David Attenborough disappointed with and sick of the USA's head in the sand attitude to global warming

[JFSOCC]

Erm...no. Transistors don't use the so-called quantum state.

Actually no computer does. Quantum computers are theoretical.

You tell that to my Ex girlfriend, who works with experimental quantum computers. Edited May 18, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Elerond]

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/google-buys-a-quantum-computer/

 

Google buys a quatum computer, so one could think that they start to be more than theoretical machines.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Except that unlike QM, GW hasn't actually predicted anything and is constantly being retconned to try to make it agree with observations. The whole thing is nothing but a bunch of garbage in, garbage out computer models.

Yeah, it isn't like scientists have predicted the polar ice caps melting, thinning of the ozone layer, or increasingly erratic weather patterns. They've obviously been faking it for the past 20 years to force Americans into evil socialist habits like recycling and energy conservation.

 

Maybe if we pretend poverty isn't a problem it will go away too.

 

Thinning of the ozone layer isn't even part of global warming, get your scare mongering right.

 

I was recently at a local history museum and it had a cross-section of a tree with extremely thin rings from 1950-1957. They claimed it was because Texas had an extremely severe drought for 7 years. Of course I knew the cross-section was faked because no natural disaster like that happened until recently, no doubt just a bunch of deniers.

[Rostere]

 

I take "quantum theory" to mean the entirety of atomic and sub- atomic physics and chemistry (from the literal meaning of quantum). Most likely he's referring to quantum mechanics, though. It's pointless to say it's not proven, even if you mean it in a logical-philosophical sense. It's similar to saying that there are undetectable ghosts behind the moon, or that the universe is ruled by your imaginary friend. No one might be able to prove you wrong, but it's impossible to prove to anyone else and it's not a worldview that will help you in any way. Quantum mechanics, or quantum theory, has practically perfect predictive power to the extent of what our experiments can tell us. Of course you can interpret QM in several ways, but how it works remains the same, and it's really not up to opinion.

 

Generalizing the whole of QM as one theory is absolutely awful. Then saying that it's "unproven" (more than any other theory...) is just misleading.

 

How do you think transistors are made? Almost all modern technological devices utilize QM in some way. The physicists at Intel or whoever designed your computer parts would be ashamed to read your statement. No matter of your opinion, people use QM at all times of the day to make new advances.

 

Erm...no. Transistors don't use the so-called quantum state.

Actually no computer does. Quantum computers are theoretical.

 

What?

 

Let me clear your confusion: try reading Seitz' original papers from the 1930s and 1940s. His research, building on quantum theory from the early 1900s (wave- particle duality was a central part of it, for example), was crucial to our understanding of semiconductors. Because of this research, it was possible to later construct transistors. No QM -> no transistors.

 

Also, for your education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Applications

 

FYI there are also computers which ACTIVELY utilize these quantum phenomena: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22554494

[Walsingham]

The point isn't quantum theory or the Big Bang Theory as instances.

 

The point is as Alanschu says: our best scientific theories are Disprovable Yet Not Yet Disproven (I'm coining this as DYNYD).

 

It's the heart of scientific progress.

 

I really don't know why you're so hostile about it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Thinning of the ozone layer isn't even part of global warming, get your scare mongering right.

But it is part of climate change.  Referring to the whole phenomenon as "global warming" is just so some deniers can say "HA, it's cold out side, global warming doesn't exist".

 

 

I really don't know why you're so hostile about it.

Wals, your on the internet. People will be hostile over children's cartoon shows.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Thinning of the ozone layer isn't even part of global warming, get your scare mongering right.

But it is part of climate change.  Referring to the whole phenomenon as "global warming" is just so some deniers can say "HA, it's cold out side, global warming doesn't exist".

 

Thinning of the ozone layer has been blamed of Chlorofluorocarbons, some have postulated global warming has something to do with it as well, but the connection is tenuous at best. The main tenet of global warming, which is that a tiny increase in atmospheric green house gasses will have a huge positive feedback effect on global temperatures with catastrophic results has no evidence to back it up. Since there hasn't been any warming observed for over a decade now the theory has been retconned to "climate change", as if climate change hasn't always occurred for natural reasons. Of course this doesn't preclude that human activity has "some" effect on the climate, it is quite plausible that it does, the question is how far we're willing to go in destroying our prosperity because of an unproven, theoretical threat.

[Walsingham]

 

I really don't know why you're so hostile about it.

Wals, your on the internet. People will be hostile over children's cartoon shows.

