Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1161  
Old 14.03.2013, 10:35
baboon's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rheintal
Posts: 3,942
Groaned at 146 Times in 129 Posts
Thanked 6,788 Times in 3,136 Posts
baboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
You're trying to tell me that you can take water, separate it into H2 and O2, then recombine the H2 and O2 to make water, and get more energy out then you put in?

Thanks, I always knew that the first law of thermodynamics was total BS!

Tom
Don't know what Poptart was trying to show but the total process might not be BS. All depends on the efficiency of your processes to create and use H2 compared to the efficiency of the internal combustion engine (if we're talking about transport here). Internal combustion engines currently approach 25% thermodynamic efficiency. Using hydrogen a fuel cell should get up to around 60% (yes, I know how early these still are in the development cycle), if you add in 95% efficiency for electrolysis (haven't checked this) and CHF efficiency of 85% - 90% the hydrogen route can be more efficient. Overall fuel cell efficiency is generally quoted at 35% - 50% so potentially significantly better than the internal combustion engine.

However skipping the hydrogen and using batteries is even better. But then you have the range/recharging problems.
__________________
You live and learn. At any rate, you live.
Reply With Quote
  #1162  
Old 14.03.2013, 11:14
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,681
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,471 Times in 1,781 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post



80% of the forests? Really? Everywhere I turn, there are trees, here in Switzerland, and back home in Florida.
As to the carbon credits, you are deluded if you don't believe these snake-oil carbon credit salesmen are making money selling them to you. And yes, many of them believe in "global warming."


Yup, those "evil oil execs..." They're all sitting in their darkened boardrooms conspiring to hide wonderful new technology from you.


Third, that "outdated relic from a century ago," was an environmental boon compared to what came before. Horses, oxen, cows, donkeys, mules, etc are all ruminants, and as such, fart a lot. The methane gas emitted by these animals is four times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2, and per unit of distance (metric or SAE), these animals emitted more greenhouse gasses and required far more fuel than do automobiles today. Further, when your car breaks down, it gets towed off. When a horse (or whatever animal) broke down and died, oftentimes it was left right there in the street to decompose because it was too heavy to move, emitting more greenhouse gasses in the process.

By the late 1800's cities were literally drowning in the byproducts of beasts of burden. In addition to dealing with their carcasses, there was the much more pressing burden of dealing with the rising sea of horseshit that was filling the streets and causing outbreaks of disease in places like London, New York City, Boston, Paris, etc. The farms couldn't take any more "fertilizer," so there were huge landfills where the crap was dumped (and emitted methane gas, by the way). Those cute New England brownstones with the raised front porches that Americans love were built that way, to elevate people above the layer of horseshit sitting in the road. So, yeah, I'll take the relic, as its still the best option we have.



I hear a story about glaciers melting, and I look into it, and I find the researchers documented one instance, made all kinds of statistical inferences about its meaning, and ignored the next glacier over that was actually growing. .

Well, thanks for at least responding and not just groaning.
So, here in Switzerland, which you say has trees everywhere, the % of land covered by forest is 31%. Before the dawn of agriculture , that number would have been likely triple. I can see for myself looking out my window that this whole area was once forested, and is mostly now farms and populated urban areas. As for Florida, it has seen a loss of 22% of it's forests in the past 50 years. I recently spent several years traveling through Latin America, where it is easily apparent that there are no vast tracts of forest remaining - it's nearly all been cleared for agriculture.

I'M deluded about carbon credit salesmen making money off of me? I never mentioned anything about carbon credits, and i've never bought any either.

I never called oil execs "evil" (although you seemingly quoted this in your response). I just think it is incredibly naive to think that people and organizations in positions of power wouldn't do anything that they deemed necessary to protect their own interests. We cant ignore history...

The horseshit argument is exactly that, and it makes me feel like I'm just being trolled. Save the environment! Kill all the animals! Horses are bad for the planet! Hmm, the plant matter that they subsisted on would have decayed anyway, eaten by animals or not. "When my car breaks down, it gets towed off. " really? like, towed off to outer space? it just disappears? Thank goodness it doesn't have a negative impact on the environment like all that organic poop does.

Lastly, the glaciers. So sad. They are receeding every day, around the world. Everywhere. It's like you are denying that the sky is blue or that water is wet...It is well known among the mountaineering community of the world (which is not by any means a bunch of bleeding heart eco-nuts), that if you want to climb, nows the time. In 20/50/100 more years, there will be only unclimbable scree fields where there was once glacier and snowpack. Its appalling, and even more appaling that so many choose to live in denial of irrefutable evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #1163  
Old 14.03.2013, 11:18
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Well you could ask the thousands in Australia that have had malignant melanomas hacked off them what they think about that one.
Yes, and which of them have had these melanomas (which I have also had "hacked" off me in the US, the Northern Hemisphere) directly attributed to this ozone hole? Any? I'm sure if I did ask them, they wouldn't be able to prove the connection, either...
Reply With Quote
  #1164  
Old 14.03.2013, 11:25
baboon's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rheintal
Posts: 3,942
Groaned at 146 Times in 129 Posts
Thanked 6,788 Times in 3,136 Posts
baboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Yes, and which of them have had these melanomas (which I have also had "hacked" off me in the US, the Northern Hemisphere) directly attributed to this ozone hole? Any? I'm sure if I did ask them, they wouldn't be able to prove the connection, either...
"Easy". OK, actually easy to explain but more complex to actually do - you look at melanoma rates, skin types and sun exposure and see how well that correlates with ozone depletion.

