1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

probability of catastrophie

Discussion in 'The OT' started by pjmrt, Jan 4, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    sorry, it was referring to the recent report on Artic melting - which still hasn't officially been released as I understand it, although it is available on the internet. The report is flawed. The models used have been debunked by Dr Hans von Storch in Germany for example. I'll have to go back and find that quote as I thought I copied the name with it - apparently not. But it was part of the critique of that report and global warming.

    Other references of interest:
    http://sev.prnewswire.com/environmental-services/20041116/DCTU02516112004-1.html
    http://www.oism.org/pproject/
    http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm
    http://www.techcentralstation.com/121202C.html

    http://www.techcentralstation.com/121202C.html
     
  2. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    You don't know that. There is a big controversy among the sciences about the issue, you pick out the ones that agree with your viewpoint and ignore the rest. It is better to listen to all of the available opinions and balance the evidence to better understand the problems.

    Your ostrich routine isn't going to provide any help to understanding the issue.
    No one, at least not in the mainstream, is advocating sacrificing anyone's life. But a more common-sense approach to managing the environment isn't out of line, it only requires changing a few attitudes. The "business profits at any cost" way of thinking, as championed by our current administration, is definitely not the answer. We don't have to give up our lifestyle and start wearing Birkenstocks and eating granola, either.
     
  3. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Which makes for nifty soundbites for the "business at all costs" crowd, but conveniently ignores the complex models of warming and cooling that have only recently been generated. We now know that the Earth's temperature can change drastically in just a few years, it doesn't take the thousands of years of gradual change we previously thought. And we really are in the middle of one of Earth's "ice ages" now, in what is known as an inter-glaciation period. These periods, by the ice-core evidence, have generally lasted anywhere from a few hundred to few thousand years. The one we're in has already lasted over 10,000 years, so we're way overdue for a major cold spell of epic proportions!

    It has only been in the last 50 years that scientists could agree that glaciers once covered much of North America and Europe at one point, so we are still very much learning our way around the climate. So making blanket statements that humanity is having no effect on the climate is simply self-serving and premature.
     
  4. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    However, detailed analysis indicates that CO2 levels often rose and peaked several hundred years after temperature did. That means climate change drives major changes in CO2, not the reverse.

    YIKES! EXTREMELY POOR LOGIC!!!

    We already know that increased warming increases CO2 levels. When the permafrost warms, matter that was frozen is allowed to decay, and this is a huge CO2 store.

    However extrapolating this point to say that CO2 doesn't also cause warming is simply false.
     
  5. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    This assumes spewing millions of tons of toxic smoke into the atmosphere, dumping millions of barrels of poison into our water supplies and filling entire valleys with billions of pounds of refuse is "doing no harm".

    That's all well and good, but half heartedly, that's pretty much what we are doing. Yet despite all this, all of the above totals increase every year. And not just in the US. As third-world countries "industrialize" to try and compete with the west, their contributions are increasing at an even higher rate. And understandably, their rationale is they should be allowed to pollute and use the cheapest fuel available, fossil fuels, to accomplish this. After all, this is how the "west" became industrialized and wealthy and powerful. And as long as the US and others refuse to significantly reduce pollution, the example is, to succeed, one must pollute, the more the better!

    The very idea of "personal vehicles" must be rethought, at least hydro-carbon burning internal combustion vehicles. What's going to happen when China begins to approach the level of automobile ownership of the US or even Europe?


    Well again, this is exactly what the Defense Department IS considering, and making contingency plans for. With the planet as overpopulated as ours, disruptions of the food supply, "even for a year or two", could and almost certainly would cause food riots in it's most benign incarnation, and mass starvation and forced migrations on an unprecedented scale at worst. "Evacuations" could consist of massive, angry, frightened, starving, half mad mobs moving from place to place on no more then the rumor of food and potable water.
     
  6. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    I believe in the power of one person to effect change in the world. Have you given up your personal vehicle as an example for the rest of us? Are you willing to double your taxes to pay the bill if needed (and not grumble and gripe about those #@%^$ Republicans for increasing your taxes.

