shopping cart CART ITEMS: -
| CHECKOUT
Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now

A REALLY Inconvenient Truth: Dan Miller

73
Likes
1
Dislikes
RATE
93,257 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

Page 2 of 12 1 2 34 Last »
Stephen Pare Avatar
Stephen Pare
Posts: 23
Posted: 10.11.10, 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by morbshock
Because this is a bogus religion and if the so called scientists were to tell the truth, they would not get millions upon millions of dollars in project funding.
All those millionaire scientists are going to be pissed that you said that. Boy, I wish I'd studied physics, I'd be stinking rich now.
Permalink
AntiOligarch Avatar
AntiOligarch
Posts: 5
Posted: 06.27.10, 11:44 PM
What a sick lot of scumbags?
Your business is population control.
Squeeze the naive and innocent out of life to satisfy your perverted appetite.
Control freaks leading by deception.
You're all going to end up in jail for your fraudulent science and your crimes against humanity.
Permalink
DannyAstro Avatar
DannyAstro
Posts: 21
Posted: 06.01.10, 10:01 PM
back2basics:

I have not heard of using vortexes for geo-engineering so I can't comment on them. I don't believe that was mentioned in the Royal Society's recent report on geo-engineering.

Energy requirements are usually not an overriding concern for geo-engineering. "Smoke in the atmosphere" doesn't use a lot of energy relative to its effect on the atmosphere. Air capture could use coal power and it would only lose around 20% of its effectiveness, and biochar actually generates energy as a bi-product!

I think peak-oil is real and recent reports place it around 2014! It will generally have a positive effect on climate change since a high price for oil will made alternatives such as renewables (and electric cars) more cost competitive. It won't do good thinks for the economy, though. So, as someone else said, we should leave oil before it leaves us.

Saul Griffith's talk (also on FORA.tv) does a good job of explaining how much dirty energy can "spend" and how we better use it to create the new low-carbon economy.
Permalink
back2basics Avatar
back2basics
Posts: 1
Posted: 06.01.10, 12:31 PM
Dan, I have a couple comments.

First, in your discussion of geo-engineering I was surprised that you didn't mention vortex research. I heard about the concept in Ode Magazine. A guy by the name of Jay Harman talks about using the natural properties of vortexes (the natural way water and air move) to bring the atmosphere back into balance. It would be interesting if you could weigh in on this (even though you are probably not an expert on this type of science).

Second, I wanted to point out that this presentation, in keeping with other similar types of climate-change-only talks never brought up the concept of peak oil/energy decline or the concept of net energy or even net environmental impact (particularly when you talk about geo-engineering ideas that obviously have drastic energy requirements, like building giant carbon air filters). It seems to me that this issue is completely avoided in such talks. Even Al Gore doesn't talk about it.

I want to know, do you think that Peak Oil (and the reason Peak Oil versus coal or gas or other fossil fuel source is because petroleum is the fuel source with the most amount of energy per unit of volume and in which every facet of our modern lives currently depends on, either directly or indirectly) is a legitimate concern?
Permalink
DannyAstro Avatar
DannyAstro
Posts: 21
Posted: 04.26.10, 02:46 AM
Most of the proposed geo-engineering solutions would "work". The question is what are the side effects? Some, like reforestation and biochar probably don't have very bad side effects besides cost.

The "side effect" of doing nothing may be collapse of civilization or worse, so that may not be a good choice.
Permalink
Moniks Avatar
Moniks
Posts: 1
Posted: 04.25.10, 04:29 PM
Eyjafjallajokull did this for us. Man screws up -- nature retaliates ferociously. We have not been able to take care of the earth....what makes us think geo engineering is going to work. Just another experiment, but we are living inside that test tube!
Permalink
isntthatamazing Avatar
isntthatamazing
Posts: 1
Posted: 04.23.10, 11:39 AM
Thank you so much Dan.
Permalink
RMatey Avatar
RMatey
Posts: 3
Posted: 04.22.10, 01:37 PM
Wonder who the idiot mouthing off at the end is. It's sad because my wife and I are wanting to start a family but we aren't sure that it would be fair to bring a child into a world like this.
Permalink
DannyAstro Avatar
DannyAstro
Posts: 21
Posted: 03.27.10, 11:22 AM
Warm air holds more moisture than cool air, so their is more humidity even without sea level rise (and this is why it snows more in warm winters than in cold winters!). Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas so this ends up warming the earth even more. Now, your point is that more water vapor would lead to more clouds and this will reflect light, leading to cooling. While everyone hoped this would be a dominant effect, it hasn't turned out to be a factor that can counter the overall warming. Cloud variability is certainly already included in climate models.

The sun has an 11 year sunspot cycle and it's output varies a little bit over that cycle. It's effect is about +/-10% of the warming we have seen so far. 2010 is on track to be the warmest year since temperatures were measured even though the sun is currently near the bottom of its cycle (i.e., solar energy reaching the earth is lower than normal).
Permalink
lookintothedetails Avatar
lookintothedetails
Posts: 1
Posted: 03.27.10, 07:40 AM
Here is my provocative message:
I hear all this global warming bla bla - but in all honesty even this presenter has a big flaw in his presentation.
Ice is melting - sea level rises - dark water absorbs sun - ice reflects sun =====> Global warming and we are cooked !

Now think simple. ice melts - flows into the sea - sea level rises - more water surface on earth and warmer - (?) - more water evaporates - more humidity -===> more clouds (?) - clouds are white and very effectively reflect sun light.

..another one is that the solar wind and sun energy is fluctiating and has an incredible impact on our planet - again this is not even mentioned.

2 flaws, right ?

So why are those global warming experts missing on a simple physical effect ??

This at least for me diminishes all of those people's credibility - one day is somebody can pull all those depencies together and come up with a logic story i am buying into it - until then i suggest to forget this half-science.

Having said all this - there is NO question that man made global warming is not doing ANY good - so with or without solid expert knowledge - our world societies should develop towards renewable energies and sustainable economies. I doubt that we need the false information from Global warming enthusiasts to achieve this goal.
Permalink
Page 2 of 12 1 2 34 Last »
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
JOIN NOW >>

Recommended

Sylvia Earle on the Oceans Sylvia Earle on the Oceans
00:00:00 min | 1,911 Views
Green Buildings: Best Practices from Switzerland Green Buildings: Best Practices from Switzerland
00:04:07 min | 578 Views
Maya Lin's 'What Is Missing' Maya Lin's 'What Is Missing'
00:31:42 min | 9,822 Views
Stewart Brand: Rethinking Green Stewart Brand: Rethinking Green
01:33:38 min | 37,653 Views
Food Security and Climate Change Food Security and Climate Change
01:37:01 min | 8,028 Views

Get Our Free Newsletter

Advertisement