Folding Forum

Flathead74 wrote:ahem, if I read alancabler's post correctly, that's .28%, not 28%.

point-two-eight%

not

twenty eight %



For .28%, I think that many will find the risks of running Folding@home to be acceptable, in view of the rewards.

That's right. .28%. Less than 1/3 of 1 %. That's the sum total of all of mankind's contribution to all greenhouse gases. Cow burps and all.

Feel like being taxed to pieces for that tiny amount? Get ready for it...

Ahavi wrote:...the general problem isn't because of the CO2 that is in the current ecosystem, it is a problem when you add more CO2 to the ecosystem that hasn't been in our ecosystem for millions of years. Problems emerge.

Just what is the problem? Who is to say that we have a clue about the "optimum" CO2 level or temperature? Some politician who has an agenda and has been getting rich from his GW promotions? And tells us that "the debate is over" when there are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree?

I think all humans are responsible for their part.

That's right. If there is a price we pay for everything we think and do, then there has to be a price for being a wastrel.
But what is unrighteous waste and what is right- use of resources?
None condemn the eagle for the fish.

PS: I am sure you could find some site that has somehow found out that everything which is generally considered bad for the environment is actually good, that we contribute only to 1‰ of the global enviromnent or something like that so you can keep going the way you do.

That's right. You can find many sites that say those things... and a whole lot of peer-reviewed research as well. NASA just released (yet another) report that states that the biosphere is more robust and healthy than they've observed before. Plants thrive on increased CO2. Mother Nature is having a field day! The Earth is Greening

Edit: And for the information I consider F@H as a hobby of mine. I have it installed on many machines, running 24/7 and I'm maintaining 1800-3000 generally. I do it since my country has like 98% renewable energy.

Good job! Keep it up! ( Are you in Denmark?)

Why did you start a new thread? We already have 4 threads about environmental impact...

EDIT: Nevermind, I see where Bruce told you to start a new thread. Seems like arguing against FAH is a bigger waste of electricity than just running FAH. If you feel that strongly, maybe the best thing to do would be to shut off your computers.

Greetings Ahavi,

Maybe others didn't know about the FAH and the environment thread and suggested that you start this one.
May I suggest that we move this discussion into that thread and keep it going?

Contrary to opinions that this subject does not need to be debated in this forum, I believe that it does, since the topic comes up repeatedly and can potentially affect F@h. Over time, a body of information and links will grow and donors will be better able to make up their own minds as to whether FAH harms or helps our world. Whenever the topic comes up in another thread, it could be moved. Non-FAH discussions should mean what it says.

Foldingforum.org is visited by one of the best mixes of scientific neophytes, enthusiasts and bonafide experts that can be found anywhere on the web. This topic is of such great importance that it might even deserve its own forum header.

It is apparent to many interested people that "the debate is over" sentiment is a fallacious and often self- serving claim made by those promoting their agenda. The debate has never really occurred. In fact, there have been a great number of documented attempts to suppress any information or debate which deviates from the "it's all our fault" party line. (Yes, I can supply many links to back up these statements, if needed).

Folding donors have devoted time and treasure in order to discover the truths of important aspects of our physical world. Aren't we also interested in expanding that search for scientific truth when our folding efforts might potentially be affected by political decree or public opinion?

Just what is the problem? Who is to say that we have a clue about the "optimum" CO2 level or temperature? Some politician who has an agenda and has been getting rich from his GW promotions? And tells us that "the debate is over" when there are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree?

I'm not saying there is an optimum CO2 level. I'm saying it has been relatively stable before we started interfering by adding CO2 from a whole 'nother time. When this changes too fast you might have some changes you don't like. How about the UN's climate panel? If you mean Al Gore, which I suppose you do, you don't have to base everything on a single person's thoughts. I don't know if you do, but a lot of people mention him in these discussions.

That's right. If there is a price we pay for everything we think and do, then there has to be a price for being a wastrel.
But what is unrighteous waste and what is right- use of resources?
None condemn the eagle for the fish.

Unrighteous: non energy-efficient use of appliances would be unrighteous, energy-efficient appliances would be righteous (literally).

