Global Warming, CO2...

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Post by Cocytus » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:09 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:I didn't want to debate weapons law.
Fair enough.
Who is like God arbour wrote:
Cocytus wrote:My statement was hyperbole, WILGA, but the proof is in the very article you posted. "With the exception of cellulose, most bioplastic technology is relatively new and is currently not cost competitive with petroleum-based plastics" and "Many bioplastics are reliant on fossil fuel-derived energy for their manufacturing"

[...]

Fossil fuels are in use at every scale of construction, transportation, in every commercial venue, at every point in our daily lives. Against that, overarching government laws would be not only inadvisable, they would be impotent. Some want people to suspend their use of fossil fuels while our generation and manufacturing methods are converted. It cannot happen that way. Only when the solution is in place and operable can fossil fuels be abandoned.
I'm aware of the fact, that a product needs energy to be produced. That does not only mean the energy for the manufacturing process but also the energy for the mining and fabrication of the basic materials and their transportation around the whole world.

But if these energy is renewable energy - and I have given enough examples for renewable energy plants - that's no problem.

I'm also aware, that it is impossible to shut off all not renewable energy plants at once because there are not already enough renewable energy plants. But it should be the ultimate goal, that there are enough renewable energy plants in the near future, that energy plants, depending on fossil fuels, are no longer necessary.

And it is with the today's technology already possible to power the whole world with renewable energy [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. But that would mean, that a lot of investments have to be made and that the opposition from operating companies of conventionally plants has to be overcome.
So if you're familiar with embodied energy, and the extent of fossil fuel usage, and the time it will take to effect the conversion to renewables we both want, why exactly are we arguing? The only concrete timetables I saw in those articles are 2050 and 2090, both of which are believable, unlike Al Gore's 2020 timetable to convert the US grid fully to solar. Hell, 2090 is more than generous.
Who is like god arbour wrote:
Cocytus wrote:And finally, the rationale of "better to believe and be right, then not believe and be wrong" is a fallacy employed by both ends of the political spectrum, from global warming to Iranian nukes. They threaten us with either a 20-foot sealevel rise, or a mushroom cloud over an American city, to make us act out of fear rather than sound judgement. I do not accept this fallacy for action against Iran, so I cannot expect conservatives to accept it for action against global warming.
A risk assessment is no fallacy.

And we don't speak of »believe« like in »believe in a god«. There is no evidence for the existence of god and to believe in a god is illogical because, if there is no objective reason, why one should believe, that a god exists, but nevertheless believes in god, one could as well believe in all other things for which existence there is no evidence.

But that does not apply to a scientific theory, that may still not be proven, but where for their existence are at least evidence. It is not as if climatologist have made up their theories out of the blue. They have observations and mathematical models and see, that their observations are confirming their mathematical models and conclude, that this shows, that the models are correct. And if they are correct, then the projections made with these models, are likely also correct. And until it is shown that the models are not correct or at least a reasonable doubt is cast, it is plausible to assume, that the prognoses made with the models are correct.

And concerning Iranian nukes: that is not a question, if they are trying to build them, but a legal question and an example of double standard. Don't understand me wrong. I don't like, that the Iran is likely trying to build nukes. But I also don't like, that the USA (and other nations) have already nukes. And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As the US citizens have to live with the risk of a mushroom cloud over an American city from a Iranian nuke, the rest of the world have to live with the risk of a mushroom cloud over their cities from an American nuke. Such a risk is no reason to start an illegal war of aggression.
WILGA, I'm on your side here. But you have to understand the mentality of many people in the United States. Consensus in and of itself is not proof, nor is a preponderance of evidence. And the fact that it is not proven is an open door to people who want to discount it. I myself accept anthropogenic global warming, and while I may consider global warming deniers foolish, the fact is they still vote. I can't sway them with moral arguments, so I'll sway them with monetary ones. There are some who will simply not be swayed. Their hearts are hardened. But in the last year, we had a major oil mogul come out on our side (T. Boone Pickens, take a look at his plan) and we elected an Administration sympathetic to our cause. These are major steps forward, and barring another terrorist attack or economic collapse, I feel confident in projecting 8 years of the Obama Administration. Things are going to get done, but it's pointless to get worked up over the people we can't sway. They can't be forced to think the way we do, they must be free to make their own decisions, as misguided as you and I may feel those decisions to be. I'm out there, working and voting to make the change I believe in happen. There are some who would deride me as naive, doe-eyed, a traitor, unAmerican, whatever. LET THEM. I wouldn't deprive them of their right to say that, however empty and meaningless I think their words are, because that would be unAmerican.

