17-12-2004 07:47									#241
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Check on the Arctic Ice Pack. It's been thinning and is doing quite badly, with open areas lasting for much longer periods into the pre-winter period than ever recorded. Again, same problem. Recorded info on the Arctic Ice Pack is of much too short a duration, it's going to take extensive ice core research to really determine what's going on. If the changes continue it may cause the extinction of the Polar Bear, which indicates the elimination of a species, which is at least 100,000 years old (evolved in the Pleistocene). Maybe it's indicative of a major change? Note I posted info on the increased solar activity. The various other posters did the work for CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. Crichton is using one of the few examples that is ambiguous, and leaving out the other "inconvenient" facts like the temperate region glacial melting or the Arctic changes. Even then he leverages his one example to claim it proves what it doesn't. Note that the Antarctic Ice Shelf is undergoing a substantial redistribution (if current trends continue). Now I would consider that something to be concerned about, and indicative of some sort of change.

I don't disagree that climate is changing, what i am disputing is that it is primarily manmade (if at all), and so is Crichton unless i read him wrong.

I don't know if you know it, but at the moment it's quite impossible to do any farming in Greenland. Nonetheless, it was possible some hundred years ago. That must mean that back then the temperature was reasonably higher than it is now. Even through that hot period the polar bear seemed to survive, so why not now ?

Maybe i'm wrong, but i see nature as a very adaptive thing. If i as an ice bear no longer can survive in this area, the i move. If i cannot move quickly enough, then some relatives elswhere may survive and when climate changes in our favour, then we retake lost ground.

I have a little question : what if climate changes isn't manmade ? What are we then supposed to do ? shall we throw all our knowlegde and ressources into efforts that only maybe can hold back what f.ex. the sun are doing to us ? (ups, the was three questions)

	17-12-2004 07:55									#242
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara If it is the sun, we can actually try and deal with it by putting reflective materials in the air, like increasing cloud cover.

If you don't mind, i'll prefer that we save that kind of fiddeling with the climate until we really knows what is happening.

	17-12-2004 08:09									#243
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia he has data. lets see yours, convince me crichtons wrong.

Data isn't the same thing as information.

	17-12-2004 08:26									#244
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

BlackCat, read my earlier posts. We don't know, and too little effort/funding is going into finding out. We don't even know how the sun works, for goodness sakes (the neutrino emissions are all wrong - either what's going on inside differs from the theories, or the base theories are wrong, in which case we REALLY don't know).

You'll note I mentioned an extinction event. They are thoroughly unpleasant, and mankind might not survive it. No, not because we aren't adaptive, but because when people are starving they do funny things. Called wars. In between nukes, recombinant DNA (nobody has seriously used modern genetics to make a killer germ, the potential is catastrophic), and nanotechnology, in combination with an ongoing extinction event and the fact everybody seems too cheap to seriously go into space, we could end up extinct. In the next century if trends continue, i.e. warming and climatological changes, desertification, aquifier depletion, water source pollution, non-diverse food crops, etc.

Of course in another twenty years they could all be laughing at the global warming hysteria at the turn of the century. We don't have the data, and without it no rational plan of action is possible. The people who err on the side of safety are actually being quite rational. The problem as one poster pointed out is that governments typically do nothing.

Look at the asteroids that cross Earth orbit. From an insurance standpoint it - cost versus amortized cost of not during something over the lifetime between events - it makes sense to map them all and create a space presence able to do something about one should it be on a collision course. But the scales are so large that governments won't budge. Politicians run most of the industrialized world governments, not insurance mathematicians, nor scientists, nor engineers (though China may be an interesting hybrid). Until the crisis is looming, but the cost crippling (i.e. social security) nobody is going to do anything. But don't cite Crichton, even the Bush administration says there may be some kind of problem, and they had to be dragged kicking and screaming.

	17-12-2004 08:37									#245
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Sorry wrong interpretation. China is doing wonderfully as a consequence of new investment and new production techniques hithertofor unknown to them. Given the poor investment, regulatory, and labor (both costs and relations) climate in the US to do likewise the modernization is not done here but moreso in favor of grass roots facilities in China,, India, etc.. Not a big business issue as much as a societal one.

I actually agree with your interpreation as well.

