What you think you know about global warming is all a sham!! Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases and solar variation, it's caused by politicians and conspiracy theorists who keep spewing hot air out when they won't shut up and start listening to reason.
:lulz:
So...what you are saying is we should kill the politicians and plunge ourselves into an ice age?
Only if I get a mammoth as a mount.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 06, 2010, 07:23:51 PM
So...what you are saying is we should kill the politicians and plunge ourselves into an ice age?
Only if I get a mammoth as a mount.
(http://kingconan.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/snow_mammoth.jpg)
Quote from: Lysergic on September 06, 2010, 04:12:39 PM
What you think you know about global warming is all a sham!! Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases and solar variation, it's caused by politicians and conspiracy theorists who keep spewing hot air out when they won't shut up and start listening to reason.
My professor, this morning:
Quote
Recently, some have taken to calling this the Anthropocene Epoch, from the greek for "recent human period". And it's quite obvious why this is, the effects of humans on ecosystems and landscapes is geologically significant. Climate change goes along with this hand in hand. There has been much controversy about this, whether you subscribe to Sean Hannity on the Right or Al Gore on the Left, but the pattern is there regardless of the level of human involvement.
Reminds me of how when ecology and biology advance and find that evolution is not only natural selection but also genetic drift, the creationists latch onto this as "evolution is wrong", yet the correction is STILL WITHIN the realm of descent with modification. Just like with the Theory of General Relativity, it did not suddenly render the heliocentric model obsolete. So too with the above.
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:56:56 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 06, 2010, 04:12:39 PM
What you think you know about global warming is all a sham!! Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases and solar variation, it's caused by politicians and conspiracy theorists who keep spewing hot air out when they won't shut up and start listening to reason.
My professor, this morning:
Quote
Recently, some have taken to calling this the Anthropocene Epoch, from the greek for "recent human period". And it's quite obvious why this is, the effects of humans on ecosystems and landscapes is geologically significant. Climate change goes along with this hand in hand. There has been much controversy about this, whether you subscribe to Sean Hannity on the Right or Al Gore on the Left, but the pattern is there regardless of the level of human involvement.
Reminds me of how when ecology and biology advance and find that evolution is not only natural selection but also genetic drift, the creationists latch onto this as "evolution is wrong", yet the correction is STILL WITHIN the realm of descent with modification. Just like with the Theory of General Relativity, it did not suddenly render the heliocentric model obsolete. So too with the above.
Do go on, please.
edit; use little words.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 09:01:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:56:56 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 06, 2010, 04:12:39 PM
What you think you know about global warming is all a sham!! Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases and solar variation, it's caused by politicians and conspiracy theorists who keep spewing hot air out when they won't shut up and start listening to reason.
My professor, this morning:
Quote
Recently, some have taken to calling this the Anthropocene Epoch, from the greek for "recent human period". And it's quite obvious why this is, the effects of humans on ecosystems and landscapes is geologically significant. Climate change goes along with this hand in hand. There has been much controversy about this, whether you subscribe to Sean Hannity on the Right or Al Gore on the Left, but the pattern is there regardless of the level of human involvement.
Reminds me of how when ecology and biology advance and find that evolution is not only natural selection but also genetic drift, the creationists latch onto this as "evolution is wrong", yet the correction is STILL WITHIN the realm of descent with modification. Just like with the Theory of General Relativity, it did not suddenly render the heliocentric model obsolete. So too with the above.
Do go on, please.
edit; use little words.
Humans being the cause is the topic up for debate, not if huge climate change is occurring.
Quote from: Faust on September 06, 2010, 09:19:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 09:01:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:56:56 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 06, 2010, 04:12:39 PM
What you think you know about global warming is all a sham!! Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases and solar variation, it's caused by politicians and conspiracy theorists who keep spewing hot air out when they won't shut up and start listening to reason.
