|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 12, 2009 19:12:58 GMT
glc, I do hope it's a long long time before CO2 levels fall to those of 1900, agriculture is only supporting the present world population because of increased levels, and according to a paper in today's CO2science.org if it did revert to 1900 levels, the Amazon rainforest would revert to savannah whereas with present levels it will remain. I looked for that on CO2science.org. From what I read, that is mostly just modeling again. IMO, the conclusion stated there boils down to substituting one alarmism for another. But supposing they are right, is that really anything to be alarmed about? and is it anything that anyone could control anyway. It is my understanding that the Sahara Desert has come into existence only within the last 5000 years (within the time that people have been on earth). So if the amazon does become a savannah, what other changes take place elsewhere? We really don't know. It's interesting that the point about elevated CO2 levels may be necessary to support the current world population was brought up. I've wondered about that, but I would like to see something more than just what I can read o co2science.org supporting that.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 28, 2009 3:04:39 GMT
Apple OSX is pretty well the best OS out there at the moment. Yes, and these are not the 'droids you're looking for. And Republican credits will be fine.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 22, 2009 4:06:55 GMT
I suppose the real question is ... are they going to take to the streets and have a revolution to remove this cancer. Remember that the evil Skeptics will be painted as destroying "your children & grandchildren's future" and the people will cheer when the tanks crush the revolt. The US govt has failed to take out Osama, but that is because they need him to grant them the powers they want to exercise total control. They will not show their own people the same mercy. I don't think a revolt in modern America would succeed. However, after a few dozen years, things may be a bit different, but there will have to be a bit of suffering to wake people up. Liberty is very fragile. I don't see the current American culture (the majority) being willing to stand up. Fundamentalist Christianity (which is mostly a defeatist religion waiting to be "raptured away" - a modern development btw) developed post the American Civil War after the defeat of the South. The victorious North developed a more left-liberal Christianity. Prior to that, conservative Christianity was more forward thinking. Stonewall Jackson (yes I know), Robert E Lee and many of the Southern Generals were strong Christians of the old School. They fought for liberty. Christians (such as Wilberforce etc) believed in building Christ's kingdom on Earth. That was something to fight for, and was a strong motivation for cultural expansion. Now the (protestant) Church is divided in several steams: (though individuals can follow more than one of these ideas) (a) Defeatist folk just waiting to be carried off from the troubles. (b) Emotional folk getting a religious "high" from music & worship, but with a faith that has not much intellectual content. (usually also follow (a)) (c) Traditionalists with a dead orthodoxy - believing in the old doctrines but unable, or unwilling to stand up. Many also believe that the World will just get worse, and have no faith in a future. (d) Leftist liberals who support the Government line. (Such as the Church Obama belongs to, tho' many would debate if it was Christian in any orthodox way at all.) and finally (e) Those who believe that the Kingdom of God can progress in this world. (As believed by Stonewall & many folk in the 1800's) I hold (of course!) to the same faith as good old Stonewall. But I don't really see that many today would be willing to put their lives on the line. As for those of no faith? Well, maybe someone here who hasn't any faith can give their reasons why they would be prepared to stand up for liberty. (And Not the liberty of the French Religion, which was quite the reverse!) I think that's a pretty tight group of classifications, though. Don't you? I, too, am Christian, but I have a little trouble finding one of those groups that I could fit myself in to. Among the people I run with, I don't find that I'm all that unusual, though.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 22, 2009 3:58:50 GMT
"I suppose the real question is that even if obama signs this Marxist treaty, is America going to really sign away their wealth and children's future to African dictators or are they going to take to the streets and have a revolution to remove this cancer. In the UK we have been disarmed and effectively neutered so we need you yanks! (never thought I would ever have to say that). What we need now is a good solid yank like Bruce Willis to save the planet, We only have the one eyed Scottish idiot Gordon Brown who thinks he has already saved the world." I am an American and there is something you need to know. He may sign a treaty but it still needs to be accepted and ratified by the US house of representatives and the Senate. Clinton signed Kyoto and that never go ratified. Not one man has all the power. That is how we are set up here. It can also be repealed at any time with a change in government. We have our safe guards. ;D FWIW, only the senate has to ratify it. But even Barbara Boxer's seat looks vulnerable for this next election (only 1/3 of the senate faces election next year), so maybe they will be more cognizant of public opinion.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 4, 2009 16:44:06 GMT
I live in Southern California, where climatologists tell us global warming will bring us severe drought, while our meteorologists wish for another super El Nino to bring us heavy rain. Ironic, right? I was cheering for El Nino this year for just that reason (Even though I'm in Northern California). We really need rain.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 1, 2009 20:02:27 GMT
I think a lot of options are missing in the poll. I live near the ocean, just barely above sea level, but I don't fear rising sea levels, an in fact, have commented that it is imperceptible. But that really has nothing to do with my position on AGW.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 30, 2009 14:49:07 GMT
Those are good articles Radiant. The first is a very reasonable explanation, and the second a news strory (I can't watch the video right now - I'm on my air card on the train, so bandwidth is a little bit limited). That is very different from what was written in the article I said was ridiculous. And it is something to think about with respect both to what can be happening in Antarctica, and why sea levels may not necessarily rise that much even if there is a melt of Antarctica and Greenland.
