48 replies to this topic

[Jabadoodle]

Hey All!

Putting this one up early in case anyone wants to watch over the weekend. It's another available on NetFlix streaming. We're all okay with that, yes? I think this fits nicely with TASB's choice and it might fit TEO's request for uplifting.
 

Two questions I'd love to hear your thoughts on: Assuming you believe in human-made global climate change, do you think there's a tipping point after which we will have lost the ability to change the outcome? Do you think the results will be harmful but manageable or do you think it's possible/likely this could be catastrophic to all/most life on the plant. 
 

 

[china cat]

Will watch this week, just clicked it on and saw first few minutes (it's so you. Always reasoned middle ground )

 

Tim just pointed out the title of the thread says Coot it instead of Cool it. lol

[Jabadoodle]

Tim just pointed out the title of the thread says Coot it instead of Cool it. lol

 

Coots are medium-sized water birds that are members of the Rail family 

[TEO]

Interesting how there are some green technologies which seem to be quite promising, yet we hear very little about them.

 

If "painting" city surfaces white or light colors and using other paving materials could reduce temperatures so dramatically why are they not being more greatly employed?

 

Does it come down to $ and power rather than the greater good?  Make energy from waste water while cleaning it up?  What is the downside?

 

I suspect there is a tipping point from which we can not recover once we deplete enough forest and vegetation. 

[hoagie]

I suspect we passed that tipping point already

[concert andy]

I suspect we passed that tipping point already

 

I do not buy into this 100%, do we have some impact? absolutely.  

 

 

See my thread on Global Warming or Cycles of the Sun?

 

 

(my overall point is the earth has frozen and been hot quite a few times in the last billion years, and there was no man causing this swing from hot to cold then.)

[hoagie]

I do not buy into this 100%, do we have some impact? absolutely.


See my thread on Global Warming or Cycles of the Sun?


(my overall point is the earth has frozen and been hot quite a few times in the last billion years, and there was no man causing this swing from hot to cold then.)

I dont think the "tipping point" has anything to do with the natural cycle of warming and cooling.

[TakeAStepBack]

It also doesn't explain why the rest of the solar system is heating up either. I'll watch this tonight and give feedback.

[concert andy]

I dont think the "tipping point" has anything to do with the natural cycle of warming and cooling.

 

So how do we explain hot times or the planet being frozen in history?

 

What was the tipping point then?

[concert andy]

It also doesn't explain why the rest of the solar system is heating up either. I'll watch this tonight and give feedback.

 

If the rest of the solar system is heating up, wouldn't that imply that the sun is getting hotter?

 

No humans on other planets effecting their climate.

[hoagie]

Shortages of clean water, contamination of fertile ground, collapse of many habitats, filling of estuaries and washout of silt into oceans.

[hoagie]

As the solar system heats up, we will consume even more power, resorces, and grow less food due to the change.

[concert andy]

Shortages of clean water, contamination of fertile ground, collapse of many habitats, filling of estuaries and washout of silt into oceans.

 

Those sound like tipping points for today, not historically.

[TEO]

Are we accelerating aspects of this process, thereby shortening our length of stay on the planet?

[hoagie]

Those sound like tipping points for today, not historically.

Isnt that the topic at hand?

[concert andy]

Isnt that the topic at hand?

 

No, but I asked the following question prior to your response.

 

So how do we explain hot times or the planet being frozen in history?

 

What was the tipping point then?

[hoagie]

I dont see how that matters as humans had no part of it...

The tipping point i think we have already passed it what i wrote above.

[concert andy]

I dont see how that matters as humans had no part of it...

The tipping point i think we have already passed it what i wrote above.

 

I am on the fence about the tipping point.

 

I think it does, because how can we link our effect on the planet when we have evidence that this type of thing happen frequent enough historically?

 

Meaning it has happened with no human effect, so why does human effect matter now?

[TEO]

I am on the fence about the tipping point.

 

I think it does, because how can we link our effect on the planet when we have evidence that this type of thing happen frequent enough historically?

 

Meaning it has happened with no human effect, so why does human effect matter now?

 

 

Acceleration?

[hoagie]

Im not trying to connect warming with the issues i stated above. Im attributing our eventual, inevitable, unavoidable collapse on this planet to the issues i stated above. I feel we cannot ever recover from these and other factors,, regardless of any warming or cooling that may or may not occur on natural rhythms and cycles. One has nothing to do with the other other than as it warms, power demand will increase...

[concert andy]

Acceleration?

 

Possible, I feel the earth and the sun for that matter have cycles.

 

The earth has a weird orbit, and every every 20K years there are smaller fluctuations, and around 100K the variation is the strongest.  This means that the earth is actually closer or further away from the sun than it is normally.  I think we could be in one of these cycles, man's influence is there, but not the only factor.  IMO.  Could it be accelerating because of man, sure.  

 

If human's were to disappear today with no bombs going off.  The earth would get hot and cool on its own in the future, because that is what has happened historically.

 

 

Here is why I feel this way:

 

Please notice that normal variation is 3.3-3.4% of earths orbit, but when we are in this cycle the variation is 6.8% or distance from the earth.  This is a doubling of the variation.  Sometimes closer sometimes further away.  Which leads to an Ice age, or hot periods.  This is documented and scientifically proven.

 

 

The slight ellipse in the earth's orbit does have a slight impact on the amount of solar energy being received by the earth. This 3.3% difference in distance does not impact the earth as much as the seasonal variations, however.

 

 

 

The relative increase in solar irradiation at closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) compared to the irradiation at the furthest distance (aphelion) is slightly larger than four times the eccentricity. For the current orbital eccentricity this amounts to a variation in incoming solar radiation of about 6.8%, while the current difference between perihelion and aphelion is only 3.4% (5.1 million km). Perihelion presently occurs around January 3, while aphelion is around July 4. When the orbit is at its most elliptical, the amount of solar radiation at perihelion will be about 23% more than at aphelion.

 

 

 

 

 

The 100,000-year problem is a discrepancy between past temperatures and the amount of incoming solar radiation, or insolation. The former rises and falls according to the strength of radiation from the sun, the distance from the earth to the sun, and the tilt of the Earth's poles. However, the ice-age cycle, which grows and shrinks periodically on a 100,000-year (100 ka) timescale, does not correlate well with any of these factors.

Due to variations in the Earth's orbit, the amount of insolation varies with periods of around 21,000, 40,000, 100,000, and 400,000 years. Variations in the amount of solar heating drive changes in the climate of the Earth, and are recognised as a key factor in the timing of initiation and termination of ice ages. Spectral analysis shows that the most powerful climate response is at 100,000-year period, but the orbital forcing at this period is small.

 

 

Somehow this means to show that we are due for a warming cycle.

 

 

Quoting my sources:

http://en.wikipedia....00-year_problem

 

http://en.wikipedia....nkovitch_cycles

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Inclination

 

http://geography.abo.../a/orbitsun.htm

 

http://climap.net/100000-year-problem

[hoagie]

All good stuff but that has nothing to do with how we have taxed our resources to the point it cant recover.

[concert andy]

All good stuff but that has nothing to do with how we have taxed our resources to the point it cant recover.

 

Really?  What can't the earth recover from?

 

 

My greenhouse gas solution is to use Algae as a fuel source.

 

Algae uses CO2 and creates oxygen similar to how plants and trees do this.

 

 

 

There is a video in here showing the process.

 

http://www.euronews....-energy-source/

[hoagie]

The Earth can and will recover. We wont.

( i should have sad "we" above, not "it" )

[concert andy]

The Earth can and will recover. We wont.

( i should have sad "we" above, not "it" )

 

Why can't we recover from it?

 

My solution of using Algae as a fuel source (works just as good as oil), will actually help remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  And the water will be as fresh as rain water when finished.

 

That sounds about as green as possible.

[hoagie]

Why can't we recover from it?

 

My solution of using Algae as a fuel source (works just as good as oil), will actually help remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  And the water will be as fresh as rain water when finished.

 

That sounds about as green as possible.

 

How do we develop that when we are in a planetary crisis

[concert andy]

How do we develop that when we are in a planetary crisis

 

That is the real trick.  No one is rushing to replace oil, since it is so profitable.  #Capitalism

 

But how it could work, phase out oil based gasoline, and slowly implement algae fuels.

 

Then we are not producing CO2 from car emissions (cars would release water vapor as exhaust).

 

Simple right?  Not!  

 

 

I have been touting this four 4 or 5 years, but it is still in developmental stages.  So it may be a while.

[hoagie]

That is the real trick.  No one is rushing to replace oil, since it is so profitable.  #Capitalism

 

But how it could work, phase out oil based gasoline, and slowly implement algae fuels.

 

Then we are not producing CO2 from car emissions (cars would release water vapor as exhaust).

 

Simple right?  Not!  

 

 

I have been touting this four 4 or 5 years, but it is still in developmental stages.  So it may be a while.

 

We wont phase out gasoline until the wells run dry, and by then it will be planetary turmoil and a whole new paradigm

[concert andy]

We wont phase out gasoline until the wells run dry, and by then it will be planetary turmoil and a whole new paradigm

 

There is a move towards natural gas, as we have lots of that in reserve in the US, especially off the coast of the Carolina's.

 

So that well may be around longer than expected (2045 or so they think most current wells will run out).

[concert andy]

Also, if a cheaper alternative to oil becomes available it will.  A nice side effect would be the price of oil will drop leading to cheaper gas.  Remember capitalism still applies.

[hoagie]

Also, if a cheaper alternative to oil becomes available it will.  A nice side effect would be the price of oil will drop leading to cheaper gas.  Remember capitalism still applies.

i just dont see it happening

 

call me a pessimist

[TEO]

Also, if a cheaper alternative to oil becomes available it will.  A nice side effect would be the price of oil will drop leading to cheaper gas.  Remember capitalism still applies.

 

 

Seems there would have to be a big shift in politics for such to occur before absolutely necessary.

[TakeAStepBack]

This Doc is excellent and encompasses so much of what I say regularly.

[TakeAStepBack]

Cap n Trade isn't a solution. This argument is decades old for me. Thanks, Jab!

[TEO]

Geo-engineering (spraying "aerosol" into the sphere) seems like a slippery slope or a ruse.

[china cat]

Tim and I just finished it. Great documentary - chock full o common sense, it seems (something clearly lacking in today's political/environmental agenda)

 

I try to jot notes as I watch so I can articulate comments specific to sections of the film but I didn't do it for this one. I don't know enough about the science behind the potential solutions (some of the geo-engineering solutions seem questionable, but what do I know?)

 

We laughed with appreciation at some of the responses provided to rebut the Al Gore's claims (Hurricanes destructive power increasing rebuttal was classic)

 

Not much else to say, just wanted to let you know we watched.

 

Great choice and I will be passing this on. I plan to ask a co-worker who teaches a class Century of Limits (all about climate change) to give it a watch. If he does, and offers a response, I'll be sure to post it.

[Jabadoodle]

* The way I found Bjorn Lomborg was when I asking the question "what are the most serious root-cause issues facing us and how do we solve them." So I like his approach of trying to put things in perspective as compared to other issues, trying to find real solutions, and staying away from fear mongering as a motivator.

* I'm not sure if it was this movie or a you-tube video I watched where Bjorn talks at length about how he got economists together to determine what the proper priority of problems should be. Anyway, I agree that economists (when you find ones not with an agenda) are the ones with the skills / outlook that can best put numbers on the real costs of problems, costs of doing nothing, costs of solutions. I disagree that they (or a bunch of students) are necessarily the proper ones to go on to prioritizing the problems. Prioritizing takes some moral / social prioritization. That, to me, is where the philosophers come in.

* I agree with China that I'm not sure about the science / viability of any of the specific solutions offered. Some seem questionable. What I took from them is: Hey, there are likely solutions out there. I'm not sure these are the exact ones, but look at all the things people are working on. Look at all the out-of-the-box possibilities. Lets put human focus and resources on solving this problem and we can likely do it somehow.
 

China: The realities and falsehoods of climate-change and the details of real options for non-carbon energy at the scale the worlds needs are very much where my focus is now, so if your co-worker watches and offers a response I'll be interested in hearing what he's got to say.

 

[china cat]

* The way I found Bjorn Lomborg was when I asking the question "what are the most serious root-cause issues facing us and how do we solve them." So I like his approach of trying to put things in perspective as compared to other issues, trying to find real solutions, and staying away from fear mongering as a motivator.

* I'm not sure if it was this movie or a you-tube video I watched where Bjorn talks at length about how he got economists together to determine what the proper priority of problems should be. Anyway, I agree that economists (when you find ones not with an agenda) are the ones with the skills / outlook that can best put numbers on the real costs of problems, costs of doing nothing, costs of solutions. I disagree that they (or a bunch of students) are necessarily the proper ones to go on to prioritizing the problems. Prioritizing takes some moral / social prioritization. That, to me, is where the philosophers come in.

* I agree with China that I'm not sure about the science / viability of any of the specific solutions offered. Some seem questionable. What I took from them is: Hey, there are likely solutions out there. I'm not sure these are the exact ones, but look at all the things people are working on. Look at all the out-of-the-box possibilities. Lets put human focus and resources on solving this problem and we can likely do it somehow.
 

China: The realities and falsehoods of climate-change and the details of real options for non-carbon energy at the scale the worlds needs are very much where my focus is now, so if your co-worker watches and offers a response I'll be interested in hearing what he's got to say.
 

 

Yes, I like the out-of-the-box thinking - there are brilliant people capable of solving these issues. With the right resources and \without the pressure of big oil, govt capitulation, and agenda driven science I think we can do this (I don't believe we will do this until these 3 influences are diminished though)

 

Will ask Pat for his perspective

[Tim the Beek]

Hi gang!

 

This was by far the most balanced, practical look at the issue of climate change I've seen. Don't know as I have much to add in the way of commentary., but a couple of thoughts...

 

- I was appalled at the charges of ethical/academic misconduct Lomborg had raised against him.

- He speaks "better" English than I do.

- I'm paraphrasing here, but "I agree, America is a great country. But if you're going to do something about these problems, why weren't you working on it ten years ago" was one of many highlights of my weekend.

[china cat]

Pat hasn't watched the doc yet but sent this:

 

 

" My own notes on Lomborg include this (http://www.com.uri.e...contrarians.htm):

"Lomborg ^[43] minimizes the importance of global warming, making an initial case in 2001 that climate change won't be all that bad and that we should adjust, and emphasizing in 2007 that there are other more immediate priorities in an impoverished, disease-ridden world that surely deserve our attention and economic investment more. Lomborg is generally loathed by climate scientists for the pseudoscientific nature of his presentation (as well as for his erroneous conclusions). To the novice, the abundance of footnotes creates the appearance of scientific documentation and validation, but much of what Lomborg advances is illusion. If you would like to look behind this facade, try Kåre Fog's web site: Lomborg-Errors ^[44] for a painstaking critique of the footnotes, or the similar analysis by Howard Friel ^[45]. Lomborg has probably had more negative impact than any individual on the retardation of the public sphere. His contrarian sensationalism sells books for now, but has the ultimate durability of a temperate zone glacier. He receives no deeper contemplation here."

Footnote refers to Fog: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Friel reference: Howard Friel. 2010. The Lomborg Deception:Setting the Record Straight About Global Warming. Yale Univ. Pr. 258 p.

In general, Lomborg has gotten cleverer with age, but not clearly better."

