- This topic has 25 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
phaster.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 7, 2015 at 12:10 AM #21800December 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM #792193
Hobie
ParticipantI will restrain myself from going off on how this climate change business is a politically driven crisis and how it is being used to fundamentally change and impede the US economy and lifestyle.
The real rub here is geologic time. Trying to measure any climate change trends in a window of say one hundred years when the earth is >4 Billion years old is nuts.
Scientists understand this, but follow the money. Who gives them their grant $$?.
Remember when ‘pollution’ was the big topic. Now replaced with ‘climate change’? I would be the first to carry the torch for stop polluting our environment but when carbon dioxide, a life building block, is termed a pollutant I’m out.
December 7, 2015 at 11:42 AM #792199Anonymous
Guest[quote=Hobie]Scientists understand this, but follow the money. Who gives them their grant $$?.[/quote]
Good God, the “scientists are doing it for the money” argument is so trite.
Yeah, it’s all a conspiracy funded by Al Gore, for the purpose of what exactly?
If you are going to “follow the money,” start with the energy companies that spend orders of magnitude more than any university research grants on propaganda.
[quote]Remember when ‘pollution’ was the big topic. Now replaced with ‘climate change’? I would be the first to carry the torch for stop polluting our environment but when carbon dioxide, a life building block, is termed a pollutant I’m out.[/quote]
Having grown up in the rust belt, I can tell you that pollution was a big topic because it was a real problem. A problem that was mostly solved in the US because it was recognized as a real problem.
I’m no chemist, but I do know enough about basic biochemistry that simply ignoring global CO2 levels because it is a “life building block” is utterly misinformed and downright stupid.
Climate change is a real problem. A problem with a solution that will impact the bottom line of big, powerful interests. That’s why they want you to ignore it. It’s not that hard to understand.
December 7, 2015 at 11:53 AM #792204poorgradstudent
ParticipantIt sounds like US companies are finally catching on that climate change has real economic costs. It seems like the main thing most US companies want is a fair playing field; we don’t want to cut *our* emissions by 50% while China and the developing world just keep pumping out all the CO2 they like.
Meanwhile, the developing world argues that they haven’t exactly been major producers in the past, so why should they have to make cuts now?
It sounds like China’s government cares about pollution and global warming largely because they realize it can have negative economic impact, and because they have a near totalitarian control over their economy they may be able to make bigger changes much more quickly than we can.
I’m cautiously optimistic as long as we don’t elect a Republican for President in 2016 we may actually be able to start making real and substantial change in the coming years. The big question is if the US wants to be a leader or a follower.
December 7, 2015 at 11:54 AM #792205Participant[quote=harvey]
I’m no chemist, but I do know enough about basic biochemistry that simply ignoring global CO2 levels because it is a “life building block” is utterly misinformed and downright stupid.
[/quote]You know where there’s a lot of CO2?
Venus.
December 7, 2015 at 12:23 PM #792213spdrun
ParticipantFossil fuel reduction in the US is an engineering problem — build out more renewable power and nuclear, make the grid more robust. Electric cars for shorter trips by land, frequent and relatively fast (not TGV speed) electric trains for 200-750 mile trips by land. Highly automated car rental available at endpoints.
Encouragement of energy conservation. It won’t kill anyone to use LEDs, have lights on motion sensors, or dry clothing on a rope vs a dryer. Nor to heat to 68 in winter, cool to 75 in summer.
Who pays for it? We will, via taxes on fossil fuels used as fuels vs for chemical processes.
December 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM #792244FlyerInHi
GuestI read somewhere that the Chinese leadership (many with advanced science degrees) understands climate change very well. Unlike here, there is no denying by the political class.
They need to balance economic growth with opportunity that they see in green technology. We risk losing future development, investments and manufacturing to China.
Remember the light bulb freedom act? People were out hording incandescent light bulbs 4 years ago and ranting like nutjobs. Fast forward a few short years, unless you have special design applications, you really have to be an idiot to still use incandescent because your using too much electricity and hurting your own pocketbook.
Granted, some LED bulbs don’t have pleasing lights, but through trial and error, you can find what best works for you. I’m very particular about lighting and I have lots of spot lights to create shadows and ambiance. If I were using the old bulbs, I’d easily use 5 times as much energy.
