How to deal with Global Warming

[moralist]

Lol Eva is a good barometer for how screwed up education is. I view her as the reason Objectivism is needed...

She's a product of today's government education system... a Kool Aid drinker. But then most kids start out like that. Some grow out of it as they mature. I agree that the moral values of Objectivism are needed to counter imprinting by the State.

Greg

[moralist]

Lol Eva is a good barometer for how screwed up education is. I view her as the reason Objectivism is needed...

It is truly sad.

Clearly she has a good mind. However, the infantile spelling of America with the "k," is frankly, sickenlng.

A...

It's done to elicit emotional reactions.

Greg

[Selene]

Lol Eva is a good barometer for how screwed up education is. I view her as the reason Objectivism is needed...

It is truly sad.

Clearly she has a good mind. However, the infantile spelling of America with the "k," is frankly, sickenlng.

A...

It's done to elicit emotional reactions.

Greg

No shit Greg...really?

Sorry long day.

A...

[eva matthews]

Lol Eva is a good barometer for how screwed up education is. I view her as the reason Objectivism is needed...

So at least we can agree that you amerikans have the wherewithal to look up 'anthropocene yourselves on Wiki, and perhaps 'Keeling curve, global ocean warming' as well? Progress, at last!

EM

Such a petulent child.

such a lazy ignoramus

[Jules Troy]

Eva read here:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2291

Marcus is actually a scientist, and this thread is pretty good, there is about 26 pages to the thread.

In the words of Russel Peters (comedian)

"Take it and go!"

[eva matthews]

Eva read here:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2291

Marcus is actually a scientist, and this thread is pretty good, there is about 26 pages to the thread.

In the words of Russel Peters (comedian)

"Take it and go!"

Jules,

No one denies that a minority of scientists disagree with human-caused global warming. Likewise, the HGW debate is clouded on both sides by scientists whose work is not directly involved in the issue.

Yes, only .45 of 1% of our atmosphere is CO2. This corresponds back to earth mean temperature on the Keeling Curve. An additional part of CO2 will give a commensurate raise in temperature, ceteris paribus.

Obviously the debate centers around accuracy of the measurements and data access. Of course,the large x factor is the absorption of CO2 into the oceans, obviously a huge problem in itself.

Lastly, both the measurements and the stochastic use of Keeling have been dramatically refined since they were first used by Hansen; with loopback configurations (Baysean, With new variables) the problem seems to be getting worse...

So where the 'no' side talks of ambiguity and contradiction among the 'yeses', the reality is that the data differences are new versus old, with modern simulations going 'chaotic'--which is obviously really, really bad.

EM

EM

[Selene]

Eva read here:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2291

Marcus is actually a scientist, and this thread is pretty good, there is about 26 pages to the thread.

In the words of Russel Peters (comedian)

"Take it and go!"

Jules,

No one denies that a minority of scientists disagree with human-caused global warming. Likewise, the HGW debate is clouded on both sides by scientists whose work is not directly involved in the issue.

Yes, only .45 of 1% of our atmosphere is CO2. This corresponds back to earth mean temperature on the Keeling Curve. An additional part of CO2 will give a commensurate raise in temperature, ceteris paribus.

Obviously the debate centers around accuracy of the measurements and data access. Of course,the large x factor is the absorption of CO2 into the oceans, obviously a huge problem in itself.

Lastly, both the measurements and the stochastic use of Keeling have been dramatically refined since they were first used by Hansen; with loopback configurations (Baysean, With new variables) the problem seems to be getting worse...

So where the 'no' side talks of ambiguity and contradiction among the 'yeses', the reality is that the data differences are new versus old, with modern simulations going 'chaotic'--which is obviously really, really bad.

EM

EM

Textbook...

Obviously the debate centers around accuracy of the measurements and data access. Of course,the large x factor is the absorption of CO2 into the oceans, obviously a huge problem in itself.

Now I ask our objective critical thinkers here, what does that sentence mean?

Notice the propaganda use of "obviously."

We exhale CO2, it is good.

Plants need CO₂ to survive, this is also good.

We need plants to feed to our animals and our selves so that we have a better life, this is also good.

A...

[Jules Troy]

Grow more trees.

Make R and D into alternative energies actually economically viable/ feasible as well as groundbreaking. If you want to change the world from using carbon heavy footprint resources you better come up with something revolutionary.

And it had better make the oil companies shit their pants because it is actually BETTER. Quit fucking around with solar/wind power bullshit it is crap and poses no threat to them.

[Selene]

Grow more trees.

Make R and D into alternative energies actually economically viable/ feasible as well as groundbreaking. If you want to change the world from using carbon heavy footprint resources you better come up with something revolutionary.

And it had better make the oil companies shit their pants because it is actually BETTER. Quit fucking around with solar/wind power bullshit it is crap and poses no threat to them.

Correct.

However, it does pose a threat to:

1) HUMANS - the dominant life form on the planet; and

2) EAGLES - that's enough proof for me.

A...

[Peter]

I know of a windmill on a roof near me, in a small ocean side town. I have no idea what it powers, but as a guess, maybe a TV or computer. It is very annoying. It sounds like a siren but not quite that loud. I am amazed the neighbors have not come for the owner with pitchforks – the kind you hit to sound a clear note, of course, and say me me me.

[Selene]

I know of a windmill on a roof near me, in a small ocean side town. I have no idea what it powers, but as a guess, maybe a TV or computer. It is very annoying. It sounds like a siren but not quite that loud. I am amazed the neighbors have not come for the owner with pitchforks – the kind you hit to sound a clear note, of course, and say me me me.

Peter:

Well worth the read:

Until recently, there were three main issues regarding the possible downsides of wind power: bird and­ bat deaths, cost, and disrupting the appearance of natural landscapes. But a new objection to wind power has popped up in the past few years, resting on the research of a few scientists. The latest argument states that wind power endangers the health of people who live near windmills. Some people call this theory "wind-turbine syndrome." Although the extent of the phenomenon is unknown, there does seem to be something to it.

­Those concerned about wind-power syndrome are interested in finding out if and how wind power could be making people sick. Is everyone living near windmills facing health probl­ems? Let's take a look at the possible health risks associated with wind farms and find out whether we should be worried about the steady increase in wind-generated power throughout the world.

It is four (4) internet pages long and well documented, e.g.,

Infrasound and The Body

­The rapidly spinning blades of huge wind turbines have an effect on their surroundings, and it goes beyond aesthetics. The blade tips of a wind turbine can spin at speeds­ of up to 80 meters per second, or about 180 miles per hour. In high winds, this rapid spinning can produce sound a­nd vibration -- in addition to disruptions in air pressure [source: MIT].

And here:

Infrasound is the primary issue for those concerned about wind-turbine syndrome. They also say that audible sound and vibrations contribute to the health problems reported by some people who live close to wind farms. Symptoms of wind-turbine syndrome might include:

• headaches
• sleep problems
• night terrors or learning disabilities in children
• ringing in the ears (tinnitus)
• mood problems (irritability, anxiety)
• concentration and memory problems
• issues with equilibrium, dizziness and nausea

These symptoms have been observed and documented by a limited number of scientists studying small groups of people, and the scientific community hasn't conclude­d whether wind-turbine syndrome exists. There are also mixed opinions on whether wind turbines emit infrasound and if the amount is any more than that emitted by diesel engines or waves crashing on the beach [source: CleanTechnica, ABC Science]. But we do know that at high speeds, wind turbines can produce an audible hum and vibration that can be carried through the air.

Sounds like the prototype for Stadler's Sonic Machine [sSM].

Good article:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbines-health.htm

[jts]

1. Global Warming:

There is no global warming (apart from minor ups and downs). That conspiracy was exposed long ago. So everybody quit worrying about it.

2. CO2:

Carbon dioxide is not a problem. It does not cause global warming. Global warming is not happening. If there is a problem to do with CO2, it is that Earth's atmosphere has a shortage of it. Plants would make much more efficient use of the sun's energy if the atmosphere had a greater concentration of CO2. Greenhouse growers buy carbon dioxide generators to double plant growth. So everybody get off that trip. Let's all of us burn more fossil fuels and make the biggest carbon footprint we can.

3. Fossil Fuels:

Not all of them came from dead plants and animals. There is biotic oil and there is abiotic oil. Abiotic oil comes from so deep that it can't have been made from plants and animals. We will never run out of abiotic oil. And it's not that hard to access it. Even if you pump an oil well dry, give it a few years and it is filled up again. Before we run out of abiotic oil, we will run out of oxygen in the atmosphere to burn it.

[Selene]

An addittonal destructive force of the marxist greens would be tow wipe out pertolium companies.

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how many other regular daily products that we use?

I will give you a hint...you will have to exceed the twenty digits of your hands and toes...

A....

[Ellen Stuttle]

See -The Chilling Stars- by Hans Svensmark.

Henrik Svensmark (not Hans)

Amazon link for The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change

Ellen

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

I will give you a hint...you will have to exceed the twenty digits of your hands and toes...

end quote

Speak for yourself, human.

[Jules Troy]

1. Global Warming:

There is no global warming (apart from minor ups and downs). That conspiracy was exposed long ago. So everybody quit worrying about it.

2. CO2:

Carbon dioxide is not a problem. It does not cause global warming. Global warming is not happening. If there is a problem to do with CO2, it is that Earth's atmosphere has a shortage of it. Plants would make much more efficient use of the sun's energy if the atmosphere had a greater concentration of CO2. Greenhouse growers buy carbon dioxide generators to double plant growth. So everybody get off that trip. Let's all of us burn more fossil fuels and make the biggest carbon footprint we can.

3. Fossil Fuels:

Not all of them came from dead plants and animals. There is biotic oil and there is abiotic oil. Abiotic oil comes from so deep that it can't have been made from plants and animals. We will never run out of abiotic oil. And it's not that hard to access it. Even if you pump an oil well dry, give it a few years and it is filled up again. Before we run out of abiotic oil, we will run out of oxygen in the atmosphere to burn it.

[Jules Troy]

Finally!

[BaalChatzaf]

1. Global Warming:

There is no global warming (apart from minor ups and downs). That conspiracy was exposed long ago. So everybody quit worrying about it.

2. CO2:

Carbon dioxide is not a problem. It does not cause global warming. Global warming is not happening. If there is a problem to do with CO2, it is that Earth's atmosphere has a shortage of it. Plants would make much more efficient use of the sun's energy if the atmosphere had a greater concentration of CO2. Greenhouse growers buy carbon dioxide generators to double plant growth. So everybody get off that trip. Let's all of us burn more fossil fuels and make the biggest carbon footprint we can.

3. Fossil Fuels:

Not all of them came from dead plants and animals. There is biotic oil and there is abiotic oil. Abiotic oil comes from so deep that it can't have been made from plants and animals. We will never run out of abiotic oil. And it's not that hard to access it. Even if you pump an oil well dry, give it a few years and it is filled up again. Before we run out of abiotic oil, we will run out of oxygen in the atmosphere to burn it.

Do you know what the Little Ice Age is? We had a 500 period of very low temperatures between 1300 c.e. and 1800 c.e. The Thames River froze over as did the canals in the Netherlands. That was very real and none of it was caused by human activity.

The there were the Siberian Traps which erupted about 250,000,000 years b.p.

Here were some of the effects:

This massive eruptive event spanned the Permian-Triassic boundary, about 250 million years ago, and is cited as a possible cause of thePermian-Triassic extinction event.^[6][2] One of the major questions is whether the Siberian Traps was directly responsible, or if it was itself caused by some other larger event, such as an asteroid impact.

This extinction event, also called the Great Dying, affected all life on Earth, and is estimated to have killed 90% of species living at the time.^[7]Life on land took at least 30 million years to fully recover from the environmental disruptions which may have been caused by the eruption of the Siberian Traps.^[8]Calculations of sea water temperature from δ¹⁸O measurements indicate that at its peak, the earth underwent lethally hot global warming, in which ocean temperatures exceeded 40°C (about 105 °F).

[Selene]

The there were the Siberian Traps which erupted about 250,000,000 years b.p.

What! b.p. - before Rand Pau!

