Title of new report from the Institute of Food and Resource Economics of the University of Copenhagen: Earth on Fire
Hmmm. “E a r t h o n f i r e”. Should be easy to prove. Let’s have a look at the numbers.
Ignition temperature of paper: 451 °F or 233°C
(Source: Ray Bradbury. * see comments)
Average temperature of the earth: 61.43 °F or 16.37 °C
(Source: National Climatic Data Center July 2009 report – adding 20th century average plus July anomaly)
Yep, spontaneous surface ignition is possible at any moment in your area. Tune to CNN for official global fire emergency news. /sarc
Note the polar bear image on the front cover. Old habits die hard. – Anthony
from Eurekalert
New questions in the climate change debate — essential ethical and philosophical perspectives
Researchers from within the fields of science, the arts and theology add new perspectives to the climate change debate with the book ‘Earth on Fire — Climate Change from a Philosophical and Ethical Perspective,’ now available as an open-access book
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: “Earth on Fire — Climate Change from a Philosophical and Ethical Perspective, ” edited by Mickey Gjerris, Christian Gamborg, Jørgen E. Olesen and Jakob Wolf.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
The book aims to show how climate change raises not only a number of questions which can be answered within the scientific domain, but also many issues of a more universal nature based on philosophical, political, ethical and religious views on the world is and how it should be. What is “good “?
The earth is on fire. So we need to both act fast and think carefully about what we are doing. The ethical questions that climate change raises may be new in their global character but behind them are still the well-known, basic universal questions such as what is “being good”, what should we do and who should we consider, how should we prioritise our efforts in a situation where there are more challenges than solutions, and how do we structure the debate of climate change issues so that everybody is heard and the best arguments gain acceptance.
Lifestyle changes are necessary
Associate Professor at Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment at LIFE – Faculty of Life Sciences at University of Copenhagen, Mickey Gjerris is one of the editors of the book. He says about our new situation:
“Countering climate change requires large changes to our lifestyle. Ethical thinking offers an opportunity to understand nature in a way which means that we should not only interpret these changes as a sacrifice we have to make but, rather, as an opportunity to establish a relationship to nature where protection of it is seen as a opportunity for man’s further development.”
Science as an integrated part of society
The authors of the book hope that it will contribute to researchers reflecting on the underlying values for discussion.
“It is important to understand that science is an integrated part of society and not an outside factor that can provide an independent description of what is happening while we are politically deciding what should be done”
“Today there is a tendency to lament the politicization of climate change research and to pretend that other researchers have an underlying agenda while you pride yourself on being firmly based on the objective foundation of science. But we all have an agenda, and the debating climate will gain by us recognising this”, says Mickey Gjerris.
Free English online version
The English online version of “Earth on Fire- Climate change from a philosophical and ethical perspective”, Edited by Mickey Gjerris, Christian Gamborg, Jørgen E. Olesen, Jakob Wolf, is free for all to use www.earthonfire.foi.dk. All the authors ask is that readers will share the existence of the book with their colleagues and fellow students so that as many as possible might benefit from it.
The book, which was published in a Danish printed version earlier this year, consists of seven chapters which show how the climate changes are rooted in our scientific, philosophical, political, ethical and religious understanding of the world, and concludes with three cases where the climate debate issues are discussed: CO2 trading, GM crops and biofuels. The cases are addressed by experts who have played a prominent role in the public debate of these topics.
“Earth on Fire – Climate change from a philosophical and ethical perspective” can be downloaded from this page: www.earthonfire.foi.dk where you can also read about the various chapters and authors of the book.
For more information, please contact Associate Professor Mickey Gjerris, LIFE -Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen on tel.: +45 35 28 21 65, mobile: + 45 25 37 03 85 or by e-mail:mgj@life.ku.dk
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fortunately there is lots of CO2 in the atmosphere to extinguish the flames.
CodeTech (19:35:22) :
Bradbury? I’m aware of his work.
(Ahem… Simpsons quote, for the other scifi geeks)
We science fiction geeks prefer “sf” because “scifi” is so “yesterday.” Mundane/Hollywood/common/ill-informed/alien. “SF” can also mean “speculative fiction,” an alternate science fiction moniker used primarily by those who refer to janitors as custodial engineers.
Mike
humble web minion for two World Science Fiction Society conventions,
2007 and 2009.
My little spot on this planet is rather cooler than it should be.
Most of this month of August registered 13 to 17 degrees C.
Last week at 7:00am it was 8C. That was after a clear still night.
Very little sun this summer in Pembrokeshire. Sad for the holiday crowd.
It is my view that Sociology and Climatology have much in common. Both have plenty of theories which are unfalsifiable, and both have to use ‘fuzzy’ data to deal with massive complex systems.
Best thing to do with this book would be to burn it, to help mitigate the coming cold.
Isn’t it Syfy now? 😉
Mark
Reply: Ahem. It has been clearly demonstrated from the latest ensemble run of GCMs (Global Combustion Models) that paper will ignite in the 424-474° range noted above with an error range of +/- 600° F. ~ ctm
Very robust very!!!!!!!!!!
451 is the best est. and it has a good sound!
Blackboard VS openmind
I love a fight, tammy lost badly however.
PCM (paper combustion model)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCM
Actually, the world has been on fire for quite some time, but mostly in the core.
Oh there are some very clever thinkers out there in the big wide world! I admire you all. I particularly liked the Forgone conclusion comment.
How curious that somebody brings the Borg into the topic. The Borg (a terryfying & frightening fictional life-form created for a tv science-fiction show, so I understand) are a collective, a united group, who all think as one, speak as one, breath as one, act as one, whose sole purpose is to turn others into beings like themselves. Is this not precisely what the UN/IPCC/EU policies are directed at achieving, World Governance, all peoples thinking, speaking, acting as one, to stop Global Warming & to save the planet from humanity? We would all have to obey the Global Government, which, rather like the EU, would be unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, & thus by default, corrupt! Who would be available to tell it that it was wrong, or had taken a bad decision? It could never be democratic, as enough problems occur trying to have a real democracy & fair & even handed voting systems in countries around the world, what hope for Global elections?
Anyway, trying to burn some of the paper that comes through my door in my incinerator (please don’t tell the enviro-police, I wouldn’t want to be sent to the re-education camp (brainwashing centre!)) the matches seem to take an age to ignite, & when I finally do get one lit, the paper seems to take so long to catch I end up burning my fingers all too frequently!
Aren’t those fluffy white bears very good artists? Those lovely sculptures they make in the ice are quite marvellous don’t you think?
LoL@ur momisugly this: “act fast and think carefully”
Ready??
Fire!!!
Aim.
“The hurrier I go, the behinder I get.”
I remember thinking as a teenager many years ago about the biblical prophecy that the world will perish by fire some day. I realized then that perhaps it was actually happening now, (back in 1967) since all the oil we burn in our automobiles is derived from “fossil fuel” which was once the great ancient forests of the world then one could say that the world is actually on fire in each internal cumbustion engine farting about on the planet now. If once imagines the entire planet’s existing forests buring all at once but many times over and over then well, yes , the world is technically “on fire”. I presented this idea to my HS physiscs teacher and he laughed and gave me an A for creativity but then told to tell it to my Sunday School teacher as well. He laughed, too.
Funny thing, Fahreinheit 451 is about a state, a society gone mad (where firemen are charged with starting, not stopping fires) burning “non-approved” books in fact. Seems to me we’re well on our way there. Mix in some brave new world & 1984 in the UK anyway and there you are.
“4. Greenhouse gases
The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour (H2O), carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC (chlorofluorocarbons)
and tropospheric ozone (O3) (Table 1). It is not possible to rank
with any certainty the effect of the individual gases with respect to the total
greenhouse effect. This is, among other things, due to a number of feedback
mechanisms between the greenhouse gases (Box 3). Basically, the ratio
between the most important greenhouse gases – water vapour, clouds and
carbon dioxide – is estimated at 2‑1‑1.”
Can anyone tell me where that ratio comes from? I was under the impression water vapuor was around 80% or more of the GHE.
“Finally, variations in solar radiation have also resulted in a slight increase in radiation effects in the first half of the twentieth century (Table 1). A handful of scientists claim that these factors together with other natural causes can be the main reasons for the observed climate changes rather than the emission of greenhouse gases”
A ‘handful’, it seems….
From the authors –
““It is important to understand that science is an integrated part of society and not an outside factor that can provide an independent description of what is happening while we are politically deciding what should be done”
Why not underline and send a copy to Phil Jones at CRU?
BTW, paper ignites at all sorts of temperatures because it is made of so many different components. Some papers have a lot of clay, some are based on tree wood fibre, some hardwood, some softwood, some on linen fibre or other cloth like silk, some even on grass (hemp, bamboo). Some have polymer/plastic filler. Some have metal particles that glitter. Some have more water than others. Ever tried to flame a wet toilet paper? Given all this, “generic paper” might be a good combustion source to calibrate a thermometer for a weather station.
‘fields of science, the arts and theology ‘
arts and theology, that says it all. The biggest reason to question AGW is that the “solutions” being preached to us have been presented in the past for other reasons by people who belong to the same mindset and if it were not for the AGW scare the same “solutions” would be presented for some other reason.
