SkepticLance

There is no international law permitting a nation to plant a flag on a moon or planet to claim it. The fact that the US has put a flag on the moon means nothing. The moon is available to anyone who want to set up a colony or base. As is Mars.

Dak. Forget the petrochemical industry. Attacking them is equivalent to Don Quixote attacking windmills. Pointless in the extreme. All the readily extractable oil and natural gas will be gone in 30 to 60 years. Whatever you or I, or anyone else says or does, that oil and gas will be extracted and burned. It will not make a big difference - about an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 20 ppm. If you are genuinely concerned about greenhouse gases, your proper target is coal. The world has immense reserves. There is enough, if burned, to add 1000 ppm to atmospheric CO2. This makes oil and gas seem trivial indeed. China is currently commissioning a new coal burning power station each week. The USA has commissioned its first coal to diesel conversion plant. If coal is used without restraint, the CO2 levels will rise dramatically. Oil and natural gas, by comparison, do not matter.

A prime reason for Mars (eventually) to want independence. To escape from the edicts of assholes who are telling them what to do without any local knowledge of what really needs to be done.

Phi for all said : Believe me, if something is found and can only be obtained on Mars and Earth will pay for it, there will be trade. A realistic estimate of the cost of bulk freight Earth to Mars or back, assuming major and substantial advances in the transport technology, is about $ 10,000 per kg. Imagine importing a 1000 tonne nuclear reactor. Work out the cost on that baby! What could Mars possibly export to Earth that would be worth $10,000 per kg plus cost of extraction plus profit? And that only applies if it is exported in bulk.

Re Earth/Mars trade. As I said earlier, the only thing that is cheap to trade between planets is knowledge. Earth can send designs for the Mars colonists small computer operated manufacturies. Mars can send back information gleaned from the study of Mars. This will include photos, and probably video also. In fact, longer term, there is no reason why Mars cannot make specialty videos for sale to Earth entertainment networks. Kind of like the Sky National Geographic channel.

The Cap'n said : You're making assumptions about the progression of technology that we simply cannot make. I assume this comment was addressed to me. It may well be correct. However, that would appear to be a factor of time. If we do not have the technology in 50 years, we may have it in 100. However, the 3D printing machine already exists, even though it is still too crude for the needs of Mars colonists. Electro-smelting iron is technology that is pretty much already available. GM crops making drugs have been developed, though not yet commercialised. I don't think anything I suggested in the last posting is too far out. The point is that no colony on Mars that is not at least 99% self sufficient will survive. If it cain't be done, it won't be. Even a limited scientific outpost will need to be largely self sufficient. Earth/Mars trade in the foreseeable future is just a silly joke.

Re Martian self-sufficiency again. I think my point has been missed. Bluntly, if a Mars colony cannot become 99% self sufficient really quickly, it will fail, and everyone will die. This is not a case of whether they can become self sufficient. It is a case of do it or die. Literally. Remember that any Mars colony is 50 years in the future, at least. Possibly 100. Technical advances by then will include ways of smelting iron from Martian iron oxide using small electric furnaces. One thing that will have to be imported initially is Uranium. But only small amounts are needed for a small reactor. The only imports will be small items that cannot be made locally. The logistics simply forbid anything else. The whole concept of trade between Mars and Earth (except for knowledge) is utterly ridiculous. The transport costs forbid it. Perhaps in 200 years, when both planets have a space elevator, it may be possible - but not until then. I pointed out that a device exists today that can make components by a kind of 3D printing system. By 50 years hence, it will be small, reliable, able to 'print' iron structures, and flexible enough to make any component out of iron up to the size of a football. You can build a car that way. Under Mars conditions, iron will not rust, making iron structures extremely practical. Anything that the Mars colonists cannot make, they will have to do without. People might be valued, but if someone gets cancer, and they cannot make the drugs, the patient will simply die. However, in 50 years, I suspect we would be utterly amazed at what can be made with small devices. There will be a wide range of GM crops available, able to grow under Mars conditions. Quite possibly, the anti-cancer drug required might be obtained by eating a GM potato. There may be plants able to grow in wetted down Mars dust, able to concentrate minerals for extraction. Carrying seeds from Earth is a way to overcome the logistics problem.

1veedo said : Well at least you've accepted the .2C figure Its just not worth arguing about. The difference is too trivial. 1veedo also said : If you think it's obvious that human ghg emissions have not been the primary driver of global warming, then why don't you point it out to the scientists? By your altered definition, we probably do not have an argument. If you accept that all the times the world is cooling, or at least not warming, that AGGs are not dominant, then I am prepared to settle our argument. The fact that over 95 years before 1976, factors other than AGGs are dominant for 68% of the time, rather reduces the importance of AGGs for that time, don't you think?

