Past Climate Change

reply to post by HappyBunny

Wow, that is the height of arrogance, to think that we are more powerful than nature.

Of course we are, we are nature working under a directed will. Humans can more easily and predictably move a given mountain that nature alone. Well the easy part is if we exclude the economical constrains that society created with the monetization of energy, but how long would you have to wait, or probable, for nature alone to put a man in the moon.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Really?... Oh yeah...sure we have seen how mankind is more powerful than nature on the fact that we CAN'T stop hurricanes, we CAN'T stop earthquakes, we CAN'T stop natural disasters from occurring...but you claim we can, so go ahead and prove so... Last time I checked even the AGW scientists have been caught wrong time and again, and they have had to change their predictions...

We can stop hurricanes, we can stop high intensity earthquakes as we can stop most natural disasters, the problem is in consequences and costs all limitations are self imposed. And what we can not do today we will be able to do tomorrow...

A poisonous snake bites your dog, nature will not save him but man can, the same can be extrapolated to more complex problems, humans as part of nature have the ability to direct function and predict consequences.

A quick answer to avoid you replying that I avoided the prof for the examples you asked. To stop an hurricane you only need to disrupt the pressures that control the air flow, depending on how high the hurricane is a explosion or implosion will easily disrupt it, I'm certain that you have already read somewhere about using nukes for it, that would be a possibility if we could live if the collateral damage but there are alternatives, it also depends on timescales, for instance in earthquakes we could artificially create small quakes to avoid the build up of the energy required to create a single larger one. The only limits are the ones we create for ourselves.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

They can't comprehend for the life of them that mankind is NOT more powerful than nature, the Sun, the Solar System, and the Universe/Multiverses...

We are not separated from nature, we are so far the last known effort of nature to think and take directed action. If you compare nature without us and nature with us, the last one is clearly more potent, even if not yet as wise, but will have to get wise or perish... that is nature...

reply to post by Panic2k11

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by missingrandkids

 

USGS says:

A: Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are 10 of magnitude 5,100 of magnitude 4,1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds likea lot of small earthquakes,but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event.It would take 32 magnitude 5's,1000 magnitude 4's,32,000 magnitude 3's to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are never enough to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake.

As for "lubricating" faults with water or some other substance, ]injecting high pressure fluids deep into the ground is known to be able to trigger earthquakes to occur sooner than would have been the case without the injection. However this would bea dangerous pursuit in any populated area,as one might triggera damaging earthquake.

emphasis mine

There are technologies being researched, however, which could possiby mitigate the damage:

You're not the only one. Some folks have worked out a pretty smart protection scheme. While not prevention, it does offer a degree of protection.

Practically, band gaps properties of sonic crystal structures were used in application of reduction of vibrations or sound wave. In this study, we consider crystal structures for suspension of destructive seismic waves from an earthquake in a theoretical manner. Accordingly, we referred these crystals as Seismic Crystal and application of isolating a region from destructive seismic wave as Earthquake Shielding

It seems as though crystalline structure has what are termed "band gaps" which is a way of saying that certain portions of certain frequencies are not transmitted via that medium (crystal structure) resulting in a scattering or damping of the energy passing through the structure.

There is also the damping effect caused by compression/expansion of these Seismic Crystals as the P-waves pass through the crystals.

As an earthquake happens, the energy emanates outward from the epicenter in a radial pattern:

The greatest damage done, however is due to S-waves which come after the initial pressure wave.

Now, let's say you arrange a “seismic fence” around a city or region like this:

And you have a damping effect upon the initial p-waves. What about the shaking?

Looks like both types of waves are substantially lessened by passing through the “fence” in a way similar to a laser passing through a perforated screen. You can change the arrangement of the individual crystals and get different levels of protection:

You can also change the shape of the crystals themselves to achieve an even greater variety of protection:

And then use those different shaped crystals in varying arrangements until you have the optimal protection available. All in all, a really neat idea whose time may need to wait for further advances in materials science.

Or not...

As we've seen with predictive seismology, the actual level of technological capability and what is admitted to or used in “public view” is not always the same.

The thing is, we just don't know how far along they are as they won't tell us, we've got to ferret it out for ourselves.

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


Thanks for the info (star for you), well it is hard and dangerous but possible . Taking in consideration that 20 years ago we couldn't even agree in determining were the stress was building up, we are near the technology to predict them within a week IIRC...

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

10 meters seems very small since you used it to indicate the distance the heat island effect of a city.

Ten m into the atmosphere, not lateral distance.

Please, please do some homework.

