Poll
Question:
Do you believe that global warming is man-made?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 4
Option 2: No
votes: 18
Option 3: I think it's natural and we contributed.
votes: 18
So, with all the global warming topics that have been coming up on General, I felt like making a poll, just to see what the standards are.
I think it's natural, but obviously carbon does accelerate it a little.
I don't think Al Gore is an expert on it, though, and I don't think we're going to feel Mother Nature's wrath anytime soon.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 15, 2009, 10:52:36 AM
I think it's natural, but obviously carbon does accelerate it a little.
That's even being disputed by many reputable scientists and climatologists. There is plenty of evidence that indicates the CO2 levels rise after the warming has occurred. Besides, carbon dioxide makes up only 0.3% of the earth's atmosphere. Any increase in that is so minute it can't possibly make a difference.
QuoteI don't think Al Gore is an expert on it, though, and I don't think we're going to feel Mother Nature's wrath anytime soon.
Al Gore is a fucking hack and opportunist.
I think we contribute to it, I think burning fossils fuels at the rate we do is inherently unhealthy for us (US, not 'Mother Nature'), and I don't think pollution of any sort is 'good'.
That said I don't think there's much we can do. Legislating away CO2 and killing our economy in the process won't stop it and will make us all miserable in the process: I don't know why so many people are so gung-ho about this way of 'fixing' it.
Besides the earth has been cooling now for at least 4 years and according to a climatologist I heard on the radio 18 months ago, then greenies will be screaming about Global Cooling in the next 10 years.
Quote from: 93JC on January 15, 2009, 11:33:45 AM
I think we contribute to it, I think burning fossils fuels at the rate we do is inherently unhealthy for us (US, not 'Mother Nature'), and I don't think pollution of any sort is 'good'.
That said I don't think there's much we can do. Legislating away CO2 and killing our economy in the process won't stop it and will make us all miserable in the process: I don't know why so many people are so gung-ho about this way of 'fixing' it.
Pollution is a problem. Global Warming is not.
I think any climate change, is natural. We should cut down on the pollution and that's it. But like someone said in the other thread, it's funny how Europeans considers US a big polluter, yet they need to modify their cars to meet US emissions requirements.
It should be mentioned that our planet is always changing. When the first "humans" showed up, our atmosphere had a lot more methane in it compared to now.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 15, 2009, 10:52:36 AM
I think it's natural, but obviously carbon does accelerate it a little.
I don't think Al Gore is an expert on it, though, and I don't think we're going to feel Mother Nature's wrath anytime soon.
That, pretty much, sums it up for me as well.
The Al Gores and S. Fred Singers only serve to perpetuate the argument and take the focus off the science; where the real answers are.
The only real question is...How much, if any, does the effect of man releasing, into the atmosphere, the pollutants arising from the burning of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution, and releasing other man-made contaminants which are new to the atmosphere, have on climate change? The answers can be very little, not much, we can live with it, a lot or too much. We know the danger of many man-made contaminants and waste being dumped into the air, seas and soil and, in many cases, have taken measures to lessen the danger and impact.
As for releasing these additional man-made greenhouse gases and other new gases, apart from the natural processes, into the atmosphere and whether it has a potential to overload the natural cycle, I believe it's a valid concern which must be carefully examined and monitored and I tend to err on the cautious side until the findings are indisputable. To simply say "no I don't believe it so I'm not going to do anything about it" seems rather foolish in light of the great number of research results which indicate otherwise. Politics cannot determine the answer, only science can and I'm glad they're looking into it.
You need an "I don't know" answer.
I find that I do many things that lots of people would say "help prevent global warming", but really I'm just conserving resources and lessening pollution. Turning off power strips at night, using LED lights in my room, turning off the speakers when I'm done, always turning off the lights...they're all things that global warming nuts will assume I'm doing because I'm trying to prevent my oh em gee carbon emissions, when really I'm just conservative and don't like waste.
Quote from: giant_mtb on January 15, 2009, 04:10:58 PM
I find that I do many things that lots of people would say "help prevent global warming", but really I'm just conserving resources and lessening pollution. Turning off power strips at night, using LED lights in my room, turning off the speakers when I'm done, always turning off the lights...they're all things that global warming nuts will assume I'm doing because I'm trying to prevent my oh em gee carbon emissions, when really I'm just conservative and don't like waste.
I think that minimizing waste is a sensible step for any number of reasons, whether or not GW is real or imaginary.
Stuff like turning off the lights isn't just supposedly good for the planet: it's lighter on the pocketbook!
People need short-term incentive to 'prevent global warming', and saving money is a great one. Taxing the crap out of us is a bad one, but for some reason a lot of people think it will work better.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 15, 2009, 04:13:04 PM
I think that minimizing waste is a sensible step for any number of reasons, whether or not GW is real or imaginary.
Precisely...I just don't ever want to be classified as a global warming nut because of what I do to conserve.
Quote from: 93JC on January 15, 2009, 04:15:57 PM
Stuff like turning off the lights isn't just supposedly good for the planet: it's lighter on the pocketbook!
People need short-term incentive to 'prevent global warming', and saving money is a great one. Taxing the crap out of us is a bad one, but for some reason a lot of people think it will work better.
No way, taxiing people and government intervention is the only way to get anything done, I thought we know this by now..
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 15, 2009, 11:17:23 AM
That's even being disputed by many reputable scientists and climatologists. There is plenty of evidence that indicates the CO2 levels rise after the warming has occurred. Besides, carbon dioxide makes up only 0.3% of the earth's atmosphere. Any increase in that is so minute it can't possibly make a difference.
Al Gore is a fucking hack and opportunist.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that CO
2 is the only greenhouse gas. That would mean that a slight increase in the % CO
2 in the atmosphere, say to 0.35 %, is very large compared to the normal 0.30 %, and would have a significant effect. It's sensitive because it's low.
Notice, no further conclusions are drawn, so quell the flames, guys.
Blah. CO2 is nothing compared to the methane trapped in the arctic permafrost. We all ded.
Soup and I already concluded that I can't waste electricity because I have electric heat, so I guess I don't do anything to help.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 15, 2009, 08:53:27 PM
Soup and I already concluded that I can't waste electricity because I have electric heat, so I guess I don't do anything to help.
That's not exactly how I remember it, but , oh well, OK.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 15, 2009, 08:55:38 PM
That's not exactly how I remember it, but , oh well, OK.
Okay, well, hot water is wasted and so are the outdoor lights, but the TV, lamps, computer, etc. are all free.
Quote from: Psilos on January 15, 2009, 08:38:36 PM
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas. That would mean that a slight increase in the % CO2 in the atmosphere, say to 0.35 %, is very large compared to the normal 0.30 %, and would have a significant effect. It's sensitive because it's low.
Notice, no further conclusions are drawn, so quell the flames, guys.
It's not though. Water vapour is the single largest greenhouse gas. Water vapour. Not CO2. How do you explain the evidence that the rise in CO2 follows the increase in temp? Caused by the oceans releasing it as they warm. It's natural and it's cyclical. We are now in a cooling trend, and we will be for the next 20 years, after that we will go into another warming trend. This is what's been happening forever. Our winters are now just like they were when I was a kid. They may even return to the way they were when my parents were kids by the time the trend turns around again. The planet has it's own way of balancing things out.
Even if we really were warming up the way you think we are, who is to say that the current climate is the right one...or the best one?
Blah blah blah. Bah. Heard that, etc.
My point is that you can't say CO2 can't effect or affect climate change based on CO2's low percentage in the atmosphere. Just pointing out a scientific fallacy, which I tried to make clear when I said "for the sake of argument" and "notice, no further conclusions are drawn." You're not going to bring me into the "discussion" that we've had before, and you're not going to bait me.
Quote from: Psilos on January 16, 2009, 12:00:08 AM
Blah blah blah. Bah. Heard that, etc.
My point is that you can't say CO2 can't effect or affect climate change based on CO2's low percentage in the atmosphere. Just pointing out a scientific fallacy, which I tried to make clear when I said "for the sake of argument" and "notice, no further conclusions are drawn." You're not going to bring me into the "discussion" that we've had before, and you're not going to bait me.
(http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif)
I voted no. While it seems like we're contributing, I suspect our contribution is so minimal that it's insignificant.
its all horse poop
Wow, this topic hasn't been beat to death already or nuthin has it?
Quote from: R-inge on January 16, 2009, 06:05:20 PM
Wow, this topic hasn't been beat to death already or nuthin has it?
There are at least twenty-seven threads about global warming, just on this forum. Consider, for a moment, these numerous threads and how much electricity they use - electricity that is largely produced by fossil fuels which is the obvious cause of global warming all the natural disasters on the planet. The phenomenon perpetuates itself by causing recurring global threads on internet forums that use electricity produced by fossil fuels. It is possible to care so much, that you end up doing more damage.
Quote from: NACar on January 16, 2009, 06:10:28 PM
There are at least twenty-seven threads about global warming, just on this forum. Consider, for a moment, these numerous threads and how much electricity they use - electricity that is largely produced by fossil fuels which is the obvious cause of global warming all the natural disasters on the planet. The phenomenon perpetuates itself by causing recurring global threads on internet forums that use electricity produced by fossil fuels. It is possible to care so much, that you end up doing more damage.
I think it's caused by lawn gnomes.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 16, 2009, 06:13:05 PM
I think it's caused by lawn gnomes.
I think its not a coincidence that the rise of global warming has coincided with the decline of the lawn jockey.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 16, 2009, 06:39:28 PM
I think its not a coincidence that the rise of global warming has coincided with the decline of the lawn jockey.
And that Travelocity gnome flies in a private jet.
Quote from: giant_mtb on January 16, 2009, 06:15:43 AM
(http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif)
That's no proof of anything. Very small changes can have large effects, and that applies to lots of natural systems.
I'm aware of that. My point is...why don't we just get rid of all the water vapor in the atmosphere? !??!JKF!?#F?
One hopes you are joshing. ;)
Quote from: Psilos on January 17, 2009, 02:01:09 AM
One hopes you are joshing. ;)
only i get to do that.
I guess the scientific consensus here on CarSPIN is that the earth is too big for humans to pollute it.
This is not man-made smog, this is regular old fog:
(http://therawfeed.com/pix/beijing_smog.jpg)
This stuff is green, it must be alive:
(http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/LCC/INTERNET/RESOURCES/IMAGES/Water-pollution.jpg)
These fish died of loneliness:
(http://www.treehugger.com/468_china-pollution-prob-001.jpg)
It's one thing to pollute specific areas at land, it is quite another to pollute the entire atmosphere.
Pollution and global warming are seperate issues.
Quote from: Tave on January 17, 2009, 12:36:39 PM
Pollution and global warming are seperate issues.
Absolutely.
Pollution is a big problem, but pollution does not cause global warming.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 17, 2009, 12:45:03 PM
Absolutely.
Pollution is a big problem, but pollution does not cause global warming.
You know what I mean, I just couldn't think of a better word.
Quote from: TBR on January 17, 2009, 01:08:30 PM
You know what I mean, I just couldn't think of a better word.
No I don't know what you mean. You showed pictures of pollution.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 17, 2009, 02:59:09 PM
No I don't know what you mean. You showed pictures of pollution.
That wasn't him.
Quote from: TBR on January 17, 2009, 12:34:15 PM
It's one thing to pollute specific areas at land, it is quite another to pollute the entire atmosphere.
What if everyone everywhere is doing it?
Quote from: Psilos on January 16, 2009, 06:57:37 PM
That's no proof of anything. Very small changes can have large effects, and that applies to lots of natural systems.
Except the data points to warming taking place first, then CO2 concentrations increasing. The CO2 lags the actualy warming. The vast majority of the warming we've seen the last 100 years took place before 1940, long before our CO2 levels increased. This would point to the solar cycle warming the earth more, and consequently warming the oceans. Warmer ocean water releases more CO2 - and the oceans release vastly more CO2 than all man-made sources. The numbers still don't add up guys!
We're talking about random increases in natural CO2 due to natural causes. The natural variations alone involve many times the amount of human caused CO2. So since these natural variations are huge and random, how come we're still pretending that devestating the global economy and crippling industry to decrease human CO2 releases by 10% or some other contrived amount is going to matter a hill of poop to the global climate? This is some silly shit these people are talking about, and no one wants to admit that the Global Warming emporer hasn't got any freaking clothes on!
But yes, the GW question has been sufficiently beaten to death. Sadly, phony science is still carrying the day in most countries.
CO2 concentrations have been increasing since the 18th century...
I think "Global Warming" was found to be a sham when the greenie's started to correct themselves and now call it "Global Climate Change"
Quote from: Psilos on January 22, 2009, 01:15:12 AM
CO2 concentrations have been increasing since the 18th century...
Sadly, you're stuck with the Inconvenient Truth of negative causality, where most of the observed warming took place prior to 1940 when industrial emissions were much much less, and now we see the last couple of decades showing no warming at all, when the CO2 levels are at their highest. I dunno, but you GW Church members seem to have a lot of contradictions in your beliefs, and an uncanny ability to dismiss and ridicule any other valid scientific opinions. Fortunately I don't think the GW house of cards can stand much more shaking, and it should come tumbling down soon enough. Hopefully before too much more economic and political damage is done.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 17, 2009, 11:29:44 AM
I guess the scientific consensus here on CarSPIN is that the earth is too big for humans to pollute it.
This is not man-made smog, this is regular old fog:
(http://therawfeed.com/pix/beijing_smog.jpg)
This stuff is green, it must be alive:
(http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/LCC/INTERNET/RESOURCES/IMAGES/Water-pollution.jpg)
These fish died of loneliness:
(http://www.treehugger.com/468_china-pollution-prob-001.jpg)
This isn't about pollution, buckshot. I'm all about stopping pollution. Cool. Good. Let's stop throwing trash into piles and killing fish.
Global warming...?
Quote from: Psilos on January 17, 2009, 02:01:09 AM
One hopes you are joshing. ;)
BUT IF WATER VAPOR IS SO MUCH MORE POTENT AS A GREENHOUSE GAS AND WE BREATHE THE STUFF OUT CONSTANTLY (AS WELL AS C02), SHOULDN'T WELL JUST STOP BREATHING AND STOP MAKING WATER VAPOR?!!!?! IT WOULD ONLY MAKE SENSE TO AL GORE. DON'T ASK QUESTIONS, JUST BELIEVE MY TRUTHZ!!!
It's just like I said in the "If you were world dictator..." thread: the most effective means of stopping global warming is mass executions.
Quote from: giant_mtb on January 22, 2009, 08:21:17 AM
BUT IF WATER VAPOR IS SO MUCH MORE POTENT AS A GREENHOUSE GAS AND WE BREATHE THE STUFF OUT CONSTANTLY (AS WELL AS C02), SHOULDN'T WELL JUST STOP BREATHING AND STOP MAKING WATER VAPOR?!!!?! IT WOULD ONLY MAKE SENSE TO AL GORE. DON'T ASK QUESTIONS, JUST BELIEVE MY TRUTHZ!!!
Well, it means Hydrogen vehicles are more poluting than petro/diesel vehicles since they put out water vapor which is a more potent green house gas. Hell, we should drain the entire ocean because that puts out more green house gases than anythiing we do, and we need to save the world!
for the record, year to date my area is 4 degrees F below normal
...another bit of grist to chew on Antarctica warming after all, study says (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/22/antarctica-cooling.html).
While past research has generally concluded that much of Antarctica was cooling, a new study suggests the continent is warming after all.
For years, Antarctica was an enigma to scientists who track the effects of global warming. Glaciers along the Antarctic peninsula ? the long spit of land that stretches towards South America ? have been hit hard by warming temperatures. But despite coastal warming, readings from other areas suggested a slight cooling effect.
The new study went back further than earlier work and filled in a massive gap in data with satellite information to find that Antarctica too is getting warmer, like Earth's other six continents.
The findings were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
"Contrarians have sometime grabbed on to this idea that the entire continent of Antarctica is cooling, so how could we be talking about global warming," said study co-author Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. "Now we can say: no, it's not true?. It is not bucking the trend."
The study does not point to man-made climate change as the cause of the Antarctic warming ? doing so is a highly intricate scientific process ? but a different and smaller study out late last year did make that connection.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 22, 2009, 01:56:04 PM
...another bit of grist to chew on Antarctica warming after all, study says
(//http://).
Well, it's the summer there, of course it's getting warmer..
Quote from: NomisR on January 22, 2009, 01:59:03 PM
Well, it's the summer there, of course it's getting warmer..
You might try reading the article ;).
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 22, 2009, 02:03:49 PM
You might try reading the article ;).
If the link was there when I replied, I would've read it..
Quote from: NomisR on January 22, 2009, 02:07:09 PM
If the link was there when I replied, I would've read it..
Have you read it yet? :huh:
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 22, 2009, 02:19:56 PM
Have you read it yet? :huh:
Yeah, that still doesn't prove global warming is man made though. It just says it's warming along with the other continents.
Quote from: NomisR on January 22, 2009, 02:20:47 PM
Yeah, that still doesn't prove global warming is man made though. It just says it's warming along with the other continents.
It's not a matter of proving anything. It's only that ongoing research reveils another perspective from the commonly held acceptance that the Antarctica is cooling.
Quote from: saxonyron on January 22, 2009, 07:11:06 AM
Sadly, you're stuck with the Inconvenient Truth of negative causality, where most of the observed warming took place prior to 1940 when industrial emissions were much much less, and now we see the last couple of decades showing no warming at all, when the CO2 levels are at their highest. I dunno, but you GW Church members seem to have a lot of contradictions in your beliefs, and an uncanny ability to dismiss and ridicule any other valid scientific opinions. Fortunately I don't think the GW house of cards can stand much more shaking, and it should come tumbling down soon enough. Hopefully before too much more economic and political damage is done.
Quote from: Psilos on January 22, 2009, 01:15:12 AM
CO2 concentrations have been increasing since the 18th century...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Global_co2_emissions_graph.png)
And now you say, "But the Earth has had much higher CO2 levels before!," and "But that's a log scale!".
Then I say, "Rate of change!," and "No kidding!"
;)
Quote from: giant_mtb on January 22, 2009, 08:18:57 AM
This isn't about pollution, buckshot. I'm all about stopping pollution. Cool. Good. Let's stop throwing trash into piles and killing fish.
Global warming...?
People used to think that the earth was so big that nothing we could do could really pollute it. I'm pointing out that this isn't true.
Global warming isn't about "saving" the earth. The earth will survive global warming (or climate change) and so will the wildlife that inhabits it, including humans. It is about saving our way of life. That is the scam of global warming that no one wants to admit.
That's true. The problem is that a lot of the places that will be most negatively affected have not contributed nearly as much as the West or China. It's about us rich people imposing damaging and negative consequences on poorer nations. If our pollution only affected us, it would be a much smaller problem. Additionally, it's not good for extinction to occur unnaturally, which is what happens when us humans change the ecosystem.
But, of course, in a few million years, there will probably not be any more humans, and new plants and animals will have evolved in a natural way.
As I understand it, carbon quotas are more harmfull to poor nations than they are to us.
Quote from: Psilos on January 23, 2009, 08:29:49 PM
That's true. The problem is that a lot of the places that will be most negatively affected have not contributed nearly as much as the West or China. It's about us rich people imposing damaging and negative consequences on poorer nations. If our pollution only affected us, it would be a much smaller problem. Additionally, it's not good for extinction to occur unnaturally, which is what happens when us humans change the ecosystem.
But, of course, in a few million years, there will probably not be any more humans, and new plants and animals will have evolved in a natural way.
Would a volcano be unnatural? How about a asteroid?
Quote from: JWC on January 23, 2009, 09:24:22 PM
Would a volcano be unnatural? How about a asteroid?
Nope. Fine line, sure.
Quote from: Tave on January 23, 2009, 09:03:17 PM
As I understand it, carbon quotas are more harmfull to poor nations than they are to us.
That's political, so I don't pay attention to it. :lol:
Quote from: JWC on January 23, 2009, 08:10:42 PM
Global warming isn't about "saving" the earth. The earth will survive global warming (or climate change) and so will the wildlife that inhabits it, including humans. It is about saving our way of life. That is the scam of global warming that no one wants to admit.
Not sure all the wildlife will survive.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 23, 2009, 10:32:26 PM
Not sure all the wildlife will survive.