Correlates rather well if you bother to really look into it.

One individual proves nothing in either direction.

BTW - there is also ozone depletion in the Northern Hemisphere.
Reply With Quote
  #1165  
Old 14.03.2013, 11:44
AbFab's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 7,789
Groaned at 329 Times in 223 Posts
Thanked 10,802 Times in 3,757 Posts
AbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
<snip>
Lastly, the glaciers. So sad. They are receeding every day, around the world. Everywhere. It's like you are denying that the sky is blue or that water is wet...It is well known among the mountaineering community of the world (which is not by any means a bunch of bleeding heart eco-nuts), that if you want to climb, nows the time. In 20/50/100 more years, there will be only unclimbable scree fields where there was once glacier and snowpack. Its appalling, and even more appaling that so many choose to live in denial of irrefutable evidence.
Haven't the glaciers been receding since the last ice age? 10,000 years ago where Zurich is now was under a kilometre of ice. Are we to expect that glaciers reach an "ideal" size and remain like that for eternity? Or is this just evidence of a natural cycle that has continued for millions of years? Logically the ice will return again in 1000s of years whatever we do and don't do.

I am not putting forward an opinion, but simply as a lay person, asking what seem like obvious questions...
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank AbFab for this useful post:
  #1166  
Old 14.03.2013, 11:50
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Well, thanks for at least responding and not just groaning.
So, here in Switzerland, which you say has trees everywhere, the % of land covered by forest is 31%. Before the dawn of agriculture , that number would have been likely triple. I can see for myself looking out my window that this whole area was once forested, and is mostly now farms and populated urban areas. As for Florida, it has seen a loss of 22% of it's forests in the past 50 years. I recently spent several years traveling through Latin America, where it is easily apparent that there are no vast tracts of forest remaining - it's nearly all been cleared for agriculture.
Most likely triple? How do you know this? Was someone taking statistics back then? Before the forest, that land might've been a grassland, a desert, tundra, or even the bottom of an ocean. Should we return it to one of these states? What IS its "original" state? Further, these agricultural plants, in their density, don't process CO2 also?

Quote:
View Post
I'M deluded about carbon credit salesmen making money off of me? I never mentioned anything about carbon credits, and i've never bought any either.
Here's what you said:

Quote:
View Post
...Wake up - nobody who supports the existence of global warming is trying to sell you anything or profit off of you...
And I pointed out that carbon credit salesmen, who use "Global Warming/Global Climate Change" as the lynchpin of their sales pitch, are a perfect example of someone who is trying to sell me something. And, yes, many of them are for-profit entities.

Quote:
View Post
I never called oil execs "evil" (although you seemingly quoted this in your response). I just think it is incredibly naive to think that people and organizations in positions of power wouldn't do anything that they deemed necessary to protect their own interests. We cant ignore history...
Here are your words, again:

Quote:
View Post
while there are huge profits to be made for the energy/oil companies in continuing to burn fossil fuels unchecked.

you dont think that a large powerful company( or a whole industry, for that matter - the most powerful one on the planet), would squash, destroy, or suppress any technology that would potentially keep it from making trillions of $ more in revenue? If not, I guess those oil execs just cant wait to be able to turn over all that power to the next guy with a better invention than the internal combustion engine, an outdated relic from a century ago.
You are correct in saying that you never used the word "evil," but its heavily implied by your arguments. Also, you don't think that governments and large political environmental movements qualify as "people and organizations in positions of power"? These entities don't have self-serving interests just like the oil companies? Wouldn't it be wise to understand the interests of both sides of this debate, so you can get past the rhetoric and demagougery?

Quote:
View Post
The horseshit argument is exactly that, and it makes me feel like I'm just being trolled. Save the environment! Kill all the animals! Horses are bad for the planet! Hmm, the plant matter that they subsisted on would have decayed anyway, eaten by animals or not. "When my car breaks down, it gets towed off. " really? like, towed off to outer space? it just disappears? Thank goodness it doesn't have a negative impact on the environment like all that organic poop does.
Its a bad argument, because its true and doesn't fit into your mental model of what the world is? At the turn of the 20th century, cities were literally drowning in feces, and these feces were responsible for major outbreaks of deadly diseases. Simply because the feces is "organic," doesn't make it good or safe. The automobile inadvertently helped to solve this sanitation problem. And when a car's turned off, it stops emitting CO2; when you stable a horse, it still emits methane. When a car is junked, its ground up and melted down to make new cars. When a horse died, it turned into a breeding ground for disease. Again, I'd rather recycle my car.

