It was 100 degrees F a couple of days ago and right now it says 57 and I have my coco take that you Commie-Hippie welfare loving freaks~:cheers:
Printable View
It was 100 degrees F a couple of days ago and right now it says 57 and I have my coco take that you Commie-Hippie welfare loving freaks~:cheers:
Wow,you're smart...
Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
I tried,
But i dont understand what that Giberish means.
Something about coco?
Translation: The temperature has dropped significantly very recently, so he can now comfortably have cocoa AKA hot chocolate, a fact to be thrown in the face of people who believe in global warming, invariably communist welfare supporters, who are also freaks.
Woohoo! Yay for cocoa!
Crazed Rabbit
Even with the effects of global warming there are things called "cold fronts."
Ahh i see,Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
So this is Just spam, Intended to agrivate and Incite peopel in to attack,
In my oppinin That should = Ban,
But With what I have gatherd from his post I doubt he has any where els to go,
and even if he did I doubt any 1 would want to listen to Him if he continues To spout out these Pearls of wisodm,
any way climate fluctuation Is just symptoms of global warming.
like elminio or whatever its called,
Which just proves this thread is Pointless
my joke goes unapprecatied:embarassed: I should post my earlier thread it ties in with this https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54735
Yes, before everyone get's aggrivated with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
No, just no...Quote:
my joke goes unapprecatied
coco seems so inadequate, perhaps champagne is order now that the change of seasons has defeated the forces of evil
but then champagne may be too French.
TIP.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Dont make jokes about stuff like,
Global warming
Cancer
Aids
Lukemia,
cos they wont win you Many popularity contests,
Oh I might need to adjust some things~D ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
Fixed it...:bow:Quote:
Oh I might need to adjust lots and lots of things
Anyway, sorry if I was mean in this post. It just irritated me a bit...
Night sfts, and yeah, you're right. That heat to cold was quite the change. For the better in my opinion. Soccer practice was made much easier. I mean running practice!~D ~;)
See you if I log on tommorrow!
For what it's worth, SFTS, I thought your joke was hilarious. I laughed, and waited for other people to join in the fun, but instead everyone just got mad... :no:
... which proves, in my opinion, that they really are commie-hippie welfare-loving freaks! ~D
DA
thank you~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
I remember the original thread SFTS, and I got the joke. I found it quite amusing. What I do not remember is anyone imbuing Shambles with this authority:
So, Lord Shambles, as you clearly have run of the rules around the Backroom, perhaps you could post a thread detailing what humor you find allowable, and that which you will decide to take as a banning-worthy offense. By the way, if Tosa's given you this authority, to make bans, why are you still listed as a member?Quote:
Originally Posted by I own this place
Quit laughing! The banstick awaits!
Human caused global warming is a joke...
What's TIP? ......and I have to go with Don on this one, who says what humour can or cannot be posted in the backroom. The thing about humour is this. It's either funny (it works) or it is'n't (it does'n't work). Anyway it's a subjective thing.~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
TIP.
Dont make jokes about stuff like,
Global warming
Cancer
Aids
Lukemia,
Global warming??? Lies, damn lies and ignorance... did you see the 'summer' we had in England this year? I think I counted maybe 3 nice days.
Its global cooling and its coming soon, we are after all about due for another ice age.
What are you smoking?Quote:
Originally Posted by Efrem
BTW: When Shambles says TIP, it means he is trying to give sfts a tip. He is trying to help. Not regulate his jokes.
As for you: when Shambles says "In my opinion", it means in his opinion. He is entitled to his opinion is he not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
What I finf funny is lumping global warming in with Cancer,Quote:
.Originally Posted by Shambles
TIP.
Dont make jokes about stuff like,
Global warming
Cancer
Aids
Lukemia,
Aids and Lukemia. Its like one of the IQ tests where they ask which one dosent belong.
Quote:
As for you: when Shambles says "In my opinion", it means in his opinion. He is entitled to his opinion is he not?
Where does he say IMO? Hes telling others what they should or should not post. I didnt know he was a mod.
