PDA

View Full Version : Why "green" science has problems


Darkstar
08-03-2005, 10:02:47
I don't know if the educated posters of this forum have been keeping up, but there's been a lot of science coming out lately about... the Ozone Hole. Particularly, what causes it.

Care to take a guess?

Ever since the "aerosol" scare, many nations have been doing "intense" studies. And now, green science has a serious problem...

The cause of the ozone hole is:
a) The Sun
b) Earth Weather
c) Space Weather

Note that. No man involved. No rogue bits of old air condition mixtures. Nada.

Solar flares, solar storms, and normal solar activity, are the primary cause. Higher activity, strong flares, long standing spots, all cause and increase the ozone holes.

When earth's weather is average or colder then average, it creates a long standing low pressure at the poles. That cuts down on air circulaiton over the poles, exaberating whatever ozone hole is there.

Space weather... it is known that our solar system is going through a "medium intensity gas cloud". Strong/heavy intensity gas clouds cause ice ages, and at least 2 ice ages are "known" (best guess which is still being validated and accepted into mainstream, pop-science) to have been caused by such. This cloud isn't strong enough to cause an ice age, but it is enough to measurably and significantly strengthen the process that causes the ozone hole.

The Earth Observation program's data predicts a significant ozone hole will form over the Artic. There isn't one element of cause that is attributable to man. However, the greenies are now left claiming that man-made global warming is what is creating the COLDER then normal temperatures that contribute to the growth of the ozone hole.

Now, I'm not saying we should run out and start using all that nasty stuff that eats up the ozone. However, I do think it is just one more example that our world is much more complicated then people want to attribute to it, and that we are much more insignificant to it then we want to believe.



(This boring thread is for Mr. G, who was desperate for reading material while waiting on the real posters to show up and entertain him.)

Funko
08-03-2005, 10:04:41
Have you got some links to the studies that have shown that?

Funko
08-03-2005, 10:05:37
BTW I don't think there's such a thing as 'green' science. There's just science.

Provost Harrison
08-03-2005, 10:05:50
Pump out ozone NOW!

Oerdin
08-03-2005, 10:15:23
Funko, I'd call it pop sciience or junk science which is not really objective science. Instead of looking at the evidene and drawing conclusions pop science has popular theories and then set out to prove the theories correct. That's all well and good except it's poor science and it often ignores evidence or theories which dont' fit the pop sceince mold.

Darkstar
08-03-2005, 10:16:15
I've got actual links at work to some greenie sites trying to take the science observations apart, and try to persuade the average science oriented grazer that ozone hole is purely a man-made problem. Before this, I had considered the site a mere leaner, but this puts it out in the "Searching for Atlantis" people.

I haven't got links to the actual source material handy at work, but the actual summations that set off the greenie site were just confirmations of previous Earth Observation data publishings (which I have seen on a "new from NASA" website before) combined with various SOHO and related observers (various Solar Observations programs). The only new bit I hadn't seen authoritative source on was the space weather.

I might be able to dig up original source data for the Earth Observation program and the various SOHO data studies. They have data and studies scattered about on the internet. I was intending to go hunt up the original space weather info this week at work, as I'm in that in-between time of new projects where management is working out how to best fuck up the project before we can start on it. ;) I suppose I can try to see if I can find where NASA has its Earth Observation studies hosted. There is unfortunately no decent "Google" for NASA material at this time. Too much hidden on small servers that don't allow proper spidering.

Funko
08-03-2005, 10:18:22
It works both ways. A lot of science that has "green" conclusions is constantly attacked by various bits of industry - even though it is perfectly good science.

And our understanding of weather/climate etc. is very basic so you'd assume that our knowledge would change as time goes on.

And as someone with a science background I do tend to need a bit more than Darkstar just saying something to be convinced by it. ;)

Darkstar
08-03-2005, 10:19:01
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Pump out ozone NOW!

That's easy. Make smog.

miester gandertak
08-03-2005, 10:19:24
isn't it called Bush-never-signing-the-kyoto-agreement-science?

Darkstar
08-03-2005, 10:25:50
Funko, that's true. However, the science that got aerosols replaced with other things was "junk science". While the chemistry was correct, the assumption that they actually made it to that level of atmosphere in any significant numbers was not. That was entirely unproven, and highly disputed. That whole popularized movement of the time predicted we'd have no ozone layer at all by this point because we took too long to act, and that hasn't come to pass, has it?

That's the problem with most alarmist science. It creates these movements or science "fads" that turn out wrong. That damages other, more legitimate concerns, as the average tax payer doesn't understand the difference between "highly speculatitive" science, and "well researched" science. It's all basically magic to everyone outside the field.

Oerdin
08-03-2005, 10:26:32
Kyoto is and always will be utter crap which shall not reduce the world wide production of Co2 by one bit. Instead it will only move the problem from capped countries to uncapped countries.

The sad fact is 66% of the world's CO2 production comes from the third world and this is projected to grow to 75% with in 20 years. Any accord which actually will stand any chance of reducing net CO2 out put needs to cap the third world since they are most of the out put and nearly all of the growth. Kyoto utterly fails in this reguard.

Funko
08-03-2005, 10:35:41
If you look at CO2 emissions per head of population the third world is way below the developed world, even though our power stations etc tend to be cleaner.

Basically what you are saying is that we shouldn't allow them to achieve the high standard of living that we have because it'd screw up the world but we aren't prepared to do anything to reduce our emissions.

Which is totally out of order really I think. Why shouldn't the third world aspire to our levels of lifestyle? What gives us the right to say we're going to have airconditioning and SUVs but you can't have electricity in your village.

miester gandertak
08-03-2005, 10:39:49
yeah like those africans need airconditions and all.
no way jose, before you know it there will be no third world no more.

Funko
08-03-2005, 10:42:02
We must 'cap' them and keep them poor because we're more important than them and deserve to be rich.

Darkstar
08-03-2005, 10:42:11
I want to know what happened to the second world! You always hear about the Third World, and you occasionally hear about the First World. But you never hear about the middle sibling... the Second World! We never hear about it. What's it doing, sitting at home, watching TV, getting fat and lazy, staying out of trouble?

miester gandertak
08-03-2005, 10:43:14
it spits at poetin

Funko
08-03-2005, 10:44:47
Originally posted by Darkstar
I want to know what happened to the second world! You always hear about the Third World, and you occasionally hear about the First World. But you never hear about the middle sibling... the Second World! We never hear about it. What's it doing, sitting at home, watching TV, getting fat and lazy, staying out of trouble?

The second world was basically the communist block. I guess it's still there, half of it becoming part of Europe and Russia just getting on with being Russia like it always has.

Darkstar
08-03-2005, 10:53:27
Originally posted by Funko
We must 'cap' them and keep them poor because we're more important than them and deserve to be rich.

Basically, that's true. "Do as we say, and not as we do." It's the same thing that happens between the elite and the masses of any society. I don't agree with that particular position, but it does seem to be the gist of it.

However, let's truly look at the situation. Lets say a commercial miracle happens, and all of Europe and North America go off adding significant amounts of CO2 in the next 5 years. Would that make one bit of difference over then next 50 years, with the rest of the world catching up? Do you think they'd implement the cleanest and newest (and therefore most expensive) tech, or go with the cheap and proven stuff?

I think there is a real case in trying to prevent them from practicing the same wasteful methods we used in the past (and are slowly moving away from). That's the point of preservation. Just because Nigeria didn't get its fair share of whale oil during the 19th and 20th centuries, is that any reason to let them hunt whales all they want, to make up for the difference? Or is it best that they use other sources and other alternatives?

Funko
08-03-2005, 10:58:21
Of course, but at the same time we need to show that we are prepared to make sacrifices too. - and we need to get more and more efficient, even though we tend to be very efficient already compared to third world countries. That's what Kyoto was about. As a practical measure it had limited usefulness but as a diplomatic tool to show that 'we're all in this together' it had great value.

That's why the US saying "fuck that, it's too expensive" was so damaging.

Darkstar
08-03-2005, 11:04:59
That sounds like bullshit, Funko. Didn't all that get covered in depth back in the "Kyoto won't do squat but cost the US (and the rest of the first world) Money" polyish threads? If you don't cover the WHOLE FREAKING WORLD, then you are just pissing into the wind about GLOBAL issues. It's the same reason whaling had to be agreed on a global level to not be practiced... something Japan and Russia have renigged on.

Think it through... If you live in a building, and you are barred from putting more then 1 bag of trash into your building's dumpster bin, but everyone else in the building can dump all they like, your building hasn't done anything to help keep down the fines for overstuffing the dumpster. The building may have created a "black market" of dumping, where you pay a neighbor $10 to dump your excessive bags into the dumpster. But it doesn't address that the dumpster is still ending up "over stuffed" and the whole building being charged for it.

MoSe
08-03-2005, 11:25:38
Ozone is a pollutant coming out of car engines (an of laser printers...), and in cities full of traffic it can become a serious irritant.
Well, why don't we collect all the ozone in cities, and bring it up above the poles?
Just like when they cut out hairy skin strips from you buttocks and transplant them on your bald head?

miester gandertak
08-03-2005, 11:32:30
good thinking MoSeeeee.
is see a great career in ozondeliverance for you.

you get a great uniform

MoSe
08-03-2005, 11:34:27
O-Zone Deliverance....
sounds interesting

Provost Harrison
08-03-2005, 11:40:46
It may indeed be the case that we are pissing in the tide of a natural cyclical occurence. However I'm not a gambler in that respect.

Also you are going to run out of oil at some point, so it is wise, nonetheless, to start to use other sources of energy.

The environment is a very complicated system, it is hard to tell what makes how much impact.

miester gandertak
08-03-2005, 11:55:55
i was raised in a very good environment

Dyl Ulenspiegel
08-03-2005, 12:59:51
Originally posted by Oerdin
Kyoto is and always will be utter crap which shall not reduce the world wide production of Co2 by one bit. Instead it will only move the problem from capped countries to uncapped countries.

The sad fact is 66% of the world's CO2 production comes from the third world and this is projected to grow to 75% with in 20 years. Any accord which actually will stand any chance of reducing net CO2 out put needs to cap the third world since they are most of the out put and nearly all of the growth. Kyoto utterly fails in this reguard.

Nice parrot. Good boy.

The Mad Monk
08-03-2005, 13:31:10
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Nice parrot. Good boy.

:lol:

Want to know what's funny about that?

You would be cheering him on at Poly, because of the way he's savaging DanS and other conservatives on economic and social issues, then swearing at him, because of the way he's savaging Agathon and other commie scum on the military and some environmental issues.

He just calling them as he sees them, and he's making it damn hard to pigeonhole him..

In this case, as a trained geologist, I suspect he's seeing a tad more clearly than you are.

Funko
08-03-2005, 13:33:32
His point in that post was sociology not geology.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
08-03-2005, 13:41:54
Social science, political science, law.

Well, at least I can call MM a dumbfuck. Well again, I don't need a particular reason for that. :p

Funko
08-03-2005, 13:52:22
I've already explained what I see as the problem with that concept.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
08-03-2005, 13:57:08
What concept?

Funko
08-03-2005, 13:58:56
I have no idea what I meant by that post.

MoSe
08-03-2005, 14:01:42
but you meant it!

Funko
08-03-2005, 14:04:10
What I meant was...

I've already explained what my issue was with Oerdin's post.

It's purely a moral judgement not a scientific one.

miester gandertak
08-03-2005, 14:05:35
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
What concept? the concept of international global skippy ball racing?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
08-03-2005, 14:11:13
Ball scratching.

zmama
08-03-2005, 14:14:49
Originally posted by miester gandertak
i was raised in a very good environment

And see where you ended up?

Here

sad, isn't it :(

Dyl Ulenspiegel
08-03-2005, 14:16:56
This is a very good environment here.

Compared to where I come from.

HelloKitty
08-03-2005, 14:17:00
Originally posted by Oerdin
Kyoto is and always will be utter crap which shall not reduce the world wide production of Co2 by one bit. Instead it will only move the problem from capped countries to uncapped countries.

The sad fact is 66% of the world's CO2 production comes from the third world and this is projected to grow to 75% with in 20 years. Any accord which actually will stand any chance of reducing net CO2 out put needs to cap the third world since they are most of the out put and nearly all of the growth. Kyoto utterly fails in this reguard.

Those fuckers that constitute 89% of the world population!

MoSe
08-03-2005, 14:26:18
babies fart
most developed countries are already doing their part, in making much less babies than the 3rd worlders

zmama
08-03-2005, 14:33:32
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
This is a very good environment here.

Compared to where I come from.

Vienna?


:gasmaske:

Dyl Ulenspiegel
08-03-2005, 14:35:56
Hinterfucking.

zmama
08-03-2005, 14:36:34
Oh...poly

miester gandertak
08-03-2005, 14:36:50
Originally posted by zmama
And see where you ended up?

Here

sad, isn't it :( yep the life makes pretty funny moves.

Venom
08-03-2005, 14:40:08
Goddammit. I knew, I fucking knew, I shouldn't have opened this thread.

zmama
08-03-2005, 14:42:03
Back away from the keyboard, nice and easy....

Dyl Ulenspiegel
08-03-2005, 14:42:35
Then hit yourself on the head.

miester gandertak
08-03-2005, 15:28:17
with a sledge hammer or if you can handle it a skyscraper.