That's right. You can find many sites that say those things... and a whole lot of peer-reviewed research as well. NASA just released (yet another) report that states that the biosphere is more robust and healthy than they've observed before. Plants thrive on increased CO2. Mother Nature is having a field day! The Earth is Greening

That sounds likely. But many might not catch up with the relatively rapid temperature changes that we have ahead. Survival of the fittest, I guess. Should we keep going the way we do when there could be many consequences followed by it by the general theory of cause/effects, betting on the side that says things are great?

Ahavi wrote:I'm not saying there is an optimum CO2 level. I'm saying it has been relatively stable before we started interfering by adding CO2 from a whole 'nother time.

Actually, you are saying that, by default. The whole GW theory is built on the premise that there is an optimum CO2 level (and global temperature) and that we have altered that level. Atmospheric CO2 content has never been "stable", or steady state. We know that periods of earth's history had CO2 rates greater than 12,000 ppm vs today's 384ppm, just as the global temperature is cyclical and ever- changing.

How about the UN's climate panel?

The UN is a political body, not a scientific one. The pronouncements by the IPCC were negotiated in committee which should give you a clue about their scientific relevance. The IPCC listed something like edit: 2,500 scientists, most of which have nothing to do with climate sciences, vs the 31,000+ scientist opposed to the IPCC which I linked, and which list does include the real, actual top- names/heavy- hitters in the Earth Sciences. Over a hundred of the "scientists' listed by the IPCC have withdrawn their endorsements and said in effect "don't you dare attach my name to this junk". That should give you another hint.

The IPCC has a stated goal to "take money from developed countries to give to under-developed countries to help them cope with global warming". You will notice that this scheme does nothing to "reduce" global warming, but is instead, a huge transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor ones. Or more accurately, it's taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.

If you mean Al Gore, which I suppose you do, you don't have to base everything on a single person's thoughts. I don't know if you do, but a lot of people mention him in these discussions.

I definitely include Al Gore and he definitely is getting rich from this, but I meant to lump a lot of (most) other GW mouthpieces into that as well. It's been said that "GW deniers" (notice the newspeak tactic of calling them "deniers") are all in the pay of the big greedy oil companies. I submit that the opposite is even more true. Without jumping on the GW bandwagon, a lot of the theory's proponents wouldn't get grant money or even have a job.

But many might not catch up with the relatively rapid temperature changes that we have ahead. Survival of the fittest, I guess. Should we keep going the way we do when there could be many consequences followed by it by the general theory of cause/effects, betting on the side that says things are great?

By many, I suppose you mean "plants". Most plants grow faster w/higher CO2 and are better able to withstand adverse conditions such as drought, poor soil and insect predation. The only known exceptions (so far) are some old-growth timber in Tropical surroundings which are out- competed by younger rivals, and certain classes of tundra plants which researchers feared would be harmed because they were still growing vigorously when they should have been starting to die back for winter. Longer term studies have shown the fears to be unwarranted as the plants renew each year with even greater vigor.

If we are responsible for warming the planet, how have we also warmed Mars and Jupiter and Uranus?
If we are responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2 by 3%, how is it that total CO2 has gone up by 4%? We know that carbon sequestration by plants is going on at an unprecedented rate, yet CO2 goes up. The answer is that the oceans store the greatest amount of CO2, and that warming the oceans releases CO2 at a faster rate. Warming first, then CO2 release, not the other way around.

By the way, there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, the globe has even cooled a bit since then. Guess what... the Sun has stopped its unusually high (and cyclical, as usual) output and has even become calm enough to stop making sunspots for the past 2 years. Maybe that's why last year was the coolest year in decades and the Arctic regions refroze to greater than average extent last winter...

Ps Notice that I didn't add links (I can and will, if necessary).
Never, not even once in all of these discussions has a GW proponent provided a single link supporting their claims. They can't win the argument with "facts", so they usually just throw a fit, call names, shoot flames and leave. Please don't do like they have done... back up anything you can with facts and keep hanging in there.
By the way- there is a well- known $500,000 prize for proving that man is causing Global Warming.
There have been no takers.

I strongly suggest reading John Crichton's book State of Fear

http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michae ... 0066214130

Some of the people trying to protect the environment are actually doing more harm than the big polluting industrialists because they are acting on blind faith that green is better instead of acting on hard facts.

One only has to review the history of Yellowstone National Park in the US. Yellowstone National Park is slowly being destroyed. The Park Service's preservationist policies have driven most of the native wildlife from the park, while allowing some animals to propagate far beyond the land's capacity to sustain them. This is meticulously documented, showing how easily science can be subverted by politics and ideology. Surprisingly (to some), environmentalists are implicated in the destruction. There are a multitude of organizations that have made a religion of protecting the environment, while ignoring the fundamental question of man's place in nature.

Thanks 7im,
You are exactly right, and thanks for that great link to Michael Crichton.

The Law of Unintended Consequences definitely comes into play.

For instance: it is well known that environmental laws designed to protect certain species of woodpecker in Southeastern US pine forests have had the opposite effect. The Law states that privately owned forests containing the old pines preferred by the woodpeckers can't be timbered after the woodpeckers move in.
The actual result is that all old trees have been removed, and the forests are even being timbered before optimum harvest time. The tree farmers figure it's better to lose a little profit on growing trees rather than lose all they have as the Gov't would make it impossible to harvest any trees after the birds move in. There is even some evidence that the birds are being shot on sight. Not too hard to see that this would be the case...

By the way, the Environmentalists' timber law cited is unconstitutional under the "Takings" clause, but Constitutionality has ceased to be a concern of the Government over the governed (us), and there are way too many examples of that statement to quote here...

Actually, you are saying that, by default. The whole GW theory is built on the premise that there is an optimum CO2 level (and global temperature) and that we have altered that level. Atmospheric CO2 content has never been "stable", or steady state. We know that periods of earth's history had CO2 rates greater than 12,000 ppm vs today's 384ppm, just as the global temperature is cyclical and ever- changing.

The earth has had its ups and down when it comes to milenniums (e.g ice ages), and ups and downs in decades. It isn't a question whether this happens or not, it is a question of how much is natural, and how much is influenced by us. An increasing rate of it comes from our influence . It is not very relevant that the earth has been much hotter (16-17C° higher than our current average). The problem is how the temperature changes will affect us, and with the pase of them evolution can't keep up.

By many, I suppose you mean "plants". Most plants grow faster w/higher CO2 and are better able to withstand adverse conditions such as drought, poor soil and insect predation. The only known exceptions (so far) are some old-growth timber in Tropical surroundings which are out- competed by younger rivals, and certain classes of tundra plants which researchers feared would be harmed because they were still growing vigorously when they should have been starting to die back for winter. Longer term studies have shown the fears to be unwarranted as the plants renew each year with even greater vigor.

I don't see why they should not, it is logical. But the case is still that many plant and animal species won't have time to adapt, giving us unwanted consequences. I'll have to find a good source for this, but I've read it a few places in the past. Not that it is much of an argument but I just read in the paper that locally here, we've seen a lot of dead moss due to higher average temperatures.

If we are responsible for warming the planet, how have we also warmed Mars and Jupiter and Uranus?
If we are responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2 by 3%, how is it that total CO2 has gone up by 4%? We know that carbon sequestration by plants is going on at an unprecedented rate, yet CO2 goes up. The answer is that the oceans store the greatest amount of CO2, and that warming the oceans releases CO2 at a faster rate. Warming first, then CO2 release, not the other way around.

Yes, the increasing temperature leads to further consequences when you heat up the ocean, permafrost etc. Not good. But we're playing a bigger part in being weathermakers. Also, currently we are responsible for 27% of the CO2 in the atmosphere right now [http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JD03410.shtml], and we're increasing it by 0,5 percentage points/yr [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/].

By the way, there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, the globe has even cooled a bit since then. Guess what... the Sun has stopped its unusually high (and cyclical, as usual) output and has even become calm enough to stop making sunspots for the past 2 years. Maybe that's why last year was the coolest year in decades and the Arctic regions refroze to greater than average extent last winter...

I'm not surprised. It's not like there aren't natural processes, after all the sun is heating the earth (and we're trapping the heat somewhat). I'm saying humans are increasing our influence on the global temperature, not controlling it. By capturing more heat to our planet we are setting the average temperature up.