 

 

 

Yeah, so YOU say, buddy!

 

Ai!

[pmp10]

The main tenet of global warming, which is that a tiny increase in atmospheric green house gasses will have a huge positive feedback effect on global temperatures with catastrophic results has no evidence to back it up. 

Disregarding your other assessment of data and evidence the greenhouse gases increase is by no means 'tiny'.

That CO_² levels are highest since millions of years should clue people in to that.

[Walsingham]

OK, so, leaving aside the debate of whether anthro-warming is happening or not...

 

Does any member believe we are going to see effective (as defined by warmists) action taken in the necessary timeframe?

 

EDIT:

 

To explain:

 

Assume significant action equates to a moratorium on new coal fired energy generation, and the future requirement generated by wind.

 

Does any member believe such action will be taken or could be taken at a global level?

Edited May 18, 2013 by Walsingham

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

The main tenet of global warming, which is that a tiny increase in atmospheric green house gasses will have a huge positive feedback effect on global temperatures with catastrophic results has no evidence to back it up.

Disregarding your other assessment of data and evidence the greenhouse gases increase is by no means 'tiny'.

That CO_² levels are highest since millions of years should clue people in to that.

 

In millions of years? I doubt that. In any case, it's currently .04% of the atmosphere, compared to 1% for water vapor, another greenhouse gas.

 

 

OK, so, leaving aside the debate of whether anthro-warming is happening or not...

 

Does any member believe we are going to see effective (as defined by warmists) action taken in the necessary timeframe?

 

EDIT:

 

To explain:

 

Assume significant action equates to a moratorium on new coal fired energy generation, and the future requirement generated by wind.

 

Does any member believe such action will be taken or could be taken at a global level?

No way, all the UN conferences keep falling apart, because they're so ridiculous.

[pmp10]

OK, so, leaving aside the debate of whether anthro-warming is happening or not...

 

Does any member believe we are going to see effective (as defined by warmists) action taken in the necessary timeframe?

 

EDIT:

 

To explain:

 

Assume significant action equates to a moratorium on new coal fired energy generation, and the future requirement generated by wind.

 

Does any member believe such action will be taken or could be taken at a global level?

First you would have to agree to definitions of 'effective' and 'necessary'.

Moratorium on coal and pushing wind would not be that effective IMO.

As to will we see them? Depends on the climate effects that will happen and the headlines they will produce.

Let's be honest here - few tears will be shed for African droughts or sinking Micronesia.

A few record forest fires could hit a bit closer to home.

[JFSOCC]

Does any member believe we are going to see effective (as defined by warmists) action taken in the necessary timeframe?

no

Does any member believe such action will be taken or could be taken at a global level?

no and yes respectively

[Zoraptor]

I've always thought that gravity is a better example than QT to use when talking about scientific theory. Consistently working observational/ predictive models, easily observable consequences to everyone, yet nobody knows how/ why those observable phenomenon occur. In any explanation of gravity you end up at some purely theoretical stuff (mass curving space, OK, after that it's all gravitons!!! infinite expansion pressure!!! and suchlike) as an explanation after about two questions. QT is both too broad and too specialist/ hard for lay people to understand to really make good points about.
 

The main tenet of global warming, which is that a tiny increase in atmospheric green house gasses will have a huge positive feedback effect on global temperatures with catastrophic results has no evidence to back it up.

Bro' it's got a vast amount of evidence backing it up- it's just theoretical and historical evidence which seemingly doesn't count, for some reason. More CO₂ retains more heat as a basic tenet of physics and historical data shows that, as a general rule, higher CO₂ concs mean correlate with higher mean temps. You might be able to argue whether it's absolutely conclusive evidence, barring the base physics stuff, but it's certainly a lot more than the purest hyperbole of 'no evidence'.

[Wrath of Dagon]

There is some evidence of correlation, though it may be that higher temperatures cause higher CO2, but there's no evidence of run away positive feedback.

[Zoraptor]

Venus

 

r00fles!

[alanschu]

 

 

In millions of years? I doubt that. In any case, it's currently .04% of the atmosphere, compared to 1% for water vapor, another greenhouse gas.

 

Does water vapour fluctuate a lot?  If not, then the comparison isn't entirely relevant.  It's more of a belief of how delicate our thermal balance is, and whether or not small changes are enough to throw things out of equilibrium.

