Re: Creationists Don't Like Other Sciences, Either

Luminoso wrote:
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > Luminoso wrote:
[snip]
> >>   He's lying. There is no 'tipping point'. Never has been,
> >>   even when CO2/Methane have been many times higher than
> >>   today ... and that makes it a very fair bet that there's
> >>   no 'tipping point' to a fireball earth anywhere in our
> >>   immediate future. Go ahead, double, triple, quadruple
> >>   the CO2 and we'll sweat, but not burn.
> >
> >Two problems. First, there are several "tipping points", points at
> >which major changes occur. Several result in large jumps in
> >temperature. These points will all see massive changes in the survival
> >of flora and fauna, causing even more extinctions.
> >
> >Sure, after a few thousand years our environment may settle into a new
> >balance - but the question is "can man survive the change?" Maybe, but
> >I doubt civilization will.
> 
>    Both will survive quite nicely,

It's amazing how you pull out the "we really don't know what will
happen" card when other people are discussing potential global
catastrophes, but then you have no problem turning around claiming that
you *do* know what will happen when giving your opinion.

I note you also completely ignored his comment on the very real and well
do***ented tipping points.

[snip]
> > It is, almost certainly, too late.
> 
>    Yes and no.
> 
>    CO2 production WILL go up considerably, mostly
>    because of east asias industrial/economic boom.
>    They are NOT going to forgoe their day in the
>    sun just because of CO2 ... indeed they'll see
>    many proposed GW 'fixes' as a deliberate attempt
>    by western powers to "keep them down".

<eyeroll>

Global warming is not a political pawn to keep Asia or other developing
countries down.  In fact, some specific exceptions have even been made
for them.  For example, China, India, and other developing countries are
exempt from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.

The point of preventing global warming is to help protect our future,
especially when the consequences rage from well established problems,
like flooding, to even worse potential problems, like more severe
weather all around the world.  Unless you have some good evidence for
your conspiracy theories, please, don't pretend that they have anything
to do with the reasons for treaties dealing with global warming.

>    We can block (some) sunlight anytime by injecting
>    micron-sized dust into the upper stratosphere. It
>    will stay up there for five to ten years, the total
>    effect thus 'tweakable' and reversable. Fifty 747-400
>    cargo conversions slightly modified to achieve higher
>    than usual altitudes could deliver a megaton of dust
>    in about 40 days (assuming 5 up-dust-down flights
>    per day). Vastly cheaper than pulling the plug on
>    carbon-based fuels. Just cutting off one percent
>    of incident solar IR should cool the earth even if
>    CO2 levels are a bit higher than today.

The problem is, dumping all of that dust into the atmosphere could
trigger other negative consequences, such as increased asthma rates,
dangerous algal blooms, and possibly cause even greater damage to the
atmosphere, oceans, and weather patterns.  It's a short term solution
that may cause nearly as many problems as it solves, possibly more.  We
simply don't have enough data yet to tell what the consequences of that
plan would be.

For those who would like to know a bit more about this plan see:

Rolling Stone: "Can Dr. Evil Save The World?"
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world/1

Speaking of dangerous algal blooms...

>    Experiments a few years ago confirmed that spreading
>    small amounts of iron salts in the extreme south
>    pacific results in a huge plankton bloom (it was
>    very visible in a satellite photo). On a larger
>    scale this would suck-up quite a lot of CO2 while
>    requiring only a minimal investment. Levels might
>    be stabilized, perhaps somewhat diminished.

What you neglect to mention is that plankton blooms may cause more
damage to the environment.  Plankton blooms (a.k.a. algal blooms) often
release toxins into the water, and can have have severe negative
biological impacts on other wildlife, including humans who may ingest
food laced with the toxins.  See:

Wikipedia: Red tide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_tide

So, while those plans might work in causing a rapid, though tem****ary,
drop in the Earth's average temperature, they are also likely to cause
various negative environmental effects, some of which we may not even be
aware of at this time.

To me, it seems that instead of using short term, potentially dangerous,
methods to deal with global warming, it is far better to deal with the
root cause.  "Treat the disease, not the symptoms," you know?

>    There has been some talk about genetically-engineered
>    plants and bacteria designed to metabolize a lot more
>    CO2 than most common veggies, sequestering the gas
>    as biomass or even as carbonates.
> 
>    In short, there ARE measures that can be taken to reduce
>    GW without going entirely nuts over hydrocarbon fuels.
>    I'd also suggest increase use of wind, photovoltaic,
>    tide, river, nuclear and solar-thermal energy sources
>    instead of relying on coal/hydrocarbon energy for
>    almost everything.

Agreed.  This is why I think your "we should just sit back and take it"
attitude, especially in the face of the known and unknown dangers of
global warming, seems, well... lame.

> >>   Cities will slowly re-model themselves more on
> >>   the european urban geography where jobs, stores,
> >>   recreation and housing are more proximate and
> >>   you don't have to drive 100 miles each day to
> >>   get it all done.
> >>
> >>   It will work out OK, no matter what Al Gore
> >>   wants you to believe.
> > 
> > I'm glad to say more and more people disagree with you.
> 
>    More and more people disagree with evolution too ...
>    does that make them right ?

IIRC, that trend was pretty much confined to the US, but in the rest of
the world more and more people agree with evolution too.

That aside, it's the scientific evidence that makes us right on climate
change and evolution, and the lack of evidence that makes those opposed
wrong.  Furthermore, there is a fairly strong consensus among
climatologists around the world that match the statements Al Gore and we
have been making here.  That is some pretty darn good evidence that
we're right.

-- 
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.