Global Dimming

[quote]pookie wrote:

Isn’t the Yellowstone Caldera much overdue for a super-volcanic eruption?

[/quote]

If this were to happen, North America would cease to exist. lixy would blame the USA for polluting the whole world, to boot!

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Good to see that the three are clearly separated in your mind vroom, maybe you could enlighten the entire world as to how this distinct lack of interaction results in such a fantastically complex and unpredictable system. Oh wait, I forgot, CO2=Bad, no further explanation needed. Must be nice to have a dogma to rigidly adhere to.
[/quote]

Lucasa, do you have to be an ass ALL the time?

There are simple physical facts that can be agreed to, such as certain gases reflecting heat. It’s physics and it is not in doubt.

However, of course, the issues of global warming, in total, and the effects of each, and how they interact, is certainly a complex issue. I didn’t try to suggest otherwise. In fact, that is exactly what I was alluding to in my post.

Kroby, no worries, if the USA becomes a desert and your major coastline cities flood then you guys can always invade Canada…

Invade Canada? I’ll be sure to emigrate when the USA turns into a fascist state, jailing all dissidents in their 800 penal facilities. (this is a tie in to another whacky thread started by ssn0).

Victoria is an idyllic place. The Canadian gov’t. actually let me go there as a weekend tourist. That is the moment when I was faced with the fact that America thinks the world of itself… and that there’s a lot more world than America. It gave me hope to think that America could one day act internationally instead of solely for it’s own benefit.

But I won’t hold my breath for that day to come in my lifetime.

[quote]pookie wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Even if we manage to “thwart global warming” we still suck at preventing an asteroid strike or a major geological event don’t we?

Let’s deal with the problems we can handle and leave some for later generations.

Isn’t the Yellowstone Caldera much overdue for a super-volcanic eruption?

Maybe we can plug it up by catching an incoming asteroid with it, thereby solving two problems at once.

[/quote]

I was thinking more along the lines of controlling a very small chunk of another planet’s atmosphere as opposed to the entirety of our own.

[quote]kroby wrote:
If this were to happen, North America would cease to exist. lixy would blame the USA for polluting the whole world, to boot![/quote]

Give it break, will ya?

[quote]vroom wrote:
There are simple physical facts that can be agreed to, such as certain gases reflecting heat. It’s physics and it is not in doubt. [/quote]

As far as I know, homonuclear diatomic molecules (eg: O2, N2) cannot absorb infrared radiation. However, change of dipole moment inherent to the antisymmetric vibrational modes of polyatomic molecules (eg: CO2, Methane) cause a great deal of IR absorption.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of controlling a very small chunk of another planet’s atmosphere as opposed to the entirety of our own.[/quote]

Gee, that sounds useful. What would we do with a little chunk of Venus or Mars?

[quote]pookie wrote:
lucasa wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of controlling a very small chunk of another planet’s atmosphere as opposed to the entirety of our own.

Gee, that sounds useful. What would we do with a little chunk of Venus or Mars?
[/quote]

The women could go back to Venus and the men could go back to Mars. Duh.

[quote]pookie wrote:

Gee, that sounds useful. What would we do with a little chunk of Venus or Mars?
[/quote]

Given enough time, the same thing we do with a little chunk of Earth. Until then, I’m sure we’d have lots of trouble finding ways to use even a scant square mile of a planet that maintains itself at constant 475 degrees or learning anything from atmospheres composed entirely of CO2.

Aren’t you the one arguing that so many of the models are flawed because we’ve only got one atmosphere? Are you suggesting we sit around and wait for an astronomical or geological catastrophe, which, unlike GW, aren’t if but when?

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Given enough time, the same thing we do with a little chunk of Earth. Until then, I’m sure we’d have lots of trouble finding ways to use even a scant square mile of a planet that maintains itself at constant 475 degrees or learning anything from atmospheres composed entirely of CO2.[/quote]

I don’t think our tech is quite there yet.

Well yes, but if NASA can’t fund a $100 million satellite to get info about the Earth, where will the money come from for a full Mars or Venus “on-site” laboratory mission; something that would easily run into the billions?

What I’d like and what is economically (much less politically) feasible are two very different things.

[quote]pookie wrote:

I don’t think our tech is quite there yet.[/quote]

Which do you believe to be more robust; our ability to get a man to another planet or our ability to predict global climate 100 yrs. into the future? How about actually doing the thing; putting a man on another planet in the next 100 yrs. or “fixing” the climate in the next 100?

[quote]Well yes, but if NASA can’t fund a $100 million satellite to get info about the Earth, where will the money come from for a full Mars or Venus “on-site” laboratory mission; something that would easily run into the billions?

What I’d like and what is economically (much less politically) feasible are two very different things.[/quote]

First, I think we both agree that NASA is operating nowhere near as lean and mean as it could be (If I recall correctly, you thought the ISS was a bust from the beginning and I think it has largely outlived its usefulness).

Second, I think we both are aware that when it comes to NASA, since its inception, putting economic feasibility before political feasibility is a very backwards concept. And if we can’t study the ecology and how to manage our impact on Earth…

[quote]lixy wrote:
Man, I hate this global warming conjecture. It’s like a bunch of sailors on the deck of a sinking ship arguing over what caused the crack.[/quote]

And so the sailors stop using empirical evidence and real science (in favor of politically motivated pop-science) and just fix what they think is a crack. They then realize the “crack” was actually an air hole and they are actually on a submarine, which now cannot submerge because they have blocked “crack” that allows air to escape. They also realize that they are in the middle of WWII and are blown out of the water by a U-boat because they now cannot submerge.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Which do you believe to be more robust; our ability to get a man to another planet or our ability to predict global climate 100 yrs. into the future? How about actually doing the thing; putting a man on another planet in the next 100 yrs. or “fixing” the climate in the next 100?[/quote]

I’m not convinced of the utility of putting men on other planet (especially if we have to bring them back later) when robotic probes can do pretty much the same work for much cheaper. And you can leave them there indefinitely.

If we intend to explore beyond Mars anytime soon, robot probes are the way to go.

Climate prediction is a bitch, but I don’t think that means we should give up on it. Even if GW turns out to be a dud, we can hopefully understand where our models were wrong and make them more robust. A better understanding of climate and weather patterns could be a very useful thing, if only to get people out of the way of hurricanes and tornadoes sooner.

I think NASA is largely underfunded, and that the funds it goes get are tied up in way too much pork.

Yes, I think the ISS is a colossal waste of money. It’s entirely useless; most of our recent scientific data from space having provided by Hubble or by the Mars rovers; and all micro-gravity experiments being done in planes that go into freefall (because the costs are much lower).

Even the Space Shuttle should be mothballed and replaced by a much smaller, cheaper vehicles. The requirements the DOD piled-up on the original shuttle plans have made it a giant, uber-expensive white elephant that’s underused and unsafe. Great pork, though.

There’s very little political interest in doing anything space related, unless it’s keeping other countries out of it or sending up military satellites.

When bridges are collapsing under people’s cars; it’s very hard to convince them that investing in space research is a worthwhile investment.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
They also realize that they are in the middle of WWII and are blown out of the water by a U-boat because they now cannot submerge. [/quote]

This does it! WWII and Nazis referenced in a thread about global warming?

What’s wrong with you people?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
They also realize that they are in the middle of WWII and are blown out of the water by a U-boat because they now cannot submerge.

This does it! WWII and Nazis referenced in a thread about global warming?

What’s wrong with you people?[/quote]

Lighten up bro, I was joking!

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
They also realize that they are in the middle of WWII and are blown out of the water by a U-boat because they now cannot submerge.

This does it! WWII and Nazis referenced in a thread about global warming?

What’s wrong with you people?[/quote]

Weren’t you enlightened?

If everyone would just take a minute and hold their breath for a minute we could fix global warming! (In lixy’s case maybe 4 minutes).

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
If everyone would just take a minute and hold their breath for a minute we could fix global warming! (In lixy’s case maybe 4 minutes).

[/quote]

It’s Ok to quote The Register now?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
If everyone would just take a minute and hold their breath for a minute we could fix global warming! (In lixy’s case maybe 4 minutes).

It’s Ok to quote The Register now?[/quote]

Well they have hard science to back it up.
Fact: most alarmists state C02 is the major cause of global warming.
Fact: People breath out C02.

So breathing less will in fact reduce C02 in the atmosphere.

Wow, this sounds a lot like the scientific rationale they use to support global warming. Humm?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
If everyone would just take a minute and hold their breath for a minute we could fix global warming! (In lixy’s case maybe 4 minutes).

It’s Ok to quote The Register now?[/quote]

Is the Times OK?

Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’

The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. “Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.”