User Tag List

First 6141516171826 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 263

  1. #151
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldanen View Post
    To all you climate change ninnies, read this:

    Changing Sun, Changing Climate

    Yes, read the entire damn thing.
    I don't need to read it personally since I am well aware of this research, but perhaps you should read this as the sun hypothesis has already been discredited - Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming, New Study Shows

    edit: for good measure I will add other links

    Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says

    Climate Feedback: Sun not a cause of global warming
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  2. #152
    Arcesso pulli gingerios! Eldanen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    I don't need to read it personally since I am well aware of this research, but perhaps you should read this as the sun hypothesis has already been discredited - Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming, New Study Shows

    edit: for good measure I will add other links

    Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says

    Climate Feedback: Sun not a cause of global warming

    So the Maunder Minimum and Holocene Maximum don't mean anything?
    Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I really think you should read the entire article I sent you, because it goes into the history of research into sunspots as causatory factors in the Earth's climate, and how it's been supposedly discredited at times before mainly due to a lack of a conceivable mechanism, but more long-term factors have been found. It's really more in-depth than anything you've linked to me.

  3. #153
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    Well sure, especially given the fact that many people don't even believe we are having a negative impact on our environment... But my statements deal solely with the facts of the situation.... there is nothing I can do about the political and social aspects of this...

    If society chooses to ignore this problem and we do not do something to curtail our effects on the environment and reverse the damage then we will all perish... that is a fact (it's not a matter of if but when) - that says nothing about what actions if any society will be willing to take....

    Those things are mutually exclusive... We can debate our "feelings" on the issue the same way a sky diver can debate how he "feels" about deploying his parachute... yet the ground approaches either way.
    My point is that perhaps another approach is necessary. To continue your analogy, if it seems unlikely that deploying a parachute is feasible, perhaps time should be spent attempting to get into a position which might minimize the possibility of death when he does hit the ground.

    As far as convincing others of climate change (whatever it's cause: natural or man made); well, this seems entirely more important than actually discovering a way to prevent it. It seems to me that if knowledge of our situation were clear enough (to make an impact) then wouldn't it be possible to make some accurate predictions about the immediate future? If so, couldn't the future validity of those predictions be cited to motivate the populace?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #154
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldanen View Post
    So the Maunder Minimum and Holocene Maximum don't mean anything?
    Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    For fucks sake read the links I provided you.. the answer to your question is in there. If you don't understand the data then crack open a book or visit a webpage and actually learn the scientific principles required to understand this issue...

    perhaps these will be simple enough to interpret with minimum effort..

    - National Solar Observatory, NASA say no “Maunder Minimum” — sorry, deniers — Solar Cycle 24 poised to rev up

    - Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  5. #155
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    Yes I disagree... we cannot convert all of the excess CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere into air and not drastically disrupt the oxygen concentration. Currently about 93% of the excess CO2 is being naturally "sequestered" in our oceans, the other 7% is in the atmosphere... So if we remove the excess 7% currently in the atmosphere another equivalent amount will promptly replace it from the ocean... therefore your math in the previous post was inaccurately describing the problem... thus my follow up post explains why we cannot simply plant some trees to fix this issue... we must sequester the CO2 somewhere and/or convert it into something else... This is a problem because we can't wait 3 or 4 hundred years to convert the current levels into oxygen.. whatever we do we must do quickly and over time span of a few decades if we want to really make an impact....
    Ok but that would mean that the math would look like this.
    We have rised concentration from about 270 PPMs to 390 PPMs , correct ?

    What is 120 PPMs.

    So 100/7 = 14.28 (lets say 14)

    What means that in oceans there is 13 times more CO2 than in atmosphere.

    So 120 x 13 = 1550 PPMs (if all of it would come out into the atmosphere.)


    However now I am not sure if they count oxygen in the atmosphere by molecules or atoms. So I will presume that it is atoms since that makes more sense. So I will multiply with 2.

    So 1560 x 2 = 3120 .

    While oxygen is at 210000 PPMs. (21%)

    So this would be like rising the oxygen levels for 0,312 %.
    What is bad but not that much bad.

    However if we pump everything we got and all the plant life burns mostly into CO2 because of drought(s) then we will have a serious problem in this area.
    (too much oxygen)


    Did I got something wrong ?
    I mean I am not 100% sure that I got the correct meaning of the word "excess" since English is not my first language.


    And yes trees probably will not help since they are carbon stores instead of carbon sinks. Plus we are short on space.

  6. #156
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    My point is that perhaps another approach is necessary. To continue your analogy, if it seems unlikely that deploying a parachute is feasible, perhaps time should be spent attempting to get into a position which might minimize the possibility of death when he does hit the ground.

    As far as convincing others of climate change (whatever it's cause: natural or man made); well, this seems entirely more important than actually discovering a way to prevent it. It seems to me that if knowledge of our situation were clear enough (to make an impact) then wouldn't it be possible to make some accurate predictions about the immediate future? If so, couldn't the future validity of those predictions be cited to motivate the populace?
    Unfortunately it's parachute or bust... sometimes there aren't any other options.. if you're drowning and you don't get air you will die.

    Unless the entire population is willing to undertake advanced scientific training then scientists have no way of making them understand the data that we currently have and the physical evidence that makes this so obvious to those of us that actually do have the expertise to understand this issue...

    By the time you start seeing drastic physical manifestations in the weather etc it will be too late to do anything about it... so waiting around for the layman to be convinced by something that plenty of evidence (if you have the ability to interpret it) already suggests is impractical at best and stupid at worst.

    Sorry, but to further continue my analogy.... lets just say I'm jumping tandem with some idiot that thinks we won't hit the ground... while he is having his philosophical debate I will be looking for a way to pull the chord on the parachute or obtain one... if none of the above are possible then I will resign myself to die because nothing else can be done.

    Only those who lack the knowledge to fully comprehend this issue think there is enough time to stand around and debate the philosophy of it.. the rest of us are working on preventive measures. The only other option we might have in the future is some sort of limited underground cities etc and let me tell you again I don't think the selection criteria for who gets to go there will be quite as diplomatic as certain people expect. Of course we might not see this in our lifetime but it can't be said for certain that we wont.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  7. #157
    Arcesso pulli gingerios! Eldanen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    For fucks sake read the links I provided you.. the answer to your question is in there. If you don't understand the data then crack open a book or visit a webpage and actually learn the scientific principles required to understand this issue...

    perhaps these will be simple enough to interpret with minimum effort..

    - National Solar Observatory, NASA say no “Maunder Minimum” — sorry, deniers — Solar Cycle 24 poised to rev up

    - Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation

    Here is one of the main problems that I find regularly when plots of data are referenced in regard to the climate change controversy. When questioned on an issue, those involved on the "pro" side will cite sources that include nothing but short term data and base conclusions on it, while data with a larger range of dates would be more acceptable. Yes, there's an 11 year cycle to sun spots, but there are other cycles and unpredictabilities involved in this equation.

    From one of your articles:

    "Lockwood and Froehlich’s study does however go a step further. The two find that the correlation between solar activity and temperature trends post-1985 is actually negative. This means that changes to the sun (including cosmic ray intensity, for that matter) have contributed Less than Zero to the recent sharp rise in average global temperatures."

    Sorry, this really isn't enough.

  8. #158
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    Unfortunately it's parachute or bust... sometimes there aren't any other options.. if you're drowning and you don't get air you will die.

    Unless the entire population is willing to undertake advanced scientific training then scientists have no way of making them understand the data that we currently have and the physical evidence that makes this so obvious to those of us that actually do have the expertise to understand this issue...

    By the time you start seeing drastic physical manifestations in the weather etc it will be too late to do anything about it... so waiting around for the layman to be convinced by something that plenty of evidence (if you have the ability to interpret it) already suggests is impractical at best and stupid at worst.

    Sorry, but to further continue my analogy.... lets just say I'm jumping tandem with some idiot that thinks we won't hit the ground... while he is having his philosophical debate I will be looking for a way to pull the chord on the parachute or obtain one... if none of the above are possible then I will resign myself to die because nothing else can be done.

