Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Global Warming - Page 33







Post#801 at 06-04-2007 07:09 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-04-2007, 07:09 PM #801
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
Energy scarcity, conflict, and economic necessity will reduce the amount of oil we burn, regardless of climate change. Problem solved.
Um, no. There is no scarcity of energy--if you believe that someone has been pulling your leg or you misunderstood something. There is plenty of coal and nuclear fuel.







Post#802 at 06-04-2007 07:16 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-04-2007, 07:16 PM #802
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
there are costs and unforeseen consequences to anything we try and do about it (think for example of the millions of africans dying from malaria because we won't use DDT).
But why should Americans have to use DDT so that Africans are willing to use DDT? Doesn't the responsibility for refusing to use DDT when it is cheap and readily available fall upon the African governments?







Post#803 at 06-04-2007 07:20 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
06-04-2007, 07:20 PM #803
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Mike, are you paying attention? This is the doomsday stuff that I was talking about before. Where is "evidence" to support the idea that we will be fucked by catastrophe? I seem to keep repeating myself, but the worst thing I've seen argued from a standpoint of "data" is that local weather variations will be unpredictable. Just what, specifically, are you guys so afraid of? I have a feeling that AGW is an example of liberal fear-mongering. As Bush et al have used fear of terrorism of a way of drumming up support for their side, so have the Dems used fear of global warming. It's an empty threat, once you really look below the surface. And I say this as someone who actually BELIEVED that it was happening, before I looked at the data.

I remember hearing the stuff about warming on other planets also, somewhere a while back.
Three words: Positive. Feedback. Loop.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#804 at 06-04-2007 07:43 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-04-2007, 07:43 PM #804
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
What he is pushing is the elevating of guess based on incomplete understanding to the status of fact based on a show-of-hands and what essentially amounts to a refusal to accept the scientifically valid position of 'insufficient data'.
But the position of "insufficient data" is not scientifically valid. You cannot make such a claim because you lack the competence to evaluate the data in order to determine that they are insufficient. The largely naive ideas you have advanced (galactic topology, soda can, climate is chaotic, stacked polynomials) are convincing evidence of scientific incompetence. If you understood these things an intelligent person like you would not write this unintelligent stuff.

On the other hand, by dint of some effort I have gained sufficient competence in this technical field over the past few months (from a level of ignorance similar to your own) to evaluate at least some of the data for myself. I find what I have seen so far to be sufficient. I don't have the whole picture yet, and what I haven't evaluated yet could cause me to change my mind, but so far I have found no reason to question the consensus belief amongst climate scientists that recent warming is mostly greenhouse-driven.







Post#805 at 06-04-2007 08:00 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-04-2007, 08:00 PM #805
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Mike, are you paying attention? This is the doomsday stuff that I was talking about before. Where is "evidence" to support the idea that we will be fucked by catastrophe?
There is evidence. Yes it is possible that we are all fucked if we do nothing. But it is also possible that we are not fucked, that maybe only the folks in Florida and in low-lying coastal areas elsewhere are fucked. And it is possible that we escape comparatively unscathed in the US.

I haven't gotten near far enough to evaluate these claims. After all if greenhouse warming is a mirage as you and Justin claim, then temperature will certainly cool within the next decade or two and none of these doomsday scenarios will come to play. So why even go there? You have no kids, you live inland, what do you have to lose?

I find it interesting that most of the static I get on this issue is from Xers. Wasn't it you guys that promoted the DIY ethic? That's all I am doing wrt to this climate change stuff. For a long time I was a skeptic based on easy to see evidence that called into question the GW story. When the evidence changed, it seems reasonable to DIY a bit, yes?







Post#806 at 06-04-2007 08:29 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
06-04-2007, 08:29 PM #806
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Mike, are you paying attention? This is the doomsday stuff that I was talking about before. Where is "evidence" to support the idea that we will be fucked by catastrophe? I seem to keep repeating myself, but the worst thing I've seen argued from a standpoint of "data" is that local weather variations will be unpredictable. Just what, specifically, are you guys so afraid of?
Here's a pretty big one. Almost all of the plant family is tied to climate. When climate changes, plants stop reproducing, and if the change is big enough, living. If the changes are slow, the plants migrate, for lack of a more descriptive term. If the change is fast, they can't migrate quickly enough (this is especially true of forests). We humans can help them, of course, but further rapid changes can undo anything we try.

