Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by Shefftim:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Life, the entropy reduction agent, will provide the counter balance to runaway warming.
[Quote]
Daisyworld in action ??
How?
Blimey - read Lovelock !
What will actually happen is: The increased CO2 will precipitate a feeding frenzy of some rabid flora or bacteria or algae or other that will suck the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere and then die as a result of the consequent CO2 shortfall.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by Shefftim:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Life, the entropy reduction agent, will provide the counter balance to runaway warming.
[Quote]
Daisyworld in action ??
How?
Blimey - read Lovelock !
What will actually happen is: The increased CO2 will precipitate a feeding frenzy of some rabid flora or bacteria or algae or other that will suck the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere and then die as a result of the consequent CO2 shortfall.
Daisyworld in action ?? |
| |
|
|
Originally posted by Seskinreay: What will actually happen is: “The increased CO2 will precipitate a feeding frenzy of some rabid flora or bacteria or algae or other that will suck the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere and then die as a result of the consequent CO2 shortfall.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your view isn’t one shared by Lovelock himself: “Carbon dioxide abundance was regulated by the growth of the planets vegetation. The most important part of the model was the variation with temperature of the area covered by algal and plants. In the laboratory the growth rate of plants and algae both increase as the temperature rises from 0 degees C to a peak near 30 degees C and then falls to zero at 50 degees C. In the real world geophysics intervenes. Algal growth and area cover increases with temperature from 0 degees C as in the lab but in the ocean growth ceases at about 10 to 12 degees C when the surface water forms a stable layer about 30 to 50 metres thick; when this happens nutrients in the cooler water below are no longer mixed in and the algae starve. On the land, plant growth similarly increases with temperature until the rate of water evaporation becomes greater than the rainfall and this is at a temperature of about 22 degees C, here also growth ceases except in the special case of tropical rainforests which have evolved a number of mechanisms to conserve water.” He goes cntinues to develop his argument here: http://www.windaction.org/opinions/6955Daisyworld in action ??[/QUOTE] This is Louise Woodley’s opinion: “Gaia has no reason to favour humanity over any other form of life. If global warming results in the extinction, or at least massive decline in the number, of humans on the planet, then it will also presumably result in a reduction in the main cause of global warming. Just how Gaia would then react and reset the thermostat to maintain another form or forms of life is an interesting debate.” May be it will be the Tigers after all. (Personally I’m not quite that gloomy.) But do read Lovelock he states his views as clearly as possible and it’s a valid contribution to the debate. Hey it’s the weekend! Home time. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Shefftim: Originally posted by Seskinreay: What will actually happen is: “The increased CO2 will precipitate a feeding frenzy of some rabid flora or bacteria or algae or other that will suck the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere and then die as a result of the consequent CO2 shortfall.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your view isn’t one shared by Lovelock himself: “Carbon dioxide abundance was regulated by the growth of the planets vegetation. The most important part of the model was the variation with temperature of the area covered by algal and plants. In the laboratory the growth rate of plants and algae both increase as the temperature rises from 0 degees C to a peak near 30 degees C and then falls to zero at 50 degees C. In the real world geophysics intervenes. Algal growth and area cover increases with temperature from 0 degees C as in the lab but in the ocean growth ceases at about 10 to 12 degees C when the surface water forms a stable layer about 30 to 50 metres thick; when this happens nutrients in the cooler water below are no longer mixed in and the algae starve. On the land, plant growth similarly increases with temperature until the rate of water evaporation becomes greater than the rainfall and this is at a temperature of about 22 degees C, here also growth ceases except in the special case of tropical rainforests which have evolved a number of mechanisms to conserve water.” He goes cntinues to develop his argument here: http://www.windaction.org/opinions/6955Daisyworld in action ??
This is Louise Woodley’s opinion: “Gaia has no reason to favour humanity over any other form of life. If global warming results in the extinction, or at least massive decline in the number, of humans on the planet, then it will also presumably result in a reduction in the main cause of global warming. Just how Gaia would then react and reset the thermostat to maintain another form or forms of life is an interesting debate.” From: http://www.bluesci.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=413May be it will be the Tigers after all. (Personally I’m not quite that gloomy.) But do read Lovelock he states his views as clearly as possible and it’s a valid contribution to the debate. Hey it’s the weekend! Home time.[/QUOTE] My theory was intended to be flippant but hopefully illustrative what what might happen in a Daisyworld kind of way. I'm not a scientist and only read populist stuff. I very much enjoyed Lovelocks first two books and was impressed by the Gaia theory. I am also a fan because he doesn't like wind turbines! Is he seen as a giant in the science world? I gathered he ruffled feathers by attempting to cross scientific boundaries at the time of Gaia theory publication, which I appauded as it highlighted another myopic view of the scientific community. Regarding the gaia attitude to humanity - I'm sure Louise is right. There is nothing special about us, I'm not gloomy about the prospect of making way for other life forms and if you believe as I do that we exist in order to exist no more no less than then I have no problem with mans eventual extinction as he is a bloody menace to other life forms! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Regarding the gaia attitude to humanity - I'm sure Louise is right. There is nothing special about us, I'm not gloomy about the prospect of making way for other life forms and if you believe as I do that we exist in order to exist no more no less than then I have no problem with mans eventual extinction as he is a bloody menace to other life forms!
So typical of the self-loathing. If GW kills us all, you will be happy. I hate to pop your bubble---It ain't gonna happen  It's the people that share your attitude who are "a bloody menace to other life forms". |
| |
|
|
quote: So typical of the self-loathing.
Typical of whose self-loathing? Seskinreay is arguing that nature should be allowed to take its course even if it results in the extinction of humans. But he can only do so because he appears not to believe the GW theory (or at least the size of the impacts). I think he is failing to grasp the extent of the appalling misery that will result from AGW, even if it takes a thousand years to unfold (the timescale for Greenland melting). quote: If GW kills us all, you will be happy. I hate to pop your bubble---It ain't gonna happenSmile It's the people that share your attitude who are "a bloody menace to other life forms".
I've never said it will "kill us all". I've said that in the long term, the risks and costs of not taking action are larger than the risks and costs of taking action. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Regarding the gaia attitude to humanity - I'm sure Louise is right. There is nothing special about us, I'm not gloomy about the prospect of making way for other life forms and if you believe as I do that we exist in order to exist no more no less than then I have no problem with mans eventual extinction as he is a bloody menace to other life forms!
Hey Seskinreay, if your life really doesn't feel like it's worth living, you always have the choice of making yourself extinct you know? You don't have to wait for the rest of us (or are you worried you may miss out on something?). Of course, we all disagree with you an think humans are very, very special and human life is well worth all the joys and sorrows it brings. Just imagine, your zero CO2 emissions would mean one less menace and could make way for one of those cuddly polar bear cubs on a melting lump of ice that appear in the Guardian. |
| |
|
|
quote: he central point is Venus’ atmosphere hasn’t always been the way it is today. It’s known there was water (oceans) on Venus; the water boiled away (it took millions of years to do this) and the heat released more CO2 from both the oceans and surface, producing two additional greenhouse effects.
A) More CO2 in the atmosphere but also the loss of one major sink that reabsorbs CO2.
B) No precipitation, which is a mechanism for returning CO2 to the surface
perhaps an injection of facts into this would be helpful.You seem to be confusing the word "known" with the word "thought" Remember to be careful what you type,someone once forgot a word when typing "global warming theory" and look at all the fuss that has caused!
|
| |
|
|
B) No precipitation, which is a mechanism for returning CO2 to the surface. you've got a point there, rain fall has been down for the last 30 years on Earth, wonder if theres a way we could blame man for that
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M: quote: So typical of the self-loathing.
Typical of whose self-loathing? Seskinreay is arguing that nature should be allowed to take its course even if it results in the extinction of humans. But he can only do so because he appears not to believe the GW theory (or at least the size of the impacts). I think he is failing to grasp the extent of the appalling misery that will result from AGW, even if it takes a thousand years to unfold (the timescale for Greenland melting). quote: If GW kills us all, you will be happy. I hate to pop your bubble---It ain't gonna happenSmile It's the people that share your attitude who are "a bloody menace to other life forms".
I've never said it will "kill us all". I've said that in the long term, the risks and costs of not taking action are larger than the risks and costs of taking action.
