mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Climate Change/Global Warming Options
Tovarish
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:15:35 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
I would like to have a discussion on Climate Change without Political Spin or Media pontification.

It is extremely hard in Australia to have a conversation without Politically vested interests interfering.

Our media is pro-Labor and tend to follow what ever opinion that party has at the time.

Whether it is Global Warming, Climate Change or Carbon Emissions, seems to be what ever scientist is speaking.

In Country Australia we have just suffered a 10 year drought, and are now seeing the coldest early Winter for many, many years.

In my memory the spin has been the Hole in the Ozone Layer, now we never hear of it.

The Brazilian Rain Forest being logged for timber along with the South East Asian forest's.

Carbon Trading and Taxes is the current topic de jour.

My very basic scientific knowledge is people breath out Carbon Dioxide which is absorbed by plants, that then give back Oxygen.

Carbon Monoxide is gas from petrol run vehicles, power stations etc.

At no time does anyone mention that we have too many people and cars in our countries.

That we should plant massive amount of trees, and subsidise poorer Nations to retain or plant more trees.

Please no Political Opinions, I am up to the plimsoll Line with Party Politics.



percivalpecksniff
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 7:49:16 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 1,523
Neurons: 3,404
Location: United Kingdom
There are several problems when approaching this subject.

ONE: The two camps for and against the notion of global warming cannot be trusted to be impartial. Both sides use

pejorative language and neither side will highlight anything that tends to disprove their theory. It seems that their views

are set in concrete. They are like politicians and their followers who argue the party line… witness the intransigence of

republicans and democrats who are so enslaved to their line that they stop using their minds and sound like a record on a

turntable.

TWO: There is vested financial interest from both sides in promoting their views… money talks.

THREE: It seems in our world you can ‘prove’ almost anything through a ‘survey’ or so called 'science.' Take the example of

diet or food. If one listened to all the results of ‘studies’ and ‘surveys’ one would stop eating since there would be

nothing left that did not do you harm in some way.


My own view, which could be subject to change since I acknowledge I may be wrong, is that I think there is a warming of the

globe and its atmosphere. What I find hard to swallow is that we are the cause of this.

Of course we pollute our environment very badly and this is bad for our health etc… that is a given.

I think the ability to change things is not in our hands with regard to global warming, because I am of the view that it is

a cyclical weather pattern. It does seem to me however that if the concerns over global warming lead to increased awareness

of our pollution of earth, and action to follow, then all well and good.


So regardless of whether global warming is a fact, or if so is caused by us or a weather cyclical pattern… let’s clean up.
HWNN1961
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:26:58 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/13/2010
Posts: 3,494
Neurons: 9,763
Perfect timing Tov:

I listened to an interview on NPR yesterday afternoon from a meteorologist for the US National Weather Service. He admitted to being a someone that had previously been doubtful of mankinds' influence on the climate.

He has, since joining the NWS, become convinced of warming, and our role in it for three reasons:

1. Flying: he has been a pilot for nearly 50 years. He recounted how once upon a time, when you flew high enough above the clouds, you could see crystal clear blue skies to the horizion. Now, the skies are a hazy brown. The only reason being human influence. He reasoned that even though CO2 is invisible, if human influence can change the visibility and color of the upper atmosphere so much, then maybe there is something to our role in upping the CO2 in the air.


2. The science. Not political. Pure, research science. Consistent,performed over many years, by nerds not the least bit concerned with the politics of it. and overwhelming. He was a doubter, but, in his own words "I could not refute the science".

3. His own observation of what he has termed "the new normal" for our weather. For many years, he brushed off the extremes of weather as "within the natural variation". He says that several things opened his eyes:

a. The extreme heatwave in Europe a few years ago.
b. The amazingly bad hurricane season of 2005.
c. The radical melting of the polar ice caps in 2007.

In his studied opionion, these are beyond any "natural variation" and the changing climate is our own man-made problem.

No politics, just science, and the words of one that was convinced against his own previous opinion.
Seth
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 10:06:26 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 6/4/2011
Posts: 15
Neurons: 45
Location: Japan
What are you talking about ? In this society of us, global warming is not a problem, it's a new business that is going to be worth billions.

Then yes, soon enough, we'll have to buy oxygen masks and pay a fine when we fart coz ... carbon dioxide output won't be free people.

