 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 4794
Location: New Jersey
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ascan wrote: |
Do you know how the oil used in the economic system you worship is located, extracted and transported? A lot of what you seem to call "junk science" is involved. In fact that "junk science" has played a major part in allowing you to live your affluent middle-class American existence. Your mind seems to be stuck back in the 60's, ruveyn. And I know they say you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but I do reckon that if you were actually to educate yourself in one of those "junk sciences", and read a few "junk science" journals, rather than the ill-informed crap from the mainstream media, you might be persuaded. |
You speak of engineering which is applied physics. Engineering is an applied discipline firmly founded on the laws of physics and explicated by mathematics. Physics and math are the two best things humans have ever done, besides pro-create.
There is no climate science (yet). Someday there may be a science of climate but it does not exist now.
Write us when you know how to solve the Navier Stokes equation.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
number5
Deinonychus
Joined: Jun 16, 2009
Posts: 360
Location: central NY
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: |
You speak of engineering which is applied physics. Engineering is an applied discipline firmly founded on the laws of physics and explicated by mathematics. Physics and math are the two best things humans have ever done, besides pro-create.
There is no climate science (yet). Someday there may be a science of climate but it does not exist now.
Write us when you know how to solve the Navier Stokes equation.
ruveyn |
The Hagen-Poiseuille flow is an exact solution to the Navier-Stokes equation. Atmospheric science, or meteorology if you prefer, IS applied physics. 90% of my coursework was spent on physics and differential equations. The particular degree that I received is considered to be the most difficult to attain at my university and is highly respected by both physics and math professors. Hardly "junk science." Now back to the subject at hand...
Your thinking is linear. You're trying to apply dynamic meteorology ideas to a synoptic situation. Climatology is about taking a huge step back and looking at the whole picture with respect to a given time frame. It's going beyond elemental equations and looking at actual collected data and it's relations to physical processes. Yes it is a chaotic system and very, very difficult to quantify, but each day we get better at it. There does exist a lot of uncertainty as to what lies ahead, but the data that exists for today is concrete. The consensus is that humans have contributed to a warming planet. Whether or not this observed trend will continue or not, and at what rate, is uncertain.
We have the technology, and finally the willpower, to reduce our waste and byproducts. This makes sense on all levels. Even by the extremely unlikely (I would argue impossible) worst case scenario of the scientists being wrong about human impact on climate change, we would still be improving air, water, and soil quality. There is no downside to going green, unless, of course, you have stock in oil or if you profit from war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Inventor
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: New Orleans
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
The data that exists for today is concrete. True.
The Heat Island effect, cities and paved areas, do account for the rising heat, just as cutting the forests accounts for the rise of CO2. These are facts, no scientific speculation needed, it is something that can be measured. Asphalt is hotter than grass, grass is hotter than forests.
Air Conditioning added to this, as housing created heat, it was pumped out and dumped on the neighbors.
While Greenhouse Gasses may trap heat, which is the main story of Global Warming, cooling shopping centers pours out pure heat in huge amounts. Their parking lots are mostly black asphalt heat traps. As heat moves from warm to cool, they are heating everything around them.
I have lived in deserts, 115 during the day, a light jacket needed at night. I have lived in New York, after dark the heat comes pouring out of every street, sidewalk, brick wall. It never cools off, before the heat of the next day is added.
Global Warming is caused by humans. The paved area matches the heat rise.
The CO2 cycle is Science, that cycle was broken by removing the trees, leaving CO2 no place to go.
Oil and gas are clean burning, even coal fired electric plants are much better than when everyone heated their houses with wood or coal. It is all better than Whale Oil.
Even if a perfect energy source was developed, zero emissions, it would still fuel the heat islands, and there would still be no place for the natural Carbon Cycle. Both heat and CO2 would continue to rise.
Farming releases water from the soil, soil moisture is in steady decline. Cattle eating every blade of grass every year is causing the good grass to be replaced by what cattle won't eat. It also causes a decline in soil moisture.