Self sufficiency on Mars. Mars will have to be 99% self sufficient in very short order. It is economically untenable to import more than the tiniest items from Earth. The cost per kg for transport is overwhelmingly costly. The very first long term colonies on Mars will work like hell to make themselves largely self sufficient. This does not, of course, mean having everything we have on Earth. The colonists will have to substitute, and just plain do without. Medicines? Tough. You get sick, you die! There is, of course, no reason to suspect that Mars is short of vital elements such as uranium. Why should it be? Any element Earth has, should also exist on Mars. The problem will be that the first colonists will not be able to travel over the planet in search of said items. We already know that Mars has lots of iron oxide. This can be used to make iron and oxygen, if sufficient energy is available. ie. a nuclear reactor, which will have to be imported. It may be that, initially, pretty much everything on Mars will be made from the plentiful iron. The first Mars colonies will probably be underground. Reason : to avoid the lethal radiation sleeting down through the thin Martian atmosphere. In that underground labyrinth, there will be areas set aside to grow plants for food and oxygen. The one thing that can readily be imported from Earth at almost zero cost is information. That will be the biggest asset. Templates for manufacture will permit a wide range of items to be made on site. There are already 3D 'ink jet' type manufacturing devices. Feed a template into that device, and it will 'print' the item you need. By the time we set up colonies on Mars, these devices will be very advanced and capable of marvels. In short, from the very first, Mars colonies will be largely self sufficient, for the very strong reason that they have no choice.

To 1veedo You are not telling me anything I don't already know. However, you still insist that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) are the primary driver of climate change since 1900. That is clearly and obviously not so. As you pointed out, there are numerous influences. They, no doubt, include solar, vulcanism, AGGs, aerosols and others. What I am pointing out is that, on several occasions, the non AGG influences were clearly more powerful than the AGG influence, since the world went into cooling. Thus, at any time the world is cooling or not warming, AGGs are not the primary driver. AGGs since 1880 cannot cause cooling, since they have been increasing. If the world cools, then it is clearly obvious that other factors overwhelm the AGG influence. In fact, the world cooled from 1880 to 1910, and again from 1940 to 1975. So, over a period of 95 years, 65 years were either cooling, or at least not warming. Over that time, only 30 years were warming. Since AGGs cannot cause cooling, other factors overwhelmed them for 68% of that time. Even the 30 years of warming were not clearly AGG dominance, since solar activity was increasing over that period, so that warming had 2 causes, at least. Thus, I can say with confidence that AGGs were NOT the dominant climate influence from 1900 to 1975. I believe that the picture I have just described comes closer to the 'consensus' than yours. Many factors, including AGGs, all playing a part. But no factor clearly dominant.

There is a high probability that the first Martian colony will be American. They will set up a tiny, but high tech encampment. Possibly underground. In time, they will grow food and make oxygen under artifical lights. However, human nature being what it is, other nations will not permit the USA to have it to themselves, and other colonies will appear. It will be a very long time before the population becomes very large, since Mars is highly inimical to human life. Terraforming will take thousands of years. Long before that, there will be extensive underground cities. How the various Martian communities conduct their politics is not predictable. Could be war and destruction. Maybe they will be smart and get together. Ultimately, whatever is the result will declare independence, and the nations that sent the colonies will be just out of luck.

1veedo said : you do not think that sense 1900 humans have been the primary driver of global warming? If this is the case, then you are unequivocally contradicted by the scientific community I have also read a wide range f the statements by members of the scientific community. While the IPCC says that the last 3 years is warmed by GGs, to 90% probability, they do not say that about earlier times. I do not believe there is any general agreement on causes of warming back to 1900. If you look at the pattern of warming you see 1890 to 1910 is cooling - thus it cannot be GG driven warming. In fact, no warming at all. 1910 to 1940 is strong warming, but minor GG increase. 1941 to 1976 is cooling, and strong GG increase. Only 1976 to present shows both strong warming and strong GG increase together. We have argued this before. As I said, a denier denies facts. Do you deny these facts? You cannot argue, for example that from 1941 to 1976 that GGs are driving warming, since the facts show no warming was occurring. Other factors were at play. Probably a number of them. GGs have not grown appreciably till about WWII (relative to the way they are growing today). However, solar activity, vulcanism, and other factors have had their impact. No doubts GGs have had an impact also. However, to say that GG effect has dominated since 1900 is to ignore the facts.

Dak said do you have any studies/models/predictions etc that project environmental changes that will/might be a balanced mix of good and bad (or is that not what you meant)? There are heaps of studies showing various aspects of what I am talking about. For example; studies showing increased plant growth with higher CO2, or increased drought resistance with the same. However, that is not quite the point. I do not know if the future warming will be a balance of good and bad; or more good; or more bad. In actual fact, no-one knows. Although there are plenty of people engaged in auto-erotic exercises who claim to! What I was trying to do was introduce a bit of balance. Most global warming activists try to tell everyone it is all doom and gloom. It is not. There will be seriously bad things, sure. There will also be very good things. How they balance out is not something I, or anyone else, can truthfully report on. Anyone who tries is revealing their own auto-erotic nature. 1veedo said : The least you could do is keep your facts strait. The Earth has been warming at .2C (up to .22C depending on the study) per decade for around 30 years. Actually, it all depends on which reference you refer to. I have seen a range of estimates. The figure I quote is derived by taking the average global temperatures at the end of the 1941 to 1976 cooling period, and the 2006 temperature, and dividing the increase by 3. That is; an increase of 0.48 C over 3 decades = 0.16 per decade. A lot of papers take the 'lazy' approach of rounding it up to 0.2 C. I have even seen a New Scientist article claiming an average of 0.13. If you want to insist on 0.2, then fine. The difference between the correct figure of 0.16 and the rounded up figure of 0.2 is trivial anyway. 1veedo also said : I think it's funny that you say this because the scientific community unequivocally agrees that humans have been causing global warming. So if we only use peer-review, then your position is completely thrown out of the window, SkepticLance. If I were you, I'd embrace non-scientific sources. Check my previous posts. I have accepted that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are probably a major cause of warming over the past 3 decades. If you want to argue with me, fine. But please argue with the position I take; not some position you only imagine I take.

To foodchain, re extinctions. I had this argument with another person, a rabid greenie. That character told me that global warming was driving numerous species to extinction; so I responded with a challenge. "Tell me just one species that has been made extinct by global warming." The answer, after a long delay, was the Harlequin Frog. A little google searching tells you that this is a south American tropical frog that is apparently extinct due to infection by African chytrid fungi. There is no evidence at all that global warming is involved. The problem was the introduction of an alien disease. This leads to my next point. There is no doubt that extinctions are running at an incredible rate. However, the causes are human hunting/fishing, and mostly the introduction of alien predators, diseases etc. Rats have wiped out more species than human hunting. There is little evidence that global warming is actually leading to extinctions. It may happen in the future, but no doubt to a minor degree. Re population growth. This is slowing. According to the United Nations, it will plateau at about 9 billion and then start falling. From Dak can you support that? You need to be more specific. I made a number of statements. Which ones do you feel are dubious?

Dak said : so, can we say we currently have consensus that global warming is going to occour to a degree where bad things will happen? I think we all agree that the world is in a warming phase. There is disagreement on the balance of causes, and on what can be predicted. Any change brings bad things. Usually also good things, so your statement about bad things happening really does not mean much. I see global warming as a mix of good and bad. The bad comes mainly from speed, in that animals and ourselves are short on adaptation time. The good is substantial. We will have a North West passage each summer. Much more cropland becomes available with melting of permafrost and retreat of snow and ice. High CO2 levels means plants grow faster, and become more drought resistant. Currently temperate climates will become sub tropical with the massive increase in agricultural productivity warmth brings. Arctic species will adapt or suffer. Tropical species will have massively expanded range. Tropical rainforest will spread to areas further from the equator. Some areas will become more arid. Other areas will become wetter. Sea levels will rise, but only about 300mm plus or minues 200 by the year 2100.

Bascule said : If you're going to contradict the leading scientific authority on the matter, you can do better than some think tank's web site The credibility of various references will obviously vary. I cannot comment on the think tank mentioned, since I do not know the individuals concerned. They might, from my viewpoint, be very good or very bad. I simply do not know, and I suspect that neither do most of those on this thread who criticise them. However, a great many sceptics are credible climate scientists. Dr. Richard Lindzen, for example, works with the IPCC, even though he often disagrees with their conclusions. In fact, a number of reports have come out since the latest IPCC report which indicate that the contributors to that report were not all in agreement, and the final draft was a compromise. Even that compromise was not agreeable to all the scientists involved.

To Edtharan. A supernova would have to be quite close to kill everyone off - a few light years. The problem is that a little protection (eg, huddling in a mine) would be enough to save people. Try a gamma ray burster. That would wipe out all life within several thousand light years.

To JohnB I really do not see how it could be easier to find planets with elliptical orbits. The two main methods are : 1. Observing the movement of a star, and seeing if it 'wobbles' in its path, showing the gravitational effect of an orbiting planet. 2. Seeing how the light of a star dims as a planet passes in front of it. Neither method would be different for circular versus elliptical orbits. The major distortion in our knowledge comes from the fact that we can easily detect large planets, but little ones (like Earth size) are much harder to detect. Thus, we have a distorted picture of lots of stars with large planets and very few small. The reality is likely to be very different.

Dak said : none of us have brought up anything that the climate scientists are unlikely to have thought of, and climate scientists are a lot more capable of making judjments reguarding global warming than we are. so, yeah, if you disagree with the consensus oppinion, you're almost certainly just plain wrong. The problem with this logic is that the consensus is more apparent than real. There are plenty of climate scientists who dispute the details of the current paradigm. I agree with you that the world is warming and that AGGs are probably a major cause. However, when you start getting beyond that, things become less certain, and there is a hell of a lot of disagreement among climate scientists.

To foodchain. One of the great unknowns in these debates is the set of conditions needed for biogenesis - to allow life to appear in the first place. This is a totally different question to that of the conditions permitting evolution. I have often seen the argument based on extremophiles. That is; if life can exist over such a wide range of conditions here on Earth, then it must be able to do likewise over a wide range of planets. However, since we do not know what the conditions are for biogenesis, the argument in invalid. Biogenesis may be possible only under a very restricted set of conditions, that occurred here on Earth just once by a freak situation, and have not been seen anywhere else in our galaxy anywhere. Or else, biogenesis is possible under all sorts of conditions, and happens on every second planet. We just do not know. How many planets in our galaxy? There appears to be about 10,000,000,000 star systems. The sampling of nearby star systems to date would imply planets on pretty much all star systems. However, that sampling would also suggest that systems like our own are rare. Lots have giant planets in close orbit about the star. One theory says that Jupiter in its current orbit was needed for life, since it mopped up assorted debris, thus protecting the Earth from lethal bombardment. Jupiter-like planets are apparently rare. The other common feature in extra-solar planets is elliptical orbits. A circular orbit may be needed for life, since it provides liquid water all year round. If these implications are true and widespread, then life itself may be rare.

To foodchain. I was simply responding to Bascule's statement. To imply that only peer reviewed papers are scientific is, in a sense, true. However, this thread does not work to those rules. I have quoted lots of references which are not peer reviewed, such as New Scientist articles; and others have quoted such things as realclimate, which are also not peer reviewed. There are plenty of sources which are not peer reviewed, but nevertheless reputable. I am also a bit dubious about the use of mud slinging as a debate technique. To refute another person's references on the grounds that they come from a disreputable source is a questionable tactic. If you take this approach, you better be really sure of your facts, because you risk being seen as a dirty, shit throwing debater, who is not worthy of respect.

Bascule said : In the case of science their arguments take place within the context of peer reviewed scientific papers and journals. In the context of this discussion, that is somewhat incorrect. Participants in this thread are quoting almost anything except peer reviewed scientific papers. For example; anything from realclimate.org does not fit that criterion. If we restricted ourselves to peer reviewed papers, most people would withdraw from discussion, since that adds enormously to the research work required for the discussion.

Bascule said : And what do you have to say about all the other areas where GCMs are successfully predictive? Is it just random chance? Over the past 30 years, the world has been warming at about 0.16 Celsius per decade. Based on that, I can make pretty damn good predictions myself. What is it that the GCMs have predicted so successfully, that cannot be predicted simply by following existing trends?

To terraform Mars is, at this time in history, beyond us. It will probably remain so for quite a while. Thus, the first people on Mars will live in artificial environments, probably underground. They should have the benefit of abundant nuclear energy, which means they will be able to set up proper sun lamps to grow crops under. I have thought for quite a while that this approach to the conquest of outer space is a bit wasteful. The biggest problem in space travel is to leave the embrace of our planet's gravity. So why do we immediately assume we will dive into the gravity well of another planet? Would it not be more sensible to stay in space, where we can move freely. If we have to build enormous artificial habitats on Mars, why not build them in space? It would take an awful lot less energy to travel beyond Mars to a site of building material and water, such as the rings of Saturn, than to land on Mars, and take off again. There, in space, we could use that material to build a giant rotating city . Such cities could move freely about the solar system, or even to other star systems, since they would be self sufficient for long periods.

Hi dttom If the grape skin is not permeable to water, obviously it won't work. However, the inside of the grape is full of cells, each with a semipermeable membrane. So if the skin is broken, osmosis should work.