Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Exxon-Mobil Admits Global Warming Is Real
Re: Smells like...
Quote:
Science has a fabulous capacity to self-correct, if a better theory (proper usage) comes along. Theory. Not sky hook.
Yep. And in the meantime, there are always fanatics who refuse to buy in to the new theory.
Priests in the late 19th century preached that Darwin was a Satanist and would go to hell for theorizing Evolution.
Politicians in the early 21st century compare anyone who dares to question "Global Warming" to Holocaust-Denying Nazi fucktards.
Hmmmmmm.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!

--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Reply
Ummm.
There is an issue with your comparison ECS old son.
There are truckloads of peer reviewed research concerning global climate change.
There is not a jot of evidence for god.
Now onto that what is your point.
Science is not a popularity contest; nor is it democratic. It is based entirely on the theories presented, the evidence backing them up, etc.
Unfortunately there is still a popularity contest mentality in the perception of science - as if a particular group can change extant theories based on desire rather than evidence. Wouldn't it be nice if the Intelligent Design goobers took a shot at gravity? God and weeping baby Jesus say gravity makes the holy ghost break out in the ecto-runnies; therefore gravity is optional. I would hold baptist flying lessons on the tenth floor every Friday. Here endeth the lesson. SPLAT!
Contrary to the voices that somehow manage to leak through the tin-foil, politicians in the 20th Century do not compare anyone who dares question global warming to Holocaust-Denying Nazi fucktards, or for that matter, sheep Schtupping Speedo Spelunkers or even Malignant, maniacal, Marie-Osmond Molesters. That is a strawman at best, hyperbole at worst.
(Oh and for those who looked at the list of 100 scientists who question global warming that was waved like particularly fetid turd at the recent Al Gore congressional hearing; I would ask that you look into the Steve project.)
Bottom line - the real debate of global climate change is being carried out in peer reviewed journals, not in the media - that is the popularity contest.
Shayne
Reply
Replies Ayiekie & Epsilon
Well spring is here so for the next few months I'm going to be fairly busy farming.
---Ayiekie---
/Quote/
Because it's not the same damn science. Accurately predicting local weather two weeks from now and predicting large scale climatalogical change over years is apples and oranges, and anybody who knows diddle-squat about either subject could tell you that.
/End Quote?
I disagree with you Ayiekie yes it is the same science.
Weather within limits is a fractal the models used are very closely related for any scale.

Any weather model even the large scale models are very sensitive to initial conditions the further you go from those initial conditions the less accuracy you have and the more unknowns come into play.
The futher you project these models into the future the more likely the magnified errors will produce extremes that won't match actual conditions.
If these weather models are so accurate at 30 years for the entire planet then at 1 year they should be very accurate for the 48 states. This Model should have enough accuracy at 1 year for it to predict state scale weather conditions or failing that be accurate enough for a fuel oil company to make large profits predicting the 48 states agregate winter heating fuel needs. These models can't do that so I personally will not trust any result they produce 30 years out from the initial conditions.
/Quote/
To put it bluntly, when you can find a major, reputable, non-obviously-biased group of scientists who work in the field they're talking about that oppose global warming, I will give it due attention. But you are a Guy On The Internet, which gives you as much credibility on the topic as it does on the subject of how to build a functional moon rocket. Who would listen to you if you started saying you knew better on how to fly to the moon than NASA scientists?
Real scientists can do real research to show flaws in prevailing orthodoxy, which is the difference between the scientific method and you saying that because we can't be sure if it'll rain next week, we also can't be sure if man is causing global climate change.
/QUOTE/
I've never claimed any credibility or to be more than just a man on the internet pointing out what I see as problems in the theory that the Keyoto accords will significantly improve the weather.
By your definition the Write Brothers were not real scientist they fought a consensus so strong it took over 5 years of them and others literally flying in the faces of a large group of "non-biased" scientist before these scientist and the peer review science journals stopped publishing the consensus opinion that heavier than air flight was impossible.
I want to be like the Wright Brothers not these real scientist you describe.
---Epsilon---
/QUOTE/
Things I can't predict with any level of accuracy:
Wether or not a given particle of uranium will decay into lead and when. However I can predict, with near absolute certainty, when about half of a certain mass of uranium will decay into lead.
/END QUOTE/
Radioactive decay isn't like weather models the decay is a change effect not altered by external variables. In addition there is no magnification of inaccuracies in the model or initial measurements.
Weather is very dependant on external variables and any inaccuracies in your model or the initial measurements are quickly magnified causing the model to deviate from the actual values.
Assume a gram error is made in the initial weight of your uranium sample thisr erro only produces a gram error in your calculations at 1 year, at 10 years or at 100,000 years.
The equivalent of a gram error in your initial values for a weather model will produces predicton errors that grow at very large rates often exponentially. Say for example at 1 year you might have the equivalent of a 10 unit error, but at 10 years you could have a error a 1000 times higher or even 10,000 times higher and it gets worse the further you get from the initial conditions.
/QUOTE/
In other words: sceince is hard. You do not understand it. The current evidence towards the global climate crisis is based on models that were developed thirty years ago. Models that have turned out to be disturbingly accurate in every prediction they made. In fact, models that turned out to (in some cases) be too conservative.
/ENDQUOTE/
I think I do understand it, I might not, but I think I do.
I understand that Weather conditions are critical to all sorts of industries and a reliable accurate winter weather prediction even when averaged and made for an area as large as the 48 states would be an economic gold mine.
Insurance companies, Power companies, oil companies, Sand/Salt mining companies, interstate highway departments and countless others companies would be willing to pay large amounts of money to have access to such a weather model in making thier future investments and plans.
Is there a weather model that is being used by the weather scientist to make investments?
Ayiekie and Epsilon if you think the weather models are accurate and man is causing Global warming and the Kyoto accords will solve it that's fine
Currently I cannot support that conclusion.
Yes I agree the earth is probably currently warming up, but I think the models being used to predict a runaway greenhouse are flawed on several levels and even more importantly I don't think the Kyoto accords would make a significant change if those models do prove correct.
howard melton
Reply
Re: Replies Ayiekie & Epsilon
Quote:
Yes I agree the earth is probably currently warming up, but I think the models being used to predict a runaway greenhouse are flawed on several levels and even more importantly I don't think the Kyoto accords would make a significant change if those models do prove correct.
Just out of curiosity, if you think Kyoto is inadequate, what would you propose? A stricter version of Kyoto? Do nothing until any climate changes that may happen are irreversible?
Reply
Re: Replies Ayiekie & Epsilon
Quote:
Just out of curiosity, if you think Kyoto is inadequate, what would you propose? A stricter version of Kyoto? Do nothing until any climate changes that may happen are irreversible?
The reason we think Kyoto is inadequate is that it utterly fails at its goal -- it does not reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere at all, it simply provides a small economic disincentive for the USA and Europe to do so.
It most noticeably does NOT place the same requirement on the fastest-growing-polluting segments of the world economy -- China, India, and Russia. China's coal-burning alone is expected to outstrip the pollution output by every car on the planet within the decade, and Kyoto does nothing to them.
All Kyoto does is transfer the "right" to pollute from those countries that don't (such as most of Africa) to those that do (the US, Europe), in exchange for monetary payments. What I think would actually do it? A real economic incentive to individual companies. If the US, China, India, EU, etc, were to all agree to a treaty specifying tax breaks for those who reduce output from current levels, and slightly heavier taxes on those who don't... then we might see some real change.
In the meantime... regarding the solar warming issue:
I agree, evidence of climate change on Mars does not immediately point to a causal link to climate change on Earth. However, when scientists start noticing it across the ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM... then you've gotta stand up and say "Hey, maybe there is something there."
Quote:
The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.
www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
Quote:
We're not the only ones experiencing global warming. An MIT researcher has reported that observations obtained by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based instruments reveal that Neptune's largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The warming trend is causing part of Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen to turn into gas, thus making its thin atmosphere denser.
web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton-0715.html
Quote:
In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.
www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_wa ... 21009.html--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!

--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Reply
Both hands and a flashlight
ECS My goodness man there is a change! Previously I thought you couldn't read within the context.
Now I know it.
You quoted on Jupiter
Quote:
The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.
It is about redistribution of temperature in an extant system.
On to Triton.
Quote:
We're not the only ones experiencing global warming. An MIT researcher has reported that observations obtained by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based instruments reveal that Neptune's largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The warming trend is causing part of Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen to turn into gas, thus making its thin atmosphere denser.
But you missed this part.
Quote:
The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight. The equivalent on Earth would be having the sun directly overhead at noon north of Lake Superior during a northern summer.
And then Pluto!
Quote:
In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.
You missed this line. Which would be tough as it is right under the line you quoted.
Quote:
The change is likely a seasonal event, much as seasons on Earth change as the hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun during the planet's annual orbit.
Now in your defense, the use of the phrase global warming may be perceived as a red herring if the usage is confused with man made global warming.
Then again, these are general scientific publications.
They may be assuming you can find Uranus without too much help.
Shayne
Reply
Late Reply to rmThorn's Question
There is nothing like spending three 10 hour days doing the first pass at preparing a rice field for this years crop.
Everyone should try spending a few days jumping last falls combine ruts and discing them and the remains of the rice levees down. Then they will understand why tractors have seat belts and why all that padding in the tractor cab isn't about comfort.
/QUOTE/
Just out of curiosity, if you think Kyoto is inadequate, what would you propose? A stricter version of Kyoto? Do nothing until any climate changes that may happen are irreversible?
/ENDQUOTE/
I'm not sure what to propose, but the Kyoto accords is trying to offset at least 150 years of heavy industrial activity and yet it gives a "free pass" to almost half the world.
I'm an engineer by training so most of the things I thought of are specific relatively small scale reductions instead of sweeping international laws.
I'll start on the personal level and talk about our Berm house. We built it 25 years ago and thanks to the rigidity of state taxes and the insurance companies a significant amount of the saving on heating and cooling went to deal with them "punishing" us for having a house that fell outside the statistical charts.
Berm and underground homes are among the most energy efficent around and not to mention the safest for tornado alley, but why bother building them if both the state governments and insurance companies punish the home owner for doing it.
Instead of international Kyoto accords I'd start looking at federal, state and county laws that discourage or prevent the use of new technologies or non-traditional energy saving designs.
Now for a pet peeve.
Current designs of home electronics are a energy waster, thanks to the remote control and the cheap clock circuit and the makers use of memory circuit designs that save the manufacturer a few pennies, but requires constant power to remember setting.
The Remote control circuit requires constant power, but most of the current home electronic designs "punish" the owner for unplugging or switching the power strip switch off when they go to work for the day.
The instruction manuals often self rightously tell you to unplug or in some other way cut power to the device when it's not going to be used for a long period to save energy. When they knowingly have picked the slightly cheaper memory chips and clock circuits that require the user to spend several minutes each time the power is returned just to reprogramm the device.

In terms of Global warming a atomic power plant would be a good idea I'd like to see more of them built especially with the new designs that are far less likely to have a melt down.
We also really need to build at least one Breeder reactor to reprocess all those spent fuel rods into useful fuel instead of burying them.
Right now it's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground and use it as the carbon source for much of our plastic .
It would be a double hit if we could convert over to using such things as waste wood and purposely grown crops to produce plastic.
Not only would the source crop directly pull carbon out of the air, but it would "hold" much of the carbon out of the air through recycling of the plastic and it's storage in relatively long term plastic parts like chairs, VCRs and DVDs players.
One BIG problem is that most methods that uses crops or wood to produce plastic require more energy than using already "cooked" organic material pumped from the ground.
Unless your using atomic power there in the processing to plastic your not getting a large net carbon savings by using "bio-plastics".
Something I've been thinking about ever since they built the local coal fired powerplant is adding a very large adjoining greenhouse to make use of it's CO2 emissions and waste heat.
Many plants grow faster in higher concentrations of CO2 and I'd like to see the results of a few experiments where the waste gases and waste heat from a coal fired powerplant are piped to a multiple acre green houses holding crops.
Just being able to selectively ramp up the CO2 levels within a greenhouse until the insect and rodent pest are killed has a big appeal and better yet it can be quickly dropped back to safe levels for the introduction of workers and beneficial insects and animals.
Admittedly experiments might show that the impurities found in coal could make food crops grown under concentrated Greenhouse "fumes" unsafe, but for non-food crops such as pine trees, Flowers or bamboo it should work well.

I doubt seriously that our biosphere is so unstable that a point of no return can be easily reached by man. If it was as unstable as the current biosphere models predict we wouldn't be here today because some super volcano like the one under Yellowstone would have tipped Earth's Biosphere into failure long ago.
I'd like to see a reduction of green house gases emitted by man, but truefully the punishment method probably won't work, especially when the punishment isn't globally applied.
I think the best methods is research to try and find money making technologies and procedures that have a side effect of removing greenhouse gases and/or reducing greenhouse emissions.
The Koyoto accords are fundamentally flawed in giving special passes to nations like China and Russia. (They had to do this to keep them from Vetoing them out of hand.)
Many modern corperations are global in nature and instead of cuting green house gas emission these corperations will simply move thier emissions to the the nations with the free passes.
For this reason I don't think "Global" laws are going to be useful in cutting Greenhouse gases. Nations like the USA, India, China and Russia will simply Veto them making all such accords useless.
howard melton
God bless
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)