OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 03:23:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Link builds between weather extremes and warming  (Read 3253 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,361


« Reply #90 on: March 31, 2012, 06:32:57 PM »

In the news:
"Scientists warn of 'emergency on global scale'"
"In a "State of the Planet" declaration issued after a four-day conference, the scientists said Earth was now facing unprecedented challenges, from water stress, pollution and species loss to spiralling demands for food."
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-warn-emergency-global-scale-185118563.html

Some sanity Smiley Thanks for posting this (srs)
Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #91 on: March 31, 2012, 07:09:32 PM »

A democracy isn't a Christian-style of government. A Christian style of government requires a top-down administration, that means that it needs to have an Emperor, a King, a Queen or some other Monarch.
Is this written down somewhere in the Bible or in a Church council, that this is the only Christian style of government?

We don't believe in Sola Scriptura nor Sola Concilium...

But the only style of government in the Bible ordained by God is/was a monarchy.

Really? Because I seem to recall God trying to convince the Israelites that a king would be a bad idea.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,599


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #92 on: March 31, 2012, 11:30:30 PM »

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

I would honestly like to know how many of you have actually taken college courses on the subject. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means. I know far more about the built environment and harms it causes when done poorly than I do about the environment. But I would much rather trust my professor (who worked for NASA and was almost part of the group that went with the Columbia) than I would most of you.
Okay. Undecided  Maybe you should go back to the college that gave you your degree and ask for a complete refund, for it seems they didn't teach you how to think for yourself.

Why do I need to think for myself? I have the Church to tell me what to believe on most important things. I have the Fathers to tell me and guide me on everything else. I have scholars, intellectuals and professionals to tell me the facts we know.
But you don't appear able to distinguish one scholar from another. Not all scholars, intellectuals, or professionals will tell you the truth.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,599


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #93 on: March 31, 2012, 11:33:26 PM »

Okay. So what?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,599


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #94 on: March 31, 2012, 11:37:20 PM »

In the news:
"Scientists warn of 'emergency on global scale'"
"In a "State of the Planet" declaration issued after a four-day conference, the scientists said Earth was now facing unprecedented challenges, from water stress, pollution and species loss to spiralling demands for food."
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-warn-emergency-global-scale-185118563.html
What makes them leading "scientists"?
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,425



« Reply #95 on: March 31, 2012, 11:42:57 PM »


'Physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations' are things I do on a regular basis and the subject of academic articles I regularly read. So in stead of telling me to go back to school...how about just giving me the source code? Why is it such a big deal for a public university doing research using public grants to release their source code? I honestly can't even believe that these 'journals' allow them to publish without supplying it. Once they start acting like scientists, I might treat them like scientists, but for the time being I can only assume that the reason they don't release their source code is because it would not stand up to scrutiny.
 
And my point is that until they start doing the science correctly, none of the rest of this even matters. If ruining the environment is what it takes to make people do good science, then so be it.

Did you request this and were refused?  What journals are we talking about? If it is a Nature or Science article, this is par for the course, and the only way to get the details needed is to write to the authors directly. This is why I dread having to base research projects on results published in these two journals. [Note: these journals publish cutting edge research that is supposedly made to be accessible to the general public, which also means that they contain insufficient methodological detail.]
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,425



« Reply #96 on: April 01, 2012, 12:17:54 AM »

I think one point is that if primitive man could find a way to adapt to the weather (which was more due to migration than climate change...but still...), shouldn't we be able to with all our fancy toys and modern know-how? I mean, if someone with nothing but a spear and animal skins can manage to thrive above the article circle, why couldn't we figure out how to live in a different environment. And the climatologists keep saying that no matter what we do, it won't be enough, much of the damage is already done...so why focus on stopping something we can't stop? Why not just work on dealing with the implications.

I have another question since this seems so unlike my perception of you (and I have been here since 2005). How does this play out in terms of nations with sovereign borders? Why do you think the UN is so concerned about global warming, otherwise? One might surmise that they believe that if you can slow the warming of the kettle, the lobster that lurks within will not jump out.  I personally believe, on the other hand, that we would open our borders to those in need if the global warming scenario pans out.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,728


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #97 on: April 01, 2012, 02:08:14 PM »

In the news:
"Scientists warn of 'emergency on global scale'"
"In a "State of the Planet" declaration issued after a four-day conference, the scientists said Earth was now facing unprecedented challenges, from water stress, pollution and species loss to spiralling demands for food."
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-warn-emergency-global-scale-185118563.html
What makes them leading "scientists"?

All that "education" and "experience" and "working for major laboratories or universities." Stuff like that.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #98 on: April 01, 2012, 02:30:00 PM »

In the news:
"Scientists warn of 'emergency on global scale'"
"In a "State of the Planet" declaration issued after a four-day conference, the scientists said Earth was now facing unprecedented challenges, from water stress, pollution and species loss to spiralling demands for food."
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-warn-emergency-global-scale-185118563.html
What makes them leading "scientists"?

All that "education" and "experience" and "working for major laboratories or universities." Stuff like that.  Roll Eyes

Don't express your sheeple tendencies, please. He's asking for quantification of the term 'leading'. Who are these people? What did they study? Why should we consider them leading?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #99 on: April 01, 2012, 04:45:09 PM »

In the news:
"Scientists warn of 'emergency on global scale'"
"In a "State of the Planet" declaration issued after a four-day conference, the scientists said Earth was now facing unprecedented challenges, from water stress, pollution and species loss to spiralling demands for food."
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-warn-emergency-global-scale-185118563.html
What makes them leading "scientists"?

All that "education" and "experience" and "working for major laboratories or universities." Stuff like that.  Roll Eyes

Don't express your sheeple tendencies, please. He's asking for quantification of the term 'leading'. Who are these people? What did they study? Why should we consider them leading?

Indeed. They shouldn't be afraid of being questioned. It's not like real scientists don't expect the Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise. Their jobs are all about answering questions and justifying their positions.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #100 on: April 01, 2012, 07:06:18 PM »

What are the causes and what are the effects.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,599


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #101 on: April 01, 2012, 07:50:18 PM »

That's what I'm asking you.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #102 on: April 01, 2012, 07:57:39 PM »

Causes: fossil fuel burning
Effects: Climate change
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #103 on: April 01, 2012, 08:17:27 PM »


From what? Carbon dioxide? What's the link on warming and carbon dioxide?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,361


« Reply #104 on: April 01, 2012, 08:23:13 PM »

What are the causes and what are the effects.
That's what I'm asking you.

Cow farts and burps...
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 08:24:00 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #105 on: April 01, 2012, 08:38:37 PM »


From what? Carbon dioxide? What's the link on warming and carbon dioxide?
The effect of increasing CO2 on climate may not be negligible. And climate change may be hazardous to civilization. See:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0331/1224314130094.html

Logged
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #106 on: April 02, 2012, 09:02:14 AM »


CO2 is actually known to lag behind warming by approx. 1000 years.

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/318/5849/435.abstract?view=abstract&uritype=cgi?view=abstract&uritype=cgi

Warming causes CO2. But CO2 certainly is not the best greenhouse gas out there. Methane is much better, and there's a lot more of it coming from natural sources than CO2.

BTW, Devin, any thoughts on my last post?
Logged
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #107 on: April 02, 2012, 09:04:46 AM »

In the news:
"Scientists warn of 'emergency on global scale'"
"In a "State of the Planet" declaration issued after a four-day conference, the scientists said Earth was now facing unprecedented challenges, from water stress, pollution and species loss to spiralling demands for food."
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-warn-emergency-global-scale-185118563.html

It's very sad, but we are at nature's mercy in this life. It's sad like when there's a tsunami or a tornado. And humans are decent and we'll pull together to help. But people will die from nature and that's just the way it is. The way it always has been.

This seems to stem from our sheer terror about death, more than anything. It shows how spiritually deficient the world is today.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2012, 09:06:19 AM by age234 » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #108 on: April 02, 2012, 03:20:09 PM »

BTW, Devin, any thoughts on my last post?

I'm going to assume you are talking about your post about the rising sea levels and the warming of the earth...

Personally, (now that I've calmed down) I don't necessarily ascribe to global warming, but rather climate change and our effects on climate.