Oh boy I love this world !! ...
Akkuratix
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 11:17:13 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/10/2009
Posts: 120
Neurons: 540
Location: Kemi, Lapponia, Finland
Dear Friend in Global Warming!
I have just read the book of Alun Andersson: After The Ice. The book is very interesting but also a big cause for alarm and frightening becouse it tells indisputably that if/when arctic smells, it has the tremendous influences on the world climate as a wholy. And Arctic smells! There is only a fraction of that ice what there should be, the open sea is greater than ever, the ice smells both from the cover and from underneath by the influence of warm streams from Antlantic and from the Pacific Ocean.
Please take a look for the book, let us discuss about it later!
percivalpecksniff
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 2:31:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 1,523
Neurons: 3,404
Location: United Kingdom
It remains a fact that those who argue against global warming caused by man

have as great an array of 'facts' as those who argue otherwise. Both camps are so

'sure of their 'facts'and both sides intransigent and often rude and cocky. Neither side is open

to reasoned debate.

As I said they are very much like those who align themselves with a particular political

persausion and then blindly, and often rudely, follow the line. We often see this here on this forum.

A more reasoned approach is to confess that the jury is out and their is still lots to learn.

I am on the fence but for the sake of debate add this url.

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/


Cass
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:11:38 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/19/2009
Posts: 589
Neurons: 1,770
Location: United States
Tov - I read somewhere that the hole in the ozone layer was closing or had closed altogether, I can't remember which. I don't get a newspaper any more and my only news comes from TIME magazine so that's where I likely got it from. Now I am settled in the Pacific North West I need to find another news source obviously.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:55:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,131
Neurons: 594,898
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Can you remember the time in the early 90's when the rumours spread that sitting too close to a laser printer could predispose you to ozone?

The researcher then told that if you spent 10 000 years your mouth in the laser printer fan you could be affected.
Tovarish
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:12:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
I was so miffed when a lofty person was pontificating about reducing the Australian cattle population because

of the methane produced by their 'constant farting'.

Cattle give off methane from their cud when chewing & digesting food, not the other end.

If they cant tell the difference between a burp & a fart, you can quite rightly say 'they have it all arse up'.

Termites give off more methane than cattle, but I honestly don't know from which end.

We all know smog is a given, and clean air is something that can be managed, remember China in the weeks

running up to the Olympic Games?.

Fluro-carbons were banned here and this may have had a minute impact on the Ozone Layer, but its more likely fixed its self?.

One reason I think we are hearing so much about a carbon tax is the mineral boom in Australia.

Our 'carbon footprint' is 1% globally, and I believe the loss of rain forests is 20%, why isn't this in

indicator of the solution?

percivalpecksniff
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2011 8:32:49 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 1,523
Neurons: 3,404
Location: United Kingdom


[image not available]


You are right Tovarish. So this fart meter is redundant then.

I wonder how many farts this meter can handle?

Ahem so how do they measure methane emitting belches I wonder?

Would that be a Burp-O-Meter?
Maggie
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2011 10:21:55 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2009
Posts: 727
Neurons: 2,128
percivalpecksniff wrote:


[image not available]


You are right Tovarish. So this fart meter is redundant then.

I wonder how many farts this meter can handle?

Ahem so how do they measure methane emitting belches I wonder?

Would that be a Burp-O-Meter?


Because there was no vast human pollution when Greenland was growing palm trees, there simply MUST have been a HUGE over abundance of animal farts.
percivalpecksniff
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2011 10:39:01 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 1,523
Neurons: 3,404
Location: United Kingdom
That was a windy reply Maggie
Tovarish
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2011 7:40:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
There is never a shortage of uses for our old champagne corks!
HWNN1961
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2011 8:21:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/13/2010
Posts: 3,494
Neurons: 9,763
This thread is posted in the science and technology section, but there is precious little reference to anything even approaching "science". More like the banter you'd hear on a right wing radio station's echo chamber.

Folks, you may be in denial all you like. Making jokes about ill-conceived studies on bovine flatulence will not change the fact that the climate is being changed by mankind. Jokes about farting cows may play well socially and politically. But, the planet doesn't care. It's warming, sea levels are rising, droughts, freak storms are on the rise, the ice caps are melting. Laugh if you must, but you and your children will reap the results.

Yes, there have been episodes where the planet was so warm it was subtropical at the poles. 600 million years ago the entire planet was frozen over. There have been some very wild swings in climate. The position of the continents and the chemical composition of the atmosphere have changed over time. But,

Over vast, incomprehensible vistas of 10s or even 100s of millions of years. The change occuring now is happening over a couple centuries. The isoptopes of carbon that mankind puts into the atmosphere are identifiable, unique and can be measured. If you remove our contribution to CO2 in the air, there should have been virtually no change in climate in the last century.

Even the experts on modeling what the warming planet might look like in the near future admit that they cannot be sure of all the implications of the changes we are setting in motion. We are conducting a planetary-scale exeperiment with uncertain and likely unpleasant and chaotic outcomes...and

we are all the guinea-pigs.

And, I repeat, the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the concept of human influence on the climate now. Vested interests will fight it, like big tobacco fought admitting their product caused cancer, as long as they can.

George Bush admitted to it. In 2008 John McCain had a plan for cap-and-trade as part of his election plans.

There is something decidedly anti-science about the deniers. I'm guesing that many of them are flat-earthers that think that the planet is only really 7,000 years old anyway. And, even if we do muck it up....Santa Jesus is comin' to take us all home soon anyway.

Tovarish
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2011 11:08:07 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
I do take your point HWNN, and rising sea water is of real concern to many Pacific Islands.

However, all the references I have made have been from our politicians (mainly the Green Party)or media, and they do refer to farting cows.

These political comments seem to be anti-agriculture, which is the economic back bone of Australia.

The omissions I referred to in my opening comments were, why are not over population and de-forestation not major issues?

China seems to be the only country that has realised that their forecast population would be unsustainable.
percivalpecksniff
Posted: Monday, June 13, 2011 1:32:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 1,523
Neurons: 3,404
Location: United Kingdom
HWNN I note with interest the old style you adopt of demeaning those whose opinions are at odds with yours. Comments like 'flat earthers'... believers in the earth being only 7000 years old etc.

For your info I do not believe the earth is flat nor do I believe this earth is only 7000 years old.

As to humour well a good laugh never did anyone any harm.

I repeat: I am of the opinion that there is a cyclical weather pattern that seems to be producing some global warming and the points I have made...in all seriousness... still stand.

As to 'Experts' well one should always maintain a healthy wariness with regard to them...there are 'experts on both sides of the divide.
Tovarish
Posted: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:41:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
I learnt many years ago that 'experts' was past tense for a 'drips under pressure'.



Akkuratix
Posted: Monday, June 13, 2011 6:58:25 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/10/2009
Posts: 120
Neurons: 540
Location: Kemi, Lapponia, Finland
Akkuratix wrote:
Dear Friend in Global Warming!
I have just read the book of Alun Andersson: After The Ice. The book is very interesting but also a big cause for alarm and frightening becouse it tells indisputably that if/when arctic smells, it has the tremendous influences on the world climate as a wholy. And Arctic smells! There is only a fraction of that ice what there should be, the open sea is greater than ever, the ice smells both from the cover and from underneath by the influence of warm streams from Antlantic and from the Pacific Ocean.
Please take a look for the book, let us discuss about it later!


Sorry Friends, I´ve made an awfull mistake, ice does not smell in this occasion but melts!Brick wall
pedro
Posted: Monday, June 13, 2011 8:09:05 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,057
Neurons: 63,022
Tovarish wrote:


Termites give off more methane than cattle, but I honestly don't know from which end.



That's fascinating. I have been trying without success to trace an art installation piece which ended with the abrupt death of an entire colony of ants housed as an exhibit in a gallery- I wonder if this was due to methane expulsion in a confined space. If anyone has a link....?
intelfam
Posted: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:38:58 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/2010
Posts: 1,190
Neurons: 3,284
Location: United Kingdom
Ok, I do believe this planet is warming. I have read the science (not in the tabloids).

I can't deny that the warming has been rapid in the last century and is accelerating. The wealth of different evidence from the measurement of different parameters is incontrovertible. There is room to argue the tolerances of the figures but no doubt about the trend. And, as has been said, there seems nothing in the ice core records which has ever shown the same rate of sustained change, although there have been brief periods of a few years of warming/cooling caused by volcanoes.

Previous periods of warmth in Greenland appear to be correlated to cyclical changes in the earth's axis, which occur about every 250k years, but we ain't in that position at the moment.

Is it man-made? The jury maybe out on that, but I can't see any argument against the fact that we are contributing and, if we want to avoid the nasty bits of the trend, then we should be reducing our CO2 output.

Tov, I think the argument I've heard against cattle/pigs/sheep is based on the fact that, as a source of protein, cattle farming is ineffficient and that developing countries like China are now getting the Western taste for meat, ergo more cattle > more methane; more cattle>less rice; less rice (insert wheat, soya, as desired) > less C02 turned back to oxygen. I've not researched how much impact this has but I know methane is worse than CO2 as a global warmer. I haven't yet given up on my beef madras, but perhaps I should think about it?