The vast majority - perhaps 95% of the scientific community - support the theory that global warming is occuring and that this is because of human activity. The remaining 5% who don't aggree are made up of oddballs, corporate lackeys and the sadly misled.
However it is the latter that is telling Bush what he and most americans want to here. Nothing so seductive as a comforting lie.
I got the joke. I enjoy a good stab at us liberals as well as anyone. I had a good mental picture of S for the S sitting back with a tea and a grin flipping us off with a wink and a smile.
The only problem is that sometimes it's hard to tell when Fascist-Capitalist, harp-seal-clubbing, nature-raping, welfare-recipeint-kicking, civil-rights-robbing, bloodsuckers are supporting an actual absurd opinion or making a joke.
Good to see you, Idaho. Well-worded post.
The vast right-wing conspiracy has not silenced you yet~:confused: oh and P.S Tea is for heathens coco is the drink of the gods~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
The problem is: what exactly does PWNED means?
Otherwise this is just unintelligible ranting. Certainly the problems with our environment IS real, eh? For those who seems to consider their Earthly possessions (how ironic...) all-important and moreso than the air, the water, and the land of this planet, I'd say that human economy can always recover, no matter what. Though our beloved planet Earth can, too, it will probably do that without us around. Also, Global Warming is more that just a warming. It is more importantly about heightening sea level, droughts and flash floods, and environmental oddities with drastic effects.
Yes, blissful ignorance is the best for some people.
The numbers are more 50:50. There are many serious scientists that claim that that the temperatur changes could be due to solar cycluses, for example. What all scientists are agreeing about, is that it`s getting warmer here on the Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
It was a joke Im sorry if I ofended you. Does everything have to be taken seriously why not have some fun ~:cheers:
You didn't offend me. I just feel irritated by the denial of Global Warming issue, which is serious. And the denial go further than a person's opinion on the internet: it goes for an entire industrial nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Now, back to the main issue: what does PWNED mean?
"PWNED" is slang for "OWNED"...it probably came when misspelled "owned" and put a 'p' instead of a 'o'.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
As for Gawain, Shambles says:
That's his oppinion I'm farily sure.Quote:
In my oppinin That should = Ban,
owned; to claim domanince overQuote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Global Warming Supporters:
I am, as yet, unconvinced. Could you suggest some scientifically grounded sources for me to consult. I am all too aware that some of the pro-warming folks are using junk science, but I am willing to read some legitimately done work. Yes, I do have the background in basic statistics and research method to read the material.
I begin from the perspective that humans have little real ability to alter our environment in ways that amount to "terra-forming" but acknowledge that our capacity to alter our environment is demonstrably greater than that of any other species. I am willing to re-evaluate this position, but I want data.
I would appreciate the leads, since any internet search of the subject spews out a volume of hits -- mostly non-empirical -- that defies effective review.
Global Warming Detractors:
Same request please.
Thanks, Seamus
Aww.
Thinking = ban!
wehjoo ~:eek:
that means i'm banned
Actually SFTS it's going to be global warming that pwns you. Just you wait.
you could just google it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
I'm sorry not to have a link to it, but perhaps you've seen the graph they've made of average temperature during the last centuries? In any case it shows beyond doubt that there's been an clear increase after 1945 Industrialism, and the increase starts somewhere during the early Industrial revolution. After 1945, it's clear that it's not just the normal random variance, but also an increase in the mean value. So global warming since 1945 being correlated to industrialism can undoubtedly be considered proved, seeing the graph is enough to confirm that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The main problem of global warming is however not as simple as the temperature increasing the more industrialized we become. There are many other problems of importance:
1. deforestation - leads to more carbon dioxide and less ability for nature to bind the coal and create athmospheric oxygen. It also results in erosion of unbinded soil which moves all nitrogen to lakes and rivers. It's impossible to by unnatural means get the nitrogen out of the rivers and lakes for usage in farming without huge amounts of energy, that we can't get unless we use nuclear power or fossil fuel that pollutes more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The latter is impossible. The former is, have now been confirmed, also problematic - the uranium and plutonium is running out faster than we thought.
2. the eutrophication of lakes and rivers results in more posionous algae and similar that can result in the typical developing country problems with fresh water also coming in Europe and North America. Furthermore, eutrophicated lakes finally become land instead of lakes due to the enormous amounts of growing plants, that water distribution systems in nature change, which can result in formerly moist areas becoming dry. That this results in death of many species - both plants and animals - in the area might not seem like a problem, but because the similar environment shocks are taking place almost everywhere in a nature affected by human-induced strong factors, this means the species seldom manage to migrate to the places that are changed to become more appropriate for their own strenghts and weaknesses, resulting in a more massive death of species than can be understood at first sight. Death of species means fewer plants, which means more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If a single species of plants dominates an area, it can't effectively use all the soil as well as an ecosystem of thousands of species can do, by using different niches. This results in less plants which results in more carbon dioxide. More animals dying also means less recirculation of minerals from corpses. The result - less plants and more carbon dioxide again.
3. The greenhouse effect not only causes changes in average temperature. It also results in increased wind speed - hurricanes and so on.
4. It seems very likely that the effects of the pollution today won't be visible until in hundred years or so, and that the effect of stopping pollution one day won't repair earth until after hundred years or more. It's because the carbon dioxide increase results in positive feedback, i.e. more carbon dioxide stimulates processes that release even more carbon dioxide, until we've changed the balance so extremely much that this positive feedback is silenced by a stronger negative feedback (we can hope).
The entire theory behind global climate changes and the greenhouse effect depends on whether or not carbon dioxide changes the atmospheric properties and abilities to recieve and get rid of radiance and heat. This we're not entirely sure about. Many say that if more CO2 gives more clouds, then we recieve less radiation from the outside. But different wavelengths of radiation have different abilities to penetrate different gases, and the sun's radiation has a wavelength that's good at penetrating the gases that pollution creates in the atmosphere, whereas the radiance that leaves earth has a wavelength that the polluted gases are very good at stopping (the incoming radiance loses energy and that's why it always has a different wavelength by the time it tries to leave the atmosphere).
If you want more, or the exact figures, I think it's possible for me to find it. The reason why I'm concerned about these changes is that there's no indication of any factors strong enough to counter the developments, and nature/God has no interest in helping a species that's trying to destroy its environment and itself. It should be clear what I mean if you start looking about why there's no danger in keeping the nature as it is - for every little problem that may occur there's a process that counters it, and balance is maintained. People have a blind faith that they can do whatever they want because nature or a God has as it's higher purpose to protect them. But those should face the fact that many species and entire groups of species have been entirely extincted because they chose the wrong path. But then on the other hand, if earth is going to be destroyed anway, and everyone die, when the sun dies, then why should we care about future generations? Why not live as good as we can until we die? It depends on whether you like today's society or not.
Owned is to possess in every sense of the word. I.E., the South was completely pwned by the North by the conclusion of the American Civil War.
Also it should be mentioned that the average sea-temperatures has increased with zero-point-something(0,2?) Celsius. Thanks to waters great abiltity to absorb heat, the average air temperaturs must also have increased.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
When we first speak about the sea, not only will meltdowns of the poles, who are evident, increase the sea-levels, but also the increased temperatures who melted the poles in the first place will. Poor Maldive Islands..
If it does you are coming with me~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
There is no argument over whether golbal warming is occurring only whether we are the ones resonsible for it. Global warming and cooling have been going on since the world began. I read a study a few weeks ago that says for the last 60 years the suns tempreture has been higher than normal and this is the cause of global warming. Of course this is too easy and simple for anyone to see it as the truth.Quote:
Also it should be mentioned that the average sea-temperatures has increased with zero-point-something(0,2?) Celsius.
MoreQuote:
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.
Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels.
Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.
Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.
To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.
Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.
He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.
Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.
"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."
Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.
This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.
Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.
"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.
"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."
Sun to Blame for Global Warming
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
"Scientists Blame Sun for Global Warming" ...
