HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
REGISTER   |   LOGIN   |   HELP
<<  <  Page 24/54  >  >>
jhmumford
User Rank
Gold
Re: Carbon one element of the environmental picture
jhmumford   9/13/2012 12:48:48 PM
NO RATINGS
Here-here!

Not only Differential Equations, but ethics.

J. Williams
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Global warming: is ANYBODY right?
J. Williams   9/13/2012 11:40:39 AM
NO RATINGS
Good question:  I tend to think not.  This is such a complex system that the hubris of the human condition shines through.  Are we learning?  Yes.  Do we have all the answers?  No.  Should we panic?  No.  For instance, here is a little tidbit that turned out to be quite counter-inuitive: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/cfe-pst091012.php  I am concerned that the models used as the tenets for the Church of Anthrapologic Global Warming or the Church of AGW may have serious flaws.

Watashi
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Carbon one element of the environmental picture
Watashi   9/13/2012 11:34:13 AM
You are right, lets just use physics... or, actually thermodynamics. 

The sun is the dominant heat source for the entire solar system.  So much so that it can be deemed the only source.

The sun is turbulent, not a steady source of heat.  It exhibits patterns of increased and decreased activity that does correspond to increased and decreased heat felt at the planets.

If the 'greenhouse effect' were occuring on a planet, the residents could expect to see nominal temperature extremes begin to converge.  no longer would you see 20+ degree changes.  Temperatures would moderate to an RMS value.

Even if the earth is warming 1° per century, it wouldn't cause extinctions for many centuries.  Plants and animals endure far worse in season to season variations today.  Besides - Ever hear of a little theory called evolution?  You know, the method by which god designed his creation to endure.

 

edgyone
User Rank
Iron
Re: Carbon one element of the environmental picture
edgyone   9/13/2012 10:36:43 AM
NO RATINGS
Less people = more room + resources^2.

Ever program a population model?  Once you hit the bifurcation point extiction occurs. Differential equations should be madatory for everyone on the planet.

edgyone
User Rank
Iron
How about Risk mitigation?
edgyone   9/13/2012 10:31:39 AM
NO RATINGS
Is it not safer to be wrong on reacting as if the threat of global warming is real? If the science really is wrong, as the 16 say, then all that happened was we spent a lot of money and time needlessly, and maybe we get some new technology out of it. If we chose to ignore the climate crisis and argue about whether or not it is real for ever and do nothing we could make our species extinct. Seems like an obvious choice to me, go extinction! If we can't make the right choice on this issue we should move aside and let the next dominant animal rule the world. Roaches, it's your time!

mr88cet
User Rank
Silver
It's Not Just One Question
mr88cet   9/13/2012 10:12:34 AM
NO RATINGS
I think you're correct in pointing out that it's not a clear-cut question. That's partly because it's not one single question. As I perceive it, it breaks down to four questions, each with an increasing level of disagreement: A: Humans are pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. B: Global temperatures are rising. C: Item A is causing Item B. D: Rising Global Temperatures will have disastrous effects, such as shutting down the Atlantic Conveyor. I don't think there's much disagreement about Item A, but there's a lot more disagreement about Item D. I'm pleased to see that these scientists seem to be mostly questioning item D only. As for me personally, I have little doubt about items A-C, but I'm still undecided about item D. I certainly don't see much of anything positive about rising global temperatures, and I personally think its a technologico-economic growth opportunity to combat it, but I'm not certain that the future consequences are as dire as Northern Europe freezing over.

Fred McGalliard
User Rank
Silver
Re: Carbon one element of the environmental picture
Fred McGalliard   9/5/2012 4:01:44 PM
You folks are defeating yourself by questioning the obvious. The ice fields are melting back, and have been for around 200 years. The globe is warming. Much of the historic data is not particularly reliable, of course, and even the modern data suffers from a mixture of effects from local but protracted changes such as heat island effects, deforestation, and the like. But the CO2 greenhouse driving function is clearly there, like it or not. It is just physics. The rest of the question is what other effects, natural and manmade, are amelorating/enhancing this. In fact you may note that the effects of CO2 and airborn particulates may be a major balance in avoiding the much larger greenhouse originally predicted for the CO2 increase alone. And including all the effects of water vapor/clouds/rain/ocean and fresh water surfaces, absorption and sequestration of CO2, man that is a dificult whole world calculation. Tripply dificult when you attempt to get from local weather to global and back again. Water world anyone???

