OT - A Poll and a place to Chat.

[General_W]

Yeah – read a lot about that.
At work now – so only got to listen to about 10 mins of that Very Warm audio. Sounds dire.
Was nice to hear them get into more details and not just dumb everything down. NPR is usually pretty good for that.

The planet is certainly changing… just like it always has

I'm a pretty big fan of NPR also… our local programming here in Spokane (KPBX) isn't always amazing – but all the national stuff they pick up is usually really great.
Frequently ridiculously slanted – but I love it… like I said, I'm an admitted news junkie.

Do you enjoy the Prairie Home Companion? My wife totally doesn't get it, but I really get a kick out of it when I have time to listen in.
Other than that… uhmmm… This American Life – I can always totally blow an hour with those. And now they're on a free weekly podcast on iTunes! Hooray.

 

[peter grimes]

The planet is certainly changing… just like it always has

But that's the whole point - this isn't anything like how the planet has changed before.... at least not in the last 1/2 billion years.

The planet will certainly survive, no doubt. But humans are in the process of releasing hundreds of millions of years of stored up solar energy into the energy exchange systems that regulate our climate, and that's going to alter the system in ways we won't like. The best we can hope for is to mitigate the effects of a process we've already set in motion, inadvertently.

 

[Niklas]

Exactly what PG says. This isn't the "ordinary" fluctuations of a volatile environment. "Unequivocal" is the word used. This is something that has never been witnessed before. The speed and magnitude of the changes in temperature these days far exceed anything that has been seen before. Yes, I know, Krakatua and similar natural events have very dramatically changed the environment and in particular the temperature. The difference then is that the change has been temporary, caused by a particular effect such as atmospheric silt, and everything has returned to normal after a fairly short while. That is not the case here. We're not talking swift deviations from the norm - we're talking rapid changes of the norm itself!

Also, particularly in the light of events such as Krakatua, I find it rather silly to question the ability of mankind to affect the environment dramatically. The amount of silt thrown into the atmosphere by a large-scale volcanic eruption is certainly sizeable, but still a drop in the ocean compared to the amounts of substances that we humans emit continuously. What makes our influence so much more dangerous is that our emissions are such that nature will not do away with them easily. Silt will fall back to ground by itself - CO2 not so.

I'd like to share a quote by the lead columnist in my local newspaper, translated and paraphrased by me for your pleasure:

Today many deny the climate problem, or rather the human factor behind the climate problem. Because if you admit that, there will be demands on changes to your lifestyle that some obviously aren't willing to take. On various forums on the net, assertive debaters explain that the climate changes are only about natural variations and that no special measures are needed (in particular no measures that adversely affect one's own car driving or low-price flying). The strength of this argumentation is of course significantly weakened by the fact that a truly dominating majority of the real experts now agree that, to cite the UN climate panel, the increase in average temperature is "very likely" to be caused by human influence and that it is "extremely unlikely" that the global climate changes "could be explained without external influence".

In particular I found the forum reference quite fun , though I wouldn't call GeneralW either assertive or unwilling to take measures, far from it. But I most certainly, not to say vehemently, oppose the claim that what we are witnessing is "natural variations". And I also strongly believe that proposing that view is actually directly harmful to the environment, perhaps in particular if you are knowledgeable and have a good understanding of the problems. Because there will always be those who gladly listen to others when they say that nothing needs to be done, and even if you yourself understand and take measures despite your skepticism, these others not as knowledgeable will jump the chance to excuse doing nothing. Man is lazy, that's a simple truth.

 

[General_W]

Good points all.
I’ve enjoyed this discussion very much… gets my juices going!

As my parting word, I’d like to say that my skepticism on this topic is not (at least not consciously) borne out of a desire to avoid personal responsibility or lifestyle changes.

In all honesty, I suspect my great reluctance to accede the point on human involvement flows largely from my passionate opposition to what I know the proposed “remedies” will be. This isn’t an unwillingness to make changes, it’s a fundamental disagreement about the best way to bring about changes in any area… ie Free Market vs State Control. It could also just partly be my contrarian nature… in light of the fact that I’m living in a place that was once buried under ice and the scientific community is leaving us with at least some slight doubt than mankind is behind is behind this latest global climate shift.