This is not theory. It has been demonstrated in the real world and through testing. You may not care, but a world with a seriously degraded environment could (no proof here) become unable to support anywhere near the number living on it. Botanists that work with plants at risk are certainly concerned. Are you also a botanist?

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I have a feeling that AGW is an example of liberal fear-mongering. As Bush et al have used fear of terrorism of a way of drumming up support for their side, so have the Dems used fear of global warming. It's an empty threat, once you really look below the surface. And I say this as someone who actually BELIEVED that it was happening, before I looked at the data.
Are you arguing that there is no warming event, or just that we aren't causing it? The first point seems pretty well established. Even the hyper-skeptics tend to agree that warming is occurring. So your point ... your only point ... is we're not guilty. So? If the warming does create problems, guilt is a pretty minor issue, don't you think? If it doesn't create problems, the things that will be done to "prevent" the problem are either benign or otherwise beneficial. We're running out of oil anyway, why not concentrate on that?

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I remember hearing the stuff about warming on other planets also, somewhere a while back.
What other planets have an active (i.e. life supporting) atmosphere? How many have an atmosphere even vaguely similar to ours?
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 06-04-2007 at 08:36 PM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#807 at 06-04-2007 08:51 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
06-04-2007, 08:51 PM #807
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Heat by Tidal Friction??!

Quote Originally Posted by Mustang View Post
Bob,

I got curious and did a little searching. Here is a blog entry that discusses the warming on other planets. I only include it because it is laden with links to news articles:
Much appreciated, at least the links. I will definitely run through them.

I visited one already, on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The dominant theory there is that the heating has nothing to do with solar effects. "Sunlight could not possibly produce temperatures like that in the outer solar system." "The leading theory is that the pulls and pushes from Saturn and its other moons heat rock inside Enceladus. All the little tugs add up to a big effect, and the shifting rock generates heat."

Thus, strike one. If the theory of the primary web page is that solar effects are causing heating on all planets, the first of the references used to support that theory doesn't support the theory. This is a sign of psuedo science in progress. I can easily believe our space probes are finding heat where we might not expect it. Thing is, once you get out past the asteroid belt, the distance from the sun is so large that solar forcing shouldn't be causing that large a temperature shift. Remember the inverse square law? As one doubles the distance from the sun, one should expect only a quarter of the energy?

But, still, a fascinating set of links. I definitely will look through the rest.

Though possibly, judging by the photoshop of Gore, there might conceivably be some possible political emotion involved in the original site?


Edit....

Just encountered two more strikes, out on the edge of the solar system.

Pluto

The increasing temperatures are more likely explained by two simple facts: Pluto's highly elliptical orbit significantly changes the planet's distance from the Sun during its long "year," which lasts 248 Earth years; and unlike most of the planets, Pluto's axis is nearly in line with the orbital plane, tipped 122 degrees. Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees.

Though Pluto was closest to the Sun in 1989, a warming trend 13 years later does not surprise David Tholen, a University of Hawaii astronomer involved in the discovery.

"It takes time for materials to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the day on Earth is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon," Tholen said. "This warming trend on Pluto could easily last for another 13 years."
Triton

There are two possible explanations for the moon's warmer weather. One is that the frost pattern on Triton's surface may have changed over the years, absorbing more and more of the sun's warmth. The other is that changes in reflectivity of Triton's ice may have caused it to absorb more heat.
I found another article suggesting Triton might be volcanically active, which could also contribute.

Thus, of the first three links I've followed -- though they lead to interesting space weather sites which seem perfectly valid -- none so far support the notion that solar forcing is causing global warming on the planets and moons mentioned.
Last edited by Bob Butler 54; 06-04-2007 at 09:24 PM. Reason: Two More Planets







Post#808 at 06-04-2007 08:55 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
06-04-2007, 08:55 PM #808
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Wink

Baaaaaaaaaaaa







Post#809 at 06-04-2007 09:21 PM by Mustang [at Confederate States of America joined May 2003 #posts 2,303]
---
06-04-2007, 09:21 PM #809
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Confederate States of America
Posts
2,303

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Though possibly, judging by the photoshop of Gore, there might conceivably be some possible political emotion involved in the original site?