 

It'd also depend on whether or not water vapor is as effective of a greenhouse gas too.  I know cloud coverage can increase the albedo of the planet, and I don't know if CO2 has the same effects (water vapor will, at the very least, prevent the visible spectrum from reaching the surface, as clouds are white).

[Walsingham]

JFSOCC, you seem pretty genuine so this is a genuine question:

 

In what way _could_ such measures as I describe put into action?

 

What's the roadmap you see in your head when you say it's possible?

[JadedWolf]

I'll leave the question whether I believe in human driven climate change alone, considering I honestly don't know enough about it. But if it is true, to be honest, I think unless some brilliant inventors come up with something soon, we're doomed anyway - and turning off the light when we leave the room isn't going to change that. Humans are just not great long term thinkers, and they don't cooperate well - especially not when greed comes in. Good luck trying to tell countries like China that their people shouldn't drive cars. And the human population just keeps on growing, which causes enough problems on its own.

 

But, one thing about this debate strikes me, and that is that it is said that it is said that there is money in "alarmism". Now, that might actually be true, but if I look at the other side of the coin, isn't there a lot more money to be made disproving human driven climate change? Wouldn't countries like China and India pay big bucks if there were scientists who could give the definite proof that humans did not affect climate change? If only so that Western countries would stop nagging to them? Or how about the energy companies, or the car companies? You don't think they'd be willing to shell out? Hell, if there was any scientific proof that could reach a majority consensus among the world's top scientists that humans do not play a role in global warming I'd be willing to pay, just so I would sleep better at night. A full 50 bucks, because, you know, I'm not that rich, man.

[JFSOCC]

JFSOCC, you seem pretty genuine so this is a genuine question:

 

In what way _could_ such measures as I describe put into action?

 

What's the roadmap you see in your head when you say it's possible?

Roadmap? Well, I don't know. I can give you the points of attention which I think are check-boxes on the list to improvement. I don't exactly know how we'd get there.

 

To start; Unlike many, I believe there is some power in the United Nations. International legislation concerning fishing, farming and womens rights would be important. But these are worth nothing without enforcement.

 

But I think the biggest change should be how much we invest in renewable energy technology. The amount the US government (and sadly, governments around the world) spend on this is but a FRACTION (and I'm not even kidding) of the amount paid for energy subsidies for oil companies. Mind you, many renewable technologies are fairly low-tech (solar panels excluded)

like gas and heat from fecal fermentation. (septic tanks!) wave power, water wheels, (although that would be DC, not AC) in Rio de Janeiro there's a power plant which extracts heat from buried garbage dumps which are slowly fermenting; and Dams. (although those have other environmental issues)

Some geological sites have potential for exploitation, hot springs, geisers, volcanoes, but we would need to further develop technology to utilize this.

I actually don't like wind power, it's inefficient, ugly, and kills birds, but even there, there are places where they can be used.

Biofuel is NOT a solution, it takes more energy to make than it delivers, and in order to make it you have to set aside vast tracts of land for monoculture which you won't be able to use for anything else, like food production.

We can't quickly stop using oil, even I am not that naive, but we can reduce our use, use it more efficiently. Cars in the US are tragically wasteful. European cars have much better fuel economy. This happened because fuel prices in Europe are much higher. The US has lived on an OIL glut and never had to develop energy efficient architecture.

 

Developed countries should invest in infrastructure: Public transportation is a joke in the US. (which is not strange when you let car companies buy up city transportation companies and then deliberately ruin them to end competition)

So Buses, trams, trains, mag-lev (seriously, why doesn't the US have this! even CHINA has mag-lev rail)

Not only is investing in infrastructure more energy efficient, it is good for the economy. Now, in the economic crisis, is an excellent time to do this, since such a project would create a lot of work.

 

No matter how much more environmentally friendly we'd live, we need less people on the planet. Now I'm not a genocidal maniac (outside of computer games) so I won't argue for war, disease and the like. (it would be a drop in the bucket anyway)

International pressure to improve womens rights, sex-ed, condoms, legalised abortion, cheap contraceptives etc are a start. But yes, for a while we'll have a legacy problem with overpopulation.

 

I also think there is a role for government in this, children should be learning about these things and their options around their 12th.

Mind you that having less people also increases democratic power. (if one representative represents 100.000 people that is less democratic than if he represents 10.000 people.) Often children in large families have less chances in life to thrive. So less people will most likely increase wealth, and health per person. It'd be a more pleasant world to live in for everyone. And you'll have to kill no-one to get there.

