posted
There was a report done recently that showed Wikipedia to be as accurate as, if not more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica. It wasn't exactly an extensive search, but they searched a couple hundred articles I believe, and found that EB had more inaccuracies per hundred articles than Wiki did.
Still, Nellie is right, always double check your facts, really, you should double check any internet facts, especially controversial ones where someone might have reason to change it for political or personal reasons.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Virtually every reputable scientist agrees global warming is a reality. Studies of erosion, ice layers, and geological conditions strongly imply an unnatural, recent origin.
...And the Kyoto Protocols, which most agree doesn't go far enough to come close to reversing current trends, aren't ratified by the number one producer of greenhouse gasses.
Soooooo... We're [bleep]'d, not much to be done about it, hand the fiddle to Nero, have a nice day.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I thank you for your apology in return. I much prefer discussing things amiably than with steam coming out of my (or my opponents') ears and I'm happy that we seem to have resolved our misunderstanding. Let's see how quickly I can create a new one.
quote:Personally I'm inclined to believe that the idea that humanity is having a noticeable and worrisome impact on the Earth's climate through things such as greenhouse gasses is a good one and probably right. I just thing a higher standard of proof needs to be reached before making the kinds of changes global warming or climate change requires.
I think this statement of yours can illustrate the different perspectives you and I are coming from. First, while we agree that humans might have an effect on Earth's climate we seem to assign different probabilities to the theory. Since neither of us are climate scientists with patience and knowledge to evaluate the evidence for ourselves, I believe that the difference can in large part be attributed to the degree which the theory is deemed controversial in the environment in which we live.
The establishment in Sweden, and in Europe at large, has accepted man made global warming as something very close to a fact and is committed to do something about it. The Kyoto protocol -- inadeqate as it is -- is ratified and on its way on being implemented. A debate as to the validity of the theory similar to the one still ongoing in the US simply no longer exists. The media reports consist mainly of acknowledging new scientific discoveries confirming or refining the existing consensus, articles detailing the strategies implemented to counter the problem and, sometimes, alarmist descriptions of what we can expect in terms of impact on local conditions if we do little or nothing about it. And the politicians are on-board with this definition of the debate. Read e.g. Blair's speech and compare it with what is your experience of the leading US politicians' treatment of the issue.
Secondly, from my perspective, it would be justified to initiate a strong response even if the uncertainty surrounding man made global warming were considerably greater that I perceive it to be. I am not implying that this is a view that you subscribe to, Rakeesh, but I've seen all too many react by saying something like "oh, a couple of degrees warmer in fifty years? That would actually be rather nice. It's too cold anyway." They do not seem to realise that the scientists are talking about mean temperatures and that local or seasonal variations can be -- indeed are expected to be -- MUCH worse. And that possible incidental effects such as a reversal of the Gulf Stream would have a catastrophic effect, basically making northen Europe more or less inhabitable.
Add to this that the uncertainty I admit surrounds these predictions exists in both directions. Just as it is possible that Earth's climate is robust enough to absorb our increased emissions with only relatively minor effects, it is possible that it is even more fragile than our current most pessimistic calculations would indicate. It would be tragic if we ever came to a point where we could only helplessly watch the climate spin entirely out of control and lament that we missed the time when this outcome could have been prevented by prudent action.
As you have said, luckily some, perhaps even most, of the responses required to counter-act global warming are good ideas regardless of the truth of this theory. I just feel that a belief in global warming adds an urgency to these responses that is not equally present when talking about reducing dependency on foreign oil, clearing up smog-filled cities or saving a couple of hundred dollars a year by installing a heat-exchanger or a solar panel. Market forces are mainly reactive whereas government action has the potential of being pro-active. If we rely exclusively on the former we run the risk of having the response occurring far to late to make a difference.
Just to be clear, I am not advocating reverting to a medieval life-style with everyone growing their own carrots and heating their huts with cow-dung. I want stricter government regulations on industrial pollution and emissions (hello Libertarians); tax incentives for individuals to install energy saving techniques in their homes as well as for buying low fuel/alternative fuel cars; increased spending on research on alternative energy sources as well as money/incentives for implementing existing techniques. I am thrilled about the up-coming research fusion reactor in France and only wish that more could be done to quickly develope and get such reactors running commercially. I'm cautiously in favour of developing existing nuclear technology as long as a solution for the waste concerns can be found. I want campaigns to increase the awareness among the public of what can be done to better conserve energy on an individual basis.
quote:Secondly, from my perspective, it would be justified to initiate a strong response even if the uncertainty surrounding man made global warming were considerably greater that I perceive it to be. I am not implying that this is a view that you subscribe to, Rakeesh, but I've seen all too many react by saying something like "oh, a couple of degrees warmer in fifty years? That would actually be rather nice. It's too cold anyway." They do not seem to realise that the scientists are talking about mean temperatures and that local or seasonal variations can be -- indeed are expected to be -- MUCH worse. And that possible incidental effects such as a reversal of the Gulf Stream would have a catastrophic effect, basically making northen Europe more or less inhabitable.
You make a decent case, I'll grant...but like I've said, it's not a case that's very interesting to me, to be honest. Not because I think it's all poppycock or anything, but because there are other, much more direct reasons to curtail pollution and fossil fuel use. Reasons that take much less scientific research, political capital, and rhetorical cleverness to get people behind. And reasons that if addressed would also very frequently address the problems facing humanity if global warming and climate change turn out to be reality.
It's like the house in on fire, and you can either draw water to put it out from the well ten yards from the front door or from the river a quarter-mile away. But the well is dangerously low, and you don't want it to dry out. But...the frelling house is on fire!
Air, water, soil pollution, serious and un-understood major impacts on ecosystems, cancer rates, illness rates, diminishing supplies, the dangerous and complicated sources for fossil fuels, all of these are the things that I believe the environmental movement as a whole would be much better served in pushing. Not because I believe global warming/climate change isn't true, but because those issues are more effective.
Edit: As for your last desire, well unless we're including dim lighting, substantial distance, and intoxicating substances in the mix, I'm afraid I can't help you there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, my aproach is pragmatic. If by concentrating on the ancillary issues you mention we manage also to counter-act (or by this point perhaps the correct word would be mitigate) global warming, that would be a good thing. I do believe, however, that focusing on global warming can be an effective motivator for policy changes and changes in public perceptions. The weather is perhaps the number one topic of casual conversation in the world and, if we're talking rhetoric and propaganda, we are already at a point where some people are attributing every weather related natural disaster to climate change. This is ridiculous, of course, since we have no way of knowing if any one specific disaster has anything to do with global warming, and I am not arguing fostering these misconceptions. But focusing on what's near and dear to people -- which in the case of global warming can be done without hyperbole -- is an effective strategy.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we want to end deforestation, the thing to do is to make the rest of the world more like North America and Europe, where forests have been expanding. And it isn't because we don't use paper! Like those areas in what way, I'm not sure, but I think "rich" and "efficient" are relevant.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not because I think it's all poppycock or anything, but because there are other, much more direct reasons to curtail pollution and fossil fuel use. Reasons that take much less scientific research, political capital, and rhetorical cleverness to get people behind. And reasons that if addressed would also very frequently address the problems facing humanity if global warming and climate change turn out to be reality.
Amen brother. If more people poured their attention into the immediate concerns and using those as justification for helping the environment, we'd make more progress on the topic. Why people expend so much energy on the biggest long shot rather than the sure things in front of them is beyond me.
I'm curious as to whether or not you read my deforestaion post where I gave the specifics you asked for previously. Always nice to have holes poked in my arguments so I can plug them later.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I've been Hatracking and Sakeing more lately than I have in quite awhile...to the detriment of my quality, such as it is, at either. Looking back, I just noticed your post and I'm sorry I haven't replied yet. I won't be able to right away, but I will reply. Just too tired right now.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I agree that concrete is a better option for the reasons you give-although for the time being, it's my understanding that concrete is more expensive than usual due to shortages involving the PRC buying massive quantities for their dam-building efforts.
As for tree-planting efforts, I think that's a good idea but there might be some aspects of it you haven't considered. For one thing, tree farms require land, and the land that timber industries own is frequently either stuffed full of trees already (which is why a timber company might own it), or isn't and is frequently being replanted anyway. As for doubling and tripling, here we get into agriculture and ecology. This is not the sort of problem we can just plant our way out of. A landscape will only support a certain amount of trees, after all.
And the very best 'building' woods are from those old-growth forests, you know. That's not a reason to just log them all willy-nilly, but it needs to be pointed out that faster-growing trees (which still take a helluva long time compared to other agricultural endeavors) don't really meet all the needs you're mentioning.
As for destroyed ecosystems, that's a good point. Let's just remember, of course, that there was something there before the old-growth forest and so long as we don't turn it into a desert afterwards, there's no reason to think of what comes after it's gone as 'worse' necessarily.
But anyway, I was really talking more about deforestation as a farmng tool more than anything. It is these people out on the "raggedy edge" so to speak, whom your points don't address. Those people need to deforest to live, or they starve to death, but usually their children will succumb first. That needs to be considered.
quote:To solve that problem, I would suggest a domestic tax, not a tariff, as that doesn't really help solve the problem, on goods that come as a result of rainforest destruction. Coffee, some spices, rubber, etc. Put a special tax on these items, and then use the money to help purchase rainforest land and turn it into parks that cannot be destroyed, also use the money to help teach these farmers how to make their land more productive. Americans are the best agricultural producers in the world, and we don't produce most of what they are exporting anyway, so there's no harm to our economy by teaching them better methods of production, it can only help us.
Do you imagine that putting a tariff (and yes, a domestic tax on an imported item is in essence a tariff) would have some effect besides further impoverishing the very people who you, as a liberal, would normally be concerned with helping?
From what branch of government would all of these resources come? It would be funded just from revenue from this new tariff? What I think is much more likely is that if people are faced with higher prices on coffee and spices...they'll buy a different brand, or imitations, that come from elsewhere, without the tariffs.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: If we want to end deforestation, the thing to do is to make the rest of the world more like North America and Europe, where forests have been expanding. And it isn't because we don't use paper! Like those areas in what way, I'm not sure, but I think "rich" and "efficient" are relevant.
Sorry to disagree, but a large part of the reason there's so much deforestation on other continents is North America's hunger for certain crops in all seasons and for cheap beef.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some, if not much of the resources necessary for my suggestions will have to come from the government, even if it's a joint government finances private venture. Yes, it will cost money, maybe a lot of money, but I think it'll do more for us in the long run than the billions being wasted in the Middle East. Regardless, that money can't be taken back, but if we're willing to waste billions over there, we should be willing to wisely invest a far smaller sum of money for very real gains.
Concrete is easy enough to mix and make, production can be increased, and SHOULD be increased, and/or the price can be partially subsidized by the government. Doesn't solve anything fast, but it's a first step, and first steps have to be taken at some point.
I don't suppose we can solve the problem through replanting efforts alone, which is why the plan needs to be far more comprehensive than that. Firstly, the land doesn't necessarily have to be in the same place where trees previously were. There is much open land in the US, and Canada (much already covered by trees I know, but some also by prarie and plains that could be planted), across Europe and in other place. The land exists somewhere on the planet, and in those places that have the resources to do so, they should plant, and gain rewards for doing so.
Old growth forests are a one time deal. You can't build new ones, you can't replant and expect them to come about even in the next thousand years. Their ecology is one of the most fragile in the world, mostly because it cannot really be recreated (not en masse anyway) anywhere else in a short period of time. There are ways to cull an old growth forest that aren't just clear cutting or slash and burn. Those effectively kill the land, and destroy the ecosystem. Old growth trees can still be harvested, as they are needed, but it can be done much better than it is now, where little to no care is taken in some areas for forest conservation and preservation.
quote:As for destroyed ecosystems, that's a good point. Let's just remember, of course, that there was something there before the old-growth forest and so long as we don't turn it into a desert afterwards, there's no reason to think of what comes after it's gone as 'worse' necessarily.
