Global warming?

[mcintosh]

And where are the most impoverished and famine ravished countries in the world? That's right, the heartland of OPEC. Africa and the Middle East. Seems like we always go back there. And why are their people dying. Not because their countries lack resources, but because the warlords of the areas want ALL the resources these countries have and will kill all those who get in their way.

So will $20.00 methanol fix anything? Maybe not, but it can't get any worse. And at least the methanol will be grown right here in the USA.

BTW I am a big proponent of Nuclear Powerplants and Windmills.

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12250028#post12250028 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary


Maybe use hydrogen, oops, hydrogen is extracted from natural gas, biproduct, methane and co2. okay maybe not hydrogen.

Biofuel! Once again, you burn it, co2. And it takes as much fuel to make it as it produces.


Mike

I think Hydrogen can be produced from electrolysis with wind turbines.

Regarding bio fuel it doesnt take that much fuel to make it? You have transport,but then you could use the bio fuel to transport.

The real problem is from deforestation,the burning of forests and ancient peatlands and land conversion. Also food shortages and big food price rises. At the rate we use fuel i think we would need another planet to grow the bio fuel plants on. I have heard of bio fuels from cultured algea,sounds promising,but could be a long way off,and if we do use it,then our vehichles need to be more economical/fuel efficient.

 

[Wolverine]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12251972#post12251972 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini
I think Hydrogen can be produced from electrolysis with wind turbines.

That and solar arrays can also be set up to perform the electrolysis.

Also food shortages and big food price rises. At the rate we use fuel i think we would need another planet to grow the bio fuel plants on. I have heard of bio fuels from cultured algea,

Actually, a closer potential solution is to use the stems and other waste products from currently produced food plants. It can be done efficiently and cheaply in small quantities, but they've been having trouble converting to the large scale necessary to make it a viable longterm option. They've made a lot of progress, but they're not there yet.

 

[samtheman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12235335#post12235335 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
Big blocks of theoretical physics.

Sorry, but you need to explain further. Where are the models used. Give me a reference or author.

 

[cortez marine]

Wow,
Some smart folks here.
This would be about the only place one could post about the hypocricy of large scale artificial live rock making with environmentally expensive and caustic cement.

There are plenty of ill thought-out projects in the 3rd world looking to "save the reefs" with tons and tons of er...cement.
Steve

 

[samtheman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12247137#post12247137 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mothra
I don't mean to belittle any of the research, time, or effort put into the posts on this thread, but I'd like to try and make a different point....

Whichever argument one tends to support there is a commonality between supporters of all arguments; the commonality is a general concern for the planet. Without such concerned there would be no reason to invest time and energy in pursuit of an definitive outcome.

So much time and energy is spent focusing on topics like this that we tend not to see the forest through the trees. Ultimately the question should be: "What is the impact of humans on the environment; what steps can be made to reduce our impact, and how can we start taking these steps?"

Reefkeepers should know as well, if not better, as anyone that the ecosystem in the glass box can only process so much pollution. We go to great lengths to keep the ecosystem in pristine condition; we carefully monitor what is allowed into the system, we spend countless dollars on devices to prevent pollutants from entering the system and to remove that which is produced by the system, and when that's not enough we perform water changes, sometimes requiring hours of time and mouthfuls of salty siphon water, to reduce the pollutants. All of this and we don't even live in the glass box, we just look at.

If we only had this concern for our own ecosystem, the one that we actually DO live in, and our children, and their children will live in. It all boils down to the almighty dollar of course. The least expensive way is always least environmentally friendly way: It's easier to grow vegetables with pesticides than without. It's easier to let farm run off into the water ways than capture and filter it. It's easier to burn oil than alternative fuels. It's easier to process countless materials using toxic chemicals than to find a clean alternative. It's easier for us to consume all of these and only spend a buck instead of a couple of bucks.

I believe we're just at the beginning of an era where people will become more conscious of their impact on the planet, as individuals and as members of the human race. Conservation, Green, recycling, zero-waste, these are all buzz words that will soon be common vocabulary.

Start accepting responsibility for your environmental impact and change one thing in your lifestyle to decrease your "footprint" on the environment. There's no reason that cumulative changes in each of our lifestyles can't create global changes in industry who typically dictates our life style. Globalization is bringing about change in peoples' habits and lifestyles. All major industries know this and a lot of folks would be surprised at the approaches used to move products into cultures that would otherwise not have consumed them. An educated and conscious consumer is a step in the right direction. Once we show that the almighty dollar is not as important as being responsible for our actions industry will change, those who haven't converted to a conscious lifestyle will slowly adapt to the changing trends, and the argument over warming, cooling, or otherwise becomes mute. The real argument is "are we doing all we can?" and if not to keep pushing. All of the data, graphs, and statistics in the world won't make a difference, only actions will. Those of you who have done your research on the topic of this thread have all done a great job, I hope you will (or do) devote as much energy towards lifestyle changes to benefit the environment, which you have unquestionable concern for.


