A chunk of ice the size of Ireland "broke off" of Antarctica...

[mk23666]

1. I was referring to the other subjects you raised.
2. Thanks for the article, and I read it. I will have to look at the source material, as what they are saying is contrary to all of the other information known about the effect of large scale volcanic activity. What they are saying is that after the initial cooling of the atmosphere because of refraction, we then get a big rise in temperature for a couple of decades, then a big cooling for a couple of decades more. It goes against other things they have said. If thats the case, then we will should see similar effects on a lesser scale from both the Mt. Saint helens and Mt. Pinatubo eruptions.

Okay, kool.

1 The pollution subject I thought was connected to the attitudes/contradictions about global warming.

2 Vulcanisim is only one factor tho. We are still contributing to the equations our own factors, not to mention the other natural ones we have no control over that may be having an effect.

I'm just saying the climate system is complex enough to understand without us adding what we do into it. I'd like a cleaner planet, and there are things we could be doing right now to get there sooner than later. It aint like we got anywhere else to immediately go if we fuck it up.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Okay, kool.

1 The pollution subject I thought was connected to the attitudes/contradictions about global warming.

2 Vulcanisim is only one factor tho. We are still contributing to the equations our own factors, not to mention the other natural ones we have no control over that may be having an effect.

I'm just saying the climate system is complex enough to understand without us adding what we do into it. I'd like a cleaner planet, and there are things we could be doing right now to get there sooner than later. It aint like we got anywhere else to immediately go if we fuck it up.

I hear exactly what you are saying, and I agree that the climate system is complex. That is one of the reasons why I am sceptical about the current political climate about it. From what I do know, a couple of things:

1. I do not believe we can effect enough change to destroy the climate, or alter it enough to do more than frustrate our ability to live.

2. I am not convinced that we are currently the prime mover in Global warming.

3. I think it is foolish to think that we would not effect the atmosphere at least a little, considering we are part of the enviroment.

4. I think that the "solutions" currently presented, have a greater chance of causing harm than the "problem", considering that petroleum has the greatest amount of extractable energy per unit than other available forms of fuel.

I think we have alot of latter day druids who want to control people using demons and shadows, while ignoring many of the real problems, with deforestation and overfishing being the two primary ones.

 

[VegasGuy]

So this has never happened before and all this drama because scientists happen to fuck up, the same scientist who fuck up doing stupid weather reports? Give me a break.

-VG

 

[mk23666]

I hear exactly what you are saying, and I agree that the climate system is complex. That is one of the reasons why I am sceptical about the current political climate about it. From what I do know, a couple of things:

1. I do not believe we can effect enough change to destroy the climate, or alter it enough to do more than frustrate our ability to live.

2. I am not convinced that we are currently the prime mover in Global warming.

3. I think it is foolish to think that we would not effect the atmosphere at least a little, considering we are part of the enviroment.

4. I think that the "solutions" currently presented, have a greater chance of causing harm than the "problem", considering that petroleum has the greatest amount of extractable energy per unit than other available forms of fuel.

I think we have alot of latter day druids who want to control people using demons and shadows, while ignoring many of the real problems, with deforestation and overfishing being the two primary ones.

If I haven't said so before ... good discussion FUCKALLYALL.

1 All out nuclear war would effectively destroy the climate.
Total lack of pollution controls would effectively destroy the climate.

2 Neither am I but ... Prime mover or not, we are the only factor in the equation that we can control and/or effectively remove from the system.

3 Agreed.

4 The use of photovoltaic panels on all rooftops, wind farms on and off land, geothermal plants, cleaner coal tech, hybrid engines, home hydrogen producers and other alternative energy tech will in many cases drastically reduce the need for petroleum based fuels until it's replacements are developed.

I agree, that there are zelots on either side of the Global Warming argument. Deforresting and overfishing are usually subjects the Global Warming alarmist champion as well. (I know I do)

Speaking of such ... who is getting off the subject now lol.

 

[Fuckallyall]

If I haven't said so before ... good discussion FUCKALLYALL.

1 All out nuclear war would effectively destroy the climate.
Total lack of pollution controls would effectively destroy the climate.

2 Neither am I but ... Prime mover or not, we are the only factor in the equation that we can control and/or effectively remove from the system.

3 Agreed.

4 The use of photovoltaic panels on all rooftops, wind farms on and off land, geothermal plants, cleaner coal tech, hybrid engines, home hydrogen producers and other alternative energy tech will in many cases drastically reduce the need for petroleum based fuels until it's replacements are developed.

I agree, that there are zelots on either side of the Global Warming argument. Deforresting and overfishing are usually subjects the Global Warming alarmist champion as well. (I know I do)

Speaking of such ... who is getting off the subject now lol.

Thanks for the feedback. please post supporting information for you assertion in # 4.

 

[mk23666]

Here are a few from Scientific American's website.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=amber-waves-of-gas-gasoli
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=considering-the-obvious-b
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=see-through-solar-cells-b
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-power-reborn
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=10-solutions-for-climate-change

 

[Fuckallyall]

Here are a few from Scientific American's website.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=amber-waves-of-gas-gasoli
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=considering-the-obvious-b
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=see-through-solar-cells-b
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-power-reborn
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=10-solutions-for-climate-change

Thanks for the posts, and I am familiar with them all. With the exception of nuclear fuel, all of the combined alternatives could make up more than a small percentage of the energy needs of modern society. And nuclear energy is very epensive, with much of it's savings coming from subsidies. Petroleum is more efficient by a long shot.

 

[mk23666]

I think that's where we disagree. The evidence shows me that alternative fuels could do a great deal to make us energy independent and make the planet safer/cleaner. There are solar houses today that provide 80-90% of the electrical and water heating needs in a house. Our coal and shale reserves alone could take us off foreign oil if we invested in cleaner burning tech.

 

[Damn Right]

we are fucked.

nigga fuk u and yo 59 posts. we ain't done. we're not done.

 

[456.North.side]

i thought i heard from discovery or something that the oceans were not obsurbing as much Co2 as they used to as well, like by 50% or something but i am too lazy to go find it