Visit our Popular Forums

Simonsays · 26-05-2016, 05:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Getting back to science for a minute...

A recent paper published in Nature and written by the Canadian government says that the oil sands operations in Canada produce copious amounts of vapor that through chemistry create atmospheric aerosols. Aerosols, as we know from science, tend to reflect the sun's radiant energy back into space. But these same aerosols are not good for oxygen breathing creatures. So the question becomes should we spend many billions trying to stop the vapor emissions and thus speed up global warming or should we leave things as they are?

stop the tar sand operations would be an alternate form of leaving things as they are, i.e. a third option.
but only green hippies would suggest that.

jackdale · 26-05-2016, 05:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Getting back to science for a minute...

A recent paper published in Nature and written by the Canadian government says that the oil sands operations in Canada produce copious amounts of vapor that through chemistry create atmospheric aerosols. Aerosols, as we know from science, tend to reflect the sun's radiant energy back into space. But these same aerosols are not good for oxygen breathing creatures. So the question becomes should we spend many billions trying to stop the vapor emissions and thus speed up global warming or should we leave things as they are?

Let's just stop using the Earth as a waste dump.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

jimbunyard · 26-05-2016, 07:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

Respectfully Jim, I don't think that's an accurate or fair representation of the current state of climate science. "Taking the chance" or balancing the risks against the costs is ultimately what society and its leaders will have to determine based on science that has a more reasonable degree of certainty than where it's at now. But it's not just about the science itself, but the trustworthiness of the proponents. In the U.S. anyway, the public is divided, polarized, and distrustful of its opposition on many issues that affect them more immediately and significantly. In this environment, and regardless of which side is to blame, the extreme politicization of this scientific issue is very unfortunate.

Well certainly politicization is the problem that keeps the 'debate' going. But again, there is really no debate among scientists about the causes, just about the degrees...(HaHa)

As to what, if any, plan to take, regarding costs and economies, there are (to my mind) a couple of things to keep in focus.

One, every speck of 'wealth', in one form or another, currently on Earth was (and, for the most part, will remain) here before the concept of money was ever conceived (and after the concept disappears).

Two, the Earth is a finite system that finds and maintains its equilibrium at a rate independent of any individual conspecific groups of life forms wants, needs or desires.

And finally, because of, among other things, informational overload on one side and general affluential lazyness on the other, the status and reliability of the actual versus the perceived science are almost completely unrecognizable. To winnow out the wheat (good science) from the chaff (sensationalist claims) is (to continue the agricultural metaphor) a hard row to hoe.

To find out what's really going on is a full time job, and once you think you know, 5 days down the row dynamic chaos shoots you right in the face....

transmitterdan · 26-05-2016, 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

Let's just stop using the Earth as a waste dump.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

In this case it's not a waste dump. It's stuff that is there "naturally" except the Canadians uncovered a lot more of the material while mining the bitumen. Nobody "dumped" anything. A lot of bitumen is sitting on top of the ground in many places not only Canada e.g. California, Kuwait, etc.

Anyway, my question was about the scientific aspect is it better to try to stop these vapors or leave them alone due to the "beneficial" reduction in warming?

**newhaul** · 26-05-2016, 08:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

In this case it's not a waste dump. It's stuff that is there "naturally" except the Canadians uncovered a lot more of the material while mining the bitumen. Nobody "dumped" anything. A lot of bitumen is sitting on top of the ground in many places not only Canada e.g. California, Kuwait, etc.

Anyway, my question was about the scientific aspect is it better to try to stop these vapors or leave them alone due to the "beneficial" reduction in warming?

You do realize that over 2/3 of the aerosols/ voc's are from trees and not humans.

jackdale · 26-05-2016, 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

In this case it's not a waste dump. It's stuff that is there "naturally" except the Canadians uncovered a lot more of the material while mining the bitumen. Nobody "dumped" anything. A lot of bitumen is sitting on top of the ground in many places not only Canada e.g. California, Kuwait, etc.

Anyway, my question was about the scientific aspect is it better to try to stop these vapors or leave them alone due to the "beneficial" reduction in warming?

The bitumen itself does not produce these aerosols. It produced after it is mined.

As to your question:, your "beneficial" reduction in warming results in a serious health hazard.

Quote:

Secondary organic aerosols are produced when volatile organic compounds interact with sunlight and other airborne chemicals to create tiny particles, which have been found to cause lung and heart problems and other health effects.

jackdale · 26-05-2016, 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

You do realize that over 2/3 of the aerosols/ voc's are from trees and not humans.

Which means that 1/3 are from human activities over which we have some control. Witness the Clean Air Acts of the 1970's.

**newhaul** · 26-05-2016, 09:19

Anthropogenic global warming if it is happening , is the fault of the people that eat a vegetarian diet
Lettuce is â€˜three times worse than bacon' for emissions and vegetarian diets could be bad for environment | Science | News | The Independent

Exile · 26-05-2016, 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Well certainly politicization is the problem that keeps the 'debate' going. But again, there is really no debate among scientists about the causes, just about the degrees...(HaHa)

As to what, if any, plan to take, regarding costs and economies, there are (to my mind) a couple of things to keep in focus.

One, every speck of 'wealth', in one form or another, currently on Earth was (and, for the most part, will remain) here before the concept of money was ever conceived (and after the concept disappears).

Two, the Earth is a finite system that finds and maintains its equilibrium at a rate independent of any individual conspecific groups of life forms wants, needs or desires.

And finally, because of, among other things, informational overload on one side and general affluential lazyness on the other, the status and reliability of the actual versus the perceived science are almost completely unrecognizable. To winnow out the wheat (good science) from the chaff (sensationalist claims) is (to continue the agricultural metaphor) a hard row to hoe.

To find out what's really going on is a full time job, and once you think you know, 5 days down the row dynamic chaos shoots you right in the face....

Very perceptive comments. Your para. that I bolded may help explain why at least half the populace is skeptical. Not so much on the largely undisputed fact that humans have had an impact, but that humans have the ability to impact to such an extent as to cause the catastrophic consequences that a smaller percentage of the scientific community predicts.

Your last para. strongly suggests that this is not an area given to monolithic conclusions that only support one side. While such scientific certainty exists establishing the connection btwn. lung cancer and smoking, for e.g., it is more difficult to believe that similarly hard & fast conclusions made in the complex realm of climate science are not driven by ideology. If the skeptics are wrong and the science is as certain as its proponents have been saying all along, then that should ultimately carry the day like it did to overcome the tobacco cos.' attempts to suppress scientific evidence of the harm from smoking. Attempting to silence or obscure the contrary evidence with respect to CC is extremely short-sighted imho, and has and will backfire.

Exile · 26-05-2016, 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Getting back to science for a minute...

A recent paper published in Nature and written by the Canadian government says that the oil sands operations in Canada produce copious amounts of vapor that through chemistry create atmospheric aerosols. Aerosols, as we know from science, tend to reflect the sun's radiant energy back into space. But these same aerosols are not good for oxygen breathing creatures. So the question becomes should we spend many billions trying to stop the vapor emissions and thus speed up global warming or should we leave things as they are?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simonsays

stop the tar sand operations would be an alternate form of leaving things as they are, i.e. a third option.
but only green hippies would suggest that.

The first two options are illustrative of the complicated choices a society utterly dependent on fossil fuels has to make. The third option might mean that Jack's coop gas station might have to find an alternative source for its product, and probably at a higher price. Whether you consider these choices as "bad" or "worse," there aren't many good options right now, although history suggests there will be.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger . . . .

avb3 · 26-05-2016, 10:33

These climate change threads have been tolerated by moderators as they are periphally related to sailing and cruising, however, the personal innuendos and attacks, as well as any political discussion, needs to stop. Any further instances, and this thread will be closed.

It is now made a hot topic, meaning we will scrutinize it for infractions, and at the first sign of it continuing to derail, be shut down, with infractions likely.