Quote:
View Post
Lastly, the glaciers. So sad. They are receeding every day, around the world. Everywhere. It's like you are denying that the sky is blue or that water is wet...It is well known among the mountaineering community of the world (which is not by any means a bunch of bleeding heart eco-nuts), that if you want to climb, nows the time. In 20/50/100 more years, there will be only unclimbable scree fields where there was once glacier and snowpack. Its appalling, and even more appaling that so many choose to live in denial of irrefutable evidence.
What is the net glacier loss, worldwide, over the past 100 years? 200? Do you know? How much of this is attributable to mankind? Do you know this? Again, the truth is that, while some glaciers are receding (which often is a natural process, not a man-caused process), others are growing. It is also well-known in the "mountaineering community" that Zurich was once upon a time covered by a glacier. The entire shape of the Zurichsee, Sihltal, and more is caused by glaciers. That glacier receded entirely on its own, not because of "global warming"; mankind had nothing to do with it.

Where is this irrefutable evidence? I've seen many studies that claim one thing, and just as many others that claim the opposite. The truth is that this issue is far from decided; we don't know exactly what is happening to the planet, contrary to what the political environmental movement may tell you.

The sky is not falling, and we are arrogant to assume that we have this much power over our environment. Species much more successful and impactful than mankind have come and gone, and the Earth is still here. The Earth will still be here after we're gone.

Again, as I have repeatedly said, this doesn't absolve us of responsibility for conservation, but we have to stop buying the pop science, or we might actually end up hurting the environment more than helping it.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1167  
Old 14.03.2013, 11:53
baboon's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rheintal
Posts: 3,942
Groaned at 146 Times in 129 Posts
Thanked 6,788 Times in 3,136 Posts
baboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Haven't the glaciers been receding since the last ice age? 10,000 years ago where Zurich is now was under a kilometre of ice. Are we to expect that glaciers reach an "ideal" size and remain like that for eternity? Or is this just evidence of a natural cycle that has continued for millions of years? Logically the ice will return again in 1000s of years whatever we do and don't do.

I am not putting forward an opinion, but simply as a lay person, asking what seem like obvious questions...
More-or-less, yes. The problem is NOT climate change, that will always happen. It is the speed of that change which will cause problems for many ecosystems. Including agriculture.
Reply With Quote
  #1168  
Old 14.03.2013, 11:53
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
"Easy". OK, actually easy to explain but more complex to actually do - you look at melanoma rates, skin types and sun exposure and see how well that correlates with ozone depletion.

Correlates rather well if you bother to really look into it.

One individual proves nothing in either direction.

BTW - there is also ozone depletion in the Northern Hemisphere.
Correlation does not imply causality. Sorry. Also, are there correlations between increases in melanoma rates and other factors, such as eating cheeseburgers (a ridiculous example, but it CAN be correlated)? Can we take this correlation and imply that cheeseburgers cause skin cancer?
Reply With Quote
  #1169  
Old 14.03.2013, 11:54
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,681
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,471 Times in 1,781 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Good point. I agree with you that the glaciers have been receding since the last ice age, however there wouldn't be any glaciers left at all right now if they had been receding at the current rate for all that time. When you look at the photos of glaciers over the past hundred years, it is obvious that they are shrinking fast (nearly exponentially). To dismiss it as a natural phenomenon that merely coincides with the (also exponential) growth of mankind and our ensuing impact on the environment is a folly.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1170  
Old 14.03.2013, 12:45
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,681
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,471 Times in 1,781 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Most likely triple? How do you know this? Was someone taking statistics back then? Before the forest, that land might've been a grassland, a desert, tundra, or even the bottom of an ocean. Should we return it to one of these states? What IS its "original" state? Further, these agricultural plants, in their density, don't process CO2 also?
Here's what you said:
And I pointed out that carbon credit salesmen, who use "Global Warming/Global Climate Change" as the lynchpin of their sales pitch, are a perfect example of someone who is trying to sell me something. And, yes, many of them are for-profit entities.
Here are your words, again:
You are correct in saying that you never used the word "evil," but its heavily implied by your arguments. Also, you don't think that governments and large political environmental movements qualify as "people and organizations in positions of power"? These entities don't have self-serving interests just like the oil companies? Wouldn't it be wise to understand the interests of both sides of this debate, so you can get past the rhetoric and demagougery?
The automobile inadvertently helped to solve this sanitation problem.... When a car is junked, its ground up and melted down to make new cars. When a horse died, it turned into a breeding ground for disease.
What is the net glacier loss, worldwide, over the past 100 years? 200? Do you know? How much of this is attributable to mankind? Do you know this? Again, the truth is that, while some glaciers are receding (which often is a natural process, not a man-caused process), others are growing. It is also well-known in the "mountaineering community" that Zurich was once upon a time covered by a glacier. The entire shape of the Zurichsee, Sihltal, and more is caused by glaciers. That glacier receded entirely on its own, not because of "global warming"; mankind had nothing to do with it.
Where is this irrefutable evidence? I've seen many studies that claim one thing, and just as many others that claim the opposite. The truth is that this issue is far from decided; we don't know exactly what is happening to the planet, contrary to what the political environmental movement may tell you.
The sky is not falling, and we are arrogant to assume that we have this much power over our environment. Species much more successful and impactful than mankind have come and gone, and the Earth is still here. The Earth will still be here after we're gone.
Again, as I have repeatedly said, this doesn't absolve us of responsibility for conservation, but we have to stop buying the pop science, or we might actually end up hurting the environment more than helping it.
Like I mentioned, I can see with my own eyes, where there were once forests, and now there are farms. There are lines where the forest starts again, which just so happen to be the property lines of the farms. It's not rocket science. And yes, grasslands do process CO2, but they do not lead to the stable long term storage of CO2 through the formation of peat, coal, and petroleum.

