The Norfolk Island Experiment by canttakesky

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Magon,

I can tell you're ideologically opposed to the Tories. Over here in the states, I'm jealous that Brits have Tories to vote for when all I have are democrats and republicans. My hope for the Tea Party is that it has the potential to *become* Tories.

Yes, you're right I am ideologically opposed to the Tories, but I'm not as au fait with their policies as I used to be. I lived in the UK under Thatcher and could not tolerate her policies or the affect they had on that country.

Quote:
Specifically, I think primary voting is one of the better reforms.

Out of interest, do you have primaries for every candidate that runs for election in both houses?

Quote:
CTTS does have a point though, you should read his/her interview. It's pretty clear this is social engineering, and it's worrisome if someone wants to use it for an example of carbon tax working, so they can convince people to implement it on a larger scale.

Social engineering appears to be a term bandied around by the right regarding policies which they don't support. All political decisons affect the societies we live in, whether those decisions are pro active ie carbon tax, or inactive ie laissez faire economics. Whatever you do or don't do will affect the type of society/country/neighbourhood that you live in. If you travel, you can see the wide range of outcomes on people that are determined by how governments act or do not act.

Quote:
The main danger of carbon tax is, as with most taxes, where the money would go. I don't want globalists like the IMF and WTO to have their own planet-wide taxation scheme, and since their members are the guys who initially proposed the idea, there's a threat of that

Once again you take an idea and leap to the worst possible outcome. Maybe carbon taxes could be targeted directly to local environmental projects, maybe to homing the homeless, maybe to implementing a green, clean effective public transport system. Who says it has to all end in global conspiracy???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 3:10 PM

1. I also lived in the UK under Thatcher. Got no problems with her.

2. Yes, we do. Sometimes corrupt officials rig the process, but it's a lot better to be able to get our own candidates in.

A couple years ago the local progressives (people who are afraid to be called socialists) put forth a democrat and won the primary. I actually went out and campaigned for the guy because I favor anyone grass roots outside the mainstream to anyone from the political machine because I know they'll be corrupt. We lost 2:1. This is one of my gripes with socialism. It comes with such baggage from failed regimes that it tends to, at least here, lose resoundingly.

3. Social Engineering is just a term for minority rule, when projects that represent the designs of a few in power are put over the people through grand design govt. I'm not certain that it could never work, but I think it's undemocratic and often fails.

Of course I've been to many countries, but not yours, it's too far away. I've met many many people from Oz over the years, which has led me to believe it's a right wing paradise ;)

4. Seeing the worst possible outcome is the very nature of understanding incrementalism. If you don't get it, then you're just a frog on slow boil.

ETA: What govt. chooses to do with tax revenue is no justification of the tax, or who collects it. This particular tax scheme is well known as to exactly where it came from and what its purpose is.

And to shoot down a skeet here: Taxation plans are always touted as "this will solve the world's problems" because that's a pretty good pitch for theft. It's why charities that collect for Haiti but never send more than a fraction of the money are so much more clever theft schemes than just outright muggings.

Our Federal govt's tax system is always defended by people who say "we like roads and schools and hospitals" oh come on, 95 cents on the dollar is going for bombs and y'all damn well know it. Schools, hospitals and roads tend to be supported by other things, state and local taxes.

The N.I.E. isn't going for war, it's the example, which is worrisome, so good that CTTS put it forward, because it's a testing ground for cap and trade, a taxation system put forth by the goons at the WTO and IMF. We know exactly what they want to money for, and the global taxation currency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Of course I've been to many countries, but not yours, it's too far away. I've met many many people from Oz over the years, which has led me to believe it's a right wing paradise ;)

Hee hee. Well I suppose it might be if you considered that public health, a comprehensive and generously public funded welfare system, heavily restricted gun ownership, three levels of government, a regulated financial system,and compulsory voting looked like a right winged paradise... I'm not sure that others would agree. Maybe your friends said 'surfers paradise' which apart from being the actual name of a place, pretty much sums us up. One thing we do have is lots of very nice beaches. Actually best beaches in the world, if I can have a moment's national pride.

As for the rest of your post, re social engineering and the world taxation conspiracy, I guess we'll just have to agree that we see things quite differently.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA

And everything trying to kill you, don't forget that part!

(Warning: Some profanity)
http://www.cracked.com/funny-163-australia/

Seriously, is there ANYTHING in the land down under which won't try to kill you ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 4:35 AM

Well, the best they could come up with in that article for things that might not kill you was this:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 6:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I started reading this thread and almost thought it was about religion. "Global Warming/Climate Change is the one way and it only happens this one true way with Co2. Your Co2 emissions are an ABOMINATION!"

Yes, the Climate God is unhappy with our sin of CO2. He/she will punish us and unleash unspeakable global disasters if our sin goes unchecked. Those who sin the most should be fined, and those who do not sin so much should be compensated for their discipline. If we just ALL believe and stop sinning, we can all be saved.

The GW doctrines, some of which are nicely outlined by Sig, are very much like a religion. The faith in them is so strong that it has become inconceivable that they should be questioned or doubted. There is very little tolerance for GW agnostics, and none at all for GW atheists.

Unlike say Christianity, where salvation is individual and the disbelief of infidels can't send believers to hell, the GW religion requires that salvation be a collective effort. That is, believers can perish because there are too many unbelievers. This causes a great sense of indignation, sometimes even fury, at unbelievers and infidels. The Climate God hates skeptics just slightly less than he hates CO2.

It is just a matter of time, I suppose, for a branch of science to be usurped and converted into a religion. It is too bad, because climate scientists are actually doing some very good and interesting work. Not all GW proponents treat it as a religion.

Just look at Judith Curry.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic

But there sure are enough folks that do.

----
The use of strawmen arguments, when you put words into my mouth that I never said and proceed to tell me why those imaginary words are all manner of horrible, is dishonest in civil discourse. I appreciate refrain from such tactics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:30 AM

CTTS

It already is.

The fellow travelers will bash me for saying this, but it's true. It all starts with socialism.

Socialism is the new religion, it's an offshoot of judeo-christian theology, it's not a political philosophy at all. It is unwilling to debate any of its tenets, even internally, except in "interpretation of the scripture" ways, never in "should we do this or should we do what the opposition wants".

Additionally, socialism accepts no other gods before it. It wants to ban not only all other "religions" but all other political philosophies.

It demands undying loyalty from its members, and is structured in a pyramid of power, with an elite ideological priesthood of think tankers at the top.

Like all religions, it was born in a friendly enclave of true believers, but quickly met harsh resistance from the sane outside. So, socialism mutated and found ways to crawl its tentacles into the everyday life of other systems.

Thus, the New World Order was born. It's globalism, neolibs and neocons, both openly avowed socialist fragments of the trotsky loyalist communist sect who have moved into the private sector and mainstream politics, not as converts, but as corruptors.

They inherited the ideas of the one worlders, early socialist dreamers who thought everyone would accept socialism and there would be world peace, and have twisted it into something even the fellow travelers have trouble coming to terms with.

Global Warming is a cult idea of the NWO. It was created to woo environmentalists under their wing, sort of the way the Roman Catholic Church created holidays to draw pagan festivals into the church.

And it almost got me. I believed for a good long while. Unfortunately, science is a discrete science, and it can be reasoned out by anyone trained in it.

Bascially, we divide here into three camps:

1) The true believers, loyal to the faith, who will not tolerate the heresy or apostasy of those who will not accept this new tenet.

2) The heathens, who reject everything the church of socialism has to offer, and sees it as an evil force eclipsing the landscape.

3) the rational, who are capable of take each point on its own merits, and discern the good ideas from the simple power plays.

I'm somewhere between 2 and 3 generally, but I believed in this one thoroughly until I reasoned it. Then I doubted it, and then I really doubted it, and then I tracked it to its source, and my pagan heathen anti-socialist self was satisfied ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:19 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... so they can convince people to implement it on a larger scale ..."

Are you afraid people will be convinced?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

CTS

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs heat and traps it in the atmosphere instead of letting it radiate out into space. Faster or slower, more CO2 will make the earth warmer, without question. To argue against this simple physical fact is like arguing against the pull of gravity.

I refuse to waste my time debating idiocy. In my opinion, you are edging into Rap territory ... but in either case I have absolutely no interest in your well being --- either of you. So, go ahead ... after you.

ETA:
Actually, I had an interesting idea. I bet if I were to come on as a different persona, agree with many of your beliefs, and then propose some really stupid idea - but claim there are facts about it that 'the authorities' are hiding - you would eat it up. No matter how ridiculous it was. I think it would be pretty easy. I think your mindset would be quite subject to that kind of manipulation, by playing on your hatred of anything that even tangentially resembles an authority figure or system.

Not that I would do it. But I can see how it could be done. You've got this big honking handle on you that could be used by others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:07 AM

Quote:
Thus, the New World Order was born. It's globalism, neolibs and neocons, both openly avowed socialist fragments of the trotsky loyalist communist sect who have moved into the private sector and mainstream politics, not as converts, but as corruptors.

Stop, you made me spit my coffee out over the keyboard. Too funny.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But I noticed CTS that while you will argue conspiracy and ideology all day long... and we all can, it is endlessly fascinating and so much easier than thinking... you haven't responded to this challenge

Quote:
For example, calculate how much heat so many extra gigatons of carbon dioxide will absorb, and show me (relative to other heat sources) that the amount is trivial and we will actually be having a discussion

Grab the keys of reality, and let's take it for a spin, okay?

I'll start. Here are some basic facts.

At standard temperature and pressure, one cubic foot of air weighs 0.06 pounds.

But halfway up the troposphere, the pressure isn't standard, it's only about 50%, which I'll use an an average. (Back of envelope, the actual decrease in pressure is logarithmic, not linear)

For the sake of convenience, let's only consider the lowest layer (troposphere) which on the average stops at about 7 miles above the earth's surface.

The earth is about 25000 miles in circumference.

Factoring all that in.... we get a total weight of about ...

