The Gaia ​Hypothesis--​Sun and Water

Attention sun and water deniers, resistence is futile, you are all going to die sooner or later. 

Until then, relax and feel the warmth--go nuclear and take a drink of cool water.


Gaia Hypothesis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjLC3GjFMv0&mode=related&search=


http://www.mountainman.com.au/gaia.html

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


Gaia Hypothesis Theorist Foresees Crises

http://greenfuture.blogspot.com/2007/05/gaia-hypothesis-theorist-foresees.html

The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years

http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html

"With six billion [people on Earth], and growing, few options remain; we can not continue drawing energy from fossil fuels and there is no chance that the renewables, wind, tide and water power can provide enough energy and in time. If we had 50 years or more we might make these our main sources. But we do not have 50 years; the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years.

We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.

Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer..."


http://blogs.onenw.org/jon/archives/2004/05/24/creator-of-gaia-hypothesis-urges-rapid-adoption-of-nuclear-power/

Actually, greenhouse gases, in particular water vapor, are not poisons, but essential to life and the warm climate on earth.

Water: The Molecule of Life

"...Yesterday it rained, and now the garden will go crazy. It is early summer, and for weeks the ground has been parched. I have feared for the roses, tended them with an irresponsible hose. But yesterday the skies growled, the lightning flashed, and the heavens opened. In my garden, precious lives are no longer at stake; water has returned. ..."


http://www.astrobio.net/news/article453.html

Mars: The Search For Water, The Search For Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0vo93bzD_g

Water on Mars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he6FOjgzQRk&mode=related&search=


Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. ..."

"..."The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html



Cool Cool Water

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgU3jfCkBS8






 

There is no need to take sides in the climate change argument, I normally (as a believer that the climate is changing) go with seeing what happens if eiher side is wrong ...

- If I am wrong and it doesn't happen we all look stupid and have a couple of decades of lower resource usage and pollution - we all like fresh air, right?

- If they are wrong and it does happen - we're all dead because there is no backup plan.

I'll go for looking stupid (I am good at it) *every* time.

Burying your head in the sand and saying "it isn't worth changing because it isn't happening" is not the position of a sane person.

Rossj wrote:

There is no need to take sides in the climate change argument, I normally (as a believer that the climate is changing) go with seeing what happens if eiher side is wrong ...

- If I am wrong and it doesn't happen we all look stupid and have a couple of decades of lower resource usage and pollution - we all like fresh air, right?

- If they are wrong and it does happen - we're all dead because there is no backup plan.

I'll go for looking stupid (I am good at it) *every* time.

Burying your head in the sand and saying "it isn't worth changing because it isn't happening" is not the position of a sane person.

Exactly. 

I don't care if water vapor or sunspots or whatever other nonsense is CAUSING the problem, the fact is, the problem exists.

ScanIAm wrote:

Exactly. 

I don't care if water vapor or sunspots or whatever other nonsense is CAUSING the problem, the fact is, the problem exists.

Besides, isn't Gaia Hypothesis just going to backfire for Raymond?

I fail to see how it goes in line with his assumption that man-made climate change isn't happening.

Rossj wrote:

There is no need to take sides in the climate change argument, I normally (as a believer that the climate is changing) go with seeing what happens if eiher side is wrong ...

- If I am wrong and it doesn't happen we all look stupid and have a couple of decades of lower resource usage and pollution - we all like fresh air, right?

- If they are wrong and it does happen - we're all dead because there is no backup plan.

I'll go for looking stupid (I am good at it) *every* time.

Burying your head in the sand and saying "it isn't worth changing because it isn't happening" is not the position of a sane person.

which proves a lot of people's point about how people treat environmentalism like religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

brian.shapiro wrote:



Rossj wrote: There is no need to take sides in the climate change argument, I normally (as a believer that the climate is changing) go with seeing what happens if eiher side is wrong ... - If I am wrong and it doesn't happen we all look stupid and have a couple of decades of lower resource usage and pollution - we all like fresh air, right? - If they are wrong and it does happen - we're all dead because there is no backup plan. I'll go for looking stupid (I am good at it) *every* time. Burying your head in the sand and saying "it isn't worth changing because it isn't happening" is not the position of a sane person.

which proves a lot of people's point about how people treat environmentalism like religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

Taken to the extreme, perhaps, but it gets down to calculating risk. With respect to eliminating fossil fuels, climate change is but one argument. There are also plenty local environmental issues, like ground-level ozone. Some studies have found a significant correlation between air pollution and blood clots and lung size in children who grow up near busy highways. Eliminating the need for oil would also cut one of the Gordian Knots in the Middle East.

I don't have a definitive answer for whether climate change in man-made, but there is a compelling moral arguement for upgrading our energy infrastructure.

brian.shapiro wrote:



Rossj wrote: There is no need to take sides in the climate change argument, I normally (as a believer that the climate is changing) go with seeing what happens if eiher side is wrong ... - If I am wrong and it doesn't happen we all look stupid and have a couple of decades of lower resource usage and pollution - we all like fresh air, right? - If they are wrong and it does happen - we're all dead because there is no backup plan. I'll go for looking stupid (I am good at it) *every* time. Burying your head in the sand and saying "it isn't worth changing because it isn't happening" is not the position of a sane person.

which proves a lot of people's point about how people treat environmentalism like religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

There are a number of important differences:

1. In religion, the "wager" is made by you, and the outcome can only be applied to you. In environmental issues, particularly global warming, your "wager" affects everyone else too.

2. Religion, almost by definition does not have a great deal of evidence for the things it claims. Thus the "need for faith". Global Warming is a scientific issue, and there are very real and good reasons for thinking that it is currently happening.

3. If you lose at religion, you go to hell. If you lose at global warming, everything goes to hell.



In response to raymond, I might point out that nuclear power is not nessisarilly the only option.

Carbon sequestration, Biofuels and Biochar are all known and proven methods of reducing CO2 emissions, and the reason for not using them is simple.

Money.

If carbon dioxide emission was "traded" at a rate equivilent to two dollars per barrel (eighteen dollars per tonne emitted CO2) this would result in an increase cost in energy and gasoline of 2.8%, and would mean that all three of these methods would be introduced on an industrial scale by companies that would suddenly have economic reason to do so.

So why don't we? Politics. Explaining a 2.8% cost to your own industry despite the fact that everyone else isn't putting a simmilar cost on theirs is hard to explain to your voters.

Funnily enough, however, the real cost to the economy is much less than 2.8%, because you've suddenly got a thriving sector whose job it is to sequester carbon emissions. In real terms, the cost to the economy could well be under 1.5% per square-year.

If you are reducing your economy, and committing yourself to doing something when other big players (China, US, Russia) are not doing so, your industries will dissappear abroad, and your economy might go into free-fall.

So the problem comes down to world-wide political acceptance of a need to put a value on carbon emissions. Independant of said value, the fact that there would then be a negative value of carbon emissions would mean that industry would have a reason to give a damn about them.

Til then, however, all that we'll see coming from industry and government is a load of hot air.

BryanF wrote:


I don't have a definitive answer for whether climate change in man-made, but there is a compelling moral arguement for upgrading our energy infrastructure.

The IPCC [ http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf] is fairly unequivocal on the matter:

IPCC wrote:

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since
the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence7 that the globally averaged net
effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6
to +2.4] W m-2. (see Figure SPM-2). {2.3. 6.5, 2.9}

7: ...very high confidence [implies] at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct

They also say

IPCC wrote:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in
global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global
mean sea level (see Figure SPM-3). {3.2, 4.2, 5.5}

Note that although some people claim that "this is all part of the natural cycle" or "Earth has been this warm before" should take note that

IPCC wrote:

Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is
unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer
than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to
4 to 6 metres of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}

And they should bear in mind that a quarter of a million years ago we didn't exist. Earth is fine with global warming. We won't be.

And is Global Warming man-made?

IPCC wrote:

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12. This is an
advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is
likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human
influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average
temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns (see Figure SPM-4 and Table SPM-1). {9.4,
9.5}
• It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than
observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise
have taken place. {2.9, 7.5, 9.4}
• The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the
conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained
without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. {4.8, 5.2, 9.4, 9.5,
9.7}

BryanF wrote:

Taken to the extreme, perhaps, but it gets down to calculating risk. With respect to eliminating fossil fuels, climate change is but one argument. There are also plenty local environmental issues, like ground-level ozone. Some studies have found a significant correlation between air pollution and blood clots and lung size in children who grow up near busy highways. Eliminating the need for oil would also cut one of the Gordian Knots in the Middle East.

I don't have a definitive answer for whether climate change in man-made, but there is a compelling moral arguement for upgrading our energy infrastructure.

That's how I see it.

Wow, Charles. Showing your smart side again. I can't possibly see a way to disagree with you or counter your arguments. Let's see how deniers will react to this post.

I can't seem to repro this bug.

DigitalDud wrote:

I can't seem to repro this bug.

How is this a serious reply?

Re: what I was saying

With Pascal's wager, a belief in God alone doesn't instruct you as to what moral actions you should take in life. Often people who think the question of God is as simple as Pascal's wager assume they know what morality is, so never critically think about it. These people can become fundamentalists and warn about sinners in the hands of an angry god.

So the same thing can happen with environmentalism, and a lot of other political issues.

There's enough certainty about specific environmental issues and specific environmental problems that we can start to change how we effect the environment in positive ways, without engaging in a blood-soaked debate about the uncertainties of global warming. There are plenty of issues around that the left and right could reach consensus on if they really cared about that more than winning an argument.

Al Gore is sounding more and more like a preacher every year. When he was vice president he was reserved. After Bush won he gave his own 'sinners in the hands of an angry god' speech, booming 'bush lied to us' over a podium. After An Inconvenient Truth came out, he started talking in the press about how the environment was not just a practical issue but a spiritual issue, and likened himself to a spiritual leader. I think he believes himself to have attained being a buddha. And will soon talk about people crucifying him.

You'll see conservatives call him the "Goracle"

The truth is though, if people just stepped back they might realize not everyone against Al Gore's interpretation of things is against science, against meaningful environmental protections, and wants to kill polar bears in the name of profits for oil companies.

brian.shapiro wrote:


Al Gore is sounding more and more like a preacher every year. When he was vice president he was reserved. After Bush won he gave his own 'sinners in the hands of an angry god' speech, booming 'bush lied to us' over a podium. After An Inconvenient Truth came out, he started talking in the press about how the environment was not just a practical issue but a spiritual issue, and likened himself to a spiritual leader. I think he believes himself to have attained being a buddha. And will soon talk about people crucifying him.

I don't want this to sound even vaguely anti-American, but maybe he is putting it on to reach the 'hoi polloi'? Maybe he thinks that in such a strong Christian country this is the best way to reach those who might otherwise just ignore what he is saying.  It certainly seems to work for Bush when he claims (allegedly) that God told him to do it.

There is always a disconnect between what someone is saying and how they say it, so sometimes it is necessary to change how you say it so that people listen to what you are saying.

You probably haven't noticed the change in our new Prime Minister, but he is different now than he was 10 weeks ago.

Alternatively you could be right and Gore truly does believe himself some sort of spiritual leader,  but I'd like to err on the side of caution and believe that he is more intelligent than that and is doing it deliberately.

blowdart wrote:

Heck from his endless spam nonsense it's obvious Raymond is producing more hot air than anything else on the planet.

Seriously didn't they teach debating in US school? His attempts to seem "intelligent" are simply religious; he repeats what he's told with no actual attempt to understand.

But he uses pictures! Therefore he must be right.

Massif wrote:



blowdart wrote: Heck from his endless spam nonsense it's obvious Raymond is producing more hot air than anything else on the planet. Seriously didn't they teach debating in US school? His attempts to seem "intelligent" are simply religious; he repeats what he's told with no actual attempt to understand.

But he uses pictures! Therefore he must be right.

A Picture's Meaning Can Express Ten Thousand Words.

 

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/letters.html

Trying to be concise for all the C# programmers.

Characters or letters are pictures represented by numbers as are the photos above and below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_%28computing%29

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

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

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

One picture of the plant earth should give all those who believe that man causes global warming pause as should one picture of the sun.

Watch out for those CMEs!



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

http://learners.gsfc.nasa.gov/mediaviewer/stereo2/

Recovering pixel perfectionist, bit twiddler, and voltage manipulator.