Hi Steve, and thanks for the rather more sophisticated interpretation of my utterances. You and I both know this is a very complex debate and I'm trying to look at it from various angles and learn as I go along, sometimes by provoking reactions such as those received. Perhaps Phlipper and Roger58 should drop their sceptical stance and get behind the science and the solutions asap, they are clearly very concerned for the fate of mankind. Back to the science, there is an article in the Sunday Times (15/4) about a space probe (Gravity Probe-B) that shows promise in proving Einsteins theories of relativity. Excellent, but I was surprised it has taken 90 years to get this far towards a definitve proof and we're not quite there yet. Does this not suggest that scientific method is indeed approximate and we therefore should take care not to invest too much in the solution until the theories of AGW have matured a little more? As advocated by Bjorn Lomborg. Ive now read some of Lovelocks latest views (from Truesceptic) and the one thing that stands out to me is the change of tone and presentational style from his original works. I'd previously thought that Gaia was a description of an 'immaculate' system of life maintaining the conditions for life. Seems not - my belief in Gaia is shaken because we seem to now be outside the system and are a threat to it. How can this be - or is it just another flawed scientific theory? Regarding the human condition that I am supposedly hating myself for, there are two further articles in the Times (News Review) about the state of play on our crowded planet. One by the economist Jeffrey Sachs (who talks about population growth in a series of Reith lectures) and the other about a guy (Ted Simon) who has just completed a round the world trip on a motorcycle 30 years after he first performed the feat. The description of his experience this time round is very interesting and surely highlights the verifiably real and immediate problems facing mankind. I'm currently siding with Lomborg. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Hi Steve, and thanks for the rather more sophisticated interpretation of my utterances. You and I both know this is a very complex debate and I'm trying to look at it from various angles and learn as I go along, sometimes by provoking reactions such as those received. Perhaps Phlipper and Roger58 should drop their sceptical stance and get behind the science and the solutions asap, they are clearly very concerned for the fate of mankind.
Seskinreay - it is precisely because I am concerned with the fate of mankind that I DON'T get "behind the science and the solutions asap". As you yourself say, the theories of AGW are immature... quote: "we... should take care not to invest too much in the solution until the theories of AGW have matured a little more?"
and history tells us again and again that nothing places mankind (that most supreme, royal, expression of life) in a greater danger of ending than acting on his own immature theories or ideas. Just look at Nazi Germany for a recent illustration of this scientific fact about nature. From what both you and Lomberg claim, it's clear to see there is hardly any science to "get behind" (from what you accept IS potentially knowable about the subject) and there are NO solutions of any type other than immature, fantastical ones. If you want further scientific proof of these facts about nature - go and browse some of the stuff issuing out of realclimate.org - and see mankind's latest tyranny in the making. It makes for some fascinating reading. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58:
mankind (that most supreme, royal, expression of life) ...... Nazi Germany.
Breathtaking - LOL !! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Hi Steve, and thanks for the rather more sophisticated interpretation of my utterances. You and I both know this is a very complex debate and I'm trying to look at it from various angles and learn as I go along, sometimes by provoking reactions such as those received. Perhaps Phlipper and Roger58 should drop their sceptical stance and get behind the science and the solutions asap, they are clearly very concerned for the fate of mankind.
Seskinreay - it is precisely because I am concerned with the fate of mankind that I DON'T get "behind the science and the solutions asap". As you yourself say, the theories of AGW are immature... quote: "we... should take care not to invest too much in the solution until the theories of AGW have matured a little more?"
and history tells us again and again that nothing places mankind (that most supreme, royal, expression of life) in a greater danger of ending than acting on his own immature theories or ideas. Just look at Nazi Germany for a recent illustration of this scientific fact about nature. From what both you and Lomberg claim, it's clear to see there is hardly any science to "get behind" (from what you accept IS potentially knowable about the subject) and there are NO solutions of any type other than immature, fantastical ones. If you want further scientific proof of these facts about nature - go and browse some of the stuff issuing out of realclimate.org - and see mankind's latest tyranny in the making. It makes for some fascinating reading.
Did you read the Sunday Times articles? Do they resonate with you? Is the real problem we face globalisation and consumerism? From my own experience, far from self loathing, I live in a wonderful part of the world with a fabulous wife and 18 year old son and assets approaching £1m. Yet in relative happiness terms I can look back to earlier less prosperous times, when families and friends supported each other, when village communities did likewise, when Aston Villa stood a chance of winning the league championship. Seems we lose something the weathier (not richer) we get. Ted Simon refers to the loss of mystery, where everywhere looks and feels the same, and people are indifferent if not outright aggressive. Maybe the solution to AGW lies here? How can Milliband say we need to protect the enviroment and advocate economic expansion and increased air travel at the same time? How about finding the reverse gear on our supreme march to oblivion? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Did you read the Sunday Times articles? Do they resonate with you? Is the real problem we face globalisation and consumerism?
Yes, I've read them. They resonate with me as two old men hankering after their more youthful years. The real problem we face isn't globalisation and consumerism - I could quite easily see a global population at least double or triple its current one and the world flourishing (providing man's ingenuity comes up with a cheap, clean source of energy - which it undoubtedly will). quote: From my own experience, far from self loathing, I live in a wonderful part of the world with a fabulous wife and 18 year old son and assets approaching £1m. Yet in relative happiness terms I can look back to earlier less prosperous times, when families and friends supported each other, when village communities did likewise, when Aston Villa stood a chance of winning the league championship. Seems we lose something the weathier (not richer) we get.
Another old man hankering after his more youthful years? Try asking yourself this - "How would I be getting on with my life if I wasn't spending so much time fantasising over some rose-tinted good old days - and blaming AGW for my lack of fulfilment rather than my fantasising?" quote: Ted Simon refers to the loss of mystery, where everywhere looks and feels the same, and people are indifferent if not outright aggressive.
Ted Simon got his end away - which appears to have been the whole purpose of this OAP's trip. Perhaps what he really means is that HE feels the same and indifferent (if not outright aggressive) towards everywhere he looks (sound familiar?). Which is the same as saying he is confronted by his own delusion. How can Milliband say we need to protect the enviroment and advocate economic expansion and increased air travel at the same time? How about finding the reverse gear on our supreme march to oblivion?[/QUOTE] |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Did you read the Sunday Times articles? Do they resonate with you? Is the real problem we face globalisation and consumerism?
Yes, I've read them. They resonate with me as two old men hankering after their more youthful years. The real problem we face isn't globalisation and consumerism - I could quite easily see a global population at least double or triple its current one and the world flourishing (providing man's ingenuity comes up with a cheap, clean source of energy - which it undoubtedly will). quote: From my own experience, far from self loathing, I live in a wonderful part of the world with a fabulous wife and 18 year old son and assets approaching £1m. Yet in relative happiness terms I can look back to earlier less prosperous times, when families and friends supported each other, when village communities did likewise, when Aston Villa stood a chance of winning the league championship. Seems we lose something the weathier (not richer) we get.
Another old man hankering after his more youthful years? Try asking yourself this - "How would I be getting on with my life if I wasn't spending so much time fantasising over some rose-tinted good old days - and blaming AGW for my lack of fulfilment rather than my fantasising?" quote: Ted Simon refers to the loss of mystery, where everywhere looks and feels the same, and people are indifferent if not outright aggressive.
Ted Simon got his end away - which appears to have been the whole purpose of this OAP's trip. Perhaps what he really means is that HE feels the same and indifferent (if not outright aggressive) towards everywhere he looks (sound familiar?). Which is the same as saying he is confronted by his own delusion. How can Milliband say we need to protect the enviroment and advocate economic expansion and increased air travel at the same time? How about finding the reverse gear on our supreme march to oblivion?
[/QUOTE] Jeffery Sachs isn't that old is he? And if you get anywhere near his level of achievement in life good luck to you - but I doubt you will. You'll never suffer with piles however !! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
You'll never suffer with piles however !!
God made you a perfect arse hole in case your wondering ! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
God made you a perfect arse hole in case your wondering !
Well, yes. The whole point about perfect arse holes is that they can perfectly eliminate waste material. It doesn't work holding on to old stuff for too long, that's called constipation. In other words - an open mind must be open at BOTH ends. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58:
In other words - an open mind must be open at BOTH ends.
Well I thought it - you said it ! |
| |
|
|