The surface has little to do with the aquafiers being pumped down for short term gains, the recharge rate is very slow, when the water is gone, the land becomes useless.
All of the problems can be traced directly to human activity.
Your rain dance does not bring rain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 2184
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | ascan wrote: |
Do you know how the oil used in the economic system you worship is located, extracted and transported? A lot of what you seem to call "junk science" is involved. In fact that "junk science" has played a major part in allowing you to live your affluent middle-class American existence. Your mind seems to be stuck back in the 60's, ruveyn. And I know they say you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but I do reckon that if you were actually to educate yourself in one of those "junk sciences", and read a few "junk science" journals, rather than the ill-informed crap from the mainstream media, you might be persuaded. |
You speak of engineering which is applied physics. Engineering is an applied discipline firmly founded on the laws of physics and explicated by mathematics... |
I was not speaking of engineering, although that is obviously an important discipline. I was thinking of areas like meteorology which is important to work offshore, or maybe palynology that is used for stratigraphic control whilst drilling. Both those fields of study contribute significantly to oil production. They also have contributed to our understanding of climate. Would you consider them "junk science"?
| ruveyn wrote: | | Write us when you know how to solve the Navier Stokes equation. |
As I explained earlier, the lack of a tidy mathematical solution does not render something useless. The Navier Stokes equations are important in fluid mechanics, and without doubt contribute to the oil production example I gave, as well as climate science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 4794
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| number5 wrote: |
We have the technology, and finally the willpower, to reduce our waste and byproducts. This makes sense on all levels. Even by the extremely unlikely (I would argue impossible) worst case scenario of the scientists being wrong about human impact on climate change, we would still be improving air, water, and soil quality. There is no downside to going green, unless, of course, you have stock in oil or if you profit from war. |
I agree. For reasons of economy and national security we should free ourselves of the Filthy Oil Habit. I want to see 2000 breeder reactors churning out terawatts and terawatts of electric power from coast to coast. When we make enough electricity without burning hydrocarbons we will be free of the curse of Islamic threat on our economic vitals.
I do not give a sh** about Gaia and after I am dead the environment will not concern me a bit. In the mean time I want to save some money and not live under the threat of rationing or government control of the minute details of my life. I believe in clean air because I breath air, I believe in clean water because I drink the stuff, I believe in a healthy environment because that is what I live in.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
0_equals_true
Genuine Charlatan
Joined: Apr 06, 2007
Age: 27
Posts: 6992
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
global warming->not myth
organisms can contribute to warming->not myth
sustainability->myth
The bulk of the matter that is the earth will out survive us. We are not saving the earth but current habitats.
Those who think they can endlessly consume have a lot in common many greens. They both believe in the myth of sustainability, and probably their own version of Gaia hugging.
There is nothing sustainable about nature. Therefore there is a problem with many green ideas. They are simply not proactive enough, and tend to be against the big ideas that we are likely to have to take. What's more, some of this "sustainability" might put us in a position that we are less able to act when the sh** really hits the fan, and it is less time spent on thinking of a solution that has any chance of working.
any major climate change warm or cold is bad for us.
_________________
Nobody's mom |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dilbert
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 30, 2009
Age: 35
Posts: 753
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Funny funny stuff...
Beliefs aren't science.
Public opinion polls aren't science.
It doesn't matter what Joe and Jane think. It. Doesn't. Matter. The Earth will do its thing regardless of the small minds.
Ask any environmental scientist about this. About 90% will say we are warming, and 10% will disagree. In a world of science where there are as many different opinions as there are scientists, a 9:1 majority is a slam dunk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CloudWalker
Deinonychus
Joined: Mar 27, 2009
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just wake up to find this.
Of course the data is concrete. How could it not be when you can add data points to create warming and delete data points to hide cooling. It's an inconvenient truth that global warming has become a religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DenvrDave
Sea Gull
Joined: Sep 18, 2009
Age: 44
Posts: 225
Location: Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That the surface of the Earth has recently been warming, on a global average, is incontrovertible.
However, I have not seen any proof in the scientific literature or on this thread, other than *calculations and modeling*, that link human activity to global warming. Any inferred link between human activity and global warming is based on correlation science and an opinion poll, and this does not make it truth.
Nonetheless, there are good reasons for reducing emissions of CO2 and pollutants to the environment, primarily for improving human health and ecological diversity.
PS, the oceans and carbonate rock formations are the largest sources/sinks for carbon dioxide. Excess carbon dioxide, whether you consider it a pollutant or not, can be absorbed by the oceans and carbonate rocks.
_________________
"Humans are gits, no matter what you believe." -mgran
|
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 2184
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DenvrDave wrote: | | ...the oceans and carbonate rock formations are the largest sources/sinks for carbon dioxide. Excess carbon dioxide, whether you consider it a pollutant or not, can be absorbed by the oceans and carbonate rocks. |
Deposition of carbonate rocks is an important factor when you're considering time scales of millions of years. Within the context of a few hundred I don't think it's of much relevance. As for the oceans, they do absorb CO2, but that makes them more acidic which could also be a major problem. Of course, it's a complicated picture with various feedbacks, but the long and short of it is that you can't expect to mess with one part of the system without eventually having an impact on another part of that system. The scientific literature is replete with studies that demonstrate that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DenvrDave
Sea Gull
Joined: Sep 18, 2009
Age: 44
Posts: 225
Location: Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ascan wrote: | | Deposition of carbonate rocks is an important factor when you're considering time scales of millions of years. Within the context of a few hundred I don't think it's of much relevance. |
Actually the time scale is more like 10s to 100s of years. For example, the average growth rate of stalactites is 0.13 mm per year, and the fastest growing stalactites can grow at 3 mm per year. At those rates, and considering carbonate rocks have a specific gravity of roughly 2.7, on a global scale that would add up to the sequestration of many tons of CO2 per year being stored in stalactites. Limestone, also with sp. gr. of 2.7, accumulates on average about 1 mm every 100 yrs. On a global scale this would also add up to many tons of CO2 per year being stored in limestone.
| ascan wrote: | | As for the oceans, they do absorb CO2, but that makes them more acidic which could also be a major problem. |
Good point, acidification of the oceans could be a major problem. But a significant portion of the atmospheric CO2 that dissolves into oceans will form limestone layers at the bottom of oceans, so ultimately any excess CO2 will be sequestered in carbonate rock layers, and ocean acidification may not be as drastic as the mainstream media would lead people to believe. Nonetheless, I think this is a good reason for limiting CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, but it has nothing to do global warming.
_________________
"Humans are gits, no matter what you believe." -mgran
|
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 2184
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DenvrDave wrote: | | ascan wrote: | | Deposition of carbonate rocks is an important factor when you're considering time scales of millions of years. Within the context of a few hundred I don't think it's of much relevance. |
Actually the time scale is more like 10s to 100s of years. For example, the average growth rate of stalactites is 0.13 mm per year, and the fastest growing stalactites can grow at 3 mm per year. At those rates, and considering carbonate rocks have a specific gravity of roughly 2.7, on a global scale that would add up to the sequestration of many tons of CO2 per year being stored in stalactites. Limestone, also with sp. gr. of 2.7, accumulates on average about 1 mm every 100 yrs. On a global scale this would also add up to many tons of CO2 per year being stored in limestone... |
The most important mechanism (as far as I recall) for carbonate deposition is through marine biological activity: carbonate secreting organisms such as foraminifera or coccolithophores that die, leaving the carbonate to be buried. Increasing CO2 dissolved in our oceans as they are now does not directly enhance the rate at which that occurs, in fact the increasing acidity inhibits it. It is true, however, that if you change other parameters (the kind of things that change on a plate-tectonic timescale) such as nutrient supply due to oceanic circulation, or large-scale marine flooding of continental margins increasing sea-bed area above the carbonate compensation depth you will then, over millions of years, have a major impact on the system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