My thought on the second is that as the land rises, there is a change in the shape of the sea basin and that will change its capacity. The constantly changing shape and capacity of the sea basin is something that I don't think can be measured with any significant accuracy, so I don't think any change of sea level upward or downward can really be attributed in any quantifiable way to specific causes like climate change (regardless of what Many And Varied's "Pocket Protector People" may say.)
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 30, 2009 3:31:29 GMT
A while back, someone posted a link here talking about the land rising around Juneau, AK. The article attributed it to melting of the Mendenhall glacier. I responded to the posting, and called it ridiculous, and I still think it was for a number of reasons (not the least of which is the area the glacier occupies as compared to the total area they were claiming was rising as it was getting relieved of the weight of the Mendenhall Glacier). Most of all, though, the article was just ridiculous because they just found an explanation they liked for something they didn't really research.
But now, with the article about Antarctica, it looks to me like they are measuring the height of the elevation of the ice, and since it is (as they say) lower, they are only considering that this could be due to ice melting. But since the ice there covers the continent (if not, please correct me), and has been expanding, would it not also be possible, following theories put down about Alaska, that the weight of the ice is pushing the level of the underlying land down? I don't see any consideration given to that in that article.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 29, 2009 4:40:55 GMT
I just hope the public realizes how badly they've been mislead once all this crap dies down and treats the alarmist leaders the way the alarmist leaders said skeptics should be treated. That probably is too extreme. More to the point the issue needs to be addressed. Requiring complete archiving of data and tearing down paywalls would be a very positive step in the right direction. Additionally the science community should think of putting together an association that promotes licensing, comprehensive peer review, regulation, and set of standards for various levels of services. Working with state and federal governments these standards could be enforced. Doctors have it, lawyers have it, accountants have it. . . .seems to me if we are going to be increasingly putting the public welfare at risk from shoddy science there should be some mechanism to ensure stuff like the following doesn't happen: www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168Climate audit is hard to get to right now with a lot of traffic reading this one. I think government involvement and regulation is a big part of the problem. I can't see them being any part of the solution.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 28, 2009 4:38:06 GMT
That's an AP story. I'm glad you found it. It appeared on our news sources on the internet last week, but I didn't post it at the time, and couldn't find it afterwards. Very interesting, I would say. And we see the extent continuing to expand as Kiwi posted a few posts above ...
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 24, 2009 19:53:51 GMT
I dont thing anybody who has studied the topic denies recent warming surely? Then why is a newspaper article that does just that cited? And why do so many people attack glc when he points out it's wrong? There's a lot of "trying to get away with it" going on Did you read the same article I just read? If so, maybe you can tell us: Is the article denying warming? or questioning the accuracy of the data and lack of forthcimingness from someone using that data.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 24, 2009 19:50:59 GMT
"All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above."There is, of course, the satellite record which shows ~0.4 deg warming over the past 30 years. Okay well that scuppers our attempt to deny recent warming. But instead of taking any responsibility for our mistake we will just fallback to claims of "it doesn't matter" and "it might not be co2" and even better we will speak as if it was you who were the one to bring a false argument to the thread. Oh and we will conveniently forget the point about the satellite records and you can be sure we will be invoking the surface records again in the near future in an attempt to deny recent warming. You might try reading the article. In particular, the part quoted in the original post should cause some concern. But if not, you can conveniently forget that temps have varied in the past without the aid of our industry (maybe that should cause us to stop and consider that maybe the answer isn't as simple as us taking "responsibility"). You might also conveniently forget that the period of time from 1979 is such a miniscule amount of time when we are talking in terms of the life of earth and the Sun that maybe we really can't draw conclusions that it is indicative of anything out of the ordinary. Maybe it is just the first time we have observed this happening. Maybe we just put a stethoscope to the earth's chest (so to speak) and suddenly started screaming "OH MY GOSH! It's going 'bump bump!' We really need to stop this since it is so obviously not natural!" Maybe we can claim "We already know and understand everything that could possibly cause this, and the only thing it could be is us and our CO2 production." (Sorry, that's the most ridiculous claim I hear from either side.) And, of course, we could all get so carried away with "taking responsibility" and trying to reduce CO2 that we don't think about things like "elevated CO2 may be exactly what is needed for the current level of world population to be able to feed itself." I don't know if it is, but at this point, I have no confidence in the simplistic answers I read coming primarily from your side, and the feeble attempt at rhetoric certainly doesn't help your argument.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 3, 2009 16:44:31 GMT
See where the rubber meets the road there are quite a bit of alternatives to "fossil fuels". But the issue is the current obsession with CO2. Only combustion provides the power efficiently enough to create real power. Anyone hear of gasification? works great, is proven over 100 year old technology, can be done nearly pollution free. But it wont be accepted because it's principle output is CO2. There was a story a while back about a company in Conn. USA that bought a foundry plant, it is electric. They are converting house hold trash into producer gas by heating it in the foundry's crucible. All the heavy metals sink to the bottom of the pot producing a clean burning gas. Mostly comprised of methane, hydrogen, and CO. All are flammable. The gas is collected and burned in a generator. The plant produces an EROI of 40%. Coal, wood, hay, or any organic can be used in a producer gas facility. So fuel would be abundant. I don't know all the details, but I know that Tulsa, Oklahoma tried the trash burning power pont. It didn't work out efficiently, and I think some or all of it has now been shut down. I think it has also been tried in some other cities but has not yet worked out. In the area around Tulsa, since grass grows so thick and tall, I thought maybe sources such as lawn clippings might make a significant source of power, but others on here have disagreed stating that it still lacks the power density to replace much of the power requirements. I'll let them address those points again.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 25, 2009 16:01:34 GMT
In Austin, we remain in the 100-degree-plus zone. Lengthening shadows are one of our few signs of approaching autumn. They are a great help to me, as a rower, on Lady Bird Lake. My teammates and I can row beside a cliff out of the Sun much earlier in the evening than a month ago. My 100-gallon rain barrels filled during a 10-minute deluge yesterday. Although Central Texas is in a serious drought, rain does fall from time to time, however briefly. When I lived through the California drought of 1976 to 1978, we would go 7 or 8 months at a time without a single drop. We also took "navy showers": water on for 15 seconds, soap up, water on for 30 seconds, and that was it; used vegetable-based dish detergent to hand-wash our dishes, and then used the same water again in our vegetable garden when we were through; restaurants stopped putting water on tables, unless a specific request was made. Such measures may be needed here, too, although at this point in time water restrictions are nowhere near strict enough to require such practices. We're in a pretty serious drought again. I, for one, am cheering for an El Nino this fall strong enough to rain us out of the drought.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 20, 2009 4:29:50 GMT
Greenarrow, I think you may have stated my sentiments more concisely than I have been able to.
I live right next to the San Francisco bay in an town that is listed as officially 5 feet above sea level. I can see the bay from my house. I fish there regularly with my son. I love the cool weather. I don't see the ocean rising. I don't discern any noticeable difference in temperature. I watch the temperature data that people post here, and mostly it looks noisy to me - no real meaningful trend in any direction.
I'm not worried. I think it's a lot of passion and panic about nothing significant. I really think that on both sides of the argument.
I'm still looking for something to change my mind on it, though.
|
|