I actually thought that was pretty funny! After I quip that you were starting your own denomination, here he is portraying the "Prophet" Al Gore leading the Inquisition for the Church of Global Warming. In fact, his satire resembles the very sort of argument you would make against the opposition on other issues.

He appears to be physicist at Harvard from Eastern Europe and he does indeed describe himself as a "conservative physicist."

Here is the text which accompanies that picture of the "Prophet Al Gore":


A comparison

You may ask the consensus scientists: why is there such a difference between the explanations for the warming of the Earth and the other planets and their moons? It's because the Earth is the center of the Universe, they would answer. You could also ask: why do all these planets and moons indicate warming? Shut up, the consensus scientists would answer.

Some of them would tell you that your paradox is resolved by the anthropic principle: the people on Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Mars, Triton, and other celestial bodies cannot complain about the anthropogenic global warming because... because these people don't exist! :-)

The debate is over, Al Gore, our prophet, has announced. Terrestrial global warming, caused by the human sins, is no longer a political issue: it is now a spiritual issue. Now it's time to punish the heretics who deny that the Earth as the center of the Universe is special because of the humans who were created to the image of God - and because of their sins and SUVs.

This looks like a story about some silly priests from the 16th century Catholic Church - a story about the Dark Ages that most of us heard in the basic school. But unfortunately, what we are describing here are influential people in the 21st century such as one who delivers a speech on the picture above.

People who believe, much like the Church in the 15th century, that the divine truth is determined by consensus. People who believe that we should prefer awkward hypotheses if they support our spiritual values. People who believe that questions and independent thinking should be silenced. People who will almost certainly write dozens of unsubstantiated comments below this article.

More seriously, I don't claim that the trends observed on all these celestial bodies prove their solar or cosmic origin although the agreement of the signs is suggestive. But what these trends certainly do is to remind all rational people that there is always natural variability on any celestial body as long as it has any structure or internal dynamics and the only questions are the quantitative ones: how large this natural variability is and what effects are the most important ones in driving it. Denying that there is a lot of natural climate change would be extraordinarily silly.
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."

-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater







Post#810 at 06-04-2007 10:00 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
06-04-2007, 10:00 PM #810
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Ovis aries

Quote Originally Posted by MichaelEaston View Post
Baaaaaaaaaaaa
Blechhh. Never let sheep be leaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flock_of_sheep.jpg


X'er's OTOH are the wily ever adaptable coyote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coyote.jpg

As for global warming the wily thing to look for alternative energy sources as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAMINI (Thorium plant in India. ) Not only do thorium plants use a far more common element, thorium, but they can burn off plutonium. There's also generation IV reactors on the drawing board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Renewables:

Wind power. http://www.bergey.com/
http://www.greenmountainenergy.com/index.shtml
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Solar...ls-28489.shtml

These aren't quite cost efficient yet, just think of the high tech jobs and domestic manufacturing to be had going this route instead of spending billions on wars to defend sources of 19th century fossil fuels. So even if global warming isn't a problem (I think it is), it still makes economic sense to
go this route. The ability to tell the MidEast to fuck off is well worth the effort.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#811 at 06-04-2007 10:16 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
06-04-2007, 10:16 PM #811
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

astride the generational fault line.

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
I find it interesting that most of the static I get on this issue is from Xers. Wasn't it you guys that promoted the DIY ethic? That's all I am doing wrt to this climate change stuff. For a long time I was a skeptic based on easy to see evidence that called into question the GW story. When the evidence changed, it seems reasonable to DIY a bit, yes?
It's all in the presentation, Mikebert. If the means to an end , in this case GW, also fits DIY, then that should be the chosen path. Thusly, the post I made on nuclear /renewables is DIY as far as a means to an end of energy autarky as well. Perchance my location as a Joneser will aid the cause for both the Boom and X ?
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#812 at 06-04-2007 10:39 PM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
06-04-2007, 10:39 PM #812
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Um, no. There is no scarcity of energy--if you believe that someone has been pulling your leg or you misunderstood something. There is plenty of coal and nuclear fuel.
Fair enough, but how am I going to fit lumps of coal into my Durango? And I am darn sure the NatGas furnace isn't set up for it either. As per nukes, while I personally think they may be a best guess for moving forward, I know there are many who see uranium availability being a problem if used for all our energy needs. Keep in mind these are the same ppl who see AGW as a tremendous problem.

But hey, the tar sands and those clever scientists will figure it all out.







Post#813 at 06-05-2007 04:04 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
06-05-2007, 04:04 PM #813
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

The Independent: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'


Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.

They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.

News of the studies - which are bound to lead to calls for even tougher anti-pollution measures than have yet been contemplated - comes as the leaders of the world's most powerful nations prepare for the most crucial meeting yet on tackling climate change.

The issue will be top of the agenda of the G8 summit which opens in the German Baltic resort of Heiligendamm on Wednesday, placing unprecedented pressure on President George Bush finally to agree to international measures.

Tony Blair flies to Berlin today to prepare for the summit with its host, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. They will discuss how to tackle President Bush, who last week called for action to deal with climate change, which his critics suggested was instead a way of delaying international agreements.

Yesterday, there were violent clashes in the city harbour of Rostock between police and demonstrators, during a largely peaceful march of tens of thousands of people protesting against the summit.

The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s.

The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year's massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.

The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China. The country, however, will resist being blamed for the problem, pointing out that its people on average still contribute only about a sixth of the carbon dioxide emitted by each American. And, the study shows, developed countries, with less than a sixth of the world's people, still contribute more than two-thirds of total emissions of the greenhouse gas.

On the ground, a study by the University of California's National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that Arctic ice has declined by 7.8 per cent a decade over the past 50 years, compared with an average estimate by IPCC computer models of 2.5 per cent.

In yesterday's clashes, masked protesters hurled flagpoles, stones and bottles and attacked with sticks forcing police to retreat. The police said they were suffering "massive assaults" and that the situation was "very chaotic". They put the size of the demonstration at 25,000; organisers said it was 80,000.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#814 at 06-05-2007 04:21 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-05-2007, 04:21 PM #814
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
Fair enough, but how am I going to fit lumps of coal into my Durango?
You can convert coal into gasoline. You can convert natural gas intogasoline too. So what's the problem?

As per nukes, while I personally think they may be a best guess for moving forward, I know there are many who see uranium availability being a problem if used for all our energy needs.
One wouldn't use just uranium, you would use thorium as well and there lots more of that. But coal is the quicker solution and doesn't carry the terrorism risk. If you have no problem with dumping 4 or 5 times the amount of CO2 and lots and lots of sulfur dioxide and other things into the air--then what the hey?







Post#815 at 06-05-2007 04:40 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-05-2007, 04:40 PM #815
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Mike, I do think that you've done your homework, unlike Bob who just keeps posting graphs, but I also think that you're biased. Twice now I've seen you change fact to fit theory. The first time was the issue of ice in the Antarctic, and the second was the doomsday issue. It sort of negates your "expertise," in my opinion.
But I did neither. You have simply interpreted it in this fashion by taking an overly lawyerly attitude to the issue. I said that growing ice in the interior is to be expected --and it has been observed--I posted the evidence. Just because melting is occuring here and there doesn't negate what I said.

As far as catastrophe I said I don't expect disaster* to happen. This a belief, I haven't investigated it yet. Nobody can predict the exact future. You seem to have made up your mind without any research, why can't I have an opinion on what I have not yet researched?

After I, I have stated by beliefs about the future directions of the stock market and not been accused of bias (except by John). How is this any different?

*By disaster I made it clear I mean bad things happening to Kalamazoo MI or Chicago IL. Tens of of millions could die of famine or flood in Africa, India, Bangladesh etc. because of GW and it not be a disaster to me or to someone living in Chicago.
Last edited by Mikebert; 06-05-2007 at 04:49 PM.







Post#816 at 06-05-2007 06:48 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
06-05-2007, 06:48 PM #816
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Astride the generational divide part II

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I haven't made up my mind about anything yet. I just don't buy the argument that the evidence presented proves anything one way or the other.
I assume you're referring to global warming. Let's set that aside and I'll make a blatant appeal to national and self interest. Most of the remaining oil reserves reside in the Mideast. Given that fact, would it not be preferable to be in a position to tell the assorted crackpots over there to fuck off ? A switchover to nuclear and renewables, while in the short term would incur some pain would in due course would cause a lot of gain. It will take high paid engineers, chemists, technicians, etc. to do this. IOW, I deem the job creation and the goal of energy autarky unto themselves as worthy of the effort. The effects as to global warming can of course be considered a beneficial "knock off effect", if nothing else.

You are free to have whatever opinions you like, but if you are trying to convince others, that's another thing entirely.
True enough. Did I do a good enough job in translating the overall goal into X'erese?
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#817 at 06-05-2007 07:58 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
06-05-2007, 07:58 PM #817
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post

Dude, you're preaching to the choir. I drive a hybrid car, I'm a vegetarian, I get all my produce at the local farmer's market, and I keep the central air/heat off for most of the year. That's why I think this argument is silly, it does nothing to convince the "other side," and it alienates the moderates.
Yes, "silly" is the usual way this sort of thing is presented. This thread is of course an example of how folks can get hung up on one problem, while the solution to said problem brings benefits to facets which are not discussed. To take your actions, well my guess you're not cussing up and down while at the gas pump, like some SUV owners here do. As for vegetarian, my guess is that that diet is more healthy and thus reduces your medical bills. Finally, the heat/AC pretty much is a no brainer. You are saving $ there as well. So for the actual item of global warming, well all of the above reduce CO2, so it gets back to the "knock off effect". You win and the air wins.


I've actually considered you to be an Xer for a while now. No offense or anything.
None taken. I think I'd get a bit miffed if someone called me one of those smells like Ewok spirit Millies.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#818 at 06-06-2007 08:34 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-06-2007, 08:34 AM #818
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
I'll make a blatant appeal to national and self interest. Most of the remaining oil reserves reside in the Mideast. Given that fact, would it not be preferable to be in a position to tell the assorted crackpots over there to fuck off ? A switchover to nuclear and renewables, while in the short term would incur some pain would in due course would cause a lot of gain. It will take high paid engineers, chemists, technicians, etc. to do this. IOW, I deem the job creation and the goal of energy autarky unto themselves as worthy of the effort. The effects as to global warming can of course be considered a beneficial "knock off effect", if nothing else.

True enough. Did I do a good enough job in translating the overall goal into X'erese?
No, because you did not address an obvious issue. If GW is bunk then there is no reason not to use more coal w/o sequestration. Renewables only make sense if you consider GW and other environmental issues a problem. If they are a figment of Al Gore's fevered imagination then they don't make sense and they never will as long as there is plenty of coal still to be mined.

This is one of the reasons why the GW question is important.







Post#819 at 06-06-2007 09:09 AM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
06-06-2007, 09:09 AM #819
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
No, because you did not address an obvious issue.
And what issue is that? We (you and I ) have discussed nuclear and renewables in prior threads. I didn't rehash that stuff because it's redundant. Folks can just look me up in the member list and get the
information, if they want it.

If GW is bunk then there is no reason not to use more coal w/o sequestration. Renewables only make sense if you consider GW and other environmental issues a problem. If they are a figment of Al Gore's fevered imagination then they don't make sense and they never will as long as there is plenty of coal still to be mined.
I can easily set aside CO2 from coal. Burning coal emits SO2, Hg, radium, and not to mention an assortment of polycyclic aromatics. I can also add that it exposes those who mine the stuff to hazards as well. As for Al Gore, sure, I think he needs to go back to the garden and smoke some pot or at least get on Valium. He annoys me with that shrill rhetoric of his.
May I remind you of the "displaced cost" meme ? For Oil, it's the cost of defending the supply lines, for coal, it's all that filthy stuff that gets emitted when it's used. Sure it's an inexact science, but I'm sure there's a way to get some estimate of the costs of Hg emissions. Likewise SO2 gets converted to H2SO4 which is a rather strong mineral acid. So here we can estimate the costs of the trees the H2SO4 kills off and the fact that it is one of the components of acid rain, which ruins some water ways.
And of course you did say "other environmental issues". I just listed some of those and the rather high cost they , unto themselves present.

This is one of the reasons why the GW question is important.
I didn't say it wasn't. The points I was making were addressed only to those who do in indeed thing GW is bunk. I don't think it is bunk since CO2 has been shown by valid scientific studies to have this efffect. It's transparent to higher energy electromagnetic radiation, but it's opaque as far as infrared (heat). So when a visibile light photon strikes the earth, loses energy, and bounces off, it's now an infrared photon, whech CO2 relfects right back down again. The net result is more infrared photons trapped , and thus, ALL OTHER THINGS being equal, causes a temperature rise. It's just my position and that's all it is based on my own judgement that the amount of infrared photons trapped is going up, along with the CO2 concentration, that GW is a valid phenonenom.
In short, I was addressing stuff other than GW for those who are not of that mindset with some scientific and geopolitical reasons to use energy sources which do not emit CO2 in order to get them on board. That is another thing Al Gore screws up on. If you want change, you have to consider that the opponents of say renewables are saying and present a message that appeals or makes sense to them.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#820 at 06-06-2007 09:56 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
06-06-2007, 09:56 AM #820
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Right Arrow On True Belief

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
...
In short, I was addressing stuff other than GW for those who are not of that mindset with some scientific and geopolitical reasons to use energy sources which do not emit CO2 in order to get them on board. That is another thing Al Gore screws up on. If you want change, you have to consider that the opponents of say renewables are saying and present a message that appeals or makes sense to them.
I think the True Believers would wish that cuius regio, eius religio would obtain. "Whose territory, his religion!" was one of those Progressive watersheds that is still with us in yet another form. HGW must not be only tolerated as one of many reasons to develop an energy and an environmental policy, it must be assented to by all as the true religion by the followers of the Present Sovereign.

The Present True Religion seems to be the Romantic Idealism of the Reform of Eurasia (Red version); this is to be replaced by HGW (Blue version). "Whose territory, his religion!" Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are Crown of Creation placeholders for the same ideal that came with the Peace of Augsburg. That these enthusiasms are also 'fighting faiths' makes them even more off putting to dissenters (the parti-colored) and oecumens (the Purple) alike.







Post#821 at 06-06-2007 12:11 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
06-06-2007, 12:11 PM #821
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari View Post
I think the True Believers would wish that cuius regio, eius religio would obtain. "Whose territory, his religion!" was one of those Progressive watersheds that is still with us in yet another form. HGW must not be only tolerated as one of many reasons to develop an energy and an environmental policy, it must be assented to by all as the true religion by the followers of the Present Sovereign.
Interesting. Perhaps Generation X should be renamed generation
Ragnarök or perchance the 4T as the dawning of the age of Ragnarök since the literal Norse translation is "doom of the powers".