Are you buying carbon credits? no. Are you buying petroleum? yes. The oil companies are profiting from you, the carbon credit salesmen are not.

Do you honestly believe that political environmental organizations exist for ultimate purpose of becoming rich and powerful? Please tell me what you think their interests are, and what you think the interests of multinational oil companies are.

As for the automobile solving sanitation issues argument, its incredibly convoluted and off topic. The sanitation problems were caused by HUMAN feces in the cities, which carry fecal coliform and other seriously worrisome bacteria.

Some glaciers are receding, while others are growing? Its true, but just barely. From Wikipedia: "In 2010, out of 95 Swiss glaciers studied, 86 retreated from where their terminal points had been in 2009, 6 showed no change and 3 had advanced."
Just a bad year for glaciers?

The irrefutable evidence is all around us. Just listen to nearly every climate scientist on the planet. "A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis" (Oreskes 2004).

We are ARROGANT to assume that we can do whatever we want to on this planet to make our lives more convenient, without first understanding how what we do impacts our environment and, in turn, ourselves. You are right in saying that we dont know what exactly is happening to the planet. What better reason is there to check our growth and do a little bit more preliminary research before the shit hits the fan.
Reply With Quote
  #1171  
Old 14.03.2013, 12:45
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,681
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,471 Times in 1,781 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

go on, groan some more.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank pilatus1 for this useful post:
  #1172  
Old 14.03.2013, 13:53
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Like I mentioned, I can see with my own eyes, where there were once forests, and now there are farms. There are lines where the forest starts again, which just so happen to be the property lines of the farms. It's not rocket science. And yes, grasslands do process CO2, but they do not lead to the stable long term storage of CO2 through the formation of peat, coal, and petroleum.
Yes, and if I dig down a few centimeters, I can see (with my own eyes) that these forests weren't always there...so how do I know that the farmer's transformation of that field is anymore harmful than a beaver leveling a tree across a river and transforming a piece of forest into a lake?

And trees are the only means by which fossil fuels are created and C02 stored? This process has been going on for longer than trees have been around... Somehow, without trees, the CO2 in the early Earth's atmosphere was transformed into the O2 we see today...

Quote:
View Post
Are you buying carbon credits? no. Are you buying petroleum? yes. The oil companies are profiting from you, the carbon credit salesmen are not.
Currently, I'm actually purchasing neither, as I don't own a car in Switzerland. Also, I don't have a problem with companies making a profit; that's why they exist. Without profit motive, we wouldn't have some of the most significant inventions in the history of mankind. Things like medicines, transportation, super-efficient agriculture, and more all owe their inception to some degree to the profit motive.


Quote:
View Post
Do you honestly believe that political environmental organizations exist for ultimate purpose of becoming rich and powerful? Please tell me what you think their interests are, and what you think the interests of multinational oil companies are.
Some of these organizations have enough money and resources that they could be found on a "Fortune 1000" list, if they were publicly traded companies, so yes I'd define them as rich. As to power, well that's the object of all political organizations. The interests of the political environmental movement are to make money and gain power by repeating their own rhetoric. The interests of the leading individuals in this movement is to get paid for writing books, public appearances, and (for some) to sell you useless crap like carbon credits. They don't want to save the environment, because that would put them out of a job; they want to keep people like yourself sufficiently ignorant and sufficiently motivated to keep money flowing their way.

The oil companies, on the other hand, offer you a product, which you can use. They want to make money by selling you this product. They too will try to spin and position their product so that it looks the best it can. This is called marketing. The difference is that they're not being quite so disingenuous about it.

Quote:
View Post
As for the automobile solving sanitation issues argument, its incredibly convoluted and off topic. The sanitation problems were caused by HUMAN feces in the cities, which carry fecal coliform and other seriously worrisome bacteria.
Horses, cows, oxen are 3 or more times larger than humans, and produce a proportionally larger pile of poo. Granted, not every person owned a horse, ox, or cow, but many people owned several of each, as well as sheep, goats, chickens, etc. Amongst this myriad animal waste, human waste was just a small portion of the issue.

