You probably wouldn't expect this from me. No, usually I'm the calm centered one about scientific inquiry (provided creationists aren't involved).
But I've had it up to here with going to the earth science news on CNN.com, and EVERY LAST FUCKING ARTICLE is on climate change.
FUCK, people. Isn't there something in biology or geology or any of the other so called "earth sciences" that you could draw on and make an interesting article out of besides this continuous log of fearmongering BULLSHIT?!?
I don't see anything useful in any of this. Sure, I believe the climatologists with their current observations of the planet, and there is change and variation in the climate. I think they are smart people doing good science. I think they are probably right about global warming and cooling events, and I think they are probably right that human population has had some effect upon these events.
I am just so FUCKING TIRED of hearing everyone and their DOG'S opinions on this. Everyone is suddenly a scientist with a degree in toxicology, sociology, anthropology, paleogeography, geology, biology, ecology and climatology when it comes to CLIMATE CHANGE. I've only got a degree in one of those things and I STILL don't consider myself qualified to draft an opinion for or against it. I've studied hydrology and limnology and geology and I still don't have a clue how the climatologist's model's work, and these JOURNALISTS with degrees in COMMUNICATION, think they have a fucking clue?
This isn't a game of "whoever talks about it the most makes it the case". Climatology isn't politics, it isn't morality, it certainly isn't based upon some opinions of some NUMBNUTS reporter from hugatreefucktheman.org. This is real science, with real observations and real models, not some pony ride you can drive so you feel good about yourself and so you can say over and over and over "NOT IN MY FUCKING BACKYARD". This isn't a game of WHO CAN WE BLAME NEXT? This isn't a game at all.
And whats worse than people turning opinions into "science", is people spamming news articles about "science" into more fearmongering bullshit. I won't have it, not anymore. Next dipshit that walks up to me and starts talking about the melting of the polar icecaps and the rising of the oceans and the increase in storms and ALL KINDS OF THIS FEARFUL SHIT I am going to punch them in the face, folks. I'll stick with scientists for science.
Or fucking bump me off.
All I know is that summer in Chicago was warm in 1980, and absolutely PUNISHING in 2003.
I also remember when we had, you know, ICE at the NORTH POLE.
Are my observations scientific? No. Do I give a fuck? No.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2009, 08:45:48 PM
All I know is that summer in Chicago was warm in 1980, and absolutely PUNISHING in 2003.
I also remember when we had, you know, ICE at the NORTH POLE.
Are my observations scientific? No. Do I give a fuck? No.
Was a rant against journalists, mostly.
I knew this was going to be unpopular, but I wrote it anyway.
Quote from: Kai on January 24, 2009, 08:49:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2009, 08:45:48 PM
All I know is that summer in Chicago was warm in 1980, and absolutely PUNISHING in 2003.
I also remember when we had, you know, ICE at the NORTH POLE.
Are my observations scientific? No. Do I give a fuck? No.
Was a rant against journalists, mostly.
I knew this was going to be unpopular, but I wrote it anyway.
Look, all I know is what I have observed. As far as getting mad at talking heads for parroting a hot button issue, well, get mad at the sun for rising.
What bothers me is how many "scientists" oppose what's smacking us right in the face, either because they whored themselves out to Exxon, or because it's "fashionable" now to ignore what's blatantly happening, much as it's "fashionable" now for potheads and Wiccans to be extreme right neocons.
For whatever reason, the world IS, in fact, warming up. I do not need a geologist or meteorologist to tell me this. And if I can see it, so can the producers of whatever talk program is pissing you off.
Quote from: Kai on January 24, 2009, 08:43:07 PM
You probably wouldn't expect this from me. No, usually I'm the calm centered one about scientific inquiry (provided creationists aren't involved).
But I've had it up to here with going to the earth science news on CNN.com, and EVERY LAST FUCKING ARTICLE is on climate change.
FUCK, people. Isn't there something in biology or geology or any of the other so called "earth sciences" that you could draw on and make an interesting article out of besides this continuous log of fearmongering BULLSHIT?!?
I don't see anything useful in any of this. Sure, I believe the climatologists with their current observations of the planet, and there is change and variation in the climate. I think they are smart people doing good science. I think they are probably right about global warming and cooling events, and I think they are probably right that human population has had some effect upon these events.
I am just so FUCKING TIRED of hearing everyone and their DOG'S opinions on this. Everyone is suddenly a scientist with a degree in toxicology, sociology, anthropology, paleogeography, geology, biology, ecology and climatology when it comes to CLIMATE CHANGE. I've only got a degree in one of those things and I STILL don't consider myself qualified to draft an opinion for or against it. I've studied hydrology and limnology and geology and I still don't have a clue how the climatologist's model's work, and these JOURNALISTS with degrees in COMMUNICATION, think they have a fucking clue?
This isn't a game of "whoever talks about it the most makes it the case". Climatology isn't politics, it isn't morality, it certainly isn't based upon some opinions of some NUMBNUTS reporter from hugatreefucktheman.org. This is real science, with real observations and real models, not some pony ride you can drive so you feel good about yourself and so you can say over and over and over "NOT IN MY FUCKING BACKYARD". This isn't a game of WHO CAN WE BLAME NEXT? This isn't a game at all.
And whats worse than people turning opinions into "science", is people spamming news articles about "science" into more fearmongering bullshit. I won't have it, not anymore. Next dipshit that walks up to me and starts talking about the melting of the polar icecaps and the rising of the oceans and the increase in storms and ALL KINDS OF THIS FEARFUL SHIT I am going to punch them in the face, folks. I'll stick with scientists for science.
Or fucking bump me off.
THANK YOU.
Alls i knows is that it was 80 degrees out yesterday in the middle of January, and that's global warming! but today, it's only 48 degrees out, so the global warmings must be over....
I don't need no sciiiiiientist to tell me that, I'll tell you wut!!
\
:mullet:
Quote from: Iptuous on January 24, 2009, 09:57:26 PM
Alls i knows is that it was 80 degrees out yesterday in the middle of January, and that's global warming! but today, it's only 48 degrees out, so the global warmings must be over....
