JapanForum.com  


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
(#111 (permalink))
Old
noodle's Avatar
noodle (Offline)
Wo zhi dao ni ai wo
 
Posts: 1,418
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Paris/London/Algiers
12-07-2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenchu View Post
But, for example, are we supposed to tell the Italians to abandon Rome and move to Chicago? All that culture and history. Any nation. I don't think so.

A more reasonable solution is containing the amount of people we have within those cities.

You must remember, his idea is to stack buildings ontop of each other, like in New York, making the best of space. However, it will be the distant future when we can do the same with farming land. We will still roughly require a similar amount of land for farming, even if the general populace lives more efficiently spaced.
haha, he's not saying we SHOULD move to America... He's illustrating how it's possible to have the whole worlds population in one country whilst having 5 continents free! And he has a very good point actually!
Reply With Quote
(#112 (permalink))
Old
solemnclockwork's Avatar
solemnclockwork (Offline)
JF Old Timer
 
Posts: 194
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kentucky
12-07-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenchu View Post
The rules are designed to prevent people from bluntly insulting each other. Using swear words to talk about a general situation we all have in common insults no one, it only expresses how I personally feel about it.

I trusted we all here were mature enough to deal with basic differences we have. Seems not.

How did I bash your culture? Where?
Sorry, but lets leave personal interpretation of it, when it states that such language is HIGHLY discourage.

Nice smudge there.

Don't play innocent most of those paragraphs where a shot at western Government and capitalism. Yeah I don't agree with global warming, but for the most part they are trying to get things right.

noodle,

hits the dot, why haven't you figured out that was the point of posting that?


1 Corinthians 10: 31-33
31 Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
Reply With Quote
(#113 (permalink))
Old
IamKira's Avatar
IamKira (Offline)
Sulfer + KClO3 + Cu(1)Cl
 
Posts: 805
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Mt. Akina
12-07-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenchu View Post
When I manage to write 14 paragraphs and only swear 4 times, the mods should actually be comending me.
haha, yes!!

and "swear words" are artificial constructs that we create.. they hold no power, no meaning unless we determine they do... so, by complaining about swear words and getting offended by them, you only go towards giving them their power-
Fuck - why can't i type that?? I am allowed to type F%^&... people understand i mean "that evil word" so why not just articulate it?

and as for technicalities... one thing that might help global warming is if we bankrupt friggin GM by not buying their POS cars.. It's been really irking me when I see these commercials for GM and they bash Toyota and then claim to be the maker of the most fuel efficient cars in america.. wtf? their sedans all have four pops producing 150-190 HP from 2-3.6 L ... the japanese do 1.8-2.X and manage around 120-180
and let's not leave out what everybody in america seems to be buying from them.. huge ..massive trucks .. when you have a vehicle that weighs upwards of 5000 lbs and is powered by 4.3L -6.6 L engines which manage not but around 300-400 hp, how can you dictate that it's fuel efficient?..
the europeans figured this out ages ago - that they can use small cars with small engines for most of their travel needs..
(I will say that I wish Toyota would go back to producing smaller trucks, but by n' large, the japanese do small.. they do efficient)
-conclusion : run Ford and GM into the ground


-Fuck



IamKira
Reply With Quote
(#114 (permalink))
Old
solemnclockwork's Avatar
solemnclockwork (Offline)
JF Old Timer
 
Posts: 194
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kentucky
12-07-2009, 04:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamKira View Post
haha, yes!!

and "swear words" are artificial constructs that we create.. they hold no power, no meaning unless we determine they do... so, by complaining about swear words and getting offended by them, you only go towards giving them their power-
Fuck - why can't i type that?? I am allowed to type F%^&... people understand i mean "that evil word" so why not just articulate it?

and as for technicalities... one thing that might help global warming is if we bankrupt friggin GM by not buying their POS cars.. It's been really irking me when I see these commercials for GM and they bash Toyota and then claim to be the maker of the most fuel efficient cars in america.. wtf? their sedans all have four pops producing 150-190 HP from 2-3.6 L ... the japanese do 1.8-2.X and manage around 120-180
and let's not leave out what everybody in america seems to be buying from them.. huge ..massive trucks .. when you have a vehicle that weighs upwards of 5000 lbs and is powered by 4.3L -6.6 L engines which manage not but around 300-400 hp, how can you dictate that it's fuel efficient?..
the europeans figured this out ages ago - that they can use small cars with small engines for most of their travel needs..
(I will say that I wish Toyota would go back to producing smaller trucks, but by n' large, the japanese do small.. they do efficient)
-conclusion : run Ford and GM into the ground


-Fuck
Don't make things worst by antagonizing it. It's a social thing and regardless of how it's viewed right now, the meaning still stands. (opening of the can of worms...)

Running Ford and GM into the ground would destroy American economy. That helps NO ONE. that said, who said more powerful cares cannot be eco friendly? Marketing is one different beast, in regards to that a company does have a right to try to make the best case for there product.

Oh we could go for the bigger fish and destroy the oil and meat industry that would save the planet tomorrow! sarcasm aside, you are dictating how people should live.

there's also the added thing, about the topic regarding man-made global warming......


