Science

[Dead Duck]

OK....

Plastic is a huge problem ever since it was developed. When we are done with it, it won't breakdown and we have run out of places to hide it.
How about a new type of plastic. How about Organically Grown Plastic.

What is one thing that we eat that can survive from our table to the toilet with no apparent breakdown, BUT is totally natural and we grow it right here in Indiana?

Corn

I know you've seen it in the can before flushing. So you were hungry and didn't chew them all. That thin corn skin on each kernel somehow makes it through our digestive system.... just like plastic would.

Now chew on that a-maize-ing thought.





***Disclaimer***
I thought of this idea when I was a teen while pinching a loaf but could never fund the patent for it. So when you do get this into production, remember where you heard it first. Now go save the world.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Just so we're clear, what is the issue, specifically? Or, are you talking about any given issue about which there is bipartisan debate/ideological disagreement?

The issue of global warming/climate change, or most issues in general. Republicans have their fingers in their ears, while Democrats are shouting to ban all air travel. Typical politics these days. The left goes for the extreme, while the right is just like, "Uh, well, NUH UH!!"

On one hand: it can't be nonsense if it's totally true.

On the other hand: to what events occurring today, specifically, are you referring?

Ok, let me put it this way. You have a gorgeous ecosystem. Lush, healthy trees, beautiful creeks, and plenty of wildlife. Over time, a tree or two dies. Smaller ones take their places. The creeks bend and turn, eroding soils and changing their course. This cuts off the water supply for some vegetation, and they die. New vegetation forms along the path of the water, and all the wildlife follows. This happens over a 500 year period, and all is well in this place.

Enter man. Man decides it wants to cut these trees down to make houses, build boats, and to burn for warmth. Man enters this ecosystem, and cuts ALL the trees down. Every one. What just happened to this ecosystem? The root system has died, making the soil sandy and lose, more ground has been exposed to the sun's rays, meaning this area will now get warmer during the day. All this wildlife in this area now has to flee, and find new shelter. Sometimes, a certain species is unique to a certain area, and now dies off because it can't sustain itself. The water sources now have no natural barriers, and may flow in intrusive ways for those living down stream.

How is any of this good? How is this not "man made climate change" and how does man not influence that environment?

A: false premise, as it is not true, and/or not relevant. (Organizations are largely advocacy entities in such matters, and the beliefs of their members are not monolithic.)

B: even if it were true, science is not a matter of consensus, and anyone who argues for a certain scientific belief based on consensus - especially, at the expense or exclusion of the dissent - is not arguing from a scientific basis.

Not true according to who? The oil and coal industries? Some guy on the internet? I'm a scientist. I look at something from a skeptics perspective and form my own conclusion. Thousands of miles of Louisiana coast are disappearing due to rising sea levels. Who makes money from that? The Cajuns? No, their homes and income sources are disappearing. Small, populated islands in the Pacific are disappearing due to rising sea levels. What do these islanders have to gain from sharing this? People who have lived on these islands for centuries will be without long time homes and familiar land.

Not true. There are billions - if not trillions - at stake/in play: more than enough to feed the grift, and far more than enough to entice fraud.

In 2016, the global clean energy market was $1.35 trillion. In 2017, global oil industry was worth $87.7 trillion. This doesn't even include coal. So you're telling me that every major global scientist is putting their eggs into a basket worth 85% less than the other basket? If anything, these "paid shills" should be coming out to say their is no climate change if money really was a factor here. If money really was an issue, than why are oil and coal companies shelling out billions of dollars to suppress an industry worth peas to their pie? Because money isn't the issue, and oil/coal want as much time destroying the environment as they can get before a good majority of the population goes "Hole up a minute, something ain't right."

I'm not sure what "this" you're referring to, regarding what you studied in school, have your degree in, and have authority to speak on. It could be climate science or political science - or something else entirely - for all I can tell from the context.

A Texas born, Indiana raised republican. Who spent 4.5 years studying the weather and climate, and now works in the industry. B.S. Meteorology/Climatology (2015)

 

[2A_Tom]

Why would you say that Meteorology/Climatology is BS?

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

The actual fraud being perpetrated is 100% political. The socio-political agenda is the WHY, which was the missing piece for me. I didn't understand why scientists would do and say what they had done and said, because it was contrary to everything I was taught and experienced about scientific method and analysis.

Rhino, rather than touch on everything you said (I hit some of it on my reply to Chip), I'll camp on this point. THIS should be the red flag for everyone, the "why?" People act like money the the driving force behind all this, but as someone working in the weather/climate industry, let me tell you, there isn't any. Every year we worry about having our budget cut. We can't fill positions that have been open for ages, and people are starting to wonder if they'll get canned next. There is NO MONEY to be had in this industry. I did it because I really enjoyed the weather, and would rather make a living wage off something I love rather than chase the top dollar.

People want to talk about "evidence" or lack there of, it's because any time someone gets close to an actual development, funding gets cut. True climate science is being suppressed, but by who and why, I have no idea. I have SEEN this, this is not second hand stories. This just lends me credibility that something is going on, and someone doesn't want people knowing about it.

 

[churchmouse]

I think at it's core CM, climate change/global warming has become a partisan issue. Republicans want you to think that ANYTHING done to try and correct the wrong will hurt the hard working men an woman of the heartlands. I call BS. How is fining a company to hell, and forcing them to clean up their mistakes after an environmental disaster a bad thing. Think of how hard coal companies and fossil fuel companies have tried to suppress the building of wind farms. Have you been to western Kansas or the Texas panhandle? Nothing out there but wind and cows. A perfect spot for giant wind turbines to create electricity. Democrats say that we need to carpool, and stop driving trucks, where Republicans say it will hurt the coal industry, and take jobs away from good Americans. Have you seen the true scorched earth techniques coal companies use these days? They literally blow mountains to bits in order to get the goods. How can any of that be sustained for an ecosystem? Nobody wants to meet in the middle, as is the case with anything, and try to find simple solutions to get the ball rolling.

EVEN IF man made global warming is a myth, how is trying to preserve the planet and make it cleaner a bad thing? If our elected officials can stop acting like children for 15 minutes, and listen to what each other has to say, then I think we could easily get this ball rolling in the right direction for the better.

I am one who remembers something my idiot oil dumping grand dad said when he was leaving this mortal plane. "I am not seeing what everyone is all upset about. The place is the cleanest I have ever seen it. No coal dust on everything you see.....

That struck me when I looked at some of the old pics of winter (black and white) and you could see the coal dust on the snow. It was everywhere. As to your methods. I see no problems in holding industry's feet to the fire when they are doing bad things. But again, we are doing a lot better "IN THIS COUNTRY". I am a firm believer that anyplace off shore is still cranking out the crap into the air and water. With zero regard to the consequences. The huge plastic waste land in the middle of the pacific....who did all of that. The huge smog clouds from the third world areas. Industry running south of the river and across the big pond to escape the OSHA/EPA mandates we have in place here.

Gov. intervention. They are a serious problem. This rabbit hole runs deep. It is twisted and dark. We are not the sole contributors. Not anymore yet we keep getting slammed with more and more controls and manipulations.

I do think we are part of the issue but time and again "SCIENCE" shows us climate change throughout the entire time they can see in the ice and other areas they can tap for info. Long before man had a damn thing to do with anything. Are we speeding up the process...???

 

[JettaKnight]

"IN THIS COUNTRY".

Yup. All these "plastic islands" in the Pacific are products of SE Asia I suspect.


EDIT: My suspicions are correct. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768

 

[chipbennett]

The issue of global warming/climate change, or most issues in general. Republicans have their fingers in their ears, while Democrats are shouting to ban all air travel. Typical politics these days. The left goes for the extreme, while the right is just like, "Uh, well, NUH UH!!"

If you're talking about the general breakdown of civil discourse, bipartisan debate, and compromise, you'll get no argument from me. I hesitate even to get into much political discussion/debate anymore, because it's become so toxic and devoid of any useful purpose.

Ok, let me put it this way. You have a gorgeous ecosystem. Lush, healthy trees, beautiful creeks, and plenty of wildlife. Over time, a tree or two dies. Smaller ones take their places. The creeks bend and turn, eroding soils and changing their course. This cuts off the water supply for some vegetation, and they die. New vegetation forms along the path of the water, and all the wildlife follows. This happens over a 500 year period, and all is well in this place.

Enter man. Man decides it wants to cut these trees down to make houses, build boats, and to burn for warmth. Man enters this ecosystem, and cuts ALL the trees down. Every one. What just happened to this ecosystem? The root system has died, making the soil sandy and lose, more ground has been exposed to the sun's rays, meaning this area will now get warmer during the day. All this wildlife in this area now has to flee, and find new shelter. Sometimes, a certain species is unique to a certain area, and now dies off because it can't sustain itself. The water sources now have no natural barriers, and may flow in intrusive ways for those living down stream.

How is any of this good? How is this not "man made climate change" and how does man not influence that environment?

Can man impact local ecosystems, even local weather? Sure. But impact to local ecosystems does not equal climate change. Why? A few reasons, including a) the earth is a Very Vast Place, of which man occupies relatively little, and b) the earth's feedback systems (water cycles, etc.) and its primary energy source (the sun) are easily large enough to overcome, if not render insignificant, any such local changes.

Not true according to who? The oil and coal industries? Some guy on the internet? I'm a scientist. I look at something from a skeptics perspective and form my own conclusion. Thousands of miles of Louisiana coast are disappearing due to rising sea levels. Who makes money from that? The Cajuns? No, their homes and income sources are disappearing. Small, populated islands in the Pacific are disappearing due to rising sea levels. What do these islanders have to gain from sharing this? People who have lived on these islands for centuries will be without long time homes and familiar land.

Not true, in that it's never been proven. The "97%" report was debunked long ago. It was nothing more than a survey of the conclusions of a particular set of studies - some of which were interpreted 180 degrees opposite of what the report author actually found/believed. Some reports said nothing more than that CO2 plays a role in climate change. Others concluded that man has an impact in climate change (but did not necessarily specify if that impact was measurable or statistically significant).

As for sea level rise, again: the seas were rising long before man, will rise long after man, and rise and recede primarily based on the glacial cycles. There is no evidence that rate of change of sea level rise has changed, much less that it has been impacted by man. (In fact, rate of change of sea level rise is declining, in the context of our position in the current inter-glacial period.) Islands appear and disappear in the ocean all the time - especially when considering time on an appropriately large scale with respect to major climate cycles. There is ample evidence of formerly coastal civilizations that are long-since deeply submerged. Humans didn't cause that any more than we cause current changes.

In 2016, the global clean energy market was $1.35 trillion. In 2017, global oil industry was worth $87.7 trillion. This doesn't even include coal. So you're telling me that every major global scientist is putting their eggs into a basket worth 85% less than the other basket? If anything, these "paid shills" should be coming out to say their is no climate change if money really was a factor here. If money really was an issue, than why are oil and coal companies shelling out billions of dollars to suppress an industry worth peas to their pie? Because money isn't the issue, and oil/coal want as much time destroying the environment as they can get before a good majority of the population goes "Hole up a minute, something ain't right."

Why would the green energy industry be an appropriate proxy for the amount of financial interest in climate change? Besides, the climate scientists aren't being funded primarily from that $1.35T green energy industry bucket. Most of the money comes from public funding and corporate charitable contributions/writeoffs.

A Texas born, Indiana raised republican. Who spent 4.5 years studying the weather and climate, and now works in the industry. B.S. Meteorology/Climatology (2015)

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[chipbennett]

People want to talk about "evidence" or lack there of, it's because any time someone gets close to an actual development, funding gets cut. True climate science is being suppressed, but by who and why, I have no idea. I have SEEN this, this is not second hand stories. This just lends me credibility that something is going on, and someone doesn't want people knowing about it.

I have a suspicion that suppression of real scientific pursuit of climate comes not from the climate change "deniers" but rather from the proponents/manufacturers of the Church of Climate Change. Under no circumstances does the "hide the decline" crowd want their work refuted by rigorous science.

 

[NKBJ]

Who gets to issue the mining permits for all that free plastic in the oceans?

 

[BugI02]

If you're talking about the general breakdown of civil discourse, bipartisan debate, and compromise, you'll get no argument from me. I hesitate even to get into much political discussion/debate anymore, because it's become so toxic and devoid of any useful purpose.



Can man impact local ecosystems, even local weather? Sure. But impact to local ecosystems does not equal climate change. Why? A few reasons, including a) the earth is a Very Vast Place, of which man occupies relatively little, and b) the earth's feedback systems (water cycles, etc.) and its primary energy source (the sun) are easily large enough to overcome, if not render insignificant, any such local changes.



Not true, in that it's never been proven. The "97%" report was debunked long ago. It was nothing more than a survey of the conclusions of a particular set of studies - some of which were interpreted 180 degrees opposite of what the report author actually found/believed. Some reports said nothing more than that CO2 plays a role in climate change. Others concluded that man has an impact in climate change (but did not necessarily specify if that impact was measurable or statistically significant).

As for sea level rise, again: the seas were rising long before man, will rise long after man, and rise and recede primarily based on the glacial cycles. There is no evidence that rate of change of sea level rise has changed, much less that it has been impacted by man. (In fact, rate of change of sea level rise is declining, in the context of our position in the current inter-glacial period.) Islands appear and disappear in the ocean all the time - especially when considering time on an appropriately large scale with respect to major climate cycles. There is ample evidence of formerly coastal civilizations that are long-since deeply submerged. Humans didn't cause that any more than we cause current changes.



Why would the green energy industry be an appropriate proxy for the amount of financial interest in climate change? Besides, the climate scientists aren't being funded primarily from that $1.35T green energy industry bucket. Most of the money comes from public funding and corporate charitable contributions/writeoffs.



Thank you for the clarification.

This. And I would add that a considerable portion of Louisiana coast is sinking rather than (or in combination with) the water rising. It is the result of the ACoE channelizing the Mississippi so that less sediment is carried to the mouth and deposited over a much smaller area of the delta. Skeptical? How is it that New Orleans is below sea level? Do you think they dug a hole to put the city in?

As I have referenced elsewhere, the 400ppm standard of CO2 was last attained 3,000,000 million years ago according to analysis of gas bubbles in drill cores. From that they leap to the conclusion that because that time was 5 to 7° C warmer, that that is our destination without a doubt. Well, why aren't we there? Partly because that period was cooling down from being even warmer (but they can't say anything about CO2, or sulfur aerosols or a whole host of other climate drivers) No people around and the oceans were estimated to be 100' higher based on where sedimentary deposits have been found

What many of us are advocating is prove that your models are accurate to some degree before we distort our economy to accommodate and minimize the predicted effects. If you can't prove the models (i.e.: make a specific prediction in time and space and be correct about it) then they are not worth distorting the economy for

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Ok, let me put it this way. You have a gorgeous ecosystem. Lush, healthy trees, beautiful creeks, and plenty of wildlife. Over time, a tree or two dies. Smaller ones take their places. The creeks bend and turn, eroding soils and changing their course. This cuts off the water supply for some vegetation, and they die. New vegetation forms along the path of the water, and all the wildlife follows. This happens over a 500 year period, and all is well in this place.

Enter man. Man decides it wants to cut these trees down to make houses, build boats, and to burn for warmth. Man enters this ecosystem, and cuts ALL the trees down. Every one. What just happened to this ecosystem? The root system has died, making the soil sandy and lose, more ground has been exposed to the sun's rays, meaning this area will now get warmer during the day. All this wildlife in this area now has to flee, and find new shelter. Sometimes, a certain species is unique to a certain area, and now dies off because it can't sustain itself. The water sources now have no natural barriers, and may flow in intrusive ways for those living down stream.

How is any of this good? How is this not "man made climate change" and how does man not influence that environment?

I remember an experiment in one of my Biology classes having to do with population dynamics. We took test-tubes with growth medium and we inoculated each with a relatively small number of yeast cells. Then, over time, we'd take a sample out, put it on a slide and do a count. In the end, that almost all of them showed the classic logarithmic growth curve. The yeasts were released in their environment and they then went about doing what yeasts do, and they reproduced and exploited their "environment" until they used up all of the resources and then the population crashed.

Humans came into their environment and we are currently in the process of doing the same thing. How we live, reproduce, and exploit our own environment is hard-wired into each of us by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution (many millions of years actually, if you count the time before we were fully human). Most people make the mistake of believing that the global population of humans would behave somehow differently than populations of other creatures on earth, just because we seem so rational and intelligent, individually. But, in reality, the global population of humans is bound by the very same forces that compelled the yeast organisms in my Biology experiment, except instead of a test-tube, it's the earth at play. I keep saying it, but there really isn't any need in worrying too much about changing it, because we can't.

 

[Dead Duck]

I remember an experiment in one of my Biology classes having to do with population dynamics. We took test-tubes with growth medium and we inoculated each with a relatively small number of yeast cells. Then, over time, we'd take a sample out, put it on a slide and do a count. In the end, that almost all of them showed the classic logarithmic growth curve. The yeasts were released in their environment and they then went about doing what yeasts do, and they reproduced and exploited their "environment" until they used up all of the resources and then the population crashed.