I wouldn't expect all wildlife is going to survive anyway. The loss of the DoDo bird wasn't a big deal in the overall scheme of things. We as humans tend to place a high priority on saving every species from extinction, but it isn't possible, and probably isn't worth the battle in most cases.
History Channel ran a program this past summer about life without humans. We're not needed. Or are we? We seem to think that the survival of the loggerhead turtle is imperative to maintaining a balance in nature, but we discount our own contributions. Animals will destroy their habitat to the point of their own extinction. Then, the habitat will recover and different animals return.
This happens even when humans step in to correct a problem humans started...which is something we need to keep in mind in regards to global warming. I'm reminded of a small island off of Antarctica, where humans introduced rabbits for food. When the rabbit population got out of hand, they introduced cats to control the rabbit population. When the rabbit population died off, the cats began eating the native birds. To correct this, scientists removed the cats. With the cats gone, the rabbit population got out of control again. Now the vegetation is being destroyed by the rabbits, which is harming the habitat of the other wildlife. The lesson is, even when man causes the problem, his solutions usually do more damage than if they had left it alone.
Throughout Al Gore's movie, the main fear he tried to instill was how global warming would affect us. You can defend it by saying that he had to put it on a level that would jolt humans into doing the right thing, but the long and short of it is, it still comes down to people worried about their own survival and way of life.
Quote from: Tave on January 23, 2009, 09:03:17 PM
As I understand it, carbon quotas are more harmfull to poor nations than they are to us.
Sure. Do GWists honestly believe that UN pimping will actually save Africa, and the extremely poor parts of South American and SE Asia? Poor countries' survival depends on cheap sources of energy. It's simply not going to happen any other way.
GW is the very worst of self-loathing; haters want the US bucked down for being the best, to "spread the wealth around" and otherwise atone for past sins (colonialism, imperialism, and winning wars).
Quote from: JWC on January 23, 2009, 11:30:38 PM
I wouldn't expect all wildlife is going to survive anyway. The loss of the DoDo bird wasn't a big deal in the overall scheme of things. We as humans tend to place a high priority on saving every species from extinction, but it isn't possible, and probably isn't worth the battle in most cases.
History Channel ran a program this past summer about life without humans. We're not needed. Or are we? We seem to think that the survival of the loggerhead turtle is imperative to maintaining a balance in nature, but we discount our own contributions. Animals will destroy their habitat to the point of their own extinction. Then, the habitat will recover and different animals return.
This happens even when humans step in to correct a problem humans started...which is something we need to keep in mind in regards to global warming. I'm reminded of a small island off of Antarctica, where humans introduced rabbits for food. When the rabbit population got out of hand, they introduced cats to control the rabbit population. When the rabbit population died off, the cats began eating the native birds. To correct this, scientists removed the cats. With the cats gone, the rabbit population got out of control again. Now the vegetation is being destroyed by the rabbits, which is harming the habitat of the other wildlife. The lesson is, even when man causes the problem, his solutions usually do more damage than if they had left it alone.
Throughout Al Gore's movie, the main fear he tried to instill was how global warming would affect us. You can defend it by saying that he had to put it on a level that would jolt humans into doing the right thing, but the long and short of it is, it still comes down to people worried about their own survival and way of life.
The lesson is, don't fuck with nature to begin with!
That is emphatically not the lesson.
In a greatly generalized sense, it is. If not that, what?
(I was referring to the third paragraph of JWC's post, BTW).
Quote from: JWC on January 23, 2009, 09:24:22 PM
Would a volcano be unnatural? How about a asteroid?
I believe that even humans are a part of nature so anything they do can be determined as natural. However, as we do, pretty much, have the wherewithall to destroy the planet, it's in our self interest not to do so.
As for volcanos, the effect is, almost, like what humans do in slow motion; taking the industrial age as a starting point.
Asteroids will likely be the cause of our demise; unless we have time to spread to other parts of the universe before that inevitable event occurs.
Quote from: Psilos on January 24, 2009, 02:53:06 AM
If not that, what?
Simply by existing, humans are going to "fuck with" nature. We have to ask ourselves whether protecting nature from a certain fuck up is worth our time, nay even possible.
Granted. Still, there are things we can do to fuck with nature less, like not introduce non-native and invasive species to little islands.
Quote from: Psilos on January 24, 2009, 02:11:46 PM
Granted. Still, there are things we can do to fuck with nature less, like not introduce non-native and invasive species to little islands.
Why should we care?
European exploration and colonization managed to irrevocably alter the biosphere of the entire continent of North America. Sagegrass, cattle, horses: these had much larger consequences than some rabbits on an island no one cares about.
Now, I think preservation and conservation are commendable, and in lot of cases worthwhile, goals, but we can't become obsessed with it to the point that we cause real harm to ourselves and other people. I think sometimes the environmental movement refuses to face that reality.
No. I believe Carl Sagan is wholy responsible for this junk science, and the biggest lie ever perpetrated upon the world.
Quote from: hounddog on January 24, 2009, 04:55:13 PM
No. I believe Carl Sagan is wholy responsible for this junk science, and the biggest lie ever perpetrated upon the world.
LOL yeah Carl Sagan is such a retard. :rolleyes:
Maybe you should blame the politicians who portray scientific theories as facts in order to promote their social agendas.
Well, them as well. But, it was the "scientific" community who nudged the far left toward believing this great lie.
Look no further than the publication Scientific American for the leftist political infiltration of scientific academia.
And yes, people are more important than polar bears.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 24, 2009, 07:34:10 PM
Look no further than the publication Scientific American for the leftist political infiltration of scientific academia.
And yes, people are more important than polar bears.
But the Bearz is in our coke commercialz! :cry:
Quote from: 2o6 on January 24, 2009, 07:40:38 PM
But the Bearz is in our coke commercialz! :cry:
Oh, I'm sure the only thing that tastes better than polar bear is polar bear raised on sweet, sticky Coca Cola!
It gives it a nice flavor. Not as overpowering as teriyaki.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 24, 2009, 07:34:10 PM
Look no further than the publication Scientific American for the leftist political infiltration of scientific academia.
And yes, people are more important than polar bears.
I don't know. I don't think people are all that important.
The idea that people are more important than the rest of nature is entirely at odds with the idea that people and the things we do are natural.
Quote from: Psilos on January 24, 2009, 08:28:12 PM
The idea that people are more important than the rest of nature is entirely at odds with the idea that people and the things we do are natural.
We must be more important than nature. We spend millions trying to shore up eroding beaches so million dollar homes will not crash into the ocean. We spend millions per year trying to figure out how the stop an asteroid hit, should the need arise. We are spending millions per year trying to figure out how to control weather.
Then we are not natural.
Quote from: JWC on January 25, 2009, 07:23:21 AM
We must be more important than nature. We spend millions trying to shore up eroding beaches so million dollar homes will not crash into the ocean. We spend millions per year trying to figure out how the stop an asteroid hit, should the need arise. We are spending millions per year trying to figure out how to control weather.
Do you know how many trillions of ant bucks the ants spend building nests, ant hills, underground waste chambers, and otherwise defacing the planet? No, I didn't think so.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 24, 2009, 08:10:12 PM
I don't know. I don't think people are all that important.
Perhaps not, but certainly more so than ants, polar bears or pseudo naturalist religion.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 25, 2009, 02:19:25 PM
Perhaps not, but certainly more so than ants, polar bears or pseudo naturalist religion.
I don't know if I agree. We have lots more humans then Polar Bears. We could stand to lose some humans.
I'll do my part by not contributing to the human problem by not reproducing.
I put less value on people than on the natural world, actually.
Quote from: Psilos on January 25, 2009, 02:56:56 PM
I put less value on people than on the natural world, actually.
The line in the Matrix about us being a Virus is kind of true in my book. I'm not some nut job tree fucker or anything. But animals don't have anyway of fighting for them self's so I feel that someone has to do it for them. And I grew up in the country and have seen first hand what people do to nature and how everything gets fucked up when we move in.
Some people don't give a shit about anything other than their own asses. I think you can try to find a compromise that will try and help out the overall world.
And to be honest I don't feel human life is as important as most people do. We're just really lucky animals in the end.
Duly noted. We'll be sure to remember that when we're all starving on the lifeboat and trying to decide who to eat. :ohyeah:
Quote from: Tave on January 25, 2009, 03:28:55 PM
Duly noted. We'll be sure to remember that when we're all starving on the lifeboat and trying to decide who to eat. :ohyeah:
Not much meat on me. And I'm getting old so it wouldn't be tender. I'd use me for bait to see if you could catch something better.
That is if we don't net all the fish out of the sea before then.
Jeez, guys. What a depressing world view. How do you get up in the morning?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 25, 2009, 03:35:28 PM
Jeez, guys. What a depressing world view. How do you get up in the morning?
I don't hate humanity. I just think we're full of our self's and not as smart or important as we seem to think we are.
Oh, and with an alarm clock.
Quote from: Psilos on January 25, 2009, 02:56:56 PM
I put less value on people than on the natural world, actually.
So what stops you from cashing in your chips?
Quote from: Psilos on January 25, 2009, 02:12:14 PM
Then we are not natural.
We aren't?
So, are we supernatural, artificial, or imaginary?
Quote from: Tave on January 25, 2009, 03:28:55 PM
Duly noted. We'll be sure to remember that when we're all starving on the lifeboat and trying to decide who to eat. :ohyeah:
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 25, 2009, 03:47:40 PM
We aren't?
So, are we supernatural, artificial, or imaginary?
I was being a bit hyperbolic. Humans are natural. We evolved. What we do is largely artificial.
Quote from: Psilos on January 25, 2009, 04:20:17 PM
I was being a bit hyperbolic. Humans are natural. We evolved. What we do is largely artificial.
If we're natural, then doesn't it follow that everything we do is also natural?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 25, 2009, 04:38:11 PM
If we're natural, then doesn't it follow that everything we do is also natural?
how about some of the stuff we do is naturally stupid?
Quote from: Onslaught on January 25, 2009, 04:42:25 PM
how about some of the stuff we do is naturally stupid?
Sure. Lemmings are stupid, aren't they?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 25, 2009, 04:44:20 PM
Sure. Lemmings are stupid, aren't they?
I don't know. Perhaps they know something I don't.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 25, 2009, 04:44:20 PM
Sure. Lemmings are stupid, aren't they?
Not really.
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 25, 2009, 04:48:40 PM
Not really.
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp
Darn, shame on Mickey Mouse
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 25, 2009, 04:48:40 PM
Not really.
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp
OK, got me, but damn, this: "A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Cruel Camera, found that the lemmings used for White Wilderness were flown from Hudson Bay to Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where they did not jump off the cliff, but in fact were launched off the cliff using a turntable.[11]"
is awesome.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 25, 2009, 04:38:11 PM
If we're natural, then doesn't it follow that everything we do is also natural?
No.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 25, 2009, 04:52:56 PM
OK, got me, but damn, this: "A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Cruel Camera, found that the lemmings used for White Wilderness were flown from Hudson Bay to Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where they did not jump off the cliff, but in fact were launched off the cliff using a turntable.[11]"
is awesome.
Now that's a cool job! Catapults would've been even better.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 25, 2009, 04:52:56 PM
OK, got me, but damn, this: "A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Cruel Camera, found that the lemmings used for White Wilderness were flown from Hudson Bay to Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where they did not jump off the cliff, but in fact were launched off the cliff using a turntable.[11]"
is awesome.
Reminds me of.................
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/Lemmings-BoxScan.jpg/250px-Lemmings-BoxScan.jpg)
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 26, 2009, 10:50:34 AM
Well thought out response.
So in that "no" mindset, we have to ask it, Where does naturalism end?
Humans hunting buffalo by scaring herds off cliffs? With spears? With bow-n-arrow? With flintlocks? With modern cartridge rifles?
Humans building homes out of caves? Out of tipis? Out of thatch-covered wood frames? Out of stone and mud brick? Out of processes wood and composite shingle?
Hmmm...
Quote from: GoCougs on January 26, 2009, 12:57:26 PM
So in that "no" mindset, we have to ask it, Where does naturalism end?
Humans hunting buffalo by scaring herds off cliffs? With spears? With bow-n-arrow? With flintlocks? With modern cartridge rifles?
Humans building homes out of caves? Out of tipis? Out of thatch-covered wood frames? Out of stone and mud brick? Out of processes wood and composite shingle?
Hmmm...
Once tools are involved, it's no longer natural. That's why we have to live in trees and wlak around naked. We can't wear fur or any type of clothing because it's unnatural. And we have to bite off the heads of the prays or forager, otherwise, we're not of the nature.
Why else do you think the greenies hate technology... they want everyone to live like animals of course.
Quote from: NomisR on January 26, 2009, 01:45:26 PM
Once tools are involved, it's no longer natural. That's why we have to live in trees and wlak around naked. We can't wear fur or any type of clothing because it's unnatural. And we have to bite off the heads of the prays or forager, otherwise, we're not of the nature.
Why else do you think the greenies hate technology... they want everyone to live like animals of course.
Exactly, and therein lies the naturalists' problem.
Primates use sticks to fish ants out of anthills.
Otters use rocks to crush seashells.
Elephants use branches to swap away flies.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 26, 2009, 02:16:39 PM
Exactly, and therein lies the naturalists' problem.
Primates use sticks to fish ants out of anthills.
Otters use rocks to crush seashells.
Elephants use branches to swap away flies.
But wait.. that's natural because they're all a part of nature.. what we do isn't natural anymore because we're man, and it would be man-made!
Is iron not a part of nature? Man only discovered iron after coming upon naturally smelted iron ore. Man simply took a queue from mother nature to make iron in volume - iron ore is natural, fire is natural, man beating on hot iron with rocks is as natural as an otter smashing seashells with a rock.
So what is the fundamental premise that allows modern man to do with "nature" what animals cannot. Animals use stones, but could animals build the Great Pyramids? Animals use sticks, but could animals build a thatch hut?
They've got themselves in quite a quandary - "unnatural" is the presence of cognitive thought.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 26, 2009, 12:57:26 PM
So in that "no" mindset, we have to ask it, Where does naturalism end?
Humans hunting buffalo by scaring herds off cliffs? With spears? With bow-n-arrow? With flintlocks? With modern cartridge rifles?
Humans building homes out of caves? Out of tipis? Out of thatch-covered wood frames? Out of stone and mud brick? Out of processes wood and composite shingle?
Hmmm...
There's a big 'ole gray area, but on either side it's black and white. Our pollution is distinctly on the unnatural side. Chimps fishing termites out of holes is on the natural side of the gray area, and humans building grass huts and flint knapping is on the unnatural side. IMO, it's more of a continuum than a line.
Quote from: Psilos on January 26, 2009, 07:19:10 PM
There's a big 'ole gray area, but on either side it's black and white. Our pollution is distinctly on the unnatural side. Chimps fishing termites out of holes is on the natural side of the gray area, and humans building grass huts and flint knapping is on the unnatural side. IMO, it's more of a continuum than a line.
So what if we had 6,000,000 humans fishing termites out of holes, beating seashells with rocks, and building nests in trees?
Is this unnatural; and would we not significantly alter the environment if we lived like modern primates?
Six million? That's not that many. Did you mean six billion? Because that's not a number that would occur if everything we did was natural.
Quote from: Psilos on January 26, 2009, 08:17:09 PM
Six million? That's not that many. Did you mean six billion? Because that's not a number that would occur if everything we did was natural.
Yes, six million.
I'm very loosely guessing this puts man at about the Great Pyramids...
OK, then, no, and no.
By the time of the Great Pyramids, man had many thousands of years prior crossed into North American, and within very little time, hunted the giant sloth, mammoth, amongst other large mammals, to extinction.
By the time of the Great Pyramids, man had many thousands of years already migrated by way of boat to Japan, to Polynesian islands, and other islands, and in short order similarly drastically changed their ecology.
By the time of the Great Pyramids, man had already built large dams and cities of tens of thousands, drastically altering regional ecology.
The above required no technology beyond that needed to fish termites out of holes, beat seashells with rocks, and build nests in trees; no iron, no concrete, etc.
Is this natural or unnatural?
All of those things require more than a broken stick.
Quote from: Psilos on January 26, 2009, 09:37:57 PM
All of those things require more than a broken stick.
All that evolved from the use of rocks and sticks though. No machines were used in the creation of any of this.
Everytime I see this thread title from the front page, I think it's, "Do you believe in magic?" Everytime.
Quote from: Tave on January 26, 2009, 11:37:45 PM
Everytime I see this thread title from the front page, I think it's, "Do you believe in magic?" Everytime.
magic is not natural, it's man-made therefore, bad.
Man-made does not mean bad.
Quote from: NomisR on January 26, 2009, 11:35:49 PM
All that evolved from the use of rocks and sticks though. No machines were used in the creation of any of this.
And your point is..?
"global warming" is dead... even the enviro-nazi's call it "climate change" now because global temps have been falling for the last 4 years
Quote from: Tave on January 26, 2009, 11:37:45 PM
Everytime I see this thread title from the front page, I think it's, "Do you believe in magic?" Everytime.
So do I!
Quote from: GoCougs on January 26, 2009, 08:59:13 PM
By the time of the Great Pyramids, man had many thousands of years prior crossed into North American, and within very little time, hunted the giant sloth, mammoth, amongst other large mammals, to extinction.
By the time of the Great Pyramids, man had many thousands of years already migrated by way of boat to Japan, to Polynesian islands, and other islands, and in short order similarly drastically changed their ecology.
By the time of the Great Pyramids, man had already built large dams and cities of tens of thousands, drastically altering regional ecology.
The above required no technology beyond that needed to fish termites out of holes, beat seashells with rocks, and build nests in trees; no iron, no concrete, etc.
Is this natural or unnatural?
I tend to view humanity as a product of nature but, at some point, acquired the wherewithall to bend nature to suit their need or desire. I don't think that using tools is unnatural, it's just what we do with them that is, sometimes, unnatural. If we divert the course of a river from its natural path, perhaps that can be deemed as unnatural. That we suck fossil fuels out of the ground and release the pollutants therein into the atmosphere, perhaps that can be deemed as unnatural; or manmade.
Quote from: NomisR on January 26, 2009, 11:35:49 PM
All that evolved from the use of rocks and sticks though. No machines were used in the creation of any of this.
You've apparently never read "Chariots of the Gods" :lol:
Quote from: r0tor on January 27, 2009, 06:32:07 AM
"global warming" is dead... even the enviro-nazi's call it "climate change" now because global temps have been falling for the last 4 years
Not quite...
Global warming is 'irreversible' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7852628.stm)
A team of environmental researchers in the US has warned many effects of climate change are irreversible.
The scientists concluded global temperatures could remain high for 1,000 years, even if carbon emissions can somehow be halted.
Their report was sponsored by the US Department of Energy and comes as President Obama announces a review of vehicle emission standards.
It appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The scientists have been researching global warming and the consequences for policymakers.
People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 year - that's not true
Susan Solomon
Lead author
The team warned that, if carbon levels in the atmosphere continued to rise, there would be less rainfall in already dry areas of southern Europe, North America, parts of Africa and Australia.
The scientists say the oceans are currently slowing down global warming by absorbing heat, but they will eventually release that heat back into the air.
They say politicians must now offset environmental damage already done by man-made pollution.
"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 year - that's not true," said researcher Susan Solomon, the lead author of the report, quoted by AP news agency.
Their conclusions come as President Obama ordered the US Environmental Protection Agency to review rules on carbon emissions from passenger vehicles.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17220.msg981098#msg981098 date=1233064182
So do I!
I look at it, then hum,
"Do you believe in magic, in a young girl's heart"
And then, for some odd reason, I reply to myself,
"I believe in miracles...you sexy thing"
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 27, 2009, 08:29:35 AM
I tend to view humanity as a product of nature but, at some point, acquired the wherewithall to bend nature to suit their need or desire. I don't think that using tools is unnatural, it's just what we do with them that is, sometimes, unnatural. If we divert the course of a river from its natural path, perhaps that can be deemed as unnatural. That we suck fossil fuels out of the ground and release the pollutants therein into the atmosphere, perhaps that can be deemed as unnatural; or manmade.
Rivers get diverted by landslides and earthquakes.
Oil and other fossil concentrates are released into the ocean and the atmosphere naturally.
A few Krakatoa-like volcanoes have released more C0
2 than all of human history.