If anyone needs a little help getting started try this


Thanks for indulging my soap box!

Well you tried, but I will live my life as I choose. The hypocricy is so deep that I see no reason to make any changes. Stop the population growth and limit immigration, and you might get my attention. Until then, its just a waste of everyones' time. Your examples of living green won't even offset next years growth.

 

[cortez marine]

money grubbing greens

money grubbing greens

He says;
'Your examples of living green won't even offset next years growth.'

Or contain even Chinas next year delitorious growth effect.
I think many greenies are in it for their own "identity needs" and "therapy" as much as service to the planet. This accounts for the token, knee jerk, feel good remedies often offered as opposed to real ones.

When hyper greens of the Great Barier Reef Marine Park Authority attacked the aquarium fish collectors in Australia and put half of them out of business they cited the tiny effect the collectors had on the reef and used their 35 million dollar a year bureacracy to push that agenda while the only serious answer was to curtail the massive siltation from the mega-sugar industry all up and down the Queensland coast.
Knee jerk, feel good, political responses to real environmental issues are the norm now and most people willfully go along with it to look good and feel better about themselves.
Attacking the collectors was safe.
Attacking big sugar was not.
Their remedy was purely for "personal" reasons.

The fight for the planet needs to be in better hands then in those of cowardly, career oriented, money grubbing greens .

But I digress;
One collector said after one of the endless series of meetings in which they were not listened too;
"Why don't you all just step out of your cars, turn off your air-conditioners and kill yourselves? [ Now that would help!]

Steve


|

 

[05TurboS2K]

GLOBAL WARMING.... a leftwing scare tactic. I believed it until I actually researched it first hand in depth.

I can provide great articles arguing its a total hoax.

 

[05TurboS2K]

interesting the inventor of THE WEATHER CHANNEL wrote a great article on how it was just a bunch of BS. Sounds like he did his homework.

it was on newsbusters.org

 

[billsreef]

Better off sticking to science for info instead of such obviously biased "news" sources

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12267721#post12267721 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cortez marine
There are plenty of ill thought-out projects in the 3rd world looking to "save the reefs" with tons and tons of er...cement.
Steve

What? You think it's silly to dredge up reef to make cement in order to make artificial reef :lol:

 

[blufish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12276253#post12276253 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 05TurboS2K
interesting the inventor of THE WEATHER CHANNEL wrote a great article on how it was just a bunch of BS. Sounds like he did his homework.

it was on newsbusters.org

Yeah, I read that so-called "great article" by John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel.

It was amazingly fact-free. More like an extended diatribe.

Here are some of the money quotes:

And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

Yes, you are a mere TV weatherman who doesn't do any primary research.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers.

Wow. Dozens of scientific papers! I am impressed. And he's certainly getting a lot of mileage out of that Newsweek magazine ice age article from 1975. Just as a side note, there have been over a thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers that confirm the basic premise of global warming.

These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish.

So Coleman is attributing the entire climate crisis to publication bias! Unbelievable. BTW, notice he doesn't offer any facts to back up this claim.

For those of you who don't know what publication bias is... it's the tendency of of editors of journals to publish positive results rather than negative results. In other words, journal editors want to publish articles that say "we found something" rather than "we found nothing." However, there is no evidence that publication bias has played a significant role in the publication of papers discussing climate change. And Coleman, who admits to reading only a few dozen papers, is hardly in a position to assert publication bias.

On the other hand, there's another type of bias called "confirmation bias" where a person interprets information to fit his own preconceived beliefs. People like Coleman are good examples of this.

Coleman again:

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

I wonder what he thinks of the recent Larsen Ice Shelf collapse in the Antarctic, which started in 1995 when Larsen A collapsed, and the upcoming demise of Larsen C?

Or the weakening of the Ross Ice Shelf? Or the retreat of glaciers worldwide? Or the increase in CO2 absorption in the world's oceans (and resulting lowering of pH)? Or the general trend of global temperature increases? Or the very real possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean in the next 35 -50 years? Or the imminent danger of flooding to islands like Tuvalu?

 

[Dewey58]

Good debate. Some quasi scientific theories... but hey...thats how we learn sometimes. Rather than make it more complicated... I prefer to keep it simple. Thats all I'm capable of. ;0)
If my bio-load in my aquarium is too large, I have to find ways to get rid of it or reduce it.
The world is just one big aquarium. We are starting to have way too many people living on the planet. Thats not news. But all of our energy, climate and sociological problems are directly tied to it.
Find a way to reduce the denizens of this planet and a lot of our problems go away.
Anyone have suggestions on how we can do this?
It doesn't appear to be politically expedient. :0)
Dewey

 

[MCary]

Duplicate

 

[MCary]

I wonder what he thinks of the recent Larsen Ice Shelf collapse in the Antarctic, which started in 1995 when Larsen A collapsed, and the upcoming demise of Larsen C?

