Death threats fail to shake climate scientists

Page 5 of 6 [ 92 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

16 Jun 2011, 12:16 am

@ donnie darko:
The term 'global warming' is, in fact, accurate; the average temperature of the entire planet has been increasing. However, if you know anything about averages, an average increase does not preclude stable regions or decreases.
This graph includes both direct surface measurements (which are not all, or even predominantly, in urban heat islands) and data from two different satellites. As you can see, they track quite well.

edit: you should also be aware that 'the United States' is not 'the planet.' Pay attention to data from other areas, too.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Jun 2011, 7:49 am

LKL wrote:

edit: you should also be aware that 'the United States' is not 'the planet.' Pay attention to data from other areas, too.

There is the warming. Now what are the causes (note the plural) and is human CO2 production the main driver of this warming trend?

ruveyn

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Jun 2011, 10:25 am

LKL wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

LKL wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

LKL wrote:

I'm curious how both of you would define, 'environmentalist,' because you're using the word like it's a bad thing.

I would define an environmentalist as somebody who asserts that human activity is responsible for changing weather, sometimes accompanied by suggestions of buying different products with Y2K certification.... but other times just go into what should be common sense conservation and stewardship practices and yet other times just have their thoughts to themselves.

So... environmentalism ended in 2000? Do you understand that
a)the environmental movement is a hell of a lot broader than AGW, and
b)the rest of your statement is basically a strawman?
and c), as has already been stated, not all of those who accept AGW are environmentalists?

c'mon, 'Keet, you're capable of being rational. You can do better than this.

No, I'm not saying that environmentalism ended in 2000, however the demands of some environmentalists that we buy hybrid cars, fluorescent lights, etc. seem to me to be reminiscent of the marketing of incredulous merchants playing off the apocalyptic fears of people who knew nothing about computers.

a) yes, as I alluded to, there are those who want to cut down on pollution, stop the usage of the oceans as a toilet, etc. It's more than just one issue.
b) no, it's not. You asked for a definition. My definition.
c) yes, fine, it's nearly impossible to properly use the word "all" to refer to the universal set since there are always exceptions.

LKL, so is everyone else capable of being rational. I appreciate the civility though.

Your definition of environmentalists was basically AGW people and sustainability consumerists, with a token pass at allowing for a few 'common sense' people that you seem to consider the minority of environmentalists (while also implying that they're only ok if they stfu). That's what I meant by 'straw-man environmentalist.'
Far be it from me to deny that yuppie, consumer-environmentalists exist, but they aren't the core of the movement either philosophically or numerically. Green-washing of products is a capitalist selling method, not a philosophical movement.

I don't know the percentages of who is doing what, but the types of environmentalists that I don't like are the ones who are trying to sell crap. This particular thread is about a few token scientists which got published in a newspaper, read by the general public, and got threats from some of the general public. I've received more threats from just when I had worked in fast food before because the "fries aren't fresh" or "I'm on a 15 minute break and need to cut in line!" and such other ridiculousness. Handing out opinions to the general public en masse is a great way to hear the worst of humanity back. As it is though, the threats they had received were months old, and they essential increased security measures in their university way after the threats would have been realized.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

16 Jun 2011, 12:01 pm

donniedarko wrote:

The climate is always changing, they changed the name because global warming and the greenhouse effect theory turned out to be wrong in the early 2000s when the 1990s heat spike ended.

The 00s were hotter than the 90s. The last decade is the hottest one on record.

Climate Change is not a new term. The IPCC was formed in....1988. Guess what CC stands for?

And it was republican pollster Frank Lutz who encouraged Republicans to use CC over GW, because it sounds nicer and less worrisome.

Last edited by simon_says on 16 Jun 2011, 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Jun 2011, 12:07 pm

simon_says wrote:

donniedarko wrote:

The climate is always changing, they changed the name because global warming and the greenhouse effect theory turned out to be wrong in the early 2000s when the 1990s heat spike ended.

The 00s were hotter than the 90s. The hottest decade on record.

Climate Change is not a new term. The IPCC was formed in....1988. Guess what CC stands for?

And in the 1960's and 1970's weren't they worried about the impact of nuclear testing causing an ice age? Something which ended up causing one of the most power propulsion systems to be outlawed by the blasted eco-Luddites?

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

16 Jun 2011, 12:11 pm

Do you mean nuclear winter?

Nuclear Winter is about a full scale nuclear war and the amount of debris that would be thrown up into the atmosphere, causing a dimming of the sun which could affect many things. Similar to what they believe happened during large impact events on earth.

It's not about nuclear testing. At least not that Ive ever read.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Jun 2011, 12:16 pm

simon_says wrote:

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

Quote:

Much of the initiative for the treaty had its focus in what was the rising concern about radioactive fallout as a result of nuclear weapons testing underwater, in the atmosphere, and on the ground's surface, on the part of the nuclear powers. These concerns became more pronounced after the United States successfully tested a hydrogen bomb and a thermonuclear device with the power of eight megatons of TNT in the early 1950s and when the USSR detonated a 50-megaton nuclear warhead in 1961.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOwEcLiK4cA[/youtube]

And here is the propulsion system outlawed by the bill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

Quote:

Project Orion was the first serious attempt to design a nuclear pulse rocket. The design effort was carried out at General Atomics in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The idea of Orion was to react small directional nuclear explosives against a large steel pusher plate attached to the spacecraft with shock absorbers. Efficient directional explosives maximized the momentum transfer, leading to specific impulses in the range of 6,000 seconds (about twelve times that of the Space Shuttle main engine). With refinements a theoretical maximum of 100,000 seconds (1 MN·s/kg) might be possible. Thrusts were in the millions of tons, allowing spacecraft larger than 8×106 tons to be built with 1958 materials.[3]

The reference design was to be constructed of steel using submarine-style construction with a crew of more than 200 and a vehicle takeoff weight of several thousand tons. This low-tech single-stage reference design would reach Mars and back in four weeks from the Earth's surface (compared to 12 months for NASA's current chemically-powered reference mission). The same craft could visit Saturn's moons in a seven-month mission (compared to chemically-powered missions of about nine years).

A number of engineering problems were found and solved over the course of the project, notably related to crew shielding and pusher-plate lifetime. The system appeared to be entirely workable when the project was shut down in 1965, the main reason being given that the Partial Test Ban Treaty made it illegal (however, before the treaty, the U.S. and Soviet Union had already exploded at least nine nuclear bombs, including thermonuclear bombs, in "space," i.e., at altitudes over 100 km: see high altitude nuclear explosions). There were also ethical issues with launching such a vehicle within the Earth's magnetosphere. Calculations showed that the fallout from each takeoff would kill between 1 and 10 people[citation needed] (a claim that has been disputed: see radiation hormesis).

One useful mission for this near-term technology would be to deflect an asteroid that could collide with the earth, depicted dramatically in the 1998 film Deep Impact. The extremely high performance would permit even a late launch to succeed, and the vehicle could effectively transfer a large amount of kinetic energy to the asteroid by simple impact, and in the event of an imminent asteroid impact a few predicted deaths from fallout would probably not be considered a show-stopper. Also, an automated mission would eliminate the most problematic issues of the design: the shock absorbers.

Orion is one of very few interstellar space drives that could theoretically be constructed with available technology, as discussed in a 1968 paper, Interstellar Transport by Freeman Dyson.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

16 Jun 2011, 12:21 pm

I know what radiation is and I know about the Orion spacecraft.

I just don't see anything about an ice age.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Jun 2011, 12:41 pm

simon_says wrote:

I know what radiation is and I know about the Orion spacecraft.

I just don't see anything about an ice age.

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

Quote:

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.[1]...

...Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because by 1972 "the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted" [10] (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. However, climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[11]). Despite that, in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports, and "unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973...pushed the issue into the public consciousness" [10].
In the 1970s the compilation of records to produce hemispheric, or global, temperature records had just begun....

A history of the discovery of global warming states that: While neither scientists nor the public could be sure in the 1970s whether the world was warming or cooling, people were increasingly inclined to believe that global climate was on the move, and in no small way.[12]
...Concerns about nuclear winter arose in the early 1980s from several reports. Similar speculations have appeared over effects due to catastrophes such as asteroid impacts and massive volcanic eruptions. A prediction that massive oil well fires in Kuwait would cause significant effects on climate was quite incorrect.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

16 Jun 2011, 12:49 pm

Yes, I know about global cooling hypothesis back in the 70s. How does it relate to nuclear testing?

The only such connection I know is called nuclear winter. It comes from nuclear war, not testing. I'm trying to help you out but you seem content to run in circles.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Jun 2011, 12:52 pm

Even though I can't seem to find a direct reference linking the concern over atmospheric nuclear testing to the alarmist notions of global cooling, I do remember having read it before. Even with the implications listed on wikipedia though, some of it still may be seen, such as the idea that a period of global cooling started in 1945, the year of the first atom bomb detonated on Earth, followed immediately by the two in Japan. While such is a matter of post hoc ergo propter hoc, such is also the main manner of journalistic thought in many cases anyhow.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

16 Jun 2011, 12:57 pm

@ 'Keet: Carl Sagan warned about the possibility of a nuclear winter in the 60's or 70's, not from testing but from an all-out nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, due to particulates flung into the atmosphere by multiple large detonations. The concern with testing warheads was not about nuclear winter, but about radioactive fallout from the testing. Global cooling was discussed in the 70's, but did not receive as much attention in the scientific press as it did in the popular press.

Nuclear winter, global cooling, and radioactive fallout are separate theories which are tangent to, but not dependent on, each other.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Jun 2011, 12:57 pm

simon_says wrote:

There were over 2,000 nuclear tests on earth from the 1940's through the 1990's, many of them atmospheric and producing fallout. The concern being that fallout would slowly cool the planet. Nuclear war being a much faster means of producing fallout would cool it faster was a concern in the 80's, but prior to then the banning of atmospheric nuclear testing had been based on similar concerns as far as I remember.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

16 Jun 2011, 12:59 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

simon_says wrote:

The concern was not that fallout would cool the planet, but that particulates would (along the lines of a major volcanic eruption, which does measurably happen).

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

16 Jun 2011, 1:01 pm

Those were very small bombs used in 45. We destroyed far more of Japan with conventional firebombs, which likely put up a lot more soot and ash. Taken with all of the soot put up by conventional bombing in Europe and Asia, the nuclear effect would be very minor. Also, the decline on the graph starts in 1940 and 1940 is referenced in the wiki article as well.

I don't think the soot put up by WWII bombing was sufficient to alter climate. Or at least Ive never heard about it before.

2000-5000 modern h-bomb warheads over a period of days might be a different story.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Jun 2011, 1:09 pm

simon_says wrote:

And the bombs which were going to be used for the nuclear pulse propulsion system were 0.1 kiloton in yield, and yet it was also made illegal by the ban on atmospheric nuclear testing, so why ban such a firecracker in comparison?

Page 5 of 6 [ 92 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Death threats fail to shake climate scientists Post Reply New Topic

Death threats fail to shake climate scientists