 

Another thing we can do is store carbon. Nature is the biggest carbon storage site on the planet. Every tree is a big carbon dump. Since about 40% of our planet's land surface is desert, we have a lot we can win there. Not only will this benefit the productivity of the land, create liveable space, equalise temperatures (deserts have greater extremes), provide a habitat for species under pressure, it will also help create fresh water (and millions have to do without, worldwide) and it will, most importantly, store carbon from the atmosphere. not to mention it provides us with oxygen rich environments.

Reclaiming desert is an expensive and difficult process, not to mention fairly energy intensive. The benefits are great, but the investment is also great. Luckily I've heard about some successes with fairly low tech solutions like cattle fertilisation to create grasslands

 

 

 

----

Because we don't have international unity in this, it falls to individual governments to do this. This is why Kyoto failed, why Copenhagen did nothing, and why Rio failed. I put no trust in these, much to my dismay. However, when governments take this on, and show their moderate successes, they will inspire other nations to do the same. Germany is on the right track, Japan is on the right track. Brazil is fast going the wrong way, but is experiencing economic boom at the cost of their environment. Same goes for China. I think India is experiencing an enlightenment period and I see a lot of good coming from there. I do think the US COULD take up an exemplary role, but not as long as the nation stays as politically divided as it is.

 

I do think the major steps are going to be at government level. At individual level all you can do is choose from what's available, and I certainly begrudge no man or woman the freedom to live a comfortable life. Of course we're going to leave the TV on sometimes, of course we're not going to put on another sweater rather than change the thermostat. I think it's naive to be moralistic about these things because it is pointless. You CAN however, choose. But choice is only useful if you're well enough informed, and if options are available.

 

You can rage all you want against oil companies, or coal plants, but if they are the only ones on the market, you don't really have a choice. You can rage all against fuel inefficient cars, but if the Import tax on more efficient cars is so high, of course you're going to "Buy American"

 

There are things you can do at a personal level though. You can choose not to have many children, to wait until you're a bit older with them. You can choose to buy energy efficient cars, use public transportation or carpool. You can choose not to eat fruit out of season, you can vote with your wallet. On your own you're not going to change the environment, but that's not the point, society changes by the person, it has to start somewhere. I hope that makes sense.

 

tl;dr: international legislation and enforcement; invest in renewables; invest in infrastructure; deal with overpopulation; education; reclaim deserts; make examples out of successes; fair choice.

I believe that's a largely non-coercive list of steps we can take.

Edit: And EVEN IF there'd be a global leftist 'warmist' climate conspiracy, these would be things which would improve the world for everyone, regardless.

Edited May 19, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Walsingham]

Not tl;dr. Although you could have made such a large bit of text a bit easier to read with some headings. Maybe a picture of a girl in a bikini.

 

 

I accept your point about European cars being more fuel efficient, but as you say the US isn't built around fuel efficiency at any level: not even 'local' stores are always walkable. If you raise taxes on fuel you're going to get 3-6 years (guess) of hurt to the peopel and the conomy before you see infrastructure catch up, and people concentrate slightly. That's a longer period than the election cycle so I wouldn't expect any sane significant number of politicians to put it forward.

 

I'm more convinced by your point about leveraging nice things like sex-ed and women's rights to boost a slow down in population growth. But those things historically accompany economic growth. Which in the developing world is fuelled by cheap power, and wobbly democracies. Green power isn't cheap power. Wobbly democracies don't add to their worries by doing things their citizens aren't asking for. They have a hard enough time doing the things their people DO want.

 

This brings me to my main point which is that alt power just doesn't cut the mustard across the lifespan of the system. It's expensive, space hungry, it's vulnerable to environmental damage, and it doesn't match demand easily. None of these things are what you want your economy to rely upon.

 

Your only 'world' solution offerred is 'investment'. But this can't possibly occur in the next ten years given we're recovering from a serious economic blow out. Governments aren't going to have the money full stop, and business won't invest heavily in something which relies currently on government protection and subsidy.

 

Your point about personal engagement is - forgive my being blunt - utterly ridiculous. Macro level changes have to have more to go on than a small percentage of individuals with a personal commitment.

[JFSOCC]

Not tl;dr. Although you could have made such a large bit of text a bit easier to read with some headings. Maybe a picture of a girl in a bikini.

too late to edit now, but point taken.

 

Green power isn't cheap power.

Yet. that's because like all new technology it needs investment and development. I have no doubt that green power will be cheap power in the future, but only if we invest.