What we're doing is taking carbon that's locked up and releasing it. There's no change in the total energy. It's a simple chemical reaction.

Agree, the fuel is an energy accumulator (that itself consumed energy to form), but as one uses energy it is dispersed in various ways for instance motion losses energy to several processes, friction, etc. almost all will end in heat. Now we burn a huge amount of fossil fuels, even considering the cycle to replenish it (very slowly) there is a lot of energy that builds on the environment, mostly as heat (heat can be ruggedly described as the energy of the vibration in mater and ultraviolet radiation) .

edit on 10-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

Again, you're wrong, but I don't have time to draw you a picture and connect the little dots.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

How can something that boosts oxygen consumption on a combustion generate less CO2 ? The combustion uses the excess oxygen (to what is normally required) to generate more power. You seem to be looking at post-combustion uses, and the general effect that turbo compression will indeed decrease the consumption of fuel to generate the same power but only very recently have electronic permitted to more broadly use the technology (depending on the driving stats), since the compression can only be performed at specific instances and not constantly since it also increases the engine's mechanical stress and temperature.

edit on 10-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

Read the link I gave you. It says that it produces less CO2. You're such an expert on carbon, you figure it out. You didn't comment on the CO2 as turbo charger or driver of climate change, though.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Wow, that is the height of arrogance, to think that we are more powerful than nature.

Of course we are, we are nature working under a directed will. Humans can more easily and predictably move a given mountain that nature alone. Well the easy part is if we exclude the economical constrains that society created with the monetization of energy, but how long would you have to wait, or probable, for nature alone to put a man in the moon.

edit on 10-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

I take it, by your mention of the monetization of energy, that you're in favor of a technocracy?

God help us.

reply to post by HappyBunny


You did not provide the idea that it was up, so I presumed that it was at ground level since as heat builds up the soil will tend to absorb more of it. Like if you put a pot in a flame the pot will accumulate energy faster than the surrounding atmosphere.

I made a mistake I had intended to write, infrared radiation not ultraviolet.

I'm certainly not wrong in the statement I made, when we look at the consumption and replenishing rate of fossil fuels what makes them finite is that the energy accumulation that they signify takes an extremely long time. The potential of oil today is equal to the oil formed in a far future (considering equal characteristics) and so since nothing is destroyed and all is transformed the energy produced at consumption of the resources will remain in the environment in other forms (heat being one of them), some will even be bled into space for instance light and radio, but the more energy we "liberate" from accumulators like fossil fuel the more it will impact climate.

You certainly have heard of the issue concerned cell towers (for mobiles) the radiation effect on the body etc. the issue is that the radiated energy is on a frequency that makes cells vibrate and burst, vibration is heat, exponentiate this to the rest of the technology we use and see the 1001 ways we are altering climate, it is not only visible pollution or CO2.

reply to post by HappyBunny


I would prefer a technocracy to the corrupt democracy that is prevalent today, I would certainly enjoy having religion out of politics. But I agree with you as all human endeavors the possibility that a true working technocracy would be implemented would be very slim, we would probably end with a stalinistic version of it...

But the fact remains if we today are ultimately dependent on technology, energy and the levels of abstraction our society permits. Because of this dependent the only path available is more of the same and continue going outward into space the alternative is a total collapse that could not only end us all but would signify death and misery for many generations of survivors. This future we created ourselves nature took no part on it, beyond our creation.

Originally posted by Panic2k11

We can stop hurricanes, we can stop high intensity earthquakes as we can stop most natural disasters, the problem is in consequences and costs all limitations are self imposed. And what we can not do today we will be able to do tomorrow...

We can't... So far NO ONE has been able to stop a hurricane, or an earthquake. You might be able to change the course of a hurricane, or you might not, but you don't know what NATURE will do. The hurricane could become 10 times more powerful.

Mankind is NOT more powerful than nature.

You go ahead and live in the woods, and in a tent for a year without any human contact and see what happens.

BTW, an atomic explosion would not stop an earthquake at all, it would make it more powerful and you would make things worse.

You MIGHT try to relieve some pressure for example where a volcano is about to erupt, or it might make the volcano erupt earlier than it was suppopsed to. If you were able to relieve some pressure, and the volcano didn't erupt right away, you only stopped the inevitable. You didn't win against nature, you just were lucky enough to prolong the inevitable.

It is similar to death, even with all of our knowledge, and advancement in medicine and science, we can't stop death from occurring, and we NEVER will. We are just able to MAYBE prolong our lives a bit longer, but eventually we all will die.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
A poisonous snake bites your dog, nature will not save him but man can, the same can be extrapolated to more complex problems, humans as part of nature have the ability to direct function and predict consequences.
....

