Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Power Raid]

Whats that got to do with offshore platforms modifying designs to allow for climate change?

You posted an article about an oil platform in the specific area of concern. The oil platform increased its redundancy by 50cm and the claim for doing so was global warming and sea levels.

The article is misleading for the reasons mentioned, specifically climate change increases sea levels by 2.5mm a year at best.

Flip it around.....what do you believe is causing 10cm variations in sea levels in the article?



Articles like what you posted are designed to mislead

 

[Power Raid]

Well why are they spending the money then?

Because variability in sea levels due to Gulf Stream variances are real and up to 10cm a year.

Would you build in allowances for the tide?

The issue isn't building in redundancy, it is a misleading article putting a false reason behind it.

Then a person reading it is so bought into the concept, even logic can't unwind their position. This is why some say it is now a religion!

 

[Gough]

And this is why this is a pointless debate. We have PR who says he works in the mines thinking that his ideas should be given equal validity to the 97% of scientists who tell that we have made a right mess of the place, and we need to seriously act now. It's a laughable false equivalence.

 

[Power Raid]

And this is why this is a pointless debate. We have PR who says he works in the mines thinking that his ideas should be given equal validity to the 97% of scientists who tell that we have made a right mess of the place, and we need to seriously act now. It's a laughable false equivalence.

Lol Gough

So you would add to the pile of blind religious faith and support the claim that, "a 50cm redundancy built into the engineering is due to ice melting".

Oh and oceanography is something I understand pretty well given my work in the 90s.... and I'm not debating scientist in this case; just a mischievous journalist.

But I guess being stoned provides better clarity.

 

[Gough]

So you'd argue insurance companies, and businesses who are all factoring significant climate change into their future projections are getting it wrong too.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

And this is why this is a pointless debate. We have PR who says he works in the mines thinking that his ideas should be given equal validity to the 97% of scientists who tell that we have made a right mess of the place, and we need to seriously act now. It's a laughable false equivalence.

So what serious action do you suggest. Most of it is bullshit, like Germans building tonnes of solar to get that warm green feeling, while burning more coal than australia ever did. Arguments about per-capita make no difference to global warming

 

[Power Raid]

So you'd argue insurance companies, and businesses who are all factoring significant climate change into their future projections are getting it wrong too.

I don't think anyone debates that climate doesn't change.

You jumped into a debate about an article designed to take the religious followers of global warming on a journey of deception.

Anyone using common sense would appreciate sea level changes of 50cm in a 25 year period, due to ice melting, is impossible.

But it is possible of taking the blind faith along for the ride by incremental misleading steps. Soon we will see walking on water, immaculate conception and a great resurrection of climate change.

It's OK though to be mislead. What is embarrassing is defending a position because of pride.

 

[fishardansin]

Why do people who push the contrarian view accuse people who base their claims on the scientific research as having religious faith? Our ideas are consistent because they are based upon the data and using physics. The ideas of the contrarian are based upon arguments that resemble religious people arguing for the god of the gaps.

It really is as settled as science can get. CO2 emissions are going to cause the climate to change too rapidly for ecological systems to keep up. Coupled with losing diversity it is going to be disastrous. Same for humans. Not that we're not a biological lifeform, it's just that industrial farming and transport systems have allowed us to secure resources to survive and thrive separately from the fickle nature of weather. However, this now leaves us more dependent upon a stable climate than ever before. As industrial farming and the expensive infrastructure needed for both the farms and transport systems rely upon knowing where to have the farms.

The only complaint I have regards many in the green movement is other "religious" beliefs. Anti-nuclear and anti-GMO stances are getting in the way of finding real solutions to feed the 9 billion people projected to be on earth by the middle of this century.

With one of the main predictions being the interior of continents drying out we're going to need nuclear power to desalinate sea water and then pump it against gravity to farm lands. Using gen-4 nuclear power will allow us to do this using only the waste that currently exists from previous nuclear technology. Not only will this give us the power we need, it will turn what is waste that has a half-life of 300,000 years (longer than the existence of our species) to waste with a half-life of 300 years. There is no way we can be sure of anywhere to be safe from seismic activity for 300,000 years, so leaving the waste as is will almost certainly lead to disaster at some point, somewhere.

The anti-GMO are the worst. Firstly, there is not one thing that we buy in the supermarkets that also exists in the wild. Everything has been altered over time, so god knows what these fools are hanging onto. Now we have the technology to create foods that will provide the nutrition we need and require the least amount of natural resources in the process. If we can greatly reduce the amount of land required then we get to rewilding the world and hopefully slow down the most intense extinction event ever seen on this planet.

The problem we face when trying to get public support for both climate change and this extinction event is how it moves too slow for most humans to grasp what is really going on. A year is a long time in our politics, but for climate change a century is rapid and for the extinction event a millennium is.

The other thing that needs to be considered about climate change is that most scientific predictions are actually too conservative. They are hampered by the need to stay well within the bounds of the reaches of their data and couch all statements in caveat after caveat. While this has provided many political difficulties, as we can see above contrarians arguing with the lack of certainty, there is actually another major flaw in this. Most of the projected change is linear and we should know that that is just not the case. The climate is a very complex system and probably the best analogy is our economic systems. I think that looking for Nash equilibriums is the best case. In other words, when change comes from extrinsic forces it begins slowly as it takes a lot to move the system from an equilibrium. Once it is released from those bonds it changes rapidly until it finds another one.

I worked in environmental engineering research for a while. We just don't have good mathematical models that translate to software models for systems based upon threshold changes. This is not even taking into account that there will be many interactions between variables that are for now unseen.

Despite the difficulty in creating these models, we are getting better. Despite the limitation of detailed historic data we're also finding good backfilling methods. However, I still think there is much to be learnt from the historical records that aren't just about data. Look at how it shows that there have always been epochs where the global climate has found an equilibrium that has had more power than any regional change. Then when that epoch ends, it does abruptly. Especially from extrinsic forces.

They can come from space, like the asteroid that ended the dinosaurs. They can come from the depths of earth like the volcanism that led to the great dying, that ushered in the age of dinosaurs. I think the latter extinction event is more relevant for today as it was also caused by CO2 and was more disastrous. Look at how the CO2 led to heating, but also a change in seawater chemistry leading to it burping a lot of methane which caused an acceleration of warming.

The great dying saw the world heat by 5 degrees over 5000 years from CO2, then the changes caused methane to be released which saw a further warming of 5 degrees over the next 5000 years. 90% of marine species extinct and over 70% of terrestrial. We are potentially going to cause a 5-degree change in 250 years, 1850-2100. We also have the arctic loaded with methane under the tundra. We also have the bottom of the oceans loaded with methane thanks to decomposing plankton.

It has gotten to a level of seriousness that assassination of people who deny climate change and are obstacles for working towards zero CO2 emissions before 2030. It is entirely possible to do so. In fact, it should be the panacea to the economic doldrums the world now finds itself in. If that can also include a change in the way we structure our wealth and power distribution that is far more progressive than the neo-liberal dystopia we now find ourselves in, fantastic.

 

[Power Raid]

Why do people who push the contrarian view accuse people who base their claims on the scientific research as having religious faith? Our ideas are consistent because they are based upon the data and using physics. The ideas of the contrarian are based upon arguments that resemble religious people arguing for the god of the gaps.

It really is as settled as science can get. CO2 emissions are going to cause the climate to change too rapidly for ecological systems to keep up. Coupled with losing diversity it is going to be disastrous. Same for humans. Not that we're not a biological lifeform, it's just that industrial farming and transport systems have allowed us to secure resources to survive and thrive separately from the fickle nature of weather. However, this now leaves us more dependent upon a stable climate than ever before. As industrial farming and the expensive infrastructure needed for both the farms and transport systems rely upon knowing where to have the farms.

The only complaint I have regards many in the green movement is other "religious" beliefs. Anti-nuclear and anti-GMO stances are getting in the way of finding real solutions to feed the 9 billion people projected to be on earth by the middle of this century.

With one of the main predictions being the interior of continents drying out we're going to need nuclear power to desalinate sea water and then pump it against gravity to farm lands. Using gen-4 nuclear power will allow us to do this using only the waste that currently exists from previous nuclear technology. Not only will this give us the power we need, it will turn what is waste that has a half-life of 300,000 years (longer than the existence of our species) to waste with a half-life of 300 years. There is no way we can be sure of anywhere to be safe from seismic activity for 300,000 years, so leaving the waste as is will almost certainly lead to disaster at some point, somewhere.

The anti-GMO are the worst. Firstly, there is not one thing that we buy in the supermarkets that also exists in the wild. Everything has been altered over time, so god knows what these fools are hanging onto. Now we have the technology to create foods that will provide the nutrition we need and require the least amount of natural resources in the process. If we can greatly reduce the amount of land required then we get to rewilding the world and hopefully slow down the most intense extinction event ever seen on this planet.

The problem we face when trying to get public support for both climate change and this extinction event is how it moves too slow for most humans to grasp what is really going on. A year is a long time in our politics, but for climate change a century is rapid and for the extinction event a millennium is.

The other thing that needs to be considered about climate change is that most scientific predictions are actually too conservative. They are hampered by the need to stay well within the bounds of the reaches of their data and couch all statements in caveat after caveat. While this has provided many political difficulties, as we can see above contrarians arguing with the lack of certainty, there is actually another major flaw in this. Most of the projected change is linear and we should know that that is just not the case. The climate is a very complex system and probably the best analogy is our economic systems. I think that looking for Nash equilibriums is the best case. In other words, when change comes from extrinsic forces it begins slowly as it takes a lot to move the system from an equilibrium. Once it is released from those bonds it changes rapidly until it finds another one.

I worked in environmental engineering research for a while. We just don't have good mathematical models that translate to software models for systems based upon threshold changes. This is not even taking into account that there will be many interactions between variables that are for now unseen.

Despite the difficulty in creating these models, we are getting better. Despite the limitation of detailed historic data we're also finding good backfilling methods. However, I still think there is much to be learnt from the historical records that aren't just about data. Look at how it shows that there have always been epochs where the global climate has found an equilibrium that has had more power than any regional change. Then when that epoch ends, it does abruptly. Especially from extrinsic forces.

They can come from space, like the asteroid that ended the dinosaurs. They can come from the depths of earth like the volcanism that led to the great dying, that ushered in the age of dinosaurs. I think the latter extinction event is more relevant for today as it was also caused by CO2 and was more disastrous. Look at how the CO2 led to heating, but also a change in seawater chemistry leading to it burping a lot of methane which caused an acceleration of warming.

The great dying saw the world heat by 5 degrees over 5000 years from CO2, then the changes caused methane to be released which saw a further warming of 5 degrees over the next 5000 years. 90% of marine species extinct and over 70% of terrestrial. We are potentially going to cause a 5-degree change in 250 years, 1850-2100. We also have the arctic loaded with methane under the tundra. We also have the bottom of the oceans loaded with methane thanks to decomposing plankton.

It has gotten to a level of seriousness that assassination of people who deny climate change and are obstacles for working towards zero CO2 emissions before 2030. It is entirely possible to do so. In fact, it should be the panacea to the economic doldrums the world now finds itself in. If that can also include a change in the way we structure our wealth and power distribution that is far more progressive than the neo-liberal dystopia we now find ourselves in, fantastic.

Why?

Go and read the article posted and limit the comment to that reference.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

The speed of gulf streams pushing up into a bay along a low gradient has a big impact with variables of up to 10cm in a year.

It does however return to normal as the speed returns to normal.

The warmer it is, the lower the speed.


These gulf streams are super important for places like Europe, as they are the reason why the continent is as warm as it is.

This is getting more and more confusing.