I don't need no sciiiiiientist to tell me that, I'll tell you wut!!
\
:mullet:
HURR HURR HURR
And the North Pole melting is just a seasonal thing!
HURR HURR HURR
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2009, 08:56:10 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 24, 2009, 08:49:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2009, 08:45:48 PM
All I know is that summer in Chicago was warm in 1980, and absolutely PUNISHING in 2003.
I also remember when we had, you know, ICE at the NORTH POLE.
Are my observations scientific? No. Do I give a fuck? No.
Was a rant against journalists, mostly.
I knew this was going to be unpopular, but I wrote it anyway.
Look, all I know is what I have observed. As far as getting mad at talking heads for parroting a hot button issue, well, get mad at the sun for rising.
What bothers me is how many "scientists" oppose what's smacking us right in the face, either because they whored themselves out to Exxon, or because it's "fashionable" now to ignore what's blatantly happening, much as it's "fashionable" now for potheads and Wiccans to be extreme right neocons.
For whatever reason, the world IS, in fact, warming up. I do not need a geologist or meteorologist to tell me this. And if I can see it, so can the producers of whatever talk program is pissing you off.
This was a rant. Thats all.
Quote from: Kai on January 24, 2009, 08:49:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2009, 08:45:48 PM
All I know is that summer in Chicago was warm in 1980, and absolutely PUNISHING in 2003.
I also remember when we had, you know, ICE at the NORTH POLE.
Are my observations scientific? No. Do I give a fuck? No.
Was a rant against journalists, mostly.
I knew this was going to be unpopular, but I wrote it anyway.
I approve of ranting about journalists. Leave them to make scientific methodology into a political process.
Fun fact: CNN axed their entire science news division and consider their "planet earth" folk to be all the science they need.
I'm actually a bit conflicted about that. My first reaction was 'fuck you CNN, science is newsworthy and interesting' but then I realized that I don't even trust CNN to get it right in the first place. I guess the question is; do I prefer poor science coverage over no mainstream science coverage?
Quote from: Vene on January 25, 2009, 03:29:24 AM
I'm actually a bit conflicted about that. My first reaction was 'fuck you CNN, science is newsworthy and interesting' but then I realized that I don't even trust CNN to get it right in the first place. I guess the question is; do I prefer poor science coverage over no mainstream science coverage?
None.
We must protect America from dangerous thoughts and ideas.
Blindfolds and earplugs must be worn at all times.
Word..
ATTN: CARL SAGAN AND DR. BRONOWSKI
Get the fuck outta those graves and get back to work, damn you!
Don't really concern myself with global climate change... but as soon as some consortium of government funded activists gets the notion to "do something" about the planet's atmosphere to correct the "problem"... well, that WILL scare me.
Quote from: singer on January 25, 2009, 03:28:53 PM
Don't really concern myself with global climate change... but as soon as some consortium of government funded activists gets the notion to "do something" about the planet's atmosphere to correct the "problem"... well, that WILL scare me.
If I am right about the cause of climate change, the only way to "do something" is to reduce pollution.
And guess what? People are already doing something about it. Hell, at the plant, 80% of what I work on is pollution control equipment. Thing is, what they're doing is just a start.
Pay off is, even if climate change isn't caused by pollution, all this new technology also gives you clean air and water. And that can't be bad.
I still say that 70% of climate change is due to natural patterns and 30% by pollution. But that's just me and one of several theories that abound. Should we be concerned for it and scale back our polluting emissions? Absolutely. Should we donate tons of money to Greenpeace and Al Gore? Um, no. Save your money, let the corporations do what they have to do, and just stock up on sunblock for now.
In another 10 years or so when we enter a natural cooling trend, will people think that they've saved the planet? I can't wait. Lol.
Quote from: Kai on January 24, 2009, 08:43:07 PM
You probably wouldn't expect this from me. No, usually I'm the calm centered one about scientific inquiry (provided creationists aren't involved).
But I've had it up to here with going to the earth science news on CNN.com, and EVERY LAST FUCKING ARTICLE is on climate change.
FUCK, people. Isn't there something in biology or geology or any of the other so called "earth sciences" that you could draw on and make an interesting article out of besides this continuous log of fearmongering BULLSHIT?!?
I don't see anything useful in any of this. Sure, I believe the climatologists with their current observations of the planet, and there is change and variation in the climate. I think they are smart people doing good science. I think they are probably right about global warming and cooling events, and I think they are probably right that human population has had some effect upon these events.
I am just so FUCKING TIRED of hearing everyone and their DOG'S opinions on this. Everyone is suddenly a scientist with a degree in toxicology, sociology, anthropology, paleogeography, geology, biology, ecology and climatology when it comes to CLIMATE CHANGE. I've only got a degree in one of those things and I STILL don't consider myself qualified to draft an opinion for or against it. I've studied hydrology and limnology and geology and I still don't have a clue how the climatologist's model's work, and these JOURNALISTS with degrees in COMMUNICATION, think they have a fucking clue?
This isn't a game of "whoever talks about it the most makes it the case". Climatology isn't politics, it isn't morality, it certainly isn't based upon some opinions of some NUMBNUTS reporter from hugatreefucktheman.org. This is real science, with real observations and real models, not some pony ride you can drive so you feel good about yourself and so you can say over and over and over "NOT IN MY FUCKING BACKYARD". This isn't a game of WHO CAN WE BLAME NEXT? This isn't a game at all.
And whats worse than people turning opinions into "science", is people spamming news articles about "science" into more fearmongering bullshit. I won't have it, not anymore. Next dipshit that walks up to me and starts talking about the melting of the polar icecaps and the rising of the oceans and the increase in storms and ALL KINDS OF THIS FEARFUL SHIT I am going to punch them in the face, folks. I'll stick with scientists for science.
Or fucking bump me off.