By what determination isn't it worse? I suppose from a local standpoint, sure, but from a global standpoint, eliminating a major carbon sink in favor of farm or prarie land isn't by any stretch of the imagination better. Presumably, whatever that land was before, changed because of climatological changes, and those changes made the land more conducive to forest land, just as elsewhere in the world they probably made forest land less hospitable and it became desert or some such. The point is, there's a worldwide balance that has been achieved and preserved naturally. Paul Bunyan choppin down all the forests is not part of the natural process, and there is no yin to that yang. And like I said previously, the problem isn't necessarily desertification, it's top soil erosion. It might not turn into the Sahara, but especially in high rain areas such as a rainforest, when old growth forests are eliminated, rains wash away top soil through erosion and the land becomes unplantable. This is part of what I was talking about with teaching some of the people on the "raggedy edge" more advanced farming techniques so they don't waste plantable land in haste and without knowledge.
quote:But anyway, I was really talking more about deforestation as a farmng tool more than anything. It is these people out on the "raggedy edge" so to speak, whom your points don't address. Those people need to deforest to live, or they starve to death, but usually their children will succumb first. That needs to be considered.
I think I rather covered it in the paragraph you quoted just following saying that. If it's a matter of farming tools, do what many small aid groups in Africa are doing and provide dozens of small business loans to local farmers so they can tend the land better, help them to feed their families, AND become more productive so less land is needed and they can gain wealth in the process. The money will be eventually repaid, the farm equipment can be American, and thus everyone is happy. Wrap the deal together with an agreement from the farmers that these loans and equipment come at the expense of further deforestation, which they shouldn't argue with anyway since they'll have their hands full tending the land they have.
This ties into a larger issue, which becomes less about deforestation and more about helping the underprivileged work their way up out of poverty, which benefits the nation, it's trading partners (the US), and the world at large.
Maybe the tax part of the plan won't work, but something has to be done to at least somewhat decrease the demand for these consumables. It's not a necessary component for the plan, and can be modified to effect everyone, thus leveling the playing field, or it can be pushed back until economically feasible.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Concrete is easy enough to mix and make, production can be increased, and SHOULD be increased, and/or the price can be partially subsidized by the government.
Concrete may be easy but Cement, which is the binder for Concrete is in critically short supply world wide. It requires great capital outlay for production capacity. And is a very fossel fuel intensive process. The price, right now, is artifically low.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for destroyed ecosystems, that's a good point. Let's just remember, of course, that there was something there before the old-growth forest and so long as we don't turn it into a desert afterwards, there's no reason to think of what comes after it's gone as 'worse' necessarily.
Wrong! There is a very good reason to believe that what comes after the old growth forest is cut will be "worse". In large old growth forests, the ancient trees have essentially sucked all the nutrients out of the soil. Virtually all of the potasium, sulfur, phosphorus and other nutrients that plants need to grow are in the biomass and not in the soil. When the trees are cut down and the biomass is hauled away to a chop stick factory or a papermill, what is left behind is not the soil that was there before the forest grew. It is a soil that is virtually devoid of the nutrients needed to support new growth.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Concrete may be easy but Cement, which is the binder for Concrete is in critically short supply world wide. It requires great capital outlay for production capacity. And is a very fossel fuel intensive process. The price, right now, is artifically low.
Also, the cement making process is a very dirty one, that hasn't been improved much through new technology. Ramping up cement production would create a nasty air pollution problem.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We cannot, for example, measure or do anything but guess at the levels of greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere one thousand years ago, or thirty thousand years ago.