I do however still feel strongly that we do cave in to big business entirely too much.

But your point about grass root facilities being easier to implement is well taken and agreed upon.

	17-12-2004 08:44									#246
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither They haven't reduced their load, Ted. That's the point. They have done to coal what the rest of the industrialised world did in the 60s, 70s and 80s, and yet their coal use increases. Your continued claims that they are polluting less are simply ridiculous on their face. There is no way in any shade of Hades that you increase industrial output, put more cars and other vehicles on the road, AND decrease fossil fuel use. You can have all the dams that you damn well wish to exist. The end result is going to be more fuel used and more co2 in the atmosphere in the long run. That is why a Kyoto without China, India, Brazil, and some others, is simply retarded. It will encourage those countries not covered to pollute at rates in excess of what would be allowed in any G7 nation per unit produced.

I'm not sure why you're still arguing this point when it all hinges on the switch from coal, which isn't the case at all.

The numbers speak for themselves and if you can't read them I'm not going to help you. How you could claim those numbers went up without providing any evidence is beyond me.

There are other kinds of fossil fuels, by the way, that will burn clean, like natural gas, cleaner burning coal (some coal pollutes WAY more than others).

Also the switch to cleaner burning sources of fuel can be done, the movement needs initiative.

Like I made the point earlier in another thread, the inventor of the diesel engine, Mr. Diesel himself, ran his first diesel engine on 100% peanut oil. You can put lots of different oils into a diesel engine WITHOUT ANY modifications.

By the way, the economy of Southern California has rapidly expanded over the last 20 years, but due to pollutions controls, the air has become much cleaner. More cars are on the road than ever before. There used to be "smog alerts" over a dozen times a year about 20 years ago, now there are none. Pollution controls WORK. Conservation WORKS. Alternative energy sources WORK.

That example alone flies in the face of your theory.

It can be done.

	17-12-2004 08:51									#247
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat I think that you don't have any idea of what you are talking about. You can't in any way compare US an China in the way you are doing it. Do you really think that every chinese are at the same level as a US citicen if we talk about "way of life" - that is refrigs, tvs, and whatever you can mention of energy consumtion thingies ? If you do that or even think that more than a small percentage of the chinese population has acces to that, then you are wery wrong. If, or rather when china reaches the same level, i can gurantee you that that lilac line will go straight up and pass every other line in that figure. You are talking a lot about rises in growth, and that's very nice. You just forget one little thing, there are a hell of difference in rising 10 pct from a high level against doing it from a low level. You are also ignoring the fact that it is no problem to grow your energy production and reducing pollution when you go from a high pollution - non efficient system to one that is efficient and less polluting. So your claim that they have reduced their pollution and increased effectivity isn't going to last for more than a couple of years.

Speculation.

Plus I don't argue with DL's.

	17-12-2004 09:00									#248
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia crichton disputes all of this. antartic ice shelves are melting on one part of the continenet but are growing bigger on the other side (net = zero)

I would be wary of thinking that's a net zero effect. If the ice sheets are getting larger, that means more water is being displaced in the ocean, pushing sea levels up. At the same time, shrinking ice sheets mean that glaciers are moving into the sea faster, which also raises the sea level. What would make it a net zero is if snow is falling on Antarctica at a greater rate then previously.

	17-12-2004 09:29									#249
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Chegitz, not exactly. Continental ice sheets - which most of the Antarctic ones are, sort of, and even those there that aren't are often on the shallow ocean floor creating a de facto continental effect - drop sea levels, as they tie up water. A much bigger potential problem is the effect of warming ocean surfaces and hurricanes. Read "Mother of Storms" by Gregory Benford. What happens if we get enough warming to create a "red spot" (permanent superstorm aka Jupiter) on earth? It's a scary story, and he's got his climatology down pat. Real hard SF, not pseudo-science like Crichton.

	17-12-2004 11:54									#250
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker By the way, the economy of Southern California has rapidly expanded over the last 20 years, but due to pollutions controls, the air has become much cleaner. More cars are on the road than ever before. There used to be "smog alerts" over a dozen times a year about 20 years ago, now there are none. Pollution controls WORK. Conservation WORKS. Alternative energy sources WORK. That example alone flies in the face of your theory. It can be done.