December 7, 2015 at 4:31 PM #792245GuestReal estate is a big user of energy. We can do so much more with sacrificing comfort.
December 7, 2015 at 4:56 PM #792254GuestTalking about a command economy, believe china is on the verge of announcing something big. Like a special Google car zone.
December 20, 2015 at 4:52 PM #792734phaster
Participant[quote=Hobie]I will restrain myself from going off on how this climate change business is a politically driven crisis and how it is being used to fundamentally change and impede the US economy and lifestyle.
The real rub here is geologic time. Trying to measure any climate change trends in a window of say one hundred years when the earth is >4 Billion years old is nuts.
Scientists understand this, but follow the money. Who gives them their grant $$?.
[/quote]if you have an APPLE TV check out the smithsonian channel app, there is a program that might answer you’re question about mass extensions and “time” span calculations
http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/mass-extinction-life-at-the-brink/33962
starting at about 33 minutes into the video they describe what happened when the earth was subjected to volcanos erupting over a very large region (what is sib era) and this loaded the atmosphere with CO2 over a timescale of thousands of years (which then in turn caused one of the great die-offs)
if you keep on watching the program, about 43 minutes in, a scientist describes a calculation he made trying to normalize present “species” extension to what happened back in the past (let’s just say if you watch the video he was alarmed because current die-off rates measured over the past hundred or so years is much greater NOW than what happened in past extension events…
as far as scientists taking the money, kinda have to laugh at that though myself knowing how difficult it is in this culture to study a difficult subject matter (I’m am speaking about the topics of science/math) instead of some bull$shit major like pool-sci (I should know because I double majored as an undergrad physics/poli-sci)
people I know do the hard sciences because they love the subject and kinda discount the love of money (where-as people I know with just pol-sci or just business degrees tend to care much more about the bottom line of making money and are more aware of the prestige)
think about it this way, how many career politicians are lawyers vs scientist
if you bother looking into the topic, what you find is telling is that Scientists Seen as Competent But Not Trusted by Americans because they are not perceived to be friendly or warm because many scientists don’t give a phuck about “social” appearance (I am speaking from my own personal experience)
http://wws.princeton.edu/news-and-events/news/item/scientists-seen-competent-not-trusted-americans
since this is a RE fourm, NOW consider that politicians (who are also lawyers) trusted less than estate agents, bankers and journalists
While 0.6 percent of the U.S. adult population are lawyers, 41 percent of the 113th Congress are. Members of Congress are sixty-eight times as likely as all American adults to have practiced law.
put another way, think what would have happened if the professor was replaced with a politician on gilligan’s island… instead of a great thriving community with inventions
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/gilligan5935/images/3/3a/Lab1.PNG
with politicians/lawyers one gets CORRUPTION, EXPLOITATION, AND DECAY
http://www.starwars.com/news/corruption-exploitation-and-decay-the-politics-of-star-wars
December 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM #792738ParticipantPublish or peril in the academic research world. Now if you are researching a topic that can be monetized in the corporate world, there is private $ flowing into your lab.
Climate change will not produce a breakthrough drug to sell for example, so who pays for this research. Right, US Govt. Same for many many other hard sciences with limited use of the learned data. Mating habits of butterflies, for example.
No problem here with funding science with the intent of better understanding our world. But when the data is tweaked to sell a political agenda, I call time out. And we have no disagreement regarding the crooked politicians as you discussed.
Another thing regarding the mass die off you mentioned. Oh, and by the way, I don’t have AppleTV so I can’t view the show, so I’ll just wing it.
First, there has been many mass die offs over the life of Earth attributed to various natural events. Volcanos indeed released C02 but please understand that this is a trace gas making up less then ~.03% of our air and cannot single handily be responsible for a die off. More probably other gasses and debris caused a cloud which blocked sunlight thereby choking out significant life on Earth.
And the rate of die off doesn’t mention we have significantly more animals now then then. Be interesting to see the hard numbers there.
The big push is hang our current change on human activities. I won’t go toe to toe with ya as we have a difference but I would think any discussion about global warming etc really needs to have more research on the effect our oceans have and for that matter, the sun. So let’s just fund more research. I’m ok with that. You?
December 20, 2015 at 7:39 PM #792740Participant[quote=Hobie]Another thing regarding the mass die off you mentioned. Oh, and by the way, I don’t have AppleTV so I can’t view the show, so I’ll just wing it.
[/quote]TRY THE LINK
http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/mass-extinction-life-at-the-brink/33962
[quote=Hobie]I won’t go toe to toe with ya as we have a difference but I would think any discussion about global warming etc really needs to have more research on the effect our oceans have and for that matter, the sun.[/quote]
WRT to the effect of CO2 and the ocean(s) get some pop-corn and cosy up to watch:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/lethal-seas.html
FYI lots of basic research has been done and various documentaries have been made (check out the two links above BEFORE the content is removed)
bottom line is the topic of climate change is difficult to grasp because its very complex and chaotic in nature and happens in a timeframe many find difficult to grasp (i.e. at the very fastest things take place over periods of decades and longer). Therefore few humans have interest in devoting that much effort to understanding the topic) because let’s face it, we are a species that likes instant gratification.
ALSO it does not help when hollywood movies like “The Day After Tomorrow,”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/
that shows a helicopter Crash (because of a flash freeze)
too few understand this could not happen because 99.999% of the population do not consider the physics of pressure/temp make this movie scene impossible BUT SADLY the movie audience and elected officials are more likely to have the same knowledge/understanding as the individuals shown in the following video
so it is w/ 99.999% of the general population who DO NOT have a strategic understanding of the complex math/science involved with issue(s) of climate change (its not just an economic problem where american’s decide to downsize from a ford expedition to a toyota “pious” because of some mis-guided environmental/soc-economic guilt trip)
put another way when scientist (who work in the area) say mapping the ice in greenland AND are are very concerned looking at the data (they aren’t doing it for the big bucks or social glory or for the most part thinking about a “product” to sell in the market as a response to the issue)
over the years I’ve managed to see up close and many things around the world WRT what has happened to the environment from iceland to central asia (in the former soviet republics) when I saw and that was once an inland sea
and if you had the opportunity to see the $hit I’ve seen (as well as understanding the math/science) then I’m sure you would have have a very different world view and grave concern of what is happening because the over-all TRENDS are not good!!!
As I see it, its possible to use knowledge to economically benefit from climate change (to what degree we attribute its cause is man-made or not isn’t a question that is helpful because no-one wants to take the blame)
So what economic benefit does knowing the math/science help get me? As I see things it might buy me a first class cabin vs third class accomidations on the the planet we might as well call “titanic”
December 20, 2015 at 7:44 PM #792741moneymaker
ParticipantCarbon dioxide is good for plants, lots of plants are why we have oil underground today. Don’t know if GW is true or not but I personally would welcome warmer oceans and higher sea levels.
December 20, 2015 at 8:03 PM #792743Participant[quote=moneymaker]Carbon dioxide is good for plants, lots of plants are why we have oil underground today. Don’t know if GW is true or not but I personally would welcome warmer oceans and higher sea levels.[/quote]
Be Careful What You Wish For…
December 21, 2015 at 5:23 AM #792746ParticipantGot me on the Aral Sea. Had to look that up on a map. Seems like the demise of this body of water was a direct result of the Soviet’s diverting two of the main rivers feeding this lake.
http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htmAnd you are right about the super majority of the population not having the education to not be gullible to Hollywood showmanship. This however plays right into conniving politicians with an ulterior agenda.
Ok. I’m with ya WRT there is climate change. I’m even ok with spending money to study it. I’m even ok that there is a disagreement as to the solutions.
But why should America bear the brunt of the cost and lifestyle limitation of this C02 business? China and India emit tons with wonton disregard and don’t forget to throw in pollution in those countries. Beijing anyone?
We are together there is no easy solution. Lots of work will continue to be done and its all good. Personally I just don’t like our economy and lifestyle taking the hit for, let’s just call it very difficult to prove conclusively, natural changes of the Earth. Skis ready for El Nino by the way.
Merry Christmas to everyone.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.