The Present True Religion seems to be the Romantic Idealism of the Reform of Eurasia (Red version); this is to be replaced by HGW (Blue version). "Whose territory, his religion!" Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are Crown of Creation placeholders for the same ideal that came with the Peace of Augsburg. That these enthusiasms are also 'fighting faiths' makes them even more off putting to dissenters (the parti-colored) and oecumens (the Purple) alike.
Neither is optimal or worth the effort. Those who annoy like Bush and Gore should be taken to the woodshed and apanked. Dr. Spock has done a great dis service in advocating the sparing of the rod. It may well come to pass that some Joneser crosses the quantum field from overexcitement to the realm of the Crown of Creation to deliver a message of Ragnarök or aid and abet that cause to those who are in dire need of it.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#822 at 06-06-2007 03:08 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-06-2007, 03:08 PM #822
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
Burning coal emits SO2, Hg, radium, and not to mention an assortment of polycyclic aromatics. I can also add that it exposes those who mine the stuff to hazards as well. As for Al Gore, sure, I think he needs to go back to the garden and smoke some pot or at least get on Valium. He annoys me with that shrill rhetoric of his.
May I remind you of the "displaced cost" meme ? For Oil, it's the cost of defending the supply lines, for coal, it's all that filthy stuff that gets emitted when it's used. Sure it's an inexact science, but I'm sure there's a way to get some estimate of the costs of Hg emissions. Likewise SO2 gets converted to H2SO4 which is a rather strong mineral acid. So here we can estimate the costs of the trees the H2SO4 kills off and the fact that it is one of the components of acid rain, which ruins some water ways.
And of course you did say "other environmental issues". I just listed some of those and the rather high cost they , unto themselves present.
All of these can be readily removed from coal emissions for less than the cost of renewables. So if these things really were a problem, then I imagine all our coal power plants would use existing clean coal technology.

Coal can be used cleanly for less than the renewable alternatives. It can also be mined without raping the land. But to do so costs more than not doing them--but LESS than replacing coal with a renewable. So obviously, if GW is not an issue, then oil and gas will be replaced by clean coal (if you want to vote for that) that is mined without raping the land (if you want to vote for that). If enough people really voted against dirty coal and raping the land, then it wouldn't be happening. So if it is happening then that is because people don't care about H2SO4 or Hg in the air or raping the land, except for perhaps "tree-hugger" types like yourself and the Rani.

The only thing that makes coal not a solution to oil and gas shortages is GW. You have to sequester the CO2 to use coal if GW is a concern and that adds enough to the cost to make conservation the most profitable approach to energy shortage. It is conservation that makes alternates feasible by accomodating very expensive energy prices needed to make alternates make financial sense.

Know this if you get nothing else from this post. At $3 gallon NOTHING will ever replace gasoline. If gas has to cost this much, get used to walking because that's what you will be doing if you want to phase out oil use but insist on maintaining that price level. If gas can cost $10 a gallon, then it is easy to replace gasoline with something else.

The idea that we can replace $3 gas with $3 of something else that will give the same service as a gallon of petrol is a pipe dream.







Post#823 at 06-06-2007 04:01 PM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
06-06-2007, 04:01 PM #823
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
You can convert coal into gasoline. You can convert natural gas intogasoline too. So what's the problem?
I wonder about the scalability of that, as well as the EROEI at those scales

One wouldn't use just uranium, you would use thorium as well and there lots more of that. But coal is the quicker solution and doesn't carry the terrorism risk. If you have no problem with dumping 4 or 5 times the amount of CO2 and lots and lots of sulfur dioxide and other things into the air--then what the hey?
There's no reason to assume that skepticism about AGW means one is anti-environmentalist. The reason not to dump more coal-by products into the air is obvious, aside from aggravating my asthma while I ride bike for transportation. Wonder how many of the GW Blues are putting more shit into the air than those they condemn?







Post#824 at 06-06-2007 04:07 PM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
06-06-2007, 04:07 PM #824
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655








Post#825 at 06-06-2007 04:51 PM by scott 63 [at Birmingham joined Sep 2001 #posts 697]
---
06-06-2007, 04:51 PM #825
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Birmingham
Posts
697

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Know this if you get nothing else from this post. At $3 gallon NOTHING will ever replace gasoline. If gas has to cost this much, get used to walking because that's what you will be doing if you want to phase out oil use but insist on maintaining that price level. If gas can cost $10 a gallon, then it is easy to replace gasoline with something else.

The idea that we can replace $3 gas with $3 of something else that will give the same service as a gallon of petrol is a pipe dream.
Indeed. It is like the discussion of Peek Oil. Skeptics like to point out that new fields are being discovered, technology is allowing older fields to produce more and that there is all this tar sand in Canada! All true, of course. The point they elide is that all of these sources will cost more than the cheap stuff we are used to from the Persian Gulf, et al. It's not the absence of the resource, it's the cost.
Leave No Child Behind - Teach Evolution.
-----------------------------------------