Is the CA economy growing on heavy industry?

I didn't think so.

	17-12-2004 12:03									#251
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking NYE You seem to be implying that China should not be allowed the economic growth necessary to move from subsistence agriculture to a developed society. If this is not the case, then you must take into account the fact that growth is a given, when assessing emissions. If you take this into account, China is doing a remarkable job of reducing emissions per unit of production.

If what you want is social justice, just say so. Don't lie about the real motive.

Fact is that several important economies are affected almost zero by Kyoto, Britain, Germany, Russia...

The burden is on the US, Canada, and some others.

Why should we tank our economies? Why not draw the line at 2002 and make it a harsher cut? Is it because there is no way in hell that that would pass through all the G7 nations because the Brits and Germans aren't stupid? Why do you expect the Yanks to be as stupid as Chretein was?

	17-12-2004 12:06									#252
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sorry but you have absolutley no idea what you are talking about and I have NO IDEA why you keep setting yourself up. You just walked into my neighborhood so if you want to get OWN3d some more that's fine with me.

This place is loaded with heavy industry and is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest manufacturing center in the whole US.

The economy has grown in every area and that includes heavy industry. Maybe you didn't know that the aerospace industry is based here and they are running at full speed. Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, you name it, we got it. On top of that there are natural resources refining, heavy and light manufacturing, and every other kind of industry you can imagine.

On top of that, this place the busiest port in the US which means that huge container ships are ever increasing with their smokestacks coming into port, along with the trucks and trains that take those containers off the ships and transport them where they need to go.


Sorry but you're out of your league unfortunatley.

Anything else you would like to learn?

	17-12-2004 12:09									#253
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

How much steel, Ted? How much dirty industry?

You think aircraft assembly is heavy industry? Bwahahahahaha.

	17-12-2004 12:10									#254
	Put an end to popups!

Hang on -- before this proceeds, perhaps a working definition of heavy industry should be agreed on?

	17-12-2004 12:10									#255
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Just take a road trip down the 405 or the 710 and you will see plenty of heavy industry.

Out of your league son.

Sorry.

	17-12-2004 12:13									#256
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I would be wary of thinking that's a net zero effect. If the ice sheets are getting larger, that means more water is being displaced in the ocean, pushing sea levels up. At the same time, shrinking ice sheets mean that glaciers are moving into the sea faster, which also raises the sea level. What would make it a net zero is if snow is falling on Antarctica at a greater rate then previously.

more water isnt being displacd - more water is being tied up. sea level drops if any. but since its melting on the other side, sea level remains the same.

	17-12-2004 12:17									#257
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Just take a road trip down the 405 or the 710 and you will see plenty of heavy industry. Out of your league son. Sorry.

I think you mistake a warehouse with heavy industry. s'OK though, a lot of people don't have a clue.

Where does GE manufacture those engines that power those Boeing jets, Ted?

California?

I don't think so.

How much steel is made in California? How many major ship yards? How many motor engines?

Can you name a single heavy industry centred in California? What is it?

	17-12-2004 12:45									#258
	Suffering from ads?

There are no steel plants, but oil refining and chemical refining in general are HUGE. In addition there is a gigantic manufacturing base. If you can name any major manufacturer, including every company in Japan, they are here, and they are making things. On top of THAT, we have many more cars and big trucks on the road, and many more container ships in the harbor than ever before. Those are all potentially polluting things happening but due to regulations, air quality has drastically improved.

You are falsley under the assumption that heavy industry must mean steel and that's it.

Just like your false assumption that the Chinese's proven pollution decrease was soley due to a switch from coal, when that wasn't even close. (By the way, you never did provide any evidence about your coal theory, but that's okay, I know you are too lazy or not informed enough to provide ANY evidence about much of anything really).

There is no doubt that this is a big industrial city and it's clearer to me that you really have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.

If you had firsthand knowledge then I might actually take you seriously.

	17-12-2004 12:50									#259
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Here's a hint, Ted. Oil. What happens to oil before we can use it? That's heavy industry. Slapping electronic components together to make a computer is not.

Even then, California is in the process of shutting down its refinery capacity.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/oil/refineries.html

quote: Permitting Issues. It is unlikely that new refineries will be built in California. In fact, from 1985 to 1995, 10 California refineries closed, resulting in a 20 percent reduction in refining capacity. Further refinery closures are expected for small refineries with capacities of less than 50,000 barrels per day. The cost of complying with environmental regulations and low product prices will continue to make it difficult to continue operating older, less efficient refineries. To comply with federal and state regulations, California refiners invested approximately $5.8 billion to upgrade their facilities to produce cleaner fuels, including reformulated gasoline and low-sulfur diesel fuel. These upgrades received permits since low-sulfur diesel fuel regulations went into effect in 1993. Requirements to produce federal reformulated gasoline took effect at the beginning of 1995, and more stringent state requirements for CARB reformulated gasoline went into effect statewide on April 1, 1996.

Do you think China is being as emissions consious as California? If they were, they would be doing worse than shutting down coal plants, they would not be allowing oil to replace it.

Short answer, you can't grow a developing economy the way you can grow the economy of Califonia, which is one of the most advanced on the planet. The dirty jobs have to get done by someone before the people of California can get the products of heavy industry to turn into finished products for people to buy.Only a fool would look to California and say that everyone should be able to do the same thing. It simply isn't true. The oil, the fertilizer, the engines, the steel, the chemicals, and so on all have to come from somewhere for a national economy to work.

	17-12-2004 12:52									#260
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker There are no steel plants, but oil refining and chemical refining in general are HUGE. In addition there is a gigantic manufacturing base. If you can name any major manufacturer, including every company in Japan, they are here, and they are making things. On top of THAT, we have many more cars and big trucks on the road, and many more container ships in the harbor than ever before. Those are all potentially polluting things happening but due to regulations, air quality has drastically improved. You are falsley under the assumption that heavy industry must mean steel and that's it. Just like your false assumption that the Chinese's proven pollution decrease was soley due to a switch from coal, when that wasn't even close. (By the way, you never did provide any evidence about your coal theory, but that's okay, I know you are too lazy or not informed enough to provide ANY evidence about much of anything really). There is no doubt that this is a big industrial city and it's clearer to me that you really have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. If you had firsthand knowledge then I might actually take you seriously.

CA is shutting down refineries. China is opening them up. Do you have any idea about what you are talking about?

	17-12-2004 12:59									#261
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Do you think China is being as emissions consious as California?

You are so ignoring the obvious dude. They set about emissions MANDATES, from the government, and they met them or at least moved in the right direction, and that resulted in REAL pollution decreases as noted by the multiple statistics that I have owned you with but you are trying to save face with.

Here is one example of how a city cleaned up it's air. And guess what? They closed plants in favor of cleaner ones! Go figure! That must have killed their rapidly expanding economy.

This sounds almost word for word like something that would happen in California due to regulations:

quote: Shenyang’s air quality has improved somewhat in recent years. The mayor recently boasted to a visiting U.S. Department of Energy delegation that Shenyang was taken off the global top-10 list in 1998 (it was not included in a World Resources Institute report on urban air quality published that year) and was ranked 12th best among China’s 47 key cities by SEPA in 1999. The city EPB director said overall pollution, considered “heavy” in the late ‘80s according to national standards, was now moderate to light. Plant closures are undoubtedly responsible for much of the improvement. But the city has taken some more proactive measures as well: *Since 1997, 3,000 small (less than one ton of steam per hour) boilers have been taken out of service; half of residential heat is now provided by steam cogenerated from electric power plants; the rest still comes from crude coal stoves. *98 percent of homes now use natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for cooking. *The three power plants providing most of the city’s electricity (and steam heat) are all equipped with water-membrane dust and sulfur removers. *Coal containing more than 1.5 percent sulfur has been prohibited. *Automobile inspections have been stepped up, and emissions-reducing additives are being put into diesel fuel. Desulfurizing additives are being mixed into raw coal that reportedly reduce SO2, dust and ash emissions 40 percent while raising efficiency 10 percent at an extra cost of just 5 percent; a million tons of this modified coal were burned last year, and the EPB expects 2.5-3.0 million to be burned this year; some coal is also being washed, but that is more expensive. *The EU is assisting the city (and Liaoning province) to improve overall environmental management, encourage enterprises to use clean production techniques and develop coalmine methane resources to replace coal. Mayor Mu Suixin recently told the press the city had invested RMB 620 million (US$74.7 million) in 13 pollution control projects; he also said the city hoped to have plants on line by year end to treat 1.5 million tons of sewage daily -- more than the current output.

