Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Interesting ... considering most of the ACC/AGW proponents are banging away that it's all the fault of a slight increase in atmospheric CO2. At 400 ppmv(dry) that works out to a ratio of 1 to 2500, CO2 versus N2, O2, Argon, etc.

    Perhaps you'd consider providing some input to the "climate change/global warming" threads here.
    It's a TRAP!!!!!
    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

    Comment


    • Reg,

      Like so many "loonies", you confuse oppose the unproven case of "human caused" for the accepted case of Natural, and been so for billions of years. Try getting a grip on both details and realities and you may not get your panties in such a ****.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        Duh!
        Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis
        Research shows a trillion trees could be planted to capture huge amount of carbon dioxide
        ...
        https://www.theguardian.com/environm...=pocket-newtab
        And this ... Calculation Shows We Could Add a U.S.-Sized Forest to the Planet to Fight Climate Change

        https://earther.gizmodo.com/calculat...o-t-1836074332

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          Reg,

          Like so many "loonies", you confuse oppose the unproven case of "human caused" for the accepted case of Natural, and been so for billions of years. Try getting a grip on both details and realities and you may not get your panties in such a ****.
          whoa there, bossman!
          You might want to reconsider taking in that Yellowstone all you can catch lake, brook& brown trout derby while it lasts......keyboard holiday due, I figger…
          https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/lake-trout.htm
          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

          Comment


          • "Brown trout?" To a plumber, you can catch those in any toilet or septic tank...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              "Brown trout?" To a plumber, you can catch those in any toilet or septic tank...
              Those are definitely catch and release

              Seriously , folks, the all you can catch trout derby in Yellowstone park this summer , at least, is a once in a lifetime experience. by all means take it in.

              It seems to be a great summer to be American, and fishing...

              Deep water lake trout, baked, with raisin stuffing and wine sauce...

              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                Those are definitely catch and release

                Seriously , folks, the all you can catch trout derby in Yellowstone park this summer , at least, is a once in a lifetime experience. by all means take it in.

                It seems to be a great summer to be American, and fishing...

                Deep water lake trout, baked, with raisin stuffing and wine sauce...

                Specks and Browns in butter, with white wine!
                "I am Groot"
                - Groot

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                  People get confused between applied science and science proper. Epidemiologists use science to detect dangerous pathogens or chemicals but the statistical correlations they establish are strictly speaking "soft" science. The replication crisis in the social sciences point to why these distinctions are important.

                  Usually I'm not such a stickler for these distinctions and have argued against my scientist friends who insist, sociology, psychology, etc. are pseudoscience. I would agree with them that Platonic traditions of "pure reason" have done damage to Western Civilization and that a more naturalistic epistemology is desirable. Science is fundamentally possible to boil down to observation and reason. Still true science has the additional properties of being replicable and falsifiable.

                  To deal with complex chaotic systems a new scientific standard is emerging. Commonly referred to as nomological networks of cumulative evidence. Evolution is perhaps the most striking example of this natural philosophical approach. Darwin used the scientific process of observation and reason to develop his theory and accumulated a mass of networked evidence. The proof however had to wait for developments in molecular biology and genetics. The theory of evolution is now replicable and falsifiable. Evolution however is a general theory and when applied in fields such as evolutionary psychology results are often less replicable and falsifiable.

                  Here in lies the problem with anthropogenic global warming. There are nomological networks of cumulative evidence. The problem is that there is no underlying general theory of climate. Without such a theory the role of co2 is not falsifiable. The research process has essentially been turned on it's head. There is no standard for establishing what the background temperature would be in the absence of additional co2. There are established principles of physics that require additional co2 to have some warming effect but no way to isolate it from the major climatic drivers. The effect of co2 is so weak that small theoretical errors will be grossly magnified.

                  We have to know what the climate would be in the absence of additional co2 to come to any rational decision. The mass of research money should have been spent on the science of climate instead of blindly modeling the effects of co2. In the example offered of the effects of formaldehyde in milk on children the effects were so large that establishing normal were not necessary. We have a well established general their of health. Much as is the case with extending the general theory of evolution into psychology small errors in the nomological networks can go largely unnoticed in a complex chaotic system. There is too much noise in the system.

                  The vast majority of people have a natural aversion to cost benefit analysis. I saw this when working as a highway engineer. Once you take the position that no deaths are acceptable your ability to make rational decision is hamstrung. The same is true of AGW. Were the effects of co2 relative to other climate drivers not so small then estimations of those co2 effects could be less accurate and a rational cost benefit could be established. The margins of error are so significant and the noise so profound that rational allocation of resources cannot be made. People may die because of additional co2 but it is entirely possible considering are ignorance of climate that more would die in it's absence.

                  The greatest threat climate change presents in is not in the theory of co2 effects but in the historical record. We will have another "year without a summer" it isn't a question of if but when. The failure to provide for food security is a much greater crime against humanity than ignoring any scientifically valid estimate of the negative consequences from warming.


                  Formaldehyde actually lead to the vast public health network. The dairy industry 's pundits claimed that 'because formaldehyde made the milk taste pure, it must be killing the bacteria - any durn fool can see that.'

                  Unfortunately, the formaldehyde masked the smell and taste of spoilage, which was still occurring.
                  https://www.theamericanconservative....-deborah-blum/
                  Re C02: The amount in the atmosphere is 'fingerprinted' since the C02 molecule resonates at the same frequency as the thermal return form earth. Nitrogen, as N2, doesn't, so it is not a greenhouse gas.

                  I agree with slick-meister that there are probably other causes, and we should:
                  a. Track them down
                  b. consider if global dimming is a better alternative than an economic disruption of c02 control, and develop a dimming network with the least side effects.

                  I am, I like to think, a realist at heart.


                  The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                    Formaldehyde actually lead to the vast public health network. The dairy industry 's pundits claimed that 'because formaldehyde made the milk taste pure, it must be killing the bacteria - any durn fool can see that.'

                    Unfortunately, the formaldehyde masked the smell and taste of spoilage, which was still occurring.
                    https://www.theamericanconservative....-deborah-blum/
                    Re C02: The amount in the atmosphere is 'fingerprinted' since the C02 molecule resonates at the same frequency as the thermal return form earth. Nitrogen, as N2, doesn't, so it is not a greenhouse gas.

                    I agree with slick-meister that there are probably other causes, and we should:
                    a. Track them down
                    b. consider if global dimming is a better alternative than an economic disruption of c02 control, and develop a dimming network with the least side effects.

                    I am, I like to think, a realist at heart.

                    Fair enough but the issue for me has always involved how the research money is spent. Accurate long range forecasts should have been the first objective. Understand the background is the logical first step.



                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • Actually, the first step is to recognize that humans cannot control the planetary climate cycle. The second step is to recognize and acknowledge that we have placed ourselves in a position of being unable to adapt to climate change because we no longer have the ability to relocate ourselves when necessary to survive.

                      The third step, which would be my step of choice, is to completely alter the way in which we live on our planet. The way in which we have chosen to built our cities and our homes is a massive error in rational thinking, and the places we choose to build them is nothing less than insanity.
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Actually, the first step is to recognize that humans cannot control the planetary climate cycle. The second step is to recognize and acknowledge that we have placed ourselves in a position of being unable to adapt to climate change because we no longer have the ability to relocate ourselves when necessary to survive.

                        The third step, which would be my step of choice, is to completely alter the way in which we live on our planet. The way in which we have chosen to built our cities and our homes is a massive error in rational thinking, and the places we choose to build them is nothing less than insanity.
                        I disagree with some of this. People, even today can relocate ourselves when necessary to survive. We're actually probably better at it than ancient civilizations that existed near great disasters in doing so. First, we can often recognize the disaster coming... I mean real disasters like a volcano, flooding, massive earthquakes, etc. Ancient peoples could not.
                        We can see these things in advance. If someone truly believed in Gorebal Warming, then they too could make efforts to mitigate their own exposure to damage from it, as they see the situation. Where the problem arises is when they are like



                        And expect you to believe and act on that too.

                        Look at great flood disasters in the distant past: The Black Sea or the North Sea are two great examples. The first saw the rapid rise of this body of water when the Dardanelles collapsed and allowed something like a three hundred foot rise in the level of that sea. The North Sea during the Ice Age was low-lying dry land. As the Ice Age ended, it flooded in a matter of decades-- Holy Gorebal Warming Batman!--

                        Look at how much of the Mediterranean sea coast has risen and fallen feet or more over the centuries. How much of Alexandrea Egypt is now under water?

                        Look at the Three Gorges Dam project in China. They forcibly relocated 13 major cities, 140 smaller towns, and thousands of villages moving millions of people as part of the project. That's one proof relocation from rising seas can be done. Here, it's slower, nowhere near as dramatic a rise, and can be accomplished over time.

                        Miami faces tidal and sea level problems already-- due to climate change and just were the city is built. They're working to fix that.



                        I saw a show on engineering that showed that portion of Miami in the photo and how engineers have raised the street several feet and protected buildings from flooding. While it isn't cheap to do, it is within the budget of the city and state and they're doing it over time.

