Stonehead Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 [video:youtube]xf69EEL3WBk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 this totally sounds like a job for the super friends Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Cutting carbon dioxide output may save some lives in Bangladesh or similar swamplands populated by millions of destitute people. But the probability appears to be that the Doug Fir/Cedar/Whatnot forests of PNW coast are already doomed. Little glaciers? Don't think so. Yeah whatever. Alternate energy may help at the margins. Dyson's idea might be more useful in sucking up Co2 from cheap mini-cars... and the North Face/Mountain GEar/Wal-Mart toy factories in Asia. Neither Fairweather's wishful thinking nor Obama's politicking is going to stop this. One possible answer to the Fermi Paradox is that sentient life has a "cosmic roadblock". “Whatever civilizations have come before us have been unable to surpass the cosmic roadblock. They are either destroyed or limited in such a way that absolutely precludes their expansion into the visible universe. If that is indeed the case—and it would seem to be the most logical explanation for Fermi's Paradox—then there is some immutable law that we too must expect to encounter at some point. We are, effectively, sentenced to death or, at best, life in the prison of a near-space bubble,” suggests Treder. “Atomically-precise exponential manufacturing could enable such concentrations of unprecedented power as to result in either terminal warfare or permanent enslavement of the human race. Of course, that sounds terribly apocalyptic, but it is worth considering that the warnings we heard at the start of the nuclear arms race, and the very real risks we faced in the height of the Cold War, were but precursors to a much greater threat posed by an arms race involving nano-built weaponry and its accompanying tools of surveillance and control.” The Billion-Year Technology Gap: Could One Exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) All I know is that Greenland and Antarctica are black with soot. The glaciers look like an Xray of Ivan's lungs. Check out the satellite photos: their libidos are through the roof. That may or may not also resemble Ivan, I wouldn't know, so STFU about it. Here ya go, my slobovian know-it-all: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070809172126.htm And here's the NASA study summary: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050411135517.htm Edited December 1, 2009 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share Posted December 1, 2009 What we need to do is say FU to the coal and ethanol industries, build a shitload more windmills, and mandate production of electric vehicles to take better advantage of them. Among a long, long list of other things. It's that last sentence which has us all concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share Posted December 1, 2009 i might very well ask again out of genuine confusion - so, if i translate your passage proper, you ascribe to the notion that the earth is warming, that mankind might be part of the problem, but that largely its a natural phenomena that shouldn't concern us? you gonna miss the glaciers? You should take a look at Easterbrook's Mount Baker studies. But yes, I would miss our local glaciers terribly--not that this is relevant at all. As for soot/darkening vs CO2: The solutions are quite a bit different. Are you the least bit concerned that a scientist who feeds his data directly to the IPCC is admitting that there is a problem with the data--and has been trying to hide it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Yes, it's settled. Everything you mentioned is a secondary or tertiary factor, orders of magnitude less important than man made CO2...which, BTW, has a distinct isotopic signature as compared to volcanism and other natural sources (duh). Your albedo argument is a joke, right? In addition, solar output, while VERY SLOWLY increasing, doesn't (and hasn't) changed fast enough to play a significant role. Yours is a dilletante's argument...wafer thin knowledge of the processes, cherry picked out of context, without regard to relative magnitude, to fit what you want to be true. What a crock of shit! The Climate Science Isn't Settled according to Richard Lintzen, professor of meteorology at the MIT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 FW since you like contrarian science so much you should jump on the "HIV does not cause AIDS" bandwagon... Oh wait, that one's dead. Literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Yes, it's settled. Everything you mentioned is a secondary or tertiary factor, orders of magnitude less important than man made CO2...which, BTW, has a distinct isotopic signature as compared to volcanism and other natural sources (duh). Your albedo argument is a joke, right? In addition, solar output, while VERY SLOWLY increasing, doesn't (and hasn't) changed fast enough to play a significant role. Yours is a dilletante's argument...wafer thin knowledge of the processes, cherry picked out of context, without regard to relative magnitude, to fit what you want to be true. What a crock of shit! The Climate Science Isn't Settled according to Richard Lintzen, professor of meteorology at the MIT NO DISSENT ALLOWED, COMRADE, OR OFF TO REEDUCATION CAMP WITH YOU! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 FW since you like contrarian science so much you should jump on the "HIV does not cause AIDS" bandwagon... Oh wait, that one's dead. Literally. Why don't you jump on the biotic vs abiotic origin of hydrocarbons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Some individuals, including some scientists who are not recognized experts on HIV,[162] question the connection between HIV and AIDS,[163] the existence of HIV itself, or the validity of HIV testing and treatment methods.[162][164] These claims, known as AIDS denialism, have been examined and rejected by the worldwide scientific community,[165] although they have had a political impact, particularly in South Africa, where the government's official promotion of AIDS denialism was responsible for its ineffective response to that country's AIDS epidemic.[166][167][168] Replace "HIV" and "AIDS" with carbon dioxide and climate change, and "South Africa" with US under Bush/Canada under Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 FW since you like contrarian science so much you should jump on the "HIV does not cause AIDS" bandwagon... Oh wait, that one's dead. Literally. Why don't you jump on the biotic vs abiotic origin of hydrocarbons? How deep does the biosphere go? Oh wait, that's right - as deep as we have been able to sample and then some... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share Posted December 1, 2009 FW since you like contrarian science so much you should jump on the "HIV does not cause AIDS" bandwagon... Oh wait, that one's dead. Literally. You sound kinda concerned. Been tested? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Who's denying that climate change occurs? Who's denying that an anthropogenic component exists? Nobody. The point of contention is what is the magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution to climate change. How much and how often was the data tweaked to support a catastrophic scenairo based on political necessity? What Do We Really Know About Climate Change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBo6 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 I was poking around SuperTopo where they are currently going over the same thing. One person posted a link to David Archer a faculty member at the University of Chicago. One of the links is a series of video lectures of a class on global warming for non science majors. I haven't seen any of the videos, 56k doesn't quite hack it, but I had a class that used his textbook and was pretty impressed with it. If you have time to kill might want to check them out. David Archer: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/people/archer.shtml Video lectures: http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html Oh, damn, forgot to add a little more...No dissent allowed..2012...ManBearPig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share Posted December 1, 2009 The point of contention is what is the magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution to climate change. How much and how often was the data tweaked to support a catastrophic scenairo based on political necessity? Guys like TTK have found a convenient lever for their agenda, and they won't let go easily: What we need to do is say FU to the coal and ethanol industries, build a shitload more windmills, and mandate production of electric vehicles to take better advantage of them. Among a long, long list of other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 FW since you like contrarian science so much you should jump on the "HIV does not cause AIDS" bandwagon... Oh wait, that one's dead. Literally. Why don't you jump on the biotic vs abiotic origin of hydrocarbons? How deep does the biosphere go? Oh wait, that's right - as deep as we have been able to sample and then some... So you confess belief in Gold's hypothesis that thermophile bacteria cross-contaminated abiotically derived petroleum to indicate a biotic origin due to the artifact presence of those biomarkers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 this is clearly a call to abandon science and the scientific method. if scientists can't be trusted, perhaps we are better off listening instead to faith and business leaders who can look after us better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 oil was put there by god. if we need more, he'll put more there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 FW since you like contrarian science so much you should jump on the "HIV does not cause AIDS" bandwagon... Oh wait, that one's dead. Literally. Why don't you jump on the biotic vs abiotic origin of hydrocarbons? How deep does the biosphere go? Oh wait, that's right - as deep as we have been able to sample and then some... So you confess belief in Gold's hypothesis that thermophile bacteria cross-contaminated abiotically derived petroleum to indicate a biotic origin due to the artifact presence of those biomarkers? No, not at all. The hypothesis I currently support is that most of the fossil fuels in existence derive from the deep biosphere (deep biogenic) rather than the surface biosphere, which is almost the complete reverse of the Russian and Gold theories (deep abiogenic). Since its discovery estimates of the productivity of the deep biosphere have continuously been revised upward. Probably still too low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) The point of contention is what is the magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution to climate change. How much and how often was the data tweaked to support a catastrophic scenairo based on political necessity? Guys like TTK have found a convenient lever for their agenda, and they won't let go easily: Three point eight MILLION windmills....Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!! Edited December 1, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Plus...the FWs and KKKs of the world put in camps with each other. No further punishment required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Even assuming that climate change is only partially anthropomorphicly caused, is it not still good policy to reduce emissions and pollution and take active policy measures to clean the environment, the water, and the atmoshphere? Would I be wrong by stating that other environmental problems, such as massive algae blooms in the ocean are primarily caused by increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? One issue not addressed by the contrarian arguments is the relationship between increased CO2 levels and dramatic temperature fluctuations, even if mean temp's stay the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 That's a lot of bad acid, man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.