has not happened. It will do your mind some good and put you at a bit of peace of mind if you work towards a better future, but not freak out about what could happn. Go Hug a tree.

Karmashock

Feb 5, 2005, @ 05:06 AM

in the future trees will hug you back... then bitch slap you and make you call them daddy.

shutupandshave

Feb 6, 2005, @ 08:48 PM

So we have NO evidence from the pro-pollution people that hasn't been bigcorp sponsored
and a shit load of evidence saying the world is fucked.

Always good to see that the people on these boards react well to evidence.

Karmashock

Feb 6, 2005, @ 08:57 PM

there are no pro pollution people.

If you look at ALL man made green house gas emissions, they account for TWO percent of total green house gases in the atmosphere. 98 percent is natural... and most of that is water vapor.

MVB

Feb 6, 2005, @ 09:00 PM

Global warming is bs ... I'm not taking part in this discussion, but I'll tell you that after debating it heavily in hs, debating and learning about it heavily in the history of american tech and nature, etc., it's nothing but scare tactics and shortsighted scientists without knowledge of the past. Just my $.02, and it stops there. I haven't read ANY GOOD EVIDENCE, although there IS a shitload, to support it.

shutupandshave

Feb 6, 2005, @ 09:10 PM

Thanks for coming here and laying down the law.
I remember you doing that in the middle of a WMD discussion once... something about WMD being proven to exist... and yes I will keep bringing it up until you... well you know.

I fucking hope it's all bs, but I dont think it is.

Until I see some evidence that it's bs (I have seen enough evidence FOR it being real), then I think I am going to be CRAZY and support the evidence, and not a hunch.

MVB

Feb 6, 2005, @ 09:13 PM

The evidence is a hunch, for the most part. It's not laying down the law, just sharing my opinion (as that's all it is). It was a kneejerk, mostly; I just am too tired of the subject to actually get deep into an argument about it, so I shouldn't have posted in the first place.

shutupandshave

Feb 6, 2005, @ 09:16 PM

hmm, but you did.

I want to see some evidence that supports you way of thinking. Hell you may be right, what's more I HOPE you're right... help me believe it.

Karmashock

Feb 6, 2005, @ 09:35 PM

there is a whole site for it...
http://www.globalwarming.org/

pure wall to wall "global warming = bullshit" material.

Morpheus

Feb 7, 2005, @ 06:07 AM

Trying to find the truth in today's world where even the science can be bought off with money seems to be extremely difficult. Car exhaust kills, if you don't believe me, get in a car and drag a hose from exhaust to the inside and see what happens. You breathe that same stuff when you're driving down the road, maybe in lower concentrations, but over long periods of time. I don't care for IDLH levels, but we don't even know how this everyday pollution is affecting us, mostly because we don't really want to know.

Karmashock

Feb 7, 2005, @ 07:13 AM

you don't think it can be bought on both sides? Please... you want me to post articles where people are practically threatened if they don't validate global warming?

JADezimar

Feb 7, 2005, @ 08:11 AM

TreeHuggers, have went as far as Assaulting governors and lumberjacks.

shutupandshave

Feb 7, 2005, @ 04:49 PM

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=894

This is the first article I looked at.

"South Polar air samples record atmospheric CO2 rising from 328 ppmv to 373 ppmv subsequent to the 1949-1974 temperature increase - almost 15% increase apparently without affecting Polar temperatures"

Now click on the link next to it, and you'll notice some text on the graph that says:
"The Antartic did warm - from 1949 to 1974"

Really, first link.

Having read through a few more, they're entire base of argument revolves around the south pole melting. They also pick individual moments when a part of the world is cooling, then focus on that and use it as evidence that there is no global warming.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=881

Both of these graphs show an increase. I would be very interested to know how the graph looks over the last 500 years...

Karmashock

Feb 7, 2005, @ 05:44 PM

here ye go
“Hockeystick” Broken Again

A major IPCC claim is that the 20th century was the warmest in the past 1000 years – and therefore “proves” a human influence. It pretends to show a steadily decreasing temperature from about 1000AD till 1850, when it suddenly turns up sharply -- presumably because of greenhouse warming. Hence the name “hockeystick Never mind that all this is wishful thinking and proves nothing. It isn't even true!

Our readers know that this claim is based mainly on a single and likely flawed study, published in Nature in 1998 by Mann, Bradley and Hughes. While it has been stalwartly defended by Global Warming apologists, we have realized for several years that the work is suspect. First, every other analyst of proxy data has concluded that there was a Medieval warming period likely warmer than the 20th century. This evidence was most recently reviewed by Soon and Baliunas, who have been widely attacked for their temerity. (How dare they doubt the IPCC?) In Nov 2003, McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out that the actual data used by Mann et al had been mann-handled, suggesting that they had been doctored. Mann has been forced to publish a Corrigendum in Nature but the dispute is not yet settled.

Now one of IPCC's icons, German climate modeler Hans von Storch has published a bombshell paper that breaks the hockeystick into little pieces. We publish here different perspectives on this paper.

1) First, v Storch himself, in an Oct 10 interview in the German weekly Der Spiegel (41, Oct 4,-2004, p158), he comments on the dispute between scientists concerning the temperature curve of the last thousand years and the greenhouse effect.

"The Mann graph indicates that it was never warmer during the last thousand years than it is today. In a near perfect slope the curve declines from the Middle Ages up to 1800, only to shoot up sharply with the beginning of fossil-fuel burning. Mann's calculations rest, inter alia, on analyses of tree rings and corals. We were able to show in a publication in 'Science' that this graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: rubbish."

[SFS A better translation of “Quatsch” might be “Junk”]

"His influence in the community of climate researchers is great. And Mann rejects any reproach most forcefully. His defensiveness is understandable. Nobody likes to see his own child die. But we must respect our credibility as research scientists. Otherwise we play into the hands of those sceptics of global climate change who imagine a conspiracy between science and politics."

MVB

Feb 7, 2005, @ 05:51 PM

The trick, to most of this, is that global warming is not happening at an unnatural or odd pace. It is still far below the average over the past 3,000 years, actually, following a "little" ice age of around 300 years ago. Global temperatures have been rising since then, unsurprisingly. This coincides with the statement of the IPCC that for the last 300 years global temperatures have been rising, but they use this rise in temeperatures to indicate the coming of a traumatic event. In reality, temperatures had been rising before dropping again into the little cooling age of 300 years ago, and before that had been rising and dropping over a series of cycles for the history of our modern climate (going back millions of years).

It IS accurate to state that human beings have been partially responsible for rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and as a result may be partially responsible for rising temperatures. What is not accurate is coming to the conclusion of impending doom for the environment as a result of this.

The primary result of increased hydrocarbon presence in the atmosphere is an increase in plant growth across a wide range of the planet. In the US, for instance, standing timber has increased more than 30% since 1950. Plant growth matches increased hydrocarbon presence in the atmosphere, and as more plants grow, the level of hydrocarbons tends to balance out over time. Nutrient import and export is the key to the game. We cannot export nutrients from Earth, but we as humans are exporting nutrients from stored hydrocarbon into plantlife, which will then return to the life cycle of the planet. There has been some warming, but even the warming is not biologically damaging, and we are much lower than highs over the past 3,000 years, none of which have caused cataclysmic events.

The bigger problem would be artificial clearing of trees. Fortunately, this is beginning to be arrested in certain areas, as conservation theory works its way to the third world, but if trees are unnaturally removed from the environment, they cannot continue to grow and use the excess hydrocarbons being present. If we were to somehow reduce the hydrocarbon release from the Earth, tree densities globally would decrease, and over time the hydrocarbon presence in the atmosphere would balance out just as surely as it will if it increases and more plantlife grows in response.

The problem, generally, is that the global warming hypothesis supporters are highly shortsighted in their analysis. Yes, I'm a history major, but I'm also a minor in marine sciences, and have a background well known here in biology, ecology and animal life. If you want evidence, I can provide it, but hopefully the basic points here are fairly clear, and also fairly common sense.

If you increase hydrocarbon presence in the atmosphere, those nutrients don't just "sit" there, which is what global warming proponents would have you believe. Plantlife across our Earth USES these things in their biological processes, and in fact without CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere we'd be totally fucked, and wouldn't even be here.

They also pick individual moments when a part of the world is cooling, then focus on that and use it as evidence that there is no global warming.
You're not reading good arguments, then. The people who actually know what they are talking about realize that there is a current warming trend going on, but also realize that cooling trends and warming trends have intersected over the history of our planet, and the current warming trend is by no means unnatural, accelerated, or out of whack (if you compare it to past trends). Historically and geologically, as CO2 rises and the planet warms, plantlife increases. As the plantlife increases enough, CO2 begins to become short again, and the planet begins to cool, and plantlife decreases. As plantlife dies off, it and other events release CO2 back into the atmosphere, at which point the cycle begins anew. We are accelerating the plant-growth trend slightly by releasing MORE hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, but the planet has never been anywhere near its limit point on plantgrowth or nutrient use. The worst thing that will happen is a) we get a little warmer, not overly noticeable, but present if you're researching it, b) we continue to cut plants in some areas like the rain forests, causing the excess plant/tree growth to occur in more deciduous areas like the United States, so instead of more tropical rain forests we get more pine forests and the like, and c) a few hundred years from now everybody starts freaking out about a cooling trend, how our new hydrogen vehicles aren't generating enough CO2, and how we're going to bring about a new ice age that will drown the world in frozen tundra.

Karmashock

Feb 7, 2005, @ 05:59 PM

you know it's bullshit because you see these curves going way out into infinity...

where have we seen this bs before?

Just about every other doom graph ever... all of them have been wrong... just about ten seconds after the graph gets published the numbers level out... population, food, nuclear winter... you name it. They all have these figures that go off into space and they're all wrong...

In a few instances they're just playing with the computer... for instance, if they put CO2 into the model slowly, nothing really happens, but it dump 10 times the total amount we'll put into it over 200 years, then the equations in the machine have a fit and output spikes in model... Apparently this has to do with the chaos math they're doing... not my thing... but that anyone can see that that's wrong.

MVB

Feb 7, 2005, @ 06:00 PM

Allow me to use the microcosm of a marine aquarium to demonstrate what is happening. CO2, and any other hydrocarbon, is simply a type of nutrient. We're going to take a big marine aquarium that never has water changes done, as we cannot change our planet by venting some of our atmosphere into outer space and bringing new atmosphere in from some interstellar atmospheric faucet.

In the case of a marine aquarium, there is a certain amount of nutrient you want to add, depending on your bioload, to keep it looking "pretty." If you add "x" amount of food for "x" amount of corals and fish and pretty invertebrates, everything stays peachy keen. If you add too much, however, the aquarium doesn't explode and die. Instead, what happens is the excess nutrient is fed upon by what aquarists call "nuisance algaes," but which are in reality simply different kinds of highly competitive plants taking advantage of the extra nutrients. Since we aren't doing water changes, right before the algaes start feeding and growing, our "pollutant" level of things such as NO3 will spike in the aquarium, causing nervous aquarists to go "omg look I have nitrates ohnoez!" After this spike, which in the much smaller world of a glass box full of water happens in a much shorter period of time than it happens across all of Earth, the spike goes down as algaes form to eat the excess pollutant, and boom -- you've got more algae than you originally wanted, but your pollutants are back down and your fish and what-not are no worse for wear in an aquarium that maybe looks a little less pretty b/c it's got algaes you don't like the look of.

In the longterm, the "problem" will be that if an eye isn't kept on the algaes, they'll overgrow the corals and other inverts, causing a loss of biodiversity in the aquarium, but not a loss of health of the non-photosynthetic, non-hydrocarbon-feeding inhabitants (this would represent us and other mammals, fish, etc. on planet Earth). A good aquarist, however, could simply trim the algaes and allow the corals and other photosynthesizers to continue to take a role in the nutrient management.

To wit, we are adding extra nutrient to our Earth, which will cause the growth of photosynthesizers to feed upon it. If we trim our rain forests, then other forests and plant life will assist in the role of nutrient management. If we trim all our forests, coral reefs will take a greater role in nutrient management. All of these things are totally natural, and what happens on Earth ANYWAY. After a cataclysmic event millions of years ago, a large amount of plant and animal life, and all the hydrocarbons contained within them, died off, resulting in a massive loss of biodiversity. In fact, right now, DUE to all the fossil fuels still left in Earth taking up a large % of our global nutrients, we have a very low global level of biodiversity at the moment. The worst thing (and it's not bad at all) that can happen as a result of all these new nutrients being resubmitted to the environment of our planet is a jumpstart of biodiversity and evolution across Earth. It's even possible that in 1,000 years, our ancestors will be significantly more advanced simply as a result of the "global warming" we are slightly contributing to today.

MVB

Feb 7, 2005, @ 06:02 PM

In essence, the scientists who are being paid by special interest groups such as environmentalist groups (God save us all from hardcore environmentalists, and God please advance the notion of conservationism to the world, Amen) are feeding off the ignorance of the masses. 9/10 people don't even think of CO2 as a nutrient (which it most certainly is), and the vast majority of people don't have a clue how an ecosystem works, how nutrient import and export works, etc., and certainly don't understand that increased hydrocarbon presence in the atmosphere, compressed over a level of time that actually matters to the breathing of the Earth, is just an increase in nutrient to be used by increasing plant, tree, and eventually animal life on a planet engaging in a period of biological rejuvenation.

stats

Feb 7, 2005, @ 06:08 PM

MVB;

let me just add something to that, continuing from this point:

and boom -- you've got more algae than you originally wanted

and they start to reproduce and photosythesise using co2 however algae also use just as much oxygen and wham - you have oxgen deprevation and starvation as the algae consume more and more nutrients and light is also blocked out that would reach the water bed, the excess phosphate levels kill off the fish and the plants explode with the excess rate - but in doing so consume even more of the nutrients until, the the nutrients are exausted to a point where nothing can grow anymore, the water stagnates and the river beds errode with the loss of the plants - who's roots were holding them together.

A reef tank is not a good model for the planet.

discuss.

(ps sorry if that was a little scratchy)

damn you and ur expanding posts mike

MVB

Feb 7, 2005, @ 06:23 PM

Algae releases just as much O2 as plants as well. CO2 absorption roughly equates to O2 absorption. They are not unproportional. As plants go up, CO2 goes down, and O2 goes up, roughly. Overnight, O2 is used to a LESSER extent, and CO2 is released to a LESSER extent, in basically reverse photosynthesis.

Karmashock

Feb 7, 2005, @ 06:38 PM

The one thing I keep coming back to, is that the total percent of greenhouse gases produced by man OVERALL only amount to about 2 percent of the total. 98 percent are natural. So if actually try to influence the system, we can.

We can engineer some algae that is hyper active and then seed it in the ocean... the better for the ecosystem over all the better.

if that doesn't pan out, we can also use a current strain.

MVB

Feb 7, 2005, @ 06:46 PM

Seeding a hyper active algae in the ocean would be stupid. It would overgrow the reefs, and gg World.

Karmashock

Feb 7, 2005, @ 07:25 PM

not if it needed something else to grow, that only we provided. :)

most of this algae stuff requires a fertilizer for it work in the deep ocean... so that's the only place we feed it. :)

LardGibs

Feb 7, 2005, @ 07:34 PM

Hi, I'm back into the cesspit.

Karma, stick to the 'economics' ok? You don't know shit about science and :google: is not the place to learn it. FYI genetically modified organisms are always less robust than their unmodified progenitors. ALWAYS.

MVB, don't tell me about CO2 as a nutrient. Take the CO2 bubbler and leave on in your precious nanoreef, and the entire thing will dissolve. The photosynthesis reaction (the most significant carbon fixation reaction) Requires Solar Input. H-nu. Ergo, it is not an infinitely available instantly acting balancer of atmospheric CO2. Also, CO2 is not a hydrocarbon, it's a carbon oxide, which is an inorganic chemical, FYI.

There's scads of calcium carbonate on the seafloor from aeons of 'ocean fertilization' BUT CO2 has to diffuse to it and it doesn't due to stratification and density effects. Why don't you use Karmashock's fourth law of instant mass transfer to solve the problem? because it's shiteshiteshite.

CO2 = acid, ocean pH has dropped .1 pH units which corresponds to GigaMoles of CO2 dissolved.

Karmashock

Feb 7, 2005, @ 07:57 PM

FYI genetically modified organisms are always less robust than their unmodified progenitors. ALWAYS.
How was I modifying them? Did I tell you? No I didn't.

The modification I was thinking of is one that absorbed more carbon then is normal. Maybe htey just make growths that store it or something. Something simple like that, if possible, could magnefy the effect greatly. Furthermore, I don't want them robust. I want them to live in the farms in the middle of hte sea, and no where else.

Why don't you use Karmashock's fourth law of instant mass transfer to solve the problem? because it's shiteshiteshite.
Hey, I assumed that the people suggesting this at least knew something... if they didn't then that was my error in putting faith in the wrong experts.

What I do know is that we can't stop producing carbon. WE CAN"T STOP!!!!!!!!!

So come up with another solution or shut up. Because listening to people bitch about this climate change stuff when we can't stop is just annoying.

CO2 = acid, ocean pH has dropped .1 pH units which corresponds to GigaMoles of CO2 dissolved.
If we need machine to take it out of the air, that's fine too... it will probably just be far too slow or effective to matter.

Oh well. :)

MVB

Feb 7, 2005, @ 08:06 PM

Global warming in general is not limited to only CO2, lard, which is what a lot of people will point out scientifically, and CO2 IS a nutrient in the sense that it is utilized by plants and processed into Oxygen. We are not releasing any significant numbers of completely unuseable, inert materials into the atmosphere.

As far as ocean pH dropping, there's a record of pH fluctuations within the ocean as well, and they certainly fluctuate within the realm of aquaria also ... perhaps the fact that basically all vert and invert life can live at pH's ranging from 7.7-8.7 that live in the ocean should be an indicator that minor shifts are natural, and completely survivable.

LardGibs

Feb 7, 2005, @ 08:30 PM

survivin' ain the same as livin'.

If a coral has to incur 40% more metabolic energy to mineralize the exoskeleton than normal, it doesn't take a wizard to deduce that at some point, mineralization stops in the presence of acid.

I'm parroting from here (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4196).

Machines, powered by solar or nuclear energy, are the only way to rapidly reduce atmospheric CO2 IMO, and it will take decades of development by skilled scientists and engineers to create such a system, probably using nanotechnology and chemical catalysis. My issue of acidity is not totally chained to global warming, it is rather a parallel consequence of fossil fuel burning, I'm perfectly aware of the other greenhouse gases, including hydrocarbons.

The reality is we'll be forced to use drastic means like orbiting mirrors or stratospheric aerosols to control climate, and probably when Karmashock is in office, stuffing his cigar in his intern's 'gina, he won't give a fuck and will spend the money on bombs.

Finally, you ask for a solution. I'll use an analogy. In the Civil War, the solution to infection was amputation. Not a popular solution, seems archaic compared to what is done today. I don't want to use an amputation solution to carbon emissions any more than you do, but amputation is a solution, and antibiotics 100 years in the future don't save any lives today (in the Civil War).

Wicksy

Feb 7, 2005, @ 09:19 PM

The modification I was thinking of is one that absorbed more carbon then is normal. Maybe htey just make growths that store it or something. Something simple like that, if possible, could magnefy the effect greatly. Furthermore, I don't want them robust. I want them to live in the farms in the middle of hte sea, and no where else.
This is an undeveloped technology, and you'd need "fairy dust" to make this work.

What I do know is that we can't stop producing carbon. WE CAN"T STOP!!!!!!!!!
Well we COULD. Whether we WILL is another matter. I don't believe we will, at least not before its too late to do anything about it. In that case, much of the human race (and many other species on this planet) will be doomed.

So come up with another solution or shut up. Because listening to people bitch about this climate change stuff when we can't stop is just annoying.
Fusion.

We are not releasing any significant numbers of completely unuseable, inert materials into the atmosphere.
What we've done is extract billions and billions of tons of carbon from the Earth's crust, oxidised it and pumped it into the atmosphere. It's a man-made redistribution of carbon, basically. Nature put it in the crust, and as such the climate settled into a delicate equilibrium that accounted for all that carbon being safely locked up underground.
We've totally screwed that equilibrium. The Earth will adjust of course to form a new equilibrium. But as with most things in nature, that will not be a fast process. In the meantime we'll have to face new realities that will not be very nice.

As far as ocean pH dropping, there's a record of pH fluctuations within the ocean as well, and they certainly fluctuate within the realm of aquaria also ... perhaps the fact that basically all vert and invert life can live at pH's ranging from 7.7-8.7 that live in the ocean should be an indicator that minor shifts are natural, and completely survivable
I keep hearing this... "CO2 levels were high once upon a time... pH levels were low once upon a time".
Yes, they were. BUT we weren't around at that time to see it. If we were, we would've seen the effects of those phenomena. Nature took thousands or millions of years (from those starting points) to make the Earth look like it does today. In other words, all the places that are habitable (and inhabited) today are the result of cosmic time scales and delicate equilibria. Which we've gone and royally f*cked.

Karmashock

Feb 7, 2005, @ 09:31 PM

The reality is we'll be forced to use drastic means like orbiting mirrors or stratospheric aerosols to control climate, and probably when Karmashock is in office, stuffing his cigar in his intern's 'gina, he won't give a fuck and will spend the money on bombs.
Come now, are you so petty as to stoop to such asinine insults? Let us not quarel here.

I do care, but the solutions must be politicall and economically sound. You can't shut down industry.

the solution to infection was amputation.
Our society cannot continue without industry.

If worset comes to worset, we'll go with a polluted world over dead industry.

This is an economic reality. So come to a solution that's worth something. We can't stop anymore then you can stop breathing.
==============================
This is an undeveloped technology, and you'd need "fairy dust" to make this work.
That was a snarky little comment... As I think has been pointed out, that would only ENHANCE something that would in itself work... even if it made the seas toxic in the process, which I'm no authority on. Genetic engineering is something we know a great deal more about then sustainable fusion reactors at this point.

Couldn't we just dump something else in the water to neutralize the acid?... something that would if anything be good for the life in the sea?... calcium or something...
Well we COULD.
and we COULD send people around the world by shooting them in cannons... the fact that no one would arrive alive is just a detail.

It's called being practical. We can't stop.

Fusion.
Alright, build it. We'll shut down a coal plant for every fusion reactor you build in its place... ok?
*waits* :rolleyes:

Love and peace, Karmashock.

JADezimar

Feb 8, 2005, @ 01:43 AM

There is another side of the global warming that no one ever brings up. Scientists have done studies and also beleive the earth since its beginnnings, have been through multiple hot stages and iceages. Deos that not raise a question marK?

(I will not further clarify, only those that can diagnose what that means, Need to be involved in this debate)

Karmashock

Feb 8, 2005, @ 02:55 AM

There are two things wrong with Kyoto that I think should should be address... assuming that global warming is completely real.

One: The developed world currently produces LESS CO2 then the undeveloped world.
Two: Deforestation and the destruction of carbon sinks is just as bad if not worse then CO2 emissions.

The prime culpert in both cases is primarily developing or subsisting economies.

Morpheus

Feb 8, 2005, @ 05:50 AM

I do care, but the solutions must be politicall and economically sound. You can't shut down industry.

Our society cannot continue without industry.

If worset comes to worset, we'll go with a polluted world over dead industry.

This is an economic reality. So come to a solution that's worth something. We can't stop anymore then you can stop breathing.

I keep seeing you posting this. Tell me, now much money has been put in into developing solutions? How much of that money came from the industries that are responsible for emission? The industry DOESN'T CARE about global warming or pollution as long as it is not directly harming anyone right now, and it is agruable what's going to happen in the future. One could tie in pollution to the increasing rates of asthma and cancers, but then again, there isn't 100% proof of that and anything else is never good enough.
I don't think that we just can't come up with a solution, I think that we're extremely reluctunt to invest in something that produces cleaner enviroment instead of hard cash.

Karmashock

Feb 8, 2005, @ 06:27 AM

They'll invest in anything if they'll get credit for it. If they know they're going to get treated like crap no matter what they do, then they just do their best to protect themselves.

Look, the tobacco industry gets hit with a couple billion in legal settlements every year. Now, if you told them "donate 90 percent of what you're likely to get nailed with in a given year to the mayo clinic or some other group working to cure cancer, and we'll protect you from further specious lawsuits" - they'd do it in a heart beat. Same deal with all the corps. They get scared by people walking around their finely tuned buinesses with sledge hammers. It isn't about morality, it isn't about being right, it isn't about being wrong, it's about the thin margin of profit, generations that it took to build the captial engines.

A simple oil refinery costs between 2 and 4 billion dollars. An oil tanker costs hundreds of millions of dollars... and every quarter they have to compete with for production, refining, and transport. It is VERY hard to do all of this and stay profitable. The whole thing is like a very fine tuned machine and governments don't give them a clear idea of what they're supposed to do about anything.

Corperations can't spend a lot of money on charity. This is not what's built into the contract. They're like golums. They were called into being to generate wealth. That is what defines them and their hundreds of thousands to millions of shareholders expect them to hold to the contract.

If you just tax some of them, then the taxed ones will either wither and die or leave. If you tax them all, then the taxes will get passed on to the customer (read "you"). In a corperation money flows in and money flows out. It's like a cash jet engine... and it can't afford to put a lot of 'fuel' into something else UNLESS it gets something in return. In this case all they'd likely demand is some moderate protection from specious lawsuits and "goodwill" (read "no bullshit or name calling").

They exist in a world of risk. No one looks out for them. They're on their own and they expect the respect that the indepedents always do. You say they're destroying the environment? Liar. You are as much as anyone. Everytime you get in a car or plane. They feed demand. If they just stopped and said "we can't do this anymore, it isn't moral" do you know what would happen? THe whole management would get fired in about a week and replaced. The engines would start up again the world would go on. Who would fire them? The shareholders... the millions of shareholders. If the company was just totally disbanded then someone else would do it. The demand must be met and someone will meet it. The oil companies know damn well that they have a long future before them, because oil is not going away and it isn't as scarce as people think.

Honestly... I don't know how you have the gall to bitch at them for anything unless a given company personally polluted a given area... the rest is everyone's fault.

Psy

Feb 8, 2005, @ 07:54 AM

edit: NM

No amount of scientific data will satisfy you as it is all derivative inconclusive statistical analysys but in your gut you can not possibly ignore that the industry by-products are toxic and not natural in our enviroment and can not possibly be harmless - only effect they have is NEGATIVE and with time that effect is CUMULATIVE. Think ffs.

Common sense however speaks volumes about the ignorance and idiocy of our industry. Koyoto is a step - MORE needs to be done.

ps: I dont drive and one of the main reasons is precisely the effect it has. Just like I dont step on rain worms when it rains.... and as funny as I may look - moving those said rainworms from the sidewalk to the ground is ZERO effort and i dont care how that makes me look.... I wouldnt pull the tree hugger shit as I never hugged a tree - I just go by the simple concept of right and wrong in life - no shades of gray.

Karmashock

Feb 8, 2005, @ 08:02 AM

Kyoto is a mistake and needs to be renegotiated.

shutupandshave

Feb 8, 2005, @ 11:25 AM

Karma, I emailed the fusion reactor people about whether it was net gain or loss (taking into account and not taking into account the energy that was used to initially charge the magnetic coils).

He said that
1) Comparing it with an antimatter warp drive was silly
2) It was a net gain if you dont count the coil charging, but a net loss overall... This is due to the size of the plasma ball.
3) They are going to build a new one which has a lot more plasma and it will produce a shit load of energy.

Karmashock

Feb 8, 2005, @ 11:43 AM

Good. If it works, we'll build thousands. :)

and the Japanese will make them ridiculously tiny... :p

MVB

Feb 8, 2005, @ 01:52 PM

Just a response for what Wicksy said to me ....

Over the course of time, temperatures have fluctuated up and down at a roughly similar rate and scale to the rate they've maintained over the last 300 years.

It's not like in the past it took 5 million years for the temperature to raise as much as it has over the last 500, which is what I think you were implying by your response.

shutupandshave

Feb 8, 2005, @ 02:00 PM

Good. If it works, we'll build thousands.

and the Japanese will make them ridiculously tiny... :p
If we live that long.

It could be that the fact the temperature started going up at the same time as industrialisation is just a coincidence, and that what seems to me like 4/5ths of the worlds envrionmental scientists are wrong... however there are lots of if's there... ifs that YOU could be staking MY life on, by ignoring.

Critta

Feb 8, 2005, @ 03:37 PM

If worset comes to worset, we'll go with a polluted world over dead industry.

Why is your society worth banking the billions of lives of people in the third world who aren't polluting the atmosphere, aren't making huge amounts of money and when the shit hits the fan, won't be able to afford the medical care to deal with the health problems a polluted world will cause them?

In my eyes, to deny them a chance of life just so some businessmen can make more money is no less than a crime against humanity.

Karma, this thread has reminded me of just how much of an arrogant, ignorant prick you can be sometimes. (don't complain about the flame - I owe you several.)

You could stop, however the whole world is so enamoured with the concept of being rich, they forget to consider that life might be more important.

Karmashock

Feb 8, 2005, @ 09:44 PM

If we live that long.

It could be that the fact the temperature started going up at the same time as industrialisation is just a coincidence, and that what seems to me like 4/5ths of the worlds envrionmental scientists are wrong... however there are lots of if's there... ifs that YOU could be staking MY life on, by ignoring.
As I've said, we can't stop. We need power. Your body needs oxygen. It is needed.

Why is your society worth banking the billions of lives of people in the third world who aren't polluting the atmosphere, aren't making huge amounts of money and when the shit hits the fan, won't be able to afford the medical care to deal with the health problems a polluted world will cause them?

In my eyes, to deny them a chance of life just so some businessmen can make more money is no less than a crime against humanity.

Karma, this thread has reminded me of just how much of an arrogant, ignorant prick you can be sometimes. (don't complain about the flame - I owe you several.)

You could stop, however the whole world is so enamoured with the concept of being rich, they forget to consider that life might be more important.
Actually, as I've pointed out. The third world is polluting the world more over all. Not only do they have lots of really dirty industry (ours is much cleaner), but they're DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT"S MEANS OF CONTROLLING CARBON EMISSIONS! Those forests that they cut down release HUGE amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and what's nearly worse is that they aren't their to take carbon OUT of the atmosphere there after.

In the US we have MORE then the origional amount of forest that we ever had. We have our forests BEYOND colonial periods. I think Europe is pretty green too... go to countries like Hati though and you're looking at a place so stripped of trees you can SEE IT FROM SPACE.

Morpheus

Feb 9, 2005, @ 06:06 AM

Karma, I obviously don't have an alternative to the internal combustion engine, otherwise I'd buy one. Cost passes down to the buyers - true, but i myself will accept that cost. Will the CEO be willing to invest some of the 2-3 million dollars they get each year as a bonus in the cause too - that's my question.

And where did I say - stop the industry? I said invest into alternatives more aggressively. Don't you remember your own thoughts: "we have hundreds of years of oil left, and even more coal, so we'll be ok". I think we need to get away from that thinking.

Karmashock

Feb 9, 2005, @ 06:29 AM

first, if we don't have an alternative, then don't expect me to change to nothing.

second, no you can't afford it. Hydrogen cars cost upwards of 100 thousand dollars.

third, ceos are not companies, they're employees. The companies are happy to put money into this if it buys them good will. They've tested this and so far it buys them nothing. Philip morris invests in cancer research and anti smoking ads/programs... they get no love. They don't have to do shit. They do it to get good will, but it buys them nothing. This is an example to everyone else. It says "your money is better spent on bribes, because you can't cut deals iwth fanatics."

fourth, I'm going to use the energy systems that work until I have something better.

fifth, COMMENT ON THE LOSS OF FORESTS! THIS IS MORE THEN HALF THE PROBLEM!

LardGibs

Feb 9, 2005, @ 06:33 AM

second, no you can't afford it. Hydrogen cars cost upwards of 100 thousand dollars.
you call yourself an economist? seriously.
mass production nub. isn't any. thx.

Karmashock

Feb 9, 2005, @ 07:19 PM

if mass production were that "magical", then we'd all be flying around in private jets. ;)

LardGibs

Feb 9, 2005, @ 08:04 PM

you just owned yourself again even harder, keep digging.

Dibujante

Feb 9, 2005, @ 08:47 PM

Humorous. The bigot can't hear me, mind, but I find it amusing that he assumes that there's no way to bring the price of hydrogen cars down.
Building a prototype is always more expensive because it requires specialized, skilled labor as a result of there being no machinery designed specifically for the task. According to Karma's same argument, ALL cars should cost 100,000 dollars. And all computers for that matter, too!
It's really not worth it to talk to Karma. He sticks his head in the sand the moment you get the better of him.
Regards,
Dibujante

Karmashock

Feb 9, 2005, @ 08:53 PM

you just owned yourself again even harder, keep digging.
pfft, can't you do any better then that? You're just being stupid now.

Make a decent arguement.

Morpheus

Feb 10, 2005, @ 05:45 AM

First, I never said you should.

Second, Lard and Dibs said it.

Third, employees or not, they have a major say in company's policies. And most of those policies dictate: "if it ain't producing cash, I'm not investing money into anything, unless forced by government, environment can kiss my ass".

Fourth, it is an ignorant statement. We should improve, not get technologically stalled because it is cheap and it works.

Fifth, yeah, ok, that's just us, humans, being dumb ignorant beings that we are. I admit it. Will you?

Karmashock

Feb 10, 2005, @ 05:49 AM

technology isn't stalled. :rolleyes:

You're ignoring the scale of our needs.

Furthermore, you have yet to comment on the global loss of forests. This is twice as bad as the CO2 output. Stop ignoring it.

MVB

Feb 10, 2005, @ 06:04 AM

Karma, hydrogen cars are neither expensive, nor difficult to produce. The patents to the majority of hydrogen fuel cell tech and auto tech are owned by oil companies, and that is the only reason they are not being exploited currently. Stop now, or forever be slaughtered by a rising PhD Chemical Engineer who knows more about the environment, etc. than you ever have a chance of knowing. Yes, by this I mean Lard. He is proficient enough that he generally doesn't even need evidence, as he IS an expert on much of this stuff already.

Hydrogen fuel is as simple to utilize as gas fuel, but the trick is not technological or economic; it is politico-social.

Karmashock

Feb 10, 2005, @ 06:35 AM

I am so tired of all the retarded conspiracy tools...

Guess what chumps, the patients don't last forever... people in the 70s were talking about "these strange and amazing power sources that the oil companies have the patients on"... any such patients that old would have long expired by today... so where is this stuff? Where are the magical perpetual drive engines? Where are the funny antennas that generate energy by taking right out of the atmosphere? Could it be that the people that were preaching this shit in the 70s were full of it? Yes they were... and the current nonsense is just the old rehashed bullshit.

You want to see an expensive car? Look at the hydrogen fuel cell car that GM made... the stupid thing costs FIVE MILLION DOLLARS. Sure, it's a prototype, so that's understandable (the total development costs for the project are OVER 1 billion dollars)... but this stuff is far from inexpensive. Consider that a simple hybrid engine adds TEN THOUSAND dollars to the cost of any car minimum. Understand further that that cost is not even the full cost as such cars are SUBSIDIZED by the government. So in fact, they cost more then ten thousand dollars more. Are small electric motors being kept expensive by the OIL COMPANIES *wiggles fingers around whimsically*? No... Neither are batteries. This stuff is just expensive. The cost will go down over time, but you CANNOT force it and there is no conspiracy.

* waits for the a rebuttal detailing some elaborate fantasy*

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Morpheus

Feb 11, 2005, @ 06:20 AM

Karma, you're just being naive. A god damned century with the internal combustion engines, and still almost no improvement and no alternative. This is bulls..t, especially considering the fact how fast the technology is moving ahead. We can build a stealth bomber, we can build soldiers-robots, we can develop all this super-duper military gadgets, and yet we made almost zero progress in the simple internal combustion engine. You're being blind and ignorant, wake up and smell the coffee.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39077000/jpg/_39077995_coffee_cup203.jpg

As for the prices - please tell me how much does it cost to produce normal passanger car in US. How much in Japan? Hybrids still make good profit, it is just not as good as a normal car; and the prices and costs would drop considerably if we started to produce ONLY hybrids right now.

Karmashock

Feb 11, 2005, @ 07:04 AM

Karma, you're just being naive. A god damned century with the internal combustion engines, and still almost no improvement
they're radically superior to the ones of a hundred years ago... do you even think about this shit before you type? THINK. Engineers all over the planet have been making all kinds of improvements and refinements to the technology for a long time.

and no alternative.
Also untrue. We have turbine engines which are roughly 30 percent more efficient, make less noise, last longer, are cheaper to build, far superior at high levels of output.

So why do we choose a less efficient, noisy, fragile, and expensive engine model? Heck, turbines will even run on a wider verity of fuels. You don't even need to retune them.

Answer that question. It's a good thought exercise as it will make you realize exactly why internal combustion engines are so great.

This is bulls..t, especially considering the fact how fast the technology is moving ahead.
Yep, technology is going forward at break neck speed. But "SOME HOW" internal combustion remains more attractive... why?

We can build a stealth bomber, we can build soldiers-robots, we can develop all this super-duper military gadgets
Yep... all of those nifty toys... we even have some cool ones that civilians made... like the space ship that a guy in cali made :D

and yet we made almost zero progress in the simple internal combustion engine.
Again... there are some engineers in America, Germany, and Japan that would disagree with you there... they kind of spend their WHOLE DAMN LIVES making better engines.

You're being blind and ignorant, wake up and smell the coffee.
You're being presumptive, fanciful, insulting, and need chill out.

As for the prices - please tell me how much does it cost to produce normal passanger car in US. How much in Japan? Hybrids still make good profit, it is just not as good as a normal car; and the prices and costs would drop considerably if we started to produce ONLY hybrids right now.
Why would we only produce hybrids? That would just fuck millions of people out of even getting a car in teh first place. You bastard.

Furthermore, you VASTLY overestimate the impact of cars on the environment. They're less then a fourth of all 'mechanical' CO2 on the planet.

If you honestly care about the environment, then stop wasting your time hassling me over my car. Save the fucking rain forest. Not only does it give off HUGE amounts of CO2 when the forests in South America and Africa burn, but that's also carbon that IS NOT taken out of the air. Those forests continuously take carbon out of the air... and they're all dying. Brazil has burned most of theirs down and the Africans are following suit.

If you really care, then plant a tree and stabilize Africa.

Morpheus

Feb 11, 2005, @ 07:12 AM

One answer to all - money, profit, economy.

I guess the coffee wasn't strong enough... Oh well, sleep tight.

Karmashock

Feb 11, 2005, @ 07:21 AM

NO! THINK! WHY DON"T WE USE TURBINE ENGINES IN CARS!?!

DO SOME RESEARCH! DON"T JUST SNAP TO ONE OF YOUR RETARDED CANNED ANSWERS! COME TO AN ORIGIONAL THOUGHT!

THINK!

DrunkenUno

Feb 11, 2005, @ 09:16 AM

fifth, COMMENT ON THE LOSS OF FORESTS! THIS IS MORE THEN HALF THE PROBLEM!

While everyone is arguing against Karma's other points, no one has yet approached this one.

Get back on topic. Kyoto is bullshit because it doesnt affect developing 3rd world nations where MOST of the damage to the atmosphere will be occuring in the next century. These include soon-to-be-a-superpower-on-par-with-the-us China, and India the worlds most populous nation. So basically, we suffer at the expense of india, china, and the fucks that are burning down the entire rainforest in South America.

