RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


juliaoceania -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 12:48:50 PM)

quote:

Carbon sinks? no, i assumed that rain dragged it to the ground as well as gravity over time.  Not true?


Rain does help, but one of the most important ways that carbon is kept out of the atmosphere is forests and permafrost. I wrote a paper about this a few years ago, but here is an explanation.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0621_carbonsinks.html

If your point about the charts was to state different people can come to different conclusions by using different projections of the same statistical information, that is basic stats 101. But it is just one piece of the puzzle. The removal of carbon sinks is another part of it.

Here is an explanation of another process, carbon feedback loop

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm




Real0ne -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 1:20:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Carbon sinks? no, i assumed that rain dragged it to the ground as well as gravity over time.  Not true?


Rain does help, but one of the most important ways that carbon is kept out of the atmosphere is forests and permafrost. I wrote a paper about this a few years ago, but here is an explanation.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0621_carbonsinks.html

If your point about the charts was to state different people can come to different conclusions by using different projections of the same statistical information, that is basic stats 101. But it is just one piece of the puzzle. The removal of carbon sinks is another part of it.

Here is an explanation of another process, carbon feedback loop

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm


They seem to use carbon and carbon dioxide interchangeably from what i can tell. are they the same or same in effect is that it?




sleazy -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 1:25:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
i do know water levels have risen a bit in venice


I seem to recall data that rather than supporting rising water levels venice itself was sinking.

The UK has a similar phenonemon (sp?) the south east is sinking (relative increase in water levels) wheras the northwest is rising (relative decrease in water levels)




juliaoceania -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 1:26:53 PM)

quote:

They seem to use carbon and carbon dioxide interchangeably from what i can tell. are they the same or same in effect is that it?


Here is the link for the change from carbon to carbon dioxide it is called the carbon cycle.

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

(thanks for these questions and opportunity to discuss this, it has been a long time since I have and my brain was rusty about these things... I need to use my brain more so I do not forget all those things I have learned..smiles)





Sanity -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 1:48:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

No. You pay the true price for what you consume. No free lunches. You can't be more American than that can you?

For example. If the government said that all houses had to be carbon neutral when built, there wouldn't be a problem and the poor would be better off too.

I haven't noticed people who drive around in SUV's etc being concerned about the poor before.



So you want to end food stamps, and have someone from the government standing at every building site telling me and everyone else how we may or may not build our homes. That will save the planet? It's a way to drive the homeless rates through the roof, but I don't think the planet will care any.

And what are you talking about, poor people drive SUVs, they even need their SUVs just to survive in some cases. And are you even aware of how the SUV came into existance? Your friends at Big Government decided we didn't need our station wagons anymore, and so they passed some regs...




sleazy -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 1:52:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
For example. If the government said that all houses had to be carbon neutral when built, there wouldn't be a problem and the poor would be better off too.


Query, if carbon neutral homes are cheaper, least that is the implication that the poor will be better off, why are all homes not built that way today?




seeksfemslave -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 2:03:52 PM)

The plain fact is that while it does appear to be true that currently things are warming up a bit what is also true is that nobody knows for sure why. I wish the hair shirted brigade would accept that fact.

This is a perfect arena where slanted "sauces" will present as true that which is open to debate .

I am right.....again !!!




meatcleaver -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 2:16:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
For example. If the government said that all houses had to be carbon neutral when built, there wouldn't be a problem and the poor would be better off too.


Query, if carbon neutral homes are cheaper, least that is the implication that the poor will be better off, why are all homes not built that way today?


Most companies have off the shelf designs and most people have conservative tastes but its only the architect and the initial design that costs. If designs are mass produced they get cheaper. Actually this was on BBC only last week.

Though to be honest I've never understood why the Brits put up with expensive Gerry built houses. New houses in Britain are amongst the worst quality in western Europe and certainly worse quality than houses built in similar climates.




Real0ne -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 2:20:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

They seem to use carbon and carbon dioxide interchangeably from what i can tell. are they the same or same in effect is that it?


Here is the link for the change from carbon to carbon dioxide it is called the carbon cycle.

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

(thanks for these questions and opportunity to discuss this, it has been a long time since I have and my brain was rusty about these things... I need to use my brain more so I do not forget all those things I have learned..smiles)




Whew...

ok i am not entirely over my flu yet so the brain isnt quite firing on all 8 and i am not trying to be difficult here but........from the carbon cycle i gather that the lowest common denominator is that we are pulling carbon out of the earth part and putting it into the atmospere faster than the it can be re-absorbed and deposited inot the earth again.  Is that a resaonable conclusion?

i am asking becuase if that is correct, knowing the cycle still seems to be missing a part of the puzzle for me to really understand how the levels of carbon dioxide actually causes heating.  i mean we can see the results after the fact, after warming is happening, and i agreethat is seems like things are getting warmer, but my brain keeps going back to the fact that the sun would have to create heat by a means of something (ie: carbon dioxide) causing greater absorbtion of the suns rays in some way.  That is my stumbling block with the whole carbon dioxide theory is that i have been unable to determine in fact the gas did it...rather than something else  




starshineowned -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 2:32:13 PM)

 I think that we are more likely to see alot of global instability from those nasty little warheads on the end of those cute little missles long before we see it from suvs or carbon sinks.

starshine
Happy slave of Master Delvin




juliaoceania -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 2:32:26 PM)

quote:

ok i am not entirely over my flu yet so the brain isnt quite firing on all 8 and i am not trying to be difficult here but........from the carbon cycle i gather that the lowest common denominator is that we are pulling carbon out of the earth part and putting it into the atmospere faster than the it can be re-absorbed and deposited inot the earth again.  Is that a resaonable conclusion?


That is the point I am making about removing carbon sinks and interfering with the carbon cycle. I am getting over the flu too[:'(]

quote:

 am asking becuase if that is correct, knowing the cycle still seems to be missing a part of the puzzle for me to really understand how the levels of carbon dioxide actually causes heating.  i mean we can see the results after the fact, after warming is happening, and i agreethat is seems like things are getting warmer, but my brain keeps going back to the fact that the sun would have to create heat by a means of something (ie: carbon dioxide) causing greater absorbtion of the suns rays in some way.  That is my stumbling block with the whole carbon dioxide theory is that i have been unable to determine in fact the gas did it...rather than something else  




Greenhouse gases create the effect of when you put a car in the sun with all the windows up, sunlight comes in, but cannot escape because the windows are up... here are some links that explain it in more depth by talking about the Earth's energy balance
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaResources/Energy_Balance.pdf
 
 




juliaoceania -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 2:41:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

The plain fact is that while it does appear to be true that currently things are warming up a bit what is also true is that nobody knows for sure why. I wish the hair shirted brigade would accept that fact.

This is a perfect arena where slanted "sauces" will present as true that which is open to debate .

I am right.....again !!!


You know, I think that we should perform a science experiment on planet Earth and dump untold amounts of pollution into the air, and shrug when it is shown that the planet is heating. I mean even though this was first suggested as a concern 3 decades before it started to happen, and even though the models that they made a couple of decades ago continue to yield accuracy, and even though the same people that told us global warming was a load of shit are now telling us it is "natural".... you know I think we should just continue down this path of experimenting with the only atmosphere that we possess until we have PROOF that what is happening is indeed human induced... That is just BRILLIANT! Can you tell me what planet we are supposed to evacuate to once this one is completely inhabitable? Just so I know where I am supposed to go when the "proof" is in... thanks in advance for your answer[:D]




seeksfemslave -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 3:11:06 PM)

Of course MsJO you have to consider the alternative also...Global warming is not caused by human activity but the hair shirts cause all kinds of hindrance and interference to society so that we end up poorer and hotter.

Let us consider a nation as large as the US, even so vast tracts of land are uninhabited and not subject to man made pollution. Consider also the Atlantic Ocean North and South the Pacific Ocean and all points in between. hardly a human in sight, per unit of area that is.

Dont forget also the effects on climate of the supersonic winds that traverse the Earth somewhere up there in the stratosphere. Does it strike you as plausable that we little hominids can affect all of that ?
No doubt downtown Los Angeles....but the whole World ?

Have you any comment on my rate of change of the rate of change of  increase of temperature. not itself having changed ?
In maths the second differential of dT/dt where T = Temperature and t = time.  show off arent I ?

Something else occurs to me, that volcano that exploded in Washington State a few years ago, Mt St Helens ?, did it have any world wide long term consequences ?




juliaoceania -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 3:21:17 PM)

quote:

Have you any comment on my rate of change of the rate of change of  increase of temperature. not itself having changed ?
In maths the second differential of dT/dt where T = Temperature and t = time.  show off arent I ?


I would not consider it showing off unless you solved the equation, which you didn't, did you?

Not only that, you did not read the information that I supplied about the removal of forests world wide, the destruction of oceanic environments, and the permafrost in places like Siberia, and how they contribute to imbalances in the carbon cycle of planet Earth... it is not just the direct spewing of carbon dioxide that is the problem, it is the burning of the Amazon, the reduction of photosynthetic plant life in the oceans. We are reducing the planets ability to balance carbon in the system.

Now solve your own equation[:D]




sleazy -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 3:49:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Most companies have off the shelf designs and most people have conservative tastes but its only the architect and the initial design that costs. If designs are mass produced they get cheaper. Actually this was on BBC only last week.


So building materials are free? Last time I looked at buying property the costs from greatest to least were
land
physical construction (materials)
physical construction (labour)
taxes (on all costs)
utilities (well, septic tank, electric grid connection, communications, or in the case of land within the network mains water, sewer and environmental impact fees)
permits
architect/design fees

If mass production of building designs is cheaper, why is it not done? after all cheap is what any purveyor of a product seeks.

And to really put the point in persepctive I did also spend a lot of time considering pre-fabricated, mass produced modular buildings. These worked out only marginally cheaper, if at all by the time transportation and assembly costs had been added on. This despite the fact that architect/design fees were spread across many thousands of near identical structures.

quote:


Though to be honest I've never understood why the Brits put up with expensive Gerry built houses. New houses in Britain are amongst the worst quality in western Europe and certainly worse quality than houses built in similar climates.

No argument here!




Sinergy -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/28/2007 6:52:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I am right.....again !!!



Just like you were on hydrogen cars.

The problem which most anti-environmentalists is that they follow the George W. Bush paradigm that anything which is important to deal with is within a 90 day time window, and anything which can be ignored until the 90 day window is up is best left ignored.

We live in a system.  We dont understand the way this system works.  We can scientifically prove that things we are doing negatively impact the system we dont really understand.  I personally think it might be a good idea to cut down our negative impacts on the system we dont understand, as opposed to think it the system we dont understand is changing because of things we dont understand.

To paraphrase; in a system everything interacts with everything else in the system and causes everything to adjust to accomodate everything interacting in the system.

Clear as mud?

We are impacting our system in easily defined ways.  Our system, which we dont really understand, is changing in ways that are negative towards our survival as a species.  Maybe I am the only one who thinks this, but I for one would rather try to work within the paradigm I am presented with.  This is opposed to the Hubris Squad who think humans are the be all and end all and our environment or system should modify to accomodate us.

Sinergy




Real0ne -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/29/2007 12:24:20 AM)

Thanks that was an interesting lesson on the carbon cycle.  since you were into this you could save me loking at ole al again to view his chars.  he shows co2 rising exponentially and then points back to how everytime co2 was high temperature followed in the past.  now i remember that the co2 was twice as high as ever before today.  then he projected it to be 5 time higher in i dunno 40 yers or something.  what i did not notice is the corresoponding temperature chart.  Now that we are double the normal highs what is our corresponding temperature presently?