I think it is undoubted that the Earth is warming naturally, and that cannot be stopped.

Yet we also must consider what part we've played in the state of our environment. Since 1800, the mean levels of Carbon Dioxide in our Atmosphere has risen 50 parts per million from 280 ppm to 330 ppm. While that doesn't seem like a lot, we must realize that prior to 1800, it was remaining relatively stable rising and dipping between 283 ppm and 279 ppm (excluding 1550-1750 where it dipped to 278/277 ppm). It basically has gone from relative stability to a sudden exponential growth with the onset of the industrial revolution.

There has to be consequences for the increase of Co2 levels within our atmosphere, and I would argue whatever the consequences are, it cannot be good.

I don't think there can be a bad side to making changes to lower our carbon emissions and our pollution. The only downside is higher cost, but you must pay more to be healthier and safer.

The rising temperatures of the earth have additional consequences. Even if it is almost completely natural, we still have to deal with it. Our cities are so sprawled out and paved over that we will suffer some extreme consequences from increased heat.
Even if our temperature only gets relatively warmer, we must keep in mind that can turn to extremes in cities.

This nice little graphic shows the consequences of a "heat island", which many of our cities have become. American cities are far worse than other parts of the world simply because of how sprawled out we are...


So if you have temperatures of 90 degrees, that could be significantly higher in a sprawled out city.

Now, you could argue that we have air conditioning to deal with that problem. But air conditioning requires more energy. If our world is becoming hotter, we will inevitably need far more energy to provide conditioning to our buildings. Yet where do we get this energy?
Most people would argue against Nuclear Fission, thinking its too unsafe. Others don't like coal because of how much pollution it causes. We've pretty much already reached our capacity for hydroelectric opportunities (which also can have devastating effects on the aquatic habitats). Wind power is also not universal and cannot be produced at the level we would need to provide for everyone. The same can also be said for solar, which also won't be effective in many places it would be needed because it requires a good amount of exposure to the sun, and cloudy days cut down on the energy produced. Our only hope for an electric energy source is Nuclear Fusion which is costing us a lot of money, and is taking a lot of time. If Nuclear Fusion has a breakthrough and we can contain and harness the energy, then we won't have to worry about consuming energy because of how efficient and virtually unlimited it is. (Fusion is what powers stars) Yet if we don't have a breakthrough within 40-50 years, we are in trouble.

Also, most of us rely on our automobiles for transportation. The problem with cars, is that they require a lot of infrastructure to operate. Roads, highways, parking etc... In addition, cars need an energy source to run. Oil, to be frank, is running out. People assume these oil fields we are finding are going to provide lots of oil for us, and they even call for drilling in places like ANWR. Yet what most people don't realize, is that while these oil fields are large, they still cannot sustain our consumption for a long period. As it stands right now, if the United States were to base its oil economy solely on domestic drilling, we would only have enough oil for about 5 to 10 years. This includes proven and projected reserves.
The entire world's demand for oil is also increasing, and yet we believe we hit our peak oil production in about 2006. This means that from this point on, our supply of oil will diminish, while the demand increases. The world will have to produce the oil equivalent of a Saudi Arabia every 10 years.

As with electric energy sources, you may also say, well we can get alternatives to oil. Yet this also is problematic because oil has a very high ERoEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) which basically is the ratio of usable energy to the energy it costs to acquire it. Preferably the ratio would be 1.00, meaning that you get more energy than you invest. Oil has a very good ERoEI, and it is also pretty efficient.
Yet other energy sources, like solar, wind power, etc... all don't have very good ERoEIs, and some of those also require oil for their production.
There is nothing we know of that can replace oil. Even if we go for all options equally, we still won't be able to replace what oil currently does for us. What does this mean? This means that our growth, which is currently only sustained because of oil, is going to stop. Our growth will either stagnate or start to decline. Inevitably, our growth will have to become more sustainable.

Look at the population of the world, we are currently at 7 billion people, and this will nearly double by 2050. Our production of energy, our food production and more requires a reliance on cheap oil. Our population has been able to explode due to the convenience and efficiency of oil. Yet once oil starts fading away, we won't be able to sustain ourselves anymore. Think of it this way, before the Industrial Revolution, we alternated between being underweight and normal/adequate weight. But after the industrial revolution we have gone from normal weight, to overweight, to obese. Now, the food that has been sustaining our weight level is going to be gradually taken away, and it will cost us more. Therefore our "weight" is going to have to go down, we will have to shed our excess weight and become healthier and slimmer.

We also are destroying vast amounts of natural habitat to build communities that are not very sustainable and don't use the given space efficiently. In addition to this, countless square miles of forests and jungle are being destroyed simply to provide wood to build our buildings, which aren't even designed to last more than about 50 years. We are getting very low quality and low value for a very high cost (to the natural world).

What is probably going to happen in this next century?

-Oil Prices are going to keep rising
--Additionally, people living out in the suburbs are not going to be able to afford to drive everywhere, and therefore will either move closer to mass transit and/or into the city. Some will stay and become farmers, but they won't be able to afford driving anymore.

-Suburbs will deteriorate
--The outermost rings of our suburbs are going to become abandoned because people will leave them to be closer to shopping and their workplaces. Some of these will also become abandoned because many are of poor quality and poor construction, and to upkeep them will cost more.

-Cities will shrink
--Cities will grow significantly in population, but they will contract and become more walkable. The outer edges will be abandoned and cities will not be able to afford maintenance on the outer infrastructure.
--Cities (more specifically, urban cores) and transit hubs will boom in population and density.

-Food production localizes
--Especially with rising gas prices, we won't be able to sustain the artificial processing of food and the shipment of food across the country. We will have to rely on nearby farms (regional and local) to provide us with food.

-Air and Water pollution will continue to increase
--Before we change our lifestyles, pollution is going to get even worse, because most people won't change until circumstances force them to. Health of Americans will also get worse, not just due to our lack of physical activity, but also due to our diet and due to poor air quality due to pollution.

So if you don't believe in global warming as a human cause, we still need to make changes because circumstances are going to get tough in this coming century. If we start making changes now, we are going to make it easier on ourselves.
But as it stands, Americans love their McMansions and they love their cars. I'm afraid that as Americans, we are going to be very stubborn and we will clutch onto these until they are pried from our hands while we lay suffering from shock and seizure.

Especially as Americans, we only care about the short-term. We want the quickest "fix" or the quickest satisfaction. We must remember that the Great Depression was preceded by the Roaring Twenties. This last Recession was preceded by another economic boom. Yet we weren't ever looking ahead to consequences of our actions. This is definitely one of problems we face now. We are building things and living in a lifestyle that has extreme long-term consequences, not to mention the terrible consequences to our society occurring now. I know so many people who say "we aren't running out of oil, they just found a huge reserve in _________", yet they don't understand how much oil we consume for not just cars, but for most of our products as well, and that a lot of reserves are low quality oil, or may cost more to drill than what we get back.

They also dismiss such talk as being from "Crazy environmentalists" or "treehuggers". Yet this is something that distinguished professionals are saying. While the environmentalists are crying about global warming, saving whales, and saving the trees; the professionals are telling us that the way we are living cannot be sustained for a long period, and we will have to change.

What should you do if you live in a large house, and constantly buy a lot of products, furniture and material items, yet you cannot afford these in the long term? Do you keep driving yourself into financial debt, or do you adjust your lifestyle and live within your means? We are currently living outside of what we can afford long-term and we are driving ourselves into debt (not financially), and yet we are also refusing to change our lifestyle and refuse to live within our means because of how hard such a change would be.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2012, 03:30:02 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,599


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #109 on: April 04, 2012, 02:00:44 AM »

BTW, Devin, any thoughts on my last post?

I'm going to assume you are talking about your post about the rising sea levels and the warming of the earth...

Personally, (now that I've calmed down) I don't necessarily ascribe to global warming, but rather climate change and our effects on climate.

I think it is undoubted that the Earth is warming naturally, and that cannot be stopped.

Yet we also must consider what part we've played in the state of our environment. Since 1800, the mean levels of Carbon Dioxide in our Atmosphere has risen 50 parts per million from 280 ppm to 330 ppm. While that doesn't seem like a lot, we must realize that prior to 1800, it was remaining relatively stable rising and dipping between 283 ppm and 279 ppm (excluding 1550-1750 where it dipped to 278/277 ppm). It basically has gone from relative stability to a sudden exponential growth with the onset of the industrial revolution.