Karmashock

Feb 11, 2005, @ 09:20 AM

Seriously... plant a fucking tree. I'd like to see how much carbon the US produces compared to how much our forests etc eat up. Then compare that to other nations. That no doubt would point to the people that really fucking the planet up.

Morpheus

Feb 11, 2005, @ 09:51 PM

...
Fifth, yeah, ok, that's just us, humans, being dumb ignorant beings that we are. I admit it. Will you?

Karmashock

Feb 12, 2005, @ 02:06 AM

NO! THINK! WHY DON"T WE USE TURBINE ENGINES IN CARS!?!

DO SOME RESEARCH! DON"T JUST SNAP TO ONE OF YOUR RETARDED CANNED ANSWERS! COME TO AN ORIGIONAL THOUGHT!

THINK!
answer the fucking question.

Morpheus

Feb 12, 2005, @ 03:29 AM

I don't care. You'll find any excuse to back yourself up, but at the end, all those excuses are opinions only, they don't have to be accepted by everyone.

Karmashock

Feb 12, 2005, @ 04:24 AM

I don't care. You'll find any excuse to back yourself up, but at the end, all those excuses are opinions only, they don't have to be accepted by everyone.
Stop being a fucktard. I'm trying to make a point here and all you're doing is being rude.

Why don't we use turbine engines in cars? Cadillac did an experimental car in the 70s that had such an engine and our heavy tanks, the M1 Abrams, use such engines. Why then do not our current cars use these engines?

I've made it clear that they have some advantages. They are more efficient, make less noise, can use a wider range of fuels, are cheaper to build and maintain, and operate much more efficiently at high power outputs. Heck, they’re even quite a bit smaller for the power output… I’m guessing that’s the reason the Abrams uses one/

Why then do we not use them in cars? We use them to generate power for cities... but not in cars? Why?

The point is for you too see WHAT makes the internal combustion engine as good as it is. I want you to learn something so that you don't go making ignorant statements about technology.

I am not trying to humiliate you; I want you to learn. Stop dodging the question. If you have no interest in the subject, and only wish to flame then fuck off.

Seriously… I don’t know why you’d even post if that’s all you wanted to do. I’m open to your information and your reasoning. If you’re only here to be abusive then just go away.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Morpheus

Feb 15, 2005, @ 06:28 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=585&e=6&u=/nm/20050213/sc_nm/environment_kyoto_islands_dc_1

Karmashock

Feb 15, 2005, @ 06:46 AM

we'll see...
Climate Glacier Politics
By Roger Bate
02/04/2005
What started out as a glacier hiking holiday in the fabulous Southern Alps of New Zealand descended into something quite different. Is the Franz Josef glacier, the most famous in New Zealand, receding and an example of man-made climate change or is it in fact increasing? And if the latter, does this explain why it has not been in the news in the past year, while it dominated local media over the millennium? In other words, are environmentalists only interested in receding glaciers, since they provide the bad news they need to scare us into action on fossil fuels?

Not aware I was going to have to pose these questions, I boarded a helicopter with great anticipation of some marvelous scenery and grueling climbing. Having just been in a helicopter over the devastated, and soon to be malaria-ridden, Port of Galle in Sri Lanka it was good to chopper into the cool of the Franz Josef Glacier -- one of the most beautiful spots of a beautiful country.

The glacier is the prime tourist attraction of the Westland National Park. The Geologist and explorer Julius van Haast named it after Franz Josef, emperor of Austria-Hungary in 1865. In more recent times it had retreated over 600 yards between 1999 and 2003. At that time local papers regularly, and the international climate alarmists occasionally, cited it as evidence of man-made climate change. Indeed, when I mentioned the trip to one environmental friend, she joked that I should go now to see the glacier before it disappeared.

But how things change. While many glaciers around the world are alleged to be shrinking because of global warning, the Franz Josef is now growing at a rate of about 12 feet a day (and there has been no significant change of temperature in New Zealand in the recent past). Local guide Karl Erickson said that on many days it was moving so fast that it was too unstable and therefore dangerous to hike or climb on it. Its speed of growth was actually affecting the adventure tourism business. New paths, ice bridges and steps for the less athletic, have to be carved out everyday by the skilled and very fit guides (swinging an ice axe for several hours a day is most tiring). Clambering over the lower reaches of the slower moving part of the Glacier (gradient probably 1 in 10, one foot drop for each ten foot horizontally), every few minutes one hears ice movements further up in the faster moving part (gradient 1 in 3), which is often above the cloud line and not so accessible, and exceptionally dangerous to climb.

New Zealand climate scientist Jim Salinger commented recently that although the glacier had been a cause celebre of warming alarmists, glacier growth was now accelerating due to continued cold and stormy weather throughout New Zealand's changeable summer (locally known as the worst for 50 years), which has caused a build-up of snow and ice at the head of the glacier. The glacier is now about 7 miles long and has been growing for over a year.

I talked with the guides afterwards about the climate furore and most just shrug about climate politics. They all know that the glacier is constantly changing, and although many may believe that man's emissions alter the climate and affect the glacier, there isn't enough evidence to know conclusively. Karl acknowledged that pessimism was good for the green movement, and that there had been less interest from environmental reporters about the changing glacier in the recent past.

As Philip Stott Professor of Biogeography at University of London told me, 'change is the norm in all habitats', especially fast moving ones such as glaciers. But only bad environmental news seems to sell, so don't expect to hear too much about Franz Josef again -- until it starts to shrink again, as its bound to do at some stage.

Roger Bate is a visiting fellow at AEI. He founded the Environment Unit at the Institute of Economic Affairs in 1993 and co-founded the European Science and Environment Forum in 1994. He is a board member of the South African nongovernmental organization Africa Fighting Malaria.

He has a Ph.D. from Cambridge University and has advised the South African Government on water markets. He is currently working on a book on water policy for AEI.

Dr. Bate is the editor of What Risk? (Butterworth Heinneman, 1997), a collection of papers that critically assess the way risk is regulated in society. He has also written several scholarly papers and numerous shorter scientific articles, for newspapers and magazines, including the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Accountancy, and LM. His most recent book is Life's Adventure: Virtual Risk in a Real World (Butterworth Heinemann, 2000).

shutupandshave

Feb 16, 2005, @ 11:35 AM

Karmashock

Feb 16, 2005, @ 12:05 PM

That article deliberately misses a lot of points, such as the fact that these thing fluctuate AND that applies to glaciers. Sure it may be growing at the moment, but if it's shrinking over time??? The fact it's only be growing for the last year and a half suggests it's been shrinking for a long time before that.

Complete pap.
Or maybe you only hear about it when it shinks and not when it grows?

Maybe it's not changing at all. I cited that article by the canadian scientist that showed that the northern ice pack hadn't shunk but been moved by wind or tidal forces.

We'll see.

shutupandshave

Feb 16, 2005, @ 12:08 PM

Karmashock

Feb 16, 2005, @ 12:17 PM

You tend to cite a lot of documents written by people whom are paid by people's who have an active interest in proving facts incorrect.

Such as the two guys saying global warming is a lie (based on the fact it seems, that global cooling wasn't right) and were on the oil company payroll.
No more then you cite people that have an economic incentive to support govenment policies or politicians that would be embarressed if it turned out they were suddenly full of shit. ;)

At best it's both sides. So that gets you nowhere. Furthermore, who's funding my people? Give me a company? I bet you're just assuming that they are. :rolleyes:

Morpheus

Feb 17, 2005, @ 12:37 AM

Living in a capitalist county, I believe people with political motives much faster than I do people who are protecting profits.

Karmashock

Feb 17, 2005, @ 01:38 AM

You shouldn't... power corrupts faster and more completely then money.

Morpheus

Feb 17, 2005, @ 02:53 AM

In a dictatorship, hell yes. I think it is the opposite in capitalist countries.

Karmashock

Feb 17, 2005, @ 02:57 AM

In a dictatorship, hell yes. I think it is the opposite in capitalist countries.
... no in general.

Money is the least corruptive type of power ever devised... the old forms are WAY WAY more corrupting.

And those forms are still what the government runs on.

JADezimar

Feb 23, 2005, @ 04:55 AM

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=1918

Ottawa – The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) today released updated projections of the cost to Canadian families to implement the Kyoto Protocol. The international treaty, which will come into effect tomorrow, requires Canada to reduce average carbon dioxide emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-12, but because the country’s output of greenhouse gases has increased by 30 per cent since 1990 dramatic cuts in energy output are needed in short order.

The CTF update is based on its November, 2002, study entitled Counting the Costs: The Effects of the Federal Kyoto Strategy on Canadian Households, authored by noted academic Dr. Ross McKitrick. The original report predicted the price increases and wage reductions needed to bring energy consumption down to Kyoto levels would reduce annual real net household income by $2,700 annually. The updated figure raises the cost to $3,000 per household, per year, by 2010.

“The only way to meet Kyoto targets without spending billions of tax dollars to buy ‘hot air’ from Russians is with strong price incentives to curb energy demand here at home,” said CTF Federal Director John Williamson. “And this means raising the cost of energy by way of higher taxes, which will mean lower wages and reduced family incomes.”

The underlying assumptions of the 2002 study have not changed, namely that Ottawa has not conducted an independent review of the science or cost estimates behind Kyoto; that preferences for energy consumption are stable; and the assumptions of a smoothly-functioning international emissions credit market are flawed.

“As a result of Ottawa’s inaction on the Kyoto file the cost paid by Canadians will be higher. Canada will need deeper cuts, over a shorter period of time, and this will have a negative impact on the economy,” noted Williamson. “Ottawa is stuck in a dreamland. Environment Minister Stéphane Dion sounds more like Chairman Mao than a responsible Cabinet minister when he says Kyoto ‘will appeal to Canadians; that will, I think, mobilize the population to a great cause.’”

“It is simply not possible to reduce CO2 emissions to the level required by the protocol by asking Canadians to turn down the thermostat, wash their clothes in cold water, and retrofit home windows. The more Canadians learn about Kyoto the less they like about it, particularly when it will mean making drastic changes to our way of life without a corresponding reduction in global emissions,” concluded Williamson. “Ottawa needs to get real; Canada alone cannot save the environment on the backs of its taxpayers.”

The federal government has a big problem if it is serious about adhering to the Kyoto Protocol. The international treaty, which will come into effect on Feb. 16, commits Canada to reduce average carbon dioxide emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2010. Yet the government has yet to produce a national plan to achieve this.

Until very recently, Ottawa believed greenhouse gases would need to be cut by 240 megatonnes (MT) or 33% below current levels. But strong economic growth has increased emissions and it is now believed the disparity is more likely between 280MT and 300MT, an amount requiring a 40% decrease.

Some $3.7-billion has already been allocated to the Kyoto project. Yet a leaked cabinet document indicates Canada “will be significantly off” reduction targets as efforts will result in reductions of less than 100MT. It is obvious that short of imposing a punishing carbon tax that will grind economic growth to a halt, there is no realistic way for Canada to significantly reduce its emissions.

Kyoto was sold to the public as an easy way to save the environment with little cost or inconvenience. It was all nonsense. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions can only be done by curbing energy consumption. But rather than come clean with the public and abandon the dysfunctional Kyoto plan, Ottawa is seeking to save itself by trying to adhere to the letter of the protocol, but not the spirit. It will make up any shortfall and “earn credits” by purchasing emissions abroad.

Thanks to the collapse of Communism in 1989 – and the Russian economy soon after – Moscow has a surplus of “unused” greenhouse gas to sell. Many regard this as purchasing “hot air” since Russia will not need to reduce its current output.

This is all beginning to look like another ill-conceived and deeply flawed federal program: the gun registry. Canadians were told the registry would be a cost effective way to track gun ownership and reduce gun-crime. And like Kyoto, the public largely accepted the registry on these promises.

In 1995, Canadians were assured the Firearms Program would cost $119-million to implement, an amount to be offset by $117-million in registration fees from law-abiding gun owners. Today, we know the truth. The program’s costs ballooned and are on track to hit $2-billion – without any measurable impact on gun-crime statistics. The Liberal government repeatedly failed to supply Parliament with accurate budget information on the registry’s costs. An independent review of the program was aborted in 2002 because the government could not provide the complete financial picture to the auditor-general. The registry stands as an indictment of the Liberals ability to properly manage ambitious programs. And it will be the same with Kyoto.

The government is expected to increase its five-year Kyoto budget by $2.5-billion for a total cost of $6.2-billion. Of this amount, Ottawa is considering spending $1.4-billion to buy 100MT of greenhouse gas credits abroad. Tax dollars will be sent abroad with no tangible benefits to Canadians, the economy or the environment. As with Ottawa’s gun registry, it will amount to spending money for nothing.

Does anyone really believe federal bureaucrats are capable of monitoring invisible, odorless gases in developing nations more efficiently than tracking guns in Canada or accounting for sponsorship dollars in Ottawa? We should not be surprised when it is reported the auditor cannot determine whether or not foreign nations keep a lid on emissions sold to us.

Under Kyoto, Canada will continue to pump out emissions and claim victory while it pays foreigners for credits. Is this what environmentalists envision? Is this what taxpayers want? Or, like the gun registry, are we being sold another false bill of goods by the ruling Liberals?

Glad we did not sign on.