Flectarn
Bridge Officer
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 4:34 am

Post by Flectarn » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:50 pm

PunkMaister wrote: It is basically the same when you are talking about forcing all Americans and Westerners alike to change their cars regardless of their economic status at the time. You are saying, telling that the US and the West have to change all their transportation in 5 years! 5 years are you insane? The move from horse pulled carriages to automobiles took well over a decade when cars first began appearing. You cannot force this kind of change upon people. Is far better to give companies and the public incentives to make the change so it happens naturally over time as opposed to forced upon as you propose. It is impossible to change all cars and trucks oyut there without leaving just about every American virtually jobless as how would they go to work? Oh wit they don't have a car anymore, their house is already mortgaged and they will be in the street in a few days tops. See you cannot force this kind of change it simply does not work that way. Heck I doubt your fellow Germans would like such a thing be forced upon them although your people once elected Adolph Hitler so I could be wrong.

But as others correctly pointed out we value freedom here above all else.
Do you not understand the concept of an example?

2015 conversion to all non-polluting cars is an example of a law that could be passed to make the transportation sector carbon neutral (more or less)

I can't speak for him but i doupt WILGA would advocate exactly that as the most reasonable, effective, or useful way of going about it.


in fact, in the a post that you quoted...
WILGA wrote: A law, that prohibits polluting cars after a certain time was only one possibility.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:38 pm

Cocytus, I see we basically agree. It needs time, as I have said already. But if the administration does not begin to demand such changes, it would need even more time. I'd be satisfied if the ultimate goal is to have 2090 only renewable energy sources.






PunkMaister, I don't think, there is more to say, than Flectarn has already said. I only want you remember, why I have proposed such a law:
  • Who is like God arbour wrote:
    PunkMaister wrote:The change is taking place but there is no way to force people to buy Eco-friendly cars in exchange of their old automobiles especially not with how the US and the world economy in general are going right now.
    Make a law:
    1. Only non-polluting cars are to be produced after 2010.
    2. Only non-polluting cars are allowed to be driven after 2015.
I have said it only to show, that it is possible to force people to buy Eco-friendly cars.

And as I have already said too, there are also other alternatives. There are for example European emission standards. They define the acceptable limits for exhaust emissions of new vehicles sold in EU member states. Non-compliant vehicles cannot be sold in the EU.

And then there is a Environmental badge. Without such a badge, it is forbidden to enter so called green zones. That are the biggest and most important cities in Germany.
    • Image
But one gets such a badge only if the vehicle has low emissions.

And do you know what? Neither my fellow Germans nor other EU citizens have a real problem with such regulations. Yes, it can be inconvenient. But we are intelligent enough to understand, that it is necessary. And we are intelligent enough to know, that freedom has to have limits. And we are intelligent enough to see, that property obliges. If you want to have a car, you have to make sure, that your car is not harmful for others. And that means not only the today living people but also future generations.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:19 pm

Flectarn wrote:Do you not understand the concept of an example?

2015 conversion to all non-polluting cars is an example of a law that could be passed to make the transportation sector carbon neutral (more or less)

I can't speak for him but i doupt WILGA would advocate exactly that as the most reasonable, effective, or useful way of going about it.


in fact, in the a post that you quoted...
WILGA wrote: A law, that prohibits polluting cars after a certain time was only one possibility.
Before you go trying to ride my arse out you should read more carefully because initially he was insisting that a law should be made into effect to force people to by so called non polluting cars. It was much latter on that he somehow softened his views on the subject. In case you haven't noticed nobody here disagrees that change is needed what we are disagreeing with here is time lines or to be more precise the time required for those changes to go into effect without having what otherwise could be a potentially devastating blow to the economy.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:54 pm

I found the following short article (PDF), by a certain James A. Marusek.

He brings rather interesting alternative views on the carbon dioxide topic.
I'll quote the entirety of his document here:
James A. Marusek, 9 March 2004 wrote: Is The Global Warming Theory Defective?


