Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
I'll be there in June. Should I pack some O2 tanks?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
smear_campaign:
Secondly Chiloe can you get me the atmospheric data from 1985-present for all radionuclides from Mauna Loa Observatory?
Sorry, I don't have those data! Have you contacted the Observatory directly?
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
TIG wrote:
"It might very well be that optimally we should be consuming fuel like crazy, filling corporate coffers to fund research budgets. Selling energy is profitable. Would you want to own a patent on the disruptive technology that would allow us to recharge an electric car for 250-300 more miles in 120-180 seconds. You can't do that today. Would you like to find the commercially viable PV cell that was 40% efficient?
No politician is going to invent these. They can't legislate them either. It will take discovery, work and some luck. Driven by urgency, perhaps - that we do not have today"
Basically WRONG.
Politicians can INCENTIVIZE invention.
Huge research is going into solar power and hybrid car batteries and motors because Politicians have jumpstarted these markets through tax credits and deductions.
High efficiency PV panels are only needed on spacecraft.
What most of us need for PV is supercheap standard efficiency panels. Several companies are making huge strides on such panels today, apparently driven by markets in places like Germany and California where subsidies have been implemented by POLITICIANS.
In 1982 or so cars in the US were much lighter and got better gas mileage than cars today. But in the Reagan era, the US made materialism the national religion. By not increasing CAFE, keeping gas prices low for 25 years, and providing a huge loophole for trucks, suvs, and vans, Politicians drove the car market to Large vehicles.
even smallish cars: 1983 VW GTI: 2100 lbs 2007: 3250 lbs.
Local Politicians (developers) subsidized sprawl wherever possible.
Over the past 50 years, politicians have spent 100 times as much subsidizing nuclear, coal, and oil as on clean energy.
Had we shifted even a tenth of that into sensible policies, our energy system would be far different today.
Oil companies generally have spent far more in marketing campaigns to change their image than the pittance they have ever spent on actual research. As an industry, they spend the least on R&D, and the most on lobbying Politicians. (Except now in the Bush oilogopoly & Cheney's secret meetings, the lobbyists are running the government.) New technology is usually brought by new companies, not status quo leeches like the oil companies.
Coal mines and uranium mines have been forgiven by Politicians from having to clean up their messes.
Coal burning power plants have not been asked by Politicians to clean up the damage done by acid rain and mercury (toxic waters and fish)
Politicians have spent many hundreds of billions trying to control world oil, and more than that on free roads, resulting in Huge subsidies for oil users.
etc. etc. etc.
Politicians have allowed competition to disappear in various markets, through mergers, predatory schemes, and PUC giveaways.
Free residential trash pickup (here in San Diego) is a subsidy to prevent recycling.
Direct subsidies & taxes are not the only way Politicians can change Markets (and invention).
PZEV and ZEV car rules are one example, as is low sulfer diesel, and clean diesel engines.
Rules against inefficient appliances and lightbulbs and dirty lawnmowers are another.
In many places, rules against fireplaces and primitive wood stoves have caused people to buy efficient and clean wood stoves.
More heat pumps are bought when electric resistor heat is disincentivized.
Some other rules have so far been uneffective.
Today car makers respond to a rule that allows them to claim their cars as green because they can burn alcohol, even though that fuel is not often available. Bush went to Brazil to appear to be jumping on the alcohol bandwagon, but had no intention of dropping our limits on imports of sugar & alcohol. Politicians might need to incentive fueling supply & stations to really achieve anything.
The gist of it is that we already have an energy policy, only it's about as effective as our immigration policy for the needs of today, and often acts against our goals. But that still proves that Politicians and society do make a huge difference, not just certain individuals. Which came first: Bill Gates or computers?
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
This just in, the real cause of global warming. I'll try to get a copy of the data that backs it up.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
"Chiloe, I have read a ton of "real science", and not just physics."
But you doesn't seem to have any understanding of a single subject you have written about on supertopo. What is the reason for this?
"Dropline, thanks. Since school I have branched out in a number of other disciplines. Math, game theory, finance, management, biology, though not much, etc. purely amateur."
Where do you read about science? Wall street Journal, propaganda sites like junksciense.com and articles from the cato institute? I forget forget fiction writtings from Crichton (where do you think I can by a radio that atracts ligthning by the way). Your arguments are atleast the same as the arguments given in those sources.
Read any peer reviewed articles? Read any books that are used in universities or are considered important by scientists in the field? My guess is no.
I have read and answered enough of your posts to feel pretty confident that my impression of your knoweledge are correct.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
"TIG has presented what I believe to be the most reasonable and articulate view of the issue on this board to date. "
Are you serious? You like TIG's uninformed posts better Chiloe's informed posts? Chiloe actually has some knoweledge about the subject, TIG hasn't.
But of course everything is in the public debate is retorics, the truth doesn't matter. It is possibly to find a website that explain every view on a every subject. How many sites exist that claim that the earth is 6000 years old for example? Smoking doesn't couse cancer (because the tobaco industry says so) etc.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
"But beyond that, try to lose the over-intense focus on the tiny bit of the big picture. Read the book that I mentioned above. It has a description of some actual experiments in which people like you and I tried to improve the lot of an African community with incredibly mixed results. What is important is why intelligent people - that apparently some of us nearly revere - can fail so miserably."
Seems like an interesting book that I might read some day but I dont really understand the connection with global warming.