So individual little areas of the ocean, can reduce or increase, independently to the rest of the ocean? Isostatic reduction?

 

[Power Raid]

This is getting more and more confusing.

So individual little areas of the ocean, can reduce or increase, independently to the rest of the ocean? Isostatic reduction?

Now your on the right track. Imagine how much water would be required to increase our oceans by 50cm in 25 years!

So the issue of high volatility in the area must be another cause!

In short the article was deliberately misleading!

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Now your on the right track. Imagine how much water would be required to increase our oceans by 50cm in 25 years!

So the issue of high volatility in the area must be another cause!

In short the article was deliberately misleading!

Ive no idea if thats a yes or a no.
I didnt read the article.

 

[Power Raid]

Ive no idea if thats a yes or a no.
I didnt read the article.

Read it then

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Read it then

You want me to read the article that is deliberately misleading?

 

[kranky al]

s.

The only complaint I have regards many in the green movement is other "religious" beliefs. Anti-nuclear and anti-GMO stances are getting in the way of finding real solutions to feed the 9 billion people projected to be on earth by the middle of this century.



The anti-GMO are the worst. Firstly, there is not one thing that we buy in the supermarkets that also exists in the wild. Everything has been altered over time, so god knows what these fools are hanging onto. Now we have the technology to create foods that will provide the nutrition we need and require the least amount of natural resources in the process. If we can greatly reduce the amount of land required then we get to rewilding the world and hopefully slow down the most intense extinction event ever seen on this planet.

There is a section of anti gmo'ers who are against it because its "un natural / whatever"

Which i dont have a lot of truck with.

The majority of us against gmo is not to do with that at all though. Im against the massive doses of roundup / glyphosate being sprayed multiple times on roundup ready wheat.

Glypho started life as an antibacterial. Its listed as a probable carcinogen by the who. Its starting to be banned in many countries.

I have no issue with you if you want to eat it - fine - i want the choice to not be able to. I want it clearly marked so i can avoid it.

Nothing more - nothing less.

 

[pugsville]

There is a section of anti gmo'ers who are against it because its "un natural / whatever"

Which i dont have a lot of truck with.

The majority of us against gmo is not to do with that at all though. Im against the massive doses of roundup / glyphosate being sprayed multiple times on roundup ready wheat.

Glypho started life as an antibacterial. Its listed as a probable carcinogen by the who. Its starting to be banned in many countries.

I have no issue with you if you want to eat it - fine - i want the choice to not be able to. I want it clearly marked so i can avoid it.

Nothing more - nothing less.

The scary thing at GMO foe me, is the Intellectual property angle. The Corporations what the total control to just collect rent forever.

 

[kranky al]

The scary thing at GMO foe me, is the Intellectual property angle. The Corporations what the total control to just collect rent forever.

This also.


Permaculture has the ability to feed far more people in a far more sustainable fashion in an infinitely more healthy manner.

 

[Long Live HFC]

The majority of us against gmo is not to do with that at all though. Im against the massive doses of roundup / glyphosate being sprayed multiple times on roundup ready wheat.

And seemingly a majority of you have NFI what you're talking about. How much pesticide was being used prior to GMOs and how dangerous were/are they? i bet you need to look that up because you've never really considered it.

Its listed as a probable carcinogen by the who.

As is bacon and alcohol.

I have no issue with you if you want to eat it - fine - i want the choice to not be able to. I want it clearly marked so i can avoid it.

Uh huh, because all those other pesticides are perfectly harmless? go check out the LD50 of "organic" pesticide copper sulfate. glyphosphate's is 5600mg FYI.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The scary thing at GMO foe me, is the Intellectual property angle. The Corporations what the total control to just collect rent forever.

i think you'll find that only copywrite is forever. Invent something you get a few years. write a catchy birthday jingle, rich forever.

 

[pugsville]

i think you'll find that only copywrite is forever. Invent something you get a few years. write a catchy birthday jingle, rich forever.

and just when is Mickey Mouse coming out of copyright?

the Chemical giants are using patent rather than copyright. Their corporate plan is that every year farmers will have to pay for their seeds to grow the next crop.

 

[kranky al]

And seemingly a majority of you have NFI what you're talking about. How much pesticide was being used prior to GMOs and how dangerous were/are they? i bet you need to look that up because you've never really considered it.



As is bacon and alcohol.



Uh huh, because all those other pesticides are perfectly harmless? go check out the LD50 of "organic" pesticide copper sulfate. glyphosphate's is 5600mg FYI.

Alright - whilst throwing around accusations of cluelessness you might want to google the difference between a pesticide and a herbicide.



Prior to glyphosate resistant wheat - if you sprayed glyphosate (herbicide) on wheat - it died - dead.

Now they can hammer it - absolutely soak it in glypho - which they do - as the weeds are becoming resistant to glypho. They spray 5 times or more - with higher and higher concentrations of glypho as the weeds get more and more resistant.

Prior to resistant wheat they only sprayed before planting. If they sprayed after planting - it died along with the weeds.

I live and work in the wheatbelt bud. Till recently owned ten acres inbetween wheat farms - driven chaser bins and work on headers all the time.

Im aware that bacon as well as many other processed meats are regarded as carcinogenic. Same same for alcohol.


Luckily they are clearly marked so i can tell that it is bacon huh?

That way i get to make a choice as to whether i eat that - or say muesli for breakfast.

Its all i want - choice - id like to choose not to eat glyphosate. The gmo companies spend tens of millions so i dont get that choice.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Alright - whilst throwing around accusations of cluelessness you might want to google the difference between a pesticide and a herbicide.

Im sure you realise that "pesticide" is a perfectly acceptable term when discussing insecticides or herbicides in a wholesale, generic manner. There are many GMO threads here where i clearly show i know that roundup is a herbicide. You might also wish to refer to the EPA's definition (am on my phone and really suck at using it so cant copy and paste it) that says herbicides are a pesticide.

Prior to glyphosate resistant wheat - if you sprayed glyphosate (herbicide) on wheat - it died - dead.

Now they can hammer it - absolutely soak it in glypho - which they do - as the weeds are becoming resistant to glypho. They spray 5 times or more - with higher and higher concentrations of glypho as the weeds get more and more resistant.

Well im more than happy to accept you know more about wheat farming than I, but you haven't really addressed my point re poisons and amounts/types used prior to ~1994 in the US (for all crop types). i'll save you the time- according to the US dept of agriculture there was a peak in "pounds on the ground" of active ingredients in 1982, and an approximate 25% reduction from that peak by 2010. From memory the "toxicity-weighted" pounds comparison is even greater.

Wheat may be an example where the rate of poison usage went up significantly- but there are several examples of the opposite.

Regardless, i accept (and have always accepted) that the rate of roundup usage has been on an incline for a while now, but again you (or the people to which i originally referred) seem to ignore the much lower toxicity of roundup compared to various alternatives (or indeed, the GMO crops that have nothing to do with roundup at all). There's one in my GMO thread which has been designed to deliver its own fungicide, requiring no poisons to be sprayed.

Its all i want - choice - id like to choose not to eat glyphosate. The gmo companies spend tens of millions so i dont get that choice.

And what about all the other pesticides that are used? When do we get special labels for every single one of them? It seems like (in popular discourse) glyphosate is the only candidate people seem to care about, which is weird given its low toxicity rating (to humans).

 

[kranky al]

Im sure you realise that "pesticide" is a perfectly acceptable term when discussing insecticides or herbicides in a wholesale, generic manner. There are many GMO threads here where i clearly show i know that roundup is a herbicide. You might also wish to refer to the EPA's definition (am on my phone and really suck at using it so cant copy and paste it) that says herbicides are a pesticide.

Havnt read the other threads.

Never heard the terminology interchanged by anyone in farming. One kills insects - one kills weeds.