Global Warming is a radical theory proposed by a few scientists several decades ago. This theory was captured by environmentalist, antihuman ideologists and politicians and elevated into the status of a fear based religious belief. In science, theories are grounded by the evidence that supports the theory. Even though the Global Warming Theory has been under the microscope for the past few decades and even though billions of dollars have been thrown into research on this subject, the work has not been able to accumulate a strong foundation of data supporting this theory. On the contrary, the analysis by hundreds of top scientist indicates the evidence has been building up over the past few years to reject this theory.

The main thrust of the Global Warming Theory can be stated as follows:

Mankind has caused carbon dioxide levels to rise, which in turn has causes global temperatures to rise uncontrollably.

In order to analyze the theory, let us begin by dissecting the theory into its main components. The main component is that As carbon dioxide levels rise, global temperatures will rise.
Carbon dioxide is a heavy gas that has the property of being transparent to visible light but reflective of thermal energy. Therefore, the gas acts like a thermal blanket locking in solar-generated heat at the surface of the Earth. But this element of the theory is very simplistic. It fails to account for a natural heat transport mechanism - water. Heat is captured by water molecules during evaporation and can rise above the carbon dioxide layer in the atmosphere, releasing the heat into deep space. Analysis of physical data does not support the linkage between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.
Global temperature is predominantly driven by variations in solar irradiance, the Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic field strength, coronal mass ejection and galactic cosmic ray flux rates. The Earth is presently experiencing a warming trend because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age that began in the early 1300’s caused by a nearby supernova event, RX J0852.0-4622.

Another component of the theory is that the temperature rise is in a thermal runaway condition. This element of the global warming theory originated from a study of the planet Venus, the brightest planet in the nights sky. Venus has an atmosphere of 96.5% carbon dioxide. The surface temperature on Venus is approximately 865o F. Several decades ago, Carl Sagan theorized that the elevated temperature was brought about by a runaway global warming process and used this analogy on the planet Earth. He theorized that the sunlight on Venus passed through the atmosphere and was trapped at the planet’s surface, elevating the temperature to the extreme. But this theory made the following critical assumption: the planet is a balanced solar-radiation closed-box system. The solar energy falling on the planet equals the reflected sunlight combined with radiated thermal energy released from the planet. But this theory is too simplistic. The entire surface of the planet was resurfaced into a sea of molten lava several million years ago. The most logical mechanism to cause this transformation is an impact from a large comet. The elevated temperature on Venus is not solely due to solar radiation but also to magma-released heat. The theory fails to take into account that the planet is in the process of cooling down. The most visible evidence of this defect is the measured albedo of the planet. The unadjusted readings on NASA’s Solar Flux Radiometer (LSFR) Pioneer 13 Mission to Venus measured an albedo of 0.80. In other words, 80% of the sunlight hitting the atmosphere of Venus is reflected. But in subsequent missions, NASA forced the albedo reading to conform to the closed-box theory. This adjustment produced an erroneous albedo for the planet of 0.76. This difference between measured albedo and forced adjusted albedo is due to the heat loss as the planet cools.
  • Why is the albedo of Venus important? When the albedo is at 0.80, the Global Warming Theory falls apart. When 80% of the sunlight is reflected by the high sulfur clouds back into deep space that leaves only 20% of the sunlight available to penetrate the planetary atmosphere. This level is too small to support the elevated temperatures observed on the surface of the planet.
The carbon dioxide levels on Earth have risen from approximately 0.028% to 0.036% in the last few decades. It is a major stretch to compare this with Venus at a 96.500% carbon dioxide level and promote an uncontrollable runaway condition. Earth in its early history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels. Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today?
Many studies have shown that plant life is actually responding to an uptick in carbon dioxide levels. Plant life thrives under enriched carbon dioxide levels. As atmospheric carbon dioxide increases toward 0.10% level, plant life explodes becoming more productive and stronger, better able to ward off disease and insects. Over the long run this should bring stability and reduction in carbon dioxide levels.