=troposphere cubic miles * cubic feet/cubic mile * 0.06 lb/CF * 50%
=(r^2*pi*4 heightinmiles * cubic feet/cubic mile *0.5 avg pressure *0.06 lb/CF
= 4000^2 *3.14*5280^3 *0.4*.06
= approx 5 *10^ 18 pounds

So if the atmosphere weighs 5*10^18 pounds, the current weight percent of carbon dioxide is 0.05802, so the current pounds of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about ... yanno what? I just found the answer...

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight
-in-the-atmosphere/

What I was looking for: The increase in carbon dioxide since 1960 (a year for which we have reasonably accurate measurements) is

285 BILLION tons.

Now... what kind of increase in heat can we expect from that?

That will take a whole nother set of calculations, which I will do later. Unless you beat me to it, CTS.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
"... so they can convince people to implement it on a larger scale ..."- DT

Are you afraid people will be convinced?-Kiki

Yes, that is exactly what they're afraid of.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
ETA:
Actually, I had an interesting idea. I bet if I were to come on as a different persona, agree with many of your beliefs, and then propose some really stupid idea - but claim there are facts about it that 'the authorities' are hiding - you would eat it up.

I think that is an excellent hypothesis. I would love it if someone would test it. You have my blessing and encouragement to try.

I'm not being sarcastic. I think someone should try it. If I had such a blindspot, I would love nothing more on this Earth to see it revealed.

(Really, if you think about it, why else do I come to RWED to be derided most of the time? I'm not a masochist. I want to learn my own weaknesses. It is a matter of self-growth.)

----
Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
-- Richard Feynman, physicist (1918 - 1988 )

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:50 AM

Sig

This is a common rhetorical trick, I like to think of it as "Prove Einstein wrong, show your work." Yet we all know areas where he was wrong.

I've actually done this one, and the result is in fact nominal, but I don't care to do it again. Furthermore, you don't have to. We have basically the whole recorded history of atmospheric co2 changes and the corresponding temperature changes.

The data shows us quite clearly that it takes fairly large changes to have any effect at all. Small changes have little or no effect due tot he presence of carbon sinks in the ecosystem, which grow to respond to the increased co2.

The data also shows us that not only is 340 to 370ppm not scary, it's natural, and could be entirely cyclical. Also, 2-300 is extraordinarily low on the long term, like ice age/snowball earth low, and levels as high as 7700 ppm do not end all life on earth.

Global warming theory is based on a logical fallacy that the entire planet is as unstable as Antarctica

Even snowball earth is undoubtedly an exaggeration: It's much more likely that it was an ice age at the point when continental land masses were at the poles.

If there's a co2 connection to the ice age cycle it would be this one: Glaciation destroys forest cover. Around 20% of it. This reduces co2 consumption, which causes co2 levels to rise. The rise in co2 increases the melting of the ice. We've measured a 2 degree temperature change associated with 100+ppm we see here, but which would mean a 30ppm change would be 0.3 degrees if this were logical, but it's not.

Glaciation is a critical threshold which changes ocean and air currents as well as convection cycles. A simple look at Antarctica itself shows us the radical changed that a frozen world has. It does not strongly resemble Alaska, but if the simple factors included in such studies were all that mattered, it should. But Antarctica is trapped in a circular cold current, and has no real forest cover, so no convection cycle. Thickness of the ice also plays a factor, as may the hole in the ozone layer, which may have always been there.

Finally, global warming scientists perpetually use only this short range view of the ice ages to support their case, rather than acknowledging that the ice ages were a special case in history. Global co2 levels were not this low, and don't spike nearly this sharply, but also, any long term view would show us that 370ppm is still low for atmospheric co2.

Furthermore, not only is there no oil panic, but even if there isn't a peak oil limit, there is not enough oil on the planet to cause the disaster global warming scientists predict. The only ways to create runaway co2 would be to clear the forests or destroy the ocean algae populations.

Algae populations are up, because we're killing off all the fish. This partially offsets the fact that we're killing off all the first growth forests. As for the real effect: Rising co2 is probably helping the earth, by encouraging new plant growth, which is really what the earth needs. what the earth doesn't need is another ice age.

ETA:

This is the big distraction. TPTB/NWO are very into FEAR. Hence H1N1, Terrorism, nuclear war, etc. etc. etc.

This is the not very scary data. Any long term view would be much more unscared. Political manipulators want to enact radical policies such as cap and trade to solve a problem which is nominal and not urgent by addressing a cause which is not really related to the problem.

The loss of species is, OTOH, an urgent problem. This requires a radical policy change: Stop cutting down the forests! This will also solve your little co2 problem. But it will take a million years for that co2 problem to seriously impact our lives as humans, it will only take 50 for deforestation to irrevocably damage the planet.

The human race is the largest single catastrophe since the destruction of the dinosaurs.

I have my own theories about that as well, but another time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...you haven't responded to this challenge

I apologize. It is a Time Suck issue. There are certain arguments I can articulate relatively quickly without having to do additional research. Calculations are not one of them.

If you really are interested in my perspective on this question, I will put in the time to do the work. Please be patient.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 4:16 AM

CTTS,

See my above response.

Also, here's a theory that's been around for a while. The data seems to support it.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22787/Report_Temperature_Ch
anges_Precede_CO2_Changes.html

Glaciation causes loss of forest cover, and the formation of ice shelves, and a decrease in the ocean carbon sink, which is probably more algae related. We can prove that these things cause a rise in co2 long term, if low temperatures do cause co2 decrease, it would probably be something to do with where in the atmosphere or biosphere the co2 was. It could help explain the cycle.

Point being, this is an interesting field of science, not any more of a reason to push the panic button than winter.

The current global cooling of NY (winter) is probably responsible for my flu, but I can't prove the correlation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But I noticed CTS that while you will argue conspiracy and ideology all day long...

Just to clarify, I don't necessarily think GW as a religion is a conspiracy. It very well could have accidentally happened.

Religion evolves. Science-religion may simply be the new face of religion.

Religion usually develops when there is some heightened veneration for some authority, which grants some lifestyle-changing insight. This insight is usually written down into even more venerated "scriptures." A certain amount of dogmatism develops regarding the truths in the scriptures, and a religion is born.

It may be that, simply by coincidence, the right ingredients presented itself at a time when scientific authority has the same level of veneration as prophets (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Buddha etc) of old.

Not necessarily a conspiracy. Though I do find conspiracies infinitely entertaining.

----
Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
-- Richard Feynman, physicist (1918 - 1988 )

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 4:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Faster or slower, more CO2 will make the earth warmer, without question.

But I do have questions, if I may be allowed to have them.

Will it make the earth warmer the way emptying buckets of boiling water into the ocean will make it warmer?

Or is it more like emptying entire seas of boiling water into the ocean? Or somewhere in between?

And how do we know?

And if we cut out all co2 production outside of breathing, how much of a dent in CO2 will we make?

And how do we know that?

Science is ALL about asking questions, at all levels. Scientists question something as basic and universally accepted as gravity. (I am married to a PhD professional research scientist and hang out with PhD scientist friends. I can attest, they question everything.)

There is nothing in science that is without question, I'm afraid. And there shouldn't be.

----
Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
-- Richard Feynman, physicist (1918 - 1988 )

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
CTTS,

See my above response.

Yes, very interesting. I have seen it before, though I have not looked into enough to endorse it or reject it.

I'm afraid this doesn't answer Siggy's question though, on exactly how much CO2 there is now and exactly how much heat it absorbs relative to other greenhouse gases.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 4:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig This is a common rhetorical trick, I like to think of it as "Prove Einstein wrong, show your work.

DT, this is NOT a rhetorical trick, and I'm a little pissed for you saying so.

The only reason why I'm arguing the "here and now" of carbon dioxide is to answer CTS's objections to data which might be subject to interpretation... ice cores, past temperatures etc. I'm willing to talk geohistory all day long... well, not ALL day long, I have a lot of things to do!... but I was trying to stay out of an area that CTS would object to. Away from the realm of suppostion and very much into stuff that can be immediately demonstrated, observed, and measured.

But to quickly answer your post: Yeah, high carbon dioxide didn't kill ALL life on earth... but it would prolly kill 99.999% of us. Do we really want to live there?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 5:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anyway, speaking of time suck... My family rolls their eyes every time they see the FFF.net black background. ("Take me out to the black, Tell them I ain't coming back") I'm with you on that, CTS!

I'll be contributing to my share of the global warming problem, and flying back to NY to visit family, so I have to tear myself away for a while.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:31 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Will it make the earth warmer the way emptying buckets of boiling water into the ocean will make it warmer?"

No, it is closer to "... emptying entire seas of boiling water into the ocean?" though not that extreme.

"And how do we know" Well, it can be calculated. And speaking of calculations, it has already been done, though I'm not going to find that data now. The rise of ocean temperature - the oceans are the biggest heat sink on the planet - corresponds to the amount of heat absorbed by the increased CO2.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:38 AM

Sig

It's a rhetorical trick whether you intend it as one or not. People used this one a lot on me when I first came here before I found out it was a common debate trope.

I did at some point crunch the numbers and got a result of 0.3 deg C. I don't know if that's accurate, because it's hard to be sure.

Fortunately, we don't need to know, we have tons of data to work with:

1) We have local co2 levels which are very very high, and could expect truly extreme things there. We see some warming, but not the catastrophes predicted.

2) We have historical charts of the earth, and again, it's a trend *after* a certain buffer point, but not a real worrisome one.

Mainly, it is painfully obvious that something else is going on. I've put forth my hypotheses.

Additionally, the co2 atmosphere is a fallacy. The past co2 atmosphere was due to a lack of oxygen and nitrogen. Nothing could recreate that without first turning the surface of the earth into molten lava, by some other non-atmospheric means, such as colliding the earth with the moon, or a very high speed planetoid.

There's simply not enough fossil fuel to cause the predicted effect, and the creation of more consumes more co2 than it produces.

co2 runaway global warming is a NWO scare tactic. Yes, they saw something there, that was real, and then they ran with it to create a state of fear to forward radical policy.

Now I know how they manipulate the left: Collective concern. If the neocons can get you to panic, it creates the same obedience to tyrannical policy ideas that cowing the right with fears of muslim mexicans with terror drugs invading public schools does.