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/images/solactivity.jpg
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...glob-warm.html
That made my day...:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lehesu
:furious3: :dizzy2: :furious3: :dizzy2: :furious3: :dizzy2: :furious3: :dizzy2: :furious3: We wouldve won we just ran out of men to fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Lehesu
@Gawain of Orkeny: That's not the graph I was talking about. The one I spoke about had much more measurements and went further back. Anyway, you're right that global temperature changes have happened many times and can be natural caused, so that a temperature increase in itself can be considered harmless. The thing now is that whether or not the temperature increase is human made or not, the human made causes we think are behind it are problems in itself, and are problems that may lead to changing the heat balance. So even if the sun is to blame for our statistics, the human made factors will be to blame for the future, IF the scientists are right about their models.
I've spoken to one of the leading environment scientists in my country and he said that usually scientists can't tell whether a particular event was caused by human actions and wouldn't have occured otherwise. But it's often easy to see what effects actions can have - if certain things like hurricanes will come more often, or become more fierce etc. So I don't think the claim that the sun is responsible this time is a political argument, but rather something of academic interest. What we do is still harmful, no matter if the sun caused most of the concrete problems this particular time.
But it does show the tempreture of the earth is directly related to that of the sun. What a novel idea. All other factors seem to make only minor differences.Quote:
That's not the graph I was talking about
What everything on earth does is harmful in some way. We are no different. We also do much good . Its the old ying and yang thing. Its funny to me those that seem to worship science have so little faith they will solve these problems. Its also been argued that some of what we are doing to stop global warming has actually increased it. Use sensible regulations is all I ask. Its just another excuse for big government and more expensive products and quess who pays for it all.Quote:
What we do is still harmful, no matter if the sun caused most of the concrete problems this particular time
Which is the hottest planet in the solar system and why?
Venus, because of its incredibly effective greenhouse atmosphere composed of high concentrations of CO2.
For people who seem to think that life or a species cannot effect something as large as the atmosphere, keep in mind that any oxygen in the atmosphere was created by life.
I don't worship science. I have a very high respect for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
But as someone who works in a technical field I know how hard it is to get a message across on how difficult a thing is to do. And I also know that scientists in this day in age are at the bottom of the pecking order within a corporate environment. Corporations look at profit, they couldn't care less about the science or technical aspects except when it involves making a larger profit. They all want executive reports (ie dumbed down) that gives them the options they want to hear which either is the latest fashionable TLA or eTLA, or the cheapest option... then expect everything to work as if they actually bought the best solution for the problems they have.
Do not put your faith in corporations that can't even balance a yearly tax audit and will steal from their own workers and share holders to have multigenerational forward thinking.
Having said that what we do know is that the globe is warming. We know that humans are adding greenhouse gasses. What we don't know is the percentage that we are adding. We don't know if it is significant enough to be terminal and we also don't know if we are going to push through the stable equilibrium point because we don't know how big a buffer zone we have.
We do need to spend more money on understanding our world so we can make an informed decision. Until that point we should err on the side of caution and choose the least polluting options.
This would mean things like using fission for now with an eye on developing fusion. It would mean using more public transport, walking, ethanol fuel mixes etc. It would mean solar cladding on buildings and homes.
So you like slaves? Wow...Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Where have I ever said that? Thats the biggest misconception about the whole war only the upper crust of southren society had slaves. The war IMO was about states rights and peoples loyalties to them. If Virginia had not seceded Robert E Lee would be worshipped (and rightfully so) but they didnt and due to his loyalties he stayed with the CSA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
So then the only place in the universe theres oxygen is on earth? I find that hard to believe.Quote:
For people who seem to think that life or a species cannot effect something as large as the atmosphere, keep in mind that any oxygen in the atmosphere was created by life.
Not the time, not the place for this argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
The North Caused Global Warming, though. ~:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Obviously not, seeing as Oxygen is an element and all. (Infact, its estimated that almost 30% of the earth as a solid consists of Oxegen in its compound forms. But Oxgen in its pure state, ie, not in a compound is very rare because it is so reactive. The presence of 21% Oxegen gas (O2) in our atmosphere is entirely due to biological process, mainly photosynthesis. Infact, Oxegen is a waste product of eary life. It used Carbon Dioxide, which was in much much higher concentrations in the early atmosphere, and light to produce food, the biproduct was Oxygen, which later life then utilised. Its a pretty well known fact.
So there was no oxygen in our atmosphere until there was life on earth?
Actually, that is one theory. It is certain that there is significantly more oxygen than before, which has profound impacts -- since oxygen is poisonous at certain concentrations.
Seamus
Winter strikes again. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Yes life has terraformed earth, a handful of GM bacteria and we could terraform Mars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
True you never said that. Them winning would have meant that though. And, yes last year I studied, it was about less than 10% of southerners that had slaves.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
As for Robert E. Lee, the north is just lucky you guys ran out of men. He (IMO) was the best general of the civil war. Now, that's not mentioning the fact that all the northern generals were absolute positive crap, but still he was good.~:cheers:
P.S: Answer my PM's SFTS
The way to truly "pwn" man-made global warming, is just a look at the numbers. Including water vapor (the most significant greenhouse gas), human contributions account for something like less than .5% So, if we were to magically halve our gas emissions (go back to living in caves?), the total effect on greenhouse gas would still be virtually insignificant.
Conformation of this?~:confused:Quote:
The way to truly "pwn" man-made global warming, is just a look at the numbers. Including water vapor (the most significant greenhouse gas), human contributions account for something like less than .5% So, if we were to magically halve our gas emissions (go back to living in caves?), the total effect on greenhouse gas would still be virtually insignificant.
Here's a link
Very interesting indeed. Though, that does make me want to look a little closer, I find some flaws.
1)Last revised: January 10, 2003
2) Is it a reliable source? This is unknown really...
Good find though:bow:
The link tries to assert that in the global warming model it does not include water.
I used Wiki, IPCC is hard to chew on:
Also CO2 has increased by about 30% since the Industrial Revolution (1750), Methane 150% and Nitrous Oxide some 15%.Quote:
Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: IPCC TAR chapter lead author (Michael Mann) considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [6]; see also [7].
The IPCC discuss the water vapor feedback [8].
The 1990 IPCC report says "If H2O were the only GHG present, then the GHE of a clear-sky midlatitude atmosphere... would be about 60-70% of the value with all gases included; by contrast, if CO2 alone was present, the corresponding value would be about 25%".
Duration of stay and warming capability of the different greenhouse gases can be compared:
Quote:
CO2 duration stay is variable (approximately 200-450 years) and its global warming potential (GWP) is defined as 1.
Methane duration stay is 12 +/- 3 years and a GWP of 22 (meaning that it has 22 times the warming ability of carbon dioxide)
Nitrous oxide has a duration stay of 120 years and a GWP of 310
CFC-12 has a duration stay of 102 years and a GWP between 6200 and 7100
HCFC-22 has a duration stay of 12.1 years and a GWP between 1300 and 1400
Tetrafluoromethane has a duration stay of 50,000 years and a GWP of 6500
Sulfur hexafluoride has a duration stay of 3,200 years and a GWP of 23900.
I think Mann's study has been critiqued enough to cast his credibility somewhat into doubt. Further, just because water vapor is beyond human control, we can't dismiss it, as it is apparently the single largest contributor. Mann saying it's "misleading" because humans don't control it smacks of a bias. To me, dismissing it would be "misleading" since it overstates human contribution.
Further, increases in CO2 levels, in itself, arent particularly compelling to me either, as they've occurred historically in the past without any human intervention.
I agree water has to be included in the equation. It has to be, and it makes the impact of added gasses more significant not less.
Why? Because water vapour is potentially part of a runaway feedback loop.
More warmth, more water vapour, more water vapour, more greenhouse effect, more warmth. The good thing is that each type of gas has a certain window in which it blocks light. So even if we have 100% humidity of water, heat can still escape.
This is where the other greenhouse gasses, particularly the CFCs have a role to play. Not only do they work better as light blockers in their zone, they have a different zone that they block to water. So now the ways to get out apart from water are getting blocked up.
It is like the water is the walls of the house, we are now closing the doors with carbon dioxide and methane and the windows with CFCs while turning up the heat with land clearance.
Net effect will be? No Idea. Some people are going to do very well out of the changes if they turn out to be significant. That is the crux of the situation we really don't know how significant it could be. We only have 3 rocky planets in the solar system to make any comparison to, and none of them are earth size, in earths orbit... so we do need to study things a bit more thoroughly.
I can give you one example of many thousands. We're currently extincting most animals that we can eat except cows, sheep, goats and chickens, pretty much. The cows, sheep, goats and chickens we keep are all mostly of the same race, with little genetic variation. Diseases that can kill an entire species occur randomly. The fewer species we have left to eat, the greater the chances we'll soon lose one of these species. Losing one of them would be a severe blow, and there's no way to create new species and genetical variation once we've removed it. Face a future where everyone has to be vegetarian... And when we start eating vegetables only, we'll be in trouble because vegetables lose most of their nutritional value when heated, so if we want vitamins and minerals we need to eat the raw, which increases the risks of disease spreading. Add to that how we're causing erosion of soil, more and more losing the ability to grow things on the soils, getting problems with the fresh water going poisonous, among other things because of nerve poison filled algae. Also consider how we're increasing our populations, meaning that we have to grow more food to survive, on less and less soil. There's only one way of fixing the soils, and that's to use energy in huge quantities. Unfortunately, another energy crisis is on it's way. We've already found solar energe to not be as perfect as we thought - the materials needed for solar cells are rare and very, very dirty. The close to surface depots of these elements are small, and if we need to dig deeper it costs more energy than we get out of it. And even if we did manage to take it all up, we'd still not have enough solar cells. Nuclear power is also in trouble, we're running short of uranium. Any of the other fuels would either increase CO2 in the atmosphere, and further damage the soils and reduce the ability to grow food, or be too weak to have any effect. The amount of energy needed for repairing the soil damages through artificial methods is beyond comprehension, and the current system of growing food is in constant need of energy just to keep going. That's just ONE example of bad developments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
After all, when it comes to preserving nature we aren't in a power position to think "well, we could be nice and let all those little animals and plants live", but rather in a position where we're depending on nature for our very own survival. We need fresh air, fresh water, food, temperature to be within a very small interval, atmosphere to protect us from ultra-violet radiation and many other things that nature can only provide if we don't deliberately try to sabotage it's ability to do so. The effects of this wonderful wellfare society is starting to show up around the world - Rita and Katrina kills people and destroys property in the USA, more flash floods in Bangladesh and other locations. But also simple fun things like bathing and sun bathing is made impossible, so even richer conservatives who want to live a life in luxury are struck - poisonous algae in the Baltic makes it impossible to bathe, ozone layer damaged in Australia so you can't be in the sun without developing skin cancer unless you're dressed in all-covering clothes, etc. etc.
And we are also maintaining populations of animals that would otherwise be extinct. Man is just as much a part of nature as any other animal. A beaver builds a dam is a beautiful work of nature. Man builds a dam hes messing with the enviorment. Every animal on the face of the earth does harm and good to the enviorment. Animals went extenct long before the first man set foot on the earth and probably will contunue to do so after the last man is gone. We are better at controlling our enviorment than any other animal is all. Again certainly we should try to keep our air and water safe. But we have gone to far in many areas.Quote:
I can give you one example of many thousands. We're currently extincting most animals that we can eat except cows, sheep, goats and chickens, pretty much.