By the way- there is a well- known $500,000 prize for proving that man is causing Global Warming. There have been no takers.

No kidding. I'm sure scientists on this forum can say good science doesn't work by prooving things. A good scientist should continiously try to find flaws in his theory, not ever call it evidence. It's like saying "I don't belive in evolution because it is just a theory" or not sending up sattelites because you don't trust the theory of relativity.

Edit: I wonder if they're having this discussion on http://www.climateprediction.net.

Hello Ahavi,
First, thanks for the links. Unfortunately the first link doesn't work w/out a subscription.

Ahavi wrote: we are responsible for 27% of the CO2 in the atmosphere right now

You apparently moved a decimal point. That 27% assertion is way off (no one makes that high of a claim)...
Mankind's total CO2 contribution is usually given as around 2.x%-4.x%, so 2.7% would be right. I've often quoted and linked to a site giving 3% avg.
Your NOAA link gives man's contributions around 5%, which is among upper-end estimates, so seems reasonable.

...it is a question of how much is natural, and how much is influenced by us. An increasing rate of it comes from our influence.

Again, we are contributing less than 1/3 of 1% to all greenhouse gases.
That's an increased rate due to our influence, but where's the fire?
Can an increase that small on a system as complex as our climate have a catastrophic effect?

It is not very relevant that the earth has been much hotter (16-17C° higher than our current average).The problem is how the temperature changes will affect us, and with the pase of them evolution can't keep up.

It's generally accepted that the earth has warmed about 1°F (1/3°C) since shortly after the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850), and that small 1°F increase is what has been causing all of the concern.

The whole Global Warming Theory revolves around the claim that man is responsible for all of that 1/3°C increase.
FWIW, that 1/3°C increase has just about been wiped out as the earth has cooled in the past couple of years (Temps leveled off and began a slight decline since 1998). The decline in temps has been attributed to a decline in solar activity.
Does that tell you anything?

A 16-17C°increase would be catastrophic, but how much increase would be harmless, or even beneficial?
Who can determine what is the optimum temp. for the biosphere?

We know that England was a grape/wine producing country during the Medieval Warm Period, that Greenland had Viking settlements which practiced agriculture and that there were settlements (under what is now ice) in the Alps. Civilization has always thrived when the temperatures were higher than they are now, and has declined when it was colder.

But the case is still that many plant and animal species won't have time to adapt, giving us unwanted consequences.

That must be your major concern, as it is with just about everybody. We don't want to be involved in wholesale destruction of the biosphere.

Remember that the biosphere is known to be thriving in the climate as it is now. We think that the slight warming and increase of atmospheric CO2 are probably responsible for the increased lushness of the biosphere. That's a bad thing? Which species haven't been able to keep up?

We have no idea when average temps will rise to the point that the biosphere begins to decline.
We do know that average temps have recently (millenial scale) been a lot higher than they are now.
We certainly don't want to drive up temps at a rate that causes harm, but no one has been able to prove that we can have an effect large enough to cause a change significantly different than naturally occurring processes.
Despite what a bunch of politicians tell us, we just don't know.

I'll have to find a good source for this, but I've read it a few places in the past. Not that it is much of an argument but I just read in the paper that locally here, we've seen a lot of dead moss due to higher average temperatures.

Has anyone confirmed that the moss is dying due to increased temps? Could there be another cause, or are the claims merely anecdotal? Plants from the tropics to the tundra have been shown to be thriving under recent conditions.

Where's "around here"?
Around here (Oklahoma City), my lawn thinks it should be a jungle, and grows at an aggravating rate.

I'm sure scientists on this forum can say good science doesn't work by prooving things

I don't understand what you are saying.

A good scientist should continiously try to find flaws in his theory, not ever call it evidence.

And thus, this discussion.
Since we agree that science should try to find answers, to what extent should we trust any group of politicians who assert that their claims cannot be challenged?

Ahavi wrote:It's like saying "I don't belive in evolution because it is just a theory" ...

Don't get anyone started on that old topic. It starts to make me afraid that I might fall off the face of the earth because I don't believe in the theory of gravity.

Plant a tree and ride your mountain bike often.
Its a lot of fun and helps the environment, not to mention less beer belly for the ladies to see.