Quote from: Tave on January 27, 2009, 08:39:50 AM
"I believe in miracles...you sexy thing"
Stuck in my head now! :rage: :rage: :rage:
Quote from: GoCougs on January 27, 2009, 09:26:00 AM
Rivers get diverted by landslides and earthquakes.
Oil and other fossil concentrates are released into the ocean and the atmosphere naturally.
A few Krakatoa-like volcanoes have released more C02 than all of human history.
Of course that's true; and quite natural. However, we have the ability to achieve what occurs naturally. I've, occasionally, likened the manmade release of pollutants into the atmosphere to volcanoes in slow motion. However, what we do beyond the more natural activities associated with existing on this planet, like eating and farting and reproducing, can be looked upon as activities once removed from nature. We even try to circumvent what we regard in nature as the survival of the fittest.
Quote from: Byteme on January 27, 2009, 08:31:34 AM
You've apparently never read "Chariots of the Gods" :lol:
Haha, nope, had to look that one up.. good one.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 27, 2009, 08:35:44 AM
Not quite...Global warming is 'irreversible' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7852628.stm)
[/b]
But the problem is, what are they assuming as "normal"? Because climate is ever changing, so it may never revert to "normal" especially if it goes in cycles. So in a way, they're right, however, it's not man's doing that created that but is a part of nature.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 27, 2009, 10:14:50 AM
We even try to circumvent what we regard in nature as the survival of the fittest.
Because those that cannot survive are the victims of nature and should be protected....
Quote from: NomisR on January 27, 2009, 10:35:05 AM
Because those that cannot survive are the victims of nature and should be protected....
As was mentioned, we try to do the best for ourselves; not, necessarily, as a species, but more as various social groups. Sometimes, it works against us.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 27, 2009, 10:38:18 AM
As was mentioned, we try to do the best for ourselves; not, necessarily, as a species, but more as various social groups. Sometimes, it works against us.
Because they're all creations of God, and if God created them, they're meant to survive, even if not on their own.....
Quote from: NomisR on January 27, 2009, 10:33:53 AM
But the problem is, what are they assuming as "normal"? Because climate is ever changing, so it may never revert to "normal" especially if it goes in cycles. So in a way, they're right, however, it's not man's doing that created that but is a part of nature.
That is the issue. Are what we are doing contributing to a condition that is detrimental to us? I'm not qualified to answer that so it's best left to those with appropriate training to resolve. To deny the effects of man's contribution to global warming is as premature as the acceptance that it is irreversable. There is much that is unresolved however, we do know that much of what man has done in the past has created dilemas for subsequent generations. For that reason alone, it's a good idea to exercise caution until factors that point to manmade global warming are clearly understood. The rest is just politics.
Quote from: NomisR on January 27, 2009, 10:40:19 AM
Because they're all creations of God, and if God created them, they're meant to survive, even if not on their own.....
Those who believe that are entitled to their opinions.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 27, 2009, 10:58:45 AM
That is the issue. Are what we are doing contributing to a condition that is detrimental to us? I'm not qualified to answer that so it's best left to those with appropriate training to resolve. To deny the effects of man's contribution to global warming is as premature as the acceptance that it is irreversable. There is much that is unresolved however, we do know that much of what man has done in the past has created dilemas for subsequent generations. For that reason alone, it's a good idea to exercise caution until factors that point to manmade global warming are clearly understood. The rest is just politics.
We have seen in the past that when man tries to correct a problem that they caused within nature, it has usually proved to be more disastrous than leaving it alone. A lot of times, any harm done to the environment are typically done over a long period of time which allows "nature" to adjust for any changes. However, whenever man decide to reverse the effects, man decides they need to do it and it needs to be done NOW! This is where the problem lies. Nature has a problem of adjusting to rapid/immediate changes which actually creates a lot more damage and destroys any ecosystem that nature has adjusted to and leaves it lifeless.
And this is the problem with any sort of global warming initiative that politicians has, they want it to be done, now, quickly so they can see the difference in their term of office. That's not how nature works.. so there's really no need to rush things. Just do it slowly and things will change for the better.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 27, 2009, 11:02:01 AM
Those who believe that are entitled to their opinions.
Yeah, but they shove their beliefs on other people
Good posts FoMoJo. :ohyeah:
Quote from: NomisR on January 27, 2009, 03:54:53 PM
We have seen in the past that when man tries to correct a problem that they caused within nature, it has usually proved to be more disastrous than leaving it alone. A lot of times, any harm done to the environment are typically done over a long period of time which allows "nature" to adjust for any changes. However, whenever man decide to reverse the effects, man decides they need to do it and it needs to be done NOW! This is where the problem lies. Nature has a problem of adjusting to rapid/immediate changes which actually creates a lot more damage and destroys any ecosystem that nature has adjusted to and leaves it lifeless.
And this is the problem with any sort of global warming initiative that politicians has, they want it to be done, now, quickly so they can see the difference in their term of office. That's not how nature works.. so there's really no need to rush things. Just do it slowly and things will change for the better.
All man has to do to the stop the damage he is doing, is to stop doing what he is doing.
That applies to dumping toxins into the soil and water and various other forms of pollution being dumped into the atmosphere. The planet is our home. We can achieve all we have by alternative means that don't make it too filthy to live here. We have a brain that is capable of amazing achievements. Let's use it to work with nature rather than against it.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 27, 2009, 10:14:50 AM
Of course that's true; and quite natural. However, we have the ability to achieve what occurs naturally. I've, occasionally, likened the manmade release of pollutants into the atmosphere to volcanoes in slow motion. However, what we do beyond the more natural activities associated with existing on this planet, like eating and farting and reproducing, can be looked upon as activities once removed from nature. We even try to circumvent what we regard in nature as the survival of the fittest.
So where is the line; pure volume of activities, severity of activities? My point is there is no line.
And this gives me the perfect opportunity to trot out one of my favorite Ayn Rand quotes:
So if you are over 28 years of age, my advice is to go out and hug the dirtiest, grimiest smokestack you can find, then go home and get down on your knees and pray to whatever gods you believe in, that those smokestacks keep belching out pollution, because they are the signposts of human progress. The sole sanction humanity needs to use the planet to its heart's content is that it can.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 28, 2009, 10:01:47 AM
All man has to do to the stop the damage he is doing, is to stop doing what he is doing.
That applies to dumping toxins into the soil and water and various other forms of pollution being dumped into the atmosphere. The planet is our home. We can achieve all we have by alternative means that don't make it too filthy to live here. We have a brain that is capable of amazing achievements. Let's use it to work with nature rather than against it.
No, the whole point of human civilization is so we can use nature to our advantage and if possible, control and change nature. At least that's what it has always been for since the dawn of civilization.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 28, 2009, 10:26:54 AM
So where is the line; pure volume of activities, severity of activities? My point is there is no line.
We still have morals.
Quote
And this gives me the perfect opportunity to trot out one of my favorite Ayn Rand quotes:
So if you are over 28 years of age, my advice is to go out and hug the dirtiest, grimiest smokestack you can find, then go home and get down on your knees and pray to whatever gods you believe in, that those smokestacks keep belching out pollution, because they are the signposts of human progress.
The sole sanction humanity needs to use the planet to its heart's content is that it can.
I empathize with your rapture over the words of Ms. Rand; but I do not share your enthusiasm of her way of thinking.
Quote from: NomisR on January 28, 2009, 10:52:35 AM
No, the whole point of human civilization is so we can use nature to our advantage and if possible, control and change nature. At least that's what it has always been for since the dawn of civilization.
I do not disagree that we should use nature to our advantage; just in how we, sometimes, do it.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 28, 2009, 11:16:15 AM
We still have morals.
Morals is no substitute for rational behavior, however.
Quote
I empathize with your rapture over the words of Ms. Rand; but I do not share your enthusiasm of her way of thinking.
Was she not correct? Has the average person's life span not
tripled owing solely to the industrialization of the West?
Should we go back to the times when a man was considered old by the age of 35?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 28, 2009, 11:20:36 AM
Morals is no substitute for rational behavior, however.
Was she not correct? Has the average person's life span not tripled owing solely to the industrialization of the West?
NO the average lifespan in North America and Europe has about since the 1400's
Should we go back to the times when a man was considered old by the age of 35?
Wouldn't it make more sense to use our current technical knowledge to both increase the length of our lives and increase the quality of our lives through a rational use of the planet.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 28, 2009, 11:20:36 AM
Morals is no substitute for rational behavior, however.
As long as rational behaviour pays heed to the difference between right and wrong.
Quote
Was she not correct? Has the average person's life span not tripled owing solely to the industrialization of the West?
Should we go back to the times when a man was considered old by the age of 35?
I don't think she was correct in that "hugging a smokestack" was the reason for it. Infant mortality and plagues were more likely the cause of such a low average lifespan. Those who survived sickness more than likely survived to their 60s and beyond; according to research available. You would be better served to "hug a doctor" in gratitude for a longer life.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 28, 2009, 10:26:54 AM
So where is the line; pure volume of activities, severity of activities? My point is there is no line.
And this gives me the perfect opportunity to trot out one of my favorite Ayn Rand quotes:
So if you are over 28 years of age, my advice is to go out and hug the dirtiest, grimiest smokestack you can find, then go home and get down on your knees and pray to whatever gods you believe in, that those smokestacks keep belching out pollution, because they are the signposts of human progress.
The sole sanction humanity needs to use the planet to its heart's content is that it can.
(http://superpoop.com/012809/pollution.jpg)
Quote from: GoCougs on January 28, 2009, 10:26:54 AM
So where is the line; pure volume of activities, severity of activities? My point is there is no line.
And this gives me the perfect opportunity to trot out one of my favorite Ayn Rand quotes:
So if you are over 28 years of age, my advice is to go out and hug the dirtiest, grimiest smokestack you can find, then go home and get down on your knees and pray to whatever gods you believe in, that those smokestacks keep belching out pollution, because they are the signposts of human progress.
The sole sanction humanity needs to use the planet to its heart's content is that it can.
I can see how a person would think that, but a more accurate and modern last phrase would be, "because they
are were the signposts of human progress.".
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 28, 2009, 01:23:30 PM
As long as rational behaviour pays heed to the difference between right and wrong.
Rational behavior pays heed to nothing.
Quote
I don't think she was correct in that "hugging a smokestack" was the reason for it. Infant mortality and plagues were more likely the cause of such a low average lifespan. Those who survived sickness more than likely survived to their 60s and beyond; according to research available. You would be better served to "hug a doctor" in gratitude for a longer life.
What caused high infant mortality and plagues and the like? Lack of good sanitation, lack of vaccines, lack of medical technology, et al.
No, doctors are really only involved after things have gone wrong. The principal key is to prevent things from going wrong on a grand scale (see aforementioned list).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 30, 2009, 10:05:45 AM
Rational behavior pays heed to nothing.
What caused high infant mortality and plagues and the like? Lack of good sanitation, lack of vaccines, lack of medical technology, et al.
No, doctors are really only involved after things have gone wrong. The principal key is to prevent things from going wrong on a grand scale (see aforementioned list).
Those few from the time of the Renaissance who applied and advanced the lessons of the classical era regarding the medical sciences would be the ones to thank; rather than hugging a smokestack. A nod of gratitude should also go to those from the Middle-East who kept these sciences alive while the European hordes were kept busy trying to annihilate each other in the name the saviour.
I don't dispute that the Industrial Revolution greatly impacted society and, quite possibly, in a good way. However, it didn't have much to do with making us live longer; especially those down in the coal mines; and don't forget, the advancement of technology also provided us with the means to kill each other more efficiently.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 30, 2009, 01:11:46 PM
I don't dispute that the Industrial Revolution greatly impacted society and, quite possibly, in a good way. However, it didn't have much to do with making us live longer; especially those down in the coal mines; and don't forget, the advancement of technology also provided us with the means to kill each other more efficiently.
You can't possibly be serious, without the industrial revolution there is no Pharma, people with enough time to sit around a lab and come up therapeutic agents whether in academia or industry, materials for doing the research etc.
The real reason we live longer is because of vaccines and antibiotics, end of story and mostly that latter. Cut your arm 100 yrs ago and you might be dead of an infection.
Of course science is cummulative and any research done beforehand (even centuries ago is pertninent and built upon), even the industrail revolution is built on the lessons of science before it.
To say we are living longer irrespective of the industrial revolution and what is has allowed us to achieve is disingenous at best, even if it means agreeing with cougs.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 30, 2009, 01:11:46 PM
Those few from the time of the Renaissance who applied and advanced the lessons of the classical era regarding the medical sciences would be the ones to thank; rather than hugging a smokestack. A nod of gratitude should also go to those from the Middle-East who kept these sciences alive while the European hordes were kept busy trying to annihilate each other in the name the saviour.
I don't dispute that the Industrial Revolution greatly impacted society and, quite possibly, in a good way. However, it didn't have much to do with making us live longer; especially those down in the coal mines; and don't forget, the advancement of technology also provided us with the means to kill each other more efficiently.
Sorry to be so blunt, but both of these assertions are just plain incorrect. STV32 gets somewhat close in his refutation, but I feel compelled to help, being the generous person that I am.
As to the former, intellectuals had their place, but sewers, and running water, and indoor heat, et al.; byproducts of centuries of (mostly) rational people on the quest for (somewhat) rational interaction.
As to the latter, forget modern health care; people simply didn't live very long when tasked with spending their days living like primates.
Quote from: SVT32V on January 30, 2009, 03:42:53 PM
You can't possibly be serious, without the industrial revolution there is no Pharma, people with enough time to sit around a lab and come up therapeutic agents whether in academia or industry, materials for doing the research etc.
The real reason we live longer is because of vaccines and antibiotics, end of story and mostly that latter. Cut your arm 100 yrs ago and you might be dead of an infection.
Of course science is cummulative and any research done beforehand (even centuries ago is pertninent and built upon), even the industrail revolution is built on the lessons of science before it.
To say we are living longer irrespective of the industrial revolution and what is has allowed us to achieve is disingenous at best, even if it means agreeing with cougs.
:lol:
...however, it's worth pondering ;).
Building sewers is not, necessarily, a product of the industrial revolution. Channeling fresh water into a city had been accomplished centuries before the industrial revolution. Penicillin and the polio vaccine, et al, were not developed on an assembly line. Some of the most momentous achievements in medical research have been accomplished in small labs by one or a couple of scientists. Granted, the Pharma industry churns out billions of tablets and variations of antibiotics and antihistamines, and a variety of boner pills. They spend billions of dollars searching for cures for viruses, etc.; with varying degrees of success. However, much to do with good health is the knowledge of what not to do :huh:.
What became the industrial revolution was inevitable. It was a series of inventions that helped fewer people accomplish greater productivity. One adverse effect was that a great number of people were no longer needed in order to provide the means to feed, shelter and clothe the masses. They were no longer needed in the fields and quarries, etc. so they congregated in urban areas with little to do and few means to survive. As few prospered, many became destitute. Ultimately, what evolved, was too many people with nothing meaningful to do. We can see what the outcome is.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 30, 2009, 04:29:59 PM
Sorry to be so blunt, but both of these assertions are just plain incorrect. STV32 gets somewhat close in his refutation, but I feel compelled to help, being the generous person that I am.
:rolleyes:
Quote
As to the former, intellectuals had their place, but sewers, and running water, and indoor heat, et al.; byproducts of centuries of (mostly) rational people on the quest for (somewhat) rational interaction.
I agree with this but what does it have to do with the industrial revolution? :huh:
Quote
As to the latter, forget modern health care; people simply didn't live very long when tasked with spending their days living like primates.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 28, 2009, 10:26:54 AM
So where is the line; pure volume of activities, severity of activities? My point is there is no line.
And this gives me the perfect opportunity to trot out one of my favorite Ayn Rand quotes:
So if you are over 28 years of age, my advice is to go out and hug the dirtiest, grimiest smokestack you can find, then go home and get down on your knees and pray to whatever gods you believe in, that those smokestacks keep belching out pollution, because they are the signposts of human progress.
The sole sanction humanity needs to use the planet to its heart's content is that it can.
If all you care about it yourself and nothing else.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 31, 2009, 08:05:03 AM
If all you care about it yourself and nothing else.
Actually, there's a certain amount of self-interest in not killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 31, 2009, 08:05:03 AM
If all you care about it yourself and nothing else.
Which is the mindset of the majority of the world.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 31, 2009, 12:45:01 PM
Which is the mindset of the majority of the world.
I kind of hope the majority of the world dies from this stuff too. I think it would be funny if in the end we all kill our self's from the arrogance
It's that, robots, or an asteroid. :lol:
Quote from: Onslaught on January 31, 2009, 08:05:03 AM
If all you care about it yourself and nothing else.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 31, 2009, 12:45:01 PM
Which is the mindset of the majority of the world.
I don't think so. People only feel that way when they get pushed into a corner. It's natural that people want to do better for themselves but the majority don't wish harm to others to achieve that. Certainly, there are a minority that don't give a shit about anybody but themselves and, too often, we let them effect our attitude. We let ourselves get manipulated way too much by a handful of assholes. Think of all the people you personally know and associate with. In my case, most are decent people of will go out of their way to help others. Just a very few of them are self-absorbed pigs.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 31, 2009, 06:49:45 AM
:lol:
...however, it's worth pondering ;).
Building sewers is not, necessarily, a product of the industrial revolution. Channeling fresh water into a city had been accomplished centuries before the industrial revolution.
Of course, you can't have large city populations without it, man just didn't wake up one day much smarter than he was before, this infrastructure was a necessity for a successful empire like the Romans
Penicillin and the polio vaccine, et al, were not developed on an assembly line. Some of the most momentous achievements in medical research have been accomplished in small labs by one or a couple of scientists.
Small labs are still a product of the progress afforded by the industrial revolution with people having time and equipment to do research. I do not know what science labs you have seen but none that I know have assebly lines. Penecllin and
polio vaccines were discovered in labs at large research institutions not in someone's basement or farmhouse.
What became the industrial revolution was inevitable. It was a series of inventions that helped fewer people accomplish greater productivity. One adverse effect was that a great number of people were no longer needed in order to provide the means to feed, shelter and clothe the masses. They were no longer needed in the fields and quarries, etc. so they congregated in urban areas with little to do and few means to survive. As few prospered, many became destitute. Ultimately, what evolved, was too many people with nothing meaningful to do. We can see what the outcome is.
Wow what negativity, even todays poor have so much compared to the peasants of old. A great number of people don't need to work in a field , but other jobs emerged such as building tractors and so on. This is a very weak point.
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 31, 2009, 03:47:01 PM
I don't think so. People only feel that way when they get pushed into a corner. It's natural that people want to do better for themselves but the majority don't wish harm to others to achieve that. Certainly, there are a minority that don't give a shit about anybody but themselves and, too often, we let them effect our attitude. We let ourselves get manipulated way too much by a handful of assholes. Think of all the people you personally know and associate with. In my case, most are decent people of will go out of their way to help others. Just a very few of them are self-absorbed pigs.
Because when we evolved in caves it was necessary to work together, otherwise humans would have failed miserably, we have no real teeth or claws to kill so we needed to be smart and work together.
No doubt ingrained in us is a line between working together and selfish needs, those on either end of the spectrum will be at a disadvantage in general.
How much medical advancement was from the industrial revolution, and how much came from field medicine in wartime?
http://www.medhunters.com/articles/warAndMedicine.html
Quote from: Onslaught on January 31, 2009, 08:05:03 AM
If all you care about it yourself and nothing else.
Not at all - I care about other people and other things just as long there's something in it for me.
Often people who are of the collective mindset are so out of necessity.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 02, 2009, 07:28:04 AM
Not at all - I care about other people and other things just as long there's something in it for me.
So to use an extreme example. If you came across a person bleeding to death you'd walk right by unless stopping the bleeding would somehow enrich you materially?
Quote from: SVT32V on February 01, 2009, 09:23:06 AM
Because when we evolved in caves it was necessary to work together, otherwise humans would have failed miserably, we have no real teeth or claws to kill so we needed to be smart and work together.
Many animals work together to survive. Humans have carried it to the next level. In fact our greatest competitor for our survival is now ourselves.
Quote
No doubt ingrained in us is a line between working together and selfish needs, those on either end of the spectrum will be at a disadvantage in general.