    Show me clear evidence, then I'll support the bitter pill medicine. The evidence doesn't support radical action right now. If someone gets a splinter in their hand you don't cut off their arm because someone has a theory gangrene will occur automatically and no clear evidence.
     
  7. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    Yes, just what DOES it mean?

    Can any of you tell me the toxic gas and CO2 output of a volcanic eruption such as Mt. St. Helen's - or heaven forbid the bubbler down the chain from jonstad?

    I'm not saying that pollution is good, only that man really doesn't have as much effect on the planet as some people think he does.

    Oh - and don't forget about cow farts - the methane was supposed to set the atmosphere on fire or something wasn't it? :rolleyes:
     
  8. dummyproof

    dummyproof Godfather

    326
    0
    Jan 30, 2004
    Why bring Bush into this? :D
     
  9. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    You can't really say that with any certainty, however. I don't think anyone, at least outside of the extremists, are claiming that humanity is the sole cause of environmental issues. But to say we've had no effect, or even little effect, is also disingenuous. We really can't state with any certainty what are the longterm effects of our wanton ways or how they might interact with natural processes. But we can make logical assumptions, it only stands to reason that when you pump toxins into the air and water and soil it isn't going to produce anything good.
     
  10. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    they may not be claiming man is the sole cause, but they are definitely claiming man is the dominant cause - without any clear evidence. I think its largely ego that suggests man is somehow that all-powerful. It just takes the tiniest tickle of the earth to prove man wrong. But I will agree with you that putting toxins into the soil, water, and air is not smart and we need to responsibly take care of what we have. I just think that we have to also look at the effects of proposed conservation and anti-polution actions as well. It took years to get us into the state we're in - we should continue to push levels lower, but patiently to minimize the pain on people.
     
  11. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    what makes you think we're talking about beans, boston beans that is.... :lol:
     
  12. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    One belch from a volcano pretty much swamps man-made attempts. When it comes to these greenhouse gasses - particularly the dominant ones of CO2 and water, nature is a far more dominant sourse and their quantities are not likely to cause major changes. From junkscience

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUtemps.htm

     
  13. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Ok here's an idea. All the "greens", tree-hugging liberals chip in (i.e. tax 'ex) and we build huge bottling plants around industrial sites to capture and bottle up all these greenhouse gasses. Then we launch them to Mars. In a few million years there should be enough there to melt the ice cap and our great, great, great.... grandchildren can buy a nice condo near Margaritifer Sinus. :) Of course we may need it when the earth slips into an ice age itself because 20th century zealots knew what's best.:D
     
  14. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    What evidence would be "clear" enough? How much do you require? Every glacier on the planet is receding, FAST! Not some or many or most, not even virtually all glaciers, every single one. Vast expanses of once stable ice shelf are calving off Antarctica. One the size of Manhattan broke free only several days ago. CO2 levels are higher then anytime in the last 300,000 years and rising. The 1990's was the warmest decade ever recorded and the first decade of the new millenium is on pace to supplant it. The increased clouds caused by this warming has actually reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth. And while this may sound like "cooling", the effect more probably will be to increase the temperature of the atmosphere.

    We know human activity CAN have significant, if localized, deleterious effects. Acid rain is one. The famous "London fogs" turned out to be not fog at all but smoke from burning "dirty" coal. The coal was outlawed, the "fogs" are no more. Or simply take a look at LA, or any major city during a temperature inversion. The air is brown!

