Aidan Rhiannon

Electric Cars and Fusion Power for all!

I once read a fic someone had written, where fusion power had brought forth an age of clean, abundant power. But the problem was the masses of excess heat produced by this power source, and the millions of other secondary industries and end products and such. So while the air was the cleanest it had been since the industrial revolution, the earth was largely desert, and the oceans devoid of life. Global Warming had come anyway. (The oceans were in fact a greenish blue, since the massive dieback of grass and trees and such forced people to seed the oceans with oxygen producing algae :P)

I was amused by this.

From:

aoanla.livejournal.com

That's also part of the world-building in Peter F Hamilton's "Night's Dawn" trilogy - Earth's ecology has been totally destroyed by the waste heat of its tremendous power generating capacity, despite some efforts having been made to reduce pollution.

Personally, I'm surprised that they didn't install sunshades...

From:

You know... that does sound familiar now...

Damnit, now I'm all confused. It might have been one, it might have been the other! :P

From:

crucifox.livejournal.com

Electric cars aren't really that helpful, either.

Electricity doesn't come from magic, after all.

From:

jordanis.livejournal.com

Well, that's the point of the fusion power, isn't it?

From:

Clarke's 3001 had some of that. It was zero point energy, but had the same effect. Too many air conditioners, so they had to build big mirrors to scatter energy into space.

From:

They also had dinosaur gardeners, which was awesome. Except for the velociraptors - can't trust them!

From:

ken-redtail.livejournal.com

Yay for Singularity!

From:

silveradept

I think it may take some form of pervasive, immediate, and easily visible damage before too many attitudes are changed regarding whether we should keep the Earth around or expend it all. Hurricanes are nasty but infrequent. Something like, say, flooding Florida might be what's needed before people start noticing that there are effects to actions.

I really wish it wouldn't take that, but it certainly appears to be that way. If we should make it to the Singularity before the planet breaks down, then we might have a shot at saving it, or at the very least, transporting sufficient numbers of the populous off-planet so that nature can run its course.

From:

Well, I hope humanity can make it to the Singularity, but while Earth can survive about anything we throw at (or more appropriately on) it, humanity might not find it a place worth living.

Considering that the press seems more focused on whether or not Barack Obama played poker when he was a State Senator, or John Edwards getting $200 haircuts... um, yeah, I think I'll stay away from moving to a coastal area. o.O

From:

scribe-of-stars.livejournal.com

Not surprisingly, I'm waaaaay behind everyone else. I assume that when you say "Singularity," you aren't speaking of a black hole. Do you mean the state of all humans under one banner, or perhaps a collective consciousness?

From:

You can look here for more information. Though that deals with more of a technological singularity as opposed to a philosophical or spiritual one.

From:

aoanla.livejournal.com

The Technological Singularity is the point at which accelerating technological change happens so fast that people before it can't comprehend or keep up with the changes it produces. We're arguably very close to such a state now - look at how rapidly technological change has altered society in the last ten or twenty years, in ways that no-one really predicted accurately. People often assume that a post-Singularity society would be able to solve (or consider irrelevant) many problems which we consider pressing, partly due to the assumption that the Singularity requires or necessitates the development of strong AI or human-computer interfaces (and hence the development of more-than-human intelligences).

From:

Actually, Exit Mundi has a pretty nice writeup on the Singularity. As well as other options for end-of-the-world disasters.

Having an apocalyptic fetish isn't a bad thing, right? *grins innocently*

From:

There's this, too. :P

From:

Muahahahahaha!

You know, it's so hard to get singularitan to rhyme with, well, anything. *grins*

From:

Most mainstream sources ignore the growing research that counters human made global warming. If anything, it's a recurring natural cycle we'll just have to deal with. Climate change is an immature science, and we don't know nearly enough to try to mess with it.

From:

You actually believe that? That humanity has nothing to do with it? Please, please, point me at this "research" so that I can have a laugh or two.

From:

While I'm thinking about it, would you also care to explain the logic behind your statement about not "messing with" climate change?

If, as you maintain, all the billions of tons of emissions that humanity has pumped out into the air have nothing whatsoever to do with the current changes in climate, then WHAT THE FLIP are we going to be able to do that "messes with it"? I mean really? All those mainstream scientists which you are sneering at suggest that to combat global warming, we cut down on our emissions. If those emissions are a tiny enough factor to have nothing to do with the current change in climate, then how, exactly, is cutting down on them going to "mess with" anything at all? Please, explain. And will you also explain why so far the ONLY people I have ever seen funding studies or supporting or otherwise arguing that global warming isn't real, or isn't caused by humans, are people with close connections to large corporations who have a vested financial interest in sewing out carbon and other chemicals? I have yet to see even one single solitary unbiased scientist put forth any alternate theory. AND will you please explain how greenhouse gases, which have been conclusively proved to cause warming on a small scale, can have nothing whatsoever to do with it on a large scale? Why? How do those billions of tons have no effect on climate? They're hanging around in the atmosphere, we can measure them and see that they're there. So do explain how it's possible for them to be present and have no effect.

Oh, and about this "recurring natural cycle" of yours. Can you point me, please, at a point in history in which the world was warmer than it is today, and find me any actual connection between that point and now? Because I'm pretty sure that we're still in the Ice Age cycle, and were it not for the chemical emissions of the human race, we'd be worrying about glaciers rather than floods.

From:

aoanla.livejournal.com

A point in history when the world was warmer than today?

During a lot of the historical period in which the dinosaurs thrived, it was hotter than it is today, for a start. Of course, that seems to have been driven as much by solar fluctuation as anything else, so it's a moot point - the driving signal today appears to be anthropogenic greenhouse gases, not solar output.

From:

*nods* This is why I said "find me any actual connection between that point and now." I know it has been warmer in the past, but I've never seen any evidence of a parallel situation, every evidence-backed argument I've ever heard (as opposed to arguments that just fling out ideas without references) says that we should be in an ice age, not a tropical swamp era.

From:

Whee, part of my field of study! Brings back memories... ;P

There is at least some validity to natural cycles, including ones that occur over a very short time period (though possibly nothing as severe as this). There's always anomalous cold and warm periods during icehouse/greenhouse stages, and they can possibly come and go on scales as short as a century.

There was an instance similar to today that I can think of, from my Climatology classes. During a smaller-scale warming-up period during the previous Ice Age---or early at the start of this one we're now leaving? long before modern man, anyway---carbon dioxide levels (determined from oxygen isotopes in ice cores, I recall) were markedly high, though still some magnitude lower than today. Supposedly it induced some seriously violent weather to establish equilibrium once more; but that time it was obviously a natural occurrence. Wish I could recall the specific study, or kept my notes... anyway, that event was considered to be a sufficient "tipping point" as to when CO2 levels will induce climate change. So, naturally, I remember being stunned that our carbon dioxide levels are so much higher today, and we still haven't seen the same massive turnover of the climate that happened back then (but may yet as it "boils over," after reaching some other critical point). It also made me wonder "Holy sh*t, what WILL happen at our CO2 levels?!"

At any rate, the above (plus other studies of CO2 change over time) still suggests that there's a correlation between CO2 levels and climate cycles. To be fair, we really do lack a good enough record and knowledge of climate change to be certain of how and when CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) levels will begin to affect things when other factors are involved, but the current evidence obviously doesn't paint a hopeful picture for us.

My point to add to yours is, I guess, that it can happen naturally (even due to CO2 levels), and does---but we are exascerbating it. My course instructor, Andrew Weaver (one of the leading climatologists these days, in fact), even acknowledges natural cycles. But he's certainly the first to state that human beings have greatly contributed to what is now an irreversible progression towards an unstable and potentially disastrous climate stage. I think the point is then, there's no question CO2 has fluctuated and affected climate; it's what produced it that matters.

... and to add, this is likely not "growing research," it's been known for awhile that those other cycles occur and can cause mass changes. As usual, mainstream media is way behind actual research findings, however, so it looks contentious when it's dragged out all at once for public viewing. Heck, they're often only making public now what I learned over 7 years ago in University. Ironically, mainstream media is also the only place I've seen such consistent mention of the idea that natural causes are the ONLY factor, anyway, so how is it ignoring it, I wonder?

Besides, it's not something we can just sit back and say "oh, well, we could be mistaken and it's all nature's fault." We can't afford to make that assumption, even if we did find it to be true millennia later. As was said initially to spark this conversation... we just don't know enough. So I always say, why not make changes to our lives now that ultimately bring a lot of other benefits (besides reduced CO2), and spare the grief of having made the wrong (and apathetic) choice earlier? I'd rather be certifiably wrong that we thought we were right, than only possibly right that we were absolutely wrong. ;)

From:

By far the most interesting thing I've seen(which is admittedly little, since this is only one issue I follow, and is not the main) was in a BBC documentary talking about the supposed hoax, and they showed the clip from Al Gore's movie, where they look at the graph, and point out that CO2 levels rise after the temperature rises. Really, there's so much politics tied in, it's rediculous.