Humans came into their environment and we are currently in the process of doing the same thing. How we live, reproduce, and exploit our own environment is hard-wired into each of us by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution (many millions of years actually, if you count the time before we were fully human). Most people make the mistake of believing that the global population of humans would behave somehow differently than populations of other creatures on earth, just because we seem so rational and intelligent, individually. But, in reality, the global population of humans is bound by the very same forces that compelled the yeast organisms in my Biology experiment, except instead of a test-tube, it's the earth at play. I keep saying it, but there really isn't any need in worrying too much about changing it, because we can't.

So-
We are a yeast infection.

 

[churchmouse]

I remember an experiment in one of my Biology classes having to do with population dynamics. We took test-tubes with growth medium and we inoculated each with a relatively small number of yeast cells. Then, over time, we'd take a sample out, put it on a slide and do a count. In the end, that almost all of them showed the classic logarithmic growth curve. The yeasts were released in their environment and they then went about doing what yeasts do, and they reproduced and exploited their "environment" until they used up all of the resources and then the population crashed.

Humans came into their environment and we are currently in the process of doing the same thing. How we live, reproduce, and exploit our own environment is hard-wired into each of us by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution (many millions of years actually, if you count the time before we were fully human). Most people make the mistake of believing that the global population of humans would behave somehow differently than populations of other creatures on earth, just because we seem so rational and intelligent, individually. But, in reality, the global population of humans is bound by the very same forces that compelled the yeast organisms in my Biology experiment, except instead of a test-tube, it's the earth at play. I keep saying it, but there really isn't any need in worrying too much about changing it, because we can't.

There are those that say we are a virus doing the same thing to the planet.

 

[jamil]

So-
We are a yeast infection.

I’m afraid it’s even worse.


It’s a simulation.

 

[jamil]

There are those that say we are a virus doing the same thing to the planet.

I think those people are trying to say something else though.

 

[jamil]

I remember an experiment in one of my Biology classes having to do with population dynamics. We took test-tubes with growth medium and we inoculated each with a relatively small number of yeast cells. Then, over time, we'd take a sample out, put it on a slide and do a count. In the end, that almost all of them showed the classic logarithmic growth curve. The yeasts were released in their environment and they then went about doing what yeasts do, and they reproduced and exploited their "environment" until they used up all of the resources and then the population crashed.

Humans came into their environment and we are currently in the process of doing the same thing. How we live, reproduce, and exploit our own environment is hard-wired into each of us by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution (many millions of years actually, if you count the time before we were fully human). Most people make the mistake of believing that the global population of humans would behave somehow differently than populations of other creatures on earth, just because we seem so rational and intelligent, individually. But, in reality, the global population of humans is bound by the very same forces that compelled the yeast organisms in my Biology experiment, except instead of a test-tube, it's the earth at play. I keep saying it, but there really isn't any need in worrying too much about changing it, because we can't.

That’s really interesting. However, I’m a bit more optimistic. Something that sets humans apart is that we can override the programming. It’s very difficult. But people do override their programming, at least a little.

 

[churchmouse]

I think those people are trying to say something else though.

Truth just making the reference.

 

[chipbennett]

There are those that say we are a virus doing the same thing to the planet.

[video=youtube;4rvuueqs3vI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rvuueqs3vI[/video]

 

[chipbennett]

This. And I would add that a considerable portion of Louisiana coast is sinking rather than (or in combination with) the water rising. It is the result of the ACoE channelizing the Mississippi so that less sediment is carried to the mouth and deposited over a much smaller area of the delta. Skeptical? How is it that New Orleans is below sea level? Do you think they dug a hole to put the city in?

As I have referenced elsewhere, the 400ppm standard of CO2 was last attained 3,000,000 million years ago according to analysis of gas bubbles in drill cores. From that they leap to the conclusion that because that time was 5 to 7° C warmer, that that is our destination without a doubt. Well, why aren't we there? Partly because that period was cooling down from being even warmer (but they can't say anything about CO2, or sulfur aerosols or a whole host of other climate drivers) No people around and the oceans were estimated to be 100' higher based on where sedimentary deposits have been found

What many of us are advocating is prove that your models are accurate to some degree before we distort our economy to accommodate and minimize the predicted effects. If you can't prove the models (i.e.: make a specific prediction in time and space and be correct about it) then they are not worth distorting the economy for

And, the real kicker with CO2 is: it's a lagging, not a leading, indicator of temperature. All of our long-term temperature data corroborate that CO2 responds to changes in temperature, rather than causing those changes.

 

[Mongo59]

My research is still not concluded but here goes: Either global warming caused "Flipper" to be dumped by network TV or "Flipper" being dumped caused global warming. Film at 11...