Ingrained or instinctual?
I believe it's a combination. Our survival instinct coupled with our maternal/paternal instincts must govern much of how we behave. As well, what we are subjected to in our lives, especially our formative period, must greatly influence our attitudes. Ultimately, in that we are capable of reason, enlightenment is our best course for the betterment of humanity.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 02, 2009, 07:28:04 AM
Not at all - I care about other people and other things just as long there's something in it for me.
I presume 'the something in it for you' includes the satisfaction and general sense of gratification that you feel in doing for others :praise:. Many feel that in doing for others, others will do for you when needed :huh:.
Quote
Often people who are of the collective mindset are so out of necessity.
It works the same for those who are excluded. However, humanity is a collective and to be excluded is to miss out on much of the human experience.
Quote from: Byteme on February 02, 2009, 08:47:43 AM
So to use an extreme example. If you came across a person bleeding to death you'd walk right by unless stopping the bleeding would somehow enrich you materially?
No problem - those who tend toward extreme examples are those most often in need of education, which in this case is accomplished with a simple Socratic throw down - What the heck do you think?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 02, 2009, 07:28:04 AM
Not at all - I care about other people and other things just as long there's something in it for me.
Often people who are of the collective mindset are so out of necessity.
You and I are very different people. And I'm happy with that.
Quote from: Onslaught on February 02, 2009, 03:19:23 PM
You and I are very different people. And I'm happy with that.
At least he's honest about it.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 02, 2009, 03:24:51 PM
At least he's honest about it.
I've know this about him for years. I don't even dislike Cougs. But he and I are VERY different in someways.
I'm just happy there are enough people like me to counteract people like him in the end.
Quote from: Onslaught on February 02, 2009, 03:55:33 PM
I've know this about him for years. I don't even dislike Cougs. But he and I are VERY different in someways.
I'm just happy there are enough people like me to counteract people like him in the end.
Almost everyone does something "good" because of some ulterior motive that will benefit them. Sometimes, it may not directly or immediately benefit them but it will whether it be monetary, reputation, other type of items, or it's a type of gain. Otherwise, people would not do it. If you do something out of your way to help someone, and they yell at you, scream at you, beat you up, would you do it again? Probably not. Even if there's no thank you, you would probably be less likely to help the same person out in the future.
Quote from: NomisR on February 02, 2009, 04:33:58 PM
Almost everyone does something "good" because of some ulterior motive that will benefit them. Sometimes, it may not directly or immediately benefit them but it will whether it be monetary, reputation, other type of items, or it's a type of gain. Otherwise, people would not do it. If you do something out of your way to help someone, and they yell at you, scream at you, beat you up, would you do it again? Probably not. Even if there's no thank you, you would probably be less likely to help the same person out in the future.
I don't know. Other than the beat on me part it sounds like a normal day for me.
Quote from: Onslaught on February 02, 2009, 04:57:39 PM
I don't know. Other than the beat on me part it sounds like a normal day for me.
Work or wife?
Quote from: NomisR on February 02, 2009, 05:17:26 PM
Work or wife?
Good God, I'm not married. I've not given up yet.
Quote from: Onslaught on February 02, 2009, 03:55:33 PM
I've know this about him for years. I don't even dislike Cougs. But he and I are VERY different in someways.
I'm just happy there are enough people like me to counteract people like him in the end.
We may act differently but I think if you look hard enough you'd see that you think much as I do.
The whole of human species simply would not exist if people didn't inherently seek out their own self interest.
In reality, people like you NEED people like me
Quote from: GoCougs on February 02, 2009, 05:48:18 PM
We may act differently but I think if you look hard enough you'd see that you think much as I do.
The whole of human species simply would not exist if people didn't inherently seek out their own self interest.
In reality, people like you NEED people like me
And possibly vise versa
Okay, take the author's opinions for whatever you will, but check the links he provides, and they all pan out.
Vin Suprynowicz Article (http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=162)
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 22, 2009, 04:43:46 PM
Okay, take the author's opinions for whatever you will, but check the links he provides, and they all pan out.
Vin Suprynowicz Article (http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=162)
I would guess that
NASA global warming satellite lands in ocean after launch (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/24/satellite-fail.html) is not going to help with the accuracy of their forecasting either :(.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 24, 2009, 11:09:09 AM
I would guess that NASA global warming satellite lands in ocean after launch (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/24/satellite-fail.html) is not going to help with the accuracy of their forecasting either :(.
"A NASA satellite designed to track carbon dioxide emissions has landed in the ocean near Antarctica after failing to reach orbit early Tuesday."I guess the satellite tracked those carbon emissions right into the ocean...where most of it goes. :lol:
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 24, 2009, 11:09:09 AM
I would guess that NASA global warming satellite lands in ocean after launch (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/24/satellite-fail.html) is not going to help with the accuracy of their forecasting either :(.
Here's a good user quote from the bottom of that article.
Before the age of satellites and the internet, everyone bitched about the weather but no one did anything about it; who cared, so long as it wasn't your weather, right ?
Well now we've got satellites and the internet, so instead of the weather, we've GLOBALIZED (gotta love that word) ourselves, so now everybody's bitching about the climate, and the climate is everybody's and STILL nobody's doing anything about it.
Well perhaps not quite. Perhaps if enough satellites are brought down, we could focus then on bringing down the internet too, so we can once again go back to that happier time and return to bitching about the weather, which is proven technology.
My observation leads me to conclude that global warming is not due to carbon dioxide emissions at all. Human activity is however responsible nonetheless.
The harmful emissions are not of carbon dioxide they are of digital data, which in my humble opinion should be banned to save the planet, not from global warming, but rather from the global terror of pandemic anxiety attacks.
And who are the culprits ? Big Oil ? No, because they can only rake in 15% before hell is raised: but the big pharmaceuticals (sedatives) and the cosmetics industry (worrying gives you wrinkles and crowsfeet), now there's a horse of a different colour.
They use petrochemical feedstocks, but to them a 15% markup on the petroleum base is chickenfeed.
Anyway, you don't see EXXON MOBIL sponsoring manned spaceflight do you ? But the pharmaceutical companies do, so think about it !
I rest my case. Anyway, I gotta go now and do something about my piles and take my meds.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 02, 2009, 10:44:05 AM
No problem - those who tend toward extreme examples are those most often in need of education, which in this case is accomplished with a simple Socratic throw down - What the heck do you think?
What do I think? Honestly? I think you are full bull and spout most of what you do to get a reaction. I've also harbored the notion that you are not who or what you say you are.
Quote from: Byteme on February 24, 2009, 02:09:23 PM
What do I think? Honestly? I think you are full bull and spout most of what you do to get a reaction. I've also harbored the notion that you are not who or what you say you are.
a-la iffy or a-la trep style? :lol:
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 24, 2009, 12:14:54 PM
Here's a good user quote from the bottom of that article.
Before the age of satellites and the internet, everyone bitched about the weather but no one did anything about it; who cared, so long as it wasn't your weather, right ?
Well now we've got satellites and the internet, so instead of the weather, we've GLOBALIZED (gotta love that word) ourselves, so now everybody's bitching about the climate, and the climate is everybody's and STILL nobody's doing anything about it.
Well perhaps not quite. Perhaps if enough satellites are brought down, we could focus then on bringing down the internet too, so we can once again go back to that happier time and return to bitching about the weather, which is proven technology.
My observation leads me to conclude that global warming is not due to carbon dioxide emissions at all. Human activity is however responsible nonetheless.
The harmful emissions are not of carbon dioxide they are of digital data, which in my humble opinion should be banned to save the planet, not from global warming, but rather from the global terror of pandemic anxiety attacks.
And who are the culprits ? Big Oil ? No, because they can only rake in 15% before hell is raised: but the big pharmaceuticals (sedatives) and the cosmetics industry (worrying gives you wrinkles and crowsfeet), now there's a horse of a different colour.
They use petrochemical feedstocks, but to them a 15% markup on the petroleum base is chickenfeed.
Anyway, you don't see EXXON MOBIL sponsoring manned spaceflight do you ? But the pharmaceutical companies do, so think about it !
I rest my case. Anyway, I gotta go now and do something about my piles and take my meds.
That's pretty good :lol:. I didn't really see the connection to the pharmaceuticals but, now that he's mentioned it :huh:...
btw, did you read the article whereby they've established that the Antarctica
is warming? This is based on satellite tracking over the last few years. We have to look at both sides :huh:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 24, 2009, 02:17:03 PM
That's pretty good :lol:. I didn't really see the connection to the pharmaceuticals but, now that he's mentioned it :huh:...
btw, did you read the article whereby they've established that the Antarctica is warming? This is based on satellite tracking over the last few years. We have to look at both sides :huh:.
How could it be warming when the ice mass has increased by 30% over last year?
Quote from: NomisR on February 24, 2009, 02:15:21 PM
a-la iffy or a-la trep style? :lol:
I've always though he was a college kid, full of himself who wants to impress everybody with his new found knowledge.
If I'm wrong that's still how he comes across.
Quote from: Byteme on February 24, 2009, 02:09:23 PM
What do I think? Honestly? I think you are full bull and spout most of what you do to get a reaction. I've also harbored the notion that you are not who or what you say you are.
What did you expect? You wrote a stupid post, got called out with logic and reason, and only a wee bit of snarkiness.
What you read hear is
exactly what you'd get in real life.
Oh, noes! I've been called out! A rather weak attempt, I must say. Go on, give it another shot! :lol:
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 24, 2009, 04:01:44 PM
How could it be warming when the ice mass has increased by 30% over last year?
Not to argue but where did that statistic come from? I haven't seen that.
Quote from: Byteme on February 25, 2009, 06:41:19 AM
Not to argue but where did that statistic come from? I haven't seen that.
There is at leat 33% more Antarctic Sea Ice than March 3, 2007. There was also an increase in 2007 from 2006 and maybe a minor one from 2005 to 2006. These so called climo experts say its due to warmer temps and water? Thats like telling me I'm cold because someone turned up the heat, or, my pop froze in the refrig beause I turned up the heat. How stupid do they think we are? The FACT is its getting colder. Antarctic cooling always begins first. You know the warmest earth year was 1998, 10 years ago. Maybe we have peaked the warming that began in the late 70s and now the earth is cooling. My gosh, the Climo researchers might lose grant money over this. TWO more FACTS, Temperature rises always LEAD CO2 increases. Arctic sea Ice rebounded this winter to levels not seen, in some areas such as Iceland, in more than 40 years.D. Percy
Alaska Sea Ice Forcaster
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 25, 2009, 08:39:38 AM
There is at leat 33% more Antarctic Sea Ice than March 3, 2007.
SNIP
Interesting, thanks.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 24, 2009, 04:01:44 PM
How could it be warming when the ice mass has increased by 30% over last year?
Antarctic ice melt more widespread than first thought: scientists (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/25/antarctic-warming.html)
excerpt...
Antarctic glaciers are melting faster than previously thought, which could lead to an unprecedented rise in sea levels, scientists said Wednesday.
A report by thousands of scientists for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year concluded that the western part of the continent is warming up, not just the Antarctic Peninsula.
Previously most of the warming was thought to occur on the narrow stretch pointing toward South America, said Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Britain-based Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and a member of International Polar Year's steering committee.
Satellite data and automated weather stations indicate "the warming we see in the peninsula also extends all the way down to what is called west Antarctica," he told the Associated Press. "That's unusual and unexpected."
During the International Polar Year, thousands of scientists from more than 60 countries engaged in intense Arctic and Antarctic research over the past two southern summer seasons ? on the ice, at sea, and via icebreaker, submarine and surveillance satellite.
The biggest western Antarctic glacier, the Pine Island Glacier, is moving 40 per cent faster than it was in the 1970s, discharging water and ice more rapidly into the ocean, Summerhayes said.
The Smith Glacier, also in western Antarctica, is moving 83 per cent faster than it did in 1992, he said. All the glaciers in the area together lose a total of around 114 billion tonnes per year because the discharge is much greater than the new snowfall, Summerhayes said.
"That's equivalent to the current mass loss from the whole of the Greenland ice sheet," he said, adding that the glaciers' discharge was making a significant contribution to the rise in sea levels. "We didn't realize it was moving that fast."
Antarctica's average annual temperature has increased by about 1 F since 1957, but is still 50 F below zero, according to a recent study by Eric Steig of the University of Washington. Summerhayes said the glaciers were slipping into the sea faster because the floating ice shelf that would stop them ? usually 199 metres to 299 metres thick ? is melting.
Sea levels will rise faster than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summerhayes said.
An IPCC panel in 2007 predicted warmer temperatures could raise sea levels by 76 centimetres to 120 centimetres this century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee.
"If the west Antarctica sheet collapses, then we're looking at a sea level rise of between one metre and 1.5 metres," Summerhayes said.
The IPY researchers found that the southern ocean around Antarctica has warmed about 0.36 F in the past decade, double the average warming of the rest of the Earth's oceans over the past 30 years, he said.
The warming of western Antarctica is a real concern Summerhayes said. "There's some people who fear that this is the first signs of an incipient collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet."
So when will we be living in this?
(http://homepage.mac.com/ozarkmatt/fark/waterworld.jpg)
FoMoJo: I can dig up scientific reports that claim the opposite. I can even dig up NASA satellite images that show the opposite. I'm in my car right now, but if I have time when I get back to the office I'll find those images and post them.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 25, 2009, 10:49:09 AM
FoMoJo: I can dig up scientific reports that claim the opposite. I can even dig up NASA satellite images that show the opposite. I'm in my car right now, but if I have time when I get back to the office I'll find those images and post them.
I'm willing to let the researchers work it out. AFAIC, they're still scratching the surface; but it is something worthwhile looking into. It's a situation that will be played out over the following decades and centuries.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 02, 2009, 05:48:18 PM
In reality, people like you NEED people like me
"What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of fuckin' assholes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be.
You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy!"
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 25, 2009, 09:44:35 AM
Antarctic ice melt more widespread than first thought: scientists (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/25/antarctic-warming.html)
excerpt...
Antarctic glaciers are melting faster than previously thought, which could lead to an unprecedented rise in sea levels, scientists said Wednesday.
A report by thousands of scientists for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year concluded that the western part of the continent is warming up, not just the Antarctic Peninsula.
Previously most of the warming was thought to occur on the narrow stretch pointing toward South America, said Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Britain-based Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and a member of International Polar Year's steering committee.
Satellite data and automated weather stations indicate "the warming we see in the peninsula also extends all the way down to what is called west Antarctica," he told the Associated Press. "That's unusual and unexpected."
During the International Polar Year, thousands of scientists from more than 60 countries engaged in intense Arctic and Antarctic research over the past two southern summer seasons — on the ice, at sea, and via icebreaker, submarine and surveillance satellite.
The biggest western Antarctic glacier, the Pine Island Glacier, is moving 40 per cent faster than it was in the 1970s, discharging water and ice more rapidly into the ocean, Summerhayes said.
The Smith Glacier, also in western Antarctica, is moving 83 per cent faster than it did in 1992, he said. All the glaciers in the area together lose a total of around 114 billion tonnes per year because the discharge is much greater than the new snowfall, Summerhayes said.
"That's equivalent to the current mass loss from the whole of the Greenland ice sheet," he said, adding that the glaciers' discharge was making a significant contribution to the rise in sea levels. "We didn't realize it was moving that fast."
Antarctica's average annual temperature has increased by about 1 F since 1957, but is still 50 F below zero, according to a recent study by Eric Steig of the University of Washington. Summerhayes said the glaciers were slipping into the sea faster because the floating ice shelf that would stop them — usually 199 metres to 299 metres thick — is melting.
Sea levels will rise faster than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summerhayes said.
An IPCC panel in 2007 predicted warmer temperatures could raise sea levels by 76 centimetres to 120 centimetres this century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee.
"If the west Antarctica sheet collapses, then we're looking at a sea level rise of between one metre and 1.5 metres," Summerhayes said.
The IPY researchers found that the southern ocean around Antarctica has warmed about 0.36 F in the past decade, double the average warming of the rest of the Earth's oceans over the past 30 years, he said.
The warming of western Antarctica is a real concern Summerhayes said. "There's some people who fear that this is the first signs of an incipient collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY
Polar Year 'hailed as a success' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7906539.stm)
excerpt...
Of course, one of the principal aspects of IPY has been to study the intricacies of the poles' geophysical and climatic systems.
A theme that seems to be developing from the results so far, Dr Carlson said, is one of unexpected speed.
Tara's experience illustrated the speed of change in the Arctic
"We have enough to say the whole ice/ocean/atmosphere system in both hemispheres is changing faster than we thought.
"The French vessel Tara was going to drift across the Arctic, following the track of the Fram, the Norwegian vessel that did it 100 years before.
"All of our models - how fast the ice drifts, how fast the currents flow, and in fact all our logistics - were based on the fact that it was going to take 30 to 36 months and it went across in 14," Dr Carlson said.
"That was a signal to us that not just ice but the whole Arctic system is in a fundamentally different state than 12 months before."
They're only scratching the surface :huh:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 25, 2009, 04:47:46 PM
Polar Year 'hailed as a success' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7906539.stm)
excerpt...
Of course, one of the principal aspects of IPY has been to study the intricacies of the poles' geophysical and climatic systems.
A theme that seems to be developing from the results so far, Dr Carlson said, is one of unexpected speed.
Tara's experience illustrated the speed of change in the Arctic
"We have enough to say the whole ice/ocean/atmosphere system in both hemispheres is changing faster than we thought.
"The French vessel Tara was going to drift across the Arctic, following the track of the Fram, the Norwegian vessel that did it 100 years before.
"All of our models - how fast the ice drifts, how fast the currents flow, and in fact all our logistics - were based on the fact that it was going to take 30 to 36 months and it went across in 14," Dr Carlson said.
"That was a signal to us that not just ice but the whole Arctic system is in a fundamentally different state than 12 months before."
They're only scratching the surface :huh:.
Interesting stuff, however I have still yet to see anything that says this stuff isn't normal.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 25, 2009, 04:53:01 PM
Interesting stuff, however I have still yet to see anything that says this stuff isn't normal.
...which may well be true; but it's worth keeping an eye on.
As for the shift to green, imo, it's an entirely different rationale.
Here's one image that shows sea ice in the Antarctic increasing for the last 12 years.
(http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_images/newspost_images/January_1979-2009_antarctic_ice_concentration_extent.jpg)
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 25, 2009, 04:58:04 PM
Here's one image that shows sea ice in the Antarctic increasing for the last 12 years.
I don't know for sure but this might be of some relevance...
The biggest western Antarctic glacier, the Pine Island Glacier, is moving 40 per cent faster than it was in the 1970s, discharging water and ice more rapidly into the ocean, Summerhayes said.
The Smith Glacier, also in western Antarctica, is moving 83 per cent faster than it did in 1992, he said. All the glaciers in the area together lose a total of around 114 billion tonnes per year because the discharge is much greater than the new snowfall, Summerhayes said.
"That's equivalent to the current mass loss from the whole of the Greenland ice sheet," he said, adding that the glaciers' discharge was making a significant contribution to the rise in sea levels. "We didn't realize it was moving that fast."I assume that means that the volume of snow/ice on the land mass is less.
The problem with listening to scientists about global warming, or at least warming in the Antarctic, is that no matter what evidence even they discover, they still will not let go of climate change. The article on the sensor is one example. Another is a recent article in the NYT's that scientists have found an active volcano that is contributing to melting ice pack in Antarctica. Yet, in the same article where the scientist talk about this is the first time a volcano has been known to break through the ice (which tells me it is heating up to eruption), they STILL blame global warming.
Jeez. What is someone supposed to think when give you a logical explanation for an occurrence, like why is ice melting faster on one side than the other, but appear to contradict themselves in the same article.
Take the sensor issue. There is a more accurate sensor that could be deployed and give more accurate data. They don't won't to use it though because it may throw off (supposedly past accurate readings) the consistency of the past readings compared to current readings. Translation....if it shows that the climate isn't really warming up to the degree we thought, all that grant money goes to other scientists...hell, that extra cash might even find a cure for cancer.
BTW, the volcano...is on the western side and it believed to be contributing to the Pine Island glacier moving faster.
Quote from: NomisR on February 25, 2009, 10:37:33 AM
So when will we be living in this?