1 Corinthians 10: 31-33
31 Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
Reply With Quote
(#115 (permalink))
Old
Tenchu's Avatar
Tenchu (Offline)
-
 
Posts: 997
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: -
12-07-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle View Post
haha, he's not saying we SHOULD move to America... He's illustrating how it's possible to have the whole worlds population in one country whilst having 5 continents free! And he has a very good point actually!
Actually, I'd vote we move to the moon. Savvy?


The eternal Saint is calling, through the ages she has told. The ages have not listened; the will of faith has grown old…

For forever she will wander, for forever she withholds; the Demon King is on his way, you’d best not be learned untold…
Reply With Quote
(#116 (permalink))
Old
noodle's Avatar
noodle (Offline)
Wo zhi dao ni ai wo
 
Posts: 1,418
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Paris/London/Algiers
12-07-2009, 05:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenchu View Post
Actually, I'd vote we move to the moon. Savvy?
Nah F**k that! I'd prefer to build one of those space cities that'd orbit the earth or something! Much cooler!
Reply With Quote
(#117 (permalink))
Old
IamKira's Avatar
IamKira (Offline)
Sulfer + KClO3 + Cu(1)Cl
 
Posts: 805
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Mt. Akina
12-07-2009, 05:22 PM

People!! I bring you the answer!


I think a fleet of 277 of these would do fine

although, the photon torpedos will take some tinkering with before they work properly.. I'll have my best people on it.



IamKira

Last edited by IamKira : 12-07-2009 at 05:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
(#118 (permalink))
Old
Barone1551's Avatar
Barone1551 (Offline)
JF Old Timer
 
Posts: 208
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
12-07-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by solemnclockwork View Post
Don't play innocent most of those paragraphs where a shot at western Government and capitalism. Yeah I don't agree with global warming, but for the most part they are trying to get things right.
that?
Trying isn't always enough though. More is being done now that Obama is in office, but America has not had a good track record of following through with their environmental promises. Just saying you will do something is completely different from making big changes. China internally is making big steps to do their part. The US is getting there.

And I do think this is a topic where you can tell people how to treat the environment. We all share it, we should all take care of it. So i do think laws should be put in place to dictate what can and cant be done.


The King wore a crown. Now he is the king of kings.

Last edited by Barone1551 : 12-07-2009 at 06:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
(#119 (permalink))
Old
Sangetsu's Avatar
Sangetsu (Offline)
Busier Than Shinjuku Station
 
Posts: 1,346
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 東京都
12-08-2009, 10:30 AM

The daily "news" stories continue, more empty talk about how "something must be done", even when the best that can be accomplished is a few percent reduction in "greenhouse" gases at the cost of restructuring the entire economy of the world.

An interesting article from Dr Lindzen, professor of meteorology (weather) at MIT:
"
'Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let's refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called "climate forcing."

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

The IPCC's Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim.

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

Of course, none of the articles stressed this. Rather they emphasized that according to models modified to account for the natural internal variability, warming would resume—in 2009, 2013 and 2030, respectively.

But even if the IPCC's iconic statement were correct, it still would not be cause for alarm. After all we are still talking about tenths of a degree for over 75% of the climate forcing associated with a doubling of CO2. The potential (and only the potential) for alarm enters with the issue of climate sensitivity—which refers to the change that a doubling of CO2 will produce in GATA. It is generally accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant. This is unlikely to be much to worry about.

Yet current climate models predict much higher sensitivities. They do so because in these models, the main greenhouse substances (water vapor and clouds) act to amplify anything that CO2 does. This is referred to as positive feedback. But as the IPCC notes, clouds continue to be a source of major uncertainty in current models. Since clouds and water vapor are intimately related, the IPCC claim that they are more confident about water vapor is quite implausible.

There is some evidence of a positive feedback effect for water vapor in cloud-free regions, but a major part of any water-vapor feedback would have to acknowledge that cloud-free areas are always changing, and this remains an unknown. At this point, few scientists would argue that the science is settled. In particular, the question remains as to whether water vapor and clouds have positive or negative feedbacks.

The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate offers some guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's. Carl Sagan in the 1970s referred to this as the "Early Faint Sun Paradox."

For more than 30 years there have been attempts to resolve the paradox with greenhouse gases. Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed was thousands of times greater than present levels and incompatible with geological evidence. Methane also proved unlikely. It turns out that increased thin cirrus cloud coverage in the tropics readily resolves the paradox—but only if the clouds constitute a negative feedback. In present terms this means that they would diminish rather than enhance the impact of CO2.

There are quite a few papers in the literature that also point to the absence of positive feedbacks. The implied low sensitivity is entirely compatible with the small warming that has been observed. So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.

What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example."
—Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Reply With Quote
(#120 (permalink))
Old
ozkai's Avatar
ozkai (Offline)
X Kyoto
 
Posts: 1,474
Join Date: Apr 2009
12-08-2009, 11:28 AM

That is one helluva below post


Cheers - Oz
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




Copyright 2003-2006 Virtual Japan.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6