The rise of autism has me worried. It was a few years ago that I started to wonder what is going on. All of a sudden it seemed that people were having all kinds of problems that had never been on my radar except in a few rare cases. Autism is one such problem. Others include ADHD, OCD. Then I seemed to be surrounded by people with allergies. In forty years I had only known a handful of people with allergies. What is going on I thought? Am I imagining all this? Was I just not paying attention in the past? Are doctors exaggerating things? Are the suffers imagining it?
Wow, I'm not imagining it. It's really has grown exponentially since I was born. This is really scary. What is going on?
Recently I was reading an article about obesity. A worry in the USA and such because it has been growing recently. Turns out obesity is on the rise even in countries where diets and life styles have hardly changed in a century. Turns out that animals are getting obese. Even lab rats and others that have a carefully monitored and regulated diet. What is going on there? Wish I could find a link to that analysis.
I have no suggestions but the way this all correlates gives me cause for concern.
You came to the right place. I have spent a lifetime studying this stuff and we can talk about it for a long time without the conversation going stale.
I can't do much today life happens.
I am curious about your comments regarding relaxation oscillators and I think you are on to something. The one obvious place to look for this sort of mechanism would be the interplay of orbital mechanics and local(Earth) gravitational effects. When I try to do this with the graph, I come up far short of the data. My brain says that there should be more equality between the epochs (I know it is me, but that is the best I can do with it).
Next time you do a core dump, try to put some numbers into your thinking.
I may have missed a point here but why would you want to be drinking distilled water?
For sure it's not possible for nature to replace fossil fuels faster than we burn it or turn it into plastic. We are not getting any more Helium either. There are dozens of other resources that are in pretty short supply.
I like dialogue and I'm open to adjusting flaws in my thinking. I trust myself more than these other sources.
Tap water is monitored more thoroughly than bottled water and tap water has an odor.
I don't accept that we have 'eliminate' petroleum use.
I've read that petroleum could be abiotic. Petroleum has been found at lower levels than prehistoric life.
The numbers don't fully support 'global warming' arguments.
On any given day you might see a number of cloud trails. I've asked "Why so many?"
Why would a food package say "Contains REAL fruit!" not to mention 'shelf-life'.
I prefer butter over 'polymer-like' margerine.
What if the concern about carbon emissions was really about (fill in the blank)?
If on the grid, the grid can be the storage. If off grid, the batteries get expensive. Lead acids can't be deep cycled, and when you work out the number of charges and the cost per charge with the battery price and lifetime included, they seem to be around $1 per kwh. Far too high. I've been researching LiFePo4 batteries. Much longer life than lead acids and don't explode like LiPo batteries. Cost more, but they are being used in electric bikes in China which is a large mass market so hopefully the cost will come down. The other interesting batteries are Edison's original NiFe battery - still being made in China somewhere and they are indestructible - people have resurrected them after decades of not being used. And then there are flow batteries. Much to explore with these.
What is the RV project you are making?
LiFEPo4 being used in China? Methings that the sales material might say that, but you soon realize when you look at the charger voltages that it must be something else... like LiMn0 or LiPO. After all, how many electric bike owners really understand how to verifty that their bike really has LiFEPo4?
Nonetheless, the LiFEPo4 is a great chemistry as long as your don't have a failure that might outgas flourine. (The problem with chemistry is that there is always something toxic that moves the ions in large quantities.)
I just stopped home to drop off my groceries and I don't have long because I promised my grandson I would be over soon,
but you guys are just too good… so I have to weigh in a little on some of this.
Water… nobody ever tells you the truth about what is in the water… and if they did, you probably would make your own. We fluoridate the water here… sounds harmless enough.
But if you were born in most parts of Africa, where they don't fluoridate the water, and then you come to the U.S… at the right age and in the right condition, your thyroid goes nuts.
Radium… not good. If we hadn't had radium in our water, I probably wouldn't have spent half of my childhood in bed, sick. And I probably would have some teeth in my head.
Hint… if you have radium in your water, you can largely chelate it out of your body with Penicillin… that's what I said. Don't ask, because I'm not going to talk about it further.
I'll talk about carbon taxes later…maybe. Loopy, I don't mind venting fluorine into my neighbors yard since they don't mind blasting music into mine…but I just don't like batteries for storing energy yet… they are great for transporting energy.
I think they can be made to work for transportation, not because they are an ecologic solution… but because electronics is just more fun and could easily become way cheaper than using gas.
I have yet to see a well engineered electric car that can't compete with the performance of gas fueled cars in every way except for the energy density of the fuel. Hydrogen is pretty interesting.
I'm glad Arnold likes it and that California can afford to build a test infra-structure for it.
Heater,
The increase in disease may have something to do with the increase use of chemicals and processing in our food.
The increased use of plastic which gives off volatile compounds when it's new may also have something to do with it. "New car" smell is caused by this.
And then there are the chemicals used in building materials, gasoline, household products, etc.
The problem is that in many of these problem areas, we don't really have enough information to be absolutely certain what we should do next.
I guess that's true. We don't know what to do next. But it is perfectly clear what we need to stop doing, which is pumping a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere at a rate not seen in the last 425,000 years and expecting it will have no effect on our climate.
But we know that we should be doing something. Cultural and social diversity can mimic the role of biodiversity in nature. With enough diversity, not all of the life forms in a particular ecosphere will survive a major stress to an ecosphere, but some will.
And you can call me "species-ist" if you want to, but I would rather humankind was among the ones that survive.
By the way, looking at that nice graph of CO2 and temperature over the millenia, those peaks and troughs look like some kind of relaxation oscillator producing a saw tooth wave. Do you know of any explanations has to why CO2 and T shot up so rapidly when they did? Or Why it was limited to the peaks it achieved? Or why they ramped slowly back down again? Curious.
The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is astoundingly strong, but the explanation as to the initial trigger is less clear. Especially when there are so many other factors that may influence this cycle, including orbital variations, axial tilt and albedo. However, the evidence is clear that CO2 has a positive feedback effect on temperature rise.
A paper which discusses this is here. I don't claim it is accurate, but it claims that feedback effects between these factors could produce this kind of outcome. A very simple possibility (which also doesn't identify the initial trigger) is that once the effect starts you get a runaway reinforcement (from the greenhouse effect) until some other factor takes over to counteract it (e.g. increased albedo from higher moisture content in the air). In the presence of a periodic trigger (such as orbital variations) you might then expect to see pretty much this kind of ragged and cyclic saw-tooth.
The real problem is that if this (or something like it) is true, then we have now broken this cycle in a big way, and should expect significant consequences.
RossH, I agree with much that you say. Hydrogen as an alternative fuel dominates my thoughts at the moment. There was a recent Yahoo story about Chinese people 'paying' for a bag of fresh air. 40 miles north of NYC along the Hudson river you can see haze above the city. I remember when NYC dumped trash into the Atlantic!
I'm 60. The place where my grandfather used to take me fishing smells like a toilet. There's a water treatment plant there. You can see a 'bathtub ring' at low tide and the fish are largely gone.
Invasive species like the Asian Carp have probably already made it to the great lakes. They will only join those other invaders that got there in ballast water from ships. I doubt this can be reversed.
We don't yet have a solution for "Colony Collapse Disorder" in the bee population which will affect our food supply.
My political hot potato is I think paper should be made from hemp! (I'm gonna duck now) I believe it would slow deforestation. It also requires less caustic chemicals to process the fibers.
My biggest concern with the global warming issue is the danger of a global tax. I think it will ultimately lead to the loss of freedom. 'We' are better equipped to find solutions than the political elites.
My biggest concern with the global warming issue is the danger of a global tax. I think it will ultimately lead to the loss of freedom. 'We' are better equipped to find solutions than the political elites.
My problem with this is that it is effectively a "do nothing" argument, indistinguishable from the climate change denier's final argument (once you have pointed out all the flaws in their other arguments) that yes climate change is real, yes we caused it, and yes it is dangerous - but we should do nothing anyway because it is now too late, too difficult or too expensive.