(http://homepage.mac.com/ozarkmatt/fark/waterworld.jpg)
Never. Entirely impossible. :lol:
Quote from: JWC on February 25, 2009, 06:27:54 PM
The problem with listening to scientists about global warming, or at least warming in the Antarctic, is that no matter what evidence even they discover, they still will not let go of climate change. The article on the sensor is one example. Another is a recent article in the NYT's that scientists have found an active volcano that is contributing to melting ice pack in Antarctica. Yet, in the same article where the scientist talk about this is the first time a volcano has been known to break through the ice (which tells me it is heating up to eruption), they STILL blame global warming.
Jeez. What is someone supposed to think when give you a logical explanation for an occurrence, like why is ice melting faster on one side than the other, but appear to contradict themselves in the same article.
Take the sensor issue. There is a more accurate sensor that could be deployed and give more accurate data. They don't won't to use it though because it may throw off (supposedly past accurate readings) the consistency of the past readings compared to current readings. Translation....if it shows that the climate isn't really warming up to the degree we thought, all that grant money goes to other scientists...hell, that extra cash might even find a cure for cancer.
BTW, the volcano...is on the western side and it believed to be contributing to the Pine Island glacier moving faster.
You got a link about the volcano?
CNN yesterday
Quote from: Psilos on February 25, 2009, 07:45:55 PM
You got a link about the volcano?
Quote from: JWC on February 26, 2009, 05:39:17 AM
CNN yesterday
Buried Volcano Discovered in Antarctica (http://www.livescience.com/environment/080120-antarctic-volcano.html)
It doesn't say exactly when it was discovered but it seems quite recent.
Although ice buried the unnamed volcano, molten rock is still churning below. David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the BAS and a co-author of the new study, said the discovery might explain the speeding up of historically slow-moving glaciers in the region.
?This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet," Vaughan said. "The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades, and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration."
The effect is similar to a person gliding down a Slip 'n Slide: Volcanically melted water beneath the colossal ice sheet lubricates its movement, assisting its gravity-powered journey toward the Antarctic Ocean.
Vaughan noted, however, that the hidden volcano doesn't explain widespread thinning of Antarctic glaciers.
"This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters," he said, which most scientists attribute to global warming resulting from human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels.
Quote from: JWC on February 25, 2009, 06:27:54 PM
The problem with listening to scientists about global warming, or at least warming in the Antarctic, is that no matter what evidence even they discover, they still will not let go of climate change. The article on the sensor is one example. Another is a recent article in the NYT's that scientists have found an active volcano that is contributing to melting ice pack in Antarctica. Yet, in the same article where the scientist talk about this is the first time a volcano has been known to break through the ice (which tells me it is heating up to eruption), they STILL blame global warming.
Jeez. What is someone supposed to think when give you a logical explanation for an occurrence, like why is ice melting faster on one side than the other, but appear to contradict themselves in the same article.
Take the sensor issue. There is a more accurate sensor that could be deployed and give more accurate data. They don't won't to use it though because it may throw off (supposedly past accurate readings) the consistency of the past readings compared to current readings. Translation....if it shows that the climate isn't really warming up to the degree we thought, all that grant money goes to other scientists...hell, that extra cash might even find a cure for cancer.
BTW, the volcano...is on the western side and it believed to be contributing to the Pine Island glacier moving faster.
I expect that there is a fair bit of unscientific practises going on on both sides of the argument. However, that is the political argument. Those referred to as "deniers for hire" -- epitimized by the likes of S. Fred Singer who was, previously, paid by the tobacco industry to say that smoking was not a health problem and is now funded by the oil industry to deny man-made global warming -- and the likes of Al Gore only confuse the issue for the legitamate body of science that is taking the proper objective approach. From what I have seen, no one in that community is saying for sure; other than indicating up to a 90% chance that it is likely.
Imo, it is worth pursuing research in the matter if for no other reason that other forms of pollution which were ignored -- assuming that the earth and water would filter and absorb the toxins -- were proved to, indeed, be the agents that killed lakes and invaded the food chain. Personally, I just want to know the facts and ignore the rhetoric. I don't see why others are so willing to hop onto one or the other of the political band wagons.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 26, 2009, 08:26:25 AM
Buried Volcano Discovered in Antarctica (http://www.livescience.com/environment/080120-antarctic-volcano.html)
It doesn't say exactly when it was discovered but it seems quite recent.
Although ice buried the unnamed volcano, molten rock is still churning below. David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the BAS and a co-author of the new study, said the discovery might explain the speeding up of historically slow-moving glaciers in the region.
?This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet," Vaughan said. "The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades, and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration."
The effect is similar to a person gliding down a Slip 'n Slide: Volcanically melted water beneath the colossal ice sheet lubricates its movement, assisting its gravity-powered journey toward the Antarctic Ocean.
Vaughan noted, however, that the hidden volcano doesn't explain widespread thinning of Antarctic glaciers.
"This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters," he said, which most scientists attribute to global warming resulting from human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels.
There's a goddamn volcano under the ice, but we believe it's effects are isolated and the rest of the continent is affected by Global Warming. Fuck off. :facepalm:
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 26, 2009, 09:31:36 AM
There's a goddamn volcano under the ice, but we believe it's effects are isolated and the rest of the continent is affected by Global Warming. Fuck off. :facepalm:
Considering the last eruption was 2,300 years ago, maybe he didn't want to jump to any rash conclusion. :huh: As far as I can tell, most responsible scientists are like that. A lot of 'maybes' and a lot of 'ifs'; until the proof is conclusive. It's only the politicians that grasp at straws to try and prove their vested stances.
Quote from: Psilos on February 25, 2009, 07:45:02 PM
Never. Entirely impossible. :lol:
Yeah, I wouldn't want to live in a crappy Kevin Costner movie anyways. :lol:
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 26, 2009, 11:36:01 AM
Considering the last eruption was 2,300 years ago, maybe he didn't want to jump to any rash conclusion. :huh: As far as I can tell, most responsible scientists are like that. A lot of 'maybes' and a lot of 'ifs'; until the proof is conclusive. It's only the politicians that grasp at straws to try and prove their vested stances.
It hasn't had an eruption doesn't mean it's not giving off heat.. look at all of Iceland..
Quote from: NomisR on February 26, 2009, 11:45:55 AM
It hasn't had an eruption doesn't mean it's not giving off heat.. look at all of Iceland..
Absolutely. It's a factor contributing to the past and present conditions. However, there are a number of other factors. They must all be taken into consideration. Just because they discovered that there was a volcano there doesn't mean that it's the reason the ice is melting. The volcano has, likely, existed for tens of thousands of years.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 26, 2009, 01:04:15 PM
Absolutely. It's a factor contributing to the past and present conditions. However, there are a number of other factors. They must all be taken into consideration. Just because they discovered that there was a volcano there doesn't mean that it's the reason the ice is melting. The volcano has, likely, existed for tens of thousands of years.
Yeah but then again, how long have we been studying Antartica.. maybe there's an increased activity, and such. I wish they would just hold off on drawing conclusions rather than say, well that's still not the case, CO2's at fault.
Personally, I have a feeling, that this, like a lot of other scares, will yield nothing. CO2 would be discovered to not make any difference in climate and all the $$$ spent on it would yield nil..and that's the best case scenario.. worse case would be a net loss as we will destroy, well it's already bad but it'll be worse off, our economy..
If we keep things up.. I don't expect dooms day and it'll just be business as usual. Remember the Acid Rain scares? Garbage and land fill? Smog? Ozone depletion? Whatever happen to those? CO2 fad would die off in 5 years.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 26, 2009, 01:04:15 PM
Absolutely. It's a factor contributing to the past and present conditions. However, there are a number of other factors. They must all be taken into consideration. Just because they discovered that there was a volcano there doesn't mean that it's the reason the ice is melting. The volcano has, likely, existed for tens of thousands of years.
Here we have a glacier with a volcano under it. This glacier has started to suddenly move faster and melt faster then it did 20 years ago. There has been virtually no mention of it in the media and the warmists are still blaming it on GW. In 10 years people will look back at this and say, "Wow, were we ever fucking stupid or what."
Quote from: NomisR on February 26, 2009, 04:02:14 PM
Yeah but then again, how long have we been studying Antartica.. maybe there's an increased activity, and such. I wish they would just hold off on drawing conclusions rather than say, well that's still not the case, CO2's at fault.
Personally, I have a feeling, that this, like a lot of other scares, will yield nothing. CO2 would be discovered to not make any difference in climate and all the $$$ spent on it would yield nil..and that's the best case scenario.. worse case would be a net loss as we will destroy, well it's already bad but it'll be worse off, our economy..
If we keep things up.. I don't expect dooms day and it'll just be business as usual. Remember the Acid Rain scares? Garbage and land fill? Smog? Ozone depletion? Whatever happen to those? CO2 fad would die off in 5 years.
Damage From Acid Rain Pollution Is Far Worse Than Previously Believed
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075630.htm)
Just a little refresher on acid rain. I thought you might be particularly interested in this particular revelation
Acid Rain Reduces Methane Emissions From Rice Paddies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080806154802.htm)
Acid rain from atmospheric pollution can reduce methane emissions from rice paddies by up to 24 per cent according to research led by Dr Vincent Gauci of The Open University. This is potentially a beneficial side effect of the high pollution levels China - the world?s largest producer of rice - is often associated with.
Particularly this...
Methane is 21 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 26, 2009, 05:13:11 PM
Here we have a glacier with a volcano under it. This glacier has started to suddenly move faster and melt faster then it did 20 years ago. There has been virtually no mention of it in the media and the warmists are still blaming it on GW. In 10 years people will look back at this and say, "Wow, were we ever fucking stupid or what."
Now that they know that the volcano is there, they can make some determinations as to its effect. As previously mentioned, Greenland has volcanos that they've known about for centuries.
You know what would be really cool? A volcano with a glacier under it.
Quote from: NACar on February 26, 2009, 05:26:02 PM
You know what would be really cool? A volcano with a glacier under it.
The Arctic ice cap? :huh:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 26, 2009, 05:32:26 PM
The Arctic ice cap? :huh:.
Are there volcanoes on top of that?
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 26, 2009, 05:20:54 PM
Damage From Acid Rain Pollution Is Far Worse Than Previously Believed
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075630.htm)
Just a little refresher on acid rain. I thought you might be particularly interested in this particular revelation Acid Rain Reduces Methane Emissions From Rice Paddies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080806154802.htm)
Acid rain from atmospheric pollution can reduce methane emissions from rice paddies by up to 24 per cent according to research led by Dr Vincent Gauci of The Open University. This is potentially a beneficial side effect of the high pollution levels China - the world?s largest producer of rice - is often associated with.
Particularly this...Methane is 21 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Well, here's the thing, if Methane is 21times worse to the environment than CO2, wouldn't limiting cow fart be a better way to save the environment? Why are we blaming industry and cars for something that's such a small part of the environment? It would make sense to divert resources to change something that makes a bigger impact.
It feels like they're trying to fix a small crack in a water tank that's slowly seeping water out of it when there's a big hole on the other side..
Quote from: NACar on February 26, 2009, 05:34:58 PM
Are there volcanoes on top of that?
Well, i think it's physically impossible for that to happen.. on earth in this lifetime at least.. I can think of scenarios that can occur but we would not be able to survive.
Quote from: NomisR on February 26, 2009, 05:47:16 PM
Well, i think it's physically impossible for that to happen..
That's why it would be cool!
We still talk about acid rain.
http://www.appvoices.org/index.php?/site/voice_stories/study_appalachian_forests_dying_from_acid_rain/issue/544
Quote from: NACar on February 26, 2009, 05:34:58 PM
Are there volcanoes on top of that?
A very bad visual reference to the situation underneath at the Antarctic. Forget I mentioned it :facepalm:.
Quote from: Onslaught on February 26, 2009, 05:52:19 PM
We still talk about acid rain.
http://www.appvoices.org/index.php?/site/voice_stories/study_appalachian_forests_dying_from_acid_rain/issue/544
Good article.
Quote from: NomisR on February 26, 2009, 05:46:03 PM
Well, here's the thing, if Methane is 21times worse to the environment than CO2, wouldn't limiting cow fart be a better way to save the environment? Why are we blaming industry and cars for something that's such a small part of the environment? It would make sense to divert resources to change something that makes a bigger impact.
It feels like they're trying to fix a small crack in a water tank that's slowly seeping water out of it when there's a big hole on the other side..
Cockroaches and termites fart more methane than cows. With the growing population of humans, there's no doubt that we may surpass both cows and cockroachs at expelling methane into the atmosphere. If we keep breeding the way we are, we might just fart ourselves into extinction :huh:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 26, 2009, 06:10:23 PM
If we keep breeding the way we are, we might just fart ourselves into extinction :huh:.
That would be great.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 26, 2009, 01:04:15 PM
Absolutely. It's a factor contributing to the past and present conditions. However, there are a number of other factors. They must all be taken into consideration. Just because they discovered that there was a volcano there doesn't mean that it's the reason the ice is melting. The volcano has, likely, existed for tens of thousands of years.
Actually, this is a very old volcano. It was discovered in the 1800's because it was erupting at the time..I think 1801. What is new is that it has become active again. Scientists have stated that it is a contributing factor to the melting ice, but global warming is still the main culprit.
Sure it is.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 26, 2009, 08:26:25 AM
Buried Volcano Discovered in Antarctica (http://www.livescience.com/environment/080120-antarctic-volcano.html)
It doesn't say exactly when it was discovered but it seems quite recent.
Although ice buried the unnamed volcano, molten rock is still churning below. David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the BAS and a co-author of the new study, said the discovery might explain the speeding up of historically slow-moving glaciers in the region.
?This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet," Vaughan said. "The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades, and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration."
The effect is similar to a person gliding down a Slip 'n Slide: Volcanically melted water beneath the colossal ice sheet lubricates its movement, assisting its gravity-powered journey toward the Antarctic Ocean.
Vaughan noted, however, that the hidden volcano doesn't explain widespread thinning of Antarctic glaciers.
"This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters," he said, which most scientists attribute to global warming resulting from human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels.
Volcanoes are neat!
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 26, 2009, 09:31:36 AM
There's a goddamn volcano under the ice, but we believe it's effects are isolated and the rest of the continent is affected by Global Warming. Fuck off. :facepalm:
It's a rather large continent.
As much as I think science should be in the domain of everyone, and everyone should try to understand it, I often just want to say, leave the science to the scientists!
Quote from: NomisR on February 26, 2009, 04:02:14 PM
Yeah but then again, how long have we been studying Antartica.. maybe there's an increased activity, and such. I wish they would just hold off on drawing conclusions rather than say, well that's still not the case, CO2's at fault.
Personally, I have a feeling, that this, like a lot of other scares, will yield nothing. CO2 would be discovered to not make any difference in climate and all the $$$ spent on it would yield nil..and that's the best case scenario.. worse case would be a net loss as we will destroy, well it's already bad but it'll be worse off, our economy..
If we keep things up.. I don't expect dooms day and it'll just be business as usual. Remember the Acid Rain scares? Garbage and land fill? Smog? Ozone depletion? Whatever happen to those? CO2 fad would die off in 5 years.
They are holding off on drawing conclusions. Read the article.
Quote from: NACar on February 26, 2009, 05:34:58 PM
Are there volcanoes on top of that?
If there were, they wouldn't be there (on top of the ice) for long!
Quote from: Psilos on February 26, 2009, 07:16:20 PM
Volcanoes are neat!
Ya dude. I want to be a volcanoeologist.
Volcanologist. ;) :lol:
Mmmm, supervolcano:
(http://www.cuttingedge.org/yellowstone-volcano.gif)
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 26, 2009, 06:10:23 PM
Cockroaches and termites fart more methane than cows. With the growing population of humans, there's no doubt that we may surpass both cows and cockroachs at expelling methane into the atmosphere. If we keep breeding the way we are, we might just fart ourselves into extinction :huh:.
That's why I'm all for population control!
Quote from: Psilos on February 26, 2009, 07:19:53 PM
They are holding off on drawing conclusions. Read the article.
Not exactly, they're just saying volcano can be a factor but they still think it's mostly global warming causing this.
Quote from: Psilos on February 26, 2009, 07:19:53 PM
They are holding off on drawing conclusions. Read the article.
I did
QuoteVaughan noted, however, that the hidden volcano doesn't explain widespread thinning of Antarctic glaciers.
"This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters," he said, which most scientists attribute to global warming resulting from human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels.
It seems like they're still holding firm, or more likely, the journalist is putting words in the scientist's mouth.
Quote from: JWC on February 26, 2009, 07:05:08 PM
Actually, this is a very old volcano. It was discovered in the 1800's because it was erupting at the time..I think 1801. What is new is that it has become active again. Scientists have stated that it is a contributing factor to the melting ice, but global warming is still the main culprit.
Sure it is.
We must be talking about different volcanos.
Buried Volcano Discovered in Antarctica (http://www.livescience.com/environment/080120-antarctic-volcano.html)
A volcano beneath Antarctica?s icy surface has been detected for the first time.
Under the frozen continent's western-most ice sheet, the volcano erupted about 2,300 years ago yet remains active, according to a study published Sunday in an online issue of the journal Nature Geosciences.
"We believe this was the biggest eruption in Antarctica during the last 10,000 years," said study co-author Hugh Corr, a glaciologist for the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). "It blew a substantial hole in the ice sheet, and generated a plume of ash and gas that rose around 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) into [the] air."
Brooding giant
Although ice buried the unnamed volcano, molten rock is still churning below. David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the BAS and a co-author of the new study, said the discovery might explain the speeding up of historically slow-moving glaciers in the region.
?This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet," Vaughan said. "The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades, and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration."
The effect is similar to a person gliding down a Slip 'n Slide: Volcanically melted water beneath the colossal ice sheet lubricates its movement, assisting its gravity-powered journey toward the Antarctic Ocean.
Vaughan noted, however, that the hidden volcano doesn't explain widespread thinning of Antarctic glaciers.
"This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters," he said, which most scientists attribute to global warming resulting from human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels.
Hide and seek
Corr and Vaughan used ice-penetrating radar to locate the volcano just west of the expansive Pine Island Glacier. Specifically, they detected a New Jersey-sized plot of ash at more than 8,000 square miles (20,700 square kilometers) beneath the ice.
The debris is a hallmark of an ancient eruption.
?The discovery of a ?subglacial? volcanic eruption from beneath the Antarctic ice sheet is unique in itself," Corr said. "But our techniques also allow us to put a date on the eruption, determine how powerful it was and map out the area where ash fell."
Scientists like Corr have used radar and other technologies to find other features, such as lakes, tucked beneath the Antarctic ice. Researchers also think that magma-heated rock beneath Greenland's massive ice sheet is accelerating its melting, but whether a volcano or just a pool of magma is responsible is still a matter of debate.
Quote from: Tave on February 27, 2009, 06:53:43 AM
Mmmm, supervolcano:
(http://www.cuttingedge.org/yellowstone-volcano.gif)
Except with a bias towards the south east... :ohyeah:
Quote from: NomisR on February 27, 2009, 10:07:38 AM
Not exactly, they're just saying volcano can be a factor but they still think it's mostly global warming causing this.
I did
It seems like they're still holding firm, or more likely, the journalist is putting words in the scientist's mouth.
The observations are valid, and there are no concrete conclusions drawn. Note "most probably." Now, if it's the journalist putting words in the scientists mouth, which is what journalists do, then why do we care?
Quote from: Psilos on February 27, 2009, 08:52:24 PM
The observations are valid, and there are no concrete conclusions drawn. Note "most probably." Now, if it's the journalist putting words in the scientists mouth, which is what journalists do, then why do we care?
Because the general public and politicians are too stupid to notice the difference.
A little more gristle to chew on Climate 'hitting Europe's birds' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7921936.stm).
Of course this doesn't suggest that global warming is man-made but does show that birds are reacting to the warming trend in the climate.
An interesting article, imo.
Climate change is already having an impact on European bird species, according to British scientists.
Details of the study by an international team of researchers have been published in the journal Plos One.
Some birds are expected to do well as temperatures rise, but these are in the minority, the researchers write.
"Overall, the trend is towards net loss," said a spokesman for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), which contributed to the study.
Strong Link
The researchers found birds that are expected to do well as temperatures rise had indeed increased in number since the 1980s.