 

which brings me to:

Your only 'world' solution offerred is 'investment'. But this can't possibly occur in the next ten years given we're recovering from a serious economic blow out. Governments aren't going to have the money full stop, and business won't invest heavily in something which relies currently on government protection and subsidy.

The Hoover Damn, and Hoover jobs were during economic crisis, the second world war, was during economic crisis. Only by investing (and yes, inflation) despite the economic woes, did the US break out of the depression into economic boom. Now is an excellent time to fix some problems which have been sapping that nation's strength for a while now.

 

Your point about personal engagement is - forgive my being blunt - utterly ridiculous. Macro level changes have to have more to go on than a small percentage of individuals with a personal commitment.

Actually that's what I am saying. It's not going to happen at that level, it needs to happen at government level. Still, society changes one person at a time. (or rather, one generation at a time.) And it doesn't harm to help bring that about. I think the biggest problem right now is that most people do not have a fair choice between being environmentally friendly or not, because it's something you can only do if you are a dedicated hippy, or rich. I believe that when people do have that choice, (and that means the choice has to be fair) they will choose for the "green" option.

 

But in order to make that choice viable, yes, you need... investment.

 

I wonder, did you check out that video? just curious.

[Walsingham]

Sorry. I didn't check the video. I have some direct experience of de-desertification programs and biotech startups. No-one's interested any more. Not even the bloody UAE, and they've got money to burn AND a desperate need for land.

 

*two paragraph investment capital rant snipped*

 

I'm not against research into cheap, robust, reliable alt power. I don't begrudge a penny of my taxes which goes towards cold fusion. High risk, high reward. But I begrudge every broken button which goes towards technologies which are not economical and are unsustainable. The numbers have to add up. And they currently don't.

 

I'm not anti-green. I'm anti-idiot.

 

I'm anti solutions which window dress, like the buiofuels you yourself mention. I'm anti solutions which only apply to the 10% of the World that can afford to indulge its conscience. I'm anti solutions which defy mathematical logic. But most of all I'm anti solutions which take longer to deliver than the problem they are meant to solve.

 

And my understanding at present is that warmists are telling me I need to make a three second jump using a twenty second parachute.

[JFSOCC]

Sorry. I didn't check the video. I have some direct experience of de-desertification programs and biotech startups. No-one's interested any more. Not even the bloody UAE, and they've got money to burn AND a desperate need for land.

That's a shame, this man talks about a low-tech low cost and effective solution.

 

I'm not against research into cheap, robust, reliable alt power. I don't begrudge a penny of my taxes which goes towards cold fusion. High risk, high reward. But I begrudge every broken button which goes towards technologies which are not economical and are unsustainable. The numbers have to add up. And they currently don't.

 

I'm not anti-green. I'm anti-idiot.

If you want to have laser eye surgery these days, it will cost you about 500 bucks per eye

If you wanted to have laser eye surgery 15 years ago, it would have cost you about 20.000 bucks.

But the only reason the cost went down is because we invested in it.

if you're anti idiot, then you should be anti-short term thinking, which is what you're doing by dismissing these technologies.

Of course it will be expensive at first. Prototyping costs money.

 

I'm anti solutions which window dress, like the buiofuels you yourself mention. I'm anti solutions which only apply to the 10% of the World that can afford to indulge its conscience. I'm anti solutions which defy mathematical logic. But most of all I'm anti solutions which take longer to deliver than the problem they are meant to solve.

 

And my understanding at present is that warmists are telling me I need to make a three second jump using a twenty second parachute.

then you're understanding is flawed, we got the means to address the issue now. THAT's the tragedy.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Venus

 

r00fles!

Venus has 98% CO2 atmosphere, not .04%, and it's closer to the sun. roofles!

 

 

 

In millions of years? I doubt that. In any case, it's currently .04% of the atmosphere, compared to 1% for water vapor, another greenhouse gas.

 

Does water vapour fluctuate a lot?  If not, then the comparison isn't entirely relevant.  It's more of a belief of how delicate our thermal balance is, and whether or not small changes are enough to throw things out of equilibrium.

 

It'd also depend on whether or not water vapor is as effective of a greenhouse gas too.  I know cloud coverage can increase the albedo of the planet, and I don't know if CO2 has the same effects (water vapor will, at the very least, prevent the visible spectrum from reaching the surface, as clouds are white).

 

Yes, a lot of stuff isn't known, foremost being the effects on and of cloud formation and water vapor, that's why saying "the science is settled" is a bunch of BS