We need to be calm and objective about this.

If you want to oppose the fossil fuel industry, look at the mess they're making in drilling and exploration, it's far worse than any effect of co2.

So far, my scientific opinion on the human production of co2 is basically, yay us. co2 is the most vital ingredient to life on earth. We were able to find some trapped in sand under the rock. That was probably a good move. Who knows? We may have just avoided the next ice age. It was a good thing to do, motivated by the worst of intentions. OTOH, some of the worst things done have been done with the best intentions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:25 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Right tempted to throw peanuts at the lot of you.

What part of "Don't trash your living space" and "Waste not, want not" - requires this amount of bloody nitpicking ?

It's a simple goddamn concept, and wouldn't it be nice to keep it that way, so that we can discuss the HOW instead of the WHY ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I agree with you Frem. But if you think something is cyanide and someone else thinks its fertilizer (because it contains nitrogen) then you're going to be very far apart on how you deal with it, or whether you deal with it at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
clear the forests or destroy the ocean algae populations.

Which we're doing. According to recent data, algae populations are down significantly. Roughly 40% since 1950. And of course, deforestation is proceeding apace. Hey, man, I hate so say it but I think we're hosed. And since there's no way off this planet, we can X off that scifi notion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It's a simple goddamn concept, and wouldn't it be nice to keep it that way, so that we can discuss the HOW instead of the WHY ?

Hey, I started that thread upon your request... so don't yell at me.

I think we got a lot of good ideas going, at least in fantasy land.

----
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.
-- Ancient Indian Proverb

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I agree with you Frem. But if you think something is cyanide and someone else thinks its fertilizer (because it contains nitrogen) then you're going to be very far apart on how you deal with it, or whether you deal with it at all.

Good point. Also what stops us poining forces to stop people from trashing the planet are ideological differences, which are apparent in this thread. There is a school of thought that seems to believe that any solutions involving government is the first step towards certain totalitarianism, and that everything can be solved by choice. Choice would apparently mean that individuals, corporations and governments can keep trashing the place as badly and for as long as they want , but hey that's their right, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:45 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... I was trying to stay out of an area that CTS would object to."

There is NO area she WOULDN'T object to, as far as I can tell.

Regarding Mauna Loa, she implied that ALL the data - the entire Keeling curve upswing - is suspect b/c of the effects of the volcano, ignoring that is it episodic in nature and the care taken to make accurate and representative measurements. Referencing other CO2 measures that show the same thing she claimed CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. After explaining that by the physics of it it warms the earth as surely as gravity pulls objects to each other, she hedged by saying it's not an IMPORTANT greenhouse gas. I said that calculations have been done that equate the warming of the oceans with the excess heat absorbed by the increased CO2 and if she comes back she will say that it's not raw data and therefore suspect. Push come to shove she will play the poor misunderstood victim card whose only fault is an inability to express herself clearly, and when it gets bad enough, she will leave and ignore the entire discussion.

You are not dealing with a rational person.

There is no argument you can make that she will not dismiss, fudge, sidestep or ignore in order to appease her driving emotions. Unless and until she comes to grips with them, I think this is a futile attempt at rational discourse.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:04 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... I was trying to stay out of an area that CTS would object to."

There is NO area she WOULDN'T object to, as far as I can tell.

Regarding Mauna Loa, she implied that ALL the data - the entire Keeling curve upswing - is suspect b/c of the effects of the volcano, ignoring that is it episodic in nature and the care taken to make accurate and representative measurements. Referencing other CO2 measures that show the same thing she claimed CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. After explaining that by the physics of it it is warms the earth as surely as gravity pulls objects to each other, she hedged by saying it's not an IMPORTANT greenhouse gas. I said that calculations have been done that equate the warming of the oceans with the excess heat absorbed by the increased CO2 and if she comes back she will say that it's not raw data and therefore suspect. Push come to shove she will play the poor misunderstood victim card whose only fault is an inability to express herself clearly, and when it gets bad enough, she will leave and ignore the entire discussion.

You are not dealing with a rational person.

There is no argument you can make that she will not dismiss, fudge, sidestep or ignore. Unless and until she comes to grips with the emotions that are driving her, I think this is a futile attempt.

Gosh, why don't ya tell us how you really feel? That's an awful lot of supposition regarding this person, and sounding more than a little emotionally charged.

Good science, and even good religion in my opinion, can stand up to questioning. I'll use religion as an example cause I've felt offended or had my feelings hurt before regarding religion. When it happens I do research. I look into the part being questioned, look at it in context (often times it's been taken out of context) and I try and figure out why they think what they do, what this stuff really means, and then what do I actually think about it. Every time I've found answers and my faith as become stronger.

If you really believe Co2 is the cause of climate change that strongly, the best thing you can do IMO is present new evidence and arguments, preferably not isolated to one dead horse or area. Might not change CTS's opinion (does CTS have an opinion here?) but I'd be interested.

The shiny thing about science is it's great to be wrong. Means you've just discovered something new. If only politicians could stay out of it, they ain't so great at the being wrong part.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:24 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I reproduced arguments she has made in this thread and positions she's taken in others over many years. Her objections are so contradictory, illogical, and unsupported by fact; and so resistant to any application of consistency, logic and fact, that I've concluded she is being driven by emotions about her past - a past which no longer exists but what she is still responding to.

To some extent we are all irrational as we are all driven by emotions (excepting sociopaths). Emotion is evolution's way of influencing individual behavior to improve survival. But some people are stuck in past emotion, a past which no longer exists, and it blinds them to current reality. I think that is where CTS is at the moment. Not that that can't change, but it hasn't yet.

As for the the topic of global climate change, I have brought in facts and data - unlike CTS I might add. Perhaps you missed them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
clear the forests or destroy the ocean algae populations.
Which we're doing. According to recent data, algae populations are down significantly. Roughly 40% since 1950. And of course, deforestation is proceeding apace. Hey, man, I hate so say it but I think we're hosed. And since there's no way off this planet, we can X off that scifi notion.

Sig,

With you on that one. I mentioned it a while back. I think I got cross threads here but yeah.

For once I'm not actually in complete agreement with Frem. I agree we shouldn't be fighting with each other, but rather addressing the solution, but I actually am concerned about this global cap and trade scheme. Any global currency is a threat, because control over currency is what truly shapes policy today. I'm uncomfy with the neocons having that much power.

I also think there are a couple rather more serious issues than co2 output, and that this is diverting out attention away from them.

The only part I actually like about the co2 cap idea is that it could end fossil fuels, the acquiring of which not only causes wars, but wreaks environmental havoc. I would like to see that stop, and the sad part is that it actually *can* be done fairly easily without any green damage, but it's *not* because either they're too damn cheap, or the merchants of death have their hand in this which I sincerely suspect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2010 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Good science, and even good religion in my opinion, can stand up to questioning.

The shiny thing about science is it's great to be wrong. Means you've just discovered something new. If only politicians could stay out of it, they ain't so great at the being wrong part.

Thank you. Thank you. Your post was very refreshing. Exactly how I feel.

Re my opinion. I am REALLY impressed you understood that I have not stated an opinion here. You're a sharp cookie, aren't you? At least, now *I* think you are, for what that's worth.

I DO have an opinion--a personal one, not a scientific one. I am very hesitant to state it because I have absolutely no scientific proof. The funny thing is, if everyone knew my personal opinion, they probably wouldn't jump on me so hard, because there is much more overlap with their opinions than they assume.

Your comment has helped me see that this is probably the root of the emotional problem in this debate. I question their positions, but do not state my own. They feel attacked but have no target to attack back. So they attack me personally by using the positions I linked to as proxies for my own mysteriously absent position. I guess I can't, or shouldn't, blame them. Very interesting. I'll have to think about that.

This is why I don't tell them. Here is MY emotional hang-up. I am mad that the discipline of science that I love so much is being corrupted and bastardized with lower standards in order to lend prestige to a political movement. Even if I agree with the political movement, I cannot let them do it in the name of science. I cannot let them deflate scientific rigor just so they can use the term "scientific proof" when there is none.

Quote:
If you really believe Co2 is the cause of climate change that strongly, the best thing you can do IMO is present new evidence and arguments, preferably not isolated to one dead horse or area. Might not change CTS's opinion (does CTS have an opinion here?) but I'd be interested.

This is a VERY good point. Here is a list of evidence that I would like to see before I endorse GW.

1. Evidence that the planet's surface temperature is significantly warming on the average: a) A mean global surface temperature, calculated from raw readings and calculated with a standard deviation, and b) an increase in the mean over any period of time that is larger than the standard deviation.

2. Evidence that the planet's CO2 has increased significantly without using proxies: a) A mean CO2 concentration calculated from raw readings and calculated with a standard deviation, b) an increase in the mean over any period of time that is larger than the standard deviation.

There is more, but that should keep people who want to persuade me busy for a long time. In the meantime, I will draft a complete list of criteria that I will accept as proof that I am wrong. The CTS gold standard, if you will. Those two are the first two items.

The reason I am not currently persuaded is that I have looked hard for the first two criteria and found out they do not exist. At all. So, until the field of climate science grows to a point where they can provide that, I say it is premature to declare GW an indisputable scientific fact.

----
"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know."
-- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2010 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I also think there are a couple rather more serious issues than co2 output, and that this is diverting out attention away from them.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2010 7:44 AM

Clearly there are two sides. One thinks the issue is solved and is largely not interested in further study, the other side thinks that it is not solved and is worried about the consequences of a plan of action based on inaccurate information or the agenda behind enacting such a plan.

Since the world is not about to end, (If you're on the hard line GW camp, this problem is headed out way in 50 years, and if you're in the skeptic camp, it's at least further away) then I think there's plenty of time for discussion and study.

It's like the social security debate or the spread of international terrorism or so much of politics:

Our decision on a course of action is never really anywhere near as urgent as policy makers would like us to believe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2010 4:25 PM

MAL4PREZ

OMG - CTS is hi-larious! And DT... though you're not as nuts, you've got your moments. I can't even quote the ridiculousness happening in this thread!

And I'd try to reply with facts, including picking apart the complete misuse of data in DT's posts, but I've already posted those ice cores with a more consistent analysis. That all got dismissed over somebody's poor hurt feelings. I won't waste my time getting into it again, but lurkers can catch the details here:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42861

Note my arguments in that thread: figures and references. CTS's argument: "My husband is the expert on this. I am just going by what he said." Yeah, that's a direct quote.

OK. Please, carry on. This is such an interesting character study.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2010 5:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
1. Evidence that the planet's surface temperature is significantly warming on the average: a) A mean global surface temperature, calculated from raw readings and calculated with a standard deviation, and b) an increase in the mean over any period of time that is larger than the standard deviation.

2. Evidence that the planet's CO2 has increased significantly without using proxies: a) A mean CO2 concentration calculated from raw readings and calculated with a standard deviation, b) an increase in the mean over any period of time that is larger than the standard deviation.

But we have those. I won't even post the links because I know it won't make any difference, but I have read reports and papers on this. So apparently you're not convinced by "evidence", because the evidence is already here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2010 5:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
For once I'm not actually in complete agreement with Frem. I agree we shouldn't be fighting with each other, but rather addressing the solution, but I actually am concerned about this global cap and trade scheme. Any global currency is a threat, because control over currency is what truly shapes policy today. I'm uncomfy with the neocons having that much power.

I'm vehemently against cap and trade. I've read some very good policy analyses about why it doesn't work... can NEVER work... and some very good detailed examples of how even the current (minimal) cap and trade is fraught with corruption, and about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2010 2:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So apparently you're not convinced by "evidence", because the evidence is already here.

If it is already there, I haven't seen it. I have begged in previous threads for smarter people to humor me and help me find it. But no one ever helped.

Do me a favor and show them to me. Cause I've looked, and I am quite certain they do not exist (very certain re temperature, not so certain for CO2). But really, if I have missed something in my research, PLEASE, please correct me.

If you show me the absolute mean, AND a standard deviation of the mean, AND an increase in the mean that is larger than the standard deviation, I will happily eat crow, kiss your feet, and proclaim I have seen evidence the mean has increased significantly.

But remember you have to show me ALL THREE. One out of the three doesn't count!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2010 2:50 AM

Let's move the thread over here. Plus this thread is getting long.

The Great Global Warming Debate
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46205

----
"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know."
-- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2010 3:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
For once I'm not actually in complete agreement with Frem. I agree we shouldn't be fighting with each other, but rather addressing the solution, but I actually am concerned about this global cap and trade scheme. Any global currency is a threat, because control over currency is what truly shapes policy today. I'm uncomfy with the neocons having that much power.
I'm vehemently against cap and trade. I've read some very good policy analyses about why it doesn't work... can NEVER work... and some very good detailed examples of how even the current (minimal) cap and trade is fraught with corruption, and about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

Sig

Then I don't understand your position. You have to know that I too went through the science, on every theory, from every perspective, and had already done so before anyone suggested Cap and Trade, which I forgot to mention has a loophole that allows big industry to pollute like mad, and another one for China, as usual. But then after it appeared, I continued to read and compare theories and data.

Here's the problem

"an increase in co2 will cause an increase in temperature"

Sure, but how much? This logic is A can cause B so B must have been caused by A. Lots of other things can cause an increase in temperature.

Look at some specific obvious examples:

It is warmer in the city than here by about 10 degrees on average.

Here are some options that would effect the temperature:

1) The city is marginally south of upstate
2) The city is by the sea
3) The city is covered in asphalt which radiates heat
4) The city has fewer trees lowering the covection
5) The city has more pollution.

Anecdotally, I can simply compare the city to here based on these, and check with a few other cities, and see what they have in common.

Okay, If I go parallel but west of the city there isn't much of a temperature change. A little bit

If I go closer to the ocean, the temp becomes more moderate, not necessarily warmer, but the average maybe up.

If I go to any other city in NY I see a similar effect, so I can remove 1 and 2.

But what happens if I go to a city that has nowhere near the co2 levels of NYC? I see this same city effect again, mostly in the summer. If I drive into town, to a city of 20,000 people, the temperature goes up 10 degrees. There's not really a lot of co2 here, nothing compared to the level in the city or jersey.

So I gotta figure it's #3 or #4. It's probably a combination of the two. I know that groundwater table is 55 degrees. On a 90 degree day in town, it's 80 degrees here. If I go into the forest, it's 70 degrees. Less sun? Maybe, but if I go into a clearing in the forest, the temp. doesn't go up that much, unless it's a really big clearing.

So what's happening here? The trees are pouring out water vapor into the air at not much over that 55 degrees, say 60. That's making 70% of my 60% Avg. humidity. That's a lot of water being heat traps which its high specific density relative to air. It's absorbing that heat lickety split, and dragging that 90 degree day right down towards its own 60ish. That would be the cause, and I can prove that pretty simply by applying those things attached to the end of my legs.

Moreover, I find this simple principle works the world over. Now sure, if you have no trees, and no humidity, you have a desert, and then it doesn't work. But it sort of proves my theory, doesn't it?