    The "radical action" you reference is not continuing to INCREASE our rate of pollution. Not reducing pollution, but simply maintaining it at its present level. How "radical" is it to suggest we stop increasing our pollution every year?:shrug:

    As for "the cost", raised taxes or major and minor inconveniences necessitated by lifestyle changes:
    Americans benefit the most, BY FAR, from the current paradigm of unregulated free enterprise capitalism with profit taking precedence over all. In addition, America contributes far more on a per capita basis to the activities suspected of causing global warming. It is only logical, and fair, the population that has benefited and profited the most from this system should assume a lion's share of the costs, and potential inconveniences, associated with changing it for the betterment of all. So far, our response has been we refuse to bear any of the costs or inconveniences because, well, it's costly and inconvenient. And by the way, it's worked incredibly well for us.:D

    This is probably very short sighted besides downright selfish and self-serving. Nothing particularly unique about this. Many human societies and cultures have refused to change, ultimately to their own detriment, because change was perceived as too costly and/or inconvenient. And the parallel sometimes includes environmental degradation to the extreme. So nothing new here, except for the first time in history Man is at least theoretically capable of degrading the environment of the entire planet.


    I'm sorry. I muat have missed that St. Helen's had done anything more then burped recently, or that it is erupting continuously. The only continuously erupting volcano I am aware of IS my own little "bubbler" a few islands down. Volcanic eruptions are pretty much a constant over the last 10,000 years since the last Ice Age, and probably long before that. So, they are a factor in CO2 production, but a relatively constant factor. And let's not forget "CO", carbon dioxide, CFCs and all the other alphabet soup of strange, exotic and noxious chemicals we spew out every day, in the thousands of tons! And let's not forget we're cutting down our most efficient CO2 scrubber, the rainforests of the world, at a breakneck speed.

    I'm not claiming humans are entirely responsible for climate change. The climate has changed before and almost certainly not as the result of human activity. But it does seem on the verge of changing again. Maybe Man is NOT the prime mover of this change. But I like the current climate of the Earth. And although some might complain, I suspect faced with the likely alternative, the complaints would suddenly cease. I think it's pretty stupid if the climate IS on the verge of change, we should blithely push it over the edge. And a precipitous edge it very well may be. Literally "the slippery slope!"
     
  15. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    My question is whether man's toxic gas output is even a tiny fraction of what goes on every day naturally. If Volcano X spews Y to Z tons daily and man's output i somewhere around Z minus Y, it's pretty well meaningless. In other words, if man's output is less than the range of some volcanoes, it's very small.

    As for CFCs, no one ever proved that the amount emitted by man was significant. That is, no direct causal relation was proven - only that a co-incidence of observations implied a possibility of it. And the greenies forcing of an over reaction took away the best fire extinguishing agent man has ever known - which may in and of itself caused a (small) increase in man's toxic outputs. The point of that being that there's WAY too much knee-jerking going on, and WAY too little analysis of the big picture.

    Finally, I agree that burning the rain forests is likely to be the absolute largest man-made calamity in history. It Has a minimum of TWO direct major negative effects. Fewer trees, more toxic gases emitted.
     
  16. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
  17. SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    When looking for reliable information about the Pentagon, I always look at foriegn newspapers. Just like when I look for reliable news reguarding African countries, I always look at the Washington Post :rolleyes:
     
  18. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    How about U.S.News and World Report (not exactly a liberal enclave):

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next040227.htm

    Or perhaps MSNBC:

    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4379905/

    Or how about Yale, Bush's alma mater:

    http://www.yale.edu/ysec/ILEC/ilec.xex/ilec/news/GWoped.pdf

    Or perhaps Walter Kronkite:

    http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/8187862.htm?1c

    Or maybe even Fortune Magazine:

    http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584-1,00.html


    Of course, you could have Google'd "pentagon global warming" and found the hundreds of links I did... evidently that's too taxing for you.
     
  19. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Compared to what? They have been receding fast for thousands of years - thousands before industrialization I might add. And personnally, its probably better than the glaciers growing. Its really hard to grow crops under ice.:)

    90s warmest decade on record? Perhaps from all the hot air from the Clinton administration :lol Yes it was warm. I hate to break this to you, but 10 years is very short on a geologic scale. The temperatures recovered from their cold positions in 1900. First decade off to eclipse the hot 90s? The data seems to show the temps flattening. Bottom line the data doesn't support your argument.
     
  20. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    And consider this:
    From data taken by the Univ of Michigan.

    http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba337/ba337.html
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page