                        The irrational thinking is that we can control nature, the climate, and force the planet to bend to our whims rather than accept that change happens and work to mitigate the damage it causes.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                          Fair enough but the issue for me has always involved how the research money is spent. Accurate long range forecasts should have been the first objective. Understand the background is the logical first step.


                          good idea there....
                          We can control global warming if necessary, on short notice, by spraying certain sulfide aerosols into the upper atmosphere. Its a 'Faustian bargain'- but it will work.

                          If this is more cost effective than C02 control- I can live with it.
                          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                          Comment


                          • Actually, this is one idea to fight climate change I can get 100% behind:

                            https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...193054113.html

                            Some Swiss climate scientists are suggesting that planting a trillion (no, it's not impossible) trees would counter the last 25 years of CO2 increase and pretty much wipe out Gorebal Warming. I can go for that.
                            Maybe in the US a government subsidy of giving a tax break to anyone who buys and plants trees up to some limit-- or no limit. That would mean I could go out and buy some five gallon bucket trees for say $20 to $50 each to plant on my land, at my house, whatever, and I'd get to write that cost off on taxes. Better deal than solar power!
                            Here in Arizona it would combat urban heat island effect too. A true twofer!

                            Mining companies could make bank or at least a good tax write off reforesting their tailings.



                            See! Even experts on good deals agree!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Marmat View Post

                              Specks and Browns in butter, with white wine!
                              Panfried rainbow fillets in butter, fresh from the lake! Marmot, are they shutting down AGF until freeze up so all the 'Murricans can head to Yellowstone?
                              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                                Actually, this is one idea to fight climate change I can get 100% behind:

                                https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...193054113.html

                                Some Swiss climate scientists are suggesting that planting a trillion (no, it's not impossible) trees would counter the last 25 years of CO2 increase and pretty much wipe out Gorebal Warming. I can go for that.
                                Maybe in the US a government subsidy of giving a tax break to anyone who buys and plants trees up to some limit-- or no limit. That would mean I could go out and buy some five gallon bucket trees for say $20 to $50 each to plant on my land, at my house, whatever, and I'd get to write that cost off on taxes. Better deal than solar power!
                                Here in Arizona it would combat urban heat island effect too. A true twofer!

                                Mining companies could make bank or at least a good tax write off reforesting their tailings.



                                See! Even experts on good deals agree!
                                A cautionary tale from the carboniferous period. During this period microbes that could ingest lignin and cellulose had not evolved so trees became a carbon sink and oxygen levels rose from about 20 percent or around today's levels to 35 percent. If you could return to this period you would likely suffer from chronic oxygen toxicity. It would in no way be acute but when people talk of free radicals they are mainly talking about oxidation. Of course planting a trillion trees in today's biome is not going to have the same effect but we live in a period of near co2 starvation levels compared to the carboniferous. The great carbon sink today is limestone building organism. A higher co2 level helps break down shells through acidification.

                                The point is that it is very complicated and the simplistic models that are currently being applied are totally inadequate for making any kind of cost benefit analysis.

                                We should plant trees to reduce pollution, control heat islands, reduce erosion, stop desertification, provide habitat, control blowing snow, reduce cooling and heating cost, etc. Planting trees to reduce co2 is a different matter. The fundamental principle of evolutionary history is that adapting to nature means extinction. Arguing that adopting nature to us is evil is the argument of misanthropes. That said human evolution has accelerated over the last ten thousand years. Adapting to the environment we create is as powerful a force as nature. Neoteny in humans is dramatic proof of self domestication.

                                The current state of science is too primitive to rely on forcing us to rely on "common sense". That simple means don't put all your eggs in one basket.
                                We hunt the hunters

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • Snowshoveler
                                  Attack against Saudi Arabia
                                  by Snowshoveler
                                  Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure was attacked by around 10 armed drones by Yemens Houthi rebels and has caused SA to lose half their oil production....
                                  Yesterday, 17:56
                                • hobo9
                                  C-123B
                                  by hobo9
                                  Would anyone know the wheel and tire sizes (NLG & MLG) for the Fairchild C-123B Provider?
                                  Thank you,
                                  P.N....
                                  Yesterday, 17:22
                                • Mountain Man
                                  Here Comes The Gas Gouge!
                                  by Mountain Man
                                  Drone strike on Saudi oil fields...the perfect excuse for another round of gas price hikes. And I'll bet all that "excess capacity" just magically...
                                  Yesterday, 16:30
                                Working...
                                X