:mittens:
Of course, the whole discussion has become politicized beyond recognition and Al Gore certainly didn't help that. I know he has good intentions, of wanting to bring the information to the masses. But, that can be a double-edged sword, especially when many in your audience aren't really going to understand what you are talking about. I am hopeful though, about alternative energies. Just because the discussion has been shifted from "Save The Planet" to "Save Your Wallet" combined with "Screw the Middle East Oil Barrons!" The results of developing cleaner sources of energy will most likely still have a positive impact on the environment, but people will have more buy-in when you shift the focus from something so distant from them to something they can really sink their teeth into.
I think its rather stupid that we need some catastrophic visualization through global warming to justify not living in sludge and smog.
Clean air, clean water and clean soil should be an nice aim on its own, like it used to be when lake Erie caught on fire.
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 05:49:35 PM
I still say that 70% of climate change is due to natural patterns and 30% by pollution. But that's just me and one of several theories that abound. Should we be concerned for it and scale back our polluting emissions? Absolutely. Should we donate tons of money to Greenpeace and Al Gore? Um, no. Save your money, let the corporations do what they have to do, and just stock up on sunblock for now.
In another 10 years or so when we enter a natural cooling trend, will people think that they've saved the planet? I can't wait. Lol.
I wasn't giving them my money anyway. First of all, they can't do anything about it but bitch, and second, I hate Greenpeace because of the seal hunt thing.
Thing is, my refinery is allowed to dump something like 5000 metric tons of reactant into the atmosphere, by the EPA. Our company's standard allows 50 metric tons. We then give our data to congress, and ask for tougher standards.
Do we do this because we're eco-freaks? No, we do it because our competitors cannot afford either the cost of the pollution control equipment nor the cost of buying a senator or three.
Over time, this results in less air pollution, which means less smog and less sinus problems for you.
In short, the invisible hand has just wiped your nose.
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 06:25:33 PM
I think its rather stupid that we need some catastrophic visualization through global warming to justify not living in sludge and smog.
Clean air, clean water and clean soil should be an nice aim on its own, like it used to be when lake Erie caught on fire.
*ahem*
Planet full of monkeys.
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 06:25:33 PM
I think its rather stupid that we need some catastrophic visualization through global warming to justify not living in sludge and smog.
Clean air, clean water and clean soil should be an nice aim on its own, like it used to be when lake Erie caught on fire.
You're right. I still believe the majority of it is some marketing gimmick or some heroic "save the planet" bullshit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 06:33:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 06:25:33 PM
I think its rather stupid that we need some catastrophic visualization through global warming to justify not living in sludge and smog.
Clean air, clean water and clean soil should be an nice aim on its own, like it used to be when lake Erie caught on fire.
*ahem*
Planet full of monkeys.
Planet full of monkeys, btw, was the whole impulse behind this rant, and I dare say is probably the impulse behind most rants on this forum.
Next one is going to be about how tired I'm hearing about evolution. :lulz:
Kai,
Going insane, slowly.
I look forward to that one.
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 06:37:47 PM
Next one is going to be about how tired I'm hearing about evolution. :lulz:
Kai,
Going insane, slowly.
Aww, but I LOVE evolution and survival of the fittest!
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 06:36:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 06:33:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 06:25:33 PM
I think its rather stupid that we need some catastrophic visualization through global warming to justify not living in sludge and smog.
Clean air, clean water and clean soil should be an nice aim on its own, like it used to be when lake Erie caught on fire.
*ahem*
Planet full of monkeys.
Planet full of monkeys, btw, was the whole impulse behind this rant, and I dare say is probably the impulse behind most rants on this forum.
Monkeys are oblivious to cause and effect.
i think all it would take is a little pride of ownership.
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 06:37:47 PM
Next one is going to be about how tired I'm hearing about evolution. :lulz:
Kai,
Going insane, slowly.
There's a way to shut those assholes up.
Next time you run into a partisan of either side, you simply respond with "Either we evolved from monkeys, or we're
supposed to look like this, and I'm not impressed either way."
Or you can just hit them with TGRR's "least fit monkey theory".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 12:26:08 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 24, 2009, 09:57:26 PM
Alls i knows is that it was 80 degrees out yesterday in the middle of January, and that's global warming! but today, it's only 48 degrees out, so the global warmings must be over....
I don't need no sciiiiiientist to tell me that, I'll tell you wut!!
\
:mullet:
HURR HURR HURR
And the North Pole melting is just a seasonal thing!
HURR HURR HURR
I'm sorry....
Did you think that was directed at you? Nono.... I was just commenting on the way a bunch of the redneck goobers i work with sound on the issue, speaking in definite terms as if they are anywhere near qualified to make proclamations about what the climatologists themselves are apparently unsure of...
Incidentally, the North Pole melting
is seasonal, just with increasing duration and magnitude in correspondence with the global temperature rise (that i happen to agree with you on, based on what i know), right?
Quote from: Iptuous on January 25, 2009, 06:50:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 12:26:08 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 24, 2009, 09:57:26 PM
Alls i knows is that it was 80 degrees out yesterday in the middle of January, and that's global warming! but today, it's only 48 degrees out, so the global warmings must be over....
I don't need no sciiiiiientist to tell me that, I'll tell you wut!!
\
:mullet:
HURR HURR HURR
And the North Pole melting is just a seasonal thing!
HURR HURR HURR
I'm sorry....
Did you think that was directed at you? Nono.... I was just commenting on the way a bunch of the redneck goobers i work with sound on the issue, speaking in definite terms as if they are anywhere near qualified to make proclamations about what the climatologists themselves are apparently unsure of...
Incidentally, the North Pole melting is seasonal, just with increasing duration and magnitude in correspondence with the global temperature rise (that i happen to agree with you on, based on what i know), right?
IIRC, there is usually some summer ice, but last summer there was less ice than ever recorded before. Its like melting of permafrost, same idea; theres some melt every year, but usually not the massive amount that has been occurring.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 25, 2009, 06:50:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 12:26:08 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 24, 2009, 09:57:26 PM
Alls i knows is that it was 80 degrees out yesterday in the middle of January, and that's global warming! but today, it's only 48 degrees out, so the global warmings must be over....
I don't need no sciiiiiientist to tell me that, I'll tell you wut!!
\
:mullet:
HURR HURR HURR
And the North Pole melting is just a seasonal thing!
HURR HURR HURR
I'm sorry....
Did you think that was directed at you? Nono.... I was just commenting on the way a bunch of the redneck goobers i work with sound on the issue, speaking in definite terms as if they are anywhere near qualified to make proclamations about what the climatologists themselves are apparently unsure of...
Incidentally, the North Pole melting is seasonal, just with increasing duration and magnitude in correspondence with the global temperature rise (that i happen to agree with you on, based on what i know), right?
I was agreeing with you.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 06:50:21 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 06:37:47 PM
Next one is going to be about how tired I'm hearing about evolution. :lulz:
Kai,
Going insane, slowly.
There's a way to shut those assholes up.
Next time you run into a partisan of either side, you simply respond with "Either we evolved from monkeys, or we're supposed to look like this, and I'm not impressed either way."
Or you can just hit them with TGRR's "least fit monkey theory".
It was a joke. Was going to post a "rant" about how much I hate evolutionary theory, just to see if I could pull it off. Figured if I'm going to be controversial I might as well be EXTRA controversial.
Least Fit Monkey theory is where we got kicked out of the trees by the other apes, right?
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 07:02:49 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 25, 2009, 06:50:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 12:26:08 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 24, 2009, 09:57:26 PM
Alls i knows is that it was 80 degrees out yesterday in the middle of January, and that's global warming! but today, it's only 48 degrees out, so the global warmings must be over....
I don't need no sciiiiiientist to tell me that, I'll tell you wut!!
\
:mullet:
HURR HURR HURR
And the North Pole melting is just a seasonal thing!
HURR HURR HURR
I'm sorry....
Did you think that was directed at you? Nono.... I was just commenting on the way a bunch of the redneck goobers i work with sound on the issue, speaking in definite terms as if they are anywhere near qualified to make proclamations about what the climatologists themselves are apparently unsure of...
Incidentally, the North Pole melting is seasonal, just with increasing duration and magnitude in correspondence with the global temperature rise (that i happen to agree with you on, based on what i know), right?
IIRC, there is usually some summer ice, but last summer there was less ice than ever recorded before. Its like melting of permafrost, same idea; theres some melt every year, but usually not the massive amount that has been occurring.
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
The best part about this is watching meteorologists flinging themselves out of windows when their computer models turn out to be garbage.
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 07:07:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 06:50:21 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 06:37:47 PM
Next one is going to be about how tired I'm hearing about evolution. :lulz:
Kai,
Going insane, slowly.
There's a way to shut those assholes up.
Next time you run into a partisan of either side, you simply respond with "Either we evolved from monkeys, or we're supposed to look like this, and I'm not impressed either way."
Or you can just hit them with TGRR's "least fit monkey theory".
It was a joke. Was going to post a "rant" about how much I hate evolutionary theory, just to see if I could pull it off. Figured if I'm going to be controversial I might as well be EXTRA controversial.
Least Fit Monkey theory is where we got kicked out of the trees by the other apes, right?
Troof. The successful creatures don't NEED to evolve.
Unless the environment changes.
I don't like the word successful much in terms of evolution. Too short term. The dinosaurs were sucessful, in terms of numbers of species and how ubiquitous they were. Then you reach the K-T boundary and those old forms haven't been around since. The progeny are doing pretty well right now, Mammals and Birds, but its yet to be seen how it will turn out.
Horseshoe crabs haven't changed much for the past 300 million years but they live in a very stable environment, continental shelves and such. If that were to change quickly they wouldn't have a chance.
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 07:17:55 PM
Unless the environment changes.
Then they are no longer successful.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:20:22 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 07:17:55 PM
Unless the environment changes.
Then they are no longer successful.
what about genetic drift?
that's still evolution, no?
Edit: after realizing that you didn't claim that they
don't change if they are currently 'successful'...
Quote from: Iptuous on January 25, 2009, 07:23:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:20:22 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 07:17:55 PM
Unless the environment changes.
Then they are no longer successful.
what about genetic drift?
that's still evolution, no?
Sure. But if the drift causes a less successful trait, then the creature doesn't breed, and it's business as usual.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
[insert shit about the south pole warming I deleted in a moment of asstardedness]
Aw fuck, seriously? Cause I really don't want anymore coastal flooding refugees here. The last batch went crazy and one of em tried to burn his apartment down. With him still inside.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:08:08 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 07:07:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 06:50:21 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 06:37:47 PM
Next one is going to be about how tired I'm hearing about evolution. :lulz:
Kai,
Going insane, slowly.
There's a way to shut those assholes up.
Next time you run into a partisan of either side, you simply respond with "Either we evolved from monkeys, or we're supposed to look like this, and I'm not impressed either way."
Or you can just hit them with TGRR's "least fit monkey theory".
It was a joke. Was going to post a "rant" about how much I hate evolutionary theory, just to see if I could pull it off. Figured if I'm going to be controversial I might as well be EXTRA controversial.
Least Fit Monkey theory is where we got kicked out of the trees by the other apes, right?
Troof. The successful creatures don't NEED to evolve.
This is... very close, if not spot on, to the current major theory.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 25, 2009, 07:23:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:20:22 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 07:17:55 PM
Unless the environment changes.
Then they are no longer successful.
what about genetic drift?
that's still evolution, no?
Edit: after realizing that you didn't claim that they don't change if they are currently 'successful'...
Genetic trait mostly effects traits that are neutral with respect to survival and propagation (and will eventually cause speciation). Now, when something changes, then the direction of the drift could fuck over some species.
And as far as I'm concerned the most successful organism has got to be some bacterial species.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Maybe. If that were the case, then the rate of ice loss should equal that of past years. Whether it is or not is at present not clear.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:57:16 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Maybe. If that were the case, then the rate of ice loss should equal that of past years. Whether it is or not is at present not clear.
Or the testing is inconsistent. How long have we actually had weather stations down on the actual continent of Antarctica?