There has to be consequences for the increase of Co2 levels within our atmosphere, and I would argue whatever the consequences are, it cannot be good.

I don't think there can be a bad side to making changes to lower our carbon emissions and our pollution. The only downside is higher cost, but you must pay more to be healthier and safer.

The rising temperatures of the earth have additional consequences. Even if it is almost completely natural, we still have to deal with it. Our cities are so sprawled out and paved over that we will suffer some extreme consequences from increased heat.
Even if our temperature only gets relatively warmer, we must keep in mind that can turn to extremes in cities.

This nice little graphic shows the consequences of a "heat island", which many of our cities have become. American cities are far worse than other parts of the world simply because of how sprawled out we are...


So if you have temperatures of 90 degrees, that could be significantly higher in a sprawled out city.

Now, you could argue that we have air conditioning to deal with that problem. But air conditioning requires more energy. If our world is becoming hotter, we will inevitably need far more energy to provide conditioning to our buildings. Yet where do we get this energy?
Most people would argue against Nuclear Fission, thinking its too unsafe. Others don't like coal because of how much pollution it causes. We've pretty much already reached our capacity for hydroelectric opportunities (which also can have devastating effects on the aquatic habitats). Wind power is also not universal and cannot be produced at the level we would need to provide for everyone. The same can also be said for solar, which also won't be effective in many places it would be needed because it requires a good amount of exposure to the sun, and cloudy days cut down on the energy produced. Our only hope for an electric energy source is Nuclear Fusion which is costing us a lot of money, and is taking a lot of time. If Nuclear Fusion has a breakthrough and we can contain and harness the energy, then we won't have to worry about consuming energy because of how efficient and virtually unlimited it is. (Fusion is what powers stars) Yet if we don't have a breakthrough within 40-50 years, we are in trouble.

Also, most of us rely on our automobiles for transportation. The problem with cars, is that they require a lot of infrastructure to operate. Roads, highways, parking etc... In addition, cars need an energy source to run. Oil, to be frank, is running out. People assume these oil fields we are finding are going to provide lots of oil for us, and they even call for drilling in places like ANWR. Yet what most people don't realize, is that while these oil fields are large, they still cannot sustain our consumption for a long period. As it stands right now, if the United States were to base its oil economy solely on domestic drilling, we would only have enough oil for about 5 to 10 years. This includes proven and projected reserves.
The entire world's demand for oil is also increasing, and yet we believe we hit our peak oil production in about 2006. This means that from this point on, our supply of oil will diminish, while the demand increases. The world will have to produce the oil equivalent of a Saudi Arabia every 10 years.

As with electric energy sources, you may also say, well we can get alternatives to oil. Yet this also is problematic because oil has a very high ERoEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) which basically is the ratio of usable energy to the energy it costs to acquire it. Preferably the ratio would be 1.00, meaning that you get more energy than you invest. Oil has a very good ERoEI, and it is also pretty efficient.
Yet other energy sources, like solar, wind power, etc... all don't have very good ERoEIs, and some of those also require oil for their production.
There is nothing we know of that can replace oil. Even if we go for all options equally, we still won't be able to replace what oil currently does for us. What does this mean? This means that our growth, which is currently only sustained because of oil, is going to stop. Our growth will either stagnate or start to decline. Inevitably, our growth will have to become more sustainable.

Look at the population of the world, we are currently at 7 billion people, and this will nearly double by 2050. Our production of energy, our food production and more requires a reliance on cheap oil. Our population has been able to explode due to the convenience and efficiency of oil. Yet once oil starts fading away, we won't be able to sustain ourselves anymore. Think of it this way, before the Industrial Revolution, we alternated between being underweight and normal/adequate weight. But after the industrial revolution we have gone from normal weight, to overweight, to obese. Now, the food that has been sustaining our weight level is going to be gradually taken away, and it will cost us more. Therefore our "weight" is going to have to go down, we will have to shed our excess weight and become healthier and slimmer.

We also are destroying vast amounts of natural habitat to build communities that are not very sustainable and don't use the given space efficiently. In addition to this, countless square miles of forests and jungle are being destroyed simply to provide wood to build our buildings, which aren't even designed to last more than about 50 years. We are getting very low quality and low value for a very high cost (to the natural world).

What is probably going to happen in this next century?

-Oil Prices are going to keep rising
--Additionally, people living out in the suburbs are not going to be able to afford to drive everywhere, and therefore will either move closer to mass transit and/or into the city. Some will stay and become farmers, but they won't be able to afford driving anymore.

-Suburbs will deteriorate
--The outermost rings of our suburbs are going to become abandoned because people will leave them to be closer to shopping and their workplaces. Some of these will also become abandoned because many are of poor quality and poor construction, and to upkeep them will cost more.

-Cities will shrink
--Cities will grow significantly in population, but they will contract and become more walkable. The outer edges will be abandoned and cities will not be able to afford maintenance on the outer infrastructure.
--Cities (more specifically, urban cores) and transit hubs will boom in population and density.

-Food production localizes
--Especially with rising gas prices, we won't be able to sustain the artificial processing of food and the shipment of food across the country. We will have to rely on nearby farms (regional and local) to provide us with food.

-Air and Water pollution will continue to increase
--Before we change our lifestyles, pollution is going to get even worse, because most people won't change until circumstances force them to. Health of Americans will also get worse, not just due to our lack of physical activity, but also due to our diet and due to poor air quality due to pollution.

So if you don't believe in global warming as a human cause, we still need to make changes because circumstances are going to get tough in this coming century. If we start making changes now, we are going to make it easier on ourselves.
But as it stands, Americans love their McMansions and they love their cars. I'm afraid that as Americans, we are going to be very stubborn and we will clutch onto these until they are pried from our hands while we lay suffering from shock and seizure.

Especially as Americans, we only care about the short-term. We want the quickest "fix" or the quickest satisfaction. We must remember that the Great Depression was preceded by the Roaring Twenties. This last Recession was preceded by another economic boom. Yet we weren't ever looking ahead to consequences of our actions. This is definitely one of problems we face now. We are building things and living in a lifestyle that has extreme long-term consequences, not to mention the terrible consequences to our society occurring now. I know so many people who say "we aren't running out of oil, they just found a huge reserve in _________", yet they don't understand how much oil we consume for not just cars, but for most of our products as well, and that a lot of reserves are low quality oil, or may cost more to drill than what we get back.

They also dismiss such talk as being from "Crazy environmentalists" or "treehuggers". Yet this is something that distinguished professionals are saying. While the environmentalists are crying about global warming, saving whales, and saving the trees; the professionals are telling us that the way we are living cannot be sustained for a long period, and we will have to change.

What should you do if you live in a large house, and constantly buy a lot of products, furniture and material items, yet you cannot afford these in the long term? Do you keep driving yourself into financial debt, or do you adjust your lifestyle and live within your means? We are currently living outside of what we can afford long-term and we are driving ourselves into debt (not financially), and yet we are also refusing to change our lifestyle and refuse to live within our means because of how hard such a change would be.
You're making a lot of statements of fact you cannot possibly have learned from personal experience in the short time you've been alive. What sources are you citing for all this information?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #110 on: April 04, 2012, 11:53:11 AM »


'Physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations' are things I do on a regular basis and the subject of academic articles I regularly read. So in stead of telling me to go back to school...how about just giving me the source code? Why is it such a big deal for a public university doing research using public grants to release their source code? I honestly can't even believe that these 'journals' allow them to publish without supplying it. Once they start acting like scientists, I might treat them like scientists, but for the time being I can only assume that the reason they don't release their source code is because it would not stand up to scrutiny.
 
And my point is that until they start doing the science correctly, none of the rest of this even matters. If ruining the environment is what it takes to make people do good science, then so be it.

Did you request this and were refused?  What journals are we talking about? If it is a Nature or Science article, this is par for the course, and the only way to get the details needed is to write to the authors directly. This is why I dread having to base research projects on results published in these two journals. [Note: these journals publish cutting edge research that is supposedly made to be accessible to the general public, which also means that they contain insufficient methodological detail.]

It's been an issue with their research in the past, they always seem to be happy to publish the results of their simulations, but never their source code...never the actual details of the simulation itself. There have been repeated requests that have been refused or gone unanswered, I'm not the only person who's uncomfortable with secrecy in science.

It tends to be the first thing I always ask for since if mistakes are going to be made they're most likely going to be made in the models themselves or their underlying assumptions. Without that bit of information, I have no means of evaluating the quality of the research and if I'm not given the means to evaluate the quality of the research, I'm simply going to reject it out of hand until such evidence is provided.

One of their favorite things to say is that it's more productive to just make your own model instead of picking someone else's apart, but that's not true in the slightest. They're publishing research as scientific fact, they have the responsibility to prove the quality of their research. One of the few pieces models I've actually had the chance to go through was from the hack of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit and it was horrendous, it basically took 70 years of temperature data, put it through a signaling filter a first year EE student could have programmed and, supposedly, predicted global temperatures for the next 150 years. No modeling of the sun, no modeling of natural sources of warming, no modeling based on geolocation, not even any modeling of the affects of CO2. So, I have to wonder, is the rest of the research in the field this bad and useless? I'm not really sure, but they haven't given me reason to think otherwise.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #111 on: April 04, 2012, 11:59:47 AM »

I think one point is that if primitive man could find a way to adapt to the weather (which was more due to migration than climate change...but still...), shouldn't we be able to with all our fancy toys and modern know-how? I mean, if someone with nothing but a spear and animal skins can manage to thrive above the article circle, why couldn't we figure out how to live in a different environment. And the climatologists keep saying that no matter what we do, it won't be enough, much of the damage is already done...so why focus on stopping something we can't stop? Why not just work on dealing with the implications.

I have another question since this seems so unlike my perception of you (and I have been here since 2005). How does this play out in terms of nations with sovereign borders? Why do you think the UN is so concerned about global warming, otherwise? One might surmise that they believe that if you can slow the warming of the kettle, the lobster that lurks within will not jump out.  I personally believe, on the other hand, that we would open our borders to those in need if the global warming scenario pans out.

I think the UN's concern is more centered around an ongoing animosity between the great nations and the lesser nations. This is something poor nations can point to to blame their problems on other people, so they use it as an effective propaganda tool and as a potential means for limiting the economies of more powerful nations so the poorer nations can catch up. You'll notice that the economic powers tend not to sign on to these global warming treaties and even when they do, they tend not to make many real changes to actually implement them on anything more than a symbolic level.

As for what would happen on the world political scene with dramatic changes in climate? Probably the same thing that already happens due to scarcity of resources. If powerful nations need new resources, they tend to invade those who have them but cannot defend them and take those resources; if poor nations without the means to sustain offensive campaigns need resources, we tend to treat it as a humanitarian issue. But with or without climate change, it's still going to be scarcity that drives global politics and human ambition.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,300


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #112 on: November 19, 2013, 09:57:30 AM »

Quote
Look at a crop map of North America over the years and you’ll see there is a great migration going on in food production.  Crops heading north.  Corn and beans – soybeans – marching north toward the Canadian border and spilling over it into brand new territory.  It’s about plant genetics and farming technique.  It’s also about climate change.  A southern tier turning too hot and dry.  A northern planting season getting longer, more welcoming.  Crop production moving.  How far can it, will it go?  Up next On Point: the new map of North American food production, pushing north with climate change.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,027


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #113 on: November 21, 2013, 12:50:42 PM »

Quote
Look at a crop map of North America over the years and you’ll see there is a great migration going on in food production.  Crops heading north.  Corn and beans – soybeans – marching north toward the Canadian border and spilling over it into brand new territory.  It’s about plant genetics and farming technique.  It’s also about climate change.  A southern tier turning too hot and dry.  A northern planting season getting longer, more welcoming.  Crop production moving.  How far can it, will it go?  Up next On Point: the new map of North American food production, pushing north with climate change.

Anecdotally my wife have observed a change in our growing season and the varieties which can be planted in the American north east. Our family photos bear witness to this as well as plant breeding and genetic selection has had an impact.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.159 seconds with 52 queries.