As to the automobile solution, it isn't off topic. Remember, you brought in the internal-combustion engine to the discussion. We brought automobiles in, and the horses were able to be moved out. Further, advances in transportation technology and infrastructure brought about by the automobile allowed humanity to consolidate agriculture, allowing us to move out all the other food animals that theretofore had to be kept in the cities.

Quote:
View Post
Some glaciers are receding, while others are growing? Its true, but just barely. From Wikipedia: "In 2010, out of 95 Swiss glaciers studied, 86 retreated from where their terminal points had been in 2009, 6 showed no change and 3 had advanced."
Just a bad year for glaciers?
This is just one year, doesn't address whether this is ALL the glaciers in Switzerland, nor how much the 86 retreated versus how much the 3 advanced. Also, this doesn't address whether glaciers were advancing in other parts of Europe, or the world as a whole. Political boundaries are very arbitrary in terms of understanding things like climate science.


Quote:
View Post
The irrefutable evidence is all around us. Just listen to nearly every climate scientist on the planet. "A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis" (Oreskes 2004).
So, in a 10-year period a bunch of scientists agreed? What about the 10 years since, or the decades prior? This 10-year period you cite also coincides with a peak in the pop-science/political environmental fervor (acid rain to ozone hole to El Nino to...), and we all know that scientists never research a topic or perform a study with a specific outcome in mind, perhaps that of their sponsors? And this was a survey of abstracts, which are just summations of the authors' opinions of what these papers say; the actual data they collected may point to other conclusions that were dismissed by these authors.

Quote:
View Post
We are ARROGANT to assume that we can do whatever we want to on this planet to make our lives more convenient, without first understanding how what we do impacts our environment and, in turn, ourselves. You are right in saying that we dont know what exactly is happening to the planet. What better reason is there to check our growth and do a little bit more preliminary research before the shit hits the fan.
I never said we can do whatever we want. Every action we take has repercussions. However, the truth of the matter is that we don't entirely know what these repercussions really are, and we may never know either.

What I see though, is a section of the discussion is using crap science to scare the general public into accepting their point of view, and convincing people like yourself to take actions that may actually turn out to be more harmful to the environment than the "polluting" thing we were doing before.

A good example of this are wind farms. People built wind farms as sustainable energy sources, and then found out that good places to place wind farms are also places that birds use to migrate. Birds aren't dummies, and naturally tend to use available air currents to more efficiently fly, which puts them in direct conflict with the "environmentally friendly" wind farms, and the birds routinely lose. Further, many of these windmills are terribly noisy, and we've changed air pollution for noise pollution, and we don't necessarily know if that might have an adverse impact either.

So, anyone that tells you we're heading towards environmental apocalypse and humanity is the cause is just another mystical fanatic.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1173  
Old 14.03.2013, 14:10
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,514
Groaned at 392 Times in 340 Posts
Thanked 16,740 Times in 9,060 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
So im not going to read this whole thread because its obvious from the start that it is idiotic. One point though- you mentioned the 150 gigatons of CO2 produced by animals, and 24 gT produced by man. Whether or not that is correct is irrelevant - have you thought about the impacts that our species has had on the planet by destroying over 80% of it's forests, the lungs of the earth that are needed to process the CO2 regardless of it's source? Wake up - nobody who supports the existence of global warming is trying to sell you anything or profit off of you, while there are huge profits to be made for the energy/oil companies in continuing to burn fossil fuels unchecked. (of course,in the end, no one profits when the planet is uninhabitable.)
Actualy peat bogs absorb more CO2 than the forests - only problem is many peat bogs are being damaged by building wind farms on them.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1174  
Old 14.03.2013, 14:16
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,514
Groaned at 392 Times in 340 Posts
Thanked 16,740 Times in 9,060 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Correlation does not imply causality. Sorry. Also, are there correlations between increases in melanoma rates and other factors, such as eating cheeseburgers (a ridiculous example, but it CAN be correlated)? Can we take this correlation and imply that cheeseburgers cause skin cancer?
About "Correlation does not imply causality"- exactly
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1175  
Old 14.03.2013, 14:23
Kosti's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oranje County
Posts: 488
Groaned at 27 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 871 Times in 364 Posts
Kosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
About "Correlation does not imply causality"- exactly
For a scientist, thats provided if you can propose some other cause that accounts for the recorded observations.

Dismissing the by far most probable cause of the fastest rate of increase in the Earths temperature, by more than an order of magnitude, in all records going back the last hundreds of thousands of years by using a blanket "it could be something else" is intellectual laziness at best.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Kosti for this useful post:
  #1176  
Old 14.03.2013, 14:32
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
For a scientist, thats provided if you can propose some other cause that accounts for the recorded observations.

Dismissing the by far most probable cause of the fastest rate of increase in the Earths temperature, by more than an order of magnitude, in all records going back the last hundreds of thousands of years by using a blanket "it could be something else" is intellectual laziness at best.
And saying that you have data that actually proves this is fraud at its best...