But some 75% of species studied by the researchers had declined in the same period.
The study compared the change in population numbers of bird species over the last two decades with the projected change in their ranges and found a strong link.
These shifts in species territory are thought to be associated with climate change.
Of the 122 species included in the study (out of 526 species that nest in Europe), 30 are projected to increase their range, while the remaining 92 species are anticipated to experience a contraction in their territory.
Rising temperatures
The latter group includes the lapwing, currently found throughout the UK as well as much of western Europe. That however, is predicted to change with the Lapwing disappearing from areas of southern Europe as temperatures change.
The scientists developed a measure, which they call the climate change indicator, to describe how changes in temperature are affecting species.
Rising temperatures are likely to have a positive effect on some species, said co-author Dr Stephen Willis, from Durham University. This means some birds are likely to extend their ranges north.
That means some mainland species could colonise the British Isles if they continue to respond to climatic warming in the way the models predict, and in the absence of other barriers such as the ability to disperse and the lack of suitable habitat.
Extinction
The Cirl bunting, for example, already has a small presence in the UK, in the south west but as the map above shows, is projected to spread much further across the country.
These potential colonists include the great reed warbler, the subalpine warbler and the bee-eater.
One UK species, the Scottish crossbill, could face extinction, the RSPB warned. The crossbill's range is already restricted to the Caledonian pine forests of Scotland.
"We need to redouble our efforts," said the RSPB spokesman, "for a G8 nation to lose a species is shameful."
The spokesman said preserving pine forests could be crucial to the survival of the crossbill.
The study was the work of researchers from Durham University, Cambridge University, the RSPB, the European Bird Census Council, the Czech Society for Ornithology, the French National Museum of Natural History and Statistics Netherlands.
My town is already at average season snowfall levels (~180"/season). In April of '07, we got 24 inches in one night/day. April. Temperatures so far this season are about 4 degrees lower than average. And, the school has already had 6 snow days (2 of which were because it was "too cold" for the kids that walk to school to do so safely).
Global warming? Where are you?
:huh:
http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=17895.0
I think my first comment in this thread fits here. ;)
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 27, 2009, 11:08:16 AM
We must be talking about different volcanos.
Buried Volcano Discovered in Antarctica (http://www.livescience.com/environment/080120-antarctic-volcano.html)
A volcano beneath Antarctica’s icy surface has been detected for the first time.
Under the frozen continent's western-most ice sheet, the volcano erupted about 2,300 years ago yet remains active, according to a study published Sunday in an online issue of the journal Nature Geosciences.
"We believe this was the biggest eruption in Antarctica during the last 10,000 years," said study co-author Hugh Corr, a glaciologist for the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). "It blew a substantial hole in the ice sheet, and generated a plume of ash and gas that rose around 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) into [the] air."
Brooding giant
Although ice buried the unnamed volcano, molten rock is still churning below. David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the BAS and a co-author of the new study, said the discovery might explain the speeding up of historically slow-moving glaciers in the region.
“This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet," Vaughan said. "The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades, and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration."
The effect is similar to a person gliding down a Slip 'n Slide: Volcanically melted water beneath the colossal ice sheet lubricates its movement, assisting its gravity-powered journey toward the Antarctic Ocean.
Vaughan noted, however, that the hidden volcano doesn't explain widespread thinning of Antarctic glaciers.
"This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters," he said, which most scientists attribute to global warming resulting from human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels.
Hide and seek
Corr and Vaughan used ice-penetrating radar to locate the volcano just west of the expansive Pine Island Glacier. Specifically, they detected a New Jersey-sized plot of ash at more than 8,000 square miles (20,700 square kilometers) beneath the ice.
The debris is a hallmark of an ancient eruption.
“The discovery of a ‘subglacial’ volcanic eruption from beneath the Antarctic ice sheet is unique in itself," Corr said. "But our techniques also allow us to put a date on the eruption, determine how powerful it was and map out the area where ash fell."
Scientists like Corr have used radar and other technologies to find other features, such as lakes, tucked beneath the Antarctic ice. Researchers also think that magma-heated rock beneath Greenland's massive ice sheet is accelerating its melting, but whether a volcano or just a pool of magma is responsible is still a matter of debate.
It speeded up?
And was 8,000 square miles below the surface? Does that mean it was 64,000,000 miles below the surface? So like...3/4 the way to the moon? That's a long way away to be detecting ash plots.
no, no, no. It's 8000 square miles AND it's beneath the ice.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 04, 2009, 10:56:07 AM
My town is already at average season snowfall levels (~180"/season). In April of '07, we got 24 inches in one night/day. April. Temperatures so far this season are about 4 degrees lower than average. And, the school has already had 6 snow days (2 of which were because it was "too cold" for the kids that walk to school to do so safely).
Global warming? Where are you?:huh:
Ask the birds ;).
Quote from: ChrisV on March 04, 2009, 11:37:04 AM
http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=17895.0
I think my first comment in this thread fits here. ;)
Are you suggesting that the birds were using computer models? :confused:
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Quote from: ChrisV on March 04, 2009, 11:52:06 AM
no, no, no. It's 8000 square miles AND it's beneath the ice.
I understand that, but they worded it terribly. Saying they found a plot of ash "at more than 8000 square miles beneath the ice" is very...odd.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 04, 2009, 12:14:10 PM
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Of course they do; just not with the birds.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 04, 2009, 12:23:00 PM
Of course they do; just not with the birds.
What, they hop a bus?
lol.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 04, 2009, 12:03:01 PM
Are you suggesting that the birds were using computer models? :confused:
*sigh* no, I'm saying computer models, with fairly recent data geologically, are saying it's man made and people are jumping willy nilly on the bandwagon. Just like in that article, correlation is being used as causation.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 04, 2009, 12:14:10 PM
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
You've never seen Monte Python and the search forthe holy grail?
Quote from: Byteme on March 04, 2009, 01:22:38 PM
You've never seen Monte Python and the search forthe holy grail?
...that's...why I said it. I was, uh...referencing that movie...? Why else would someone seemingly randomly ask if another human was suggesting coconuts migrate because he saw a mention of birds.
:huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 04, 2009, 01:24:53 PM
...that's...why I said it. I was, uh...referencing that movie...? Why else would someone seemingly randomly ask if another human was suggesting coconuts migrate because he saw a mention of birds.
:huh:
Sorry :facepalm:! I never saw the movie :huh:.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 04, 2009, 12:50:42 PM
*sigh* no, I'm saying computer models, with fairly recent data geologically, are saying it's man made and people are jumping willy nilly on the bandwagon. Just like in that article, correlation is being used as causation.
I'm just being deliberately obtuse :huh:. The discussion still has a long way to go before there can be any definitive conclusions. However, that nature, in this case migrating birds that have changed their normal patterns suggest that, indeed, the climate is changing; whether or not it is influenced by man-made pollution.
Quote from: Psilos on February 27, 2009, 08:52:24 PM
The observations are valid, and there are no concrete conclusions drawn. Note "most probably." Now, if it's the journalist putting words in the scientists mouth, which is what journalists do, then why do we care?
Because then it means the article is biased and on top of that, what Hemi said.
I don't really care if an article is biased if the science isn't. I don't remember what Hemi said.
Quote from: Psilos on March 04, 2009, 06:49:15 PM
I don't really care if an article is biased if the science isn't. I don't remember what Hemi said.
Science, even good science, can be presented in a biased manner. Inclusion of data that supports your bias, and omission of that which doesn't is one way, disregarding other equally legitimate findings from other sources because they don't support your preordained conclusions is another.
Yep. I'm referring to article in magazines and newspapers, like the one we were talking about, not scientific articles in journals, etc.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 04, 2009, 01:37:41 PM
Sorry :facepalm:! I never saw the movie :huh:.
You didn't miss much.
I only saw it becausee we went to see Jaws the fiirst weekend it was in release and the line for Jaws was literally around the block so we saw Monty Python instead.
The Holy Grail is one of my favorites. I think it amuses a very acute audience with an odd sense of humor.
Quote from: Byteme on March 05, 2009, 08:10:13 AM
You didn't miss much.
I only saw it becausee we went to see Jaws the fiirst weekend it was in release and the line for Jaws was literally around the block so we saw Monty Python instead.
I've seen it 134 times and it gets funnier each and every time.
The recession should make all these global warming people happy. Nothing reduces carbon output like a good old fashioned recession.
That being said, it's hard to be happy when you don't have a job.
Quote from: 3.0L V6 on March 05, 2009, 06:29:04 PM
The recession should make all these global warming people happy. Nothing reduces carbon output like a good old fashioned recession.
That being said, it's hard to be happy when you don't have a job.
(http://www.nataliedee.com/030805/no-job.jpg)
'No Sun link' to climate change' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm)
Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.
The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.
The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.
But UK scientists found there has been no significant link between cosmic rays and cloudiness in the last 20 years.
...read the rest in the link if your interested.
Another related article...'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm)
The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.
There are no sunspots, very few solar flares - and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time.
The observations are baffling astronomers, who are due to study new pictures of the Sun, taken from space, at the UK National Astronomy Meeting.
The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period.
Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.
According to Prof Louise Hara of University College London, it is unclear why this is happening or when the Sun is likely to become more active again.
"There's no sign of us coming out of it yet," she told BBC News.
"At the moment, there are scientific papers coming out suggesting that we'll be going into a normal period of activity soon.
"Others are suggesting we'll be going into another minimum period - this is a big scientific debate at the moment."
Silly article. "According to Prof Louise Hara of University College London, it is unclear why this is happening or when the Sun is likely to become more active again."
Of course something natural has a random pattern. It's perfectly clear.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 22, 2009, 09:48:53 AM
Silly article. "According to Prof Louise Hara of University College London, it is unclear why this is happening or when the Sun is likely to become more active again."
Of course something natural has a random pattern. It's perfectly clear.
Many things in nature are cyclical. That the 'normal' activity of the sun is not being adhered to should be looked upon as an anomaly by those in that field of science and pursued until there is a reasonable explanation. That is how we learn.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21498,25350902-948,00.html?from=public_rss
"East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".
Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
...
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. "
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 22, 2009, 10:15:17 AM
Many things in nature are cyclical. That the 'normal' activity of the sun is not being adhered to should be looked upon as an anomaly by those in that field of science and pursued until there is a reasonable explanation. That is how we learn.
Wait a min.. so the sun isn't getting hotter for recent years as predicted. The global temperature hasn't been increasing either. Is there a connection?
Quote from: ChrisV on April 22, 2009, 11:10:39 AM
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21498,25350902-948,00.html?from=public_rss
"East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".
Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
...
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. "
Certainly, the argument is far from final...
Scientists solve enigma of Antarctic 'cooling' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/21/global-warming-antarctica)
Research 'kills off' climate sceptic argument by showing average temperature across the continent has risen over the last 50 yearsScientists have solved the enigma of the Antarctic apparently getting cooler, while the rest of the world heats up.
New research shows that while some parts of the frozen continent have been getting slightly colder over the last few decades, the average temperature across the continent has been rising for at least the last 50 years.
In the remote and inaccessible West Antarctic region the new research, based on ground measurements and satellite data, show that the region has warmed rapidly, by 0.17C each decade since 1957. "We had no idea what was happening there," said Professor Eric Steig, at the University of Washington, Seattle, and who led the research published in Nature.
This outweighs the cooling seen in East Antarctica, so that, overall, the continent has warmed by 0.12C each decade over the same period. This matches the warming of the southern hemisphere as a whole and removes the apparent contradiction.
The issue, which had been highlighted by global warming sceptics, was an annoyance, said Steig, despite the science having been reasonably well understood. "But it has now been killed off," he said.
Gareth Marshall, climatologist at British Antarctic Survey, commented: "This work allows us to look at the continent as a whole, which we have not been able to do before with confidence. It fills a big hole in the data in West Antarctica ? it is the final piece in the jigsaw."
The rapid warming now revealed in the west concerns some scientists. The new analysis suggests the West Antarctic ice sheet, like that in Greenland, is precariously balanced, said Professor Barry Brook at the University of Adelaide. "Even losing a fraction of both would cause a few metres of sea level rise this century, with disastrous consequences," he said.
It was well known that a small part of Antarctic was warming ? the peninsula that protrudes northwards towards South America and is the site of many research stations. But researchers knew that East Antarctica had cooled a little in recent decades and thought that might be the case across the continent's great mountain range in West Antarctica.
Temperature records have been taken on the ground since the first weather stations were built in 1957. But all but two of the 42 are very close to the coast and therefore give no information on the vast interior of the continent. Satellite data, in contrast, can take the temperature of the entire region by measuring the intensity of the infrared radiation reflected from the snow pack and has been available since 1980.
Steig's team found the mathematical relationships between the weather station data and satellite data, tested them, and then used them to go back in time to estimate temperatures across the continent back to 1957. Their statistical model has now been validated by an ice core drilled into the Rutford ice stream in West Antarctica by the British Antarctic Survey, from which temperature records can be measured. That independent work also came up with a warming of 0.17C a decade for the region, and stretched the trend back to at least 1930.
The cooling seen in East Antarctica is caused in part by the ozone hole that opens each year in the atmosphere. The ozone hole causes an increase in westerly winds which, by a complex interaction of wind, sea and ice, results in lower temperatures in the east. Emissions of ozone-destroying gases have now almost been eliminated and the hole is expected to recover by mid-century. When that happens, there will be a rapid catch up of temperatures, says Marshall.
The 2007 report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions could be seen on every continent bar Antarctica. The new work, along with another recent study, now clearly shows that the rising temperature of the continent cannot be explained by natural climate variation alone.
Quote from: NomisR on April 22, 2009, 11:29:42 AM
Wait a min.. so the sun isn't getting hotter for recent years as predicted. The global temperature hasn't been increasing either. Is there a connection?
Considering that solar activity has been declining over the last 20 years...
He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.
...and the global temperature has been increasing...
(http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/670px-instrumental_temperature_record.png?w=615&h=485)
...I doubt there is a connection :huh:.
Good posts and links, FoMoJo. :ohyeah:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/12years.pdf
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/2008minus2001-2007mean.pdf
:huh:
doesn't look like it's warming to me.
Quote from: Psilos on April 22, 2009, 08:22:26 PM
Good posts and links, FoMoJo. :ohyeah:
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 22, 2009, 11:52:21 AM
Certainly, the argument is far from final...Scientists solve enigma of Antarctic 'cooling' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/21/global-warming-antarctica)
*Angry scientist rant alert*
You made the classic mistake of quoting a layman article that rehashes an actual scientific journal article.
NEVER EVER EVER DO THAT. Nothing pisses off the science community more.
I think I've said this a million times. Whenever someone tries to make a scientific article more appealing to the public by rewriting it, they manage to completely fail. Mostly because they probably didn't even understand the article in the first place, and probably because they add their own opinions and biases to fill the holes in their knowledge. And it's not like those scientific articles are impossible to understand, even if you don't know all the jargon you can get a general gist of it. And that gist is never as extreme, sensational, or conclusive as those lay articles make it out to be.
A recent example is when everyone got excited over that trachea transplant using "adult stem cells" when the actual paper NEVER even used the words adult stem cells, in fact the paper had nothing to do with adult stem cells.
This is the actual paper your article was attempting to make reference towards.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html
First off you can see that it doesn't set to disprove that new Antarctic ice is actually increasing study because that study article is set to come out after this article was even published ( it would be a time paradox).
What this paper actually says is:
"In this Letter, we use statistical climate-field-
reconstruction techniques to obtain a 50-year-long, spatially complete estimate of monthly Antarctic temperature anomalies. In essence, we use the spatial covariance structure of the surface temperature field to guide interpolation of the sparse but reliable 50-year-long records of 2-m temperature from occupied weather stations. Although it has been suggested that such interpolation is unreliable owing to the distances involved, large spatial scales are not inherently problematic if there is high spatial coherence, as is the case in continental Antarctica."
This paper doesn't aim to disprove that Antarctic ice is actually increasing because that information isn't available until 4 months after this paper was published. Here is the real reason why this paper was published.
"
Previous reconstructions of Antarctic near-surface temperatures have yielded inconsistent results, particularly over West Antarctica,
where records are few and discontinuous5, 6, 7. We
improve upon this earlier work in several ways. We use two independent estimates of the spatial covariance of temperature across the Antarctic ice sheet: surface temperature measurements from satellite thermal infrared (TIR) observations8, and up-to-date automatic weather station (AWS) measurements of near-surface air temperature."
So basically this paper was all about changing around some software to explain some problems with the previous modeling software.
It does not prove anything against the actual MEASUREMENT of the Ice depth by the Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program, made on the parts of antarctic (will link the journal as soon as it is out).
Anyway any scientist will tell you that wet science (actually doing experiments, making real measurements) far far far outweighs any dry work (computer models and data prediction). I used to read about 20 articles a week in bioscience that try to claim that some model calculates some new novel thing. The vast majority get overturned within a year. We have a saying in science, that if you torture the data enough, it will eventually confess.
Quote from: 565 on April 23, 2009, 09:06:14 AM
First off you can see that it doesn't set to disprove that new Antarctic ice is actually increasing study because that study article is set to come out after this article was even published ( it would be a time paradox).
What this paper actually says is:
"In this Letter, we use statistical climate-field-reconstruction techniques to obtain a 50-year-long, spatially complete estimate of monthly Antarctic temperature anomalies. In essence, we use the spatial covariance structure of the surface temperature field to guide interpolation of the sparse but reliable 50-year-long records of 2-m temperature from occupied weather stations. Although it has been suggested that such interpolation is unreliable owing to the distances involved, large spatial scales are not inherently problematic if there is high spatial coherence, as is the case in continental Antarctica."
This paper doesn't aim to disprove that Antarctic ice is actually increasing because that information isn't available until 4 months after this paper was published. Here is the real reason why this paper was published.
"Previous reconstructions of Antarctic near-surface temperatures have yielded inconsistent results, particularly over West Antarctica, where records are few and discontinuous5, 6, 7. We improve upon this earlier work in several ways. We use two independent estimates of the spatial covariance of temperature across the Antarctic ice sheet: surface temperature measurements from satellite thermal infrared (TIR) observations8, and up-to-date automatic weather station (AWS) measurements of near-surface air temperature."
So basically this paper was all about changing around some software to explain some problems with the previous modeling software.
It does not prove anything against the actual MEASUREMENT of the Ice depth by the Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program, made on the parts of antarctic (will link the journal as soon as it is out).
It wasn't meant to show that the ice was
not expanding. I believe that is an established fact based on satellite measurements. It was only to present the argument that, overall, the temperature is increasing, though very slightly, and offer an explanation as to why the temperature in East antarctica is seen as decreasing.
p.s. if you have access to articles that offer valid information on the topic, I'd appreciate it if you would post them.
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 23, 2009, 06:57:23 PM
It wasn't meant to show that the ice was not expanding. I believe that is an established fact based on satellite measurements. It was only to present the argument that, overall, the temperature is increasing, though very slightly, and offer an explanation as to why the temperature in East antarctica is seen as decreasing.
p.s. if you have access to articles that offer valid information on the topic, I'd appreciate it if you would post them.
I'd wait for that ice measurement article from the Australians, should be published soon.
10,000 years ago the Earth was in the midst of its latest ice age. Continental ice shelves covered much of the upper latitudes.
Obviously we've been warming ever since. :huh:
We really don't have to worry about global warming much longer.
We have scientists working on solar space shields to diffuse sunlight and cool the planet back to pre-industrial age levels.
Seems Gore isn't the only one making money from global warming.
Quote from: JWC on April 27, 2009, 07:31:38 PM
We really don't have to worry about global warming much longer.
We have scientists working on solar space shields to diffuse sunlight and cool the planet back to pre-industrial age levels.
Seems Gore isn't the only one making money from global warming.
Mayor C. Randall Poopenmayer: "Professor Wernstrom, can you save my city?"
Professor Ogden Wernstrom: "Of course, but it'll cost you. First, I'll need tenure."
Mayor: "Done."
Wernstrom: "And a big research grant."
Mayor: "You got it."
Wernstrom: "Also, access to a lab, and five graduate students, at least three of them Chinese."
Mayor: "All right, done. What's your plan?"
Wernstrom: "What plan? I'm set for life. Au revoir, suckers!"
Leela: "That rat! Do something!"
