A Note: Global Warming Threads

Who gives a shit how cheap it will be? I want to know if there are any plausible schemes in train, if there is anything material--even funding--beyond the discussion or "consideration" so far by any government.
Perhaps if you got off your high horse, did some of you're own research, and made an effort to follow the conversations in this thread :LOL:

Since you brought up pedantism, this is a good example of unnecessary point-scoring by being just that: (especially considering most people wouldn't have much if any trouble with "climate refugee". Who cares if it's a term recognised by the UN?)
No, it's not un-neccessary point scoring.

Although, by what you're saying I could make exactly the same argument, that your use of the term is un-neccessary point scoring in an emotionally charged political arena, by tugging at peoples heart strings, by comparing the people displaced by global warming to those people displaced by ethnic cleansing.
 
Reippy said:
Perhaps if you got off your high horse, did some of you're own research, and made an effort to follow the conversations in this thread :LOL:
Or I could stop following the "conversations" and live with the conclusion that no-one has a clue what's going to happen. That is, stop thinking about whether there's a problem like most of the people I know.
Although, by what you're saying I could make exactly the same argument, that your use of the term is un-neccessary point scoring in an emotionally charged political arena, by tugging at peoples heart strings, by comparing the people displaced by global warming to those people displaced by ethnic cleansing.
Not that you would descend to making comparisons that "tug" at people, I see. Or spend time on fairly pointless arguments.

Discussing climate change is a fairly pointless exercise too, no-one here at least seems to have that much of a clue, so I should probably just accept what adoucette is saying--there's a problem, but not much of one, so what's to discuss?

I've decided I don't give a rat's ass about discussing it after all. I'm now convinced that you don't want discussion and neither does adoucette--what you really want is for people to agree with you. I'm not going to do that, sorry.
Bye.
 
Or I could stop following the "conversations" and live with the conclusion that no-one has a clue what's going to happen. That is, stop thinking about whether there's a problem like most of the people I know.
Not that you would descend to making comparisons that "tug" at people, I see. Or spend time on fairly pointless arguments.

Discussing climate change is a fairly pointless exercise too, no-one here at least seems to have that much of a clue, so I should probably just accept what adoucette is saying--there's a problem, but not much of one, so what's to discuss?

I've decided I don't give a rat's ass about discussing it after all. I'm now convinced that you don't want discussion and neither does adoucette--what you really want is for people to agree with you. I'm not going to do that, sorry.
Bye.

Ho-hum.
And yet, I've managed to have perfectly reasonable discussions with Adoucette, Billy T, and Iceaura, all of whom I've disagreed with on various points and occasions.
 
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

This is only an excerpt - full article (Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research) available at http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.


SUMMARY

Political leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting human production of "greenhouse gases," chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2). They feared that CO2 would result in "human-caused global warming" – hypothetical severe increases in Earth's temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. During the past 10 years, many political efforts have been made to force worldwide agreement to the Kyoto treaty.

When we reviewed this subject in 1998 (1,2), existing satellite records were short and were centered on a period of changing intermediate temperature trends. Additional experimental data have now been obtained, so better answers to the questions raised by the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" are now available.

Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.​

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.
 
One further note - to the best of my recollection, upgrading this cities infrastructure is expected to cost somewhere around the Billion dollar mark - money that they're planning on spending over the next 20 years or so, however, that's not a good guideline for determining costs, because much of that money is money that would have to be spent anyway, global warming, or no global warming, because large portions of this cities infrastructure are at least 100 years old.
 
Which is why in Copenhagen the developed countries agreed to set a goal of providing $100 Billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.
 
skeptical said:
Which is why in Copenhagen the developed countries agreed to set a goal of providing $100 Billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.
And somehow, in the minds of the denialists (who have otherwise rejected Copenhagen findings and initiatives altogether), that is transformed into actually having done something about something.

That isn't even throwing money at a problem - it's agreeing to set a goal of throwing money at a problem. The only relevance here is that it recognizes, or begins to, the scale of the reasonable potential here - we are in territory in which very large and serious and rapid changes in human demographics (such as millions of "refugees" or whatever you want to call them) have to be considered as possibilities. In which a sudden feedback powered bump in methane levels is apparently within realistic possibility. In which a large fraction of the world's current food supply will no longer be available in its current form from its current regional sources.
mind over matter said:
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

This is only an excerpt - full article (Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research) available at http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_ar...ticle_HTML.php
No petition is visible in the link, and attempts to discover the actual text or texts of what those 31 thousand "scientists" were "signing" unavailed ( I gave up after a couple of buttons).

No way did 31,000 scientists lend their professional endorsement to the article at the link - there aren't that many scientists capable of evaluating it in its few legitimate technical details, and the several more basic problems with its assertions would prevent almost anyone except a nuclear industry promoter from signing on to the whole thing.

The last three or four or five (depending on how they are counted) of these "petitions" in this cause turned out to be total bs. So the burden of demonstration is on whoever brings us the new one, reasonably.
 
And somehow, in the minds of the denialists (who have otherwise rejected Copenhagen findings and initiatives altogether), that is transformed into actually having done something about something.

Amazing how you see everything through a lens of negativity.
 
"...The carbon dioxide (CO2) capture unit of Mississippi Power's Kemper County integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power station project. The Kemper County IGCC power plant has been planned to reduce the emission of CO2 in the atmosphere by detaining about 65% of the released gas. The collected CO2 will be sold to be utilized in the enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations.

This is the first project in the United States, where a power plant has been designed to minimize the CO2 released in the power generation process through the use of capture unit. The project is focused on achieving the goal of low-carbon electricity production and will aid in achieving a sustainable means of power generation. ..."

From: http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/49091/Flowserve+Wins+Pumps+Contract

This appears more real than the earlier US efforts that now have been cancelled as they have placed an order for needed pumps with Flowserve.
 
... upgrading this cities infrastructure is expected to cost somewhere around the Billion dollar mark - money that they're planning on spending over the next 20 years or so, however, that's not a good guideline for determining costs, because much of that money is money that would have to be spent anyway, global warming, or no global warming, because large portions of this cities infrastructure are at least 100 years old.
China, in laast and just starting 5-year plan is in the process of building 100 new cities, each for one million population. The first finished about four years ago was White Horse Village. The BBC has a multi-year documentation of it from the start and a recent update well worth watching on line to understand the greatest urbanization in human history as former pig farmers move to the city. (Their tiny plots are now being converted into large efficient farms.)

While these new cities with public transport and high-rise residences are less carbon intensive than US's suburban sprawl, they fall far short ecologically of the suggestion I made some years ago. My new city design has asymmetric* stepped pyramid buildings filling each block, which are literally green if seen from above as each U-shaped step back of the pyramid is planted, as the residents of that level wish (trees or vegetables gardens etc.). Two of these step setbacks (on the East and West sides) get at least half a day of direct sunlight and one gets full sunlight almost all day long.

There are no cars, or surface vehicles of any kind, allowed in the city. Only "autocars" which function under computer control in a limited access 2D grid and are high speed as they never stop for intersections, or traffic jams etc. after you get locked in until you arrive at the terminal in center of the pyramid block building you specified to the computer (Much like being locked in an elevator that takes you directly to your desired floor, in a "car" you don't own in a limited access channel under computer control only these are 2D horizontal electric powered "elevators.”)

There is also a covered grid for walking one level above the grid for bicycles only. Lower levels of the buildings are not residential, but commercial shops and factories, bars, movies & gyms, etc. plus essential service facilities. Smoking is only permitted in the park on the truncated top of the pyramid. Thus the city air is everywhere "forest fresh." Many go to work by elevator or if they live in a different building than their job, by elevator + bike or autocar, which come in 2, 4 or 6 passenger (or cargo) sizes with monthly billing for their use.
For general city concept, see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2084856&postcount=24 plus post 59 for some clarifications
For more on the autocar system see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2228529&postcount=74
For more about the city plan see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2228211&postcount=71

-------
* North wall of all buildings is nearly vertical (in Northern hemisphere sites) so its shadow does not shade any spot of residential level’s green garden of the stepped building north of it for more than one hour.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by Mind Over Matter
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

How many theses 9,029 guys got their PhD's paid for by the oil industry?
 
Last edited:
This should be interesting.

The most important indicator of global warming, by far, is the land and sea surface temperature record. This has been criticized in several ways, including the choice of stations and the methods for correcting systematic errors. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study sets out to to do a new analysis of the surface temperature record in a rigorous manner that addresses this criticism. We are using over 39,000 unique stations, which is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies.

Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record.


Figure1.jpg

http://berkeleyearth.org/study
 
Now, I am no nut about this topic, because some people are absolutely insane...however I think it would be quite enjoyable to have a tropical atmosphere. I live in the mohave desert, and if any of these websites are even partly correct in their assumptions....the new north pole would slightly move into lower canada, creating a more tropical envirnment for my situation. (IF I were to survive something like that, which is highly unlikely)
I think it is highly po
 
I think it would be quite enjoyable to have a tropical atmosphere.

Think your sweat not evaporating.
Think your clothing sticking to you, especially in the parts where you don't want it to stick to, and causing actual sores to form. And zits, and boils, and athlete's foot, and ringworm.
Because your skin never, ever dries unless you go in air conditioning.

Picture getting heat exhaustion even if you drink plenty of water b/c your sweat can't cool you. Picture possibly dying of heatstroke without a working air conditioner.

That's a Houston summer-and I believe we're on the same latitude, or not too far apart?
 
SUMMARY: Don’t let anyone tell you the world is making progress on the CO2 /Global heating problem when the opposite is true.
CO2 release increased 5.8% in last year, probably more than 6% in 2011.


"... Consumption of oil, which accounts for 34% of the world’s primary energy by BP’s calculations, rose by 3.1%. Coal, at 30% the number two fuel, was up by 7.6%, growing faster than at any time since 2003. Consumption of gas, which contributes 24%, was up by 7.4%, the biggest annual growth since 1984.
The growth in fossil fuels was so strong that although non-fossil-fuel energy also had a record year, its share of the world total primary energy decreased a little. Hydro (6.5%) saw its biggest annual increase on record, … Other renewables grew impressively too, thanks to countries all round the world continuing to pile on new wind capacity. That said, non-hydro renewables still check in at only 1.3% of global energy consumption—1.8% if you include biofuels.

Oil’s share of primary energy has declined every year over the past decade, while coal’s share of the total has increased by four percentage points since 2000. The main reason for this is China. In 2000, China consumed 11% of the world’s energy; in 2010 it consumed 20.3% of a significantly bigger pie, making it the biggest energy consumer on the planet

Most of China’s growth came from burning more coal: in 2000 China accounted for just under a third of world coal use; in 2010 a staggering 48.2%. Repeat that sort of expansion on a smaller scale for a number of other countries and you see why coal is going up in the global mix. You also see why the world’s energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions have grown even faster than its energy use—by 5.8% last year …”

From: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/06/energy-statistics

BT notes: The Economist article also notes that global GDP/ energy use is growing faster in less energy efficient countries than those like the US & EU so more energy per unit of GDP is being used. This, along with coal’s increasing percent of total energy use, is also why CO2 release growing faster than energy use and global GDP.
 
"... China’s enormous demand for electricity is primarily fed by coal, which generates about 83 percent of the nation’s power. Although China holds the world’s third-largest coal reserves, its massive demand makes it a net importer of coal. Indeed, China ultimately consumed 300 million more tons of coal than the 3 billion tons it produced last year.

However, growth in coal demand isn’t just a Chinese story. Coal’s abundance and relative low cost make it the fuel of choice throughout the emerging markets.** As such, coal demand is expected to grow by more than 78 percent over the next two decades.

The emerging markets** aren’t the only coal-dependent nations. The developed world also heavily relies on coal for its power generation. More than 44 percent of US electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants, while Canada uses coal in similar quantities.

Additionally, Japan’s damaged nuclear infrastructure should cause it to become more dependent on coal and natural gas to meet its energy demand over the next two years. The nuclear crisis in Japan has also inspired governments in other countries to reduce their use of nuclear power. For example, the German government’s plan to phase out its existing nuclear reactor could also lead to a spike in that nation’s coal demand. ..."

From: http://www.investingdaily.com/id/19...gx=d.kac,stid.14985,sid.250664,lid.6,mid.6722

** Not Brazil, thank you !!! More than 80% of our power is from hydroelectric plants, about 5% for burning the crushed sugar cane, now ~5% but perhaps soon 10% from natural gas, wind & solar a few percent and nuclear < 2% I think. Not sure, but think 0% from coal.

Summary: the world is going to Hell, not in a basket, but in long trains of coal cars.

When a teenage kid, many decades ago, living in W.Va. with train tracks on the other side of street in front of our small (2Br) house I often even back then saw coal trains with two engines slowly pulling 100+ long train of coal cars up a very slight grade. - It was fun to put a penny on the tracks to hear first engine's wheels surge to higher RPM, but not the second as penny was long flat ellipse by time it got to the penny. I drilled two, tiny, slightly separated, side-by-side holes in each near one end of the ellipse to make (with clear fish line) an "Indian like" necklace for my girl friend - A cheap 10 cent cost gift she liked. - It was really quite nice. With a proper closure clip, I bet in a gift store it would sell for $20, or even more if you used dimes, today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top