Then another thought popped into my head.  It sems that if we have more heat that  we will also have more moisture in the air that will rise faster and make more cirrus clouds thus reflecting more of the suns rays in the upper atmosphere and thus maintain the temperature reasonably well despite the high co2.  Does that sound feasible to you?  i never really educated myself on this stuff but in the quick note you sent that is what i gathered from them.




Solinear -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/29/2007 12:54:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
i do know water levels have risen a bit in venice


I seem to recall data that rather than supporting rising water levels venice itself was sinking.

The UK has a similar phenonemon (sp?) the south east is sinking (relative increase in water levels) wheras the northwest is rising (relative decrease in water levels)


I just saw something about that today and Venice *is* sinking... however, the water coming into the lagoon has increased by a significant amount over the past couple of decades.




sleazy -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/29/2007 1:03:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Solinear
I just saw something about that today and Venice *is* sinking... however, the water coming into the lagoon has increased by a significant amount over the past couple of decades.


Thanks for the partial validation, I was thinking of when I studied geography at school some 20+ years ago. and having not slept for too damn long I really couldnt be bothered to go google a sauce, although I do have a craving for a bacon sandwich with lashings of bbq source now :)




Solinear -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/29/2007 1:30:46 AM)

There was one article that Real0ne linked that I almost had to laugh at... they repeatedly talk about 1979 to 1995 and reference 'decades', while there is only 'decade' in bettween those two dates.  Then they point out about how the study that was done in the 80s was flawed because it didn't include dates after that and it was flawed in it's implementation (I can't disagree or agree), while flawing their own study in an almost worse way, using a smaller sample.

There were some gems if you knew how to read through their stupidity (sun's magnetic activity causes increased brightness... made me laugh my ass off, since significant magnetic activity causes the brightness to actually lower, but infrared - that high heat stuff - to increase), but the fact that their entire study is based off of a political agenda means that they are going in the wrong direction.  If they wanted to prove their hypothesis (which should have been easy, considering the data available), they would have pulled from a *larger* time sample.

The most interesting thing here is that nobody is talking about ocean temperatures and anyone who knows anything about thermodynamics knows that a solid holds more energy (read: heat) than a liquid and a liquid holds WAY more energy than a gas.  If you want it in more simple terms, it takes a FUCKLOAD more energy to increase the temperature of the oceans by 1 degree than it would take to increase the temperature of all the atmosphere by that same amount - I could hunt down the numbers, but it's not all that important.  If they wanted to do a more thorough study, they would have used data such as that located at:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/us-summary.html

I don't fully 100% think that global warming is caused by CO2 going into the air.... I think that it's a combination of sunspot activity (increased IR output) and our own stupidity.  I do think that CO2 increasing in the air is bad though.

I would much rather talk about much more relevant things that humans do to this planet... red tides and the such will clear up the CO2 if it gets too rough and let's be real... we're stupid and will run out of hydrocarbons (coal, oil) before too long.

What concerns me?  Reduction of ground water... most areas of the world do not engage in water conservation and are draining their lakes, rivers and ground water at rediculous rates, ruining the natural ecosystem.  Just look at the Caspian Sea in Russia - it is about 20% of it's original size because it has been drained to a rediculous level.  The rampant destruction of the ocean ecosystems so that we can have cheap fish.  The 'floating fish factories' that float through the oceans pulling in hundreds of tons worth of fish every day, depleting an area completely of fish.  They pay lip service to conservation, but really they just avoid catching what they aren't after because they really just don't *want* it.  If they can catch 500 tons of just Salmon, they can spend much less time worrying about the other fish that they may have accidentally caught.

Global warming isn't going to kill us, our own painful level of stupidity is going to make the majority of the planet unusable and we won't have the energy source to fix it by that time.


BTW, I love it when someone says that $X are lost, or Y jobs... that money went somewhere and someone got paid, it just wasn't the same people as were getting paid in the scenario that they were demonstrating.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875