Mayor: "I wish I could, but he's got tenure."
I saw this solar space shield thing on Discovery HD and I....I don't know what I was. It was like somebody took an idea from a comic book and decided to present it as a feasible plan. Now, this guy makes a living designing solar diffusers and running computer models to show how well it will work.
What happens if the earth cools too much?
Maybe they should design one big umbrella that can be opened and closed from terra firma. Hell the one on my patio works great.
Quote from: JWC on April 27, 2009, 07:31:38 PM
We really don't have to worry about global warming much longer.
We have scientists working on solar space shields to diffuse sunlight and cool the planet back to pre-industrial age levels.
Seems Gore isn't the only one making money from global warming.
Someone else wants to spew out a bunch of particles into the atmosphere to absorb heat before it reaches the earth's surface. It's a bit ironic as such a big effort was made to prevent particles from escaping up there from all the industrial chimneys, vehicles, etc. As you likely know, it's theorized that the warming effect was masked by these particles during the last century which caused some scientists to theorize that we were in a cooling period.
Quote from: 565 on April 24, 2009, 06:04:36 AM
I'd wait for that ice measurement article from the Australians, should be published soon.
Please post it if you have access to it.
Quote from: Tave on April 24, 2009, 07:25:27 AM
10,000 years ago the Earth was in the midst of its latest ice age. Continental ice shelves covered much of the upper latitudes.
Obviously we've been warming ever since. :huh:
That is not the argument. Even the most obtuse of us are aware of the natural cycles which effect the global temperatures. The argument is whether man's activities are increasing the effect and whether it may tip the balance.
Balance of what?
My comment was in response to the articles concerning the ice shelves. Shouldn't they be retreating?
We have people on one side yelling, "a massive ice chunk just broke off of Western Antarctica," and then the other side responds, "Eastern Antarctica just experienced record snow falls."
Forget all that for a moment. Forget Greenland and the Arctic Sea.
Shouldn't the polar ice caps be shrinking, per the geological record?
Quote from: Tave on April 30, 2009, 07:32:08 AM
Balance of what?
My comment was in response to the articles concerning the ice shelves. Shouldn't they be retreating?
We have people on one side yelling, "a massive ice chunk just broke off of Western Antarctica," and then the other side responds, "Eastern Antarctica just experienced record snow falls."
Forget all that for a moment. Forget Greenland and the Arctic Sea.
Shouldn't the polar ice caps be shrinking, per the geological record?
No. It's too complicated for your logical mind to comprehend. Just listen to me. The earth is warming and you must live sparsely in order to stop it from warming. Do you really want your state to turn into what Florida is today? Warm and sunny? No, no you don't want that. Nobody wants warm and sunny. Listen to me, obey, and give me money.
Quote from: Tave on April 30, 2009, 07:32:08 AM
Balance of what?
GHG sinks and sources :huh:.
Although a bit unconventional regarding GW studies, this article concerning
The full greenhouse gas balance of an abandoned peat meadow (http://www.biogeosciences.net/4/411/2007/bg-4-411-2007.html) gives an indication of what balance I was referring to. As it appears to be an actual scientific paper :confused:, perhaps 565 may need to tell us what it is saying.
Quote
My comment was in response to the articles concerning the ice shelves. Shouldn't they be retreating?
Of course they should.
Quote
We have people on one side yelling, "a massive ice chunk just broke off of Western Antarctica," and then the other side responds, "Eastern Antarctica just experienced record snow falls."
Forget all that for a moment. Forget Greenland and the Arctic Sea.
Shouldn't the polar ice caps be shrinking, per the geological record?
However, are they retreating faster because of man's various activities which produce GG beyond that which naturally occur? That is the argument.
I'm not saying that it's conclusive one way or the other but I believe the research is important in order to identify whether and which of man's actions cause a detrimental effect to the earth's environment. Many activities in the past which were argued as being harmless have, in fact, harmed the environment. Perhaps some don't care and are willing to let the next generation deal with our left over garbage but that's a different argument.
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 30, 2009, 10:02:38 AM
Many activities in the past which were argued as being harmless have, in fact, harmed the environment. Perhaps some don't care and are willing to let the next generation deal with our left over garbage but that's a different argument.
Couldn't have said it better myself. No one likes to play it safe... :(
It's looking more and more as if the Global Warming people are wrong and they don't like to answer questions. I think the point at the end of this video is probably the most important one we should all listen too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf-fzVH6v_U
I still think they don't like to answer questions because to the GWist it's challenging their god and otherwise a foregone conclusion that it is truth.
Imagine challenging the Christian god circa 1540 on the floor of St. Peter's Basilica. Yeah, not going to get anywhere.
But then again, even if proven to be slightly, somewhat or entirely true, the end result game must be the same - get government out of it and let people and corporations decide.
Since when does modern science care about religion? :wtf:
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 12, 2009, 10:30:21 AM
Since when does modern science care about religion? :wtf:
Cougs is saying that global warming is the "religion" of the GW activists.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 12, 2009, 10:12:22 AM
But then again, even if proven to be slightly, somewhat or entirely true, the end result game must be the same - get government out of it and let people and corporations decide.
Those are the only ones that would call the shots. And it would be all about the dollar and nothing else. I trust Government more than Corporations. But that's not saying much.
Quote from: Onslaught on October 12, 2009, 02:46:27 PM
Those are the only ones that would call the shots. And it would be all about the dollar and nothing else. I trust Government more than Corporations. But that's not saying much.
Corporations are run by people and sell their goods to people. If people demand eco-friendly products, corporations will make it happen. In fact, it's already happening.
Quote from: TBR on October 12, 2009, 03:56:04 PM
Corporations are run by people and sell their goods to people. If people demand eco-friendly products, corporations will make it happen. In fact, it's already happening.
Corporations would pollute every chance they had to save a dollar. They have in the past and would do it again.
And still do. It's just that things like the federal government give them fewer chances than before.
Quote from: Psilos on October 12, 2009, 04:01:52 PM
And still do. It's just that things like the federal government give them fewer chances than before.
Evil old government not letting them dump into rivers and fill the sky with shit.
Quote from: Onslaught on October 12, 2009, 03:58:54 PM
Corporations would pollute every chance they had to save a dollar. They have in the past and would do it again.
Not if the bad PR costs them more than the dumping saves.
But, I actually support that kind of anti-pollution regulation, but we're talking about CO2 here.
Quote from: TBR on October 12, 2009, 04:20:17 PM
Not if the bad PR costs them more than the dumping saves.
But, I actually support that kind of anti-pollution regulation, but we're talking about CO2 here.
I know. But I think he'd like for them to be free to do whatever.
And someone would have to know before the PR got bad.
Quote from: TBR on October 12, 2009, 04:20:17 PM
Not if the bad PR costs them more than the dumping saves.
But, I actually support that kind of anti-pollution regulation, but we're talking about CO2 here.
Bad PR either won't cost more than illegal pollution saves, or will be unknown without the fed/state there to know about it for most cases.
Quote from: TBR on October 12, 2009, 04:20:17 PM
but we're talking about CO2 here.
I don't feel like going through all the pages, but I'm pretty sure it's not just about CO2, just like it's not
just about deforestation or
just highly polluting factories or
just about anything, i figure it's a ton of things that are contributing to a gradual change in climate. But we're humans we'll fix whatever problem comes are way, but only when it comes. We're too preoccupied with the
now to deal with the
then.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on October 12, 2009, 08:58:58 PM
I don't feel like going through all the pages, but I'm pretty sure it's not just about CO2, just like it's not just about deforestation or just highly polluting factories or just about anything, i figure it's a ton of things that are contributing to a gradual change in climate. But we're humans we'll fix whatever problem comes are way, but only when it comes. We're too preoccupied with the now to deal with the then.
Are we arrogant enough to believe we should change the climate, or are we arrogant enough to believe we can?
Quote from: Onslaught on October 12, 2009, 03:58:54 PM
Corporations would pollute every chance they had to save a dollar. They have in the past and would do it again.
Cost benefit analysis. Not always.
If pollution should come at a greater cost in the future to their bottom line and hurts their image, a corporation would not choose that route.
Of course, if the cost reduction and profit from pollution outweighs the cost for pollution, the corporation "may" choose pollution.
It's not always clear cut black and white as big brother would like to have people believe.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 13, 2009, 09:48:03 AM
Are we arrogant enough to believe we should change the climate, or are we arrogant enough to believe we can?
Arrogance..
I think we have a better chance of lowing the tempurate by painting all our tarmac white than reducing carbon emission.
Quote from: NomisR on October 13, 2009, 10:35:50 AM
Arrogance..
I think we have a better chance of lowing the tempurate by painting all our tarmac white than reducing carbon emission.
Let's do it!
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 13, 2009, 09:48:03 AM
Are we arrogant enough to believe we should change the climate, or are we arrogant enough to believe we can?
It's not arrogance. I'm not sure if it's true or not in the end. But I think someone is dumb if they think people can't fuck the world up. The earth ain't that big.
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 12, 2009, 02:33:38 PM
Cougs is saying that global warming is the "religion" of the GW activists.
Oh. :mask: :lol:
Quote from: Onslaught on October 13, 2009, 03:52:59 PM
It's not arrogance. I'm not sure if it's true or not in the end. But I think someone is dumb if they think people can't fuck the world up. The earth ain't that big.
Oh, you can really fuck it up.. for sure.. but carbon isn't one of them when our contribution to it is so minute compared to what nature emits. Again, our paving the world over with tarmac and covering it with steel and concrete would create more of a warming than carbon would.
I would contribute my part in "being green" but the way they're going about it is destructive and non-productive.
Quote from: NomisR on October 13, 2009, 04:08:51 PM
Oh, you can really fuck it up.. for sure.. but carbon isn't one of them when our contribution to it is so minute compared to what nature emits. Again, our paving the world over with tarmac and covering it with steel and concrete would create more of a warming than carbon would.
I would contribute my part in "being green" but the way they're going about it is destructive and non-productive.
I'm not a scientist. But wouldn't cutting down all those trees and grass and green shit to pave the world kind of affect the c02 levels? More gas going into the air and less shit around to breath it in naturally would seem to be a problem to me. Throwing off the way things have been in the world for a rather long time. But like I said, I'm no scientist.
Quote from: Onslaught on October 13, 2009, 04:18:36 PM
I'm not a scientist. But wouldn't cutting down all those trees and grass and green shit to pave the world kind of affect the c02 levels? More gas going into the air and less shit around to breath it in naturally would seem to be a problem to me. Throwing off the way things have been in the world for a rather long time. But like I said, I'm no scientist.
Yes, exactly! I would support planting more trees, more reponsible logging than what they're planning because the other stuff you KNOW will do something. Just reducing "carbon" may do little to nothing. Plus, at least trees will reduce carbon dioxide which is a win win situation in this case. But they seem to be more hell bent on destroying civilization.
Quote from: Onslaught on October 13, 2009, 03:52:59 PM
It's not arrogance. I'm not sure if it's true or not in the end. But I think someone is dumb if they think people can't fuck the world up. The earth ain't that big.
Actually it's total arrogance. Sure we can fuck up drinking water and air quality, but pollution and global warming are two different things. It's total arrogance to think that we can change the climate.
I think it's silly to presume climate is static.
And whatever happens, Earth will go on. On an evolutionary scale we, humanity, are a fart in the wind.
I just farted in your direction, you shall smell it in a few days
Quote from: NomisR on October 13, 2009, 04:38:33 PM
Yes, exactly! I would support planting more trees, more reponsible logging than what they're planning because the other stuff you KNOW will do something. Just reducing "carbon" may do little to nothing. Plus, at least trees will reduce carbon dioxide which is a win win situation in this case. But they seem to be more hell bent on destroying civilization.
I'm more for working to try and balance it out. If we can cut back some without going into the stone age then that's good.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 13, 2009, 04:39:36 PM
Actually it's total arrogance. Sure we can fuck up drinking water and air quality, but pollution and global warming are two different things. It's total arrogance to think that we can change the climate.
I don't agree with you. And neither do people way smarter than both of us.
And I know, you'll point to some who agree with you. But I still don't know who's right.
Unlike some I'm open to both sides.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 13, 2009, 04:39:36 PM
Actually it's total arrogance. Sure we can fuck up drinking water and air quality, but pollution and global warming are two different things. It's total arrogance to think that we can change the climate.
No, it's science. You have a lot of faith for being non-religious. ;)
We can probably change the climate, but I think it would take a longer time than 200 years. Trying to "fix" something we don't understand completely is a huge mistake.
Quote from: Onslaught on October 13, 2009, 06:23:05 PM
I don't agree with you. And neither do people way smarter than both of us.
And I know, you'll point to some who agree with you. But I still don't know who's right.
Unlike some I'm open to both sides.
Over 50% of the scientific community says we're in a natural cycle and that we are in a cooling trend now. The earth's mean temperature has been falling since right around the year 2000.
Quote from: Psilos on October 13, 2009, 06:59:32 PM
No, it's science. You have a lot of faith for being non-religious. ;)
No. It's bogus science. Computer models that don't take into account cloud activity and other important factors and whose results cannot be duplicated, ignoring satellite temperature readings that reveal a cooling trend over the past 10 years (some data even shows the cooling started as long as 15 years ago), stifling debate by declaring "concensus" when there clearly isn't (debate is what science is all about), and then referring to people like me as "Climate Change Deniers" in an attempt to liken us to "Holocaust Deniers" just shows that the Warmists aren't at all interested in real science.
Quote from: Onslaught on October 13, 2009, 06:21:37 PM
I'm more for working to try and balance it out. If we can cut back some without going into the stone age then that's good.
I agree, I'm all for a low impact method of doing things but the way they're going about it isn't it. They put out difficult, unachievable goals that will hurt everyone in the long run. Not only that, they seem to be very proud of the "green" job that the policies will produce.. :facepalm:
Quote from: NomisR on October 15, 2009, 10:21:20 AM
I agree, I'm all for a low impact method of doing things but the way they're going about it isn't it. They put out difficult, unachievable goals that will hurt everyone in the long run. Not only that, they seem to be very proud of the "green" job that the policies will produce.. :facepalm:
Thing is, little fixes don't get your name in the paper. Just like my highschool basketball coaches used to say, no one does the little things cuz it doesn't get you on Sportscenter. They go for the dunks, blocked shots, etc. But the best players are the ones that make the biggest difference are the ones that can continually do little things to help - box out, keep your head up, move your feet. Same thing with this. Everyone wants the big fix. Everyone wants to be on the news and win awards.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 15, 2009, 09:11:18 AM
Over 50% of the scientific community says we're in a natural cycle and that we are in a cooling trend now. The earth's mean temperature has been falling since right around the year 2000.
(Stepping into my GWist shoes.)
It's "climate change" now not "global warming." The distinction being that some of areas of the planet will get warmer, others cooler. That the mean temperature of the planet is cooling is diversionary. All that matters is that poles are warming and polar bears are dying.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 15, 2009, 04:15:57 PM
polar bears are dying.
Sorry, it's just so addicting...
(http://www.adventurenw.com/2004-polar-bear.jpg)
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 15, 2009, 04:18:42 PM
Sorry, it's just so addicting...
(http://www.adventurenw.com/2004-polar-bear.jpg)
I think clubbing those adorable little seals are much more fun..
reminder.. add to bucket list.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 15, 2009, 09:25:26 AM
No. It's bogus science. Computer models that don't take into account cloud activity and other important factors and whose results cannot be duplicated, ignoring satellite temperature readings that reveal a cooling trend over the past 10 years (some data even shows the cooling started as long as 15 years ago), stifling debate by declaring "concensus" when there clearly isn't (debate is what science is all about), and then referring to people like me as "Climate Change Deniers" in an attempt to liken us to "Holocaust Deniers" just shows that the Warmists aren't at all interested in real science.
You should interact with more scientists. ;)
Quote from: Psilos on October 15, 2009, 06:54:42 PM
You should interact with more scientists. ;)
I love how you don't even address the points I make.
I love that I don't care what you think. I also love that I don't have the time to do your work and research for you. :ohyeah:
Besides, the only real point you have that's relevant to the discussion is the last ten years of cooler temperatures, which I have refuted before. Ten years does not make a trend, to put it quickly.
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 15, 2009, 04:18:42 PM
Sorry, it's just so addicting...
(http://www.adventurenw.com/2004-polar-bear.jpg)
But seriously, if slightly, somewhat, mostly or entirely true, isn't it more important that the half of the planet that lives in squalor have access to cheap, reliable energy sources as opposed to the lives of a few thousand polar bears? I say yes; and thus my common mantra that leaves GWists speechless whenever they go jihad on me in real life: "people are more important than polar bears."
Quote from: Psilos on October 15, 2009, 09:05:47 PM
I love that I don't care what you think. I also love that I don't have the time to do your work and research for you. :ohyeah:
Besides, the only real point you have that's relevant to the discussion is the last ten years of cooler temperatures, which I have refuted before. Ten years does not make a trend, to put it quickly.
For Warmists it only takes one hot record setting day to prove GW exists.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 15, 2009, 09:22:24 PM
For Warmists it only takes one hot record setting day to prove GW exists.
Bullshit, and you know it. ;)
Quote from: Psilos on October 15, 2009, 09:28:24 PM
Bullshit, and you know it. ;)
So true it hurts you to admit it.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 15, 2009, 09:35:14 PM
So true it hurts you to admit it.
If you honestly think that, then your mind is further from the science than I thought.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 15, 2009, 09:19:03 PM
But seriously, if slightly, somewhat, mostly or entirely true, isn't it more important that the half of the planet that lives in squalor have access to cheap, reliable energy sources as opposed to the lives of a few thousand polar bears? I say yes; and thus my common mantra that leaves GWists speechless whenever they go jihad on me in real life: "people are more important than polar bears."
In the end if we are doing it then I hope it turns around and kills the arrogant people. Unfortunately we will be long gone by that time and the others will be the ones paying.
Humans are overrated.
Quote from: Onslaught on October 16, 2009, 04:40:39 AM
In the end if we are doing it then I hope it turns around and kills the arrogant people. Unfortunately we will be long gone by that time and the others will be the ones paying.
Humans are overrated.
Regular humans are overrated.. I is superior to all humans!
I have a feeling that Global Warming/Climate Change isn't about the fear that we are destroying the planet, but a fear that we can not control our planet's natural changes.
Humans are collectively control freaks. They have to feel that they can dictate what happens in their lives and in this case, used whatever observations they could gather to form an opinion that global warming is the fault of human activity and makes people believe they can control climate change and thus control their survival.
Quote from: JWC on October 17, 2009, 10:29:20 AM
I have a feeling that Global Warming/Climate Change isn't about the fear that we are destroying the planet, but a fear that we can not control our planet's natural changes.
Humans are collectively control freaks. They have to feel that they can dictate what happens in their lives and in this case, used whatever observations they could gather to form an opinion that global warming is the fault of human activity and makes people believe they can control climate change and thus control their survival.
I agree. I don't think we can control the planet's changes, whether it warms or cools. We have to roll with it.
Of course, we should do whatever we can to keep a clean environment, but that's a different issue, IMO. My experience is that whenever something gets hyped up like this issue, the hype is usually wrong, and in retrospect, most of the things that were urged upon people in response to the hype turn out to have done more harm than good.
Quote from: Psilos on October 15, 2009, 09:28:24 PM
Bullshit, and you know it. ;)
My girlfriends mom and my girlfriend herself view it the same way.
"we had 2 weeks of 100+ degree weather, Zach, come on, this is global warming"
"NASA just released a study saying the earth is actually cooling slightly"
...violent shaking of heads.
Quote from: JWC on October 17, 2009, 10:29:20 AM
I have a feeling that Global Warming/Climate Change isn't about the fear that we are destroying the planet, but a fear that we can not control our planet's natural changes.
Humans are collectively control freaks. They have to feel that they can dictate what happens in their lives and in this case, used whatever observations they could gather to form an opinion that global warming is the fault of human activity and makes people believe they can control climate change and thus control their survival.
It's not just about control, either. I have a feeling part of it is due to the collectivist mentality of many. In other words, people want to be a part of something, and when it has momentum, like "climate change" it has an even greater allure. Look no further than the GW rallies which resemble parties more than protests.
Quote from: Submariner on October 18, 2009, 09:40:42 AM
It's not just about control, either. I have a feeling part of it is due to the collectivist mentality of many. In other words, people want to be a part of something, and when it has momentum, like "climate change" it has an even greater allure. Look no further than the GW rallies which resemble parties more than protests.
You're so right. Much of the people involved with 'movements' have no real concept of what they're part of. It feels good to be part of something, and they're essentially ripe to be manipulated by the people leading the movement.
I wish people were smarter, but most are just so stupid. It's distressing to watch after a while.
Quote from: Submariner on October 18, 2009, 09:38:26 AM
My girlfriends mom and my girlfriend herself view it the same way.
"we had 2 weeks of 100+ degree weather, Zach, come on, this is global warming"
"NASA just released a study saying the earth is actually cooling slightly"
...violent shaking of heads.
Are your girlfriend and mother scientists with half a clue? No? Then their opinion hardly matters in a debate about science, eh? If you want to debate the sociological effects of the science of climate change, you're talking to the wrong guy. ;)
Warmology is just another quasi-religious kook movement. It's adherents are little different from abortocentrics, or Islamic-stone-age nutters, or loonies who see images of the Virgin Mary in the peanut butter spread on their toast.
Quote from: dazzleman on October 17, 2009, 10:38:18 AM
I agree. I don't think we can control the planet's changes, whether it warms or cools. We have to roll with it.
The measure of our impact may be unclear but there is no doubt that we do impact our climate. Certainly our climate varies and the more we understand about it, the better prepared we will be to deal with the effects; especially as it displaces land masses and shifts global weather patterns.
Quote
Of course, we should do whatever we can to keep a clean environment, but that's a different issue, IMO. My experience is that whenever something gets hyped up like this issue, the hype is usually wrong, and in retrospect, most of the things that were urged upon people in response to the hype turn out to have done more harm than good.
I don't consider polluting the surface of our planet to be any different than polluting our atmosphere or any other of the environmental disasters we've begotten. As well, those who have long warned of the effects of our polluting have generally been ignored until it's so obvious that even the most calculating, or dim-witted, must concede to the truth; and irreversible damage is done. there are many instances of this.
I don't much care for the mindless rabble on either side of the issue who parrot the phrases of their political dieties -- I don't consider many here in either camp. They distract too much from the serious people who seek understanding and solutions. Who is worse, the giddy green geeks who prance about hoisting effigies of G8 leaders as symbols of inaction or the sanctimonious skeptics who insist that spewing as much exploded fossil fuel as they are capable of into the atmosphere could not possibly have an iota of measureable impact on the balance of our climatological workings?
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 19, 2009, 02:03:05 PM
The measure of our impact may be unclear but there is no doubt that we do impact our climate. Certainly our climate varies and the more we understand about it, the better prepared we will be to deal with the effects; especially as it displaces land masses and shifts global weather patterns.
I don't consider polluting the surface of our planet to be any different than polluting our atmosphere or any other of the environmental disasters we've begotten. As well, those who have long warned of the effects of our polluting have generally been ignored until it's so obvious that even the most calculating, or dim-witted, must concede to the truth; and irreversible damage is done. there are many instances of this.
I don't much care for the mindless rabble on either side of the issue who parrot the phrases of their political dieties -- I don't consider many here in either camp. They distract too much from the serious people who seek understanding and solutions. Who is worse, the giddy green geeks who prance about hoisting effigies of G8 leaders as symbols of inaction or the sanctimonious skeptics who insist that spewing as much exploded fossil fuel as they are capable of into the atmosphere could not possibly have an iota of measureable impact on the balance of our climatological workings?
The thing with the whole GW thing is, .. oh wait.. it's Climate Change... is that they can't even come up with a consistent doomsday scenario for us. Just like the global drought that was suppose to happen, the global famine that was suppose to happen, the fuel crisis that was suppose to happen, the acid rain that'll destroy the world, and everything else. You know what? None of that ever truly occured and none of the changes that the "scientists" said should be done to avoid catastrophe ever fully implemented if at all. We just jumped from one crisis to another without ever solving anything.
Another thing, you know what the main cause of all the global fear is? Population.. too many people on earth.
Again, I'm not saying we should be doing anything, but all this fear mongering is not benefiting anyone and only help the likes of Al Gore profit. For example.. cap and trade.. c'mon.. like that's going to do anything for the environment?? It's just another tax on the economy.. I would much rather they implement the strict regulations like California because at least that's actually doing something.. destructive to the economy.. but doing something.. Cap and trade is just a fee and charge and shifting polution but that's it...
Quote from: NomisR on October 19, 2009, 02:47:40 PM
Another thing, you know what the main cause of all the global fear is? Population.. too many people on earth.
Yup! Maybe we should start clubbing baby human instead of baby seals? :mask:
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 19, 2009, 06:12:59 PM
Yup! Maybe we should start clubbing baby human instead of baby seals? :mask:
Can we? And can we kill the parents who take them all over the place crying all the time too?
Quote from: NomisR on October 19, 2009, 02:47:40 PM
The thing with the whole GW thing is, .. oh wait.. it's Climate Change... is that they can't even come up with a consistent doomsday scenario for us. Just like the global drought that was suppose to happen, the global famine that was suppose to happen, the fuel crisis that was suppose to happen, the acid rain that'll destroy the world, and everything else. You know what? None of that ever truly occured and none of the changes that the "scientists" said should be done to avoid catastrophe ever fully implemented if at all. We just jumped from one crisis to another without ever solving anything.
Another thing, you know what the main cause of all the global fear is? Population.. too many people on earth.
Again, I'm not saying we should be doing anything, but all this fear mongering is not benefiting anyone and only help the likes of Al Gore profit. For example.. cap and trade.. c'mon.. like that's going to do anything for the environment?? It's just another tax on the economy.. I would much rather they implement the strict regulations like California because at least that's actually doing something.. destructive to the economy.. but doing something.. Cap and trade is just a fee and charge and shifting polution but that's it...
You neglected to mention the cold war perhaps the biggest fear-mongering exercise of them all :huh:. Once again, you get caught up in the politics of it all. The question is "
Do you believe in man-made global warming?" I think that there's a very good case to be made for it.
Bear in mind that acid rain did happen, that famine did happen, that drought did happen; it just didn't happen to all of us. The ongoing research will, eventually, determine what the effects of our contribution to global warming is. It may be negligible or it may be too late to correct it.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 20, 2009, 06:45:53 AM
You neglected to mention the cold war perhaps the biggest fear-mongering exercise of them all :huh:. Once again, you get caught up in the politics of it all. The question is "Do you believe in man-made global warming?" I think that there's a very good case to be made for it.
There's a very good case against it too. IMHO the evidence against it is more convincing, especially when the results of the computer models cannot be reproduced the worldwide scientific community is split down the middle. It's easy for someone to jump on the "GW" train because there's no backlash against you, but the "against" crowd is ridiculed, fired from their jobs, and branded "deniers" among other things. It's harder to be "against" man-made global warming and half the scientific community is against it, which says to me they must be pretty strong in their conviction to put up with th BS.
QuoteBear in mind that acid rain did happen, that famine did happen, that drought did happen; it just didn't happen to all of us. The ongoing research will, eventually, determine what the effects of our contribution to global warming is. It may be negligible or it may be too late to correct it.
Famine is caused mostly by poverty and corruption.
Drought happens every year in different places. It's nothing new even though the "warmists" do manage to convince people it is. People have short memories and the dust bowls of the 1930s happened well before most people were even born.
Please provide any sources to "worldwide scientific community is split down the middle". Thats certainly news to me.
Quote from: mzziaz on October 20, 2009, 09:59:50 AM
Please provide any sources to "worldwide scientific community is split down the middle". Thats certainly news to me.
If you include in the scientific community the likes of S. Fred Singer, Tim Ball and their ilk as well as a collection of hippy dippy weathermen, perhaps.
Quote from: mzziaz on October 20, 2009, 09:59:50 AM
Please provide any sources to "worldwide scientific community is split down the middle". Thats certainly news to me.
Since 2007, more than 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds, have signed the a petition which says, in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.?
A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding) found only 9.4 percent ?strongly agreed? and 25.3 percent ?agreed? with the statement ?climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.? Some 10.2 percent ?strongly disagreed.?
A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the planet?s recent warmth ?can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,? and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.
In June 2009, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released an 880-page report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered, that presented the first comprehensive rebuttal of the reports of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With contributions from more than 30 scientists and citations to more than 4,000 peer-reviewed studies, the NIPCC report concluded that climate change is not a crisis.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 20, 2009, 10:52:40 AM
Since 2007, more than 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds, have signed the a petition which says, in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.?
A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding) found only 9.4 percent ?strongly agreed? and 25.3 percent ?agreed? with the statement ?climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.? Some 10.2 percent ?strongly disagreed.?
A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the planet?s recent warmth ?can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,? and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.
In June 2009, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released an 880-page report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered, that presented the first comprehensive rebuttal of the reports of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With contributions from more than 30 scientists and citations to more than 4,000 peer-reviewed studies, the NIPCC report concluded that climate change is not a crisis.
I'm aware of this. Also, I'm aware of a large body of climatologists who, based on a great deal of research, caution otherwise. The simple fact is that the jury is still out and there will not be any conclusive determination any time soon. However, for skeptics to categorically deny the possibility if manmade global warming is being shortsighted.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 20, 2009, 12:40:39 PM
I'm aware of this.
mzziaz questioned the "split down the middle" statement I made, so I gave him some information to prove my point.
Quote
Also, I'm aware of a large body of climatologists who, based on a great deal of research, caution otherwise.
I'm aware of this as well, but there is an equally large body of climatologists who have actually had their work peer reviewed and results duplicated, who say otherwise.
Quote
The simple fact is that the jury is still out and there will not be any conclusive determination any time soon.
Not according to the Warmists. According to them, the debate is over and there is consensus. BTW, I agree with you.
Quote
However, for skeptics to categorically deny the possibility if manmade global warming is being shortsighted.
I hope you also reserve this statement for the warmists who categorically deny any possibility that it isn't man creating climate change.
The biggest problem I have is that we are going out of our way to try and "fix" something that we A) don't understand, and B) don't know if it's even broke. We are willing to piss away billions of dollars, institute new taxes, and stifle economic growth (when we really need it) for this.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 20, 2009, 01:12:17 PM
The biggest problem I have is that we are going out of our way to try and "fix" something that we A) don't understand, and B) don't know if it's even broke. We are willing to piss away billions of dollars, institute new taxes, and stifle economic growth (when we really need it) for this.
I wrote a rather elaborate reply and then it was lost when the post didn't complete :banghead:.
Anyways, the gist is...I'm glad we agree that the GW issue is unresolved...other than continuing research, we don't agree on whether action should be taken as I feel that, in similar situations, we delayed until damage was done...you likely know of many of these issues...as for reducing the use of fossil fuels, Canada will suffer economically; even now with a slow-down unrelated to GW, provinces have gone from surplus to deficit budgets...that is why it is important for us to develop an economy based more on alternative energy products because, notwithstanding GW, that is the future.
No matter which way you believe, the case for GW is fear mongering. I hear it constantly in NC because of the OBX. We're constantly reminded that if GW is allowed to continue, we will lose the OBX, along with the tourist dollars and billions in businesses and homes.
Sounds horrible. Unfortunately, anyone who attended classes in NC in the sixties and seventies, learned that the OBX are constantly shifting and have been for thousands of years. In other words, we're trying to fix something that happens naturally.
A program on NC Public Television about global warming, took the film makers 90 miles inland to show the potential damage that GW would cause....by showing where the shoreline was millions of years ago, saying that if GW continues it could very well flood those areas again. There are those who would take this at face value without questioning it. For me, they didn't do themselves any favor by saying that what happened once, naturally, will happen again only this time it is man-made.
The earth is a living creature that constantly changes. Man believes he can control that change. Man has been proven wrong and foolish in such thinking throughout history. Almost without fail, man has made it worse trying to change nature.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 20, 2009, 06:45:53 AM
You neglected to mention the cold war perhaps the biggest fear-mongering exercise of them all :huh:. Once again, you get caught up in the politics of it all. The question is "Do you believe in man-made global warming?" I think that there's a very good case to be made for it.
Bear in mind that acid rain did happen, that famine did happen, that drought did happen; it just didn't happen to all of us. The ongoing research will, eventually, determine what the effects of our contribution to global warming is. It may be negligible or it may be too late to correct it.
You're right, I didn't mention Cold War because that was man made and completely political. Not the political science I was refering to.
As for the thing that happened? Sure, but did it happen to the same extent that people said it would? Running out of food in year 2000? Forests turning into deserts?
How much of that happened?
Like I said.. if we just simply let people die rather than try to save everyone.. we would have less of the problem we're talking about today..
Again, I'm not against trying to make the world a better place, otherwise, I wouldn't be thinking of the cars that I am thinking about getting, but the way we're going about it is all wrong. There are better, more gradual and economical ways to go about it, and it'll be met with less resistance. But of course, like someone posted somewhere.. something small will not get anyone in the papers so that's why it's done.
It's stupid and we need to stop politicizing everything...
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 20, 2009, 04:56:39 PM
I wrote a rather elaborate reply and then it was lost when the post didn't complete :banghead:.
Anyways, the gist is...I'm glad we agree that the GW issue is unresolved...other than continuing research, we don't agree on whether action should be taken as I feel that, in similar situations, we delayed until damage was done...you likely know of many of these issues...as for reducing the use of fossil fuels, Canada will suffer economically; even now with a slow-down unrelated to GW, provinces have gone from surplus to deficit budgets...that is why it is important for us to develop an economy based more on alternative energy products because, notwithstanding GW, that is the future.
Oh I agree, but because I believe pollution is a problem, not GW. Something absolutely needs to be done about energy, but the people touting such things as wind and solar power, electric cars, etc. as the saving grace we're looking for are terribly mistaken. Now, do I know what the future energy source will be? Absolutely not, but I do know it isn't what we're trying. Electric cars might have a chance if they can develop a battery that will last for 500 miles on a single charge and can be recharged in 5 minutes. Hydrogen has a shot, but it's my understanding that the filling stations that exist right now are only capable of filling one or two cars a day. Alternative energies are so far off in the distance that unless there is a sudden breakthrough in technology we may never see it in our lifetime.
FFT - Putting the state in charge of energy is no different than GWism - they're equivalent mindsets both with the catastrophic end results. I
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 20, 2009, 09:35:29 PM
Oh I agree, but because I believe pollution is a problem, not GW. Something absolutely needs to be done about energy, but the people touting such things as wind and solar power, electric cars, etc. as the saving grace we're looking for are terribly mistaken. Now, do I know what the future energy source will be? Absolutely not, but I do know it isn't what we're trying. Electric cars might have a chance if they can develop a battery that will last for 500 miles on a single charge and can be recharged in 5 minutes. Hydrogen has a shot, but it's my understanding that the filling stations that exist right now are only capable of filling one or two cars a day. Alternative energies are so far off in the distance that unless there is a sudden breakthrough in technology we may never see it in our lifetime.
The current 1 car per day hydrogen stations are solar powered. However, the Hydrogen source is from natural gas and not water. However, the hydrogen stations once fully developed could be used to power and heat homes which may actually allow homes to be completely off the grid. This may allow for cheaper energy generation as less loss through the power lines along with cheaper infrastructure.. or reduce cost.. I like that direction..
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 20, 2009, 09:35:29 PM
Oh I agree, but because I believe pollution is a problem, not GW. Something absolutely needs to be done about energy, but the people touting such things as wind and solar power, electric cars, etc. as the saving grace we're looking for are terribly mistaken. Now, do I know what the future energy source will be? Absolutely not, but I do know it isn't what we're trying. Electric cars might have a chance if they can develop a battery that will last for 500 miles on a single charge and can be recharged in 5 minutes. Hydrogen has a shot, but it's my understanding that the filling stations that exist right now are only capable of filling one or two cars a day. Alternative energies are so far off in the distance that unless there is a sudden breakthrough in technology we may never see it in our lifetime.
I'm glad we, more or less, agree. Alternative energy, imo, may well be from various sources -- I've been saying that long before Obama has :praise:. The abundance of fossil fuels has somewhat delayed the need to develop energy storage which I think will play a big role in future energy usage. As Nomis has mentioned, homes, eventually, should be off the grid once alternative energy technologies have advanced to a level to sustain this. I have no doubt they will; even in my lifetime.
Quote from: JWC on October 20, 2009, 06:07:04 PM
No matter which way you believe, the case for GW is fear mongering. I hear it constantly in NC because of the OBX. We're constantly reminded that if GW is allowed to continue, we will lose the OBX, along with the tourist dollars and billions in businesses and homes.
Sounds horrible. Unfortunately, anyone who attended classes in NC in the sixties and seventies, learned that the OBX are constantly shifting and have been for thousands of years. In other words, we're trying to fix something that happens naturally.
A program on NC Public Television about global warming, took the film makers 90 miles inland to show the potential damage that GW would cause....by showing where the shoreline was millions of years ago, saying that if GW continues it could very well flood those areas again. There are those who would take this at face value without questioning it. For me, they didn't do themselves any favor by saying that what happened once, naturally, will happen again only this time it is man-made.
The earth is a living creature that constantly changes. Man believes he can control that change. Man has been proven wrong and foolish in such thinking throughout history. Almost without fail, man has made it worse trying to change nature.
I believe most understand this; at least those who think seriously about the matter. The only real question is whether by releasing additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, are we excelerating the process? I believe this is a fair question; and I agree, we should not try and change nature but we may be unintentionally changing it by our actions.
Quote from: NomisR on October 20, 2009, 06:24:22 PM
You're right, I didn't mention Cold War because that was man made and completely political. Not the political science I was refering to.
I mentioned the cold war as a prime example of how some exploit any situation such as those who are exploiting the issue of climate change. It makes good business for some however, it makes very bad business for others; especially those who are in the fossil fuel business and don't want to invest in alternative enery.
btw, the cold war certainly was man made.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 21, 2009, 07:30:00 AM
I'm glad we, more or less, agree. Alternative energy, imo, may well be from various sources -- I've been saying that long before Obama has :praise:. The abundance of fossil fuels has somewhat delayed the need to develop energy storage which I think will play a big role in future energy usage. As Nomis has mentioned, homes, eventually, should be off the grid once alternative energy technologies have advanced to a level to sustain this. I have no doubt they will; even in my lifetime.
Energy companies hold a lot of power (no pun intended), so I don't know if they would allow something like that to happen.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 21, 2009, 10:00:57 AM
Energy companies hold a lot of power (no pun intended), so I don't know if they would allow something like that to happen.
That would be an (another) example of business stifling free enterprise. There's some irony in that.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 21, 2009, 03:38:30 PM
That would be an (another) example of business stifling free enterprise. There's some irony in that.
But then again, there ARE energy companies that are for "green" energy. But those are the ones that are more heavily invested in Nuclear, Solar, Wind, etc.. and not as heavily reliant on coal, oil and gas.
I'm more curious to what would happen to the private energy companies if we allowed them to build all the nuclear power plants and once the useful life of the plants are up. Cleanup of that site would be extremely expensive and may bankrupt the companies.
Quote from: NomisR on October 21, 2009, 04:47:19 PM
But then again, there ARE energy companies that are for "green" energy. But those are the ones that are more heavily invested in Nuclear, Solar, Wind, etc.. and not as heavily reliant on coal, oil and gas.
I'm more curious to what would happen to the private energy companies if we allowed them to build all the nuclear power plants and once the useful life of the plants are up. Cleanup of that site would be extremely expensive and may bankrupt the companies.
I would think that there is enough knowledge and experience with nuclear energy in order to forecast the cost of the entire lifetime cycle of a plant; including storage of spent fuel. In saying that, I searched for some information and came up with an article on
Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power (http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power). I really didn't read it very carefully at this time, but it seemed quite interestng.
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. Normalized to 1 GigaWatt electrical capacity, the energy required to construct and decommission the plant, which amounts to 4 Peta-Joules (PJ), which is repaid in 1.5 months. The energy required to dispose of the waste is also 4 PJ and repaid in 1.5 months. In total this is less than 0.8% of the all the electrical energy produced by the plant. Some more info at
Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant (http://www.vattenfall.com/www/vf_com/vf_com/365787ourxc/366203opera/555848newpo/557004biofu95352/883808forsm/index.jsp)