The species we "save" are species that would otherwise have been extinct due to our impact on environment. If we hadn't hurt environment, they wouldn't have died. Therefore, that "saving" is not a compensation, but a slight slow down of, our mass-extinction actions. Besides, we extinct a thousand times more (not an exaggeration) species than we save.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
A beaver has limited impact. A team of thousand men with tools have huge impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
They still live today because they did limited harm to environment. Humans have existed for too short a period to extinct themselves, because the effects of their actions have so far not been that great. Every lifestyle up to the 19th century was comparatively harmless to ecosystems. But the increase is exponential over time. An animal can do limited damage without doing long term damage because nature has systems for repairing smaller damage. Actually the causality is the opposite - the animals exist because the damage they do is damage that nature's systems repair. An animal that does too extensive damage extincts itself, or at least breeds itself until all or most of the environment-destroyers are dead. If the environment-destroyers fight their environmentalist fellows of the same species, they extinct the entire species. There's been several mass deaths during evolution, so just because we exist today doesn't mean we're immune to having instincts or rationality-induced behavior that leads to destruction of ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Yes, but not at the same rate humans are doing it. Extinction is a part of the evolution. Of course, every species tries as hard as it can to survive, except humans apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
We're only better at CHANGING it. And most of us know how our changes is hurting the environment. Still we do it - that's not a very survival-strong behavior, which makes us a weak species. Ironically, a weak species that thinks it's so strong that it doesn't matter if it removes it's basic necessities for survival. An animal that doesn't know a thing about it's environment but doesn't hurt it has a greater chance of surviving than an intelligent species that still, despite all facts, likes to destroy itself. Insects have been the kings in evolution so far. The only way for larger, more complex species to survive is to use their STRENGTHS, which is intelligence and ability to adapt to changing environments, as well as flock cooperation. However, there's a limit to how much the environment can be changed, and changing the environment itself on a larger scale has never been good for any species. Also, we're not competing with other animals as much as we're cooperating with them. In most ecosystems, a single species has at least hundred times more cooperating friends than it has enemies and competitors. That's something people who like to extinct other species forget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
But there's of course room during a limited time for species that change environment in a way that kills them in the long run, especially if their other qualities are greater than or comparable to those of other animals competing for the same niche. The early bacteria that created the current (well, up to the 19th century) atmosphere of course got worse living conditions after altering the atmosphere. Pure lack happened to give birth to organisms that reversed their effects, and so a balance was created. Many similar events have taken place during development, and this stabile circulation has created an environment with limited changes on the surface, although it's in constant change through opposite processes. That is a very sound stabile system because organisms living in it survive best if they don't change the system. Their niche is guaranteed.
As for political opinions, I respect if anyone thinks economical instability and competition with other countries being hampered by too environmentalistic politics is a greater threat than the environmental problems itself. But I get somewhat annoyed when people just deny empirical proof that what we're doing is harmful. I haven't got any solution for how to reach the economical goals the anti-environmentalists want and still be able to reach the goals of the environmentalists, but if at least anti-environmentalists admit what threats there are, then they can help in figuring out good solutions, just as any environmentalist should admit the problems that could be caused by economical instability so they could help in figuring out solutions that solve both groups of problems simultaneously. I'm mainly here debating the proof or lack thereof in the environment matter, not trying to argue for any political position. I generally try to avoid discussions about political opinions, and concentrate on defining the problems and evaluating the strength of scientific proofs and theses used as a basis for opinions. The political discussions should, if the problems are well defined, only be puzzle. I still don't understand how you can say the environmental problems are nothing to worry about, but hopefully this post has explained some more of the facts/theses I'm judging from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Please your smarter than that. So animals and planrts only go extinct because of man LOL. Where are the dinosaurs? Did we kill them?Quote:
The species we "save" are species that would otherwise have been extinct due to our impact on environment.
And a few million beavers? Again i said we are the best at controling the enviorment. Other animals dont even think about their impact on it.Quote:
A beaver has limited impact. A team of thousand men with tools have huge impact.
More BS. We could have exterminated ourselves with nukes for the last 50 years or more. We also do a limited amount of harm to the enviorment. Again we are the only animals with sense enough to even know there is such a thing.Quote:
They still live today because they did limited harm to environment. Humans have existed for too short a period to extinct themselves,
Is there anyone here who doubts we will oneday be extinct no matter what we do?Quote:
There's been several mass deaths during evolution, so just because we exist today doesn't mean we're immune to having instincts or rationality-induced behavior that leads to destruction of ourselves.
Because in nature its survival of the fittest. We are so far and away the fittest is why this is happening. No other creature was ever so far advanced of the other species on the planet.Quote:
Yes, but not at the same rate humans are doing it. Extinction is a part of the evolution. Of course, every species tries as hard as it can to survive, except humans apparently.
No were also better at maintaning it.Quote:
We're only better at CHANGING it
Quote:
I still don't understand how you can say the environmental problems are nothing to worry about
Well maybe thats because I never said that. There worry and theres also a thing called paranoia. Worrying about it is good but again people seem to be going into hysterics and making regulations that just have no real scientific proof to back them up. Again many a time man has tried to fix the enviorment and in reality made things worse.
I think you also should be smarter than that, Gawain - you claimed that we saved animals from extinction. Legio countered that we only save those who we ourselves brought close to extinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Do you have examples of animals that were saved by humanity from natural extinction? The dinosaurs certainly do not fall into this category (unless you hide a couple in your basement, that is)
No need to understand a danger if it doesn't exist. An insect doesn't need to understand if it would hurt nature if it behaved like humans, because it doesn't behave like humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
So, are we such a clever animal after all if we invent things that can make us all extinct in a couple of minutes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
You can cease to exist as a species in several million years because you evolved into something else, or die immediately and result in nothing. Not that it matters for those living today, since we'll all die when sol invictus dies. It's only a matter of whether you think this society is good enough to be the place where you want to spend your last time before destruction in. But it takes a million times longer before the sun dies, than it takes for us to destroy ourselves in a less than worthy way. Dying in your own extrement and garbage is not very nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
We're in nature and depend on it as much as other animals. If we kill ourselves we're unfit, it's as simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
An ecosystem with plants producing CO2 and animals producing O2 is better at maintaining environment than any human is. The animal eats the plants, dies, and the corpse gives nutrition for new plants, the plants grow, they're eaten, and the circle continues. The plant binds coal and produces O2 for the animals to breathe, the animals produce CO2 for the plant to bind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The "fixing" of environment you're talking about were made by capitalistic industry, mostly. For instance, when people in London died from smog in the early 19th century, they invented longer chimneys. Those chimneys meant global warming could happen, without anyone noticing until now. There are many examples of such "fixing" that has lead to problems becoming:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
1. more difficult to understand for laymen
2. their effects come later
3. laymen and politicians fail to see how severe the problems are until it's too late
Nobody is hysterical here, I'm not even worrying about the problem. I'm simply scientifically aware of it's existance and trying to spread that information. The more that know about the problem, the more'll be able to take part in devising counter-measures that aren't against the politics people want in other fields. Most people today don't want to live like cavemen, and like computers and other items. The thing is, the more luxury and items we want, the more important is it for us to take actions in this matter. It's quite ironical that the extremist environmentalists are vegetarians and have no technology, as those who are vegetarians and have no technology have a lifestyle that they will be able to carry on with for much longer than technology and luxury seeking people can. The first things we'll lose are things like technology and our ability to eat meat, pretty much. I like meat, and I like computers.
The comment about the percentage of contributions...*sigh* The point is that we contribute, not how much. If we release more greenhouse gases, then it will get warmer, as simple. A few degrees is enough to cause a great change in weather systems, melting down the poles and so on. The amount doesn`t matter at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The link you posted is very doubtful, the writers of the article is using a free web host; and mentions the Kyoto protocol. What the heck does it have to do with any science? it`s just a beginning, a reminder that we should be careful with what we do with our climate. It looks like a typical excuse for not joining the protocol.
That`s also something to worry about, the methane. Methane has more than 20 times the heating effect of CO2. I don`t think humans can do anything to reduce this, other than reduce ourselves in numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Look what you've done Adrian...
:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
~:cheers: