Comments for Dark Optimism http://www.darkoptimism.org A better future for a troubled world Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:45:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Comment on Stoneleigh’s peak oil/finance talk at the Transition Conference by André Angelantoni http://www.darkoptimism.org/2010/06/15/my-conference-shaun-chamberlin-on-stoneleighs-peak-oilfinance-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-17344 André Angelantoni Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:45:41 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=2153#comment-17344 Clive, I've only skimmed his book in the past but my impression was that MacKay does not have a grasp of the depression that I believe we are heading into now. This will hinder and in many places completely stop renewable energy projects. Further, I don't know if he asserts that it can be done, but if he believes that we can run our civilization like we do now simply by swapping out fossil fuel sources for renewables, I don't think that's possible. There is a good series currently on The Oil Drum that deals with this. I know that in many circles this is a heretical statement but I believe it's true. Contraction is in our future and we'd best start adapting to it, in my view. Best, André Clive, I’ve only skimmed his book in the past but my impression was that MacKay does not have a grasp of the depression that I believe we are heading into now. This will hinder and in many places completely stop renewable energy projects.

Further, I don’t know if he asserts that it can be done, but if he believes that we can run our civilization like we do now simply by swapping out fossil fuel sources for renewables, I don’t think that’s possible. There is a good series currently on The Oil Drum that deals with this. I know that in many circles this is a heretical statement but I believe it’s true.

Contraction is in our future and we’d best start adapting to it, in my view.

Best,
André

]]> Comment on Stoneleigh’s peak oil/finance talk at the Transition Conference by Clive Nicholson http://www.darkoptimism.org/2010/06/15/my-conference-shaun-chamberlin-on-stoneleighs-peak-oilfinance-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-17328 Clive Nicholson Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:59:04 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=2153#comment-17328 André, http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html This is an example of how it should be done. Most of us in the west have enough money to survive quite comfortably, so now is the time to get on with the real work of saving lives and reducing human suffering. Unfortunately, many politicians and activists are more concerned about their comfortable lifestyles than actually bringing about change for good. We should all stop acting like children, and just get on with the hard work – and yes, that means sacrifice. André, http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html
This is an example of how it should be done. Most of us in the west have enough money to survive quite comfortably, so now is the time to get on with the real work of saving lives and reducing human suffering. Unfortunately, many politicians and activists are more concerned about their comfortable lifestyles than actually bringing about change for good. We should all stop acting like children, and just get on with the hard work – and yes, that means sacrifice.

]]> Comment on Stoneleigh’s peak oil/finance talk at the Transition Conference by André Angelantoni http://www.darkoptimism.org/2010/06/15/my-conference-shaun-chamberlin-on-stoneleighs-peak-oilfinance-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-17283 André Angelantoni Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:40:55 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=2153#comment-17283 Clive, you could look at it that way but I think you have it backwards. The way I look at it is the same way I look at the sustainability industry. We need many businesses and entities that, instead of showing other businesses how to use the earth's resources at an ever-increasing rate, actually teach people how to shrink their footprint. My vision is to have thousands of companies who are making their money by conserving the earth while helping people prepare. The job is just too big and the current economy knows only how to send us off the cliff. This is actually part of the transition and should be welcomed, not rejected, in my view. Clive, you could look at it that way but I think you have it backwards.

The way I look at it is the same way I look at the sustainability industry. We need many businesses and entities that, instead of showing other businesses how to use the earth’s resources at an ever-increasing rate, actually teach people how to shrink their footprint.

My vision is to have thousands of companies who are making their money by conserving the earth while helping people prepare.

The job is just too big and the current economy knows only how to send us off the cliff.

This is actually part of the transition and should be welcomed, not rejected, in my view.

]]> Comment on Stoneleigh’s peak oil/finance talk at the Transition Conference by Clive Nicholson http://www.darkoptimism.org/2010/06/15/my-conference-shaun-chamberlin-on-stoneleighs-peak-oilfinance-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-17278 Clive Nicholson Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:31:35 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=2153#comment-17278 The number of people finding ways to cash in on climate change and peak oil, are giving those important issues a bad name. The number of people finding ways to cash in on climate change and peak oil, are giving those important issues a bad name.

