[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Bravo!
Caution, Tom, there may be some in this thread who would want to excommunicate you for posting such blasphemy.

Hi LAN,

Contrary to what some of the daffy ducks here at TSG might believe or say, I prefer to let the evidence do the talking, much like the CSI folks depicted on the tv show.

Bjorn Lomborg is the first person on the telly I've seen that makes good common sense without hype or any detectable bias in any direction. That makes me want to listen - are you (everyone) listening? Long term investment in long term solutions is what interests me very much as I have a broad span of interests anyway from cosmology to nanotechnolgy.

Like I said, hearing Bjorn Lomborg talk about the problem in a context that made sense was well worth it. I urge everyone here in this thread to do the following google search: Bjorn Lomborg +Global Warming
in order to pick up some links on what he has to say. Well worth reading even if it doesn't change anyone's opinion.

It's obvious to me that the problem of Global Warming involves a dynamical system governed by many influences from the Sun, to internal earth changes like volcanoes, to how climate change is affecting the entire biosphere of the Earth and many other things too long to list. The question is how to positively influence it in the long term at a feasible short term cost that we can all afford. And this, amid all of the other calamities around the Earth that happen on a day to day basis - watch out for that butterfly flapping its wings in China you folks up in Wisconsin! [Just a nod to Chaos theory! ]

-- Tom

[xico]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Here's a breath of fresh air from the past (circa 12/12/2004) by Bjorn Lomborg whom I just saw pitching approximately the same strategy about Global Warming the other night but couched as "long term investment" rather than spending a lot for little return now. Article Save the world, ignore global warming.

What I took away from the pitch the other night was that this fellow makes common sense - for all of us.

-- Tom

Interesting.

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Bjorn Lomborg is the first person on the telly I've seen that makes good common sense without hype or any detectable bias in any direction.

OK Tom, never having heard of BL, I resorted to Wiki. There's just a short page on the guy but what stands out is that he's not a scientist but rather a business/political type. His claim to fame is apparently a hotly disputed book he wrote called The Skeptical Environmentalist. I haven't read it, but here's what the DSCD ( Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ) found (from Wiki):

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

Lomborg lobbed a counter-complaint ... well, as I said it's not that long so you can finish reading it yourself if this caught your interest.

Bottom line, unlike the usuals here, I wouldn't go shouting BRAVO! based on the 'info' he supplies ...

[xico]

Originally Posted by compushlep

OK Tom, never having heard of BL, I resorted to Wiki. There's just a short page on the guy but what stands out is that he's not a scientist but rather a business/political type. His claim to fame is apparently a hotly disputed book he wrote called The Skeptical Environmentalist. I haven't read it, but here's what the DSCD ( Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ) found (from Wiki):

Lomborg lobbed a counter-complaint ... well, as I said it's not that long so you can finish reading it yourself if this caught your interest.

Bottom line, unlike the usuals here, I wouldn't go shouting BRAVO! based on the 'info' he supplies ...

Thanks, schlep! There are economic forces out there who are quite disingenious.

[brite750]

see what happens
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

all this over a broken light bulb

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by compushlep

OK Tom, never having heard of BL, I resorted to Wiki. There's just a short page on the guy but what stands out is that he's not a scientist but rather a business/political type. His claim to fame is apparently a hotly disputed book he wrote called The Skeptical Environmentalist. I haven't read it, but here's what the DSCD ( Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ) found (from Wiki):

Lomborg lobbed a counter-complaint ... well, as I said it's not that long so you can finish reading it yourself if this caught your interest.

Bottom line, unlike the usuals here, I wouldn't go shouting BRAVO! based on the 'info' he supplies ...

Uh, compushlep, it was LAN that shouted BRAVO!

Much thanks for the info! The point that he was making that caught my interest was why spend $$$ when the ROI is little to none for short term goals that don't even make a dent in solving the problem.

Perhaps my interpretation of what he was saying the other night on the telly warrants more review, despite the time lapse between end of 2004 - present (almost 2.5 years) in which time BL could have revised his thinking - there is a lot more information available today, the question being how to sort it out to prioritize where the $$$ should be spent to have a large impact.

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

Ocean's 'Twilight Zone' Traps Greenhouse Gas
Article here.

On its way to being stored in the darkest depths of the ocean, carbon may be consumed and recycled by marine organisms as it enters … the twilight zone.

However, this is no science fiction realm. It's a term used by scientists to describe a strange, but real intermediate depth in the seas where carbon can be trapped, thereby preventing it from sinking deeper where it can do no harm to Earth's climate.


Conventional moored or tethered traps to catch floating particles are like "rain gauges in hurricanes", says Buesseler. The new, neutrally buoyant, untethered Twilight Zone Explorer is swept along with the currents. (Image: Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

Yet another variable in global warming. I wonder how or even if any models treat this variable?

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

Ocean gobbles carbon at different rates
Article here.

Dead plankton does not sink at the same rate everywhere in the Pacific Ocean, say researchers. The new findings will boost our understanding of the supply chain to the world's biggest carbon sink - the bottom of the ocean.


The diatom Corethron is a type of plant plankton which has silica walls and spines, and is abundant in the surface waters of the northwest Pacific. (Image: Mary Wilcox Silver, University of California, Santa Cruz)


Top: Neogloboquadrina pachyderma are amoebae that consume plankton in surface waters around the world. When they die, their tiny shells settle to the sea floor.
Bottom: Neocalanus are crustraceans that are abundant in the northwest Pacific; they hide deep down by day and travel hundreds of meters to the surface to feed at night. (Image: Mary Wilcox Silver, University of California, Santa Cruz)


Top: Tiny tunicates use these mucus nets to trap plankton; when the nets, known as “housesâ€ý, become clogged they are abandoned and sink to the sea bed dragging the remaining plant particles with them; Bottom: The alga Chaetoceros atlanticum is common in surface waters in the northwest Pacific; the spines are thought to deter some grazers, but broken fragments of them were common in deep traps showing they were heavily grazed in surface waters. (Image: Mary Wilcox Silver,University of California, Santa Cruz)

-- Tom

[LANMaster]

2008 Candidates Rely on Private Jets

WASHINGTON -- A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.

For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.

No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.

All but Biden, who flew on a private jet, chartered their flights -- a campaign expense of between $7,500 and $9,000.

These are the same hypocrites who will be dictating to you how far you will be allowed to drive to go to work, if they have their way.

Link

[lotuseclat79]

Satellites shed light on global warming
Article here.

As climate change continues to make headlines across the world, participants at the 2007 Envisat Symposium this week are hearing how Earth observation satellites allow scientists to better understand the parameters involved in global warming and how this is impacting the planet.


Altimetry-derived mean dynamic topography of the sea surface, which is the mean sea surface height relative to the geoid, or the theoretical surface of equal gravity around the Earth. Credits: CLS

-- Tom

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Uh, compushlep, it was LAN that shouted BRAVO!

I know ... and I didn't say you did. Maybe I should have been more specific with the 'usuals' label, by which I meant the 'closed' set, your views have been (are) a lot more enlightened and open-minded so far

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Satellites shed light on global warming
Article here.

Good article, TY for posting the link ... plus there are other interesting techno pieces on the same site, like this one: Nanoscale 'Coaxial Cables' for Solar Energy Harvesting

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by brite750

see what happens
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

all this over a broken light bulb

Q: How many Fox viewers does it take to install a new CFL bulb??

A: Five. One to screw in the bulb and the other four to call out "Get Back!, Get Back!!!".

[brite750]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Q: How many Fox viewers does it take to install a new CFL bulb??

A: Five. One to screw in the bulb and the other four to call out "Get Back!, Get Back!!!".

IF THIS IS HUMOR, KEEP YOUR DAY JOB

[compushlep]

Just in case you missed it, see post #1771 : "The greatest risk you face with a broken CFL is cutting yourself on a shard of glass"