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:57:16 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Maybe. If that were the case, then the rate of ice loss should equal that of past years. Whether it is or not is at present not clear.
Or the testing is inconsistent. How long have we actually had weather stations down on the actual continent of Antarctica?
http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/images/awsmap.jpg
EDIT:
srry i meant to post this:
http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/
EDIT 2:
sorry again, the answer is 1957
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:57:16 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Maybe. If that were the case, then the rate of ice loss should equal that of past years. Whether it is or not is at present not clear.
Or the testing is inconsistent. How long have we actually had weather stations down on the actual continent of Antarctica?
Who needs that? That's what core samples of ice are for.
Now, being that I'm an environmental studies major and all, I probably ought to have an opinion on this.
I got nothing. There's so many howling monkeys on both sides that I'm starting to think that global climate trends are not all that different from economic climate (take a shot!) trends: nobody actually knows wtf is going on in its entirety, but a whole lot of people sure get off on making sweeping generalizations.
Which, really, is understandable behavior for monkeys. In general, there's three possible outcomes:
1) The doomsayers were right, and we're totally fucked.
2) Change is happening, but we can take steps to mitigate its impact. Shit will still happen, but it won't ruin civilization.
3) All of this was a big fat load of bullshit and nothing significant is really going to happen, at least not in our lifetimes.
Regardless of what specific arguments the talking heads and self-appointed experts make, they still have odds of one in three of being able to claim they were "right." Not bad, really.
If there's money and notoriety to be gained in the meantime by hyping the shit out of your position on the issue, why not? Fame, money, and one in three chance of being in the category of "People Who Were Right All Along" in the history books sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 08:17:41 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:57:16 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Maybe. If that were the case, then the rate of ice loss should equal that of past years. Whether it is or not is at present not clear.
Or the testing is inconsistent. How long have we actually had weather stations down on the actual continent of Antarctica?
Who needs that? That's what core samples of ice are for.
I never got into how accurate the dating of ice is with my education, so I don't really have much of an opinion on that. Got any links?
Quote from: Cainad on January 25, 2009, 08:28:01 PM
Now, being that I'm an environmental studies major and all, I probably ought to have an opinion on this.
I got nothing. There's so many howling monkeys on both sides that I'm starting to think that global climate trends are not all that different from economic climate (take a shot!) trends: nobody actually knows wtf is going on in its entirety, but a whole lot of people sure get off on making sweeping generalizations.
Which, really, is understandable behavior for monkeys. In general, there's three possible outcomes:
1) The doomsayers were right, and we're totally fucked.
2) Change is happening, but we can take steps to mitigate its impact. Shit will still happen, but it won't ruin civilization.
3) All of this was a big fat load of bullshit and nothing significant is really going to happen, at least not in our lifetimes.
Regardless of what specific arguments the talking heads and self-appointed experts make, they still have odds of one in three of being able to claim they were "right." Not bad, really.
If there's money and notoriety to be gained in the meantime by hyping the shit out of your position on the issue, why not? Fame, money, and one in three chance of being in the category of "People Who Were Right All Along" in the history books sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
You know who pissed me off the most out of all these people who thought they were scientists?
Crichton. The Fucker.
A fiction author briefing the president on Climatology. Goddamn. And State of Fear was horrid, by far the worst book he ever wrote.
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Holes. The big hole started closing up, leaving two smaller ones behind. There's probably been more progress. Which may be the problem. It was theorized that the hole in the ozone was causing the screwy air currents that protect(ed) the antartic interior from the warming trend the rest of the world is going through.
Yeah, Crichton was an ass.
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 07:17:55 PM
Unless the environment changes.
I don't like the word successful much in terms of evolution. Too short term. The dinosaurs were sucessful, in terms of numbers of species and how ubiquitous they were. Then you reach the K-T boundary and those old forms haven't been around since. The progeny are doing pretty well right now, Mammals and Birds, but its yet to be seen how it will turn out.
Horseshoe crabs haven't changed much for the past 300 million years but they live in a very stable environment, continental shelves and such. If that were to change quickly they wouldn't have a chance.
If dinosaurs were so successful, they would have evolved into the Tarraesque and survived being hit by a meteor (or anything else for that matter).
I actually planned on being a paleontologist once upon a time, even before the Jurassic Park films came out. However, I still stand by my words: if dinosaurs had evolved to withstand interplanetary impact, I would have respected them much more. Evolutionary n00bs.
Quote from: Cain on January 25, 2009, 09:26:29 PM
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 07:17:55 PM
Unless the environment changes.
I don't like the word successful much in terms of evolution. Too short term. The dinosaurs were sucessful, in terms of numbers of species and how ubiquitous they were. Then you reach the K-T boundary and those old forms haven't been around since. The progeny are doing pretty well right now, Mammals and Birds, but its yet to be seen how it will turn out.
Horseshoe crabs haven't changed much for the past 300 million years but they live in a very stable environment, continental shelves and such. If that were to change quickly they wouldn't have a chance.
If dinosaurs were so successful, they would have evolved into the Tarraesque and survived being hit by a meteor (or anything else for that matter).
I actually planned on being a paleontologist once upon a time, even before the Jurassic Park films came out. However, I still stand by my words: if dinosaurs had evolved to withstand interplanetary impact, I would have respected them much more. Evolutionary n00bs.
That's okay. It is my firm belief that intelligence is a fatal mutation.
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Earth does not tilt, it is tilted but it's tiltedness does not change.
Quote from: Regret on January 25, 2009, 11:08:50 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Earth does not tilt, it is tilted but it's tiltedness does not change.
But the base of the tilt will be closer to - or farther away from - the sun, depending on what time of year it is.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 11:12:08 PM
Quote from: Regret on January 25, 2009, 11:08:50 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Earth does not tilt, it is tilted but it's tiltedness does not change.
But the base of the tilt will be closer to - or farther away from - the sun, depending on what time of year it is.
What is it, 23.5 axial tilt? Not only that, but theres an appogee and paragee, a time when earth is closest to and furthest from the sun, AND, this varies even somewhat.
Did I get that right? Or did I fuck up the terms?
Quote from: Cainad on January 25, 2009, 08:28:01 PM
Now, being that I'm an environmental studies major and all, I probably ought to have an opinion on this.
I got nothing. There's so many howling monkeys on both sides that I'm starting to think that global climate trends are not all that different from economic climate (take a shot!) trends: nobody actually knows wtf is going on in its entirety, but a whole lot of people sure get off on making sweeping generalizations.
Which, really, is understandable behavior for monkeys. In general, there's three possible outcomes:
1) The doomsayers were right, and we're totally fucked.
2) Change is happening, but we can take steps to mitigate its impact. Shit will still happen, but it won't ruin civilization.
3) All of this was a big fat load of bullshit and nothing significant is really going to happen, at least not in our lifetimes.
Regardless of what specific arguments the talking heads and self-appointed experts make, they still have odds of one in three of being able to claim they were "right." Not bad, really.
If there's money and notoriety to be gained in the meantime by hyping the shit out of your position on the issue, why not? Fame, money, and one in three chance of being in the category of "People Who Were Right All Along" in the history books sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
I was going to post something like this, but you beat me to the punch.
Guys have right; change are coming.
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 11:53:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 11:12:08 PM
Quote from: Regret on January 25, 2009, 11:08:50 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Earth does not tilt, it is tilted but it's tiltedness does not change.
But the base of the tilt will be closer to - or farther away from - the sun, depending on what time of year it is.
What is it, 23.5 axial tilt? Not only that, but theres an appogee and paragee, a time when earth is closest to and furthest from the sun, AND, this varies even somewhat.
Did I get that right? Or did I fuck up the terms?
Nope you got it!
The Apogee and the Perigee do not coincide with the seasons either like the tilt does.
For example, we take a warm winter in the Northern Hemisphere. Even though the Earth is tilted away from the Sun, it's at perigee, which means closer to the sun in orbit since it's elliptical and we're more or less hula-hooped. Same thing with a cool summer, tilted toward the Sun, but at apogee and farther away so the temperature isn't as hot.
2004 is a great example for this. July and August in RI were averaging 60s-70s with frequent rain, when it's "normally" 80s-90s.
how long does it take to cycle through a perigee/apogee "year"?
Edit: I did get it wrong. Its Parahelion and aphelion for solar apsis, and perigee/apogee for lunar apsis. I also answered my question: 21,000 years.
Year Perihelion Aphelion
2007 January 3 20Z July 7 00Z
2008 January 3 00Z July 4 08Z
2009 January 4 15Z July 4 02Z
2010 January 3 00Z July 6 11Z
2011 January 3 19Z July 4 15Z
2012 January 5 00Z July 5 03Z
2013 January 2 05Z July 5 15Z
2014 January 4 12Z July 4 00Z
2015 January 4 07Z July 6 19Z
2016 January 2 23Z July 4 16Z
2017 January 4 14Z July 3 20Z
2018 January 3 06Z July 6 17Z
2019 January 3 05Z July 4 22Z
2020 January 5 08Z July 4 12Z
It doesn't look like apsis is playing a role in the climate change, unless the distance from the sun at aphelion and parahelion changes cyclically or from year to year.
See Milankovitch Cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles).
Quote from: Kai on January 26, 2009, 01:27:45 AM
See Milankovitch Cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles).
Wheeeeee!
I have been trying to remember the name of those *forever*.
Quote from: Kai on January 26, 2009, 01:19:15 AM
how long does it take to cycle through a perigee/apogee "year"?
Edit: I did get it wrong. Its Parahelion and aphelion for solar apsis, and perigee/apogee for lunar apsis. I also answered my question: 21,000 years.
Year Perihelion Aphelion
2007 January 3 20Z July 7 00Z
2008 January 3 00Z July 4 08Z
2009 January 4 15Z July 4 02Z
2010 January 3 00Z July 6 11Z
2011 January 3 19Z July 4 15Z
2012 January 5 00Z July 5 03Z
2013 January 2 05Z July 5 15Z
2014 January 4 12Z July 4 00Z
2015 January 4 07Z July 6 19Z
2016 January 2 23Z July 4 16Z
2017 January 4 14Z July 3 20Z
2018 January 3 06Z July 6 17Z
2019 January 3 05Z July 4 22Z
2020 January 5 08Z July 4 12Z
It doesn't look like apsis is playing a role in the climate change, unless the distance from the sun at aphelion and parahelion changes cyclically or from year to year.
Apogee and perigee are generic terms for the distance of any orbiting satellite. You weren't wrong, 'helion' is just sun-centric.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 09:29:53 PM
That's okay. It is my firm belief that intelligence is a fatal mutation.
You can't have intelligence without stupidity.
So it seems to me that this entire Climate Change debate is a great mix of useful information, useless theorizing, overstated claims, understated claims and mostly people falling on the side of their favorite team. I mean, how many decades have we measured the sea ice on the caps? What did they look like during the Warm period of the early Middle Ages? What did it look like at the height of the mini Ice Age? We have theories, which might be close, or they might be way off, but depending on which side people are on its 100% true or 100% false.
Feh.
It seems to me that we are not 'saving our planet'. Our planet is safe. Our planet was here for millions of years before any of our grandparents showed up, even the asexual ones. Our planet will be here until it explodes like Krypton, falls into the Sun, gets blown up to make way for a hyperspace bypass, or melts during the supernova that will someday turn Sol into Solong. However, its not nearly as respectable to say "Save our Habitathttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkHM8xG6i8o&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkHM8xG6i8o&NR=1". That's embarrassing. Save our habitat? Yes, we a species that groks the model of causality, seem in need of saving... we pump the soil and the water and the air full of crap and wonder why we feel ill.
TGRR had the right of it, even if this is nothing but hype, cleaning the toxins out of our habitat seems like a good idea.
I think we should continue to investigate climate change, it seems useful to figure out what may soon happen. I think its smart to make sure we're impacting those changes as little as possible. However, it seems to me, that at least some people ought to be planning for a flock of black swans to cland in the lake that used to be Central Park... that is, some people should be planning for "What if the coasts change?"
If a bad scenario happens... if within the next 100 years, the oceans rise enough to flood the US coasts... Where the fuck are we gonna put all of those people? What if the conveyor theory is right? Where do we put all those sods living out West that are gonna have firestorms and no rain?
By 2050, the world will have an estimated 9,000,000,000* people... and if global climate change is correct we may have much less habitable land. Having a team trying to stop the mess is a good idea, but it seems to me that we ought to have some contingencies being put together as well. For example, maybe we should think about moving New Orleans... to Missouri.
*fixt in edit
Actually, they can track the ice ages pretty reliably with many methods. Core samples of sediments for pollen types, for example. Warmer and colder climate yields different pollen types.
We can track the past relatively well. What we can't do well is track the short term future. We know EVENTUALLY there will be another high ice age event. We don't know when. We don't know how great an affect on this our CO2 emmissions have had. (add another three zeros to that population estimate, Rat.)
The biggest variable that we have no clue about is, believe it or not, clouds.
Quote from: Kai on January 28, 2009, 12:03:44 PMadd another three zeros to that population estimate, Rat.
yeah, I really hope i'll still be around by then.
- the other three zeros ;-)
Quote from: Kai on January 28, 2009, 12:03:44 PM
Actually, they can track the ice ages pretty reliably with many methods. Core samples of sediments for pollen types, for example. Warmer and colder climate yields different pollen types.
We can track the past relatively well. What we can't do well is track the short term future. We know EVENTUALLY there will be another high ice age event. We don't know when. We don't know how great an affect on this our CO2 emmissions have had. (add another three zeros to that population estimate, Rat.)
The biggest variable that we have no clue about is, believe it or not, clouds.
lol whoops.. yes should be billion.
Also, I know that we can measure quite a lot... be we're still extrapolating a lot of information out of that data. These guys are still getting surprises, because of unknowns (holishi look how much faster that glacier moves, once melting ice lubricates it!) Do we know if the ice over the water melts in some normal cycle due to some other unknown quirk which we haven't yet observed?
My point is that we don't know if their estimates are correct or way off because of other unknowns (way off worse or way off better). However, not poisoning our habitat on a regular basis and planning for rising oceans and changes to the coasts seems like a good idea. The worst that happens then, is we have some disaster plans that never get used and a cleaner, healthier place to live.
Here's why I hate environmentalists: They think that we (as the nearest thing to god on this mudball) have some obligation to keep things exactly the same, even though the 'natural' way of doing things is constant change. Continents drift, habitats evolve or die, species become extinct.
The environment is crap! There - I've one and said it. It's as bad as 'evolution'. Yup - another sacred cow, you line 'em up I'll knock 'em down. Evolution takes eight billion years (approx) to fix a minor design flaw, that's how useless it is. It's only impressive when one appreciates the scale of it but, make no mistake, the scale is the only impressive bit. When we came along it took a couple of hundred years to develop the 'wolf' model into designer pets and working animals of your choice. Couple of hundred year and we have high-yield boar modifications that produce ten times the meat in half the time.
We took evolution and we fucking fixed it! And it's high time we did the same to the environment. Lets face it the environment is the same bullshit, hit and miss cop-out that mother nature is famous for. It's too cold and rainy in scotland, the australian and african deserts are largely uninhabitable. The north pole is only any use as part of the whole fucking fiasco. And the minute our genetically modified foodsource farts the whole thing falls apart? Fuck that shit. we need to replace the whole thing with something that suits our purposes.
The environment does not need conserved it needs wiped out and rebuilt. Properly this time.
P3nT,
I love you.
-Hoopla
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 28, 2009, 04:41:55 PM
Evolution takes eight billion years (approx) to fix a minor design flaw, that's how useless it is.
:lulz: I'm just going to pretend you got the number wrong on purpose. And we still have plenty of design flaws.
Quote from: Vene on January 28, 2009, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 28, 2009, 04:41:55 PM
Evolution takes eight billion years (approx) to fix a minor design flaw, that's how useless it is.
:lulz: I'm just going to pretend you got the number wrong on purpose. And we still have plenty of design flaws.
They're ALL flaws.
Life is rogue nucleic acids that gained metabolism.
Oh look.... some folks have a <sarcasm>positively brilliant</sarcasm> plan to fix the whole shebang...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090128/sc_afp/climatewarmingoceansgeo_20090128194253
Quote from: Kai on January 28, 2009, 08:06:42 PM
Quote from: Vene on January 28, 2009, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 28, 2009, 04:41:55 PM
Evolution takes eight billion years (approx) to fix a minor design flaw, that's how useless it is.
:lulz: I'm just going to pretend you got the number wrong on purpose. And we still have plenty of design flaws.
They're ALL flaws.
Life is rogue nucleic acids that gained metabolism.
I am so fucking stealing that from you.
Quote from: Kai on January 28, 2009, 08:06:42 PM
Quote from: Vene on January 28, 2009, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 28, 2009, 04:41:55 PM
Evolution takes eight billion years (approx) to fix a minor design flaw, that's how useless it is.
:lulz: I'm just going to pretend you got the number wrong on purpose. And we still have plenty of design flaws.
They're ALL flaws.
Life is rogue nucleic acids that gained metabolism.
that's the point. modern day information design works
better.
or at least, the composing elements are capable of processing way more information, very fast, in a meaningful way. what emerges out of that is of course another question.
Quote from: Suu on January 26, 2009, 12:49:19 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 11:53:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 11:12:08 PM
Quote from: Regret on January 25, 2009, 11:08:50 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 25, 2009, 07:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
And now, apparently, the South pole, which has been GAINING ice, is starting to warm up drastically.
This is because the Earth tilts during seasons for one, it's proximity to the sun for two, and you know, that giant ozone hole that's down there for strike three.
Earth does not tilt, it is tilted but it's tiltedness does not change.
But the base of the tilt will be closer to - or farther away from - the sun, depending on what time of year it is.
What is it, 23.5 axial tilt? Not only that, but theres an appogee and paragee, a time when earth is closest to and furthest from the sun, AND, this varies even somewhat.
Did I get that right? Or did I fuck up the terms?
Nope you got it!
The Apogee and the Perigee do not coincide with the seasons either like the tilt does.
For example, we take a warm winter in the Northern Hemisphere. Even though the Earth is tilted away from the Sun, it's at perigee, which means closer to the sun in orbit since it's elliptical and we're more or less hula-hooped. Same thing with a cool summer, tilted toward the Sun, but at apogee and farther away so the temperature isn't as hot.
2004 is a great example for this. July and August in RI were averaging 60s-70s with frequent rain, when it's "normally" 80s-90s.
Actually no.
The seasons have to do with the angle of the Sun's rays, relative to the tilt of the earth.
The distance from the Sun has nothing to do with it.
I believe she's talking about the effect of the elliptical orbit on the seasons, not saying that it causes them. It does impact the severity of the seasons; they're less drastic in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, because southern hemisphere summers coincide with perihelion and winters with aphelion, and the opposite (obviously) is true of the northern hemisphere.
Quote from: The Mormons Will Begin Arriving By Bus on February 02, 2009, 06:19:43 PM
I believe she's talking about the effect of the elliptical orbit on the seasons, not saying that it causes them. It does impact the severity of the seasons; they're less drastic in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, because southern hemisphere summers coincide with perihelion and winters with aphelion, and the opposite (obviously) is true of the northern hemisphere.
yeah, the perihelion and aphelion are not what cause the seasons majorly, but they do have an effect on the closeness of the earth to a big hot ball of flaming plasma. The tendency when you get closer to such a thing, more of the radiation, including heat, hits the surface of the earth.
Read: exactly what nigel said above and I wasn't paying attention.
Quote from: RWHN-on hiatus on January 25, 2009, 05:59:19 PMOf course, the whole discussion has become politicized beyond recognition and Al Gore certainly didn't help that. I know he has good intentions, of wanting to bring the information to the masses.
When a politician tells you the truth about something. You can bet it's because it will increase their bottom line.
though to be fair I must ask if you are a Positive Objectionist.
Are you a Positive Objectionist?
Quote from: A Gatecrashers Five Goons on February 02, 2009, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: RWHN-on hiatus on January 25, 2009, 05:59:19 PMOf course, the whole discussion has become politicized beyond recognition and Al Gore certainly didn't help that. I know he has good intentions, of wanting to bring the information to the masses.
When a politician tells you the truth about something. You can bet it's because it will increase their bottom line.
though to be fair I must ask if you are a Positive Objectionist.
Are you a Positive Objectionist?
You know, humans don't ALWAYS follow the lowest common denominator.
AAAHH!
2/3 of Queensland, Australia is flooded! (That state is fucking huge, too!)
Victoria is on fire! Whole Towns have burnt to the ground, and yesterday was Melbourne's hottest day in recorded history! 47 c (about 117 f)
South-east England has the worst snow it has seen for 18 years!
We're all going to die. Soon. Very soon.
And I dont think it's from carbon emissions, neither. It's just because we love to overbreed, overrun the world, and snoop around, lookin' at everything.
Always with the lookin' at stuff. Stupid monkeys. Heisenberg warned you not to go lookin' at stuff willy-nilly, but you just couldn't resist, could you? Lookin' and watchin' and writing down data.
"Oops, starting to think you're seeing PATTERNS??" Says Eris. "We'll soon see about THAT!"
In short, I blame documentary film-makers. Damn you Attenborough!
Quote from: bones on February 08, 2009, 10:53:55 PM
In short, I blame documentary film-makers. Damn you Attenborough!
Ahem:
http://www.vimeo.com/2287125
:roll:
:lulz:
Update: In 2013, Canadian Prime Minister Harper destroyed the fisheries libraries containing meteorological data going back to 1850 (including, I might add, my father's work from the 1970s).
Because if you have no historical data, you cannot observe rate of change.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 10, 2018, 02:07:31 AM
Update: In 2013, Canadian Prime Minister Harper destroyed the fisheries libraries containing meteorological data going back to 1850 (including, I might add, my father's work from the 1970s).
Because if you have no historical data, you cannot observe rate of change.
FUCK
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on February 26, 2018, 06:21:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 10, 2018, 02:07:31 AM
Update: In 2013, Canadian Prime Minister Harper destroyed the fisheries libraries containing meteorological data going back to 1850 (including, I might add, my father's work from the 1970s).
Because if you have no historical data, you cannot observe rate of change.
FUCK
:owned:
Yeah, Harper was a true dork towards the scientific community...
My only worry related to this is when there's going to be a reboot of Widget The World Watcher. For the fact that Widget's HQ is inside a sea cave, I feel there might be some shoreline erosion if they're keeping the same setting as the original. Just saying.
Quote from: WidgetOtaku on March 18, 2018, 05:58:09 PM
Yeah, Harper was a true dork towards the scientific community...
I'd use somewhat stronger language.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 20, 2018, 05:18:12 AM
Quote from: WidgetOtaku on March 18, 2018, 05:58:09 PM
Yeah, Harper was a true dork towards the scientific community...
I'd use somewhat stronger language.
Do you know that the biological term of "dork" means?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whale%20Cock%20%28Dork%29
Quote from: WidgetOtaku on March 20, 2018, 10:31:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 20, 2018, 05:18:12 AM
Quote from: WidgetOtaku on March 18, 2018, 05:58:09 PM
Yeah, Harper was a true dork towards the scientific community...
I'd use somewhat stronger language.
Do you know that the biological term of "dork" means?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whale%20Cock%20%28Dork%29
Still weaksauce.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 20, 2018, 05:18:12 AM
Quote from: WidgetOtaku on March 18, 2018, 05:58:09 PM
Yeah, Harper was a true dork towards the scientific community...
I'd use somewhat stronger language.
And then some.