I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. We have an excellent measurements of the greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere for the past 650,000 based on the analysis of gases trapped in artic and antartic ice cores.
quote:Concrete may be easy but Cement, which is the binder for Concrete is in critically short supply world wide. It requires great capital outlay for production capacity. And is a very fossel fuel intensive process. The price, right now, is artifically low.
Also, the cement making process is a very dirty one, that hasn't been improved much through new technology. Ramping up cement production would create a nasty air pollution problem.
Then let's get cracking on this problem too. More money needs to be spent on R&D to make it a cheaper, easier, and more clean process. Can something be done with air scrubbers to clean up the process? What is it about the process that makes it dirty? Perhaps a new binding agent could be created or an artificial concrete that does the same thing without the negative aspects.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Concrete is responsible for 7-10% of [man-made] CO2 emissions worldwide, making it the biggest climate change culprit outside of transportation and electicity-generation." When considering all costs -- mining and production equipment, transportation, etc, water, forming, etc -- closer to 10%. And while the linked article contains some possible future replacements, if those replacements are more expensive, then they are probably also generating more CO2 in the overall process of becoming the finished product.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Worse by what standard, Rabbit? That's the point I'm making: we have only our own standard. What is useful to us. I really should have been more specific, but I was talking more about the perspective that romanticizes nature-a perspective which hasn't been made here, really.
Your point about past gas measurements is well made. I stand (or rather sit) corrected, they appear to lead to pretty solid reasoning. One question remains unanswered, though, and really only guessed at so far as I can tell: what will happen?
The two default positions are depressingly either "nothing major" or "end of the world". It's very, very unlikely that the former will turn out to be true and a bit unlikely that the latter will, but that's the stance people frequently make.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
<---- Has no clue what you are refering to as far as global warming is concerned. <---- Is freezing his butt off in NY. It's cold I tell ya!
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The BBC has learnt the [ICCP] report will state that greenhouse gas emissions are the only explanation for changing patterns of weather across the globe. (Continued...)
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Worse by what standard, Rabbit? That's the point I'm making: we have only our own standard. What is useful to us. I really should have been more specific, but I was talking more about the perspective that romanticizes nature-a perspective which hasn't been made here, really.
What other standard do you want to use? The standard of the people who won't get viable farmland out of the dead soil, or the standard of the plants and animals that will go extinct when their habitat is destroyed?
Or some other standard?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:One question remains unanswered, though, and really only guessed at so far as I can tell: what will happen?
Rakeesh, You keep undermining your own arguments with your apparent ignorance of the state of climate change science. According to Websters dictionary to guess is "to form an opinion of from little or no evidence." Scientists aren't simply guessing about what will happen next.
The scientific predictions about what will happen as a result of global climate change aren't opinions based on little or no evidence. They arise from models based on solid scientific evidence and widely validated theories. We know that there are big uncertainties in these predictions because we don't understand all the parts of the process but that doesn't make these predictions guesses. What's more, we know that some parts of the prediction are far more certain than others. For example, we know that increases in ocean temperatures will result in increases in the level of the oceans due to thermal expansion of the water. That is a certainty. We know that any substantial reduction in the polar ice caps will also result in increases in the level of the ocean. We are quite certain that the rapid changes we are making in the composition of our atmosphere will lead to more severe weather events such as blizzards, droughts and hurricanes even though we can not accurately predict exactly when and where these severe events will occur.
Nils Bohr once said ""Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." That statement is still true. The important question to ask here is not whether scientist know with certainty what will happen in the future, but whether the the scientific predictions are accurate enough and serious enough to warrant action. The overwhelming majority (ie >90%) of scientists involved in the research agree that this is the case. What expertise do you have which would justify a different conclusion?
Imagine there were a hurricane forming in the gulf coast today and scientist using their best models, predicted that it would cross the florida keys as a category 5 storm on Saturday. What would you think of leaders in the keys who advised people to do nothing at all because there was uncertainty in the forcast?
Global climate change has the potential to be far more devastating than a hurricane. And it will impact more than a tiny region but could be devastating to billions of earth's inhabitants. Why then do we tolerate leaders who refuse to make even the smallest efforts to mitigate the effects of this disaster because the forcasts are still uncertain?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Worse by what standard, Rabbit? That's the point I'm making: we have only our own standard.
You are correct in asserting that what is better and what is worse can not be objectively assertained. But it is difficult to imagine any standard by which land which is unable to support any plant or animal life would be considered preferrable to land which was supporting a diverse complex ecosystem. By any standard which I have ever heard suggested by any reasonable human being, things are worse after the rainforests are cut down. If you know of some standard I don't please tell me. Otherwise you are simply arguing that we claims that any act is bad or good are irrelevant.
If you use your argument to justify destruction of the rainforest, you could just as well use it justify murder, torture, theft, or even genocide.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then let's get cracking on this problem too. More money needs to be spent on R&D to make it a cheaper, easier, and more clean process. Can something be done with air scrubbers to clean up the process? What is it about the process that makes it dirty? Perhaps a new binding agent could be created or an artificial concrete that does the same thing without the negative aspects.
To do what you are asking would be inventing an entirely new building material, not simply improving concrete.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The basic recept for Portland Cement is Calcium Carbonate(limestone) and Silica (sand) heated up to 2700 degrees F. The Calcium Carbonate loses a carbon atom and picks up a silica atom becoming Calcium Silicate. Limestone is dusty, Sand is dusty. and 2700 degrees requires some pretty serious fuel.
The process involves massive machinery, mills, explosives, and the largest single tool ever placed in service, a kiln. The wear and tear is high compaired to other chemical processes. All of the above takes a lot of money, and with todays cement prices you can generate a greater return on that money in the stock market or building condos in Cleveland. No one is going to fix this problem in todays economy.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Then let's get cracking on this problem too. More money needs to be spent on R&D to make it a cheaper, easier, and more clean process. Can something be done with air scrubbers to clean up the process? What is it about the process that makes it dirty? Perhaps a new binding agent could be created or an artificial concrete that does the same thing without the negative aspects.
Been there, done that. A good friend of mine has his ph.D (iirc) in hazardous waste incineration using cement kilns as the incinerator. We did some work together on multiple hearth incinerators, and burner research for rotary kilns.
They've been trying to improve the cement making process for a long time, with incremental success, but it's still a filthy process. And bear in mind that scrubbers don't get rid of anything, they just turn air pollution into water pollution.
They're also coming up with new building materials all the time, asphalt replaced cement in road building a long time ago. Now they're adding used tires (crumb rubber) to use up tire waste and improve traction. But cement usage keeps on going up, even as replacements are found for specific uses.
The real answer is that we have to make fewer babies, and use fewer resources.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the nature of a rotary kiln is such that it's almost impossible to seal the combustion space well enough to contain the flue gases. You'd have a hard time putting a scrubber on it in the first place.
And the sealing issue is also a major cause of NOx production. You can't control the air flow well enough to improve the combustion to bring down the NOx.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:To do what you are asking would be inventing an entirely new building material, not simply improving concrete.
quote:Then let's do that.
Great idea Lyrhawn. Let us know when your finished.
I'm sorry, you're right.
Let's do things the way we usually do them. Use more, pollute more, be wishywashy about whether or not we think there is a problem, and in general pass it off to the next generation. We'll all be finished, a lot sooner that way.
Eventually, regardless of how hard something sounds, or how impossible it may seem, someone in power is going to have to stand up and say "let's get it done."
I'm glad Kennedy didn't give up when someone said, "great idea John, let us know when you get there."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I should have been more specific. I meant to say: no one knows what will happen long-term. How would such a radical series of climate changes, not just regional weather, affect weather patterns throughout the planet? Humanity has difficulty predicting weather more than a week or two in advance-it is this difficulty I was referring to, not any difficulty in knowing what would result exactly one step down the line.
quote:The important question to ask here is not whether scientist know with certainty what will happen in the future, but whether the the scientific predictions are accurate enough and serious enough to warrant action. The overwhelming majority (ie >90%) of scientists involved in the research agree that this is the case. What expertise do you have which would justify a different conclusion?
The degree of certainty is what I'm talking about. I'm certainly not suggesting we wait until we're certain that a very large majority of scientists are right about climate change before we do anything about it, because such certainty is impossible.
As for the rest of your paragraph I just quoted...well, frankly I trust scientists to tell us what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. I am uncomfortable just sitting back and letting them actually dictate policy about how to address the future. I know that's not what you were saying-I just thought I'd mention it.
quote:Imagine there were a hurricane forming in the gulf coast today and scientist using their best models, predicted that it would cross the florida keys as a category 5 storm on Saturday. What would you think of leaders in the keys who advised people to do nothing at all because there was uncertainty in the forcast?
Imagine there were fifty tornadoes that suddenly appeared in the Atlantic. Together (but still seperately) they are moving towards coastal eastern United States. Imagine I think this is what is actually happening, and I think they may even together all spell 'hurricane' and not just 'bunch of tornadoes'. Imagine as well that I think it's quite likely that they spell 'hurricane' and not just 'bunch of tornadoes' (maybe 'twirl of tornadoes' would be a good term to describe a herd or pack of `em).
So while you and many other climate scientists are warning, "Hurricane!" I'm suggesting maybe it would be more effective to say, "Fifty tornadoes!" while at the same time acknowledging the high likelihood of a hurricane as well.
I've said as much on several occassions here at Hatrack, but as usual it gets ignored or glossed over. Even uncertainty about climate change is pounced upon, around here and elsewhere. Even the kind of certainty that like mine doesn't conclude, "Do nothing until we know for sure."
quote:You are correct in asserting that what is better and what is worse can not be objectively assertained. But it is difficult to imagine any standard by which land which is unable to support any plant or animal life would be considered preferrable to land which was supporting a diverse complex ecosystem. By any standard which I have ever heard suggested by any reasonable human being, things are worse after the rainforests are cut down. If you know of some standard I don't please tell me. Otherwise you are simply arguing that we claims that any act is bad or good are irrelevant.
The standards I'm in favor of using are standards of usefulness. I do think that removing the rain forests would be very unuseful and in fact harmful. That is I think a vastly more effective tool to persuade those who disagree with you than the one I hear frequently, the one that advocates saving the rain forest (and the environment) because it's somehow intrinsically noble or holy or something.
People don't care about the latter. They're pretty damn concerned about the former, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the rest of your paragraph I just quoted...well, frankly I trust scientists to tell us what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen.
Let's not forget the handy bonus uses of brainstorming and testing solutions. We should get the most mileage out of our scientists that we can.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm sorry, you're right.
Let's do things the way we usually do them. Use more, pollute more, be wishywashy about whether or not we think there is a problem, and in general pass it off to the next generation. We'll all be finished, a lot sooner that way.
Eventually, regardless of how hard something sounds, or how impossible it may seem, someone in power is going to have to stand up and say "let's get it done."
I'm glad Kennedy didn't give up when someone said, "great idea John, let us know when you get there."
Lyrhawn, I sympathize, but you're being a little harsh and unrealistic. I mean, I know for a fact that I have very little gift for chemistry beyond a certain level. Am I suddenly going to abandon all work and projects to pursue the education that might make me useful to such a project?
Or am I going to perhaps hope that others who are far more gifted in such matters might take up the project?
quote:That is I think a vastly more effective tool to persuade those who disagree with you than the one I hear frequently, the one that advocates saving the rain forest (and the environment) because it's somehow intrinsically noble or holy or something.
People don't care about the latter. They're pretty damn concerned about the former, though.