As somebody who originally trained as a scientist, I look at the evidence and, even knowing how the evidence should be read, I worry about my granddaughter's future. Not that the UK will become a parched desert in her lifetime but that she will undoubtedly feel the impact as millions of people start moving towards the presently temperate zone in order to eat. I can't see anti-immigration laws will stop this and I fear that the mass movement of refugees will not be stoppable, ultimately, by military force. And I am not convinced that is an acceptable answer anyway.

Oh and the ozone hole. Seems to be recovering now we have reduced our use of CFC aerosols and control the disposal of fridges/freezers. The Wiki article makes interesting reading Wikipedia ozone hole



Tovarish
Posted: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:40:36 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
I am so proud of my contribution to the Ozone Hole's recovery, knew throwing away my hair spray with CFC would help!

The cattle debate goes on infinitum, down here cattle are raised on stations with enough long grasses to grow

them out until the feed lots take over with the final fattening process.

Until then they are grass fed and go onto a high grain/energy ration in the final few months.

These same oil seeds that are used for ethanol fuel.

There in lies the problem, do we want to grow food or make fuel? because ethanol is raising the price of all the oil seed.

The other shortage is water down here.

Both rice and cotton use large amounts of water, the cereal grains can be grown on dry area country, but irrigation crops depend on rain.

Back to the beginning, we are just coming off a 10 year drought!
intelfam
Posted: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 6:24:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/2010
Posts: 1,190
Neurons: 3,284
Location: United Kingdom
Yeah, Tov, I still can't get my head round the biofuels game. I think I can see the possible arguments for producing biofuels using bacteria to degrade waste. But I can't figure out what real benefit changing from one crop to another has. I'd have thought it would just increase food prices as farmers opt for the more profitable crop.
I look for some enlightenment from more knowledgeable posters.
rvw
Posted: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:50:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2011
Posts: 182
Neurons: 1,082
The authority on climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. Their fourth assessment report, AR4, is available at http://www.ipcc.ch/. AR5 is will be published in 2014.

My philosophy is that we should have a crash program to stop using fossil fuels and to utilize the various forms of solar energy.

I encourage everyone to read http://www.naturestudy.org/pdf/SolarNuclearWindPower.pdf.
Dreamy
Posted: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 5:14:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,501
Neurons: 10,806
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Akkuratix wrote:
Akkuratix wrote:
Dear Friend in Global Warming!
I have just read the book of Alun Andersson: After The Ice. The book is very interesting but also a big cause for alarm and frightening becouse it tells indisputably that if/when arctic smells, it has the tremendous influences on the world climate as a wholy. And Arctic smells! There is only a fraction of that ice what there should be, the open sea is greater than ever, the ice smells both from the cover and from underneath by the influence of warm streams from Antlantic and from the Pacific Ocean.
Please take a look for the book, let us discuss about it later!


Sorry Friends, I´ve made an awfull mistake, ice does not smell in this occasion but melts!Brick wall

There is a big stink about the whole thing - a froidian slip perhaps - a Frenchman might know - if he smelt a stench.

Stop it, Dreamy, you must'nt make puns out of everything. Go to work!
Tovarish
Posted: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:07:44 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Dreamy, I just thought he was a pretty fart smeller, oops I meant smart fella.

Intelfam, the oil seeds, including sorghum,cotton seed, sunflower,& corn are irrigable crops here.

They just wont grow in dry areas, rape/canola just sneaks in but all are expensive to grow, hence the high prices at harvest.

As Australia is a huge exporter of coal (to China), the race is on to invent a clean burning & filtration

process, about time don't you think?
Wobbles
Posted: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:43:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/19/2011
Posts: 185
Neurons: 1,369
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
When I look at the data for earth’s warming, I am convinced that the earth is indeed warming. The warming trend is not an artifact of the data. It is very pronounced and clearly seen.

Additionally, the explanation that the earth’s warming is caused by the increase in carbon dioxide concentration is quite plausible for me. It is well known that a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation when it makes a transition to an excited rotational state. This is basic high school physics. The idea is that the carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and thereby blocks its direct transmission to outer space. When the carbon dioxide finally makes a transition from its excited state to a lower energy, it emits another quantum of infrared energy that is as likely to go back towards the earth as it is to go towards outer space. In effect, carbon dioxide forms an insulating blanket about the earth. If one adds more carbon dioxide to the earth’s atmosphere, one is making the blanket more effective.

However, like many others, I am not sure how much the earth’s surface temperature will rise. I think it is only possible to make rough estimates on this quantity because of the intrinsic difficulty of the calculation and also because it requires extrapolations, which are always hazardous.

On the whole I think the earth’s average temperature will rise at least 2 degrees Celsius (4 F) before the end of this century. I have a feeling that it could easily reach a 4 degree Celsius rise if steps are not taken to curtail emissions of greenhouse gases.

For the life of me, I have no idea why so few people are convinced of the earth’s warming. The data are absolutely clear and the physics of infrared absorption by carbon dioxide is irrefutable.

Joe
intelfam
Posted: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 7:02:51 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/2010
Posts: 1,190
Neurons: 3,284
Location: United Kingdom
Tovarish wrote:

Intelfam, the oil seeds, including sorghum,cotton seed, sunflower,& corn are irrigable crops here.

They just wont grow in dry areas, rape/canola just sneaks in but all are expensive to grow, hence the high prices at harvest.

As Australia is a huge exporter of coal (to China), the race is on to invent a clean burning & filtration

process, about time don't you think?


Thanks for the bit about water usage Tov - didn't know they required irrigation. The weather here in the UK, is just not up to growing those crops but a small acreage of sunflower is grown (nothing like in France where the sun is more reliable) for health food supplements and cattle cake. Rape is the crop which seems to have taken over here - the air is almost yellow with the pollen in the flowering season! I have a regular walk and I notice a lot of farmers are doing a two crop rotation, rape one year and wheat the next. These fields used to be brassicas (to fix nitrogen) then wheat which took most of the goodness and then potatoes. Does rape fix nitrogen?

You say "....coal (to China), the race is on to invent a clean burning & filtration process". We seem to be going backwards here as the government is pulling funding for alternative energy sources (except nuclear). My brief reading suggests the effort is going into using coal but researching ways to fix the carbon dioxide given off and store it. Mind you Maggie Thatcher made a good job of shutting our coal industry down (most of which is too costly to resume) so we're not going to be self sufficient in energy.

HWNN1961
Posted: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:08:15 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/13/2010
Posts: 3,494
Neurons: 9,763
I heard a report on NPR today.

It confirmed what I thought, but had no hard numbers to prove:

That, all of science. Other than the lunatic fringe, or that that is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, has tested, and found valid, the model of current climate science that says that global climate change is based on human activity.

The American Academy of Sciences is unanimous in this decision.

World-wide, 97% of all research scientists agree.

Care to imagine where the other 3% come from? Maybe the pockets of British Petroleum? Exxon?


Long ago Gary Larson had a comic called "The Far Side".

In one, the narrative below the panel said "9 out of 10 doctors recommend".

The panel had 9 people in lab coats. The other was dressed as a shaman.

Care to think who the Doctors are, and who the shaman is about now?
intelfam
Posted: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:23:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/2010
Posts: 1,190
Neurons: 3,284
Location: United Kingdom
HWNN1961 wrote:
I heard a report on NPR today.

..............has tested, and found valid, the model of current climate science that says that global climate change is based on human activity.

The American Academy of Sciences is unanimous in this decision.


Being in the UK I didn't hear this, of course. I'd be grateful if you could clarify the report. Was the AAS saying that human activity is (totally ) responsible for the undoubted increase in global warming? Or just confirming something that seems logical to me - that we are contributing (to a great extent) to a pattern that may be part of a, perhaps inherent, general underlying cycle of change?

Like you HWNN1961 I personally cannot see how any person reading the data available could argue against temperature increase. Just trying to track down whether there is any indication of an inevitable increase. I have just read something saying that sunspots don't appear to influence global temp in any meaningful way, sadly for those ostriches who have spotted a current decrease in sunspot activity and that there was a correlation between sunspot activity and a period of global cooling (Maunder Minimum) in the C17.

thar
Posted: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:34:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 22,773
Neurons: 92,492
One of the problems with this, is that sceptics can always make the scientists say 'we cannot be 100% sure'.

A non scientist can state an absolute certainty, but any scientist, using accurate language, cannot say something is a categorical absolute. They can say the model has been tested and been found valid, they can say there is a highly probable relationship, they can say all the evidence points to...

They have to say this because it is the scientific way of expressing it, it does not make them any less sure or confident in their deductions or models. But they will always get highjacked by the sceptic who says " ah, so you are not 100% sure, it is not an absolute certainty - you know nothing, your results mean nothing, why should we believe you when you do not even believe it yourself.