jhmumford
User Rank
Gold
Re: Carbon one element of the environmental picture
jhmumford   8/24/2012 3:02:35 PM
vandamme:

Again you are putting words in my mouth. My use of the term "contraception" implies all methods, including pharmaceutical, barrier, spermicidal, anti-implantation, etc. The overarching idea is that since population is driving the environmental destruction, the logical first line of action is population control. Also, any method to prevent pregnancy, including the methods you cite, is "contracepting" (to use your term), and I don't know about divorce rates as a function of methods used, but I suspect that is far more dependent on socio-economic issues than upon method used (e.g. the method used may depend stronbly on socio-economic status, thus tainting the statistics).

I don't much care about method so long as the method is effective, reliable and usable by a particular population. Education is also critical. The biggest threat to families is poverty (which, for example, forces husbands to work hundreds of miles from their families in parts of Africa), food and water shortages (which forces refugeeism), and wars, not divorce (which seems to be a largely Western concept). Children suffer far more if their developing brains and bodies are malnourished and developmental milestones are missed than if one of their parents is absent.

vandamme
User Rank
Silver
Re: Carbon one element of the environmental picture
vandamme   8/24/2012 1:50:09 PM
If you search for effectiveness of Sympto-thermal, Billings Ovulation or Creighton methods of natural family planning, you'll find large peer-reviewed studes that confirm effectiveness rates in the 98 to 99+ percentage range. Calendar rhythm was obsolete many years ago yet critics still quote its poor effectiveness as the only example of NFP.
Concerning family destruction, the divorce rate among NFP users is a few percent, versus the high percentage of the general public (most of which is contracepting). The sexual frequency (per cycle) of NFP users was found to be the same as contraceptors. And there are many contraceptive side effects, like breast cancer, heart attack, right down to weight gain.

The choice is not between contraceptives and starvation, any more than your choices of computer operating system are only Windows and Mac. You can use something open source, safe, effective, and inexpensive, but nobody has heard of it. I like both NFP and Linux!

jhmumford
User Rank
Gold
Re: Carbon one element of the environmental picture
jhmumford   8/24/2012 12:25:05 PM
vandamme:

I was not suggesting abortion as a solution to overpopulation. I was suggesting education and making contraceptive technologies available (there are many non-pharmeceutical methods available).There is no reliable "natural" birth control method unless you count sterility caused by infectious disease or accident. The "rhythm method" is statistically guaranteed to fail about once every 6 months (which is why they call people who use this method "parents") and abstenance is not realistic.

As to your assertion about destructiveness to families, what can be more destructive to a family than having more mouths than the parents (and environment) can possibly feed? Already there are refugee crises in many parts of the world because people cannot raise enough crops locally, so they move to where they think they can. The problem is that virtuall all the arable land in the world is already being cultivated (with the limiting factor often being water supply), so refugees strain the local food and water supply where they move, leading to wars. That sounds pretty destructive to me.

We can control population with contraception or we can let it control itself with starvation and war.  The former seems by far the most intelligent and humane way (and least destructive to families) to me.

<<  <  Page 24/54  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Lumus and eyeSight have partnered to create consumer-grade devices that offer all the prime functions of smart glasses without the bulk.
VisLab joins the autonomous car effort with the DEEVA prototype.
NASA and Boeing developed a huge, carbon composite cryogenic fuel tank for deep space missions, and started testing it last month. The 18-ft cryotank will enable heavy-lift launch vehicles to send both humans and robots into deep space.
Focus on Fundamentals -- a new Design News webinar series -- kicks off April 29 with How to Select Drives for Robotics Applications. Don't miss it!
Research and other advancements in the realms of robotics, diagnostic and treatment devices, nanotechnology, and medical implants may one day make humans superior versions of their natural selves.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service