We burn fossil fuels and the result of this is the undisputed fact (Milloey might dispute it but I doubt it, he seems to just ignore it) that the CO_2 level in the atmosphere rise.
Thus we mess with a complicated system. The book seems to suggest that we shouldn't mess with a complicated system and the conclusion should be that we should stop burning fossil fuels (and shouldn't have started at all) because we dont know the results.
You seem to try to use it in a way something like, the climate is complicated so we shouldn't change our policies now. The best to do is to continoue burning fossil fuels (you like nuclear so you probably want more nuclear though).
We dont know what could happen so let us continue on our path. This approach taken by many sceptics. It is something very wrong about this thinking in my opinion.
I know that you think that the population growth is the main problem. Do you have any solution to this? Do you suggest that money should go to solve this problem instead of global warming? Are you naive like some people that claim that money spend on global warming should be better spent in africa? That a fixed amount of maney exist and we need to choose between africa and global warming? When the truth is that the money goes to completely other stuff like wars.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
Why are the ripples (yearly up and down on the graph) the same since the 50's when we have less and less trees and plants each year to obsorb the co2?
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
The book seems to suggest that we shouldn't mess with a complicated system...
Remarkable conclusion, Ray, since you said you didn't read it but might some day.
Totally wrong. Want to play again? LMAO
|
|
nutjob
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
In environmental debates, there's three things going on:
1) What are supportable facts
2) What are scientifically sound conclusions that can be drawn from the facts
3) people with agendas on either side of the issue twisting or mis-representing the facts or conclusions to support their agenda
Citing a record of 50 years CO2 data is far from conclusive about the impact of human activity on the rise of CO2 levels. Now if this increase is compared to ice core samples that show 400,000 years worth of data, then that would be insightful that the current rate of increase is faster than during historical times that include several ice ages. On the other hand, a 50-year sample might be less than the resolution of years in a 400k year ice core sample, in which case meaningful comparisons of rate of change are difficult to make. But I'm not familiar with the physics of CO2 getting trapped in ice, or of ice core measurement technologies, so YMMV.
In general, media reports would do more justice to the environmental causes (or any cause) if they related conclusions that can logically be drawn from measurements. When this terrain is left behind, the debate becomes "their word vs. mine" and it opens the door for unreasonable speculation or hopeful thinking to be granted the same level of consideration as solid science.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Citing a record of 50 years CO2 data is far from conclusive about the impact of human activity on the rise of CO2 levels. Now if this increase is compared to ice core samples that show 400,000 years worth of data, then that would be insightful that the current rate of increase is faster than during historical times that include several ice ages. On the other hand, a 50-year sample might be less than the resolution of years in a 400k year ice core sample, in which case meaningful comparisons of rate of change are difficult to make. But I'm not familiar with the physics of CO2 getting trapped in ice, or of ice core measurement technologies, so YMMV.
There are a lot of seriously smart, hardworking scientists who focus their observations, analysis and thinking on exactly these questions, and meet often to synthesize their findings with others just as smart who hold other parts of the puzzle. Individually and collectively they're explaining quite clearly what they see, speaking and writing in many different public as well as science forums. Unfortunately, as seen daily on Supertopo, much of the public won't listen. The ideas are too hard and folks already know what to believe.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
if you really want to get your mind blown check out "the visual display of quantitative information" by this guy. best graphs EVAR.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Right on BVB, Tufte is brilliant. I've got all his books, cite him every chance I get in my work.
|
|
Wild Bill
climber
Ca
|
|
I try to emulate Tufte when the rare opportunity comes up. It helps in understanding concepts, and adds a visual 'third dimension' when you can pull it off.
Now back to science . . .
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Hey, Tufte's a scientist. Also a sculptor. And a guru who can fill a ballroom with brainy strivers paying $300 each just to see his graphical show.
|
|
hobo_dan
Trad climber
Minnesota
|
|
Tradisgood the telling point in the inconvenient truth was when Gore brings up the Tobacco industry and their main product was not tobacco but Doubt- you are falling for the same thing-you look for minor discrepancies and cling to them in the hope that what your eyes are telling you is false.
Climate change is happening and if you realy care about that then what you are obligated to do is to do less-find some way- any way to decrease your carbon footprint.
I have just finished planting 225 trees for this spring. I am not carbon negative but I am trying to decrease my fuel usage. Americans don't like to be told to do things But WE are the main problem
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Sorry, shouldn't talked about a book I haven't read. I still dont really understand the connection with your posts though except in the way I mentioned.
What books or articles do you base your knoweledge on?
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
Raymond, perhaps you put way too much faith in "peer review".
For example, Enrico Fermi was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1938, in part for his "discovery of transuranic elements" which he claimed to have discovered in a 1934 paper. The ultimate peer review, I would say.
It turns out that he was wrong, but worse than wrong, he missed what could have been an even more important discovery. The experiment, rather than creating elements with atomic numbers 93 and 94 which he claimed, in fact might have been the first demonstration of nuclear fission! But he flat out missed it. And when his error was pointed out to him by Lisa Meitner who claimed that what he saw was radioactivity from Barium one of the fission products, he simply dismissed it - after all, he was the self-acclaimed Pope of physics.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
TIG, yes we should probably pay more attention to fiction writers like Crichton and wall street journal...
Have you read a single peer reviewed paper in your whole life?
Have you read anything about global warming and related topics except in news papers and Crichton?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!