That does not automatically make AGW false but it just makes me look at it that bit more critically.
AND Auntee Beeb is doing her best for the political environment again, like recycling stories:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8223528.stm
can someone tell me how reflecting light & heat back up into the atmosphere (where it presumably heats it) from low level is going to help the situation?
Followed by this placed strategically Science & Environment page of the website from 2008 (really up to date these boys),
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7429562.stm
I think I said a while back now that I once read an online paper by two distinguished non-scientists about Carbon Capture Storage (no longer there online), it was so familiar to me that I got suspicious, & low & behold it was almost a re-write of a paper in the New Civil Engineer journal written several years ago about nuclear waste storage, with a virtual straight substitution of the word nuclear for the word carbon!
Looks like we’re headed for collective suicide a la the Xhosa people in Africa in the 19th C! The stories are mounting chaps, ready for the Autumn/Winter season!
“Countering climate change requires large changes to our lifestyle. Ethical thinking offers an opportunity to understand nature in a way which means that we should not only interpret these changes as a sacrifice we have to make but, rather, as an opportunity to establish a relationship to nature where protection of it is seen as a opportunity for man’s further development.”
Another example of someone who, having attained his lifestyle goal, now wants no one else to strive to attain theirs. Kind of like when I first moved to Florida years ago, I found a nice uncrowded place and wished no one else would move there so I could keep my “paradise” all to myself.
wattsupwiththat (20:40:40) : ” The Handbook of Physical and Mechanical Testing of Paper and Paperboard – Volume 2 says 450°F which is what I first used.
The Hazardous materials chemistry for emergency responders, Volume 55
says: paper is at 446°F
and a third, Wikipedia
says: Paper: 424-474°F”
Using the above data, I strived to calculate the average global paper combustion temperature. First I needed to solve the Wikepedia issue of such a wide range so I took the median value at 449 F. Then using a complicated code, I added all three temps together which produced a total of 1345. Then, again using the same code, divided that by 3 to get an average of 448.3333333333333333333…. which I rounded to 448.33.
So by using the 450F level, you have a +1.67 anomaly for the current global combustion temperature of paper proving that global warming is real.
INGSOC (17:57:23) :
“I have a suggestion for another title; “Pants on Fire!””
I nominate this for quip of the week.
Very cute.
M
Well, if the “Earth Fire” can be focused easily, I’d appreciate the help. I’ve got a bunch of fairly large stumps I need to burn out, and hosing them down with diesel is getting expensive.
In the run up to Copenhagen will these alarmist, ridiculous pronouncements just get worse by the day? First the planet is on fire and now we are being told we have long since passed safe levels of CO2. IPCC chairman Rajandra Pachauri yesterday gave his personal endorsement to the view that 350 ppm of CO2 is the only safe limit for the planet while stopping short of accepting this as an official target for the coming conference:
“As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations,” said Rajendra Pachauri when asked if he supported calls to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 350 parts per million (ppm).
“But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target,” he told AFP in an interview.
find the whole interview here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hacayDuUcngLmhNkplHB5VtG5GNw
and here’s how the 350 movement is taking the news: http://www.350.org/
I honestly expected the supporters of AGW to accept and understand the fact that the alarmism is entirely counterproductive but I realise now that quite the opposite seems to be the fact. No doubt “Watts up with that” will have a great time with all the nonsense that is coming – 350ppm, the bottom line ? I mean have they ever had geology lessons at school?
What was that 60’s movie they made into a series, where the atmosphere caught fire?
Oh yes, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.
Full of monsters and silly plots, strange fevers. The writers suffered from cramps.
Generally, the first thing I look towards in a book on ethics and integrity, is ethics and integrity.
This book, from the cover on, seems to lack both.
IOW, the book is typical AGW propaganda.
Speaking of paper burning, and temperature; I’m a glassblower, and back in the 70’s apprenticed at a glass company with big gas-fired annealing ovens without pyrometers. The way we judged that the oven was at the correct temperature (something like 850F) was to crumple up some paper, throw it way inside, and count the number of seconds it took to burst into flame. I believe it needed to be about 10 seconds. If it took longer, then it still wasn’t hot enough. I suppose if it burst into flame too soon then it was too hot, but I don’t remember that being a problem.
I’m guessing it could take a while for paper to burst into flame at 451F (or whatever).
“The book, which was published in a Danish printed version earlier this year, consists of seven chapters which show how the climate changes are rooted in our scientific, philosophical, political, ethical and religious understanding of the world. . .”
So science only (mis)represents a seventh of their understanding of climate change – who would have guessed it! It gives new meaning to previously mentioned claims that AGW is a pseudo religion, LOL.