I don't suppose you know where to get numbers for things like total solar radiation absorbed and volcanic emissions and such? Google isn't very good for that, and since I'm being asked for supposedly unbiased sources, the news articles which are my main sources, but they are secondary sources, and I'd like more, and not just for this conversation.

So many other issues, like acid rain and such are too well documented to dispute, and reducing them is definitely a worthwhile goal. CO2 emissions are directly tied to the energy produced by a power source, be it a car engine or a power plant. Reducing emissions would be a direct result of increasing efficiency or reducing use, both of which are good things. As stated above, it'll take more than blaming a few extra hurricanes to get people to help. We should focus on other things, like acid rain(though that's pretty much been taken care of last I knew) and smog and such. Too much of our economy relies on carbon fuels, and until that's fixed, you won't be able to do much about CO2. But increasing efficiency helps that issue, and can be sold to people as a reduced cost.

From:

Hmm, I believe a rise in CO2 after temp rise is known to be a snowball effect, however. Increased temps (caused by already high or elevating CO2), results in more forest fires, which releases more CO2; increased temperatures also cause release of more CO2 trapped in methane hydrates, etc etc. Several positive feedback mechanisms are possible (same as for ice sheet development and progression when an Ice Age begins). Again, too many things to account for, and many critics seem to choose alarming/visible discrepancies without really investigating further (charts look good).

Not at all sure where to go for hard data, besides a University library and back issues of Geological/EOS journals. And there again, you find one paper, and then ten others rejecting it, and so on ad infinitum. I kind of abandoned the more detailed academic aspects after awhile, so I'm not sure anymore of where to find good, solid, unbiased sources that wouldn't be subject to some kind of counter-criticism.

All I know is it seems folks get too buried in the argument of "is it real or not? is it us or is it nature?" that they stop seeing the logic of making some kind of progress somewhere. But again, there too, I struggle over the question of how to convince people to take action (not one of our species' stronger points), and the morality (ethics?) of convincing them to take action for one reason when it really serves another (no matter that the reason is also for positive ends).

Yeah, that hurricane thing... that one admittedly bugs me since we don't have enough records to determine whether we really are in an accelerated or worsened hurricane cycle, or something more global-climate-related. As much as I try to convince or influence people to err on the side of "global warming is human caused," I am hesitant to encourage panic based on something that might also have an underlying natural cycle. I do feel the number of intense storms per year (as opposed to total storms) might be increasing abnormally; but again, we need more decades of records than I have life in me to absolutely prove it without a doubt just now.

There really is no so-called debate in scientific circles about whether it's human-caused however (not that I was aware of, anyway), despite what the media likes to promote. What WAS debated openly was whether the Kyoto Accord was worth it; it's not sadly. Won't accomplish enough quickly enough. My prof used to refer to it rather disinterestedly as the "drop in the bucket" back when it was first being developed.

Sometimes I honestly feel that in some cases, the media doesn't intentionally create controversy; they just don't actually know what the real debates are about...

From:

Biggest problem here, as with a lot, is going from correlation to causation. Like I said, there's just far too many variables, and it's hands in the air about whether we have the right ones in the models.

Problem with the Kyoto protocol are things such as China being exempt. That does you very little, and it makes it look like the treaty is designed to chain the U.S., but not do anything to anyone else. This makes it easy to claim that the climate science was set up as an excuse to set up controls, as part of an effort to bring the States to heel under a global socialist government, and all that right wing stuff(which I also play around with in my head at times).

From:

Yeah, well from my viewpoint (seeing as I am not American) I'm just not keen on the idea at all when it simply credits folks for not making pollution, only to allow it to occur somewhere else anyway. Kind of like playing sweep it under the carpet... only with molecules, and we know how effective that sounds...

Hence why individual action in this day and age seems a better and better alternative than waiting for government. Consumers (and their wallets--or not at all) can make their choices and will ultimately decide the way of things... no matter who I vote for. *LOL*

From:

Not messing with it is easy. If a volcanoes and the ocean can put out more sulphur and carbon dioxide in a year than the entire industrial history of the world, than human contributions are a drop in the bucket. The other point is, it's only in the last few decades that we've had the measurement ability to chart temperatures and such across the globe, and the computer power to do reasonable simulations. Even those miss some factors. Now, to really do something about mother nature, you need enough processing power to predict the billions of myriad factors that can have an effect. Then you need to be able to do things, like change the amounts of greenhouse gasses the way you want. And even assuming that you can control the economy to turn on and off emissions at will without destroying it, you need to decide what "normal" is.