[TEO]

From:  http://www.lomborg-e.../Coolitfilm.htm

 

"In the last third of the film, it has some interesting presentations of possible `smart solutions´. This part of the film is worth seeing - most people will get valuable new information on these items. But one should remain critical of Lomborg´s presentation even here. He endorses wind energy as a part of the solution, but at the same time he claims that we should not invest in more wind turbines right now, and in other contexts he argues strongly against implementation of wind energy, so one may wonder if he has a hidden agenda (see here on Lomborg-errors). Maybe he talks positively about alternative energy to get the right image among left-wing people, and negatively about alternative energy vis-a-vis decision makers in order to  keep the support from right-wing people. "

[china cat]

this documentary and every other.. (and most of what we read) should leave us all asking... is it possible to have faith in anything we study, anything that presents itself as legitimate? What criteria should all of us be using to evaluate our sources?

 

Someone watches Gore's movie (laden with charts and quotes and scientific data), someone watches Lomborg...

 

someone reads a book about Israel being the aggressor and details stats and horrific stories of brutality. someone else reads articles and books claiming the Palestinians are the aggressors... 

 

Obama's healthcare is going to add billions in debt, Obama's healthcare is going to cut costs for everyone...

 

GMOs are going to feed the world, GMOS are going to kill the world....

 

right/wrong,  truth/false,  scientists versus scientist, expert versus expert, his version of history versus her version...

 

who really knows and who has time to weed through as much bullshit and misinformation as we'd all have to weed through in order to come to some reasonable, fact-based conclusions regarding all the issues that affect our lives.

 

sigh..

[TakeAStepBack]

It's the problem of politics in science. Politics in media. Politics in everything.

[TEO]

china cat, another reason why it is beneficial to share and exchange information, sources, perspectives, insights, doubts, questions, feelings...

[china cat]

It's the problem of money in science. money in media. money in everything.

 

yes and this.

[china cat]

china cat, another reason why it is beneficial to share and exchange information, sources, perspectives, insights, doubts, questions, feelings...

 

yep, hence this club

 

help vetting out materials (with people I deeply respect) is a start!

[TakeAStepBack]

yes and this.

 

Yep.

[china cat]

TASB

 

I do wonder if even without political pressures, even without money, maybe we'll still be weeding through piles of doo doo (though I'd gather less doo doo  AND allow space in the public sphere for a wider variety of doo doo).  Is the reason for this, it's simply human nature? we are meaning-makers by nature. We seek answers and construct worldviews to help us make sense of the world, which (I'd imagine) is driven by curiosity, but more often, it's driven by the desire for security,

 

We seek to make order out of a potentially chaotic world, and holding dear to the worldview to which we subscribe, helps us maintain a sense of control. We adopt religious dogma, racial hatred, etc. strictly from a need for order and security.  Science is not immune to this human bias.  The desire to be "right" is a powerful motivator, maybe as much (if not more so) of a motivator than money and politics.

 

rambling...

[TEO]

Reading this book (still not finished) has given me a larger view of how we process information:

 

 

Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals about Our Everyday Deceptions ~ Stephen L. Macknik (Author), Susana Martinez-Conde (Author), Sandra Blakeslee (Author)


"This book doesn't just promise to change the way you think about sleight of hand and David Copperfield—it will also change the way you think about the mind." —Jonah Lehrer, author of How We Decide and Proust Was A Neuroscientist

Stephen Macknik and Susana Martinez-Conde, the founders of the exciting new discipline of neuromagic, have convinced some of the world's greatest magicians to allow scientists to study their techniques for tricking the brain. This book is the result of the authors' yearlong, world-wide exploration of magic and how its principles apply to our behavior. Magic tricks fool us because humans have hardwired processes of attention and awareness that are hackable—a good magician uses your mind's own intrinsic properties against you in a form of mental jujitsu.

Now magic can reveal how our brains work in everyday situations. For instance, if you've ever bought an expensive item you'd sworn you'd never buy, the salesperson was probably a master at creating the "illusion of choice," a core technique of magic. The implications of neuromagic go beyond illuminating our behavior; early research points to new approaches for everything from the diagnosis of autism to marketing techniques and education. Sleights of Mind makes neuroscience fun and accessible by unveiling the key connections between magic and the mind.