There were no records hundreds of thousands of years ago, all we have today is extrapolation and inference from indirect observation. As recently as 100 years ago, we didn't have instruments with the precision necessary to make the observations required for these results. 40 years ago, we barely had the computational power to truly model the weather and climates we were trying to study. Even as recently as 10 years ago, these computer models were woefully incomplete and rife with assumptions and controlled parameters to simplify the calculations. So, based on incomplete records (in terms of time, precision, and location), and spotty analysis, we make these sweeping predictive models, that have been wrong time and again, yet we keep telling ourselves we should believe them?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1177  
Old 14.03.2013, 15:59
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,681
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,471 Times in 1,781 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Yes, and if I dig down a few centimeters, I can see (with my own eyes) that these forests weren't always there...so how do I know that the farmer's transformation of that field is anymore harmful than a beaver leveling a tree across a river and transforming a piece of forest into a lake?
Has the beaver population been growing out of control for at least ten thousand years? Are there more beavers alive at this moment than there have been in the combined history of the planet? And are they out there secretly burning fossil fuels? No, the beaver population has declined greatly (due to human impacts). A ridiculous argument.

Quote:
View Post
And trees are the only means by which fossil fuels are created and C02 stored? This process has been going on for longer than trees have been around... Somehow, without trees, the CO2 in the early Earth's atmosphere was transformed into the O2 we see today...
This process occurred over millions of years - life on earth evolved (and is evolving) simultaneously with and within it's environment.

Quote:
View Post
Currently, I'm actually purchasing neither, as I don't own a car in Switzerland. Also, I don't have a problem with companies making a profit; that's why they exist. Without profit motive, we wouldn't have some of the most significant inventions in the history of mankind. Things like medicines, transportation, super-efficient agriculture, and more all owe their inception to some degree to the profit motive.
Really? How do you heat your house? What are all of your consumer goods made of? What does the train run on? How is your food shipped to you? What powers your computer? Its painfully obvious that nearly all of humanity is now using fossil fuels, with minor exceptions such as a few small Amazonian tribes and some mud-hutters in Africa. I dont have a car, either, but i sure as hell use a fair amount of petroleum to maintain my lifestyle.

Quote:
View Post
Some of these organizations have enough money and resources that they could be found on a "Fortune 1000" list, if they were publicly traded companies, so yes I'd define them as rich. As to power, well that's the object of all political organizations. The interests of the political environmental movement are to make money and gain power by repeating their own rhetoric. The interests of the leading individuals in this movement is to get paid for writing books, public appearances, and (for some) to sell you useless crap like carbon credits. They don't want to save the environment, because that would put them out of a job; they want to keep people like yourself sufficiently ignorant and sufficiently motivated to keep money flowing their way.
You're right, nobody actually wants to help anybody or do anything that might have a positive( or less negative) impact on the planet, or anything else for that matter. That would be silly. With your logic, the Red Cross only exists as a means to power or money, along with Amnesty International, the boy scouts, and the YMCA. Im so ignorant. I like how you assume that I somehow give money to environmental organizations.

Quote:
View Post
The oil companies, on the other hand, offer you a product, which you can use. They want to make money by selling you this product. They too will try to spin and position their product so that it looks the best it can. This is called marketing. The difference is that they're not being quite so disingenuous about it.
They're not disingenuous about it? The oil companies have never used their political might to influence policy in their favor, against the public interest? There hasn't been any violence in the world caused by greed for oil and, in turn, power? I guess we've been imagining all of that.

Quote:
View Post
Horses, cows, oxen are 3 or more times larger than humans, and produce a proportionally larger pile of poo. Granted, not every person owned a horse, ox, or cow, but many people owned several of each, as well as sheep, goats, chickens, etc. Amongst this myriad animal waste, human waste was just a small portion of the issue.
No, the issue is that human feces contain high amounts of bacteria that can cause disease in humans. Because disease does not very easily jump between species, feces from herbivore mammals are not really much of a threat to human health. It was the city dwellers throwing their shit out of the windows and into the street that caused most of the sanitation problems you speak of. This IS off topic - it has nothing to do with global warming.

Quote:
View Post
As to the automobile solution, it isn't off topic. Remember, you brought in the internal-combustion engine to the discussion. We brought automobiles in, and the horses were able to be moved out. Further, advances in transportation technology and infrastructure brought about by the automobile allowed humanity to consolidate agriculture, allowing us to move out all the other food animals that theretofore had to be kept in the cities.
I agree with you here, but that doesn't mean that our system is fail-proof. Our modern agricultural system has been very effective at producing an abundance of food for the past 70 years (since the advent of petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc., along with the mechanization of farm practices.) But it's come at a price. China, which had the world's longest known system of sustainable agricultural production, a system which was stable for over 4,000 years, has seen a huge increase in productivity with modern methods as well. But it is losing it's topsoil due to these practices at a rate of up to 40 times faster than the rate of natural replenishment. The US is losing it's topsoil at a rate of 10 times that of natural replenishment. How long can this go on? Ask me for some "crap" science to back it up, and i'll shovel plenty of it in your direction.