Well im more than happy to accept you know more about wheat farming than I, but you haven't really addressed my point re poisons and amounts/types used prior to ~1994 in the US (for all crop types). i'll save you the time- according to the US dept of agriculture there was a peak in "pounds on the ground" of active ingredients in 1982, and an approximate 25% reduction from that peak by 2010. From memory the "toxicity-weighted" pounds comparison is even greater.

Im not au fait at all with other pesticide use at all - in australia we use a lot of substances that are banned in the us and europe. This discussion was about gm - thats what i discussed.

Wheat may be an example where the rate of poison usage went up significantly- but there are several examples of the opposite.

Regardless, i accept (and have always accepted) that the rate of roundup usage has been on an incline for a while now, but again you (or the people to which i originally referred) seem to ignore the much lower toxicity of roundup compared to various alternatives (or indeed, the GMO crops that have nothing to do with roundup at all). There's one in my GMO thread which has been designed to deliver its own fungicide, requiring no poisons to be sprayed.

No fundamental issues with this aside from monopolies owning seeds.

And what about all the other pesticides that are used? When do we get special labels for every single one of them? It seems like (in popular discourse) glyphosate is the only candidate people seem to care about, which is weird given its low toxicity rating (to humans).

Again im not a fan of the toxic soup we put on aus produce.

I have a 2500sqm block on which we grow most of our own veges using permaculture methods - taste better and no toxic s**t.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Havnt read the other threads.

no that's ok, i wouldn't assume you had. just providing a source to show i know that herbicides kill herbs, fungicides kill fungi, larvicides kill eggs, and insecticides kill....um, horses?

Im not au fait at all with other pesticide use at all - in australia we use a lot of substances that are banned in the us and europe. This discussion was about gm - thats what i discussed.

sure, but if we're critiquing GM crops from a poison standpoint, i think it's relevant to examine the types of poisons (and how much) were (and in some cases still are) being used in conventional agriculture prior to the advent of roundup ready crops.

No fundamental issues with this aside from monopolies owning seeds.

yeah, totally agree. however, somewhat ironically i think it's the lack of research that's a problem here. the anti-GM movement has done a pretty good job at demonising agricultural genetics; if there were more players and more choice i think that would be to everyone's advantage. but since roundup etc has been so successful, a monopoly has emerged and monsanto in particular haven't been forced by the market to produce newer, better options.

Again im not a fan of the toxic soup we put on aus produce.

well i think GM research can provide more opportunities to reduce the types and amounts of poisons we spray on our foodstuffs.

I have a 2500sqm block on which we grow most of our own veges using permaculture methods - taste better and no toxic s**t.

honestly, i think this approach is awesome. however (as i've noted elsewhere), i really think the options provided by genetic modification can help farmers who go this route. an example which is very relevant in a thread about climate change:

Farmers and crop companies are struggling to figure out ways to cope with severe drought. Changing the weather is still beyond us—though some countries like China are trying—but what if there were a way to breed crops that could use water more efficiently, thriving even in times of drought?

That’s what agribusiness is hoping to achieve with new genetically modified (GM) crop strains that are designed to endure arid conditions. Industry leader Monsanto is working on a hybrid line of corn called DroughtGard, developed with the German firm BASF, that is designed to enhance crop yield in dry soils. It is the first U.S. Department of Agriculture–approved GM crop to focus on drought tolerance and features a bacterial gene that enables it to better retain water. Hundreds of farmers in the western end of the Corn Belt–an area that runs to dry even in normal years–are field-testing DroughtGard, and Monsanto says early results indicate that the GM crop might improve yields by 4% to 8% over conventional crops in some arid conditions.

http://science.time.com/2012/09/10/can-gmo-crops-bust-the-drought/

anyway, i apologise for my initial post. i think i confused you with another BF user starting with K. i didn't mean to make you kranky, al

 

[SaintsSeptember]

and just when is Mickey Mouse coming out of copyright?

the Chemical giants are using patent rather than copyright. Their corporate plan is that every year farmers will have to pay for their seeds to grow the next crop.

That was my point. Patents run out.