My professor, this morning:
Quote
Recently, some have taken to calling this the Anthropocene Epoch, from the greek for "recent human period". And it's quite obvious why this is, the effects of humans on ecosystems and landscapes is geologically significant. Climate change goes along with this hand in hand. There has been much controversy about this, whether you subscribe to Sean Hannity on the Right or Al Gore on the Left, but the pattern is there regardless of the level of human involvement.
Reminds me of how when ecology and biology advance and find that evolution is not only natural selection but also genetic drift, the creationists latch onto this as "evolution is wrong", yet the correction is STILL WITHIN the realm of descent with modification. Just like with the Theory of General Relativity, it did not suddenly render the heliocentric model obsolete. So too with the above.
Do go on, please.
edit; use little words.
Humans being the cause is the topic up for debate, not if huge climate change is occurring.
Thank you.
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:56:56 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 06, 2010, 04:12:39 PM
What you think you know about global warming is all a sham!! Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases and solar variation, it's caused by politicians and conspiracy theorists who keep spewing hot air out when they won't shut up and start listening to reason.
My professor, this morning:
Quote
Recently, some have taken to calling this the Anthropocene Epoch, from the greek for "recent human period". And it's quite obvious why this is, the effects of humans on ecosystems and landscapes is geologically significant. Climate change goes along with this hand in hand. There has been much controversy about this, whether you subscribe to Sean Hannity on the Right or Al Gore on the Left, but the pattern is there regardless of the level of human involvement.
Reminds me of how when ecology and biology advance and find that evolution is not only natural selection but also genetic drift, the creationists latch onto this as "evolution is wrong", yet the correction is STILL WITHIN the realm of descent with modification. Just like with the Theory of General Relativity, it did not suddenly render the heliocentric model obsolete. So too with the above.
Yeah, this is exactly my point, I have friends who don't believe global warming is real and think it's a fucking conspiracy or something, they think *I'm* the crazy one for believing it's happening, and yeah, I don't hold a firm position on whether it is human influenced or not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be taking steps to do our best to prepare for/prevent it, right?
I remember a friend of mine saying that Global warming was a conspiracy by the companies that research alternative fuels and make solar panels.
Well to be honest he didnt come right out and say it to be fact he just pointed out that "They have a lot to gain from perpetuating the idea of global warming."
Then I pointed out that Oil/Coal companies have a lot to gain from the idea that Global Warming is a hoax, AND they have much more money and resources to do it.
Then the conversation shifted to the Packers.
Quote from: Lysergic on September 07, 2010, 02:40:39 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:56:56 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 06, 2010, 04:12:39 PM
What you think you know about global warming is all a sham!! Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases and solar variation, it's caused by politicians and conspiracy theorists who keep spewing hot air out when they won't shut up and start listening to reason.
My professor, this morning:
Quote
Recently, some have taken to calling this the Anthropocene Epoch, from the greek for "recent human period". And it's quite obvious why this is, the effects of humans on ecosystems and landscapes is geologically significant. Climate change goes along with this hand in hand. There has been much controversy about this, whether you subscribe to Sean Hannity on the Right or Al Gore on the Left, but the pattern is there regardless of the level of human involvement.
Reminds me of how when ecology and biology advance and find that evolution is not only natural selection but also genetic drift, the creationists latch onto this as "evolution is wrong", yet the correction is STILL WITHIN the realm of descent with modification. Just like with the Theory of General Relativity, it did not suddenly render the heliocentric model obsolete. So too with the above.
Yeah, this is exactly my point, I have friends who don't believe global warming is real and think it's a fucking conspiracy or something, they think *I'm* the crazy one for believing it's happening, and yeah, I don't hold a firm position on whether it is human influenced or not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be taking steps to do our best to prepare for/prevent it, right?
Climate change is happening. It's pretty clear that humans have some precentage of blame. However, even if it is not clear just how much we are contributing, that STILL works within the framework that climate change is happening. I can't remember the exact phrasing that Yudowsky used to describe this sort of situation, but it was along those lines.
