Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Weather Channel Founder: Where is Global Warming, Algore?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Weather Channel Founder: Where is Global Warming, Algore?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject:

Quote:

If we are to drastically change our lifestyle and implement changes which could have long-term negative effects on our lives, the ecomony and developing countries we'd better be pretty darn sure.

That's another crux of the GW debate. The consensus of the IPCC scientists is it is very likely humans are causing GW and GW is real. If two oncologists tell you you very likely have cancer and you need to go on long term disability hence a reduction in pay) and get medical treatment, what's your decision?

Quote:

If an asteroid big enough to destroy the earth does come for us...there's not much we can do about it anyway.

Quote:

[b] Well I've never said to wait until the probability factor=1...more like 1 in 1000 or so. But to go to the other side of the coin it makes no sense to launch a thousand nuclear missiles at an asteriod which has about a 1 in a million chance of striking the earth.

The IPCC has given the probability GW is caused by human at about 80%. No? In terms of the asteroid, no one would suggest such a mission for a 1 in a million chance. But what if it were 25% or even money? Granted the cost of such a mission would be far, far less than doing something about global warming.

And for the record, my belief is GW is likely real and my suggested course of action is do nothing. I think humans and human economies will adapt to any change GW is likely to throw at us. I prefer a bottom up solution versus governments handing a top down solution.

Quote:

With caution given that (a) the data is almost 2 decades old and (b) that if (however unlikely it is) we are wrong our economies will suffer disastrous effects that they may never recover from. With things that are not going to have a long-term effect , it doesn't matter if we are wrong. We need fresher and more data on this point.

What data is 2 decades old? Why does the age of the data affect anything?

Quote:

True however how many of these methods account for variations?

I don't follow your point.

OneWayTraffic

Joined: 14 Mar 2005

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Well I've never said to wait until the probability factor=1...more like 1 in 1000 or so. But to go to the other side of the coin it makes no sense to launch a thousand nuclear missiles at an asteriod which has about a 1 in a million chance of striking the earth.

Actually it does. The risk adjusted effects of an extinction level event are higher than the cost of 1000 nukes.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

Quote:

If we are to drastically change our lifestyle and implement changes which could have long-term negative effects on our lives, the ecomony and developing countries we'd better be pretty darn sure.

Quote:

If an asteroid big enough to destroy the earth does come for us...there's not much we can do about it anyway.

That's not true at all. It's basic math to figure out how much force needs to be applied at x distance to move the asteroid. It's entirely do-able if done early enough. But like GW, longer we wait, probability approaches 1 as well as the probability we can do something about it approaches 0.

Actually it completely depends on the size and when the asteroid is discovered. If it's 10 kilometers across or bigger (well read this link on what we might do in that case..10th paragraph) Doesn't seem like he thinks we can do much.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2006/Apr06/armageddon.html

Quote:

The IPCC has given the probability GW is caused by human at about 80%. No? In terms of the asteroid, no one would suggest such a mission for a 1 in a million chance. But what if it were 25% or even money? Granted the cost of such a mission would be far, far less than doing something about global warming.

Well then in that case yes. But (IMHO) GW is nowwhere near being that kind of a threat

And for the record, my belief is GW is likely real and my suggested course of action is do nothing. I think humans and human economies will adapt to any change GW is likely to throw at us. I prefer a bottom up solution versus governments handing a top down solution.

Quote:

What data is 2 decades old? Why does the age of the data affect anything?

Because newer techniques or more accurate versions may have been developed. And because newer data may indicate the earth is showing a cooling trend. (I posted a link but it's not working...I'll get back to you on that soon...going home now)

Quote:

True however how many of these methods account for variations?

I don't follow your point.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:16 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

I'd make sure I do indeed have cancer

All assay tests have a chance of being a false positive.

Quote:

Actually it completely depends on the size and when the asteroid is discovered. If it's 10 kilometers across or bigger (well read this link on what we might do in that case..10th paragraph) Doesn't seem like he thinks we can do much.

And sure if Mars started hurtling towards us we could strap a mass driver onto Mars and move it out of the way. You can keep increasing the size of the rock until we can do nothing about it at any point. However, we're talking about a scenario, or at least I am, where if you attack the problem early enough you can do something about it, but longer you wait lower your chances are. So for the sake of argument, and assuming that student's calculations are right (his figures have not been peer reviewed yet), we'll posit a scenario where we detect an asteroid less than 10km.

Quote:

[b] Because newer techniques or more accurate versions may have been developed. And because newer data may indicate the earth is showing a cooling trend. (I posted a link but it's not working...I'll get back to you on that soon...going home now)

It's an interesting claim but I'll wait your documentation that there is better evidence out there.

agentX

Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:40 am Post subject:

So many myths, so little time...

If Global Warming is a "hoax" then why are chunks of Antarctica falling off into the ocean?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080613104743.htm

So the power industry wants people to believe that Nuclear Power is a 'clean energy' (i.e. Carbon Free), huh?
Well, the facts say otherwise.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/2587.jsp

Quote:

1. Greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power

Nuclear power is not a zero carbon-energy source. To generate electricity from uranium, a complex chain of industrial processes is needed to:

* convert uranium ore in the ground into fuel elements for the reactor;
* construct the facilities including the nuclear power plant itself; and
* handle the wastes and to store the wastes in a save geological repository.

Operating a nuclear reactor is the only part of the chain which produces virtually no carbon dioxide.

A complete life-cycle analysis shows that generating electricity from nuclear power emits 20-40% of the carbon dioxide per kiloWatt hour ( kWh) of a gas-fired system when the whole system is taken into account (see Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance by Jan-Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith).

The nuclear process chain also emits other greenhouse gases besides carbon dioxide with far stronger global-warming potential such as chloro- and fluorohydrocarbons and probably SF6. These emissions are difficult to quantify from the open literature, but the total emission of carbon dioxide equivalents by a nuclear system will be significantly more than 20-40% of a gas-fired system with the same energy output.

Quote:

For the total costs of a new nuclear-power plant, a photovoltaic system can be constructed with an electricity generating capacity of two to seven times as much.

VP Cheney always had a little trouble with the facts. That's why he hid in his 'cave' with the energy "robber barons" to carve out the atrocious energy policy. Which is also why he's trying so hard to keep the names of those that attended from being made public.

In the meantime, the key to preventing a global warming catastrophe is already in our hands: Conservation. More efficient vehicles, slower speeds (55mph), more efficient appliances and factories, and pulling away from dirty fuels like coal will win the day.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject:

agentX wrote:

Nuclear power is not a zero carbon-energy source. To generate electricity from uranium, a complex chain of industrial processes is needed to:

Quote:

A complete life-cycle analysis shows that generating electricity from nuclear power emits 20-40% of the carbon dioxide per kiloWatt hour ( kWh) of a gas-fired system when the whole system is taken into account

So a way to generate electricity that cuts out carbon emissions between 60 and 80% Sign me up. Does this compare the life cycle of a nuclear to the life cycle of a gas or coal plant? Why didn't they compare coal?

Quote:

The nuclear process chain also emits other greenhouse gases besides carbon dioxide with far stronger global-warming potential such as chloro- and fluorohydrocarbons and probably SF6.

What do the petrochemical industries emit?

Quote:

For the total costs of a new nuclear-power plant, a photovoltaic system can be constructed with an electricity generating capacity of two to seven times as much.

Anyone ever deploy one of those to power a nation of 300 million?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

I'd make sure I do indeed have cancer

All assay tests have a chance of being a false positive.

Quote:

It's an interesting claim but I'll wait your documentation that there is better evidence out there.

Here's the link, finally got it to work.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

Now he does point out that one year is too short to be considered anything more than an anomaly, but on the other hand it does show that the earth is not getting hotter and hotter every year. Also if man-made global warming WAS the main cause, then temperatures should not have dropped so much. If on the other hand most of the global warming is due to natural events, then the drop can be explained by that..however if that is the case then that kind of invalidates any claim that man-made changes are the driving factor in making the earth warmer.

Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

Jandar

Joined: 11 Jun 2008

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject:

agentX wrote:

So many myths, so little time...

If Global Warming is a "hoax" then why are chunks of Antarctica falling off into the ocean?

Quote:

For the total costs of a new nuclear-power plant, a photovoltaic system can be constructed with an electricity generating capacity of two to seven times as much.

I don't think the argument is that there is no warming.

The argument is whether it is man made or man correctable.

The Earth freezes and thaws in cycles, we refer to these as ice ages.

The next ice age is overdue, we have been in a prolonged warming state for quite some time.

There is a ledge that we wil cross at some point soon, probably within a few hundred years, where the earth will cool rather abruptly as has accured several times in the earths life, that will be the next ice age and it will last a very long time.

Man will survive, civilization may not.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:58 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Here's the link, finally got it to work.

Has this been peer reviewed? Who is this guy? What is ability to interpret such data?

Quote:

Now he does point out that one year is too short to be considered anything more than an anomaly, but on the other hand it does show that the earth is not getting hotter and hotter every year.

Other than non scientists who argues GW should always result in a higher annual temperature?

Quote:

Also if man-made global warming WAS the main cause, then temperatures should not have dropped so much.

Based on whose metric?

Quote:

If on the other hand most of the global warming is due to natural events, then the drop can be explained by that..

But I thought it is also explained within the GW model. Variation. If the drop can be explained by something else, then he should get on explaining it.

Quote:

however if that is the case then that kind of invalidates any claim that man-made changes are the driving factor in making the earth warmer.

If we start seeing a downward trend over the next few years sure. Still, I see no science that says "if GW is correct, there should be either no annual drop or there should be no drop by X magnitude."

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:34 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Here's the link, finally got it to work.

Has this been peer reviewed? Who is this guy? What is ability to interpret such data?

Quote:

Now he does point out that one year is too short to be considered anything more than an anomaly, but on the other hand it does show that the earth is not getting hotter and hotter every year.

Other than non scientists who argues GW should always result in a higher annual temperature?

Quote:

Also if man-made global warming WAS the main cause, then temperatures should not have dropped so much.

Based on whose metric?

Quote:

If on the other hand most of the global warming is due to natural events, then the drop can be explained by that..

But I thought it is also explained within the GW model. Variation. If the drop can be explained by something else, then he should get on explaining it.

Quote:

however if that is the case then that kind of invalidates any claim that man-made changes are the driving factor in making the earth warmer.

That's not what was said. If man-made causes are the main cause, and they have not decreased, why should global warming?

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:19 am Post subject:

SirFink wrote:

fiveeagles wrote:

Exactly my sentiments.

Open up drilling in Canada and the US. Build 50 more refineries. Build 20 more nuclear plants.

Continue to work on new technologies.

BC is about to get a 2 percent carbon tax on our gas. Gas is at 1.40 a litre right now. What a joke!

Maybe if we all pray really really hard, gas prices will come down.

No, but God will forgive our sin and heal our land. Most of our land is under a curse and so its calling out for justice. Murder, lust, hatred and so forth are boiling over into the destruction we see around us.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:33 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

That's not what was said. If man-made causes are the main cause, and they have not decreased, why should global warming?

Where in any scientific report on GW does it indicate all yearly data points should fall on the line?

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:33 am Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

SirFink wrote:

fiveeagles wrote:

Maybe if we all pray really really hard, gas prices will come down.

Don't forget to add drug use and witches.

Justin Hale

Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:19 pm Post subject:

The issue of the short-term trend in global cooling was addressed in my previous post in this thread. La Nina/El Nino have been occurring throughout the observed global climate change period and their only relevance appears to be that global warming seems to increase their frequency and intensity. 1998 was, I think, the record and El Nino was particularly strong that year, but it remains the case that the greenhouse gases of human activities are the best explanation for the long term and largely warming trends observed since the Industrial Revolution and the 1970s in particular.

AgentX wrote:

So the power industry wants people to believe that Nuclear Power is a 'clean energy' (i.e. Carbon Free), huh?
Well, the facts say otherwise.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/2587.jsp

According to these physicists from the School of Physics at the University of Melbourne in Australia (your link was written by a consultant in chemistry and energy systems, not a nuclear expert)......

Quote:

Although the processes of running a Nuclear Power plant generates no CO2, some CO2 emissions arise from the construction of the plant, the mining of the Uranium, the enrichment of the Uranium, its conversion into Nuclear Fuel, its final disposal and the final plant decommissioning. The amount of CO2 generated by these secondary processes primarily depends on the method used to enrich the Uranium (the gaseous diffusion enrichment process uses about 50 times more electricity than the gaseous centrifuge method) and the source of electricity used for the enrichment process. It has been the subject of some controversy. To estimate the total CO2 emissions from Nuclear Power we take the work of the Swedish Energy Utility, Vattenfall, which produces electricity via Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind energy sources and has produced credited Environment Product Declarations for all these processes.

Vattenfall finds that averaged over the entire lifecycle of their Nuclear Plant including Uranium mining, milling, enrichment, plant construction, operating, decommissioning and waste disposal, the total amount CO2 emitted per KW-Hr of electricity produced is 3.3 grams per KW-Hr of produced power. Vattenfall measures its CO2 output from Natural Gas to be 400 grams per KW-Hr and from coal to be 700 grams per KW-Hr. Thus nuclear power generated by Vattenfall, which may constitute World's best practice, emits less than one hundredth the CO2 of Fossil-Fuel based generation. In fact Vattenfall finds its Nuclear Plants to emit less CO2 than any of its other energy production mechanisms including Hydro, Wind, Solar and Biomass although all of these processes emit much less than fossil fuel generation of electricity.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

That's not what was said. If man-made causes are the main cause, and they have not decreased, why should global warming?

Where in any scientific report on GW does it indicate all yearly data points should fall on the line?

If GW is man made and man keeps pumping greenhouse gases into the air, why would the temperature fall?

That's just common sense. If you pour water into a bowl the level is going to rise not fall.

If on the the other hand weather changes are primarily responsible for GW then when the weather changes so will GW.

As for the scentific reports on GW I take them with a grain of salt. Scientists have been wrong before many times. Remember the Club of Rome?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe