Climate Change Poorly Understood By Us Public

lengould

14th February 2008 - 02:49 PM

http://www.physorg.com/news3485.html

"Climate change poorly understood by US public, survey finds"

"The survey further found that the environment and climate change are not high-priority issues for the public. The environment came out 13th on a list of 22 possibilities for "the most important issues facing the U.S. today." And on a list of 10 specific environmental problems, "global warming" came up sixth, well behind water pollution and toxic waste"

By contrast, in Canada the leader of the Liberal party (in power from 1994 to 2005 'ish) has made the environment, particularly climate change, the foremost plank in his platform strategy to defeat the Conservatives, and may actually succeed.

From observation, it appears that in the US, the only people who're at all educated on the climate / environment as an issue are lobbyists working against making any improvements. Weird.

adoucette

14th February 2008 - 03:05 PM

Don't you just love surveys where the proponents of a particular view get to determine what the RIGHT answers are?

As the article points out, the people who initiated this survey

QUOTE

For more than a decade, Howard J. Herzog and his colleagues at MIT's Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LFEE) have been studying one approach to climate-change mitigation. In carbon-dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS), the CO2 emissions from large sources that contribute to global warming are captured and injected into geologic formations for long-term storage.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Tell us that these researchers have been working on a relatively arcane area of the CO2 mitigation strategy (is it even mentioned in AIT ?) and then are surprised that not everyone knows of their research.

Other questions demonstrated the public's lack of understanding. For example, when asked what concern CCS would address, well over half of the respondents said they were not sure. Of those that made a choice, 23 percent said (correctly) that CCS could reduce global warming, but 29 percent said (incorrectly) that it could reduce smog.

The survey further found that the environment and climate change are not high-priority issues for the public. The environment came out 13th on a list of 22 possibilities for "the most important issues facing the U.S. today." And on a list of 10 specific environmental problems, "global warming" came up sixth, well behind water pollution and toxic waste.

But here's the real laugh.

YES, a lot of us think that "global warming" comes BEHIND water pollution and toxic waste.

FAR BEHIND

Lack of clean water is a KNOWN global problem with KNOWN global issues causing millions of KNOWN deaths EACH YEAR.

QUOTE

Every year inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene contribute to the deaths of 1.5 million children.

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/

Even funnier is the fact that all the methods for CCS for coal plants (the largest point sources that CCS is directed towards) is to convert them to clean coal FIRST, so the answer that 29% were INCORRECT, that CCS would reduce smog, is in fact incorrect.

Weirder

Arthur

Corvidae

14th February 2008 - 05:08 PM

QUOTE (lengould+Feb 14 2008, 02:49 PM)

From observation, it appears that in the US, the only people who're at all educated on the climate / environment as an issue are lobbyists working against making any improvements. Weird.

Not really, the first thing to realize is that the vast majority of Americans have very little interest in politics at all. Those that pay the most attention are being paid to do so by companies (Or groups of companies) who will be directly affected by legislation. Add in the near oligopoly of our markets and it should be obvious why the business lobbyists have the loudest voices.

The problem is the existing companies don't see a way to profit from greener technologies. Environmental pursuits are only useful as public relations tools and serve no visible business motive. On the other hand, they do cost money that comes out of the bottom line.

So we have companies who are motivated to prevent environmental regulation and a populace where only a tiny minority even understands it, let alone cares enough to say something about it.

Usually people start caring right about the time the bodies start to pile up, and things get changed. Regardless that it'll be far too late for the environment by the time that happens, the reactions to Katrina and Iraq should be a large warning that it will take a LOT more bodies before real change happens.