In attempting to show this guy's ignorance of the subject you manage to reveal your own. A little more careful reading of those who know instead of sensational articles would tell you that the Antarctic is growing. Temperatures have reversed a 6000 year old trend the past 10 years. The calving of the ice shelf is not only normal, but expected. When the news of this phenom came out it was summer there. This is exactly why I have trouble accepting the news of global warming. Predictions of events that are going to happen in 20-50 years are being claimed now. Dispite that the evendence clearly shows the earth temps have not rizen for 10 years, ( and is not challenged by knowledgable researchers) claims of melting poles are still being claimed. Even though the entire northern hemisphere is colder than it has been in 100 years this Winter, that is just "localized" weather and "noise" Whereas a small part of Antartica, in the warmest area of the continent in "THE SUMMER" calves some ice and its clear and impelling evidence. I'm sure the scientist who discovered this was some well known scientist with serious bonifides like Katie Couric. I don't suppose you watched "The March of the Penguins". The walked 60 miles in the winter and had beach front property by Summer. And it has been that way for thousands of years.

And BTW blufish, what are you bonifides that makes your critcism of John Coleman have any value? How does the ad hominem attacks on someone advance the truth of your position?

So these are facts:

The North pole has regained 2 million sq kilometers of mass.
Green land ice has thickened.
The antartic has grown by many gigatons.
The US is experiancing average temps lower than 15 years.
China 100 years.
3000 probes put in the ocean by NASA has shown NO rise in temps.

So if these are all local weather phenom and noise, then so is everything you present.

Basically every single prediction of the climatologist supporting global warming has been wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE. In 20 years, they haven't even been close. And every time something doesn't work out they rework the numbers, explain why the wrong results were actually the right results, or present fraud, which is later discovered. Com'on, throw me a bone! I'm ready to believe. Just get one thing right, I'll be there for ya.

Mike

 

[cortez marine]

surrogate religion

surrogate religion

Spoken in a whisper.......
Shhhh...
I have found it to be a blasphemy to wonder aloud of the validity of the GW notion and see that it has indeed evolved into a "religious" debate among the pre-dominantly non religious.
I mean. ...it seems to have become a surrogate religion for many, performing all the duties of a religion.

Its all powerful, all encompassing. It is awe inspiring and threatening.
We can't see it but some say they can.
We can't feel it, but some say they can.
This winter was cold I thought.....[ oh ye ol little faith]

Loyalty is expected regardless of true personal opinion. Indeed, it seems to be an exotic problem, with no viable solution [ short of a sudden global unity of purpose and concerted action ]
Question; hunger and war couldn't bring humanity together, but this issue can?

The fact that it can now carry and futher careers means that it can remain an issue wether debunked of not. There is also serious grant money in it now and that can create issues out of nothing while neglecting the real ones. [ still laughing over Mikes cartoon]

It will become useful and profitable for some....it may well inspire conservation of resources among ever increasing populations of wasteful people.
It may serve as a distraction from the "military- oil industrial complexities" in the Mid-East.

It may prove to be a temporary cycle in a larger cycle of geologic time [albiet the one we can most conveniently measure.]

Its like campaign season, and I frankly am still waiting/hoping for a better solution [ or dogma] to become afixed to .

I honestly just don't know...but the debate here has deepened to uncertainty as both sides have so much truth and sincerity of purpose in them.
Sincerely,
Steve

 

[Rossini]

cartoons and propoganda poems. You really are ruining this thread.....

I know its hard for some of you to execpt but as Bill says lets stick to the Science.

 

[cortez marine]

"stick to the Science?"

Since when is science the creator of policy?
It is used selectively and sold politically all the time on every issue.
Science alone does not constitute policy, reform, change or salvation.
It filters thru the "ways and means" of men, and therefore all that is relevant here.
Steve

 

[MCary]

Rossini, first, its my thread. I started it. Second, the only thing you have contributed is some cheer leading.

But, out of respect I'll respond to your direct statement. When someone uses a completely unrealated event, i.e. the normal cycle of antarctic ice shelf calving, as an example to support their argument, that is by definition propaganda. When I point out the normal cycle of antarctic expansion causing the shelf to break off, that is science. Do your homework rather than being a proxy for others research and you'll be taken more seriously.

Mike

 

[Wolverine]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12265583#post12265583 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman
Sorry, but you need to explain further. Where are the models used. Give me a reference or author.

The current "Standard Model" requires the unproven presence of the Higgs boson. Billions are being spent (around 10 at last estimate I saw) on the Large Hadron Collider in an effort to prove the existence of this particle, which has so far been elusive. There's another, competing collider that is also being built based on this model.
It's believed that, if Higgs is found, it will be a step towards the Grand Unified Theory.

The models predicting the Higgs boson are, by definition, unverified until it's found.

Dave