Quote from: Kai on September 07, 2010, 03:23:00 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 07, 2010, 02:40:39 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:56:56 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 06, 2010, 04:12:39 PM
What you think you know about global warming is all a sham!! Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases and solar variation, it's caused by politicians and conspiracy theorists who keep spewing hot air out when they won't shut up and start listening to reason.
My professor, this morning:
Quote
Recently, some have taken to calling this the Anthropocene Epoch, from the greek for "recent human period". And it's quite obvious why this is, the effects of humans on ecosystems and landscapes is geologically significant. Climate change goes along with this hand in hand. There has been much controversy about this, whether you subscribe to Sean Hannity on the Right or Al Gore on the Left, but the pattern is there regardless of the level of human involvement.
Reminds me of how when ecology and biology advance and find that evolution is not only natural selection but also genetic drift, the creationists latch onto this as "evolution is wrong", yet the correction is STILL WITHIN the realm of descent with modification. Just like with the Theory of General Relativity, it did not suddenly render the heliocentric model obsolete. So too with the above.
Yeah, this is exactly my point, I have friends who don't believe global warming is real and think it's a fucking conspiracy or something, they think *I'm* the crazy one for believing it's happening, and yeah, I don't hold a firm position on whether it is human influenced or not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be taking steps to do our best to prepare for/prevent it, right?
Climate change is happening. It's pretty clear that humans have some precentage of blame. However, even if it is not clear just how much we are contributing, that STILL works within the framework that climate change is happening. I can't remember the exact phrasing that Yudowsky used to describe this sort of situation, but it was along those lines.
Last hypothetical model I saw it was something like humans were only responsible for 30% of the climate change, the rest being The Earth and Sun doing their thang.
Sun's in it's cooling cycle right now
Also this year has been usual considering which may have the answer
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/12mar_conveyorbelt/
QuoteMarch 12, 2010: What in the world is the sun up to now?
In today's issue of Science, NASA solar physicist David Hathaway reports that the top of the sun's Great Conveyor Belt has been running at record-high speeds for the past five years.
"I believe this could explain the unusually deep solar minimum we've been experiencing," says Hathaway. "The high speed of the conveyor belt challenges existing models of the solar cycle and it has forced us back to the drawing board for new ideas."
The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to complete one circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle.
Hathaway has been monitoring the conveyor belt using data from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). The top of the belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up knots of solar magnetism and carrying them toward the poles. SOHO is able to track those knots—Hathaway calls them "magnetic elements"--and thus reveal the speed of the underlying flow.
"It's a little like measuring the speed of a river on Earth by clocking the leaves and twigs floating downstream," Hathaway explains.
SOHO's dataset extends all the way back to 1996 and spans a complete solar cycle. Last year, Lisa Rightmire, a student of Hathaway from the University of Memphis, spent the entire summer measuring magnetic elements. When she plotted their speeds vs. time, she noticed how fast the conveyor belt has been going.
A note about "fast": The Great Conveyor Belt is one of the biggest things in the whole solar system and by human standards it moves with massive slowness. "Fast" in this context means 10 to 15 meters per second (20 to 30 miles per hour). A good bicyclist could easily keep up.
First, it coincided with the deepest solar minimum in nearly 100 years, contradicting models that say a fast-moving belt should boost sunspot production. The basic idea is that the belt sweeps up magnetic fields from the sun's surface and drags them down to the sun's inner dynamo. There the fields are amplified to form the underpinnings of new sunspots. A fast-moving belt should accelerate this process.
So where have all the sunspots been? The solar minimum of 2008-2009 was unusually deep and now the sun appears to be on the verge of a weak solar cycle.
Instead of boosting sunspots, Hathaway believes that a fast-moving Conveyor Belt can instead suppress them "by counteracting magnetic diffusion at the sun's equator." He describes the process in detail in Science ("Variations in the Sun's Meridional Flow over a Solar Cycle," 12 March 2010, v327, 1350-1352).
The second surprise has to do with the bottom of the Conveyor Belt.