EarthScientist

15th February 2008 - 04:49 AM

The science men and women who have signed on to the fraudulent greenhouse theory have done extreme damage to the public at large. The grid revv that causes extra weather just as at solar max creates all of our fears of planetary destruction and fills the coffers of the faux science folks who have not been properly informed as to the grid science that operates the whole universe. This engineered system is normally balanced and things that perturb our sun also perturb our grid field. These perturbations which are energetic components from system events,mostly based in the 28 thou ago system explosion(I say it again,gentlemen,when the petroleum was made from the vegetable oils in all of the plants) "The first time anyway" Our cometary shower events are core material from that system explosion, they just are boys,get over it. And get over your foolish process of carbon dioxide creating the heating and anomalous weather processes. This system revv will abate and how will you then explain to the public that they did not create the destruction of the earth after all??? The glaciers will reform after the system revv abates,but this system revv is not done and it does historically increase the ocean depth of the planet and the glaciers will be just as large or larger.Now can any one of you non grid scientists explain to me how the earth has steadily enlarged the amount of water on it??Who is up for that one ??Until you boys take some tasking lessons in grid science,you really should cease and desist in taking the publics money and assisting the government to deplete the public for their carbon sequestration and credit fiasco that is the absurdity of the century, (Almost)

Zarkov

15th February 2008 - 05:18 AM

QUOTE

Now can any one of you non grid scientists explain to me how the earth has steadily enlarged the amount of water on it??

LIFE made water...... easy and simple
there are no other sources of water.

Water does not naturally exist in the Universe.

EarthScientist

15th February 2008 - 05:49 AM

Your score is zero Zarkov,you have not answered the query properly as ther is an answer and surely water does exist naturally,and is produced naturally and that was the query. Try again......

Zarkov

25th February 2008 - 09:11 AM

QUOTE

surely water does exist naturally

surely it does exist in a transient form when cosmic hydrogen peroxide spontaneously decomposes... that water is almost immediately transformed by the cosmic environment into H2 and OH
and then the OH back to hydrogen peroxide again

Water in any "stable quantity" as seen on Earth does not exist in the cosmos, not even in very small amounts.

It is obvious the search for water in the Solar System has been intensive and the evidence gained so far is very flimsy to say the least.

Why Earth has water ?.. why not Mars, Venus even Mercury... well at least the Moon... LOL

Only Earth has LIFE, only Earth has water.... because LIFE made the water.

The words in the Bible ain't necessarily so, the cosmos does not have any natural water.

God knows

EarthScientist

25th February 2008 - 09:46 AM

Building blocks are influshing in every second, though and that is the point.

Without a warm atmosphere and the aether as the catalyst, water will not be produced.

Every grid revv period, there is extra water produced from the extra energy perturbing the gas planet and therefore sun also balance

This planets engineering keeps things in stability until the remnants return on the oxygen lines.

All of the extra water made that covered land masses and covered the earth more and more did not happen without the dis-function of enhanced energetic processes, I repeat again. We are going through the 1050 periodicity grid revv period. It is not over,be always prepared for the enhanced weather and watrous processes that are going to take some ground.

The glaciers will re-form after the period has ended and the carbon morons will have to hide.

Remember planets have a spin speed and they were engineered for our processes for life. They make the grid geometry,they make our gases that propagate to the spheres as flows along with the energetic aetheric componentry.

Remember my word also that planet sphere size is not an accident and that each size notes the amount of gas produced by that sphere.

Each gas has its own frequency,no different than ozone (Oxygens) are produced by that light frequency in homes and industry every day.

Hydrogen can be produced by transducers,and all without bypassing that silly little word process beat into everyone about violating the law of conservation of energy.

Mars, our other 24 hour spin speed planet in this galaxy,used to have water before it was virtually destroyed about 14 thou ago,when the second batch of petroleum was producd on this planet also from the energetic remnants inherent in our system from a system explosion about 28 thou ago.

Note the spacing of the events and understand that the long cymatic grid line that the components are on are the main body of the planetary material.

Note also that the crystalline ammonia core material is what cometary energetic components are made of and the pull from the low tone of that crystalline ammonia pulls debris behind it.

Note also that I have provided the proper process for gravitation on this and other spheres,whether your physics boys/friends can process out of their paradigm long enough to process my facts.

Capracus

25th February 2008 - 12:37 PM

QUOTE (EarthScientist+Feb 25 2008, 09:46 AM)

Remember planets have a spin speed and they were engineered for our processes for life.

While the conditions you mention were and are being engineered, how is it that you can assign a purpose to the engineering? Is life a consequence of these conditions, or is it the specific goal of the engineering?

EarthScientist

26th February 2008 - 07:01 AM

A specific goal of the engineering was for the human species,along with the eco system necessities and just plain experimentation. When you see the system in its wholeness of purpose and are given the steps,its an amazing revelatory process.

barakn

26th February 2008 - 07:15 AM

QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 25 2008, 09:11 AM)

surely it does exist in a transient form when cosmic hydrogen peroxide spontaneously decomposes... that water is almost immediately transformed by the cosmic environment into H2 and OH
and then the OH back to hydrogen peroxide again

It is obvious the search for water in the Solar System has been intensive and the evidence gained so far is very flimsy to say the least.

Why Earth has water ?.. why not Mars, Venus even Mercury... well at least the Moon...

No water on Mars? Just because you are ignorant of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And we've been over the H2O2 vs H2O debate before. You exhibited a lack of understanding of the issue then and you still do. Just to reiterate - H2O2 is so unstable it is used as rocket fuel. H2O can be protected from ultraviolet light by a thin coating of dust or just being far enough away from the source of UV light, the sun. H2O is by far the more stable compound and is detected far more often.

Zarkov

26th February 2008 - 09:45 AM

QUOTE

you are ignorant of the evidence

no, you are ignorant of chemistry
under cosmic conditions -OH and then H2O2 is the PRIMARY product of the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen.... in this case H2O2 is stable but H2O if it ever existed is split to -OH then condenses to H2O2.

Best you study and find out how H2O2 is made from its raw materials.

adoucette

26th February 2008 - 02:49 PM

QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 26 2008, 04:45 AM)

Best you study and find out how H2O2 is made from its raw materials.

I'm not aware of any method of creating quantities of H2O2 that don't involve a catalyst

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/JM/...sp?doi=b509542e

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...1200731facc4488

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6342196-claims.html

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6712949.html

One would think that if making H2O2 was as simple as you think, there wouldn't be so many RECENT patents on how to produce it more economically.

As to H20 in space:

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?o...article&sid=142

Arthur

barakn

26th February 2008 - 05:03 PM

QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 26 2008, 09:45 AM)

in this case H2O2 is stable but H2O if it ever existed is split to -OH then condenses to H2O2.

You're not capable of creating a counter argument against my assertions that UV light is attenuated greatly by dust and that the UV light intensity is significantly diminished away from its primary source the Sun. So what do you do? You ignore what I said. A poor way to support your assertions, if you ask me.

snwboardn

26th February 2008 - 05:28 PM

I didn't expect to see this discussion going on when I clicked on this forum. Hey I just saw an article on spaceweather.com that quotes this guy, he is basically explaining why this last lunar eclipse was so bright. The last paragraph is interesting to me. Has anyone else looked into this?

The red light around Tycho is sunlight filtered and redirected by Earth's stratosphere into the core of our planet's shadow. "This eclipse was so bright because the stratosphere is exceptionally clear," explains Keen. Volcanoes can clog the stratosphere with ash and other aerosols, making lunar eclipses dark, but it has been a while since a major eruption. "The stratosphere has been clear since about 1995 after aerosols from Pinatubo's 1991 eruption settled out, and it appears to be getting more clear with each eclipse."

Keen tracks the brightness of lunar eclipses because they reveal the opacity of Earth's upper atmosphere. "A clear stratosphere means plenty of undiminished sunlight heating Earth"--something climate change models must take into account. "Lunar eclipses are not only beautiful," he says, "they can teach you a lot."

Corvidae

26th February 2008 - 06:07 PM

You'd think they could use the known luminosity of surrounding stars to determine an average opacity for any given point of observation at any time.

adoucette

26th February 2008 - 06:26 PM

QUOTE (Corvidae+Feb 26 2008, 01:07 PM)

You'd think they could use the known luminosity of surrounding stars to determine an average opacity for any given point of observation at any time.

No, the methodology is quite different,

See:

http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2008/25fe...ju4hsuc8tuo8fn3

and

http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2008/25fe...ju4hsuc8tuo8fn3

and

http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2008/25fe...ju4hsuc8tuo8fn3

Arthur

Zarkov

26th February 2008 - 08:45 PM

QUOTE

LOL

dust in space....or dust on a planet...

There are many ways to make the -OH radical
In the upper atmosphere, straying water is broken to -OH
or produced ozone attacks hydrogen yielding -OH

On Earth the -OH radical once formed is almost immediately reactive with another to produce water and oxygen

BUT

In space -OH is ultra-stable, with of course H2
cold H2 is almost nonreactive
There are massive clouds "out there" of both

and of course in the cosmic cold places the condensation product of -OH is H2O2.
This is reasonably stable, breaking down on occasions to transient H2O then back to -OH again....... and that has been happening since the beginning...forever

Water CAN NOT ACCUMULATE, it is an unnatural molecule

All the "snow" seen on cosmic bodies/comets etc is H2O2/CO2 and whatever
but no permanent water, transient traces at the most

some moons have geysers, where H2O2 is decomposing squirting transient water and oxygen.... these breakdown products are quickly split back to -OH via the cosmic chemistry outlined above.

The chemistry of space IS NOT the chemistry of Earth

adoucette

26th February 2008 - 09:17 PM

YAWN

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astr...ter_010412.html

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/08/spac...folo/index.html

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_europa.html

Arthur

barakn

27th February 2008 - 05:52 AM

QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 26 2008, 08:45 PM)

In space -OH is ultra-stable, with of course H2
cold H2 is almost nonreactive
There are massive clouds "out there" of both

and of course in the cosmic cold places the condensation product of -OH is H2O2.
...
All the "snow" seen on cosmic bodies/comets etc is H2O2/CO2 and whatever
but no permanent water, transient traces at the most

First let's address Zarkov's assertion that "-OH is ultra-stable, with of course H2 cold H2 is almost nonreactive." (I don't know why he uses a dash when using OH as shorthand for the hydroxyl radical -- it's not standard. Perhaps confusing it with the negatively charged hydroxide ion?). Here is a table of photo reaction rates. Notice that OH has a higher reaction rate than H₂O for photons of all wavelengths. Here is a table of neutral-neutral reaction rates, where you'll see that contrary to Zarkov's claim, OH will react with H₂ to form H₂0 and H. Also of note is that there are a handful of reactions that destroy OH but only one that destroys H₂O. Of all the neutral-neutral reactions involving oxygen, the one with the highest rate is one that destroys OH. In this table of radical reactions there is one reaction that destroys OH but nothing involving H₂O. In this table of ion-molecule reactions you'll find several reactions that destroy OH and several that destroy H₂.

Nowhere in any of those tables did you see H₂O₂. Contrary to Zarkov's claim, H₂O₂ is not a significant product of OH combination. In fact, in the list of molecules definitively detected in interstellar space, H₂O₂ is conspicuously absent but H₂O is there. This might be due in part to the fact that H₂ is the most common molecule in the universe, and an OH is far more likely to run into one of those than into another OH.

Let's move on to Zarkov's claims about H₂O₂ on cosmic bodies. It is true that infrared spectrums of ices are less diagnostic of their content than radio spectrums of gases, and thus the OH signature in an ice could be due to H₂O₂ or H₂O. Mars has such ice (small amounts compared to the large volumes of CO₂ ice). However you must also remember Mars gets its red color from large quantities of iron oxides, and iron oxides (even in small amounts) catalyze the destruction H₂O₂. The non-CO₂ ice on Mars is most certainly H₂O, not H₂O₂. There's plenty of evidence for water ice in many other places (even a planet that's not in this solar system), but it's getting late and I have better things to do.

Suffice it to say Zarkov hasn't provided any evidence to support his assertions because his assertions aren't true and there is no supporting evidence.

Zarkov

28th February 2008 - 08:16 PM

LOL, get off Earth, Barakn

You fell into the old anthropic trap

Humans you are so full of yourselves
as if only Earth exists... space huh? what's that???

Do you realise the "very unusual" conditions chemicals/reactions at ATP are in
not to mention the altered radiation pressures

AS an exercise collate Earth conditions
and then compare them to
(1) near a star
(2) open space
(3) deep space

There is nothing like any space conditions on Earth..... not anywhere !!!!
and you fill your test tubes and observe reactions in a bubble and think those enlightenments are universal

LOL, you human beings are DUMB

barakn

28th February 2008 - 09:13 PM

So you performed all your hydrogen peroxide experiments in space?

Anyway, I didn't expect an honest debate from you and didn't get one. You surely are one of the most useless humans on this planet.

BigDumbWeirdo

28th February 2008 - 09:16 PM

QUOTE (barakn+Feb 28 2008, 04:13 PM)

Anyway, I didn't expect an honest debate from you and didn't get one. You surely are one of the most useless humans on this planet.

Don't you read his posts? He apparently thinks he's not human.

calebthechemist

28th February 2008 - 10:42 PM

QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 26 2008, 08:45 PM)

So you just described how to get the hydroxyl radical from water if water isn't stable in space and "unnatural" then where is it coming from.

QUOTE

and of course in the cosmic cold places the condensation product of -OH is H2O2.
This is reasonably stable, breaking down on occasions to transient H2O then back to -OH again....... and that has been happening since the beginning...forever

Water CAN NOT ACCUMULATE, it is an unnatural molecule

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

So you have just described how water can be formed "naturally" by the decomposition of H202 yet contend that it is unnatural. You are also stating that H202 is stable in space in large amounts but for some "magic" reason water is not. That makes absolutely no sense.

All the "snow" seen on cosmic bodies/comets etc is H2O2/CO2 and whatever
but no permanent water, transient traces at the most

some moons have geysers, where H2O2 is decomposing squirting transient water and oxygen.... these breakdown products are quickly split back to -OH via the cosmic chemistry outlined above.

The chemistry of space IS NOT the chemistry of Earth

Why? Does something magically change in space.

Corvidae

29th February 2008 - 12:05 AM

QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 26 2008, 06:26 PM)

No, the methodology is quite different,

I realize it's a different method. I would just figure comparing the visible luminosity of multiple stars from say Hubble and Mauna Kea should give a more accurate estimate of atmospheric pollutants.

Or even shooting a laser or known light source between orbit and the ground should give readable absorption bands and luminosity readings. Giving not only composition, but the density of the intervening particles. Just why bother with a laser/light source set up, when we've got a billion point sources with known values all around us.

The biggest bonus of course being that you don't have to wait years between eclipses to get a reading.

adoucette

29th February 2008 - 12:39 AM

It would appear that the difference in this technique is that the light bounced off the moon on a lunar eclipse has traversed through SIGNIFICANTLY more atmosphere, thus enhancing the signal to noise ratio and also avoiding issues with site pollution vs an average atmospheric pollution.

See; http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2008/25fe...ju4hsuc8tuo8fn3

Consider the implications of doing it this way, vs the readings you wouuld get via a telescope.

Arthur

Corvidae

29th February 2008 - 04:59 AM

QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 29 2008, 12:39 AM)

It would appear that the difference in this technique is that the light bounced off the moon on a lunar eclipse has traversed through SIGNIFICANTLY more atmosphere,

Granted the atmospheric sample is much larger. I would just think the noise caused by the uneven reflection/refraction of the moon would make for a very low accuracy.

With the number of satellites we have in orbit it probably wouldn't be hard to get some pretty big swaths across selected depths of the atmosphere by going from satellite to satellite. Maybe we need to start launching them all with signal mirrors? Or at the least, polish the back of the solar panels.

adoucette

29th February 2008 - 04:49 PM

QUOTE (Corvidae+Feb 28 2008, 11:59 PM)

Granted the atmospheric sample is much larger. I would just think the noise caused by the uneven reflection/refraction of the moon would make for a very low accuracy.

I'd say it would have just the opposite effect.

By averaging so much of the atmosphere, it would tend to give a more accurate value for the AVERAGE opacity of the atmosphere.

Arthur

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.