]]> Comment on The climate science translation guide by Feliton http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-17245 Feliton Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:36:05 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-17245 So, have there been any progress since the initial article ? I see its been few years now? So, have there been any progress since the initial article ?
I see its been few years now?

]]> Comment on The climate science translation guide by Carl http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-17160 Carl Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:17:51 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-17160 Some climatologists use certain theories to try to show that CO2 causes warming and has positive feedback to make it more powerful than it is. THE HISTORICAL DATA SHOW THAT EARTH WARMS AND COOLS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE AMOUNT OF CO2. So you can trust a computer model that could pump any result the designer wants it to show, as those of us who have done a lot of computation math. know well, but WHAT THE HISTORICAL DATA SHOW IS WHAT THE REAL WORLD HAS ACTUALLY WROUGHT. If your computer model gives results that contradict what the physical world has recorded, you would be just an idealogue in the same genre as the religious true believer. Like Einstein said, if your theory is to be accepted, it must be tested by real world data. All this blah blah on this Web site is unreal self-flagellation that flies in the face of pragmatic science. It leaves me wondering whether or not we are about to enter a new dark age where speculation and sophistry replaces observation and experimentation. IF I COULD SEE REAL WORLD DATA FROM NATURES EXPERIMENTS, OR A WELL DESIGNED EXPERIMENT, THAT SHOW THAT CO2 HAD A NONNEGLIGIBLE WARMING EFFECT, I would then be more emenable to further investigation, but don't come back with only a theory, or the cherry-picked or fudged data. THE HOCKEY IS A FARCE AND EVERYONE WHO HAS LOOKED AT UNTAMPERED DATA KNOWS IT. I am done on this subject. Ciao! Some climatologists use certain theories to try to show that CO2 causes warming and has positive feedback to make it more powerful than it is. THE HISTORICAL DATA SHOW THAT EARTH WARMS AND COOLS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE AMOUNT OF CO2. So you can trust a computer model that could pump any result the designer wants it to show, as those of us who have done a lot of computation math. know well, but WHAT THE HISTORICAL DATA SHOW IS WHAT THE REAL WORLD HAS ACTUALLY WROUGHT. If your computer model gives results that contradict what the physical world has recorded, you would be just an idealogue in the same genre as the religious true believer. Like Einstein said, if your theory is to be accepted, it must be tested by real world data. All this blah blah on this Web site is unreal self-flagellation that flies in the face of pragmatic science. It leaves me wondering whether or not we are about to enter a new dark age where speculation and sophistry replaces observation and experimentation.
IF I COULD SEE REAL WORLD DATA FROM NATURES EXPERIMENTS, OR A WELL DESIGNED EXPERIMENT, THAT SHOW THAT CO2 HAD A NONNEGLIGIBLE WARMING EFFECT, I would then be more emenable to further investigation, but don’t come back with only a theory, or the cherry-picked or fudged data. THE HOCKEY IS A FARCE AND EVERYONE WHO HAS LOOKED AT UNTAMPERED DATA KNOWS IT.
I am done on this subject. Ciao!

]]> Comment on The climate science translation guide by Shaun Chamberlin http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-17150 Shaun Chamberlin Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:32:03 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-17150 Or not so much. Water vapour: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/ Or not so much.