It's hard enough to get people to listen to a simple message like "the rainforests are beautiful". When you get as far as "the rainforests are being cut down to make pastureland that will be useless after a couple of years" or "the rainforests are a source of biodiversity rare anywhere else on earth, and could be the source of medicines that could save thousands of lives" or "the destruction of the rain forests has the potential to threaten all life on earth"... The sound-bite people are already tuning out.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the message, "Deforesting the rain forest causes your grandchildren to suffer," is pretty short.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not bad, not bad. Though some might read it as new-agey. (Some people read anything that mentions ancestors or descendants as new-agey...)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To do what you are asking would be inventing an entirely new building material, not simply improving concrete. [quote]Then let's do that
Great idea Lyrhawn. Let us know when your finished.
This is a little glib. Yes, let's us (whoever us is) do that. And we are doing that. But it's evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Revolutionary changes do occur from time to time. We changed the glass industry over from air fuel combustion to oxyfuel combustion during the 90's, and the result was a dramatic reduction of NOx production. By now it's pretty standard in the industry.
We tried to do the same with cement, but since there's so much air infiltration, oxyfuel actually makes more NOx. You can't just count on a brilliant idea that revolutionizes an industry.
But as has been pointed out here, there isn't much economic incentive to develop a cleaner process. That's where political incentive might be of some use. I'd never thought in terms of how big a part cement production plays in the global picture, but from what's been stated here, it's pretty big. So It sounds like maybe the government should take a two pronged approach: provide some funding to develop a cleaner process, and apply some penalties to the dirtiest cement producers, so that they have incentive to clean up their act.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
You don't have to invent the new process. All you have to do is call for society to make the change. I dunno, boycott cement, or write your congressman and tell them that they should support a clean air initiative on cement production. Be willing to support government spending on it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking about this last night, somewhat in relation to something Blayne said on the "Fall of the British Empire" thread about Americans being addicted to luxuries and being too pampered to deal with the real world, more or less.
I think a series of small luxury taxes should be added (on top of existing ones, if they exist) to excessively used utilities. People who use too much water, or electricity or heating oil (sadly it'd be too hard to track gasoline usage), should be charged just a little extra for it, and that money can be funneled back into an R&D effort to create new, clean, technologies. Be they a new building material to replace cement, or more research in solar energy to make cells more efficient and raise the rate of energy capture.
The government has aready created some standards that have reduced the amount of resources used, like requiring that toilets use less water per flush.
Incentives and penalties should extend beyond the business world's wastefulness. The poor won't be effected at all by this, and that's necessary, as they are already struggling to get by in some places. But for the wealthy, and for the wasteful upper and middle classes, it's time to either cut back or pay. Showers that used to last forty minutes should be curtailed to half that, well, probably much less than that actually, it depends on how much water is determined necessary for usage. For the wealthy who insist on showers that have eight nozzels all spraying mass amounts of water on them for extended periods of time, that's fine, just pay for it.
It's not just a luxury tax, it's a Wastefulness Tax. And the point isn't necessarily to generate capital, it's to deter wastefulness in average people. It's so parents start telling their kids to turn off lights when they leave the room, or to cut showers short, and to not leave doors open in the winter so heat escapes (all things my mother always told me). And so everyone in general starts doing these things as common practice. Less use, less waste, less stress placed on our environment, and a healthier nation in general is the goal. I think this is very doable, and very reasonable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Rabbit, I should have been more specific. I meant to say: no one knows what will happen long-term. How would such a radical series of climate changes, not just regional weather, affect weather patterns throughout the planet? Humanity has difficulty predicting weather more than a week or two in advance-it is this difficulty I was referring to, not any difficulty in knowing what would result exactly one step down the line.
Reading a news article today kind of brought my frustration with this to a point. It mentioned that Antarctica is losing ~36 cubic miles of ice a year due to global warming. However, this is the exact opposite of what computer models and studies done in 2001 predicted. They predicted more ice in the Antarctic right now, not less.
It's these kind of contradictions that really chip away at the credibility of climatologists and their predictions.
That being said, I'm enjoying the discussion in this thread. I like the ideas thrown around here and wished more citizens cared enough to get the government and private industry to do something. It's just that the arrogance of the scientific establishment in this case gets on my nerves.
Edited for spelling
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
