This was an eye opener - cont.

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15379036#post15379036 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule


did yo0u know that their are onl;y theories as to how the ro filter works?

I am curious where you heard this. As far as I know, that is pretty well understood science. Its a membrane with "pores" and large molecules can't easily pass through the pores. Although some charged ions may not be very big themselves, they carry around a pretty big shell of hydration that prevents them from passing through the membrane.

Scott

 

[jdhuyvetter]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15380294#post15380294 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
i'm sorry, if this proves your argument, why are you using the computer now, it could transform into a mutant sea anemone and ingest you alive in its gastric cavity, right? no scientist has disproved that?

I taste bad to anemones. Many have tried and all have failed. Well except this one green Atlantic carpet a few years back. He nailed me. And, if my computer were to turn into a mutant sea anemone, it sure would make for an interesting Monday!

 

[Dingo44]

I guess I should have realized I was walking into a minefield when I decided to reply to this thread! Isn't this a Reef site? Oh well, all in good fun....

Here are some links for those of you who want opposing viewpoints:

A lengthy report by a Ph.D.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st285/

Lengthy research paper:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Powerpoint presentation:
http://environment.ncpa.org/files/GlobalWarmingPrimer_low.pdf

Economic impact of CO2 regulation:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba494/

Presentation Delivered to the Minnesota Climate Science Symposium:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...ience_and_Global_Warming_What_Do_We_Know.html

I've got more if you'd like, but these are issues you don't see addressed or reported on in main stream media. Section II on the first link is all for you Scott, I like what you've been saying. I've heard the same things about modeling and it's good to read a breakdown from your point of view, thank you. Have a good one!

 

[Rossini]

No-one, I will repeat that, no one has said that man caused it or all of the past climatic changes. So why you bring that up as some kind of argument is beyond me. Clutching at straws perhaps?

Just because the climate has changed in the past, doesnt mean we cant have an impact. Past climate changes are nearly always linked directley to GHG's, like co2 (huge geological events,volcanes,releases of methane etc etc) . Funnily enough that's what's happening now. 27 billion tonnes a year is the amount we currentley emit into the atmosphere per year.

I find it funny (in a sick kind of way) that you guys think the worlds cleverest people are wrong and you guys are right, sitting there tapping away at your keyboards.

When do you think you will pull your heads out of the sand?

Not untill the flood water washes it away I imagine.


Oh and your second point is nearly as funny as the first. Hurricanes are weather events, completley different to climate.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15377580#post15377580 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
I'm going to offer two comments and then let the "modelers" in this forum go over the finer points.

1: After the last Ice Age, there was global warming. You state than global warming is manmade. How did man cause that? Or in more recent history, how did man cause the global warming after the last "mini Ice Age"

2: As a Florida resident, I'm sure you follow NOAA during hurricane season. I like to look at the "spaghetti page". This is the page that shows all of the different projected paths. These are calculated by "very accurate models". They usually agree very closely for the first 24 hours. Yet, at 5 or 6 days out, they are literally "all over the map". Take Katrina. Long before Katrina moved into the Gulf of Mexico, she was due to hit the gulf coast of Florida around Naples (as a much weaker storm!)

:eek1: :eek1:

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15382905#post15382905 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
I guess I should have realized I was walking into a minefield when I decided to reply to this thread! Isn't this a Reef site? Oh well, all in good fun....

Here are some links for those of you who want opposing viewpoints:

A lengthy report by a Ph.D.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st285/

Lengthy research paper:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Powerpoint presentation:
http://environment.ncpa.org/files/GlobalWarmingPrimer_low.pdf

Economic impact of CO2 regulation:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba494/

Presentation Delivered to the Minnesota Climate Science Symposium:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...ience_and_Global_Warming_What_Do_We_Know.html

I've got more if you'd like, but these are issues you don't see addressed or reported on in main stream media. Section II on the first link is all for you Scott, I like what you've been saying. I've heard the same things about modeling and it's good to read a breakdown from your point of view, thank you. Have a good one!

All that TOSH has been debunked over and over and over again. It's pathetic. To be honest, with the evidence we have now you should be ashamed to post that tripe.

Just look at the first part of this thread, the one that locked, because of political comments.

The people you quote from are denialists and I expect you to be the same. You keep clinging to them though, while the sane people will listen to what real scientists tell us.

 

[ScooterTDI]

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the tone of some of these posts, but why does everyone have to get so emotionally involved with a topic? Why is it so difficult to discuss things like this with out calling other people views "pathetic", implying that others are not sane, etc.?

Really guys?

Something to remember....Science is intrisically a skeptical venture. That doesn't mean a scientist can't believe anything, just that a scientist must recognize the limitations associated with the knowledge that led to that belief.

Scott

 

[Dingo44]

Really though?