Water vapour: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

]]> Comment on The climate science translation guide by Carl http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-17142 Carl Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:03:55 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-17142 WATER VAPOR is the MAJOR greenhouse gas, being more than 22,000 ppm versus 386 ppm for CO2. Also, it absorbs roughly 10 times the bandwidth of IR and absorbs light which CO2 does NOT. This water planet is a water planet and it is the water vapor that causes warming and cooling. CO2 is so insignificant that is it silly to talk about it except as negligible. The second law of thermodynamics assures that the Earth, approximated by a black body, will radiate its thermal energy to frigid outer space. That is why we need the Sun's radiation every day or we will get colder over time, but water vapor in the atmosphere and the oceans hold some latent heat to keep the planet from being -16 degrees centigrade. AFTER STUDYING THE HISTORICAL DATA for the last year, I can only conclude that the Earth cools at times when CO2 is higher and warms at times when CO2 is higher. Similarly for less CO2. Thus I conclude the the level of CO2 and Earth's average temperature are independent - which means that NEITHER CAUSES THE OTHER. -- I am sorry if this shatters some deeply held beliefs (religiously) in the power of an insignificant greenhouse gas. HOWEVER, more CO2 will be fortunate for humans because it causes plants to grow faster and bigger with less water. All of the experiments show this on various plants. In real greenhouses, they add CO2 to make the plants lusher and grow faster. So the food supply can be expanded and be cheaper and world hunger can be eliminated (desert areas can produce food) - but it will take a lot more CO2 (which is safe up to 10,000 ppm). PERMISSION is granted for anyone to use this material for any purpose. I have hundreds of pages of details to back up the above much more strongly. But that material will not be free! Sorry, but it took a lot of time and study. WATER VAPOR is the MAJOR greenhouse gas, being more than 22,000 ppm versus 386 ppm for CO2. Also, it absorbs roughly 10 times the bandwidth of IR and absorbs light which CO2 does NOT. This water planet is a water planet and it is the water vapor that causes warming and cooling. CO2 is so insignificant that is it silly to talk about it except as negligible. The second law of thermodynamics assures that the Earth, approximated by a black body, will radiate its thermal energy to frigid outer space. That is why we need the Sun’s radiation every day or we will get colder over time, but water vapor in the atmosphere and the oceans hold some latent heat to keep the planet from being -16 degrees centigrade.
AFTER STUDYING THE HISTORICAL DATA for the last year, I can only conclude that the Earth cools at times when CO2 is higher and warms at times when CO2 is higher. Similarly for less CO2. Thus I conclude the the level of CO2 and Earth’s average temperature are independent – which means that NEITHER CAUSES THE OTHER.
– I am sorry if this shatters some deeply held beliefs (religiously) in the power of an insignificant greenhouse gas. HOWEVER, more CO2 will be fortunate for humans because it causes plants to grow faster and bigger with less water. All of the experiments show this on various plants. In real greenhouses, they add CO2 to make the plants lusher and grow faster. So the food supply can be expanded and be cheaper and world hunger can be eliminated (desert areas can produce food) – but it will take a lot more CO2 (which is safe up to 10,000 ppm).

PERMISSION is granted for anyone to use this material for any purpose. I have hundreds of pages of details to back up the above much more strongly. But that material will not be free! Sorry, but it took a lot of time and study.

]]> Comment on Stoneleigh’s peak oil/finance talk at the Transition Conference by Fas. http://www.darkoptimism.org/2010/06/15/my-conference-shaun-chamberlin-on-stoneleighs-peak-oilfinance-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-16809 Fas. Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:21:39 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=2153#comment-16809 we all gotta eat, and giving up the ratrace does leave u wanting. no sense in having a dig at the author, just reword the article and transmit it verbally whenever you get the chance. memetic evolution and transmission is viral, just like genetics :) we all gotta eat, and giving up the ratrace does leave u wanting.
no sense in having a dig at the author, just reword the article and transmit it verbally whenever you get the chance.

memetic evolution and transmission is viral, just like genetics :)

]]> Comment on Stoneleigh’s peak oil/finance talk at the Transition Conference by eartheart http://www.darkoptimism.org/2010/06/15/my-conference-shaun-chamberlin-on-stoneleighs-peak-oilfinance-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-16677 eartheart Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:17:42 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=2153#comment-16677 Maybe Stoneleigh could sell some of her 40 acres she mentioned and some of her golds gilts and bonds rather than not let folks listen to the talk - after all, we all attended her talk out of our own money and I suspect she was maybe paid to come. Maybe Stoneleigh could sell some of her 40 acres she mentioned and some of her golds gilts and bonds rather than not let folks listen to the talk – after all, we all attended her talk out of our own money and I suspect she was maybe paid to come.

]]>