If you noticed, coal was only a minor footname in that overall equation, which took the shotgun approach and had alot of different methods for reducing pollution.

http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/Liaoningweb.htm

Sorry. Try again.

	17-12-2004 13:01									#262
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither CA is shutting down refineries. China is opening them up. Do you have any idea about what you are talking about?

I can see an oil refinery from my window dumbass!

I passed 4 on the way home!

DUH!!!!




By the way, you are lumping in California as one big whole area, when that isn't even close. I am specifically referring to SOuthern California, and mostly Los Angeles.

	17-12-2004 13:02									#263
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Wow. You can see it from your window, therefore it must be true all over. Good argument, ted.

Incidently, New Jersy has more workers in the chemical industry than CA has.

How much of your economy is in heavy industry again?

	17-12-2004 13:06									#264
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker You are so ignoring the obvious dude. They set about emissions MANDATES, from the government, and they met them or at least moved in the right direction, and that resulted in REAL pollution decreases as noted by the multiple statistics that I have owned you with but you are trying to save face with.

Once more, for old times sake, and maybe you'll read it if it is kept very simple.

quote: By 2025 China, already the world's second biggest emitter of CO2, is expected to emit more carbon dioxide than the current combined total of the United States, Japan and Canada.

yes, it sure sounds like they are decreasing. Yup.

	17-12-2004 13:08									#265
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: China's Old Heavy Industrial Base Turns Eco-Friendly Northeast China's Jilin Province, known for its auto industry, has declared in a 30-year development plan that it will invest 784 billion yuan (95.6 billion US dollars) in environment-friendly industries. The Chinese government is exploring an environment-friendly growth pattern that is fit for China's economic and social situation, said Xie Zhenhua, director of the State Environmental Protection Administration. According to this long-term development plan, the auto makers in the province are required to adopt environment-friendly technologies and minimize pollution. More efforts will be directed to boost the so-called "green businesses" such as tourism, pollution-free agriculture and traditional Chinese medicine, said Hong Hu, the provincial governor.

http://english.people.com.cn/englis...0430_68975.html



Past performance is not a predictor of future results.

Sorry, but you have a 1950s, no, 1890s version of what heavy industry is supposed to look like.

OWN3D

	17-12-2004 13:10									#266
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

China... more carbon dioxide than the current combined total of the United States, Japan and Canada.

Focus on that, Ted. Maybe you'll get the picture.

	17-12-2004 13:14									#267
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither China... more carbon dioxide than the current combined total of the United States, Japan and Canada. Focus on that, Ted. Maybe you'll get the picture.

That's nice, did you get a time machine that goes 20 years in the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!



But speaking of numbers, you know, REAL actual FACTUAL numbers that have been recorded, you know, OFFICIALLY, in the past, and NOT SPECULATED ON, well they say a picture says a thousand words:




When the line moves down it means there is a decrease.

	17-12-2004 13:16									#268
	Support Apolyton

Yes, Ted. More industry, less polluition. Hey, you seem to be just about ready to buy into Marx. Only a Marxist, or a Jesuit, could claim that the sky is green and the grass is blue and say it with a straight face. Well, OK, maybe a few other peoiple can do it too, I'm just trying to figure where you fall.

But you bet! China can perform a miracle of massive industrial growth AND less pollution overall. Yesiree, Bob!

NOT.

	17-12-2004 13:16									#269
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Attachment: pimp.gif
This has been downloaded 26 time(s).

	17-12-2004 13:18									#270
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Yes, Ted. More industry, less polluition. Hey, you seem to be just about ready to buy into Marx. Only a Marxist, or a Jesuit, could claim that the sky is green and the grass is blue and say it with a straight face. Well, OK, maybe a few other peoiple can do it too, I'm just trying to figure where you fall. But you bet! China can perform a miracle of massive industrial growth AND less pollution overall. Yesiree, Bob! NOT.

Name calling

Desperation

Getting PWN3D by Ted Striker and coming back for more: priceless