And animals can cure themselves by using NATURE/plants...

In that example you used mankind is using a remedy that nature gives, the poison itself...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Lets agree to disagree, I can not accept such a limited view about the future and a defeatist view about mankind abilities. If we lived by your premise we would still be living in caves and afraid of superstitious beliefs, thankfully we have evolved a bit more, even if we still live in "caves" and some still cling to "superstitions".

Originally posted by Panic2k11

Lets agree to disagree, I can not accept such a limited view about the future and a defeatist view about mankind abilities. If we lived by your premise we would still be living in caves and afraid of superstitious beliefs, thankfully we have evolved a bit more, even if we still live in "caves" and some still cling to "superstitions".

An evolved being knows his/her limitations. It has nothing to do with being defeatists, more so when there is no proof WHATSOEVER that the propositions being made by the AGW scientists would work, more so when they have been found out to have been lying, hiding facts, and used other tactics just to keep alive their BELIEF...

In fact the propositions being made by the AGW crowd, which are to sequester atmospheric CO2, will deprive all green biomass on Earth of food, which will mean less harvests worldwide, which will cause worldwide starvation, which will end in worldwide genocide, not to mention that the same will happen to the rest of the animal kingdom...

But you go ahead and keep cheering for the side that will bring worldwide genocide by sequestering atmospheric CO2 on Earth... and all over a BELIEF that has no proof whatsoever...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I was attempting to disengage in good terms, but you keep putting words in my mouth.

I'm completely opposed to CO2 sequestration (and carbon trading).

There is global problem of climate change we should avoid calling in global warming because small minds get distracted easily (global warming is a fact but today's location of earth in relation to the cycle of approximations to the sun means only less global cold)-

Limiting one self is equal to live life blindfolded, there is already many external factors limiting you, you do not need to create any more.

Strangely enough you forgot to mention that CO2 causes acidification of the oceans...

reply to post by Panic2k11


It is 12 degrees right now.....

The global warming folks will hibernate until next week.

It is supposed to get up in the 40's and 50's.......

If you pay attention, they only come out when it is hot or warmer than the short averages that we have on record.

Originally posted by Panic2k11

I was attempting to disengage in good terms, but you keep putting words in my mouth.

I'm completely opposed to CO2 sequestration (and carbon trading).

You might be oposed to this, but the scientists behind the AGW claim, and the world leaders are not oposed to it, and that is exactly what they are planning to do...

Originally posted by Panic2k11
There is global problem of climate change we should avoid calling in global warming because small minds get distracted easily (global warming is a fact but today's location of earth in relation to the cycle of approximations to the sun means only less global cold)-

The only thing humans can do is adapt, if mankind tries to fight against Nature, all the other forces that control the Earth, The Sun, The Solar System, the Galaxy, and the universe/multiverses mankind will ALWAYS lose.

You can't separate what happens to the Sun to what happens to the Earth, or what happens to the Solar System and what happens to the Earth.

It is not a coincidence that planets and moons in our Solar System with dense atmospheres, like Earth, have been undergoing Climate Change in the form of warming at the same time Earth has.

I have been showing for several years now that the Solar System has been entering a new region of space, which coincidentally is much warmer, has more radiation, has more interstellar dust, and in general more energy, and gases which are bound to change the dynamics of the Solar System and every planet in our Solar System. There is nothing we can do about that except adapt.

Eventually human beings will have to either leave Earth and the Solar System, if we can't adapt to the changes, or live in deep underground cities.

BTW, imo all these stories about the military building underground cities, and the noises that people have been hearing is in fact the real leaders of the world trying to get a place, or several, for them to survive what they know is coming.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
Limiting one self is equal to live life blindfolded, there is already many external factors limiting you, you do not need to create any more.

Ah, so one must believe to be superman to live life well?

Originally posted by Panic2k11
Strangely enough you forgot to mention that CO2 causes acidification of the oceans...

Strangely enough you forgot to mention that the Oceans have had to live with HIGHER concentrations of atmospheric CO2 than now and life thrived not only in the oceans but on land as well...

Life always finds a way, the species that can't adapt will die, like they have done in the past, but other lifeforms will spring to life from such changes, while others that exist now will adapt.

Most of the death in our oceans, and the acidification comes from the real toxic chemicals which are still being thrown into rivers, lakes, and oceans and the AGW crowd have forgotten about over the "evil CO2" which in fact is good for life at much higher concentrations that exist now...