It's all over but for the sweating?

[freebeard]

I figured that we would asphyxiate...

It's certainly not a given. Worst case you'd have 'pores' all over the thing to exchange air; but look at the Old Man River project*. The dome is 1 mile across and the bottom edge is 500 feet above grade. The air moves through freely, but the mass inside is so great it can maintain it's own climate.

If something like that was next door, wouldn't you want to move? I'm sorry, but Phoenix is built all wrong. It needs to be replaced.

*Seriously, really look at it. Then look up Agorism.

Since some might not, I ran the text through Summarize by Paragraph set at about 20% and then cherry-picked what was left:

Having undertaken the solution by artifacts of the world’s great housing crisis, I came to regard the history of cities. Cities developed entirely before the thought of electricity or automobiles or before any of the millions of inventions registered in the United States Patent Office. For eminently mobile man, cities have become obsolete in terms of yesterday’s functions-warehousing both new and formerly manufactured goods and housing immigrant factory workers. Rebuilding them to accommodate the new needs of world man requires demolition of the old buildings and their replacement of the new and now obsolete real estate, streets, water and sewer lines, and yesterday’s no longer logical overall planning geometries. I sought to take on this challenge and developed plans for an entirely feasible and practical new way for humans to live together economically. Old Man River’s City is one such design.


....


The private-home terraces on the outward circular bank are subdivided by trees and bushes to isolate them one from the other. This garden-divided exterior terracing hides the individual private-home terraces from one another while permitting each an unobstructed view outward to the faraway landscape. Thus landscape-partitioned from one another, the individual homes beneath the umbrella dome do not need their own separate weather roofs. The experience will be that of living outdoors in the garden, without any chance of rain and out of sight and sound of other humans, yet being subconsciously aware that your own advantage is not at the expense of others, zonal advantage.


....


From the individual, external home terrace on the crater’s outer slopes one can see no humans other than those within one’s own family’s hometerrace domain. People can look outwardly, however, from Old Man River’s City as far as the eye can see at the interesting Mississippi River scenery outside the moon crater’s umbrella limits. The Old Man River City’s home views are analogous to those of individuals living in dwellings on mountainsides, such as those of residents on the hills of Hong Kong Island or those above Berkeley, California. Such hillside dwellers overlook vast, mysteriously inspiring scenic areas, ever-changing with the nights, days, and weather.


The total roof surface area of the one-mile-diameter, quarter-sphere dome is only 2 percent that of the total roof and exterior skin surface area of all the buildings standing on an equal ground area in any large conventional city. The amount of external shell surface through which each interior molecule of atmosphere can gain or lose heat is thus reduced by 98 percent. Another energy-conservation factor is operative, for every time we double the sphere’s diameter, we increase its surface by four and its volume by eight. Therefore, the energy efficiency doubles each time we double the dome size. This means that the structural efficiency, useful volume, and energy conservation are all at optimum in the Old Man River’s City project. Throughout the year Old Man River’s City will have a naturally mild climate. With a large, aerodynamically articulated, wind-and-weather-controlled ventilator system atop and round the dome, together with the 500-foot-high vertical opening that runs entirely around the city below the umbrella, the atmospheric controllability will guarantee fresh air as well as energy conservation. The umbrella will jut out above and beyond all the outer-slope residential terrace areas as does a grandstand roof, so that neither rain nor snow will drift horizontally inwardly, being blocked from doing so by the mass inertia of the vast quantity of atmosphere embraced by the umbrella as well as by the vertical mass of the crater’s cone within the dome.


Optimum efficiency also characterizes the way in which Old Man River’s City is to be produced. The three-and-a-half-mile circumferential moon crater and its terracing will be developed entirely with modern, high-speed, highway-building equipment and earth-moving techniques as well as with suspension-bridge-building and air-space technologies...The mammoth, 500-feet-high and 2000-feet-wide-based, A-frame-shaped, circumferential segments of the crater become highly repetitive and economically producible. There will be 100 columns rising from the A-frame tops at the crater’s top-rim esplanade. These 100 columns will be 500 feet high and will be spaced forty meters apart, mounted above the A-frames. The tops of the 100 columns will be 1000 feet high and will be capped by a circumferential ring.


The whole terraced crater structure, inside and out, will be of thin-wall reinforced concrete...The whole structure is, in effect, a circular, triangularly self-stabilizing, “suspension bridge”-principled, terraced, ferroconcrete bowl with the human occupants and their goods constituting only a small fraction of the stress loads of equimagnitude highway traffic bridges.


