When and how bad?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Dinner, Apr 9, 2013.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    common sense, which you seem to lack.
    i provided the link to the governments research program, find it yourself.

    edit:
    Current technologies that will mature over the next 30 years will offer anyone who has the necessary
    resources the ability to modify weather patterns and their corresponding effects, at least on the local scale.
    Current demographic, economic, and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the
    impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn this weather-modification ability into a capability.
    -weather as a force multiplier, owning the weather by 2025.

    now, if you want to continue to bury your head then go for it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    But that is only research not facts about what your claiming is already being done. So could you provide a link to where you can show where the weather is today being manipulated/controlled as you have stated or are you now recanting your "story" and saying that only research is being done and that no one is manipulating/controlling the weather...which is it?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    go away.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Why, you're the one who makes claims that can't be supported not me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,436
    No they won't. They don't have the rainfall, the sunlight regime, or the topsoil. The soil will take hundreds, more likely thousands, of fallow years.
     
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160

    Not everyone who ever smoked cigarettes gets cancer. There are 43 million smokers and about 43 thousands will die of smoke related diseases. That is 0.1% not 100%. The risk analysis creates an illusion that the god of chaos floats like air, which we all breath 100%. The reality is only 0.1% ever had real risk, even if 100% had the imaginary risk. We teach the imaginary risk and not real based on the final hard data.

    If we use this analogy, man made global warming has 0.1% odds of true, plus it has no hard or repeatable historical data. This real perspective is not taught, since the herd is being led astray.
     
  10. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    it's more than that
    i think you are just being nice.
     
  11. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    Your figures for smoking are wrong, imagine my surprise!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Even if you were able to figure out the real number of deaths the fact remains you are only looking at deaths - how about the almost 9 million smokers dealing with sickness caused by smoking? Are you saying they were never at risk? WTF?

    Just because you ignorantly thought the death rate was 50% why do you assume the 'herd' is as ignorant as you?

    How did you jump from smoking to stupidly assuming that man is not contributing to global warming?
     
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Risk analysis is part of the problem, because it creates a misleading picture. Risk analysis is a useful science oracle when reason is lacking, but oracles can be deceiving at times.

    There is a risk I will get struck by lightning. But if I go my entire life and never get struck by lightning, the final hard data says there was zero risk for me. Why are these two numbers different, and why does the first allow us to assume something that turns out to be imaginary, compared to the final hard data?

    The hard historical data does not support man made global warming, since this does not have any precedence in the history of the earth or proof of concept, therefore no hard data. But since risk can inflate numbers and add imaginary stuff, we can use risk to add short term imaginary data, which may or may not even be real in the long term.

    If we use the lightning analogy, and it turns out I never get struck and never had risk, what is the value of making me scared of the lightning with imaginary data, so I need to buy lightning suits, I will not need in the final reality? Who benefits? What type of person believes in imaginary data that may not even become real?
     
  13. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    hmm global warming.

    so many variables..

    this is just a joking thought but,

    if the human body and animal, or any living entity,has a measure of heat and fluctuates,

    what are the numbers that 6.something billion people(and increasing) could increase temperatures and hold levels(stay stable) of these temperatures as population increases
     
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The risk is extended to all, but only applies to some. If I started to smoke I would be read the group risk as though this applies to me. If we use the 9 million out of 45 million, 80% are being given risks that are imaginary to them, but taught as real. Why does risk inflate the final reality? I prefer reason over oracles, and data that is 100% solid over 80% transparent.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,436
    I blame the high schools.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    And it doesn't get warmer every single year. The overall trend is still quite clear.

    433,000 a year actually. That means over a "lifetime" of 50 years of smoking, about half will die from smoking related diseases.

    When the first surgeon general's report on smoking came out in 1964, tobacco sales plummeted. Tobacco companies responded by hiring Frederick Seitz to sow doubt and confusion over the surgeon general's report. He denied it and published his own studies. (They looked like your mistaken numbers above.) Tobacco companies gave him tens of millions to sow the seeds of tobacco risk denialism, and it succeeded; tobacco sales recovered. He was paid well for his "mercenary science."

    He went on to found the Marshall Institute. When the results of our rising CO2 emissions became clearer in the 1980's, oil companies feared their profits would take a hit. So they hired Seitz again to sow doubt and confusion over climate change science. He denied climate science and published his own studies. (They also looked like your mistaken numbers) They gave him millions to push climate change denialism, and was again well paid for his mercenary science.

    Do you believe in mercenary science, Wellwisher? I find it's a common characteristic of conservatives; they "deskew" facts until they fit their idea of what they want the world to look like. (It's one reason they lost the last election so badly, and why they were so surprised by it.) They cannot really abide real science, since it refuses to be warped to their preconceptions of how the world should be. So they pay people like Seitz to provide them with the spin they prefer.
     
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Let me try to explain this, because science oracles are an important part of manmade global warming, since hard data is lacking and proof of concept is not being provided.

    Say we were in a primitive tribe and we noticed various members of the tribe getting sick. Since we don't have a rational explanation for any sickness and therefore the cause of this particular one, so we can target specific people, we will need to do a group analysis; black box. Without cause and effect, we may have to assume all share this risk (could be anything). Since we also lack the cause and effect needed to dismiss anyone from the risk, all need to be included. The group is at risk, by default, due to lack of good reasons which allow us to target only the people who, in the final analysis, will have the actual hard data sickness. The gods are angry at the entire tribe due to lack of reasons and hard data.

    If someone figures out all these people climbed a particular thorny tree and got picked, the risk analysis changes because this important cause and effect is now able to target/eliminate people from the sickness. Oracles that lack full rational disclosure have to spread the risk much wider, simply because there is not enough logic to narrow things down. This means we will have to include those who this does not apply in the final analysis.

    With smoking, it would be great if we knew full cause and effect, so we could target only those who will get sick or die, while eliminating the harassment of those who are able to get through this without harm; 80%. But as we get further from reason, we need to include both under the same risk. This cause and effect (less reason equals wider assumed risk) is important, because if I wanted to control the entire tribe, it would be better for me not to use all the logic and reasons by discrediting them. This way the gods of risk are angry at more of the tribe, because the risk has to spread out by default. This allows me to make those, who have only imaginary risk in the final analysis, become more fearful like they have actual risk.

    Because I helped make the gods angry at the entire tribe, by removing reason, I get to harass even those who have no real risk. The advantage of this is we can use the "bad risk tribe" to loot the tribe, by having all members give the gods money sacrifices, even though the gods do not require it for most.

    We can also leverage the risk=fear to change social policies of the tribe; such as no swimming in the lake, so when the truth of the tree finally appears, we are rich and own the lake.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    Sure it is.

    CO2 is increasing via direct observations. Hard data.
    CO2 is increasing because we are adding more CO2 than the biosphere can process. Basic math.
    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can prove this yourself in a lab.
    Increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases increase overall temperature of a planet. For hard proof of this, compare Venus to Mars.
    Our temperature has been increasing as we have increased CO2 levels. Hard data.

    OK. Now let's assume there are some conservatives in the tribe and they own the tree. They go and hire new priests to claim "it has nothing to do with the tree! We don't have enough data! The science isn't settled! And therefore we should all keep climbing the tree, because we own it and gain status when people use our tree. It would be insane to cause ourselves loss of status just because of the so called 'cause and effect' theory which isn't proven."

    If you think that 80% of the people who smoke are not harmed by it, then you are very far from reason. Do you smoke and/or own stock in tobacco companies?
     
  19. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in earth's atmosphere in this state.

    as part of the carbon cycle, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product.

    by respiration of all living organisms. It is exhaled in the breath of humans and land animals.

    atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon in life on Earth

    if the human body and animal, or any living entity,has a measure of heat and fluctuates,

    what are the numbers that 6.something billion people(and increasing) could increase temperatures and hold levels(stay stable) of these temperatures as population increases



    nature appears to be self consistent.
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    there must be something else besides solar input that drives weather.
    jupiter and saturn have monster storms, some persisting for decades, with a fraction of the earths input.
    jupiters great red spot is one such storm. (technically vortex).

    the facts remain though, the funds, means, and desire are all present.
    the question remains one of scope.
    do they have "weather weapons"? no.
    will they be developed? if the military gets the data you can count on it.
    our fruit growers would battle each other with droughts instead of real competition.
    will it get that bad?
    this is one of those "radiation" things.
    what could have aided mankind for years was perverted into a dreadful weapon.
    the same with weather control.
    if such a thing is indeed possible, which i believe it is, we are at the threshold of creating the future we all have always wanted.

    poor nature, she's going to lose.
     
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I also said, the farther from reason one is, the further you need to spread out the risk, by default. As reason is added, the risk analysis changes because we can narrow the group to those it actually applies.

    If we did not know only females can have babies, then men would be at risk of pregnancy; black box, since we could not narrow using cause and effect. But once this cause and effect is added, men now have zero risk. This variability of risk, based on the level of reasoning, makes it harder to create the meeting of the minds due to the variable risk field.

    I used to smoke. I started late, at about age 25 and smoked off and on over the years but less than a pack a day, until the last few years. I finally quit a few years ago, because I was starting to feel my body say I needed to quit. Chest X-rays never showed anything wrong, because my body and exercise could balance the smoke. But one day, I could sense my body telling me it was time to stop. There was no withdrawal when I quit, because my mind and body were not at odds.

    My dad smoked from 15 to 65 and is now 88 and in good health for an old guy, with his wits about him. The data says he was harassed, by liberals, without any logical reason, simply because they approached his risk without reasoning. A limited ability to reason created the illusion this lung cancer applied to everyone by default. They sincerely tried to do good, but did so in an irrational way due to not enough reason to narrow the risk.

    I used to be a liberal, since I grew up in Massachusetts which is liberal central. I understand the liberal mind because I became an adolescent when liberalism became more mainstream; hippy years. Conservatism came much later in life, when I started to compare intellectual to emotional appeal. Conservative appeals more to the mind, liberalism to emotions. You can't preach self reliance without an intellectual footing. Emotion alone is not conducive to self reliance so it would default to dependency. Do an experiment and listen to liberal and conservative talk radio and notice the different approaches; mind versus emotion.

    If you think of it logically, conservative means test proven over time, which is why tries to conserve. While progressive means experimental, which needs salesmanship and emotional appeal to compensate for lack of long term data. Ask yourself, why does man-made global warming divides politically between parties based on minds and hearts? Heart works best with less reason. While less reason is usefu, if you need to spread out the risk to all. The conservative will use reason and narrow the risk. They don't feel the need to act since they don't feel the risk weighing on them. But since each is doing a valid risk analysis, based on the amount of reason they use for the analysis, neither can clearly see the other.
     
  22. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Besides the sun, the biggest driver of weather is connected to water. Water has an unusually high heat capacity allowing the temperature of the oceans to vary less than the continents. Rock has less heat capacity.

    On way to impact the weather is through the water in ways besides the sun. For example, scientists have found scars below the Atlantic ocean, where the earth's mantle is exposed. This suggests under water heating from such sites.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/cu-mot030107.php

    A large pool of mantle water was found near asia the size of the arctic ocean; super heated water ready to burst up.

    http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html

    The sinking of ships in the Bermuda triangle is explained by gas vents from the ocean floor. Such gas vents will lower the density of the water (gas plus water) causing otherwise buoyant ships to sink. Gas vents can generate CO2.

    One of my favorite CO2 sources is connected to forest fires. Below is a link to the NASA site. The video shows a satellite view of forest fires on the earth. This is a lot of smoke and CO2 each year.

    [video]http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=116635311[/video]
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    chlorofluorocarbons probably play a role in current weather treads.
    the problem with CFCs is that the chlorine atom is released in the ionosphere and acts as a catalyst in ozone depletion.
    this means the chlorine isn't bound up but is left free to catalyze further depletion.
    science has known this since 1975 and was the driving force behind worldwide banning of CFCs.
     

Share This Page