I was just thinking about that amazing CO2 and temperature graph. What I see is CO2 and T going up and down repeatedly in lock step over milenia. A very strong correlation by the looks of it.
What I don't see is the next part:
However, the evidence is clear that CO2 has a positive feedback effect on temperature rise.
CO2 and T go up together, hit some threshold, and come down together, and so on.
From that graph we cannot say what is driving all this,
That's not to say there is not a ton of other evidence for positive feed back.
I think Global Warming is actually a question not about physical science but one of psychological or sociological or perhaps even pharmaceutical science.
If we had a situation in which 100% of the human race could be convinced that Global Warming is caused 100% by human beings, would enough people want to do enough about it to prevent catastrophe?
I think the answer, sadly, is no.
Why?
People know that smoking causes cancer, but smoke they do.
Building cities on earthquake faults is idiotic, yet cities on earthquake faults continue to expand.
Building cities near oceans is borderline stupid, thanks to tsunamis and hurricanes, but tell that to most of the human race, which continues to pile itself up near the oceans.
Being obese will shorten a person's life, but most Americans like their pizza, cheesesteaks and beer.
I know a lot of people who drive without wearing seat belts, or, when on a motorcycle, they don't wear a helmet even though they know their chances for surviving a crash are greatly reduced.
I think you get my point. While I think it's essential that scientific research discovers the truth about global interactions of pollutants, etc., I seriously doubt enough would ever be done by our species to fix the problem directly. A fix would probably come almost by accident before you could ever get the mass of humanity to make any sensible decision or take any effective action that wouldn't be worse than the thing they're trying to fix.
I think so long as there are enough Xboxes and Prozac tablets to go around, future generations will feel just fine about whatever happens to them.
Well, unless, of course, the Earth ends up like the planet Venus.
There is no way in hell we are getting off this rock.
I have a plan!!!!
What we do is turn those wind farms into "fan" farms... turn the fans West. As the rotation of the Earth gradually increases, the effective pull of gravity will lessen... and one day we, and all of our farting cows, will just float away.
What we do is turn those wind farms into "fan" farms... turn the fans West. As the rotation of the Earth gradually increases, the effective pull of gravity will lessen... and one day we, and all of our farting cows, will just float away.
RossH... please believe me that I am not arguing any particular point of view. I'm just looking at the data everyone is using to try to prove there points.
Most of the conversation makes sense to me. For example... that CO2 levels are rising because there is the rate of natural production and manmade production places a small amount of CO2 into the atmosphere that simply cannot be re-utilized by natural cycles. I have no problem with this assertion. It does appear to be true. And I have no problem with the idea that even if man's contribution to CO2 production is small...the accumulation process means that CO2 levels will continue to rise... possibly by nearly the same amount that we are generating. I don't know if this is true or not...but I can assume it to be true and then reason forward from it. If someone eventually proves it, then I would use it as a fact and not as an assumption.
So far, so good.
Here is where we might disagree a little... but not much.
First... any net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere implies that there is an imbalance between the production of CO2 and the rates of natural utilization and absorption.
So, according to the data that everyone is using... we have to admit that throughout the warming cycles, we have always seen evidence of an imbalance. I am not saying that what we looking at today is exactly the same... I am just saying that the natural trend during warming cycles is an imbalance between production and use (natural).
First... any net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere implies that there is an imbalance between the production of CO2 and the rates of natural utilization and absorption.
So, according to the data that everyone is using... we have to admit that throughout the warming cycles, we have always seen evidence of an imbalance. I am not saying that what we looking at today is exactly the same... I am just saying that the natural trend during warming cycles is an imbalance between production and use (natural).
OK so far?
No. We have hard physical evidence that there has not been the kind of CO2 imbalance that we are seeing now - not at any time in the last 425,000 years. In fact, according to this article and this article, the last time CO2 levels were this high:
- Was probably 15 million years ago.
- Human's didn't exist
- Sea level was 30 metres higher than now
- Temperatures were 4-6 degrees (centigrade) higher than they are now.
Is it possible that sensible people the world over have realized the gigs up for the human race?
That is one of the things I am afraid of...because it makes genocide look inconsequential and to some it might make genocide look like a solution.
These things happen in the real world and they are always associated with an ideology. From the graphs it looks that at some point global warming would reverse.
The issue really is... is mankind's impact really strong enough to keep that reversal from happening? Or is it possible that by pumping excess CO2 into the environment, we will cause that reversal to happen sooner... and what exactly is that mechanism? Loss of habitat to ice is something that has to be considered. A decrease in vulcanism would be on the list.
The thermosphere seems to be contracting as we speak, doesn't that seem to indicate that we might be close to the point that a reversal might begin?
The point was simply that you cannot have increasing CO2 without an imbalance. I didn't talk about the magnitude of the imbalance.
Well, one of us is certainly saying something that doesn't make sense.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the measure of the imbalance between CO2 production and absorption. And the cause of the current staggering imbalance is ... well, us!
The thermosphere seems to be contracting as we speak, doesn't that seem to indicate that we might be close to the point that a reversal might begin?
What else?
I pointed out to you you earlier in this thread that the cooling and contraction of the stratosphere (which you seem to think is a hopeful sign) is most likely being caused by the warming of the troposphere - as more heat energy is retained there, there is naturally less heat energy radiating out to warm the stratosphere. Hence it cools and contracts.
I pointed out to you you earlier in this thread that the cooling and contraction of the stratosphere (which you seem to think is a hopeful sign) is most likely being caused by the warming of the troposphere - as more heat energy is retained there, there is naturally less heat energy radiating out to warm the stratosphere. Hence it cools and contracts.
Actually I missed that particular post. But I don't think I ever talked about the stratosphere. I believe you are referring to a statement by the Office of Naval Research, which said that CO2 in the thermosphere would cause that layer of the atmosphere (the thermosphere) to contract. They didn't say why. If the thermosphere was collapsing because of warming of the troposphere, then that is how they would have phrased it... but they didn't. They were quite specific.
maybe they were misquoted. But I am neither encouraged or nor discouraged about it. It is just a fact that needs to be considered.
Right now, I don't know what to make about it.
I believe you are referring to a statement by the Office of Naval Research, which said that CO2 in the thermosphere would cause that layer of the atmosphere (the thermosphere) to contract. They didn't say why.
Yes, that's the one. You still don't seem to understand what that article is telling you. Lookhere for a simpler explanation as to why the contraction of the thermosphere is evidence for global warming, not hope that we might escape from global warming. Here is a relevant extract:
CO2 in the lower thermosphere is the dominant cooling agent, since it traps heat in the lower regions of the atmosphere, so increased concentration of CO2 will lead to a cooler, more contracted thermosphere.
But make sure you read all the way to the end, to see the real bad news. But I don't want to misrepresent them - note that here they are talking not only about CO2, but also about other anthropogenic chemical changes:
The latter could represent an ominous change. As the authors themselves put it, "If changes in the radiative properties of the MLT [mesosphere and lower thermosphere] are responsible for the temperature and composition changes of the upper thermosphere, then the density anomalies may signify that an as yet unidentified climatological tipping point, involving energy balance and chemistry feedbacks, has been reached."
And co2, compound that with the electricity I am wasting for everyone that had to also waste their valuable seconds, and you have a real need for a carbon tax scheme.
Then people like me would be forced to PAY to waste valuable time. Its a win-win scenario, lets get those carbon taxes implemented, ASAP!!!!
Then forums, most of the internet, entire industries, THE PUSH FOR FASTER CLOCK SPEEDS AT THE EXPENSE OF WASTED HEAT, would never exist.
There would be no such thing as a consumer high end computer gaming market for advanced hardware.
Corporations and governments would be the only entities able to afford a 4ghz chip, simply due to the power consumption involved.
(but why do you need it, is always the argument)
Energy efficient products come after the initial product gains market share, at which point the R&D can be paid to develop the new generation of more efficient products.
People, organizations, companies don't just dump money into a new idea, with the initial intent of making it as efficient as universally possible, they make it as efficient as RETAIL markets allow.
And if retail markets don't allow products that are expensive to R&D due to the need for energy efficiency, they don't get developed, they end up on the shelf at some corporation.
If a carbon tax scheme is implemented, nothing will get developed that initially wastes electricity for functionality.
That 1ghz chip inside your phone that is super energy efficient, didn't START that way, it started as a transistor the size of your thumb, actually it looked like an ANVIL.
Which wasted tons of electricity and heat.
If the consumer market was forced to avoid that transistor due to oppressed electricity prices from a tax scheme, where would we be today?
That means you can throw the invention of the microchip away, as initially it wasted tons of electricity for almost no functionality, as many tried to say.
"But what...is it good for?" - Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968 (commenting on the microchip).
At which point we will probably develop technology that turns sunlight into energy using similar mechanisms as plants, thereby consuming co2 and turning it into o2, and carbon square terds (releasing the extra bond), where some bureaucrat will come up with the genius idea of implementing oxygen taxes. (because there will be too much oxygen, which is more a threat to our plants and food supply)
Or perhaps nature will do what it always does, find balance. (p.s. humans are a force of NATURE)
Your lack of faith in TECHNOLOGY, and HUMANITY is frankly, distrubing.
Comments
The rise of autism has me worried. It was a few years ago that I started to wonder what is going on. All of a sudden it seemed that people were having all kinds of problems that had never been on my radar except in a few rare cases. Autism is one such problem. Others include ADHD, OCD. Then I seemed to be surrounded by people with allergies. In forty years I had only known a handful of people with allergies. What is going on I thought? Am I imagining all this? Was I just not paying attention in the past? Are doctors exaggerating things? Are the suffers imagining it?
Then I find statistics like this: http://blog.autismspeaks.org/2010/10/22/got-questions-answers-to-your-questions-from-the-autism-speaks%E2%80%99-science-staff-2/
Wow, I'm not imagining it. It's really has grown exponentially since I was born. This is really scary. What is going on?
Recently I was reading an article about obesity. A worry in the USA and such because it has been growing recently. Turns out obesity is on the rise even in countries where diets and life styles have hardly changed in a century. Turns out that animals are getting obese. Even lab rats and others that have a carefully monitored and regulated diet. What is going on there? Wish I could find a link to that analysis.
I have no suggestions but the way this all correlates gives me cause for concern.
You came to the right place. I have spent a lifetime studying this stuff and we can talk about it for a long time without the conversation going stale.
I can't do much today life happens.
I am curious about your comments regarding relaxation oscillators and I think you are on to something. The one obvious place to look for this sort of mechanism would be the interplay of orbital mechanics and local(Earth) gravitational effects. When I try to do this with the graph, I come up far short of the data. My brain says that there should be more equality between the epochs (I know it is me, but that is the best I can do with it).
Next time you do a core dump, try to put some numbers into your thinking.
Thanks
Off to the warmth of the midwest nice day here.
Rich
Tap water is monitored more thoroughly than bottled water and tap water has an odor.
I don't accept that we have 'eliminate' petroleum use.
I've read that petroleum could be abiotic. Petroleum has been found at lower levels than prehistoric life.
The numbers don't fully support 'global warming' arguments.
On any given day you might see a number of cloud trails. I've asked "Why so many?"
Why would a food package say "Contains REAL fruit!" not to mention 'shelf-life'.
I prefer butter over 'polymer-like' margerine.
What if the concern about carbon emissions was really about (fill in the blank)?
LiFEPo4 being used in China? Methings that the sales material might say that, but you soon realize when you look at the charger voltages that it must be something else... like LiMn0 or LiPO. After all, how many electric bike owners really understand how to verifty that their bike really has LiFEPo4?
Nonetheless, the LiFEPo4 is a great chemistry as long as your don't have a failure that might outgas flourine. (The problem with chemistry is that there is always something toxic that moves the ions in large quantities.)
but you guys are just too good… so I have to weigh in a little on some of this.
Water… nobody ever tells you the truth about what is in the water… and if they did, you probably would make your own. We fluoridate the water here… sounds harmless enough.
But if you were born in most parts of Africa, where they don't fluoridate the water, and then you come to the U.S… at the right age and in the right condition, your thyroid goes nuts.
Radium… not good. If we hadn't had radium in our water, I probably wouldn't have spent half of my childhood in bed, sick. And I probably would have some teeth in my head.
Hint… if you have radium in your water, you can largely chelate it out of your body with Penicillin… that's what I said. Don't ask, because I'm not going to talk about it further.
I'll talk about carbon taxes later…maybe. Loopy, I don't mind venting fluorine into my neighbors yard since they don't mind blasting music into mine…but I just don't like batteries for storing energy yet… they are great for transporting energy.
I think they can be made to work for transportation, not because they are an ecologic solution… but because electronics is just more fun and could easily become way cheaper than using gas.
I have yet to see a well engineered electric car that can't compete with the performance of gas fueled cars in every way except for the energy density of the fuel. Hydrogen is pretty interesting.
I'm glad Arnold likes it and that California can afford to build a test infra-structure for it.
The increase in disease may have something to do with the increase use of chemicals and processing in our food.
The increased use of plastic which gives off volatile compounds when it's new may also have something to do with it. "New car" smell is caused by this.
And then there are the chemicals used in building materials, gasoline, household products, etc.
I guess that's true. We don't know what to do next. But it is perfectly clear what we need to stop doing, which is pumping a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere at a rate not seen in the last 425,000 years and expecting it will have no effect on our climate.
And you can call me "species-ist" if you want to, but I would rather humankind was among the ones that survive.
Ross.
Problem is that the human race now has the power to f'up the environment globally.
Diversity may well ensure that some life survives.
Might be the roaches though.
The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is astoundingly strong, but the explanation as to the initial trigger is less clear. Especially when there are so many other factors that may influence this cycle, including orbital variations, axial tilt and albedo. However, the evidence is clear that CO2 has a positive feedback effect on temperature rise.
A paper which discusses this is here. I don't claim it is accurate, but it claims that feedback effects between these factors could produce this kind of outcome. A very simple possibility (which also doesn't identify the initial trigger) is that once the effect starts you get a runaway reinforcement (from the greenhouse effect) until some other factor takes over to counteract it (e.g. increased albedo from higher moisture content in the air). In the presence of a periodic trigger (such as orbital variations) you might then expect to see pretty much this kind of ragged and cyclic saw-tooth.
The real problem is that if this (or something like it) is true, then we have now broken this cycle in a big way, and should expect significant consequences.
Ross.
I'm 60. The place where my grandfather used to take me fishing smells like a toilet. There's a water treatment plant there. You can see a 'bathtub ring' at low tide and the fish are largely gone.
Invasive species like the Asian Carp have probably already made it to the great lakes. They will only join those other invaders that got there in ballast water from ships. I doubt this can be reversed.
We don't yet have a solution for "Colony Collapse Disorder" in the bee population which will affect our food supply.
My political hot potato is I think paper should be made from hemp! (I'm gonna duck now) I believe it would slow deforestation. It also requires less caustic chemicals to process the fibers.
My biggest concern with the global warming issue is the danger of a global tax. I think it will ultimately lead to the loss of freedom. 'We' are better equipped to find solutions than the political elites.
My problem with this is that it is effectively a "do nothing" argument, indistinguishable from the climate change denier's final argument (once you have pointed out all the flaws in their other arguments) that yes climate change is real, yes we caused it, and yes it is dangerous - but we should do nothing anyway because it is now too late, too difficult or too expensive.
Not implyng this is true in your case of course.
Ross.
What I see is CO2 and T going up and down repeatedly in lock step over milenia. A very strong correlation by the looks of it.
What I don't see is the next part:
CO2 and T go up together, hit some threshold, and come down together, and so on.
From that graph we cannot say what is driving all this,
That's not to say there is not a ton of other evidence for positive feed back.
