No such thing as normal weather any more [Archive]

Corey

07-12-2005, 05:59 PM

Weather across Canada has been off the map for a few years now. Compared even to the weather of my youth, things here have changed radically. :o

I've read up on it a tiny bit. The good news is that there is an emerging belief that the earth possibly undergoes a natural warming/cooling cycle during which the glaciers melt but then refreeze. The bad news is that it appears a few massive Superquakes will probably change North America first, particularly along the San Andreas faultline.

I don't scare easily but I have to admit this shakes me up a bit. Things sure seem to be accelerating faster than anticipated. :o

Intrigued

07-12-2005, 07:18 PM

Corey

07-12-2005, 07:22 PM

Wild. :wow

HMMurdock

07-12-2005, 11:37 PM

What amuses me is that so many people make the leap from "the weather sure is wacky lately" to "greenhouse gasses are causing global warming" Personally I'm of the opinion (as Corey aluded to above) that the earth goes through temperature cycles, and all of the data I've seen points to the fact that we are still "recovering" from the last ice age.

And the people that choose to ignore that data and insist on blaming people, (either becasue they belive that "man" is inherently bad or industrialized capitalist are bad, or whatever their particular agenda dictates) have come up with the (in my opinion) the most assinine theory I've heard in a long time. Greenhouse gases??? That's the best they can come up with??? If they want to blame people for global warming how 'bout the fact that there is now about 6 billion of 'em walking around radiating heat. If they want to blame the burning of fossil fuels, how 'bout the fact that there are billions of automobiles, factories, light bulbs, and appliances and other untold devices that are all radiating heat.

Lets take the amount of power (electricity) consumed by the world in a year (which all ends up as heat, one way or another) add that to the amount of fossil fuels consumed in a year multiplied by the avearge amount of energy released by the burning of said fossil fuels... and your telling me that *that* much energy dumped into our atmosphere won't raise the global temperature a few degrees??? Am I crazy or is everybody overlooking the obvious??? (this also goes to my belief that a large part of the scientific comunity has completely abandoned the scientific method for the rather flawed "I'll come up with a theory, then try to prove it" method of thinking... but that's another rant)

(and I'll do a little research and see if I can find some rough numbers to fill in the above equation)

Corey

07-13-2005, 12:01 AM

I'm 100% certain that we are contributing to climate change, no question about it whatsoever. :o

HMMurdock

07-13-2005, 12:01 AM

Well, just based on rough calculations of global electricity consumption and global crude oil consumption, we're currently releasing about 136,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules annualy into the atmosphere. Call me crazy, but I'm guessing 136 quintillion joules a year would do *something*

Corey

07-13-2005, 12:04 AM

Yep... :yes

Adam

07-13-2005, 10:51 AM

I am no expert but I have taken some environment/geology courses and two facts emerged that stuck with me on this issue:

1) The earth naturally heats and cools in cycles.

2) The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is higher than it has ever been. This does not directly link Carbon to Global warming but most scientist will admit that there is a strong case for Carbon accelerating this process.

In the past (ie 10 000+ years) there have been natural fluctuations in the level of carbon in the atmosphere but there has never been a spike like in the past century so nobody really knows what all this extra carbon will effect. We are going into uncharted times.

my belief that a large part of the scientific comunity has completely abandoned the scientific method for the rather flawed "I'll come up with a theory, then try to prove it"

I agree. I think that Science and politics/business are meshed together too much. As with so many things in life it is all about presentation. How the information is presented overshadows the actual data.

My 2 cents. This is my opinion of course.

Adam.

Intrigued

07-13-2005, 12:15 PM

I'm 100% certain that we are contributing to climate change, no question about it whatsoever. :o

I agree fully, whether we do it directly or indirectly. It would be acting nieve to believe otherwise.

If a car running in a closed off garage can kill people... just think what the 100 million (on avearge) vehicles in JUST USA are doing to change the climate, life on earth, etc. etc.

Hey, I love my car and driving (when the clunker works ;)), but some changes on a big scale are needed and needed NOW!

*steps off podium*

HMMurdock

07-13-2005, 01:20 PM

I'd also like to note that I do agree there is more CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, it seems a lot of people seem to miss the difference between correlation and causation.

Reminds me of the piece I saw on Good Moring America once.... they had someone on there who was citing some statistics and saw an increase in behavior problems in children who were spanked, moreso than in children who were not. So they concluded that spanking caused bad behavior.

...so by that logic we can deduce that:
1) Warmer daytime temperatures cause the sun to rise in the sky.
2) Death is one of the leading causes of gunshot wounds in the US.
3) Divorce is one of the leading causes of infidelity.

Intrigued

07-13-2005, 01:51 PM

Continuing from my previous post to drive home the point...

Even the human body can handle only so much of a substance.

Examples:

Exercise to much and your muscles get a build up of lactic acid (waste)

The liver can be destroyed from to much consumption of spirits.

The colon can eventually be cancer laden from eating to much meat, especially if not chewed up as much as possible before injesting.

All that I have put forth are from various sources that anyone can get from public sources.

Soooo...

It would make sense that to much consumption of, for example, gasoline by our cars will make for "sickness" on one or more levels.

:eek:

Corey

07-13-2005, 03:17 PM

Exercise to much and your muscles get a build up of lactic acid
It's not a case of excercising "too much". There's a lot of myths about lactic acid (http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/lactic.htm) but to be clear there's no such thing as excercising "too much" however there is such a thing as "excercising wrong". Take a look at the old farmers, their entire days were spend doing some form of work/excercise or the other. From sun up to sun down. And they're the healthiest people within our society, i.e. the Amish have obesity of less than 4% despite eating lots of meat, potatoes, pie, etc. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM. 20040122.wamish0122%2FBNStory%2FspecialScienceandH ealth%2F&ord=1121286783204&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

Anyhow as to the greater issue here, here's my take on it. The fact that the world and society have both never been in worse health than right now is not a "shooting down" of whatever personal theories anyone may have accumulated. It's not personal, and we all have the identical stake in the solutions. Debating causation is often counterproductive to creating solutions depending on the politics du jour. But I'm always amazed by how long the line up to debate causation is, in light of how short the lineup to develop solutions is. :)

At the end of the day we're all wildy inaccurate anyhow. No matter how much our brains convince us that we're "right", we still miss most of the picture. *Especially* on the topic of nature, and weather. What we actually know about nature is almost infetismal, as is well evidenced by our historical relationship with it. :)

As to the relationship between business and science, it's part and parcel with the society we've made. You can't like one part of it and dislike another part, because it's all one machine. You either buy it or you don't. :yes

Adam

07-13-2005, 03:34 PM

Everything hinges on electricity. They can make clean running hydrogen vehicles that produce next to zero waste, but the energy (electricity) needed to create the hydrogen does not solve the problem since most electricity is created by burning fossil fuels.

So the solution ultimately is a clean source of electricity. I've read a little about Nuclear Fission as the possible solution but I think that is still some time away.

There now I have contributed 4 cents ;)

Adam.

Intrigued

07-13-2005, 03:37 PM

It's not a case of excercising "too much".

ahem...

...it (lactic acid) accumulates in skeletal muscles during extensive anaerobic exercise, causing temporary muscle pain.

From...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactic_acid

Wiki, Wiki time!

:D

Corey

07-13-2005, 03:43 PM

Well if everything hinges on electricity then certainly it hinges on our collective ethos. You have to ask yourself in the context of our current resources if we really need more vibrating recliners? The fact that the problem is viewed solely as "finding more electricity" is a real challenge to the eventual outcome of all this for our kids.

Intrigued, you're missing some important points. But to be clear, lactic acid is part of a process, and that process is in *no way* an indicator that you have "excercised too much". Far from it. In fact two of the most important aspects of any healthy excercise routine are obviously going to be expanding your muscular and cardiovascular endurance. :yes

http://www.time-to-run.com/theabc/lactic.htm
If blood lactate concentration is measured at different, increasing running speeds, it is possible to eventually draw a curve depicting the continued increase in concentration as the running speed gets faster. The position of this curve changes as fitness level changes. Particularly, the fitter a runner gets, the more the curve shifts to the right, meaning that at any given lactate concentration the running speed is higher than before.
As you can see, this process is just a natural part of any fitness routine, for both unfit as well as fit people. :yes

Adam

07-13-2005, 04:00 PM

need more vibrating recliners?

We need clean electricity for creating clean fuel, not for personal consumption. I think that these are two separate issues.

Adam.

Corey

07-13-2005, 04:04 PM

We need clean electricity for creating clean fuel, not for personal consumption. I think that these are two separate issues.
Actually we use fuel mainly to manufacture products, which we consume. Also for moving products around, which we consume. That accounts for the vast majority of fuel used. :yes

As for personal consumption, even if it were a separate issue the question remains. And I believe we do not need more vibrating recliners, with triple emphasis given the current state of affairs. :)

Adam

07-13-2005, 04:26 PM

Actually we use fuel mainly to manufacture products

So you are saying that more fuel is used to produce manufactured goods than transport? Including Cars, Buses, Semi Trailers, Boats ect. And you are saying that these manufactured goods are using fossil fuels rather than electricity in their creation? I am not sure about you but most factories that I have seen generally use electric machines rather than fossil fuel burning machines.

nothing personal but I think that your facts are off, of course feel free to correct me :yes :)

Adam.

rhosk

07-13-2005, 04:30 PM

As for personal consumption, even if it were a separate issue the question remains. And I believe we do not need more vibrating recliners, with triple emphasis given the current state of affairs. :)
OK, shut off your computers, peripherals, music and coffee pots - oh yeah, and the electric pencil sharpener on your desk :D

Intrigued

07-13-2005, 04:31 PM

OK, shut off your computers, peripherals, music and coffee pots - oh yeah, and the electric pencil sharpener on your desk :D
NOOOOOOOoooooooOOO!

:eek:

*head spins 360 degrees three times and then this look again*

:eek:

.

:D

Ted Sullivan

07-13-2005, 04:35 PM

Windmills. That's what we need. More windmills. We'll just get everyone to put one on their car, then while we drive around it'll create clean electricity... It's fiendish in its simplicity.

Ted for Pres in '08.

Corey

07-13-2005, 04:38 PM

It's well established that the vast majority of energy we consume goes to manufacturing goods, transporting goods, operating businesses throughout the supply chain, and creating more energy for those processes. Lots on Google, etc. on that. :yes

Further, that is all one process. There's no difference between energy used to create a vibrating recliner, energy used to transport that recliner, energy used to sell/deliver that recliner, energy used to create more energy to refuel that process, or energy used to operate that recliner. It's all coming from one pool. :)

shut off your computers, peripherals, music and coffee pots - oh yeah, and the electric pencil sharpener on your desk
There's a profound difference between the value of a computer and the value of an electric pencil sharpener. There's nothing wrong with industry itself, the problems lie in the execution. For example if you're using a solar recharging electric pencil sharpener that isn't comparable to someone who uses disposable batteries... Plus it's not black or white. :)

Ted for Pres. :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes

Derek

07-13-2005, 05:19 PM

Some bright spark needs to come up with a superb solution to harnessing the energy given out by nature - which is more than we'll ever create.

I know there are solutions to this now, but they are far from ideal. Windmills don't gather much for the time they are 'running' and solar panels do little to make it worth their while.

Derek

07-13-2005, 05:21 PM

lol - imagine having a car powered by nuclear fission. I'd be breaking all the speed limits trying to get away from the source of my power!! :eek:

Intrigued

07-13-2005, 05:27 PM

Some interesting ideas and scarey how far "some" will go to stiffle such innovation:

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/bird.htm

Corey

07-13-2005, 05:28 PM

Windmills don't gather much for the time they are 'running' and solar panels do little to make it worth their while.
Increases in efficiency for any technology are commensurate with "buying power". Oil companies dedicate a lot of money to anti-competitive practices. If governments were even 2% as supportive of alternative technologies as they are of the existing energy companies, the playing field would look different, i.e. solar and wind are not intrinsically bad technologies. Viewed within the framework of more responsible consumption, they are downright attractive for a lot of applications. :yes

I've actually been considering starting to use a solar laptop system for work. There's a variety of affordable solutions out there, i.e.:
http://www.brunton.com/product.php?id=243
http://www.ctsolar.com/ExpeditionFoldingPanels.htm
http://www.ascscientific.com/solar.html
http://scientificsonline.com/category.asp?c=421196&bhcd2=1121316081

I particularly like this unit, i.e. as coupled with a few larger solar panels, because it gives you 110V AC as well as 12V DC. Super potential:
http://www.brunton.com/product.php?id=252

HMMurdock

07-13-2005, 11:51 PM

Wow... this thread got away from me this evening...

Adam... you made the point I was going to make, but hadn't got around to posting. Even those pesky hydrogen cars use fossil fuels. And I believe Corey is correct. I used to teach some computer classes at a truck plan of a large US automaker. I was talking about a similar topic with some of the employees there and they told me that all but the most heavily driven vehicles made there would require more fossil fuels to create and transport them (including the electricity to run the machines that made them and their raw materials) than they would consume on the road. I'd say thats true of many products.

Intrigued... You can keep your electric pencil sharpener, but only if you promise to get a solar charger for it.

Derek... Well as far as the energy given out by nature, that pretty much falls into three categories... Solar (including but not limited to Direct solar power, wind farms, hydro-electric, fossil fuels, and the hampster running on the wheel) Geothermal (technichaly gravity) and Nuclear (Nucular for the George W. and Jack Bauer fans) and unfortunately none of them are without serious drawbacks, including nasty waste products, killing condors and violating hampster rights.

Corey... To get rid of Big Oil's stranglehold on the government, you need to take out Detroit and the Big Three, to take care of those guys, you have to limit the Union's power. To get rid of the Union's you need to make sure you keep the Democrats out of office. If you get the Democrats out of office, then the Republicans will come in, and help out their buddies in Big Oil. Lather Rinse, Repeat.

Ted... Given the other likely candidates I've seen.... TED FOR PRESIDENT!!! :yes :yes

Corey

07-13-2005, 11:55 PM

I agree. You're right on all points HMMurdock. *Especially* about Ted.

:yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes

gbrown

07-14-2005, 08:29 AM

Remember, in all discussions about energy use and energy savings, the standard SF acronym applies:

TANSTAAFL

GcB

Lorne

07-14-2005, 10:26 AM

Good ole Heinlein. :)

Mark

07-14-2005, 01:15 PM

For everyone else who's never read Heinlein and didn't get the reference: TANSTAAFL (http://jargon.net/jargonfile/t/TANSTAAFL.html)

Lorne

07-14-2005, 02:50 PM

Thanks Mark.

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" was a really good AI story. Mike is still one of the cooler AI characters ever written, right up there with Jane from the Ender Wiggen novels.

Adam

07-18-2005, 01:31 PM

Check out this Link (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/18/wether050718.html)

I think that best part of the article is this:

"The drenched Prairies, which already have suffered 50 per cent more rainfall than usual this year, can expect more of the same wet weather."

All I have to say to mother nature is: "Bring it on!"

This place is soaked.. wild

Adam.