There's no way you read all those articles from the time I posted until you posted. How could you possibly know that all that info has been debunked or, what did you call it? tosh? Those are reputable scientists.... whatever, this is why I hardly ever debate this subject because people act like I beat their child or something. Pathetic? I'm not even going to comment on that, your own words let everyone else know exactly what type of person you are. I wish we could have a good conversation on this without resorting to grade school playground rules. You got a beef with the links I posted, then state what the specific problem you have with it so we can disuss it. I would love to talk about this subject with people who disagree, maybe I can learn something, as long as they're civil, mature persons.....

Denial huh? Sorry if I resist the drastic changes some want to make to our lives based on concensous. It's supposed to be a good thing to question your leaders.

 

[Dingo44]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15382931#post15382931 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini

Oh and your second point is nearly as funny as the first. Hurricanes are weather events, completley different to climate.
:eek1: :eek1:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the climate have a direct impact on the wheather? Besides, the person who wrote that was making an analogy about models and their inaccuraccy.

 

[ScooterTDI]

I think I can see this conversation becoming somewhat pointless. Noone is going to be able to convince me that I shouldn't be skeptical of modeling. I do a substantial amount of modeling, so I feel like I have a good understanding of the general limitations involved. And it seems that I am never going to convince anyone else to be skeptical of modeling.

So in the interest of keeping things positive, I have an idea.... Maybe we can redirect this thread to try to come up with useful ways of dealing with climate change on a personal scale (i.e. switch house lights to CF) or on a global scale (new alternative energy sources)?

As evidenced by my user name, I am a big fan of VW TDI's (diesels). I get awesome mileage which saves me money and reduces my CO2 emmisions.

As far as fuels go, in the past I set a benchscale biodiesel reactor, but haven't had the chance to scale up yet. I also prefer to buy B20 (20% biodiesel blend) when I can get it. Recently, I've heard alot about gas-to-liquid diesel and algal sources of diesel fuels.

Scott

 

[Dingo44]

Absolutely agreed...

I love the idea of alternative fuels. How long would you say it would be until biodiesel or other types are economically viable? I know ethanol has had some problems, moisture accumulation in engines, and government subsidies since it isn't profitable. There's also talk of food prices going up because farmers are switching to corn crops for ethanol. It seems that unfortunately oil is the only fuel efficient and cheap enough to drive the world economy right now.

CF light bulbs are a great idea too, but don't they release poisonous mercury when they break? Most of those bulbs are produced in China where there are zero environmental regulations, and no OSHA for the workers.

 

[ScooterTDI]

I think the problem with ethanol and biodiesel is that they generally rely on food crops (at least currently). Biodiesel in the US is made from soybeans (rapeseed is used in Europe, I believe). Ethanol is made from corn. Using food crops for fuel drives up the prices of foods. So, the potential economic viability on a national scale isn't good for current alternative fuels.

The gas-to-liquid diesel is made from anything organic (i.e. waste) which would be great because it kills 2 birds with one stone. I'm not sure if they can make it profitably right now though. I don't think they can.

The recent alternative diesel talk has been about genetically engineered microalgae that can be grown in large tracts of unused/non-arable land, i.e. desert. Apparently this seems to be the best bet for really making a profitable alternative fuel.

Good point about CF. I wonder if they could institute programs to reclaim mercury from CF.

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15382022#post15382022 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
What really bothers me about discussions like this is that people start making it a black and white issue. From your comments, it seems like you think I am either totally with you or totally against you. I have repeatedly said that addressing global warming/climate change is a GOOD thing. There are many reasons besides just global warming to try to reduce emmisions and utilize sustainable energy sources. I just think it should be done in a realistic way. The limitations of modeling to to be considered in the decisions that we make. Modeling can be used to partially INFORM a decision, but it should not be used as the BASIS of a decision.

THe following two paragraphs may verge on "political", but I feel that people who haven't worked in research science should understand:

Scientists/Modelers/Researchers in all of the organizations listed (and every other academic/research institution) produce results that get misinterpreted by the non-scientific community all the time. Part of that problem is that the non-scientific community never reads the fine print in a study (or the researcher isn't very good at explicitly stating the limitations/assumptions). The general public just reads the abstract/executive summary and assume they understand what the study is saying. They never get to the part where all of the limitations, assumtions, etc. are stated and they probably wouldn't understand the significance of them even if they did read that part. I've seen happen with my own work MANY MANY times.

Furthermore, scientists/modelers/researchers need funding. They get funding by portraying their chosen field/topic to be important. It isn't lying, it is putting there field of research in the proper light to get the funding they need to continue their work. I have no doubt that the researchers working in the climate change field believe very strongly that climate change is an important issue. It is an important issue, but when publishing something they are more likely to emphasize certain parts and downplay other parts in order to produce a product that people will think is very important. I've seen this happen quite a bit also.

As a completely hypothetical example, a modeler in climate change might emphasize that they project that the sea levels will rise by 10 feet, but might not emphasize that the uncertainty in that result is +/- 15 feet. Certainly, that result is something that should be examined and considered because it might be a big problem, but given the level of uncertainty, you can't have much confidence in the result.

Scott

ok, so we should all wiat until.....when? when will the models be accurate enough that you will except them? even though the worlds top scientist have already, and all the models are starting to point toward each other, oh and they all point to an increase in temp. but all of those maps are dead wrong, i guess thats the only possibility i see for discounting them. and in that case, when will it be good enough for you? in onehundred years when the sea has risen3-20 feet? and their is nuthing we can do?

and, your argument, at least the way i interpreted it, is an argument against using most scientific findings because they can be wrong. that would mean no one use a cryptic filter because it hasn't bee studied enough, oh and don't go dsb because it could house the NEW NITRATE THEORY causing bacteria, just to give a few reefing examples.....so i am sorry if i am being dense, but please explain.

ps. the ro filter uncertainty came from brightwells book on m,arine chemistry.

 

[ctenophors rule]

ethanol is being farmed mainly in brazil, were they, in the next 20-30 years will be dealing with poisoned water supplies because of the pestacides they use to grow it.

coal will run out in 60 -90 years, and their is no way we will ever be able to mine enough to support our 12:00 needs. let alone 12:01 or 12:02.

the oil is running out, the only things that we can use at our current growth rate(at least in a responsible way) are renewable resources, like wind, water, geothermal,solar, and my favorite oxygen. these powers will allow a greater world in which to live in, with very few downsides.......but i have one Q.

why did we stop talking about climate change? i need to refine my argument before school starts.....so if anyone wants to continue.......

p.s. it is not a religion for me, far from it, it is just that i trust the best scientist in cientific endeavors. just like i trust krudgman when i want info on the economy. and E.D. witter for florida ecological stuff. love the kylgore program!!!!

 

[jdhuyvetter]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15376930#post15376930 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
i would like to bring up a few miscelaneuos pieces of evidence.

noaa

nasa

nas

aas,

and ipcc all agree that global warming, which is a more descriptive term than climate change, is caused by man, further more, they all agree that it will cause great harm in many different ways, from environmental to economical.

so, what pieces of information do you guys have that these most prestigious scientific institutions are unaware of? oh and why haven't you told anyone yet????

these organisations have the more to loose from being wrong than anyone else, so why would they make such a strong stance on the situation if they didn't believe it within 99.999999% truth?

to not believe in this phenomenon simply because the models could be wrong, means that you should doubt all science, and shouldn;t even be using this computer, because for a reason that science is yet naive, it could transform into a mutant seaurchin and spear you with its long fiber optic spines. science is never certain. never. it may seem ironic that the most precise of all human endevours is the least likely to pronounce certainty, but it is true, their is a nasa probe still studying gravity.

the models are in abundant corelation, and are almost always right, they are very accurate.

i may not be a genious, but i know quite a bit about this, and conspiracy theorist need to get off the media so we can do something about this problem.

i now stand for cross( ironic? or just punny?) examinations, after that last statement. lol

let me know if you got it!!!!! i am tired and it may only make sense to me.

Hey Rossini, this is the comment that I was replying to.

1: He opens with "caused by man". So, apparently at least one person in this world believes that global warming is manmade.

2: He implies that NOAA is a prestiguous institute. I won't argue that point. But he then states that the models are "in abundant corelation, and are almost always right, they are very accurate" The point I was trying to make by using Hurricane Katrina is that obviously, NOAA has models that are not always accurate or even in agreement with their own models. To further expand upon this point, NOAA can "corelate" the hurricane models every year with actual data. They can then improve the accuracy of these models. They have been doing so for decades. Climate change modeling is in its infancy (relatively speaking). There is little or no accurate data to "corelate" and adjust these models. NOAA has been modeling hurricanes for decades, with great improvement, but on occasion, they still get it wrong.

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15383800#post15383800 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
ok, so we should all wiat until.....when? when will the models be accurate enough that you will except them? even though the worlds top scientist have already, and all the models are starting to point toward each other, oh and they all point to an increase in temp. but all of those maps are dead wrong, i guess thats the only possibility i see for discounting them. and in that case, when will it be good enough for you? in onehundred years when the sea has risen3-20 feet? and their is nuthing we can do?

and, your argument, at least the way i interpreted it, is an argument against using most scientific findings because they can be wrong. that would mean no one use a cryptic filter because it hasn't bee studied enough, oh and don't go dsb because it could house the NEW NITRATE THEORY causing bacteria, just to give a few reefing examples.....so i am sorry if i am being dense, but please explain.

ps. the ro filter uncertainty came from brightwells book on m,arine chemistry.