If we had a situation in which 100% of the human race could be convinced that Global Warming is caused 100% by human beings, would enough people want to do enough about it to prevent catastrophe?
I think the answer, sadly, is no.
Why?
People know that smoking causes cancer, but smoke they do.
Building cities on earthquake faults is idiotic, yet cities on earthquake faults continue to expand.
Building cities near oceans is borderline stupid, thanks to tsunamis and hurricanes, but tell that to most of the human race, which continues to pile itself up near the oceans.
Being obese will shorten a person's life, but most Americans like their pizza, cheesesteaks and beer.
I know a lot of people who drive without wearing seat belts, or, when on a motorcycle, they don't wear a helmet even though they know their chances for surviving a crash are greatly reduced.
I think you get my point. While I think it's essential that scientific research discovers the truth about global interactions of pollutants, etc., I seriously doubt enough would ever be done by our species to fix the problem directly. A fix would probably come almost by accident before you could ever get the mass of humanity to make any sensible decision or take any effective action that wouldn't be worse than the thing they're trying to fix.
I think so long as there are enough Xboxes and Prozac tablets to go around, future generations will feel just fine about whatever happens to them.
Well, unless, of course, the Earth ends up like the planet Venus.
There is no way in hell we are getting off this rock. There is no where to go. And if there was space is just too damn big to get there.
So here we are stuck, with resources diminishing all the time. Nothing but a slow fall to oblivion ahead of us.
The peak of human achievement was during the 1960's when we did at least get a man on the moon and had StarTrek dreams.
Might as well continue partying whilst the ship sinks. As it were.
Yo, Bro! There's like some totally epic iPhone games for that!
I have a plan!!!!
What we do is turn those wind farms into "fan" farms... turn the fans West. As the rotation of the Earth gradually increases, the effective pull of gravity will lessen... and one day we, and all of our farting cows, will just float away.
Correct. This is not even really in dispute, except by hard line deniers who probably also think the Sun still orbits the Earth.
Ross.
You've been inhaling too much helium again, rjo__
Most of the conversation makes sense to me. For example... that CO2 levels are rising because there is the rate of natural production and manmade production places a small amount of CO2 into the atmosphere that simply cannot be re-utilized by natural cycles. I have no problem with this assertion. It does appear to be true. And I have no problem with the idea that even if man's contribution to CO2 production is small...the accumulation process means that CO2 levels will continue to rise... possibly by nearly the same amount that we are generating. I don't know if this is true or not...but I can assume it to be true and then reason forward from it. If someone eventually proves it, then I would use it as a fact and not as an assumption.
So far, so good.
Here is where we might disagree a little... but not much.
First... any net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere implies that there is an imbalance between the production of CO2 and the rates of natural utilization and absorption.
So, according to the data that everyone is using... we have to admit that throughout the warming cycles, we have always seen evidence of an imbalance. I am not saying that what we looking at today is exactly the same... I am just saying that the natural trend during warming cycles is an imbalance between production and use (natural).
OK so far?
No. We have hard physical evidence that there has not been the kind of CO2 imbalance that we are seeing now - not at any time in the last 425,000 years. In fact, according to this article and this article, the last time CO2 levels were this high:
- Was probably 15 million years ago.
- Human's didn't exist
- Sea level was 30 metres higher than now
- Temperatures were 4-6 degrees (centigrade) higher than they are now.
That is one of the things I am afraid of...because it makes genocide look inconsequential and to some it might make genocide look like a solution.
These things happen in the real world and they are always associated with an ideology. From the graphs it looks that at some point global warming would reverse.
The issue really is... is mankind's impact really strong enough to keep that reversal from happening? Or is it possible that by pumping excess CO2 into the environment, we will cause that reversal to happen sooner... and what exactly is that mechanism? Loss of habitat to ice is something that has to be considered. A decrease in vulcanism would be on the list.
The thermosphere seems to be contracting as we speak, doesn't that seem to indicate that we might be close to the point that a reversal might begin?
What else?
Either I am not saying it correctly or you are reading something into what I am saying that I am not trying to say:)
The point was simply that you cannot have increasing CO2 without an imbalance. I didn't talk about the magnitude of the imbalance.
Well, one of us is certainly saying something that doesn't make sense.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the measure of the imbalance between CO2 production and absorption. And the cause of the current staggering imbalance is ... well, us!
I pointed out to you you earlier in this thread that the cooling and contraction of the stratosphere (which you seem to think is a hopeful sign) is most likely being caused by the warming of the troposphere - as more heat energy is retained there, there is naturally less heat energy radiating out to warm the stratosphere. Hence it cools and contracts.
Ross.
Actually I missed that particular post. But I don't think I ever talked about the stratosphere. I believe you are referring to a statement by the Office of Naval Research, which said that CO2 in the thermosphere would cause that layer of the atmosphere (the thermosphere) to contract. They didn't say why. If the thermosphere was collapsing because of warming of the troposphere, then that is how they would have phrased it... but they didn't. They were quite specific.
Right now, I don't know what to make about it.
Yes, that's the one. You still don't seem to understand what that article is telling you. Look here for a simpler explanation as to why the contraction of the thermosphere is evidence for global warming, not hope that we might escape from global warming. Here is a relevant extract:
But make sure you read all the way to the end, to see the real bad news. But I don't want to misrepresent them - note that here they are talking not only about CO2, but also about other anthropogenic chemical changes:
Ross.
Plus science, and charts, and graphs, and stuff interpreted how I wish them to be.
YOUR opinion is INVALID, because: I SAY SO!
Please don't do that. You are wasting valuable seconds of my life.
Then people like me would be forced to PAY to waste valuable time. Its a win-win scenario, lets get those carbon taxes implemented, ASAP!!!!
Then forums, most of the internet, entire industries, THE PUSH FOR FASTER CLOCK SPEEDS AT THE EXPENSE OF WASTED HEAT, would never exist.
There would be no such thing as a consumer high end computer gaming market for advanced hardware.
Corporations and governments would be the only entities able to afford a 4ghz chip, simply due to the power consumption involved.
(but why do you need it, is always the argument)
Energy efficient products come after the initial product gains market share, at which point the R&D can be paid to develop the new generation of more efficient products.
People, organizations, companies don't just dump money into a new idea, with the initial intent of making it as efficient as universally possible, they make it as efficient as RETAIL markets allow.
And if retail markets don't allow products that are expensive to R&D due to the need for energy efficiency, they don't get developed, they end up on the shelf at some corporation.
If a carbon tax scheme is implemented, nothing will get developed that initially wastes electricity for functionality.
That 1ghz chip inside your phone that is super energy efficient, didn't START that way, it started as a transistor the size of your thumb, actually it looked like an ANVIL.
Which wasted tons of electricity and heat.
If the consumer market was forced to avoid that transistor due to oppressed electricity prices from a tax scheme, where would we be today?
That means you can throw the invention of the microchip away, as initially it wasted tons of electricity for almost no functionality, as many tried to say.
If co2 didn't help plant growth, then why is GE actively involved in it? Why do food producers actually buy co2 for their green houses? Why do pot growers use it? etc....
http://www.ecomagination.com/ge-powers-first-co2-capturing-greenhouse-in-us
We will reach a point very soon when technology will power its self just from environmental heat due to major advances in microchip technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect#Applications
Then we will have a reverse problem, global cooling, the universe's black body temperature of background radiation is about 3 K (−270 °C; −454 °F)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space#Environment
At which point we will probably develop technology that turns sunlight into energy using similar mechanisms as plants, thereby consuming co2 and turning it into o2, and carbon square terds (releasing the extra bond), where some bureaucrat will come up with the genius idea of implementing oxygen taxes. (because there will be too much oxygen, which is more a threat to our plants and food supply)
Or perhaps nature will do what it always does, find balance. (p.s. humans are a force of NATURE)
Your lack of faith in TECHNOLOGY, and HUMANITY is frankly, distrubing.