[BaalChatzaf]

3. Fossil Fuels:

Not all of them came from dead plants and animals. There is biotic oil and there is abiotic oil. Abiotic oil comes from so deep that it can't have been made from plants and animals. We will never run out of abiotic oil. And it's not that hard to access it. Even if you pump an oil well dry, give it a few years and it is filled up again. Before we run out of abiotic oil, we will run out of oxygen in the atmosphere to burn it.

What hard empirical evidence for abiotic petroleum is there? Petroleum has actually been produced in laboratory from plant matter. Has anyone made petroleum simulating the conditions that exists deep in the earth? Artificial diamonds have actually been produces so the theory that diamonds are made from deep carbon deposits has some evidence behind it. Where is the simulated abiotic petroleum. Can you give some journal references?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jules Troy]

One big salt water hot tub! Who's bringing the wine?

[Jules Troy]

Apparently vikings in Newfoundland were growing grapes suggesting a much warmer climate in the 500 years that they lived there.

[jts]

3. Fossil Fuels:

Not all of them came from dead plants and animals. There is biotic oil and there is abiotic oil. Abiotic oil comes from so deep that it can't have been made from plants and animals. We will never run out of abiotic oil. And it's not that hard to access it. Even if you pump an oil well dry, give it a few years and it is filled up again. Before we run out of abiotic oil, we will run out of oxygen in the atmosphere to burn it.

What hard empirical evidence for abiotic petroleum is there? Petroleum has actually been produced in laboratory from plant matter. Has anyone made petroleum simulating the conditions that exists deep in the earth? Artificial diamonds have actually been produces so the theory that diamonds are made from deep carbon deposits has some evidence behind it. Where is the simulated abiotic petroleum. Can you give some journal references?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You don't need to simulate it. It was found at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, under a thousand feet of rock. It made a mess out of the Gulf of Mexico.

[BaalChatzaf]

3. Fossil Fuels:

Not all of them came from dead plants and animals. There is biotic oil and there is abiotic oil. Abiotic oil comes from so deep that it can't have been made from plants and animals. We will never run out of abiotic oil. And it's not that hard to access it. Even if you pump an oil well dry, give it a few years and it is filled up again. Before we run out of abiotic oil, we will run out of oxygen in the atmosphere to burn it.

What hard empirical evidence for abiotic petroleum is there? Petroleum has actually been produced in laboratory from plant matter. Has anyone made petroleum simulating the conditions that exists deep in the earth? Artificial diamonds have actually been produces so the theory that diamonds are made from deep carbon deposits has some evidence behind it. Where is the simulated abiotic petroleum. Can you give some journal references?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You don't need to simulate it. It was found at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, under a thousand feet of rock. It made a mess out of the Gulf of Mexico.

Not sufficient. That extraction does not eliminate the possibility that that oil deposit was made organically a long time ago, when North and South America broke off from the Super-Continent Godwanoland. That could have happened prior to 250,000,000 years b.p. What would make the Thomas Gold hypothesis very much alive is to produce petroleum under simulated conditions that could have been in place prior to the breakup into the present continents.

It is also possible that petroleum could be made both organically and non-organically, since we already have -produced- petroleum from organic matter. Also the Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic proteins could have formed very early. Amino acids such as occur in living organisms have been produced under conditions that might have existed even before the continents emerged from the magma beneath the earth's crust.

By the way the crust is so thick that man made drilling has barely scratch the surface. The crust is as much as 30 kilometers thick and the deepest hole drilled so far does not even go halfway. The bore holes that the oil companies make are nowhere near the thickness of the crust (break through locations for magma and "hot spots" excepted).

The Thomas Gold hypothesis of non-organic petroleum needs some beefing up up. This is not unusual. The Wegner hypothesis of tectonic plates was not nailed until around 1960 when alternations in paleomagnetic orientation were found in the crack in the mid Atlantic. The ocean bottom at the crack appears to be less than 100,000,000 years old but the Earth is over four billion years old. The only way for that discovery to happen is for molten stuff to come up from between two plates and by subduction which is pushing the Atlantic Ocean wider and wider.

The non-organic petroleum hypothesis needs more work and I have no doubt that if it is true it will be empirically verified in good time much as the tectonic plate was corroborated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jules Troy]

I read the same thing, abiotic oil theory is not in favor but cannot be discounted with current technology.