#303262 - 20/10/2007 19:07
Interesting video
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2489
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303263 - 20/10/2007 20:27
Re: Interesting video
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
Definitely worth the watch. But... skip all the comments and video responses. Just the same typical bullshit of See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
Anyone know who this guy is? I haven't done any searches or tried looking at YouTube profile yet though. The whole thing was very well scripted and delivered. Very charismatic and watchable even though we're not looking at much more than a guy in front of a camera with a white board.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303264 - 21/10/2007 15:18
Re: Interesting video
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
It's a logical argument that seems (and is) obvious. It's rather an alternate version of my argument, which is that even if global warming is not true, the actions we would take to combat it are still positive actions.
That is, even if global climate change is not true, it still makes sense to reduce our energy consumption, and it still makes sense to search for alternative fuels. For one thing, it's is an undeniable fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. So are nuclear fuels, for that matter. The only infinite source of energy we have is the sun. (Yes, it's not infinite, but if it goes away, so do we, without question.) If you only had five dollars to your name, would you choose to spend it like a drunken sailor, or would you try to make it last as long as possible?
The counterargument to him is that he's ignoring the costs in the two positive scenarios. That is, if we do nothing and don't need to, there's no cost. If we do something and do need to, there's still a significant amount of cost. As such, you can't ignore the ramifications of those two scenarios, since they have different outcomes.
However, you still come up with three scenarios that we've dealt with and overcome before, and one cataclysm.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303265 - 21/10/2007 21:28
Re: Interesting video
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
Like atoms/matter, money/wealth cannot be destroyed. It can only be redistributed. For one group of people to go into a serious economic depression, there will be others doing extremely well. I believe the economic burden can more easily be managed than the technical if enough thought is put into it.
I still can't believe that some people have such a negative reaction toward those who seek to help this planet and its inhabitants.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303266 - 22/10/2007 06:16
Re: Interesting video
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
Quote:
It can only be redistributed.
Recessions and depressions are caused when the money stops being redistributed, not because it's mysteriously vanished.
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303267 - 22/10/2007 12:16
Re: Interesting video
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I still can't believe that some people have such a negative reaction toward those who seek to help this planet and its inhabitants.
Well, that's part of my problem. We're not helping the planet. There's very little we could do that would harm the planet. We're talking about protecting our futures. Even if one isn't interested in saving the plants and animals, one has to realize that without those plants and animals, we can't survive.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303268 - 22/10/2007 12:40
Re: Interesting video
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
Quote:
There's very little we could do that would harm the planet.
http://qntm.org/destroy
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303269 - 22/10/2007 13:07
Re: Interesting video
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303271 - 22/10/2007 18:00
Re: Interesting video
[Re: hybrid8]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
Like atoms/matter, money/wealth cannot be destroyed. It can only be redistributed. For one group of people to go into a serious economic depression, there will be others doing extremely well. I believe the economic burden can more easily be managed than the technical if enough thought is put into it.
Perhaps just a picky point, but wealth can be destroyed and is destroyed all the time. The obvious example is destruction of infrastructure in war. Sure, that can be rebuilt, and sure the rebuilders will be compensated, but real wealth has been lost; those rebuilding it could have been working on something new. Natural disasters destroy wealth. While a depression may affect populations unevenly, it is NOT correct to assume that one group's losses are another's gain.
The idea that wealth is a constant and can only be redistributed is the core mistake of modern "soft socialism". There isn't a pie of a fixed size that gets divided either "fairly" or "unfairly". Wealth is *created* by human effort, and can be destroyed by negligence (or worse). Part of the cause of this confusion is that most people equate money and wealth, and they are very different things.
The reason why some say that if you distributed the wealth equally around the world it would end up right back in the hands of those who have it now is not, for the most part, that wealthy people have learned how to very effectively screw everyone else. Its that, in general, wealthy people have learned how to create wealth (or manage the creation of wealth). Of course there are some exploitive ways to acquire *money* that don't involve creating *wealth*, but those are the exception. There are also people who would create wealth but lack any sort of means. Those things are true, but the idea of a fixed amount of wealth that gets shuffled around is a horribly mistaken idea, and the conclusions that are frequently drawn from it are very dangerous.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303272 - 22/10/2007 20:59
Re: Interesting video
[Re: Roger]
|
old hand
Registered: 09/01/2002
Posts: 702
Loc: Tacoma,WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
It can only be redistributed.
Recessions and depressions are caused when the money stops being redistributed, not because it's mysteriously vanished.
How do you explain the current crisis in the credit industry that happened because the value of credit lines backed by assests, such as houses mysteriously went down in value. You could argue that it wasn't really "mysterious" and that anyone should have seen the subprime crisis coming, but apparently Wall Street wasn't reading all of the hundreds of housing bubble blogs created in the last few years..
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303273 - 23/10/2007 15:08
Re: Interesting video
[Re: Roger]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 12/05/2002
Posts: 205
Loc: Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
There's very little we could do that would harm the planet.
http://qntm.org/destroy
I disagree with this assertion. The qntm guy missed the point altogether. It is not about destroying the earth itself, it is about making it inhabitable. Namely altering the atmosphere.
The main thing that we can affect is the atmosphere. We already know that in the early years of the earth, there was no atmosphere to speak of and that is was generally made by the many colonies of bacteria that emitted oxygen. The beings on earth can certainly affect this. Now we are emitting other things that cause an effect. We have never seen the effect of this before so we will spend alot of time arguing about it.
But we can know more by studying the atmospheres on other planets like Mars and Venus. Both very different atmospheres. We have evidence that Mars once had rivers and that water was there. But that all changed for some reason.
So far in our search, we have not quite found a planet like ours - that could support life like ours. I bet that this has something to do with a proper balance being attained here. I would also bet that the kind of equilibrium we have here is hard to come by. If we frustrate it too much, we could be in danger of a serious global change.
We have had changes like this before - like the dinosours dying just from a meteor or something. We have evidence of cataclismic events that chanegd everything on the face of the earth and changed the course of the species. I don't doubt for one minute that with our technology, we could make very significant changes that could have very long term effects.
_________________________
Brent
RioCar MK][a 20GB+80GB
'96 Saab 900s (Not any more)
Still looking for a good way to install in a 2010 BMW 3 series with iDrive/NAV
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303274 - 23/10/2007 16:01
Re: Interesting video
[Re: bbowman]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I disagree with this assertion. The qntm guy missed the point altogether. It is not about destroying the earth itself, it is about making it inhabitable.
Assuming you mean uninhabitable (see "inflammable"), that would seem to be part of his point:
Quote:
This is not a guide for wusses whose aim is merely to wipe out humanity. I (Sam Hughes) can in no way guarantee the complete extinction of the human race via any of these methods, real or imaginary. Humanity is wily and resourceful, and many of the methods outlined below will take many years to even become available, let alone implement, by which time mankind may well have spread to other planets; indeed, other star systems. If total human genocide is your ultimate goal, you are reading the wrong document. There are far more efficient ways of doing this, many which are available and feasible RIGHT NOW. Nor is this a guide for those wanting to annihilate everything from single-celled life upwards, render Earth uninhabitable or simply conquer it. These are trivial goals in comparison.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303275 - 23/10/2007 17:45
Re: Interesting video
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5546
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
I have a few problems with the whole global warming thing, but not the problems you're thinking I might have after you've read the first inflammatory phrase of this sentence.  First and foremost, I think the assertions of problems caused by global warming may be greatly understated. Rising ocean temperatures spawning more frequent and more violent hurricanes. Rising sea levels wiping out coastal cities. Desertification of croplands causing worldwide famine. Worldwide famine causing mass migrations. Mass migrations causing wars. BFD. I want you to give some consideration to the first of the doomsday problems mentioned above: rising ocean temperatures. Does anybody know how great a temperature increase the algae in the ocean can tolerate? Is it important that the algae in the oceans are responsible for more than three quarters of the world's oxygen production? How about the nay-sayers who state (quite possibly correctly) that human activity is responsible for only three percent of the world's greenhouse gases, so how can that have much effect on the climate? Well, imagine a bucket with a hose feeding water into it, and a hole in the bottom of the bucket that leaks water out at exactly the same rate the hose fills it. Now, increase the output of the hose by three percent and see what happens. Have you noticed that the people who most vehemently deny that global warming is going to be a big problem are those who have a financial interest in maintaining the status quo? I'm kinda glad that I'm old and won't live long enough to see humanity reap the bitter harvest of its greed. The rest of you "youngsters" may not be so lucky. tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303276 - 23/10/2007 17:57
Re: Interesting video
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Most predictions of global climate change catastrophe feel that what's likely to happen is that Greenland will melt, dumping huge amounts of water into the Atlantic. I cannot help but believe that that water will most likely be only slightly warmer than freezing, and therefore couldn't do anything but cool the oceans. On the other hand, that water is likely to be freshwater, and therefore potentially warmer than the saltwater it would be flowing into, so I could be wrong.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303277 - 23/10/2007 18:25
Re: Interesting video
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14491
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
Greenland will melt, dumping huge amounts of water into the Atlantic. I cannot help but believe that that water will most likely be only slightly warmer than freezing, and therefore couldn't do anything but cool the oceans.
Ahh.. so my drinks will stay cooler if I pre-melt the ice cubes before dumping them into the glass? Hardly.
That big ice-cube, Greenland, is already in the oceans, and it is already melting (I've seen it with my own eyes from above). This means that the ocean is warming up enough to melt it, *quickly*. This isn't making the ocean any cooler than it was with the ice form of Greenland in it.
Once it finishes melting, there'll be no more ice, and the drink (ocean) will get even warmer, even more quickly.
The global warming impact predictions are wayyyy understated.
Doh.
Edited by mlord (23/10/2007 18:26)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303278 - 23/10/2007 18:39
Re: Interesting video
[Re: mlord]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Really? The reason that the glaciers are receding from inland Greenland is because the ocean is sneaking over there and melting it?
The point is that it's the air temperatures that is melting glaciers. If the glaciers slide away more quickly, cold water will enter the ocean at a much quicker rate.
So yes, if you put a liter of 33°F water in your ten liters of 60°F water it'll cool down faster than if you put one ten mL 31°F ice cube in every ten minutes.
Edited by wfaulk (23/10/2007 18:47)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303279 - 23/10/2007 19:04
Re: Interesting video
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14491
Loc: Canada
|
Dubya I could understand, but you ???
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303280 - 23/10/2007 19:31
Re: Interesting video
[Re: mlord]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Every global climate change prediction I've seen shows the oceans heating at a far slower rate than landmasses, like 0-2 degrees versus 5-8 degrees, with the least amount of heating just south of Greenland.
I'm not an expert on either climate change or algae environmental requirements, but the oceans seem not likely to change much very fast, whereas the land temperatures are far more significant.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303281 - 23/10/2007 19:54
Re: Interesting video
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
I recall a Discovery or History Channel show that stated the influx of freshwater from the melted polar caps would have dramatic (and difficult to model) effects on the undersea 'rivers' and their very existence. Halting the flow of water around the Earth would be far worse than the flooding that would come from the increased volume of water.
It was an interesting show. Sorry I don't have a better grasp of the implications or functional factors for you.
Another thing I recall was a google-maps based webpage that would 'flood' areas in view based on % melt. That was also interesting.
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303282 - 23/10/2007 20:16
Re: Interesting video
[Re: Robotic]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1525
Loc: Arizona
|
I saw the show you are referring to. What they claim would happen is the icebergs/ice caps would melt. That would decrease the salinitiy of the ocean. The decreased salinity would then cause the 'converyor belt' effect of the oceans, which cause the gulf stream to recirculate, to either slow down, or stop altogether. This recirculation helps to moderate temperatures around the globe (in conjunction with the prevailing winds) and dicking with it would cause the temperatures to go all out of whack.
That was the scientific conclusion, anyway.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303283 - 23/10/2007 21:20
Re: Interesting video
[Re: Tim]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
I just noticed in a copy of The Skeptical Inquirer (a publication of The Center for Inquiry) which has this position paper that outlines the scientific evidence of global warming and possible scenarios. I haven't read the article completely, but I've never heard anything bad about the source and the article seems a fair assessment of the situation. Tim- the 'conveyor belt' is mentioned, also. Thanks!
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303284 - 23/10/2007 21:27
Re: Interesting video
[Re: mlord]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Quote:
Greenland will melt, dumping huge amounts of water into the Atlantic. I cannot help but believe that that water will most likely be only slightly warmer than freezing, and therefore couldn't do anything but cool the oceans.
That big ice-cube, Greenland, is already in the oceans, and it is already melting (I've seen it with my own eyes from above). This means that the ocean is warming up enough to melt it, *quickly*.
Well, kinda-sort of. The way I understand it (and I'm not a climate scientist, but I do read National Geographic, and they had an article on the Greenland glaciers last year), Greenland isn't really "in the oceans." The glaciers are actually sitting on land, and though the ends of them do overhang, or sit in the ocean, it's not the ocean that's warming up the glacier, causing it to melt. The melting is due to the rising air temperatures.
However, that melt water has two effects, which exacerbate the problem. First, it pools on the surface, creating darker spots that capture the sun's energy better than the surrounding ice (which reflects the sun's rays), increasing the temperature of the "melt pool". That, of course, further increases the rate of melting, in a feedback loop. Second, at some point, those pools either create, or drain into, a crevasse leading underneath the glacier. There, the water acts as a lubricant between the ice and the land, increasing the rate at which the glacier slides, which, naturally is into the ocean.
The warm ocean problem is not so much evident in Greenland's glaciers, as it is in the open Arctic, where ice no longer forms where it used to, and, when it does, it's neither as strong, nor as long lasting, as it was in the past. <insert picture of drowned polar bear here>
edit: Fixed run-on sentence.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303285 - 23/10/2007 21:49
Re: Interesting video
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31596
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
it's not the ocean that's warming up the glacier, causing it to melt. The melting is due to the rising air temperatures.
No one in this discussion seems to be grasping the fact that the Earth's oceans and atmosphere are inexorably linked. As goes one, so goes the other. The oceans are a buffer in the climate cycle, and even a small change in overall ocean temperature indicates something is wrong with our climate.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303286 - 23/10/2007 21:50
Re: Interesting video
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Really? The reason that the glaciers are receding from inland Greenland is because the ocean is sneaking over there and melting it?
The point is that it's the air temperatures that is melting glaciers. If the glaciers slide away more quickly, cold water will enter the ocean at a much quicker rate.
So yes, if you put a liter of 33°F water in your ten liters of 60°F water it'll cool down faster than if you put one ten mL 31°F ice cube in every ten minutes.
So what you meant to say before, is not that the melt water will "cool the ocean", so much as the melt water will decrease the rate at which the local ocean water temperature is increasing. It's still warming up, but, due to the influx of glacier melt, not at the same rate as it might otherwise be increasing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303287 - 23/10/2007 21:55
Re: Interesting video
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14491
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
No one in this discussion seems to be grasping the fact that the Earth's oceans and atmosphere are inexorably linked.
...raises hand, but nobody notices...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303288 - 23/10/2007 22:02
Re: Interesting video
[Re: Robotic]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
Ah- found the flood map page.Yikes! The house I'm living in is in a flood plain!
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303289 - 23/10/2007 22:07
Re: Interesting video
[Re: Robotic]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31596
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
holy cow. What an awesome (and scary) map.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303290 - 23/10/2007 22:13
Re: Interesting video
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Quote:
it's not the ocean that's warming up the glacier, causing it to melt. The melting is due to the rising air temperatures.
No one in this discussion seems to be grasping the fact that the Earth's oceans and atmosphere are inexorably linked. As goes one, so goes the other. The oceans are a buffer in the climate cycle, and even a small change in overall ocean temperature indicates something is wrong with our climate.
Well, yes, we (or at least I) understand that, but that particular thread of the discussion was about a local effect, rather than the entire ecosphere cycle. Mark's statement (whether intended, or not, and he can correct me as necessary) had the implication that the warming ocean is directly causing the glaciers to melt. It's an indirect link -- the warming ocean contributes to the warming atmosphere, and it's the warming air causing the melting glaciers. Furthermore, one could argue that it's the warming atmosphere that triggered the ocean's warming, too, starting the feedback loop that we're currently in.
The melting glaciers are merely(*) a symptom of the problem that is most significantly manifested as a result of the warming air portion of the feedback loop, rather than the warming ocean part of that same loop.
(*) Okay... not "merely" -- the melting of the glaciers does have some contribution to the warming/cooling, but the real concern over their melt has more to do with a catastrophic rise in ocean levels, rather than contributing to increased heating.
All IMHO, of course.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#303291 - 23/10/2007 22:14
Re: Interesting video
[Re: tfabris]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
Quote:
holy cow. What an awesome (and scary) map.
It is, but wikipedia seems to think we won't get the full 7 meters for a few centuries.
...at least, I think that's what they were saying. I just sorta glanced over it.
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index