This was an eye opener - cont.

[ScooterTDI]

I give up. Neither Ctenophors nor Rossini are willing to actually discuss anything and I'm not willing to repeat myself any longer.
I miss having greenbean on this thread because he could actually discuss the topic like an adult. I think that Dingo, jdhuyvetter, and I have actually been careful to be respectful and to try to listen to and understand an opposing viewpoint.

No offense Ctenophors, but I think you may be a little too young to have a broad view of things and understand moderation (I don't really know your age). I used to be like you, in a way. When I was younger I saw everything in black and white and I was impatient. Most kids are. Eventually I learned that the middle of the road is often the best path and that rushing things often led to mistakes.

Noone here has said that we shouldn't do anything about global warming. We even began discussing ways that we could reduce emmisions, but you didn't want to talk about that. You want to argue with someone who doesn't even really disagree with you, just has a less extreme approach.

Since you insist that we take drastic measures right now, please lay out your plan to save the world. It is meaningless to simply agree that global warming exists unless you are willing to try to contribute to solving the problem. I have already mentioned things I do or would like to see done to help reduce emissions. If I drive my TDI around and get 50+ mpg, it won't matter much unless you and everyone else are also contributing.

So please tell us your plan. Maybe we can discuss ways to resolve the problem in a rational manner.

Scott

 

[jdhuyvetter]

x2, What is the up front cost of plasma lighting? Will this be another new and improved, the greatest, must have technology? I seem to recall how plasma TV's were the way of the future...better picture, cheaper to run, outrageous to buy. Now, they are being phased out in favor of LED's.

My suggestion would be to not jump on the bandwagon just because a scientist says so. If you do your research, I promise you that you will find an opposing view. The news media is in the business to sell news. Doom and gloom sells. That is why you are only getting one side of the story.

As for Rossini, I don't know. It's hard to tell from his typing, but on the surface he's pretty venomous. He is absolutely right about one thing. One day the water will wash the sand from my ears. 8,000 years ago, my house was beach front property. 10,000 years ago it was underwater. One day, probably in another 8,000 to 10,000 years, it will be underwater again. Hopefully, I'll be around to see it, but I'm not counting on it.

 

[jdhuyvetter]

Sorry, LCD's (on the TV)

 

[ScooterTDI]

Plasma TVs were a stop-gap from the beginning. The plasma TV technology was dated before it even hit the markets. The needed something to fill the void until LCDs could be manufactured more inexpensively. In the future, expect to see OLED TVs. Those will be really nice.

The plasma lighting does seem interesting, but I have a gut feeling it won't have a wide market. From what I've seen, it isn't really useful for interior lighting (except maybe highbay lighting). It might be useful for landscape lighting and street lighting, but I'm not sure that it has enough of an advantage in that area to replace existing HPS and MH. Further improvements may change that though. Costs right now are high, but if it starts being widely used, those will drop.

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15388738#post15388738 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
I give up. Neither Ctenophors nor Rossini are willing to actually discuss anything and I'm not willing to repeat myself any longer.
I miss having greenbean on this thread because he could actually discuss the topic like an adult. I think that Dingo, jdhuyvetter, and I have actually been careful to be respectful and to try to listen to and understand an opposing viewpoint.

No offense Ctenophors, but I think you may be a little too young to have a broad view of things and understand moderation (I don't really know your age). I used to be like you, in a way. When I was younger I saw everything in black and white and I was impatient. Most kids are. Eventually I learned that the middle of the road is often the best path and that rushing things often led to mistakes.

Noone here has said that we shouldn't do anything about global warming. We even began discussing ways that we could reduce emmisions, but you didn't want to talk about that. You want to argue with someone who doesn't even really disagree with you, just has a less extreme approach.

Since you insist that we take drastic measures right now, please lay out your plan to save the world. It is meaningless to simply agree that global warming exists unless you are willing to try to contribute to solving the problem. I have already mentioned things I do or would like to see done to help reduce emissions. If I drive my TDI around and get 50+ mpg, it won't matter much unless you and everyone else are also contributing.

So please tell us your plan. Maybe we can discuss ways to resolve the problem in a rational manner.

Scott

ok.......sorry. i believe asking someone to make a detailed plan when they are only 15 is a bit outrageuos. lol. also, i have listed a few reasons to go in one direction verses another...so......

and for the if only one person.....how do movements startr? wit one person. yes you may be one of the few doing something, or maybe it seems that way, but trst me their are more...and just like the cost of waiting, the numbers will grow in an exponential fashion.

my plan involved using the cheepest renewable resources, like the algae t create ethanol, which one acre facility can take the place of 1000 acres of corn, if the technology evolves properly, and the super co2 scrubbing het traps that will help utilive geothermal in a minimal environmentaly harmful way. and the wind turbines....and my magical ocean ph increaser that creates energy....

see, i want to fill a round, short and fat cylinder will calcium carbonate material, then dissolve it with a highly acidic chemical....then utilive the wind energy create by the bubbles as it is dissolves, by funneling out the top and using turbines or some other fan driven energy energy creator. then when all the energy has been absorbed, and the ph of the liquid is roughly 8,4, and the alk and calcium are way higher, it is released into the sea. idealy this would be a floating base and the liquid would be released in deep waters of high current, such as the humboldt current. by the time it reaches the reefs it will be entirely dissoluted.

those are a few of my ideas.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15388817#post15388817 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
x2,

My suggestion would be to not jump on the bandwagon just because a scientist says so.

dont you mean 95% of scientist? but i digrest.

the only thing that still busg me is that it almost seems arragant to me, to assume that all those scientist, nobel winners, are wrong. but i know that you don't thin kthat they are wrong, you are arguing weather or not it will be as strong as they suggest...right? i think i get it now.

if thats the case then i have no answer for you. just that the scientist say it will......

also just wondering, what would it take for you to believe it was going to be as bad as it is predicted?

in order for me to believe it wasn't i would need to see a credible organisation debunking it, i would need to see the nas and aaas (as well as the thousands of oither national science org's, though none are as large or prestigious.)reclaiming statements, and i would need a mojority of scientist behind it.

 

[jdhuyvetter]

Stop making assumptions. 95% of the scientists on CNN or MSNBC would be an accurate statement. Not 95% of the scientists in the world.

If you truly want to keep an open mind about this then check out some of the opposing viewpoints. Don't assume.....learn as much as you can from all sides and then....make YOUR OWN decision.

Do a google search on global warming or global warming myth (to get the opposing viewpoint). Millions of articles will pop up.

CATO Institute, Heartland Institute (a very good quarterly environmental newsletter), http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15393335#post15393335 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
see, i want to fill a round, short and fat cylinder will calcium carbonate material, then dissolve it with a highly acidic chemical....then utilive the wind energy create by the bubbles as it is dissolves, by funneling out the top and using turbines or some other fan driven energy energy creator. then when all the energy has been absorbed, and the ph of the liquid is roughly 8,4, and the alk and calcium are way higher, it is released into the sea. idealy this would be a floating base and the liquid would be released in deep waters of high current, such as the humboldt current. by the time it reaches the reefs it will be entirely dissoluted.

those are a few of my ideas.

I hate to tell you this, but that gas that is being released is CO2!!! Not to mention that it requires energy to produce what ever acid you plan on using, likely much more energy than you would get out of the turbine. It would also require considerable amounts of energy to mine the calcium carbonate from terrestrial sources.

I do like that you think about unusual ideas though. A creative mind is something to be admired. One really good idea is all thats needed to offset all the million ideas that don't work.

Scott

 

[jdhuyvetter]

An interesting read about the IPCC 4AR report

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15393376#post15393376 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule

also just wondering, what would it take for you to believe it was going to be as bad as it is predicted?

You keep asking this type of question, so I'll answer it...

Nothing will make me truly believe anything about the future. You cannot predict the future. Noone can. I don't care how many scientists say they can and I don't care how many supercomputers are crunching the numbers of a model. That isn't the point.

50 years ago there seemed to be a general consensus that the rate of technological advancement was such that we would have colonies on other planets and drive around in flying cars. That didn't happen.

BUT, I don't have to truly believe in some model results still take a cautious stance.

Make sense?

Scott

 

[jdhuyvetter]

One more and it's bed time. 530 comes to early!

http://www.iceagenow.com/Top_Scientists_say_global_warming_is_a_lie.htm

 

[jdhuyvetter]

OK, one more....who remembers all of the scientists and nobel prize winners harping global cooling? Same panic mentality.

From Newsweek, 1975
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

 

[jdhuyvetter]

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15393778#post15393778 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
An interesting read about the IPCC 4AR report

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

That guy had way too much time on his hands to cross reference all those names:eek1:

 

[ScooterTDI]

Ctenophors, if you are interested, I suggest you look into chaos theory. Complex systems like those involved in the climate modeling are chaotic systems and an understanding of chaos theory would go a long way to understanding why modeling is problematic.

Here is a really good scenario that demonstrates how modeling can be very wrong and how chaos plays into that:

Lets say I attach two pendulums to the same wall. I start each pendulum swinging at some random time. A person might think its reasonable to use the equations that define a pendulums motion to model each pendulum individually (while seemingly accounting for all the little details like wind resistance, friction, the position of the moon, etc.).

So the model is developed and each pendulum is modeled as operating independently. The model fails. Why?

It fails because tiny, seemingly insignificant, vibrations are transmitted through the wall. It causes the pendulums to behave unpredictably. Eventually, they will actually synchronize with each other despite the fact that the model says this shouldn't happen. This is something that really does happen.

Scott

 

[JER-Z]

there is so much money to be made in "green industry" it would be foolish to not be skeptical of this so-called "proof" of man made global warming. If man cannot control/effect climate change, there is no money to be made...

We should also be skeptical of the "big oil" lobbyists for the same reason.

The moral of the story is, when there are billions of dollars on the table, trust no one. There is alot of blind faith expressed in this thread. It's pretty scary.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15393863#post15393863 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
OK, one more....who remembers all of the scientists and nobel prize winners harping global cooling? Same panic mentality.

From Newsweek, 1975
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

yes i believe, in a funny coincidence, the same percentage of scientist that believed in global cooling don't believe in global warming....thats 5%.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15393666#post15393666 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
Stop making assumptions. 95% of the scientists on CNN or MSNBC would be an accurate statement. Not 95% of the scientists in the world.

If you truly want to keep an open mind about this then check out some of the opposing viewpoints. Don't assume.....learn as much as you can from all sides and then....make YOUR OWN decision.

Do a google search on global warming or global warming myth (to get the opposing viewpoint). Millions of articles will pop up.

CATO Institute, Heartland Institute (a very good quarterly environmental newsletter), http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

i don't assume to know it all, and i have opened myself up to the opposing arguments before this, as such i have made up my mind, now i am trying to see what argument people will use against me. and i was having better luck with my step dad, who doesn't take the, well it coulb be real, but it might not be....and we can't realy TRUST the scientist because their is too much media involvement, and it could be wrong...... but not everyone will argue like he does so i need the practice.....( by the way i am not saying you are taking these points necesarily..... dont get me wrong......


and let me rephrase this....95% of scientist that were surveyed durring a climate convention....that means that the majority of these men were probably climate scientist. just an observation, i dont know for certain......

i don't realy care about what a sleep scientist has to say....if yo get my drift.

and let my next post be a fresh start......

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15394049#post15394049 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Ctenophors, if you are interested, I suggest you look into chaos theory. Complex systems like those involved in the climate modeling are chaotic systems and an understanding of chaos theory would go a long way to understanding why modeling is problematic.

Here is a really good scenario that demonstrates how modeling can be very wrong and how chaos plays into that:

Lets say I attach two pendulums to the same wall. I start each pendulum swinging at some random time. A person might think its reasonable to use the equations that define a pendulums motion to model each pendulum individually (while seemingly accounting for all the little details like wind resistance, friction, the position of the moon, etc.).

So the model is developed and each pendulum is modeled as operating independently. The model fails. Why?

It fails because tiny, seemingly insignificant, vibrations are transmitted through the wall. It causes the pendulums to behave unpredictably. Eventually, they will actually synchronize with each other despite the fact that the model says this shouldn't happen. This is something that really does happen.

Scott

chaos theory, thats the second law of thermodynamics, right? that all organised things are headed towards chaos. the whole ice cup in a warm room analogy? if so we learned this in school, mgiht be diff though.

yes the models may fail, so we take a cautionary stance...i guess i see nothing wrong with that.....you take a different approach to this argument...so i assume you wouldn't be aggainst any kind of massive efforts project where the top scientist would study this further with the aid of human geographers, and psychologist and philosophist and the such so that they may come up with the most likely outcome + results of outcomes? right? or am i misunderstanding your position?

 

[ScooterTDI]

No, thermodynamics is not chaos theory. Chaos theory is actually pretty interesting. It addresses how very small perturbations in a complex system defined entirely by deterministic laws/rules can result in massively different outcomes.

Its a slightly different approach, but arguing for the same thing. I don't have a problem with funding research into the topic of global warming, so long as the spending doesn't get to far out of hand. But I don't want to see short-sighted policy being enacted based upon some modeling results that may or may not be correct.

"Knowing" what the outcomes are is useless because they are bound to be wrong. As I have said before, there are so many good reasons to try to move to renewable energy sources other than those predicted by some model.

Scott