7im wrote:

Ahavi wrote:It's like saying "I don't belive in evolution because it is just a theory" ...

Don't get anyone started on that old topic. It starts to make me afraid that I might fall off the face of the earth because I don't believe in the theory of gravity.

Just looking at your pic- you might want to start believing in evolution.

/ducks

very funny

You apparently moved a decimal point. That 27% assertion is way off (no one makes that high of a claim)...
Mankind's total CO2 contribution is usually given as around 2.x%-4.x%, so 2.7% would be right. I've often quoted and linked to a site giving 3% avg.
Your NOAA link gives man's contributions around 5%, which is among upper-end estimates, so seems reasonable

Ok. That's what Wikipedia said anyway. I'll take your word for "(no one makes that high of a claim).".

Again, we are contributing less than 1/3 of 1% to all greenhouse gases.
That's an increased rate due to our influence, but where's the fire?
Can an increase that small on a system as complex as our climate have a catastrophic effect?

Supposedly. Human activity has contributed at least 20% of what is estimated for the past 650.000 years globally. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5752/1313 vol 310, p 1313–1317. I guess the problem might not be just what we contribute, but the domino effect it might cause. Say we release humense ammounts of CO2 as followed by increased CO2 releases by humans, should we consider that human releases or natural releases?

It's generally accepted that the earth has warmed about 1°F (1/3°C) since shortly after the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850), and that small 1°F increase is what has been causing all of the concern.

The whole Global Warming Theory revolves around the claim that man is responsible for all of that 1/3°C increase.
FWIW, that 1/3°C increase has just about been wiped out as the earth has cooled in the past couple of years (Temps leveled off and began a slight decline since 1998). The decline in temps has been attributed to a decline in solar activity.
Does that tell you anything?

No, it has gone up 0,8C since 1900 avg. I guess that's where the concern is, and what we have in store for further heating because of the heating. I don't deny that it has cooled as followed by natural events such as solar activity, but the average temperature is still rising.



Global temperature. Axes are not labelled in order to keep the diagram language neutral; x-axis: year (1900–2004), y-axis: global temperature in °C. The black line is the annual global mean. The red line is the 10-year running mean. The grey area is the 95% confidence interval of the same data, calculated for the 50 years up to and including each year's measurement.
The diagram illustrates several aspects of global warming, the most obvious of which is the increase in mean temperature. However, also the confidence interval has increased both in value (i.e., warmer climate) and in width (i.e., more variable temperature). Periods of rapid change are characterised by many measurements falling outside the confidence intervals. Two such periods can be identified: the late 30's / early 40's, and from the 80's to today. Temperature increase in those periods is due to anthropogenous effects, according to the IPCC.

Source: graph drawn by Hanno using data published on the web by P.D. Jones, D.E. Parker, T.J. Osborn & K.R. Briffa (2005) as "Global and hemispheric temperature anomalies – land and marine instrumental records". In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. [http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/j ... ones.htmli]

That must be your major concern, as it is with just about everybody. We don't want to be involved in wholesale destruction of the biosphere.

Remember that the biosphere is known to be thriving in the climate as it is now. We think that the slight warming and increase of atmospheric CO2 are probably responsible for the increased lushness of the biosphere. That's a bad thing? Which species haven't been able to keep up?

We have no idea when average temps will rise to the point that the biosphere begins to decline.
We do know that average temps have recently (millenial scale) been a lot higher than they are now.
We certainly don't want to drive up temps at a rate that causes harm, but no one has been able to prove that we can have an effect large enough to cause a change significantly different than naturally occurring processes.
Despite what a bunch of politicians tell us, we just don't know.

I'm unsure about that statement, can you provide a source for the temperature the ecosystem can handle? As for what species haven't been keeping up? What about coral reefs (indirectly), birds, fish moving north (e.g in Norway we'll stop seing normal cod or something and start seeing mediteranian fish here). What about this? http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/36390 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory ... /story.htm

Also, I live in Norway. I'm pretty sure they said it was because of generally higher temperatures, but the paper was weeks ago, I don't have it anymore. What about National Geographic? News generally, books? Are they all polticians?

Globam warning should not be the only topic. We should not let global warming blind other problems, such as nuclear waste, acid raid and air pollution.