I said to the East St. Louisans at the outset that our first resolve must be not to compromise our design solution in order to qualify for any private foundation or government subsidy funds. Three-quarters of the United States national debt of almost $1 trillion and much of the private debt, which altogether transfers $25 billion a year “interest” from our nation’s pocketbooks to the banks and insurance companies, has been amassed through government building subsidies that were designed strictly as “money-makers” for bankers, real estate operators, and handcraft building-industry interests. The funds were not amassed in the interest of the individuals and the community. I advised the East St. Louisans that we must develop our design and its production and assembly logistics strictly in terms of the individual and the community’s best interests. I said that if we solve the human problem and do so in the most economical and satisfactory manner, independent of building codes, zoning restrictions, etc., while employing airspace technology, effectiveness, and safety, we will do that which no subsidized housing thus far has done.

....

At the outset meeting of our OMR’s City’s development, I told the East St. Louisans that I would develop the design and models at my own expense and do so without fee.
....

I have never engaged in a development that I have felt to have such promise for all humanity, while being, at the same time, so certain of realization, because its time is imminently at hand.

TL;DR:

These hazy photos are of a model showing the general layout of Old Man River’s City, a mile-diameter (1500 meter) megastructure providing the homes, workspaces, and recreation area for 125,000 people. The enormous dome is supported 1000 feet (3005 meters) above a “moon-crater” depression with a raised rim. The outer surface of the rim is terraced to provide 25,000 earth-sheltered garden homes, each with a view and a generous 2500 square feet (232.24 square meters) of floor area. The inner surface of the crater is terraced for communal use. Millions of square feet of commercial space share the hollowed-out earth of the crater’s rim with parking lots and services, Weather under the dome would always be pleasant despite the someti mes- unpleasant East St. Louis climate. (I have not seen the calculations for tornado resistance.)

This shows us Bucky the radical libertarian.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I'm coming up dry on that one. Is it a localism?

The term "Watermellon" is an insult used by skeptics to try and make the debate political in the mistaken belief that it makes their case more credible. It refers to "green on the outside, red on the inside". The political divide may be true in the US but it is much less so elsewhere.

For balance the term "denier" was originally used here.

Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

As I tapped earlier using either insult, or indeed any others says more about the source than the target.

[NeilBlanchard]

What is causing the Arctic ice to melt; if not higher temperatures? Why are virtually all glaciers around the world melting? Why is the ocean level rising? Why is the ocean more acidic?

Yes, methane and nitrous oxide are more insulating (by volume?) than is carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide comes from the water soluble nitrogen fertilizers and methane comes from fracking (about 9% of natural gas from gasfields leaks out into the air) and the largest animal source is termites - and a very large amount of methane is being released by the melting tundra (what used to be called "permafrost"). Why is it melting, I wonder?

The methane source that many people think of (cow farts) is actually largely caused by us feeding cows things they are not evolved to eat in our factory farms - when they eat grass (this is why they have FOUR stomachs) they don't get indigestion. And this is not adding "new" carbon to the atmosphere since it comes from food that was grown recently. The chemical fertilizers used to grow most food, on the other hand, are a big problem.

It is fossil methane that matters; the nitrous oxide comes from fertilizer made from natural gas, and the melting tundra is also increasing the GHC in the atmosphere. Both methane and nitrous oxide break down - into carbon dioxide among other things, and carbon dioxide is very stable and doesn't go away very quickly at all.

Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, and while a certain amount of carbon dioxide is required for our survival (about 270ppm was almost perfect!), we humans have been burning fossil fuels at a rapid rate and that has resulted in a huge increase in carbon dioxide, which is causing the overall warming trend. More insulation changes the balance in the climate.

Same goes for oxygen as for carbon dioxide - we require a certain amount to survive, but too much or too little will kill us.

We know that the burning of fossil fuels is the source of the carbon dioxide several ways: the level of oxygen is accounted for, the isotope (carbon 12) level can only come from "old" carbon, and the timing of the change is directly connected to humans burning fossil fuels.

The laws of physics cannot be denied.

[freebeard]

Arragonis -- What threw me was this from Google:

Showing results for watermelon
Search instead for watermellon

I assumed there was someone named Mellon involved.

I actually cracked it after I posted. Part of the problem is the dominant parties identify as Red and Blue. And once I found out they traded colors in the 40s, I can't remember which is which.

Agreed on your last point, but is 'anti-revisionist' any less judgmental than 'denier'?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

As I tapped earlier using either insult, or indeed any others says more about the source than the target.

How is either one an insult? Certainly there are plenty of green on the outside, red on the inside "watermelons" in the environmentalist ranks. Indeed, as an environmentalist of the libertarian variety, I'd say pretty much the entire Green Party grew on vines.

As for "denialist", what is it but an accurate description? When confronted with a) the fact that the laws of physics say global warming should happen; and b) overwhelming evidence showing that it is in fact happening pretty much as physics says it should be; they deny that it is happening.

Now you can't really call these people "skeptics", even though some would prefer the term, because their self-proclaimed skepticism is pretty darned selective, and turns into utter credulity when they come across anything seeming to contradict AGW.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

...

There are a lot of assertions in there with no supporting info. I've tried to put in links before but I'm not chasing yours.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The laws of physics cannot be denied.

I like what you did there . But my objection to the "hinted at" word still stands.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

How is either one an insult? Certainly there are plenty of green on the outside, red on the inside "watermelons" in the environmentalist ranks. Indeed, as an environmentalist of the libertarian variety, I'd say pretty much the entire Green Party grew on vines.

Up to you, I don't think making it political helps - but to each his/her/it's own. I'm a skeptic of the socialist variety myself. We are both political enigmas...

Originally Posted by jamesqf

As for "denialist", what is it but an accurate description? When confronted with a) the fact that the laws of physics say global warming should happen; and b) overwhelming evidence showing that it is in fact happening pretty much as physics says it should be; they deny that it is happening.

Now you can't really call these people "skeptics", even though some would prefer the term, because their self-proclaimed skepticism is pretty darned selective, and turns into utter credulity when they come across anything seeming to contradict AGW.

My issue is with the way the word was first used, which you haven't really addressed. There are alternatives available which don't have such a link, but again your choice which may speak volumes about you, or say nothing at all.

As for AGW - nope that isn't contended. If a person came on (as has happened in previous versions of this debate) and said there was no such thing as AGW and it was a big conspiracy, I would be arguing with them too.

In fact let's have a summary, just for fun :

Has the climate changed. Yep.

Has the world temperature increased. Yep. 0.8 DegC in the 20th century as far as we know. There are issues with the record and adjustments but it is the best we have. Making a global temp is an awesome undertaking, the people involved deserve all the support they need, but they also need to be more open - IMHO.

Does CO2 affect climate ? Yep. Maybe in ways we don't even know yet because we focus on others.

Does man create more CO2 ? Yep. That stuff about "volcanos making ore CO2 than us" is a nonsense smokescreen of rubbish.

Do man's other activities affect the climate ? Yep - we have cleared trees to make farmland, dammed or changed the courses of major rivers even connected seas together. We have even removed mountains to make mines for things we can only make into jewelry or store in bank vaults - how mad is that ?

When mankind moves into a wilderness it never improves it.

Has man's creation of CO2 contributed to warming ? Probably, it won't have reduced it any. But then again how much given it has been warmer and colder before ?

So what is being "denied" ? Well it is the missing C in front of AGW - "Catastrophic", or even the sometimes used D for "Dangerous". So lets go with those questions :


Are today's temperatures unusual ? Maybe, we don't know. History suggests not - at least on a questionable local level (MWP / LIA). More open science please.

Has CO2 been higher ? Yep.

Has CO2 been lower ? Yep.

Does CO2 drive temperature ? Maybe. "Basic physics" says yes but evidence suggests only maybe. It also suggests strongly that CO2 follows temp. Needs more open research IMHO.

But what about the 20th Century Rise ? Well it could be CO2 from the Industrial Revolution or it could be warming from the end of the LIA or it could be a combination of both.

But what about the "Pause ?" Well you tell me ? Scientists said when the pause started in 1997 that 16 years would be the limit before the models would be invalid. They chose the start and the parameters, so are the models now invalid ?

OK so what to do ? Thats the nub of the gist here.

Following the precautionary principle seems obvious, but that has a huge opportunity cost.

In the short term we will run our economies into the ground trying to cut CO2 which won't happen anyway - did anyone notice Kyoto is now dead and Carbon Credits are worth less than the ink used to make them ?

In the medium to long term we will ensure that those in the developing world will not advance because we won't let them have cheap energy - that means kids like some of us here have in our own homes - becoming sick and possibly losing their lives to simple, treatable conditions we take for granted. So your kids are going to live, theirs are less likely to. They will continue to have more of them and if some of them live they will need more land to support themselves, which reduces land for wildlife etc.

On the other hand we could focus on learning what is happening and going to happen, and mitigate for it. We could potentially save millions of lives, billions of £s / $s, reduce our impact on nature and stabilise the population.

In any case mitigation may work, prevention (by the original post here) is not going to.

So take your choice folks - cut CO2 and feel good about it and ignore those "others who will probably die, including kids" or decide to do something else.

It is your choice really.

They don't have one.

I'm done here - good luck.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I actually cracked it after I posted. Part of the problem is the dominant parties identify as Red and Blue. And once I found out they traded colors in the 40s, I can't remember which is which.

Red tends (internationally) to be the colour of socialism which was the original meaning. Green means, well, green as in environmentalist activist such as a member of the WWF or Greenpeace or the Green party.

It is of course media-activist created nonsense - not every green is a socialist and not every environmentalist is a socialist and not every skeptic is a conservative and not every conservative thinks "drill baby drill" is a good idea - remix and repeat as required.

If you see "denier", "flat-earther", "fearmonger", "alarmist" or "watermellon" in a posting about CAGW on a science site or a science blog close the tab and move on.

I've not used any of these words in regard to anyone else here and won't ever.

Originally Posted by freebeard

Agreed on your last point, but is 'anti-revisionist' any less judgmental than 'denier'?

Slightly confused - anti revisionist ?

Historical revisionism is essentially a posh way of saying "holocaust denier".

It is too narrow an interpretation IMHO - "historical revisionism" is legitimate in some respects - for example it is valid to revisit the reasons behind the American Civil War, or it's impacts and aftermath, or the causes of WW1 or why South American countries gained independence when they did. All of these are subjects of books on my Christmas list in 2012. And all of them further knowledge and challenge accepted ideas.

Holocaust Denial is something deeper and more evil - usually linked to modern anti semitism or racism in some way or other. Holocaust denial is disgusting, the idea that the deaths of 6-7 million innocent people was faked is just crap. If anyone had any doubts at all, a simple skim of "Mein Kampf", some of his speeches or even this book will confirm it.

An Anti-revisionist would be someone who is against this, therefore they would not be a "denier" - a "confessor" ?

The original use of the term "denier" in the AGW debate (see quote above) was a deliberate or perhaps clumsy attempt to link those who didn't agree with AGW / CAGW with that idea. It was a low hit and the writer didn't do any more pieces for the Globe.

I find it offensive as I live in a mixed race household - one of us is white english and one is Indian, and we have a son who is a mix obviously. We've faced racism once or twice as have members of our extended family. Sometimes it has been deliberate and sometimes just casual.

Better words exist, and ones which create more light than heat. Skeptic is one, contrarian I'm fine with, or maybe something else.

Anyway I'm done with this topic now.

[freebeard]

B-b-b-but aren't we all red on the inside, or at least pink?

Slightly confused - anti revisionist ?

A term compounded as a retort to You-know-what Denier.

It's always interesting when no subject is off the table, except for one. You are welcome to any opinions you may have about our Civil War. Not that I was there, but I'm starting to suspect that the Bolsheviks were rolling for the Atlantic coast, when Mr. H. met them half-way in Poland.

In fact let's have a summary, just for fun :

You did that pretty well.

Following the precautionary principle seems obvious, but that has a huge opportunity cost.

And that is profoundly true. Should we burn the petroleum for fuel, or to make plastics so we don't ever need fuel again?

But I still don't trust that Mellon family.

NeilBlanchard -- Thanks for pointing the finger of suspicion at the termites. They've been getting off too easy for too long.

[radioranger]

Man you guys are good!! my theory is most of the new age enviromentalists want every one to change but them , they are being reactionary to the huge illegal immigrant population that is changing their world and clamoring for the same wealth and conspicuous consumption Hollywood glorifies.Sad thing is they dont even know it , believe me they dont want democracy because they know they'll soon be outnumbered.get in place all the rules you can now before it's too late. set up the gov't so laws are made by regulators who can never be fired and make all elections just fashion shows, hey we are there already !