Quote:
View Post
This is just one year, doesn't address whether this is ALL the glaciers in Switzerland, nor how much the 86 retreated versus how much the 3 advanced. Also, this doesn't address whether glaciers were advancing in other parts of Europe, or the world as a whole. Political boundaries are very arbitrary in terms of understanding things like climate science.
Ok, take a look at Wikipedia's list of Swiss Glaciers. It lists all of the major glaciers. Each and every one that had been measured to a known length in 1850 had shrunk significantly when re-measured in 2002. Oh, but that's just Switzerland. Go on, do some research on the web to refute the facts and lets see what you can come up with. I want SCIENCE, not just your opinions.

Quote:
View Post
So, in a 10-year period a bunch of scientists agreed? What about the 10 years since, or the decades prior? This 10-year period you cite also coincides with a peak in the pop-science/political environmental fervor (acid rain to ozone hole to El Nino to...), and we all know that scientists never research a topic or perform a study with a specific outcome in mind, perhaps that of their sponsors? And this was a survey of abstracts, which are just summations of the authors' opinions of what these papers say; the actual data they collected may point to other conclusions that were dismissed by these authors.
There are many other similar surveys from both before and after the one that i referenced. If you are actually interested in actually learning more about it, all the info is just a few keystrokes away on your computer...

Quote:
View Post
I never said we can do whatever we want. Every action we take has repercussions. However, the truth of the matter is that we don't entirely know what these repercussions really are, and we may never know either.

What I see though, is a section of the discussion is using crap science to scare the general public into accepting their point of view, and convincing people like yourself to take actions that may actually turn out to be more harmful to the environment than the "polluting" thing we were doing before.

This all sounds like a great argument to justify doing whatever you want to do on this planet. After all, science will never be able to give us an ultimate truth and we will never understand everything. And with your logic, if its not proven 100% accurate, it must all just be a load of shit. "crap science" or "pop science" as you call it.

Quote:
View Post
A good example of this are wind farms. People built wind farms as sustainable energy sources, and then found out that good places to place wind farms are also places that birds use to migrate. Birds aren't dummies, and naturally tend to use available air currents to more efficiently fly, which puts them in direct conflict with the "environmentally friendly" wind farms, and the birds routinely lose. Further, many of these windmills are terribly noisy, and we've changed air pollution for noise pollution, and we don't necessarily know if that might have an adverse impact either.
You're partially correct on this one. But that doesn't mean that petroleum is the be-all end-all solution to our problems. It obviously has it's downsides as well. If you cant see them you must be blind. And to think that wind farms are more impactive on the environment than petroleum, you're out of your mind. Remember that BP spill?

Quote:
View Post
So, anyone that tells you we're heading towards environmental apocalypse and humanity is the cause is just another mystical fanatic.
Funny how you would call nearly every scientist in the world a 'mystical fanatic' - mysticism and fanaticism seem to be your cup of tea. I guess your opinions count more than the combined scientific knowledge of humanity....
Reply With Quote
  #1178  
Old 14.03.2013, 17:02
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Has the beaver population been growing out of control for at least ten thousand years? Are there more beavers alive at this moment than there have been in the combined history of the planet? And are they out there secretly burning fossil fuels? No, the beaver population has declined greatly (due to human impacts). A ridiculous argument.



This process occurred over millions of years - life on earth evolved (and is evolving) simultaneously with and within it's environment.



Really? How do you heat your house? What are all of your consumer goods made of? What does the train run on? How is your food shipped to you? What powers your computer? Its painfully obvious that nearly all of humanity is now using fossil fuels, with minor exceptions such as a few small Amazonian tribes and some mud-hutters in Africa. I dont have a car, either, but i sure as hell use a fair amount of petroleum to maintain my lifestyle.



You're right, nobody actually wants to help anybody or do anything that might have a positive( or less negative) impact on the planet, or anything else for that matter. That would be silly. With your logic, the Red Cross only exists as a means to power or money, along with Amnesty International, the boy scouts, and the YMCA. Im so ignorant. I like how you assume that I somehow give money to environmental organizations.



They're not disingenuous about it? The oil companies have never used their political might to influence policy in their favor, against the public interest? There hasn't been any violence in the world caused by greed for oil and, in turn, power? I guess we've been imagining all of that.



No, the issue is that human feces contain high amounts of bacteria that can cause disease in humans. Because disease does not very easily jump between species, feces from herbivore mammals are not really much of a threat to human health. It was the city dwellers throwing their shit out of the windows and into the street that caused most of the sanitation problems you speak of. This IS off topic - it has nothing to do with global warming.



I agree with you here, but that doesn't mean that our system is fail-proof. Our modern agricultural system has been very effective at producing an abundance of food for the past 70 years (since the advent of petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc., along with the mechanization of farm practices.) But it's come at a price. China, which had the world's longest known system of sustainable agricultural production, a system which was stable for over 4,000 years, has seen a huge increase in productivity with modern methods as well. But it is losing it's topsoil due to these practices at a rate of up to 40 times faster than the rate of natural replenishment. The US is losing it's topsoil at a rate of 10 times that of natural replenishment. How long can this go on? Ask me for some "crap" science to back it up, and i'll shovel plenty of it in your direction.



Ok, take a look at Wikipedia's list of Swiss Glaciers. It lists all of the major glaciers. Each and every one that had been measured to a known length in 1850 had shrunk significantly when re-measured in 2002. Oh, but that's just Switzerland. Go on, do some research on the web to refute the facts and lets see what you can come up with. I want SCIENCE, not just your opinions.



There are many other similar surveys from both before and after the one that i referenced. If you are actually interested in actually learning more about it, all the info is just a few keystrokes away on your computer...




This all sounds like a great argument to justify doing whatever you want to do on this planet. After all, science will never be able to give us an ultimate truth and we will never understand everything. And with your logic, if its not proven 100% accurate, it must all just be a load of shit. "crap science" or "pop science" as you call it.



You're partially correct on this one. But that doesn't mean that petroleum is the be-all end-all solution to our problems. It obviously has it's downsides as well. If you cant see them you must be blind. And to think that wind farms are more impactive on the environment than petroleum, you're out of your mind. Remember that BP spill?



Funny how you would call nearly every scientist in the world a 'mystical fanatic' - mysticism and fanaticism seem to be your cup of tea. I guess your opinions count more than the combined scientific knowledge of humanity....
You are so tied to your environmental dogma, that, to you, its not science anymore. This is part of your personal religion. In this instance, "Global Warming" is your God, and you'll ignore any argument against the existence of God, i.e. "Global Warming".

I don't quote statistics and science, because statistics can be analyzed and extrapolated to support a number of viewpoints, and all from the same data. I show you one scientific report that says there's no warming, and you'll show me one that says there is and it all becomes a scientific version of "he said, she said." Your expert, my expert... Therefore, I try to discuss things in a more classical sense, as thought/logic exercises.

But, if you want some literature for thought, read State of Fear by Crichton, Freakonomics and Super Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner. These books, and others like them, taught me to look at things more critically, and not to accept people's messages without learning about their motives and incentives.

The truth about Global Warming is that it is hardly a proved theory, that people are using the general public's limited understanding of it to expend resources, at the individual, organizational, and even governmental levels on things which might or might not be helpful to the environment. Some of these things are turning out to benefit only these messengers.

So again, I think it is logical to conserve resources, and to engage in responsible stewardship of the environment, but it is illogical to believe these apocalyptic predictions based on incomplete computer models that are themselves based on incomplete direct observations.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1179  
Old 14.03.2013, 17:05
Kosti's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oranje County
Posts: 488
Groaned at 27 Times in 17 Posts
Thanked 871 Times in 364 Posts
Kosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond reputeKosti has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
And saying that you have data that actually proves this is fraud at its best...

There were no records hundreds of thousands of years ago, all we have today is extrapolation and inference from indirect observation. As recently as 100 years ago, we didn't have instruments with the precision necessary to make the observations required for these results. 40 years ago, we barely had the computational power to truly model the weather and climates we were trying to study. Even as recently as 10 years ago, these computer models were woefully incomplete and rife with assumptions and controlled parameters to simplify the calculations. So, based on incomplete records (in terms of time, precision, and location), and spotty analysis, we make these sweeping predictive models, that have been wrong time and again, yet we keep telling ourselves we should believe them?
What you choose to ignore or not realize that the scientific community has asked the same questions over and over about their models, completeness of data, and assumptions. Instead of building a global conspiracy, those thousands of climate scientists have proposed hundreds of models questioning each others work in fare greater depth than any outsider over decades. Only then do they talk about consensus.

And saying that there are no records going back hundreds of thousands of years is remarkably ignorant. Records does not mean necessarily mean pen and paper, or printer and paper. The Earth keeps its own records irrespective. These are extracted in the form of tree rings over hundreds of years, and ice cores over thousands.
Reply With Quote
  #1180  
Old 14.03.2013, 17:10
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,514
Groaned at 392 Times in 340 Posts
Thanked 16,740 Times in 9,060 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
For a scientist, thats provided if you can propose some other cause that accounts for the recorded observations.

Dismissing the by far most probable cause of the fastest rate of increase in the Earths temperature, by more than an order of magnitude, in all records going back the last hundreds of thousands of years by using a blanket "it could be something else" is intellectual laziness at best.
About "For a scientist, thats provided if you can propose some other cause that accounts for the recorded observations."

That is an interesting new scientific method; if I cannot think of a cause then take any cause that seems to fit.

So if, for example, I am not as clever as Einstein & I therefore could not propose the theory of Relativity then there must be another cause for these quantum effects that I am seeing.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0