I think you really need to read what I have written. I have REPEATEDLY said that addressing climate change and CO2 emmisions is a GOOD thing. I have even used the word "repeatedly" repeatedly. I NEVER said we should wait to do anything about it. I said we should take steps to resolve the issue in a realistic, not a reactionary, way.

I never said you can't use modeling for anything. I have said that it is often misused, and it is. The information you get from modeling has a lot of uncertainty. That is the nature of trying model something that isn't well understood. That uncertainty needs to be taken into account when using modeling to support/inform/base a decision. I don't feel that most people adequately understand this.

I am sorry, but I give up on talking to you about this. You are putting words in my mouth and ignoring anything I say. I don't really know if this is a productive route to take the conversation. Right now, it just seems like I am going to repeat myself endlessly, but noone will ever understand what I am saying.

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15383869#post15383869 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
ethanol is being farmed mainly in brazil, were they, in the next 20-30 years will be dealing with poisoned water supplies because of the pestacides they use to grow it.

coal will run out in 60 -90 years, and their is no way we will ever be able to mine enough to support our 12:00 needs. let alone 12:01 or 12:02.

the oil is running out, the only things that we can use at our current growth rate(at least in a responsible way) are renewable resources, like wind, water, geothermal,solar, and my favorite oxygen. these powers will allow a greater world in which to live in, with very few downsides.......but i have one Q.

why did we stop talking about climate change? i need to refine my argument before school starts.....so if anyone wants to continue.......

p.s. it is not a religion for me, far from it, it is just that i trust the best scientist in cientific endeavors. just like i trust krudgman when i want info on the economy. and E.D. witter for florida ecological stuff. love the kylgore program!!!!

Go back and read the first part of this thread (the one that got closed). I said the most important reason to push for CO2 emmisions reduction is that our current use of fuels is unsustainable.

Ethanol is not a realistic venture in the US because we can't produce sugar cane the way they can in brazil. Brazil makes so much sugar cane, that they can afford to use much of it to produce ethanol. There is a lot more sugar in sugar cane than in corn, so they can get more ethanol per unit area of farm land. They even power thei ethanol plants by burning bhegass(sp?), the leftover dry cellulose material that is a byproduct of their ethonal factories.

Scientists are wrong all the time. They are not infallible and neither are their models. You shouldn't trust them whole-heartedly without really examining things yourself.

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15383869#post15383869 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
the oil is running out, the only things that we can use at our current growth rate(at least in a responsible way) are renewable resources, like wind, water, geothermal,solar, and my favorite oxygen. these powers will allow a greater world in which to live in, with very few downsides.......but i have one Q.

I am not sure I understand what you are talking about with oxygen? Care to elaborate?

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15384030#post15384030 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
I am not sure I understand what you are talking about with oxygen? Care to elaborate?

Scott

their are engines that run on compressed oxygen, once they are refined they will be able to run indefinately. the engines keeps compressing the gas chamber, so it technicaly isn't an oxygen fuel source, but an air one.

oxygen just sounds cooler than air, and when you say air many think of wind.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15384001#post15384001 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI


Scientists are wrong all the time. They are not infallible and neither are their models. You shouldn't trust them whole-heartedly without really examining things yourself.

Scott

i don't assume that i know more than the scientist do, so i can't help but believe the experts on any given subject. now that is not to say i have not done research of my own. their is "evidence?" of this on both sides, i have found the evidence on the global warming man made side more prominent, and more abundant than the other sides. i have also found that one side seems to bring up political issues more than the other, which influenced my choce as well, seeing as this is a scientific discussion not a political one.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15383960#post15383960 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
I think you really need to read what I have written. I have REPEATEDLY said that addressing climate change and CO2 emmisions is a GOOD thing. I have even used the word "repeatedly" repeatedly. I NEVER said we should wait to do anything about it. I said we should take steps to resolve the issue in a realistic, not a reactionary, way.

I never said you can't use modeling for anything. I have said that it is often misused, and it is. The information you get from modeling has a lot of uncertainty. That is the nature of trying model something that isn't well understood. That uncertainty needs to be taken into account when using modeling to support/inform/base a decision. I don't feel that most people adequately understand this.

I am sorry, but I give up on talking to you about this. You are putting words in my mouth and ignoring anything I say. I don't really know if this is a productive route to take the conversation. Right now, it just seems like I am going to repeat myself endlessly, but noone will ever understand what I am saying.

Scott

give me one last try. when you say realistic and not reactionary...what if this needs to be a reactionary response? as many scientist, includig the nobel winners at the nas and the other sources i have chosen to site.(oh don;t forget exxon)

i am only asking for what evidence you guys have against it? what do you know that these scientist dont? these nerdiest of the nerds.