As far as partisanship, it's a much harder issue. As many counter studies are supposedly funded by oil companies and the like, a similar, if not greater number of pro studies are funded by people similar to Al Gore, who campaigns on the issue and makes five figures on each speech given on the subject. I'm not going to find a source with absolutely no bias, but then, nobody could.

Here's a start--
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
"Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
This makes mention of the funding at the bottom. Is MIT biased?

More to come, if I can find a good source for numbers, not just news articles.

From:

The thing is, there's really nothing unusual about what Al Gore presented. It's the same solid science (though admittedly pared down for the obvious reason that audiences require accessibility) that other researchers with no vested interest have been trying to present (to deaf ears) for a long time. Long before politics and commercial interests came along, at any rate. For me the whole thing is EOS 101 again, only at least ten years too late... and with a lot more packaging...

Don't forget methane and other nitrogen compounds, some of the worst offenders of the greenhouse gases (methane is far worse than CO2, even though it occurs in lesser concentration). We contribute a lot more than one might think. I'm just not convinced that such a dramatic CO2 spike alone (not seen for hundreds of thousands of years, if I recall... same scale as some solar cycles too, I believe) could have just coincidentally occurred at the same time as human industrial development.

In fact, I found the following:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:6ldjtGBRQUoJ:science.netscape.com/story/2007/07/06/humans-emit-130-times-the-co2-volcanoes-do/+volcanoes+spew+more+co2+than+industry&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/25/science/earth/25core.html?ex=1290574800&en=d50b8e3b05eb2b0c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Struck me as well because what you stated didn't sound right. If volcanoes spew out that much CO2, and they are being pinned for the warming instead of us (e.g. we are a drop in the bucket, by comparison)... why is a "nuclear winter" type scenario the result of a volcanic eruption? Particulate (rock ash), on the other hand, is a huge threat from volcanoes on a global scale... but they cause cooling. In fact, we could use a few good eruptions right now! No joke... we used to discuss outrageous things in Geophysics/Geochem that would help the climate situation (my favourite: a big pipe to channel CO2 to the ocean bottom, with a propeller blade to ensure thorough mixing and saturation into the cold, undersaturated bottom water... pray the oceans never overturn!).

It sounds like it may have been a partial misreading of data in regard to volcanic eruptions (more particulate matter than humans? That I'd believe). Which again, on all fronts, contributes to the communication problem, I think.

From:

I'll have to concede that. The article may have been focusing on other things, such as particulates and such. There was somewhere they were dominant though.

Methane and nitrogen compounds and particulates cause other problems, such as smog. Reducing those emissions would be a very good thing. Some of them tend to be localized, but no one wants to breathe smog.

Looking at that second article, I wonder how distributed the gasses would be. My brain just tells me that not much of that gas would make it from New York to Antarctica. I know nothing of that though.

From:

It should be completely distributed globally (it is a gas dissolved in a gas, after all). Gases don't become trapped in ice in localised fashion; ice cores are snapshots of the atmospheric constituents at the time it's frozen.

The overall atmospheric circulation is a big loop, rising from the Equator and sinking at the poles, with several sub-cells separating the latitudes. Pesticides used in South American farms is landing in northern Canada and Alaska, poisoning polar bears, Inuit, seals, whales, you name it. No small stretch to have evenly distributed gases with that kind of conveyor.

From:

I fail to see any point at all in your original comment then. If "not messing with it is easy" then why do you say we shouldn't mess with it?

From:

We shouldn't mess with trying to change the climate, becuase it's not going to work anyway. Things like the Kyoto Protocol won't stop the earth if it decides to warm up or cool down, so placing excessive restraints on industry is counterproductive. If it's not going to do anything, why bother?

From:

To reduce the impact (which I sadly left out of my spiel earlier), even if it can't be stopped. No sense doing nothing. But that's best left to other alternatives besides Kyoto anyway, as already noted.

From:

"Problem with the Kyoto protocol are things such as China being exempt."

Make up your mind. Is it totally useless, or is it useful, but doomed because we're not all taking part?

From:

It's useless. If it was truly intended to stop or reduce warming, full speed ahead, there would be no exemptions.

From:

Then what is its purpose?

From:

Who knows? It's a form of control though. Through this, they attempt to control industry. There's a drive out there for a one world socialist government, and this would be a good step on the way, if you believe in a new world order.

From:

O.o

A drive for a one world socialist government is news to me. Kind of paranoid news.

From:

Most people would agree. However, there's plenty of evidence that a large number of people would be quite happy with the idea, and are taking steps to do it.

From: