BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Who says the Science is settled??
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 59

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Who says the Science is settled??
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Which is it More Storms or drought? Can't really have both now.


Well you can certainly have drought and windstorms at the same time. I belive both are common in deserts.

More wind could be an opportunity as it makes windpower more feasible and more economic.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Universal constants are used in science as a way to explain things that the equations have ignored or as a way to lump many parameters together



?perhaps they might be sometimes. I tend to think of them of being more like, well, universal constants.

Constant values that between them speak of the basic structure of the reality that underlies our perceived existance.

Not something appropriate to discuss here and now though. Way beyond the climate on one small planet orbiting one small sun in one small spiral arm of one small galaxy in a universe filled with a multitude of galaxies.

Who knows even that universe may only be a small aspect of some multiverse or omniverse. All we can say for sure is that nothing we do one way or another is going to have much impact on reality at large.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
As for the ice cores themselves, I have to believe that the weight of the ice above as an effect on the core itself. Also, while ice appears to be a solid it is actually slightly fluid. That is, over time some of those molecules will move around inside the ice. In fact, nothing in nature is 100% solid.


I tend to believe that the people working on the ice cores are intelligent enough and educated sufficently in thier own speciality (beyond myself or yourself) to be aware of such factors, if any, and provide appropriate compensatory calculations if needed. They have no particular agenda and no reason to misguide anyone.

I can't just dismiss the data they provide by picking speculative faults in thier methodology. I have no burning desire for them to be either wrong or right. It just seems that they are right.

Certainly their interpration of the data is based on education and specific experience beyond any that I have and I suspect beyond that of anyone in this discussion. I prefer not to assume I know better than specialists doing their speciality.

This is different from questioning a politicians agenda. This is the basic science produced by people who just like doing what they do as well as they can do it.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
As for the Ozone. That was just another in a passing fad of alarmism. We had the impending ice age, acid rain, the hole in the ozone, global warming, and now climate change. I wonder what the next trendy environmental concern will be.


That answer just begs the question in favour of a generalised assertion based on your a priori belief system. It is dismisive of facts by simple name calling, denigration and negative association, rather than reasoned argument.

The ozone layer as a whole has been depleteing since 1979. The 'hole' over the south pole has been growing for the same time period. stratospheric ozone has depleted by around 12% over this time.

Polar ozone undergoes seasonal chronic depletion when the temps get low enough to promote the chemical reactions involving free chlorine and bromine that deplete the ozone locally.

This depletion is not reversed when the seasonal reaction ends. Nor are the free chlorine or bromine consumed in the reactions. They end up back in the stratosphere from the catalytic chemical reaction cycle. So the same thing happens each year.

Naturally over nearly 30 years this has helped reduce the overall levels of global ozone (about 12%). So although the south pole vortex is the reaction vessel that removes ozone from the atomosphere the depletion is not restricted to the south pole but is spread across the globe with a big localised chronic spot at the pole.

The hole is a hole in the sense of a hole in the gound, a depression, not a hole in your windscreen. The ozone becomes less than 220 dobson units deep over a huge area on a global perspective of size. 220 dobson units is the boundary that defines the 'hole'. Nice pics of the hole are available at the link below.

There are other sources of ozone depletion such as Tropospheric ozone depletion and mid lattitude thinning. All revolve around the catylitic destruction of ozone by chlorine and bromine. And the chlorine and bromine is going to be around for a long long time. And we put it there.

Unlike the CO2 data there is no shadow of a question of this being any kind of natural cyle. It is entirely unatural, man made and measurable.

I cannot dismiss it as a fad when it is provably happening. We know for an absolute fact that the ozone layer is an important part of the stratosphere.

Even if it does not turn out to be a contribution to global warming there is no doubt that the loss of 12% over three decades with the prospect of losing more for a long time to come is a bad thing.

Nasa link for much of this information Click around the site for interesting info and external links.

If you prefer the peer reviewed full blown chemical reaction of halogens (chlorine, bromine) with ozone then the five and half megabyte pdf is here Halogens and their role in polar boundary-layer ozone depletion

For an easier read wikopedia is both informative and filled with external peer reviewed links ozone depletion.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
My thoughts on a greenhouse. During the day a greenhouse will amplify the suns energy and heat the interior of the structure, it works best with glass or translucent materials. However, when the sun goes away, the internal heat leaves just as quickly. Greenhouses are poor insulators.


the wiki article you post specifically says "The downward part of this longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere is the "greenhouse effect." The term is a misnomer, as this process is not the mechanism that warms greenhouses."

So any comments you make on actual greenhouses is totally irrelevant to the so called "greenhouse effect" as the mechanisms are different and the name is just a populist misnomer.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Has An Ocean Circulation Collapse Been Triggered?

ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2008) — Predictions that the 21st century is safe from major circulation changes in the North Atlantic Ocean may not be as comforting as they seem, according to a Penn State researcher.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is very unlikely that the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC) will collapse in the 21st century. They predict a probability of less then 10 percent," says Klaus Keller, assistant professor of geosciences. "However, this should not be interpreted as an all clear signal. There can be a considerable delay between the triggering of an MOC collapse and the actual collapse. In a similar way, a person that has just jumped from a cliff may take comfort that pain in the next few seconds is very unlikely, but the outlook over the long term is less rosy."

Keller and his colleagues analyzed a possible threshold response for the MOC. A threshold response occurs when a system reacts in a highly nonlinear and potentially abrupt way. For example, a paddler can tip a canoe quite a bit without getting wet. However, pushing that canoe just a bit further can result in a wet paddler. The impacts of pushing the canoe to the side are negligible until the very last small push triggers the overturning of the canoe in a threshold response.

The MOC may also respond to human-made greenhouse gas emissions in a threshold response. The research projects sizeable impacts on patterns of surface air temperatures and precipitation, fisheries and terrestrial ecosystems if a slowdown or complete collapse of the MOC occurs.

"Currently, MOC projections are deeply uncertain. This uncertainty puts a large value on observation systems that could deliver an actionable early warning of an MOC collapse," Keller said February 17 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston. "The problem is that information that arrives after the threshold response has been triggered is only of very limited use. For example, warning a person in a canoe about an approaching waterfall can be useful before the waterfall, but is not really useful after the canoe went over the waterfall.

"The problem with the potential MOC collapse is that the signs of an approaching threshold response are very subtle to detect. The noise is large and picking out the signal from the noise is non trivial," he adds.

"There is tantalizing evidence for a recent MOC slow down. However, this is not an open-and-shut case," Keller continues.

The researchers analyzed how they could improve MOC observation systems to result in more skillful MOC projections. For example, optimizing the locations of the observation system can considerably improve the projections.

Improved MOC projections can enable improved climate policies and can have economic value. Keller and colleagues show that investments into an MOC observation system that would provide an early warning of an approaching MOC collapse would likely pass a cost benefit test.

The National Science Foundation and the U.S. EPA supported this work.

Adapted from materials provided by Penn State.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102148.htm



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
For what it's worth you can check out this link. Ether believe it or not I'm not asking either.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

Just look at it and bring back your questions


No time left but will do that next session.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ant:
quote:
Which is it More Storms or drought? Can't really have both now.


Well you can certainly have drought and windstorms at the same time. I belive both are common in deserts.

More wind could be an opportunity as it makes windpower more feasible and more economic.


Except that the notion put forth is that there were be more tropical storms and hurricanes that are more intense. This means more rain, which means less drought.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ant:
quote:
Universal constants are used in science as a way to explain things that the equations have ignored or as a way to lump many parameters together



?perhaps they might be sometimes. I tend to think of them of being more like, well, universal constants.

Constant values that between them speak of the basic structure of the reality that underlies our perceived existance.

Not something appropriate to discuss here and now though. Way beyond the climate on one small planet orbiting one small sun in one small spiral arm of one small galaxy in a universe filled with a multitude of galaxies.

Who knows even that universe may only be a small aspect of some multiverse or omniverse. All we can say for sure is that nothing we do one way or another is going to have much impact on reality at large.

A discussion of the universal constants and such is best addressed in a college level quantum physics class. Something I don't really want to do again.

What is funny, i have often noticed that the model of the universe is an exact replica of an atom. Given that, how do we know that we aren't some atom in a much larger being. And since our solar system resembles an atom it is plausible that the earths orbit is constantly changing in all three planes. Clearly, the gravitational forces from the sun, moon, and all the planets effect our position in space. And heck, how do we know that the axis about which the earth turns is not always changing as well? What if at some time the earth revolved around an axis that ran through Africa and Asia?


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ant:
quote:
As for the ice cores themselves, I have to believe that the weight of the ice above as an effect on the core itself. Also, while ice appears to be a solid it is actually slightly fluid. That is, over time some of those molecules will move around inside the ice. In fact, nothing in nature is 100% solid.


I tend to believe that the people working on the ice cores are intelligent enough and educated sufficently in thier own speciality (beyond myself or yourself) to be aware of such factors, if any, and provide appropriate compensatory calculations if needed. They have no particular agenda and no reason to misguide anyone.

I can't just dismiss the data they provide by picking speculative faults in thier methodology. I have no burning desire for them to be either wrong or right. It just seems that they are right.

Certainly their interpration of the data is based on education and specific experience beyond any that I have and I suspect beyond that of anyone in this discussion. I prefer not to assume I know better than specialists doing their speciality.

This is different from questioning a politicians agenda. This is the basic science produced by people who just like doing what they do as well as they can do it.


I don't dismiss their work. I just wonder about the ability to get the fine measurements that we get now. To say that the earth is warming faster now than any time in history is simply irresponsible. And actually, if you look at the data they will give a probability or range of values. This range often get lost.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Something else to think about here. No one talks about the effect of water. For instance, if I look at the average high and low temperatures for Albuquerque, NM and Atlanta, GA for the month of July (to keep it simple). I see that Albuquerque, NM is 92, 65, with a difference of 27, Atlanta is 89, 71, with a difference of 18. Both are roughly at the same parallel, Albuquerque is very dry, Atlanta is very humid. The high temperatures are nearly the same, but Albuquerque sees much larger nighttime drops in temperature. In this example it is assumed that the CO2 in both places is the same. But!! read on.

In Yellowstone CO2 is 600ppm, yet the earth is said to be around 300ppm. If the CO2 is causing the warming one would expect that there would be far more warming in Yellowstone than in other parts of the world. I don't know the answer here, but if someone does please post it.

Obviously, what I am doing here is comparing mini-climates so that the big picture can become clearer.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
What if at some time the earth revolved around an axis that ran through Africa and Asia?


That's not too far from the truth. The Arctic Islands were once in the tropics. Google "continental drift animation" to see the earth's geologic history.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Isn't that something. Something you should know, I'm like that old HP commercial, I'm always asking what if. and on that note

I think of the earth as being like a chicken on a rotisserie. During the day it is exposed to the heat source, thus gaining heat. At night, the heat source goes away, and hence the earth gives off heat. If my heat source is not hot enough I will never cook my chicken. More heat that comes from the source the more goes into my chicken. So while there is a time when the chicken is giving off heat, the source has put it in faster than the chicken can give it off. And that is what happens to earth.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
While getting my daily dose of science concerning this issue I came across this site. U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

The nice thing about this page is it actually gives a list of those who are saying that CO2 is not the driving force of our climate. It also provides links to many articles as well as peer reviewed research. This was published 12-21-2007, with most of the research dated in the last 6 months. Take the time to review the material as well as all of the links. Remember, the truth shall set you free.

Of course I’m betting the Alarmist will try to present some hokey pokey smoke and mirrors that denies the science.

These links talk to the problems associated with the surface temperature measurements and how they are wrong. They are also critical fo the IPCC. These were peers on the IPCC panel

Background Discussion On:
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and


The entire research paper.
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic


This really kills some of the arguments kicking around here. Imagine this, real science with REAL peer reviewed research


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
The nice thing about this page is it actually gives a list of those who are saying that CO2 is not the driving force of our climate.


I can't find it in there,Can you please post that link?


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Except that the notion put forth is that there were be more tropical storms and hurricanes that are more intense. This means more rain, which means less drought.


Wel you could have storms in the tropics, hurricanes and drought elswhere. The globe usually has a variety of weather and will probably continue to do so even as the content of that variety changes. Global monadic weather is very very unlikely. Hurricanes are I think a very likely prospect of the changes that are taking place, regardless of the reasons for the change.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
What is funny, i have often noticed that the model of the universe is an exact replica of an atom


Not at all but as you say a discussion best left for elswhere.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Given that, how do we know that we aren't some atom in a much larger being.


Despite the error in assumption regarding the atom we probably are all part of some larger being. Just nothing even vaugely anthrpormorphic. The levels of existance may only be bounded at the smallest level where everything is made from the same monadic quintessence; at the outer edges, by the current growth boundary of existance. What it grows into is another metaphysical philosophical conundrum. Perhaps the levels never end and it really is some kind of infinity. Beyond any possiblity of our knowing in this lifetime at least. Beyond our true aprehension and comprehension as humans. Our minds are just too small.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
And since our solar system resembles an atom it is plausible that the earths orbit is constantly changing in all three planes


Not really, the resemblence is very superficial and based on an outmoded model of the atom.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
And heck, how do we know that the axis about which the earth turns is not always changing as well?


This typifies the kind of speculation you clearly enjoy. Groundless and untrue but you get a kick out of the creative thought process.

Thats a good thing and you have real potential as an origional thinker if you can adopt true scientific perspective. ie look at the facts and find a best fit hypothesis rather than start with a hypothesis and find facts to support it.

At the moment you catagorise everyone into two camps. Those who agree with you (who are right) and the 'alarmists' (who are wrong). This kind or bipolar divison of 'us and them' is the first step in the well documented five steps to tyranny. It should be avoided at all costs even though it might feel good to 'pick a side' and defend it against all comers. The social fallout is horrendous.

Better to seek objectivity and be ready to let go of beliefs when they cease to fit the facts. I let go of the CO2 link to warming when I was informed of the timelines involved. It went against what I firmly believed but the evidence was there and I felt no need to find a way to dispute it or twist other facts to maintain my previous belief. I may change my mind again if new evidence comes to light. That's science.

This is very hard to do for most humans. It's a tribal trait. I find it a real wrench. But I try. Thats all we can do if we believe in the search for truth over causes.

Despite your denigration of the 'alarmists' you yourself clearly carry a burning torch that influences all you arguemts. You could be so much better. You have the mind if you could overcome your tribal emotions.

I know this invitably all sounds incredibly patronising and I apologise for that here and now. I'm just not good enough to say what I mean in a more tactful way. This is my best effort, poor though it might be.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 59 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Who says the Science is settled??

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014