If you want to oppose pollution there are an awful lot of more serious ones, even in automobile exhaust. What about the levels of CO and benzene. Sure, globally they're never be much, but in downtown LA or Beijing they can get pretty high.

Here's some other things I know: Any redneck with a pickup truck that rolls through here, his co2 emissions are never going to reach the sky, because they'll never get out of those woods. We're at the edge of the Taiga forest, one of the world's largest carbon sinks. If I drive up there, it's not too far, the temp sinks another maybe 10 degrees further. It's a pretty sharp feeling you can notice it when you drive over the thin green line.

The Taiga is consuming co2 at about 1/10th the efficiency of a tropical rainforest. Sure, it's pretty big, but still it consumes more than the entire co2 creation of the human race and its junk

Most co2 is consumed by the ocean. I don't know what % of that is chemical, and what is algal, IIRC the largest carbon sink is Antarctica, which may be some effect of temp or ice on co2.

Remaining first growth forest

These guys collectively are consuming far more co2 than humans are producing. You will never be able to build an artificial carbon sink like this if you let this one disappear. More importantly, you'll lose its convection cycle.

here's a carbon sink map, it's not the one I had earlier. Actually this one is pretty useful, it's a map of green carbon sinks. Since we can't affect the size of the ocean as a chemical carbon sink, this may be all that matters

This tells us all we really need to know about carbon consumption.

Since we know the annual co2 output and intake by lifeforms dwarfs what we do as humans, this is a cycle an output and intake that has less to do with our industry and more to do with the very glaring issue in the picture.

I admit, sure, as a species, we've managed to radically increase our output (Think about it. A human consuming quarter pounder will produce the same amount of co2 through combustion as 4 oz of oil. You could compare human crude oil consumption to human food consumption, which would be high, and then compare human biomass to animal biomass, which would be low)

Nasa's image indicates that all that really matters in consumption is green, and primarily primary forests.

Then

Now

Since we know that loss of forest cover causes temp change by multiple means not to mention the far more important issue of species loss can we please stop quibbling about how to reduce co2 output and focusing on retaining co2 consumption?

If you look at the world's history, which I assume you have, probably a lot, you know very well that historical co2 levels were much higher, and that high co2 levels are forest friendly.

The neocons have us panicking about the problem they drew up, *again* rather than the real problem at hand. This is like democrats and republicans whining at each other about how the war was *mismanaged* rather than saying "the war is killing people and bringing about a negative effect on human rights by basically all measures. Why don't we just pack up and go home?

Because humans are easily manipulated sheep, and that's the debate that the neocons want them to have.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2010 4:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is like democrats and republicans whining at each other about how the war was *mismanaged* rather than saying "the war is killing people and bringing about a negative effect on human rights by basically all measures. Why don't we just pack up and go home?

That is beautiful. Thank you.

I think this is what Frem is saying too.

Let's pack up and go home, guys. Let's talk about solving the problem. Esp if you're against Cap'n Trade, Siggy. What are we arguing about?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2010 6:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I haven't seen it.

You haven't "seen" it (YES YOU HAVE. YOU'VE SEEN IT. IT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU AT LEAST A DOZEN TIMES.) because you refuse to accept robust and repeated observation. If you cannot accept what independently honest, knowledgeable people have measured and agonized over multiple times, then you are more or less in the position of denying that things fall towards the earth when we drop them, if we're standing on the earth's surface. (I can hear you now, DT: "Well. How do you define "surface"?)

I know people personally and I have done it myself: measured carbon dioxide, NO, CH4, etc. concentrations in sea level air from all over the world. People who have gone SPECIFICALLY to pristine locations to collect samples. People who have measured the ocean temperature and pH, and the earth's (solid layer) temperature. Spoken with people directly about satellite measurements. I know: You weren't there. You didn't "bless" the activity and make it acceptable. It's all a giant conspiracy.

Well, the world doesn't revolve around you and your opinion, and what you accept or don't accept. The universe is not confused, we are. And if you refuse to accept reliable information, that applies especially to you. So carry on in your delusion. Or educate yourself. You can start here:

www.eos-magazine.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2010 6:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You haven't "seen" it (YES YOU HAVE. YOU'VE SEEN IT. IT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU AT LEAST A DOZEN TIMES.)

You have shown me OTHER evidence. You haven't shown me THIS:

1. Mean (from raw temperatures)
2. SD of the mean (from raw temperatures)
3. Increase in the mean larger than the SD.

NEVER. EVER.

I will be convinced when you show me this. I promise.

Show ALL THREE to me here on this thread. Show it to me now. If it is so abundant, then just humor me, find it, and post it here.

When you show it to me here, and I still refuse to accept it, THEN you can call me names. Any name you want. I'll eat crow. Promise.

This is what it takes to convince me. It is simple. Why not do it? Just do it.

----
"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know."
-- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2010 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
www.eos-magazine.com/

It looks like a camera website.

I couldn't find the GAST, the SD of the GAST, nor an increase in the GAST greater than the SD. Maybe you can copy and paste the info, and then link to the source?

Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2010 6:50 AM