I feel sorry for the scientists who get jumped on just for their careful use of scientific language!

percivalpecksniff
Posted: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:46:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 1,523
Neurons: 3,404
Location: United Kingdom

All hail those who hold minority opinion, they never, but never, go like sheep to the slaughter. They

challenge 'received wisdom.

They nip the flanks of the fat majority and often, but not always, prove that numbers

'bodies' 'experts' 'the informed' are wrong. At the very least they serve to keep the majority on its toes.

On the matter of global warming I am glad to be in the minority, who while recognising there is warming do

not hold the opinion that it is the responsibility of human activity, but rather a cyclical weather pattern.

Discribing those who hold opinions in good faith that differ from yours HWNN61 as lunatic fringe is crass.

One should never dismiss the minority as fools... Galileo was one such person as was Copernicus. The list is

long concerning those who in the face of abuse and demeaning langauge, as well as outright persecution, held

on to a minority view and were subsequently proven right.

Let us by all means work at cleaning our act up which pollutes at the level of harm to us and our immediate

environment and not our weather.

These are the views I currently hold, but I am intelligent enough to be flexible should I be wrong.

intelfam
Posted: Thursday, June 23, 2011 12:09:34 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/2010
Posts: 1,190
Neurons: 3,284
Location: United Kingdom
OK, HWNN1961 hasn't had the opportunity to reply to my request yet so, coming at my question from a different angle - and looking for assistance from a different poster:

percivalpecksniff, you wrote " I am glad to be in the minority, who while recognising there is warming do not hold the opinion that it is the responsibility of human activity, but rather a cyclical weather pattern."

Can you point me to the evidence for your conviction/opinion, please? I was hoping to get some clarity on the actual wording of the announcement on NPR. I might then be able to track down the statement which should point me to the research which underlies it and as thar points out, the degree of certainty. If you can give me some references which point to supporting research and degree of certainty, I would be very grateful.

Yamini
Posted: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 4:37:01 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 6/7/2011
Posts: 6
Neurons: 21
Location: Australia
Hi Tovarish and all the other guys,

My PhD project is somehow connected to these issues and I have a little bit of knowledge about it that may help...

First of all because the CO2 production of humankind is really high it is practically impossible to solve the problem just by planting more trees (1. Because we will face another problem that would be lack of nitrous in the soil 2. the amount of daily produced CO2 can hardly be absorbed by trees coz its huge 3. dont forget that during the night time trees make CO2 out of oxygen) This would help but can't be a solution... the idea of dicreasing birth rate is a great idea that should be strongly supported by governments

Secondly by using renewable energies like solar, wind, wave, geothermal...all the Earth need of energy can be satisfied...even by harnessing a very small portion of each of them...but u may ask why the renewable technologies are far behind nowadays.... My answer is "who controls the energy resources has the power to control others" and that's the key point...if other governments, individual people and what are called developing countries have access to unlimited sources of renewable energies, they can be independent...and that's threatening for poloticians...

The story of governing energy is so sad... u won't beleive if I tell you the reason behind attacking Afganistan, Iraq, India, revolution of Iran, war between Iraq and Iran and almost all the wars and fatalities around the globe is becoz of that.....
and another sad story is that without maintaining this unrest situations in many developing countries and specially countries with vast amount of resources the current World powers cannot stay .... many people are being killed everyday just becoz of that ("WHO TO CONTROL THE ENERGY")

let me complete the sentence I said in the begining of this comment "who controls the energy and FOOD has the power to control others".... there are many sad stories about food and its not the place to discuss it..

Cheers
utopsia
Posted: Monday, August 8, 2011 8:23:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/22/2010
Posts: 126
Neurons: 234
Location: Germany
Same problem with methane bubbles from peat... Hardly nothing known on prediction and its quantified global impact must be reeeeally tough...

By the way, such a cow with such a thing on top... so unnatural, so inorganic Shame on you it is intinctively ridiculous

percivalpecksniff wrote:


[image not available]


You are right Tovarish. So this fart meter is redundant then.

I wonder how many farts this meter can handle?

Ahem so how do they measure methane emitting belches I wonder?

Would that be a Burp-O-Meter?
pedro
Posted: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:18:37 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,057
Neurons: 63,022
I notice that the 'fartometer' has remained stable now (judging by the pictures) for about two months. Does this mean that carbon emissions are levelling out?
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.