SOHO can only clock the motions of the visible top layer. The bottom is hidden by ~200,000 kilometers of overlying plasma. Nevertheless, an estimate of its speed can be made by tracking sunspots.
Sunspots are supposedly rooted to the bottom of the belt," says Hathaway. "So the motion of sunspots tells us how fast the belt is moving down there."
He's done that—plotted sunspot speeds vs. time since 1996—and the results don't make sense. "While the top of the conveyor belt has been moving at record-high speed, the bottom seems to be moving at record-low speed. Another contradiction."
Could it be that sunspots are not rooted to the bottom of the Conveyor Belt, after all? "That's one possibility" he notes. "Sunspots could be movin Could it be that sunspots are not rooted to the bottom of the Conveyor Belt, after all? "That's one possibility" he notes. "Sunspots could be moving because of dynamo waves or some other phenomenon not directly linked to the belt."
What researchers really need is a good look deep inside the sun. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, launched in February 2010, will provide that when its instruments come online later this year. SDO is able to map the sun's interior using a technique called helioseismology. SOHO can do the same thing, but not well enough to trace the Great Conveyor Belt all the way around. SDO's advanced sensors might reveal the complete circuit.
And then...? "It could be the missing piece we need to forecast the whole solar cycle," says Hathaway. g because of dynamo waves or some other phenomenon not directly linked to the belt."
What researchers really need is a good look deep inside the sun. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, launched in February 2010, will provide that when its instruments come online later this year. SDO is able to map the sun's interior using a technique called helioseismology. SOHO can do the same thing, but not well enough to trace the Great Conveyor Belt all the way around. SDO's advanced sensors might reveal the complete circuit.
And then...? "It could be the missing piece we need to forecast the whole solar cycle," says Hathaway.
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 07, 2010, 04:46:25 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 07, 2010, 03:23:00 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 07, 2010, 02:40:39 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:56:56 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 06, 2010, 04:12:39 PM
What you think you know about global warming is all a sham!! Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases and solar variation, it's caused by politicians and conspiracy theorists who keep spewing hot air out when they won't shut up and start listening to reason.
My professor, this morning:
Quote
Recently, some have taken to calling this the Anthropocene Epoch, from the greek for "recent human period". And it's quite obvious why this is, the effects of humans on ecosystems and landscapes is geologically significant. Climate change goes along with this hand in hand. There has been much controversy about this, whether you subscribe to Sean Hannity on the Right or Al Gore on the Left, but the pattern is there regardless of the level of human involvement.
Reminds me of how when ecology and biology advance and find that evolution is not only natural selection but also genetic drift, the creationists latch onto this as "evolution is wrong", yet the correction is STILL WITHIN the realm of descent with modification. Just like with the Theory of General Relativity, it did not suddenly render the heliocentric model obsolete. So too with the above.
Yeah, this is exactly my point, I have friends who don't believe global warming is real and think it's a fucking conspiracy or something, they think *I'm* the crazy one for believing it's happening, and yeah, I don't hold a firm position on whether it is human influenced or not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be taking steps to do our best to prepare for/prevent it, right?
Climate change is happening. It's pretty clear that humans have some precentage of blame. However, even if it is not clear just how much we are contributing, that STILL works within the framework that climate change is happening. I can't remember the exact phrasing that Yudowsky used to describe this sort of situation, but it was along those lines.
Last hypothetical model I saw it was something like humans were only responsible for 30% of the climate change, the rest being The Earth and Sun doing their thang.
According to who?
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 07, 2010, 04:46:25 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 07, 2010, 03:23:00 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 07, 2010, 02:40:39 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:56:56 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 06, 2010, 04:12:39 PM
What you think you know about global warming is all a sham!! Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases and solar variation, it's caused by politicians and conspiracy theorists who keep spewing hot air out when they won't shut up and start listening to reason.
My professor, this morning:
Quote
Recently, some have taken to calling this the Anthropocene Epoch, from the greek for "recent human period". And it's quite obvious why this is, the effects of humans on ecosystems and landscapes is geologically significant. Climate change goes along with this hand in hand. There has been much controversy about this, whether you subscribe to Sean Hannity on the Right or Al Gore on the Left, but the pattern is there regardless of the level of human involvement.
Reminds me of how when ecology and biology advance and find that evolution is not only natural selection but also genetic drift, the creationists latch onto this as "evolution is wrong", yet the correction is STILL WITHIN the realm of descent with modification. Just like with the Theory of General Relativity, it did not suddenly render the heliocentric model obsolete. So too with the above.
Yeah, this is exactly my point, I have friends who don't believe global warming is real and think it's a fucking conspiracy or something, they think *I'm* the crazy one for believing it's happening, and yeah, I don't hold a firm position on whether it is human influenced or not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be taking steps to do our best to prepare for/prevent it, right?
Climate change is happening. It's pretty clear that humans have some precentage of blame. However, even if it is not clear just how much we are contributing, that STILL works within the framework that climate change is happening. I can't remember the exact phrasing that Yudowsky used to describe this sort of situation, but it was along those lines.
Last hypothetical model I saw it was something like humans were only responsible for 30% of the climate change, the rest being The Earth and Sun doing their thang.
:cn:
I bow to the better educated on this issue. My research results in howling monkeys.
Sop to you educated, obviously humans a a part of climate change. Any solid ideas as to what percentage?
Kai, you maintain that it is still with normal ranges. What are the norms here?
The way I see it, if climate change is going to be bad or not, there are still two strong arguments for other energy sources:
1) Putting extra CO2 into the air can't at all be good for it.
2) We will run out of coal/gas/whatever eventually, we should probably start doing something about that now.
Then I remember the monkeys in charge are short-term thinking, idiots.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 07, 2010, 12:31:44 PM
I bow to the better educated on this issue. My research results in howling monkeys.
Sop to you educated, obviously humans a a part of climate change. Any solid ideas as to what percentage?
Kai, you maintain that it is still with normal ranges. What are the norms here?
Honestly you CANT put a percentage on it. Climate change is a multivariate umbrella of different occurrences. For instance in cities and the like you can say we have a very large percentage influence on that areas overall climate (pollution, urban sprawl, loss of wild life).
You would use a completely different criteria when judging something like the sea, or atmospheric gasses, or my pet hate: the overall temperatures of the world, it goes up and down in areas depending on the effect of the climate change.
The human influence can only be accurately measured by comparing each area over time taking into account natural and human causes of climate change, and summing up the lot. As this only really became an issue in the last 30 - 50 years its very difficult to assess the data on hand and say if something is caused by man or nature.
My understanding of Global Warming Climate Change as of this moment:
1. Humans put a lot of bullshit into the environment that not only directly releases greenhouse gases but also kills off life forms that counteract said gases.
2. A good-sized volcanic eruption can spew more of such bullshit into the environment in the space of a few days than Humans have done in our entire history.
3. Therefore whatever we do to counteract Climate Change should be to minimize our impact on the environment without making the mistake of believing that we are somehow in control of the whole show, and we should put more emphasis on preparing and adapting to new climatic realities than on trying to do away with climate change completely.
4. Al Gore is a douchebag, and so is Sean Hannity.
I'm taking the dinosaur approach...IE, I'm going to stomp everyone that bothers me with this shit IRL, and not care.
Quote from: Kai on September 07, 2010, 12:26:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Princess on September 07, 2010, 04:46:25 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 07, 2010, 03:23:00 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 07, 2010, 02:40:39 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:56:56 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on September 06, 2010, 04:12:39 PM
What you think you know about global warming is all a sham!! Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases and solar variation, it's caused by politicians and conspiracy theorists who keep spewing hot air out when they won't shut up and start listening to reason.
My professor, this morning:
Quote
Recently, some have taken to calling this the Anthropocene Epoch, from the greek for "recent human period". And it's quite obvious why this is, the effects of humans on ecosystems and landscapes is geologically significant. Climate change goes along with this hand in hand. There has been much controversy about this, whether you subscribe to Sean Hannity on the Right or Al Gore on the Left, but the pattern is there regardless of the level of human involvement.
Reminds me of how when ecology and biology advance and find that evolution is not only natural selection but also genetic drift, the creationists latch onto this as "evolution is wrong", yet the correction is STILL WITHIN the realm of descent with modification. Just like with the Theory of General Relativity, it did not suddenly render the heliocentric model obsolete. So too with the above.
Yeah, this is exactly my point, I have friends who don't believe global warming is real and think it's a fucking conspiracy or something, they think *I'm* the crazy one for believing it's happening, and yeah, I don't hold a firm position on whether it is human influenced or not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be taking steps to do our best to prepare for/prevent it, right?
Climate change is happening. It's pretty clear that humans have some precentage of blame. However, even if it is not clear just how much we are contributing, that STILL works within the framework that climate change is happening. I can't remember the exact phrasing that Yudowsky used to describe this sort of situation, but it was along those lines.
Last hypothetical model I saw it was something like humans were only responsible for 30% of the climate change, the rest being The Earth and Sun doing their thang.
:cn:
Give me a bit to find a link. I know it was in a magazine I was reading at the airport last year, so who the fuck knows what it was in. But I'm sure it's one of dozens of models.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 07, 2010, 05:53:28 PM
2. A good-sized volcanic eruption can spew more of such bullshit into the environment in the space of a few days than Humans have done in our entire history.
The CO2 released from volcanoes isn't really that much, especially with the level of volcanic activity that is present today. Where you develop a problem is from break ups of large continents where you have large amounts of CO2 released which remains in the atmosphere for a long time. Volcanic activity is also at a low.
What is more evident is the release of SO2 which can lower sunlight up 30% dropping temperatures for a short period. The eruption at Pinatubo cooled the earth by 0.4 C for around a year. These influences on the environment are easy to spot and are factored into climate models.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 07, 2010, 12:31:44 PM
I bow to the better educated on this issue. My research results in howling monkeys.
Sop to you educated, obviously humans a a part of climate change. Any solid ideas as to what percentage?
Kai, you maintain that it is still with normal ranges. What are the norms here?
I maintain that massive amounts of evidence points to global climate change at an accelerated rate, climatic evidence which I depend upon the climatologists to interpret because I am not a climatologist. I cannot say the exact causes or percentages of cause because I do not have those data nor do I know how to interpret them.
So, climate change is occuring at an accelerated rate. That statement is a belief, ie an anticipation about reality. The corollary is that I don't anticipate (believe) the cause. I don't know. I have several hypotheses which climatologists also have, but I don't know which one(s) are supported or falsified.
Quote from: Kai on September 07, 2010, 08:26:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 07, 2010, 12:31:44 PM
I bow to the better educated on this issue. My research results in howling monkeys.
Sop to you educated, obviously humans a a part of climate change. Any solid ideas as to what percentage?
Kai, you maintain that it is still with normal ranges. What are the norms here?
I maintain that massive amounts of evidence points to global climate change at an accelerated rate, climatic evidence which I depend upon the climatologists to interpret because I am not a climatologist. I cannot say the exact causes or percentages of cause because I do not have those data nor do I know how to interpret them.
So, climate change is occuring at an accelerated rate. That statement is a belief, ie an anticipation about reality. The corollary is that I don't anticipate (believe) the cause. I don't know. I have several hypotheses which climatologists also have, but I don't know which one(s) are supported or falsified.
So, in your opinion what will the future look like? Drought?
1 monkey pissing in the swimming pool = No problem, the filters will handle it.
6,835,000,000 monkeys pissing in the pool will change its color to roughly that of what Dick Cheney uses for blood.
We're beyond the world's carrying capacity, and climate change is just one of the many hilarious results. This is the true meaning behind Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"...Not that the market will magically do the right thing, but rather that reality will eventually kick your teeth in, no matter how much you want to believe that the universe will align itself to your deeply held beliefs.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 07, 2010, 07:42:40 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on September 07, 2010, 05:53:28 PM
2. A good-sized volcanic eruption can spew more of such bullshit into the environment in the space of a few days than Humans have done in our entire history.
The CO2 released from volcanoes isn't really that much, especially with the level of volcanic activity that is present today. Where you develop a problem is from break ups of large continents where you have large amounts of CO2 released which remains in the atmosphere for a long time. Volcanic activity is also at a low.
What is more evident is the release of SO2 which can lower sunlight up 30% dropping temperatures for a short period. The eruption at Pinatubo cooled the earth by 0.4 C for around a year. These influences on the environment are easy to spot and are factored into climate models.
Yeah, the Iceland volcano was "carbon neutral" since the planes would have put out that much CO2 if they weren't grounded.
I'd call that eruption pretty good-sized.
Quote from: Kai on September 07, 2010, 08:26:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 07, 2010, 12:31:44 PM
I bow to the better educated on this issue. My research results in howling monkeys.
Sop to you educated, obviously humans a a part of climate change. Any solid ideas as to what percentage?
Kai, you maintain that it is still with normal ranges. What are the norms here?
I maintain that massive amounts of evidence points to global climate change at an accelerated rate, climatic evidence which I depend upon the climatologists to interpret because I am not a climatologist. I cannot say the exact causes or percentages of cause because I do not have those data nor do I know how to interpret them.
So, climate change is occuring at an accelerated rate. That statement is a belief, ie an anticipation about reality. The corollary is that I don't anticipate (believe) the cause. I don't know. I have several hypotheses which climatologists also have, but I don't know which one(s) are supported or falsified.
This is the correct motorcycle.
Arguing with a massive group of climatologists who have independently come to the same conclusions seems like the height of hubris.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 07, 2010, 08:30:06 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 07, 2010, 08:26:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 07, 2010, 12:31:44 PM
I bow to the better educated on this issue. My research results in howling monkeys.
Sop to you educated, obviously humans a a part of climate change. Any solid ideas as to what percentage?
Kai, you maintain that it is still with normal ranges. What are the norms here?
I maintain that massive amounts of evidence points to global climate change at an accelerated rate, climatic evidence which I depend upon the climatologists to interpret because I am not a climatologist. I cannot say the exact causes or percentages of cause because I do not have those data nor do I know how to interpret them.
So, climate change is occuring at an accelerated rate. That statement is a belief, ie an anticipation about reality. The corollary is that I don't anticipate (believe) the cause. I don't know. I have several hypotheses which climatologists also have, but I don't know which one(s) are supported or falsified.
So, in your opinion what will the future look like? Drought?
I expect that, given the non-homogeneity of the earth's surface and moisture distribution across that surface, some areas will have drought and some areas will have excess moisture. IOW, change to climate.
Quote from: Rumckle on September 07, 2010, 03:22:43 PM
The way I see it, if climate change is going to be bad or not, there are still two strong arguments for other energy sources:
1) Putting extra CO2 into the air can't at all be good for it.
2) We will run out of coal/gas/whatever eventually, we should probably start doing something about that now.
Then I remember the monkeys in charge are short-term thinking, idiots.
This.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on September 07, 2010, 08:36:36 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 07, 2010, 07:42:40 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on September 07, 2010, 05:53:28 PM
2. A good-sized volcanic eruption can spew more of such bullshit into the environment in the space of a few days than Humans have done in our entire history.
The CO2 released from volcanoes isn't really that much, especially with the level of volcanic activity that is present today. Where you develop a problem is from break ups of large continents where you have large amounts of CO2 released which remains in the atmosphere for a long time. Volcanic activity is also at a low.
What is more evident is the release of SO2 which can lower sunlight up 30% dropping temperatures for a short period. The eruption at Pinatubo cooled the earth by 0.4 C for around a year. These influences on the environment are easy to spot and are factored into climate models.
Yeah, the Iceland volcano was "carbon neutral" since the planes would have put out that much CO2 if they weren't grounded.
I'd call that eruption pretty good-sized.
Um, I'd like to see the figures for that, it was spewing a lot of CO2 a day, and all in one concentrated area while planes are diffused across a large area. I'm sure the grounded planes took a huge dent out of the total figure but are they really equal?
Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2010, 09:42:12 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on September 07, 2010, 08:36:36 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 07, 2010, 07:42:40 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on September 07, 2010, 05:53:28 PM
2. A good-sized volcanic eruption can spew more of such bullshit into the environment in the space of a few days than Humans have done in our entire history.
The CO2 released from volcanoes isn't really that much, especially with the level of volcanic activity that is present today. Where you develop a problem is from break ups of large continents where you have large amounts of CO2 released which remains in the atmosphere for a long time. Volcanic activity is also at a low.
What is more evident is the release of SO2 which can lower sunlight up 30% dropping temperatures for a short period. The eruption at Pinatubo cooled the earth by 0.4 C for around a year. These influences on the environment are easy to spot and are factored into climate models.
Yeah, the Iceland volcano was "carbon neutral" since the planes would have put out that much CO2 if they weren't grounded.
I'd call that eruption pretty good-sized.
Um, I'd like to see the figures for that, it was spewing a lot of CO2 a day, and all in one concentrated area while planes are diffused across a large area. I'm sure the grounded planes took a huge dent out of the total figure but are they really equal?
Yeah, I heard it on a TED talk, so it must be true. I think it was a guy giving a lecture on the beauty of information design or data visualization. He's a journalist as well, so the guy's sources are probably pretty accurate. I'll look it up tonight if you can't locate it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions
Volcano estimated at 150 000 tonnes
Planes estimated at 2 800 000 tonnes
Holy Shit.
Wait no, that 150k is per day while the 2.8 M was for the full period the planes were grounded. so....
2.8/30 = 93k using a month.
A month is too generous though it was about 20 days, which puts them about on a par and matches what Net quoted from TED.
Most of the TED guys are pretty good, I've found they've been reliable in the past. Really goes to show how much CO2 comes off the planes. Now its still a really really bad thing to have all the CO2 release concentrated in one place, but that's another issue.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 07, 2010, 10:14:47 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions
Volcano estimated at 150 000 tonnes
Planes estimated at 2 800 000 tonnes
Damn.
vex,
standing corrected.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 07, 2010, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 07, 2010, 10:14:47 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions
Volcano estimated at 150 000 tonnes
Planes estimated at 2 800 000 tonnes
Damn.
vex,
standing corrected.
The guardians figures are misleading, the 150k is per day while the 2.8M was total.
thanks Faust... actually they do say per day in the article. I was being misleading in my typing. sorry about that
Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2010, 10:23:38 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on September 07, 2010, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 07, 2010, 10:14:47 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions
Volcano estimated at 150 000 tonnes
Planes estimated at 2 800 000 tonnes
Damn.
vex,
standing corrected.
The guardians figures are misleading, the 150k is per day while the 2.8M was total.
Yeah but that still makes this one eruption carbon-neutral, when I thought a big eruption like that produced many times the amount of carbon any number of airplanes could possibly emit, so I was still wrong.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 07, 2010, 11:40:18 PM
Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2010, 10:23:38 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on September 07, 2010, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 07, 2010, 10:14:47 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/19/eyjafjallajokull-volcano-climate-carbon-emissions
Volcano estimated at 150 000 tonnes
Planes estimated at 2 800 000 tonnes
Damn.
vex,
standing corrected.
The guardians figures are misleading, the 150k is per day while the 2.8M was total.
Yeah but that still makes this one eruption carbon-neutral, when I thought a big eruption like that produced many times the amount of carbon any number of airplanes could possibly emit, so I was still wrong.
Ay, the one natural one that is really worrying for me is the methane wells that have been exposed by melting ice, methane is 20 times as bad as CO2 for its insulation capabilities.