But I will agree – at the end of the day, the vast weight of evidence is on the side of humanity caused global warming, and the proper debate should be on how to best address it.
I just hope we can keep the present warming, unique in history though it may be, in perspective our incredibly dynamic and always changing world.

Thank you for the stimulating discussion gentlemen!

 

[peter grimes]

I've enjoyed this as well, especially the well-written responses

One thing that I'd like to know more about, and plan on looking into at some point soon: How much CO2 (if any?) does volcanism contribute to the atmosphere? Likewise, how much sulphur dioxide, and how do those amounts compare with human contributions?

 

[General_W]

Good question – and a part of my natural skepticism on the whole topic! According to Wikipedia: estimate the current amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere at about 0.0383% by volume. While volcanoes are generally credited with producing the Co2 in our atmosphere thus far, scientists currently say that volcanoes only produce 1% of the ammount that is realsesed today.


However, there are as many answers as there are sources, - Wikipedia doesn’t cite where their number came from. Apparently there are two ranges of estimates, the first estimates range from 3 billion to 28 billion tons, the second from 750 billion tons to 2.97 x 1012 tons, a number so large that there's no common English word for it. Variations of this size - up to three orders of magnitude - suggest a serious lack of basic knowledge.
(warning: highly political link that may make your eyes bleed!) http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/resisting_global_warming_panic.html

But this guy doesn't cite where he got those numbers either. Only reliable number I can find are the numbers on carbon as a "parts per billion" – but since it evidently changes based on which part of the atmosphere you're in – I don't know how they get that number either.
As noted in my first post – I'm not scientist, and I'm willing to take want the vast majority say as likely true. But the vagarities do seem a bit odd.

This was the best I could find – If anyone has better sources and more precise numbers, I'd truly be very interested to see it!
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html

Also, came across this and couldn't resist…

Spoiler :

Science is difficult because nature always has another surprise in store for us. Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and was wrong about that. Newton went wrong on the proof of calculus, a problem that didn't get solved until 1900. Scientists are always wrong --- they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything is going well). Check out the current issue of Science magazine. It's full of surprises. That's what it's for.

Now imagine that all the variables about global climate are known with less than 100 percent certainty. Let's be wildly and unrealistically optimistic and say that climate scientists know each variable to 99 percent certainty! (No such thing, of course). And let's optimistically suppose there are only one-hundred x's, y's, and z's --- all the variables that can change the climate: like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes, the multifarious fartings of billions of living creatures on the face of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals. Got that? It all goes into our best math model.

So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent.

The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three. How many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we going to spend on that chance?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/why_global_warming_is_probably.html

 

[Niklas]

Indeed that did make my eyes bleed. The kind of argumentation that is done in that latter quote is why some people shouldn't be allowed to argue over important matters at all. Political is just the beginning.

I guess I don't need to point out to you people the fallacies of his reasoning, but I can't let him stand unopposed so I'll do it anyway.

No one is claiming we know the formulae that govern the environment. No one is claiming that we should emit less CO2 into the atmosphere and that by some mathematical formulae we know what will happen. We can only see what we have done, and what that have lead us to, and draw conclusions on the basis of those observations. No one is claiming that the temperature will decrease if we stop emitting, only that it is highly likely that it will continue to rise if we don't. Geez.

Spoiler cheesy part of the counter that cannot be shown in public :

Also the simple multiplicative model is definitely not the "spiffiest" imaginable model, nor is it even any good. It is fully possible to imagine that we know a certain variable only to withing 50% certainty and still be able to predict the outcome to 99%, or have a single variable known to within 99% and all others known at 100% and still not have even 20% certainty about the outcome. The kind of argumentation he's using is only to win over those who don't know better.

Sorry for the rant. I'll be back with some more relevant comments later.

 

[General_W]

Sorry for the rant.

No apology necessary. If anyone should apologize, it's certainly me for firing this back up after we came to such a nice détente (spelling?) by post #85.

I'm not sure what possessed me.

In fairness, I'm quite sure Mr. Lewis was not suggesting his multiplicative model as a good model for determining the likelihood of environmental events. It was just a simple example to make a larger point about a much more complex topic (which we've already agreed, I believe, suffers from great oversimplification on both sides)
I am, however, interested to know what kind of things can be predicted with 99% accuracy when we only understand a variable to within 50% ?? If something is that irrelevant, it I don't see how it could hardly be considered a valid variable… - although I certainly agree that knowing every variable but one at 100% certainty can reduce our predictive powers down to almost nothing. But then, I think that was Mr. Lewis's main point.
Should that have been in a spoiler?

 

[General_W]

Note: I really hope I haven't upset anyone that is still reading my posts.

My initial hesitancy to post anything (perhaps I should have listened to that warning voice) was out of a desire to not drag my beloved team mates into a discussion that is really not well suited to a game forum, and on a topic about which there are (rightly) passionate views.

I'm really just here for fun – and because I'm a Civ addict – so I really don't want to do anything to destroy that fun atmosphere. I enjoy a spirited discussion, but I forget sometimes that other don't always take it as light hearted.

I really do look forward to reading your promised response Niklas, and I'll admit you've changed my mind on a couple points. However, I think I'm going to try to slink back into less controversial topics and just focus on helping the Council crush the opposition in this game!

 

[fe3333au]

Keep on posting that's what this thread is all about

I found the Amercian Thinker article ... ummmm ... irritating to put it as mildly as possible

This article from the Australian Broadcasting Commission (similar to BBC) News site, the ABC is government funded and in general presents well balanced reports. In fact it is the station I get most of my news from as opposed to the commercial broadcasters.

The UN has just released a report that states increase in global average temperatures since mid-20th century "very likely" (at least 90% certainty) due to increase in human-linked greenhouse gas concentrations.

The previous report used the word "likely"

 

[peter grimes]

I enjoy a spirited discussion, but I forget sometimes that other don't always take it as light hearted.

I hope we all take this well-placed admonition

I think that those of us who are engaged in this discussion are so engaged because we, like you, enjoy spirited discussion as well. Besides - we're all learning something in the process, and that's the best part, for me at least!

 

[peter grimes]

The oceans and land vegetation release and absorb over 200 billion metric tons of carbon into and out of the atmosphere each year. ...Human activities are now adding about 7 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year,which is only about 3–4% of the amount exchanged naturally.

This is from a FAQ page on the NOAA website. Naturally, it doesn't link to its source material, it's just presenting an overview. But I found some better comparisons by hunting around a bit more - and they're easier to understand, as they are all presented in the same units.

The Unites States Geological Survey has an informative page on volcanic emissions. It states that 130 million tonnes of CO2 are released each year by volcanos. Contrast that with the 10849 million tonnes released in 2004 by humans through fossil fuel consumption alone, according to the United States Energy Information Administration. This number does not include the direct and indirect impact of deforestion: directly through burning forests (carbon sinks) for fuel and land clearing; indirectly through the loss of all those little choroplasts in the leaves and needles of the trees.

So according to the United States government research institutions, humans are releasing about 80 times as much CO2 as all the volcanos on earth combined.

And growing.

Every year.

Spoiler picking a nit - sorry, GW! :

2.97 x 1012 tons, a number so large that there's no common English word for it

Come now! Of course there's a common english word for it, and to state otherwise is simply careless.

It's 2,970 billion -- or, if you prefer, just under 3 trillion. I don't know about you, but I hear the number 3 trillion tossed around quite a lot these days, but usually with a dollar sign infront of it, and followed by the words "propsed federal budget"

USGS data sheet on the types of gasses emitted through volcanism, and the range of emissions.
USEIA datasheets in .xls format - comprehensive to say the least!

EDIT: I should have kept reading further down the USGS page!

Spoiler :

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.

Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

 

[General_W]

Good work on finding those numbers Peter!
Clearly the "What about the volcanos" argument is no good.

Keep on posting that's what this thread is all about

Thanks sir! I certainly plan on continuing to post... I'm just going to aim more for OFF topic and less OFFensive Topic

I must say though – I really appreciate the amount of mutual respect that’s been shown in this thread as we’ve disagreed with each other. What a great team!

 

[peter grimes]

Here's a something to discuss:

NASA's projected budget for 2008 is just shy of 18 billion USD. Though this reflects a modest increase over the past years, it's still not nearly enough to fund a manned mission to the Moon while keeping existing science projects funded.

A year ago, President Bush pronounced that he wanted NASA to resume manned missions to The Moon, with the goal being research towards a manned mission to Mars. A few months later, it was announced that Hubble would not be repaired anymore, as budgetary constraints and the recent Shuttle problems have made that science program too expensive to maintain. This decision was since changed, and Hubble will be maintained for another couple of years. However, this is seen as an early sign of some of the big changes NASA will be going through in the next few years.

What should NASA cut? What projects be kept funded, at the expense of which others? Is NASA obligated to follow the challenges laid out in a "State of the Union" speech, which is more akin to propaganda than policy?

1000 words or less, gentlemen

 

[General_W]

That's such a hard call – the dreamer in me wants to see NASA go back to the moon, and then on to Mars.
But it does seem kinda sad to let the more immediately practical benefits of the current research slide in favor of the more grandiose space opera kind of missions.

But here's my current stand – I think we ought to go to the Moon and Mars.

NASA has already done a lot of the pioneering work on low orbit/sub orbital space flight. Now that technology is moving into the realms where other companies and organizations can continue the work and development and advancement of knowledge.

NASA should continue to push the boundaries and undertake projects to inspire and excite the next generation. Although there may not be much immediate practical benefit from sending astronauts to Mars – missions like that can inspire everyone from scientists to school kids in a way that growing mold and bacteria and doing disease testing in Petri dishes at 680 km up just can't.

171 words – 981 characters!

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Space...

there are several reasons why I think we need to go to the moon and mars and beyond.

1) Humans have to reach for things. It's the way it is. 50 years ago, getting someone into orbit was an accomplishment. Now, people can stay in orbit for extended periods of time, so it's not an accomplishment. There is a reason why you see people trying insane variants of Civ, like AWE 1CC - people need to push the limits of whatever they are doing.

2) Pushing the envelope and solving those problems can create new knowledge, techniques, products, solutions.

3) The human race needs, for it's survival, to get off the planet. Well, not for sure, of course, but there *will* be an asteroid hitting the earth at some point. We may have died out by then, or not. Something cataclysmic may happen. If humans are on 2 planets, the race goes on. If we are on 2 solar systems, we are protected from nova

4) It's cool.

 

[peter grimes]

I agree that humans should keep trying to go further and further into space. It is inevitable that a human being will set foot on Mars. That's just our nature. I sincerely hope to be alive for that moment. I missed the [staged ] moon landing, so Mars is the only thing I can realistically hope for.

However, to undertake a project like that at the expense of the 'pure science' projects where I have trouble. I may be simplifying things a bit by presenting it as an either / or issue, but the problem is the budget. Without increasing the overall budget several times, there is no wat humans will walk on Mars in my lifetime.

I would much rather see us spend $1000 million a day at NASA rather than in Iraq

 

[fe3333au]

As a kid I watched in awe as man was driving (bouncing) around in a luna buggy, I religiously cutout articles into a scrapbook and I guess read voraciously as much scifi that I could ... we all thought that moonbases were the next step and would be happening by the time we became adults ... but since then ... nothing

I guess the first step I'd like to see is to finish the international space station, this could be the staging base to launch the Moon missions, and later Mars and mining the Asteroid belt. Also think of all the scientific breakthroughs that came from the early space race. The international station would similarly boost breakthroughs in new materials, engineering, drugs etc which all equates to economic spinoffs.

I'd also like to see less money spent on defence, however I'd prefer that the UN take a more active role and coordinate this venture to a greater degree and to also encourage corporations to become involved in funding.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

well, the UN didn't want us to go into Iraq, anyway....

one of the things about going to mars is that the cost of getting materials into space is huge, because of the gravity well. Better would be to be able to create a moonbase that is self-sufficient - solar powered with hydroponics - I have no idea how far we are from that, or if it's even theoretically possible with current technology.

Problem with a moonbase is that it's pretty dangerous to allow a foreign country to put one up there, for the same reason. Gravity is less - you launch a rock from up there, you can drop it wherever you want.

 

[fe3333au]

Does anyone know of any countries experimenting or planning a manned base underwater?

That was the other great wide eyed fantasy I thought would become commonplace as a kid. It also seems as a more logical precurser for a luna base with regards to the issues of waste recycling and atmosphere scrubbing technologies.