Another component of the theory is that mankind is responsible for the elevated carbon dioxide levels. Most of this element of the theory is focused on the destruction of forest and polluting the atmosphere from factories and automobiles. Carbon dioxide levels have risen slightly over the past few decades and this points to an imbalance in the carbon cycle. But to understand the cause of this rise, it is important to look at the complete picture. After all in the United States, the forest acreage has been expanding and pollution levels have been declining.
The carbon cycle consists of two parts. Through photosynthesis, plants, bacteria and plankton uptake carbon dioxide, releasing oxygen and producing organic carbon (life). But this organic carbon will revert back to carbon dioxide when this life dies. But another type of life, marine & terrestrial animals can convert this organic carbon and sequester this carbon for long-term storage. Animals can consume organic carbon and transform it into calcium carbonate in the exoskeletons (shells) or internal skeletons (bones). When animals die, this carbon is buried in the earth for long-term storage. This is a two-part process, a symbiotic relationship between plants and animals, and two forms of life that naturally locks down carbon dioxide levels resulting in a balanced system.
A large portion of the lock down of carbon dioxide takes place in the oceans. Phytoplanktons are the most abundant photosynthetic organism on the Earth and account for approximately three fourths of the Earth’s oxygen supply. Twenty thousand of these microscopic organisms can be found in one drop of seawater. Satellite and shipping data shows there has been a very dramatic decline in phytoplankton. The imbalance in the ocean ecosystem is the primary cause of the rising carbon dioxide levels. I suspect this is due to invasive species transported by the shipping industry in ballast water. There is 10 billion tons of ballast water carried around the world each year. The hitchhiking marine life contained in this water invades new environments and alters ecosystems.

In Summary: A strong link between elevated carbon dioxide levels and elevated global temperatures has not been established. Current global warming theory fails to take into account Earth’s natural heat transport mechanism. The idea that global warming is in a runaway state is not supported. The Earth has experienced much higher carbon dioxide levels in the past. Comparing global warming to the environment on the planet Venus is inappropriate because the warming due to magmatic heat loss has not been factored. Analysis of factors depressing phytoplankton needs further investigation to determine why their productivity has declined so rapidly. Other forms of photosynthetic life are responding to this minor uptick in carbon dioxide level by increased growth. This is a natural mechanism to bring the carbon cycle on Earth back into balance.
Judge for yourself.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:47 pm

As for those who'd like to go deeper into the issue about Venus' albedo and atmospheric composition, you can read the following document:

Stabilization of Venus’ climate by a chemical-albedo feedback

It refers to greenhouse warming, but not the super-greenhouse warming (and makes no reference to Sagan). It hinges on the large presence of SO2 (Sulfure dioxide), which among other things, is released by volcanoes.
Although this model is very simple, it
reproduces the presently observed cloud very well. Calculated
vertical structure of the cloud is similar to the observation
(Hashimoto and Abe, 1996a). Albedo and optical depth
for 550 nm wavelength obtained by our model are 0.87 and
34.8, respectively. These results show good agreement with
the observation (Hashimoto and Abe, 1996a).
In pure layman terms, one would wonder if there's a possible agreement between the idea of magma-released heat (which would likely be accompagnated by large concentrations of SO2), from the previous article, and the weakening SO2 based greenhouse effect.

As far as I am concerned, I would have thought that 1 billion years would be more than enough for a planet's atmosphere-surface reactions to have reached a final equilibrium, if nothing intervened to disturb this long process.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:06 pm

^ You are wasting your time Mr O. The Ecofreaks around here will never even to read or listen to any of that...

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sun Apr 19, 2009 4:55 pm

Mr. Oragahn, I don't doubt that there are many people, who have other opinions. I have already said this many times in this thread. I have also said many times, that I can't decide, who is correct and that I'm inclined to believe the majority - at least until I have a reason to do not.

I assure you, that I will read both articles. But not at once.

I have already galloped through the first and, to be honest, I doubt that it will change my inclination.

I have seen, that James A. Marusek is a Nuclear Physicist & Engineer, retired from the U.S. Department of the Navy. Climatology is not his area of expertise.

And his article lacks concrete references, which I usually expect in a scholarly piece. You can see such references in the second scholarly piece, you have recommended to read.

But maybe it will surprise me.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:41 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:I have seen, that James A. Marusek is a Nuclear Physicist & Engineer, retired from the U.S. Department of the Navy. Climatology is not his area of expertise.
Absolutely. This is also why I wanted to balance his short article with a more elaborate analytical and technical one, which some may consider more reliable, but again, it's not to be taken as a truth, but merely to trigger a debate.
And his article lacks concrete references, which I usually expect in a scholarly piece. You can see such references in the second scholarly piece, you have recommended to read.

But maybe it will surprise me.
I noticed that too. He, however, speaks about sound principles which seem to be totally ignored, like the carriage of energy through water above the CO2 atmospheric layer.

In reality, to tackle the whole biosphere question, one has to get a complete and balanced view.
But what we get through the media is a single view, and that, I do not fancy.

Because I smell that this is, in the end, nothing more than a big farce to have the same people pay. The more you pay, the more you need to work, and the more you're a tired beast of burden, uneducated, complacent and just not curious anymore, because the will and strength are sucked out of your mind and body.
This is, of course, speaking in general terms, but it's very easy to observe the pattern that applies to hundreds of millions of people here.

Oh btw, 2000 posts. W00T!

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:14 pm

Punkmaister wrote:You are wasting your time Mr O. The Ecofreaks around here will never even to read or listen to any of that...
So, I gather all you wanted to do in this thread is troll?
Are you the kind of person who doesn't recycle because you feel it won't make a difference?
When you brush your teeth, do you let the water running because you don't believe it will have any harmful effects, like millions of other narcissists?

I'm glad there's some indication that we may not be as responsable for the climate change as we thought.
It doesn't give us free reign to act as ignorants a**holes and continue polluting the planet like we currently do...

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:43 pm

Praeothmin wrote:So, I gather all you wanted to do in this thread is troll?
Are you the kind of person who doesn't recycle because you feel it won't make a difference?
When you brush your teeth, do you let the water running because you don't believe it will have any harmful effects, like millions of other narcissists?

I'm glad there's some indication that we may not be as responsable for the climate change as we thought.
It doesn't give us free reign to act as ignorants a**holes and continue polluting the planet like we currently do...
Wow just wow, have you even read the whole darn thread? I think you should apply yourself the lesson of not being an A-hole and just post something because you feel the need to troll and derail a whole thread over senseless crap. It's unbelievable. Being around this board is like being around the most histrionic bunch of fascists I've ever come across. There was a time when Liberals use to say "I may not agree with your views, but I'll die for your right to express them" Now it has become "Everybody must spout the party line or else!"

And stop presuming you know shit about me because you don't. I've always been in favor of a government sponsored recycling program for the trash to this day is still being collected into landfills in the Island. Heck it would even bring much needed jobs and revenue which is desperately needed nowadays over here.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:53 pm

PunkMaister wrote:Being around this board is like being around the most histrionic bunch of fascists I've ever come across.
That's funny, because when I have read that
  • PunkMaister wrote:At least he was a bonafide American Citizen born in the USA while OBama's true origins are being kept secret from the American public by a court order which is unprecedented in both American jurisprudence and history. He might be the first foreigner from Kenya most likely to occupy such a position and illegally and unconstitutionally so as only people that have been actually born in the US can aspire to become president not foreigners. I could also go on about the unprecedented campaign finances Oblongo enjoyed mostly from foreign sources such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela you name it.
and that
  • PunkMaister wrote:And guess what regardless of what Bush did does not change the fact that Oblongo is nothing but a clown and an impostor.
I have wondered if not you are a little bit fascistic. But then, fascist may be the wrong word to describe your attitude. Racist and nationalsocialist would be more appropriate words.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:25 pm

And you are a full of shite liberal that like all liberals nowadays assume that anybody that objects to your idol Obama is automatically a racist! That's funny considering there are plenty of African Americans that don't like the SOB one bit. Y para que lo sepas pendejo yo soy Boricua. And guess what we Puertorricans are a product of race mixing so we laugh at the face of anyone calling us racist because is utter rubbish that can only fly when you are dealing with Anglo Americans by appealing to their even more senseless White guilt that keeps them silent even though they are about ready to explode and no wonder!

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:43 pm

Cool it. I don't like having to deal with this.

Who is like God arbour, calling someone a Nazi (nationalsocialistic) is never going to get anywhere positive. You should understand exactly how touchy a term that is.

PunkMaister, disregarding the rules willfully isn't going to earn you any bonus points.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:53 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:Cool it. I don't like having to deal with this.

Who is like God arbour, calling someone a Nazi (nationalsocialistic) is never going to get anywhere positive. You should understand exactly how touchy a term that is.

PunkMaister, disregarding the rules willfully isn't going to earn you any bonus points.
Fair enough I won't but I will not take stuff like this lying down either...

Post Reply