    Only those who lack the knowledge to fully comprehend this issue think there is enough time to stand around and debate the philosophy of it.. the rest of us are working on preventive measures. The only other option we might have in the future is some sort of limited underground cities etc and let me tell you again I don't think the selection criteria for who gets to go there will be quite as diplomatic as certain people expect. Of course we might not see this in our lifetime but it can't be said for certain that we wont.
    If I had your beliefs I definitely would not be typing on this forum. I would sacrifice friendships, family (never have kids or a wife), and devote my life and research to finding ways to get the ball rolling. If your understanding of our situation leads you to believe that the end of civilization is near (and I don't disagree or agree with you, as I haven't researched the issue) then get off your fucking ass and do something. We can't all have a background in science which would allow us to know what you know with certainty, so it is your responsibility (as a product of our educational system; the sacrifices of your countrymen so that you may go to college) to convince us. Don't be a pussy about it, but don't be stupid and go around punching people either. You need to transcend social retardation and persuade others, through any means necessary. You're an INTJ, strategize.

    I'm sorry if this is harsh, but it is harsh because your understanding of what will happen doesn't seem to be in line with the actions you're taking to prevent it. I don't view this as evidence that you are incorrect; I just feel that you aren't doing what you need to do.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #159
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldanen View Post
    So the Maunder Minimum and Holocene Maximum don't mean anything?
    Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I really think you should read the entire article I sent you, because it goes into the history of research into sunspots as causatory factors in the Earth's climate, and how it's been supposedly discredited at times before mainly due to a lack of a conceivable mechanism, but more long-term factors have been found. It's really more in-depth than anything you've linked to me.
    the problem with the Milankovitch Cycles is that you're failing to take into account that destabilization is the problem, not an overall consistant warming of the planet... to quote myself from earlier...

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    people never cease to surprise me by how incredibly dense they can be... you're still stuck on old terminology and theory there instead of moving with the times, and in doing so you're attempting to discount the fact that something IS wrong by claiming that the world is not getting warmer... I thought that you intuitive people were supposed to like new ideas and stuff :rolli:

    The more current theory is global climate destabilization... some regions getting more rain, some less, hurricanes off the coast of Brazil, less rain in the Amazon basin, normally consistantly weathered climates switching to a more monsoon-season like split of a wet season and a dry season (hello midwest! )... we're talking about changes in climates that society has built itself to depend on over the past few hundred years!

    Yes, climates DO change over time... and there's a lot of factors that influence this, but if you study the effects of different pollutants in the atmosphere over the course of history, you can see that they DO play a role in the destabilization and changing of climates

    In the past when there weren't so many people and society was more nomadic this was less alarming... people were more flexible and adaptable, but now we have too many people and too permanent of an infrastructure for that, so the climate changing IS a problem

    So no, it's NOT an overall trend of the whole world becoming warmer... it's a trend of different regions experiencing different weirdnesses, which is harder to evaluate on a broader sweeping scale... like the news seems to "grasp"
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    but to some of those people I AM a mouthbreather


    to simplify it... people are dumb and look for some broad overarching global climate change so that they can freak out about it... global is simple, and simple people understand simple things

    unfortunatly, this isn't a case of a trend of the same thing happening everywhere... DIFFERENT bad things are happening in different regions, therefore those who oversimplify things aren't seeing anything

    it's like if you're baking a large batch of cookies and add some arsenic... just add an amount that shouldn't be lethal, but don't mix the dough too much. Now, if you test ALL of the cookies as a conglomerate, you would say that the cookies contain arsenic, but not at a level that should kill people... however, if you test the cookies individually you will find that some cookies will indeed kill you and some contain much less arsenic than estimated
    sorry for the use of quotes... I'm on my first cup of coffee for the day to counter a headache from putting off the first cup of coffee until now
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  10. #160
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Maybe we're causing sunspots, too.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

Similar Threads

  1. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  2. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  3. Heat Wave Blamed On Global Warming
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 04:57 PM
  4. Current update on Global Warming!
    By swordpath in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 12-21-2008, 02:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO