# How Climate Change is Causing Antarctic Sea-ice to Expand



## micropage7 (Nov 13, 2012)

As rising temperatures continue to shrink the extent of Arctic summer sea-ice, there has been much speculation as to why the ice cover on the opposite side of the planet has expanded slightly in recent years. Now British scientists have found the explanation–and it’s related to climate change.

Using data gathered by U.S. military satellite-tracking of the motion of the Frozen Continent’s icepack between 1992 and 2010, the researchers have found a link between Antarctic winds and the growth of sea-ice in the Weddell, Cooperation and Ross seas.

The analysis, “Wind-driven Trends in Antarctic Sea-ice Drift,” was published online yesterday in the science journal Nature Geoscience.

“Sea-ice is constantly on the move; around Antarctica the ice is blown away from the continent by strong northward winds. Since 1992 this ice drift has changed. In some areas the export of ice away from Antarctica has doubled, while in others it has decreased significantly,” said lead author Paul Holland , of the British Antarctic Survey, in a news statement about the research.

“Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon, using computer models of Antarctic winds,” Holland said. “This study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change. The total Antarctic sea-ice cover is increasing slowly, but individual regions are actually experiencing much larger gains and losses that are almost offsetting each other overall. We now know that these regional changes are caused by changes in the winds, which in turn affect the ice cover through changes in both ice drift and air temperature.”

The changes in ice drift also suggest large changes in the ocean surrounding Antarctica, which is very sensitive to the cold and salty water produced by sea-ice growth, Holland added.






The new research also helps explain why observed changes in the amount of sea-ice cover are so different in the two polar regions, BAS said in its statement. “The Arctic has experienced dramatic ice losses in recent decades while the overall ice extent in the Antarctic has increased slightly. However, this small Antarctic increase is actually the result of much larger regional increases and decreases, which are now shown to be caused by wind-driven changes.”

Co-author Ron Kwok, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, said: “The Antarctic sea ice cover interacts with the global climate system very differently than that of the Arctic, and these results highlight the sensitivity of the Antarctic ice coverage to changes in the strength of the winds around the continent.”

There has been contrasting climate change observed across the Antarctic in recent decades, British Antarctic Survey said in its statement. “The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed as much as anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, while East Antarctica has shown little change or even a small cooling around the coast. The new research improves understanding of present and future climate change. It is important to distinguish between the Antarctic Ice Sheet — glacial ice — which is losing volume, and Antarctic sea ice — frozen seawater — which is expanding.”

The research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/11/12/how-climate-change-is-causing-antarctic-sea-ice-to-expand/


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 13, 2012)

micropage7 said:


> [It is important to distinguish between the Antarctic Ice Sheet — glacial ice — which is losing volume, and Antarctic sea ice — frozen seawater — which is expanding.”



Before the oil burning right wingers jump on top of this, the important thing to note is the retreat of the glacial ice.  Ice sheets dropping off into the sea is still happening faster.


----------



## Peter1986C (Nov 13, 2012)

Now I finally understand what that "growing ice" rumour comes from. Thanks researchers and thanks micropage7 to point it out. The paradox has been solved.


----------



## Jetster (Nov 13, 2012)

I can 100% guarantee its going to change


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> Before the oil burning right wingers jump on top of this, the important thing to note is the retreat of the glacial ice.  Ice sheets dropping off into the sea is still happening faster.



Taxing people is not gonna fix anything. The problem is nations like Brazil who have been cutting down the rainforests to plant sugar cane to become oil independent. What good is being oil independent if there are no trees to filter the air. I'm no right winger but I don't accept carbon taxes will save our planet and the people who use scare tactics to get them I have a hard time believing.


----------



## Peter1986C (Nov 13, 2012)

Jetster said:


> I can 100% guarantee its going to change



What is going to change? The climate? We all know global warming is real. No need to point that out. What I meant with the "paradox" is the seemingly contradicting "growth" of ice (due to drift-ice packing together, as we know now) and melting of ice. That is all.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Taxing people is not gonna fix anything. The problem is nations like Brazil who have been cutting down the rainforests to plant sugar cane to become oil independent. What good is being oil independent if there are no trees to filter the air. I'm no right winger but I don't accept carbon taxes will save our planet and the people who use scare tactics to get them I have a hard time believing.



I know it is not going to fix anything, but people still tend to think relying on governments is the solution to everything. Science might yet solve it nonetheless.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Taxing people is not gonna fix anything. The problem is nations like Brazil who have been cutting down the rainforests to plant sugar cane to become oil independent. What good is being oil independent if there are no trees to filter the air. I'm no right winger but I don't accept carbon taxes will save our planet and the people who use scare tactics to get them I have a hard time believing.



I agree, you should see the percentage of tax on petrol and diesel in the UK... taxing the population is not a sensible course of action, because they'll hate the damn tax, but they'll pay it anyway, so they will use just as much. And what will that tax be spent on? Not a resolution, I'll tell you that much.


----------



## Peter1986C (Nov 13, 2012)

^ Exactly.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

RCoon said:


> I agree, you should see the percentage of tax on petrol and diesel in the UK... taxing the population is not a sensible course of action, because they'll hate the damn tax, but they'll pay it anyway, so they will use just as much. And what will that tax be spent on? Not a resolution, I'll tell you that much.



This is my issue with a lot of these studies. People have an angle to work. Taxes which don't fix anything except for governments insatiable need to control everything. If there was a REAL plan of action and a REAL goal I could see my taxes going to I MIGHT believe the random scare statistic they produce. OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING, QUICK TAX PEOPLE?! Only government comes up with such failed policies.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 13, 2012)

This whole thing is scary as hell and I don't even have kids to worry about. And, regardless of the causes and whether or not it's primarily due to human activity, you can't deny the weather is more extreme and threatening these days. Especially to those near bodies of water.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> This whole thing is scary as hell and I don't even have kids to worry about. And, regardless of the causes and whether or not it's primarily due to human activity, you can't deny the weather is more extreme and threatening these days. Especially to those near bodies of water.



Not really. Historically speaking its been pretty normal.


----------



## 3870x2 (Nov 13, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> This whole thing is scary as hell and I don't even have kids to worry about. And, regardless of the causes and whether or not it's primarily due to human activity, you can't deny the weather is more extreme and threatening these days. Especially to those near bodies of water.



Weather is more of an ebb-and-flow kind of thing.  There are just as many valid arguments against global warming as there are for it.  Historical evidence shows that the earth goes through periods that are very much like the global warming we see today.

I don't know what to think of it all myself, however I can say that we have been abusing natural resources a bit too much without replenishing them.  Going green is more than just 'saving the planet', it is just the logical step forward.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 13, 2012)

things are changing and we have to adapt. regardless of whether we are the cause, or whether we are so insignificant as to make that thought ludicrous - either way we need to change the way we live if we hope to continue life on this planet.
earth will be just fine - it's humans that are in for a rude awakening.



MT Alex said:


> What's scary as hell is FEMA.



yeah - people are much better off left to themselves after disaster strikes. death, riots & looting be damned


----------



## MT Alex (Nov 13, 2012)

What's scary as hell is FEMA.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 13, 2012)

remember when scientists predicted massive global cooling in the 70s?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

digibucc said:


> things are changing and we have to adapt. regardless of whether we are the cause, or whether we are so insignificant as to make that thought ludicrous - either way we need to change the way we live if we hope to continue life on this planet.
> 
> earth will be just fine - it's humans that are in for a rude awakening.



Man will survive just fine. Two ice ages were survived without electricity. I think we will be fine. 



digibucc said:


> yeah - people are much better off left to themselves after disaster strikes. death, riots & looting be damned



I did just fine without them. Seen them work first hand. Waste of time and money they are.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

An excellent solution to the CO2 problem is thorium reactors and the real problem is why we haven't begun spending more time using and developing them.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Man will survive just fine. Two ice ages were survived without electricity. I think we will be fine.



Oh humans will no doubt survive, but we will likely just suffer and experience more frequent deaths unless we adapt successfully or mitigate the problem.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Man will survive just fine. Two ice ages were survived without electricity. I think we will be fine.



but at what cost? I don't debate that some people and so the human race will survive - but how many of us could actually reproduce the science and technology we have today? I do think that's important unless we want to just advance and retreat with planetary weather systems.

eventually we need to get out into space if we have any hope of survival long term. that's all i really want to point out as I think it's an important goal.



TheMailMan78 said:


> I did just fine without them. Seen them work first hand. Waste of time and money they are.



yeah but you're special - you're the mailman. not everyone is as self-sufficient as you. if you are arguing survival of the fittest i can see the argument - but i don't entirely agree with it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> An excellent solution to the CO2 problem is thorium reactors and the real problem is why we haven't begun spending more time using and developing them.
> 
> Oh humans will no doubt survive, but we will likely just suffer and experience more frequent deaths.



Small correction: City folk will be screwed.



digibucc said:


> but at what cost? I don't debate that some people and so the human race will survive - but how many of us could actually reproduce the science and technology we have today? I do think that's important unless we want to just advance and retreat with planetary weather systems.
> 
> eventually we need to get out into space if we have any hope of survival long term. that's all i really want to point out as I think it's an important goal.



Great idea! Problem is they cut funding for NASA and gave it to the failing "Green Industry".


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Small correction: City folk will be screwed.



Naw, it wouldn't be limited to just city folk. Climate Change is on a global scale, besides city fok have always been screwed lol.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Great idea! Problem is they cut funding for NASA and gave it to the failing "Green Industry".



yeah - because that's where all the funding has gone in the last 10 years - green energy.  I seem to remember a gigantic military machine taking the majority of our dollars. maybe i'm just confused though  that happens....


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

Liquid fluoride thorium reactors


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

digibucc said:


> yeah - because that's where all the funding has gone in the last 10 years - green energy.  I seem to remember a gigantic military machine taking the majority of our dollars. maybe i'm just confused though  that happens....



The amount dumped into the green industry could have taken us to Mars and back. Pass the buck all you want but that's a fact. At least bombs yield results. lol



digibucc said:


> yeah but you're special - you're the mailman. not everyone is as self-sufficient as you. if you are arguing survival of the fittest i can see the argument - but i don't entirely agree with it.


It wasn't just me man. I've SEEN how they work. They are a waste of time.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The amount dumped into the green industry could have taken us to Mars and back. Pass the buck all you want but that's a fact.



and the amount spent on war could have us living in space.

pass the buck all you want - green energy is a much more worthwhile money sink than war is. i'd rather it be NASA, but i'd much rather it be green energy than war. so you're saying because it hasn't worked as well as hoped we should have never tried? i disagree. and i know it's just a quip - that at least bombs yield results - but it's true. what kind of results do we really want though? more death and destruction or creation? i'd opt for creation personally. at least to attempt it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

digibucc said:


> and the amount spent on war could have us living in space.
> 
> pass the buck all you want - green energy is a much more worthwhile money sink than war is. i'd rather it be NASA, but i'd much rather it be green energy than war. so you're saying because it hasn't worked as well as hoped we should have never tried? i disagree.



NASA has never failed in a mission. Just setback. Government investing in Green Industry has......MANY TIMES. NASA win. Government investing fail.

Also I aint gonna argue we spend way to much on bombs. But the government investing in the private sector has ALWAYS failed!


----------



## digibucc (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> NASA has never failed in a mission. Just setback. Government investing in Green Industry has......MANY TIMES. NASA win. Government investing fail.



but that's not what i'm arguing. you can keep arguing that if you want, but i don't disagree. where i disagree is the idea that it has to be either or. cut out the war and we have funding for both.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

digibucc said:


> but that's not what i'm arguing. you can keep arguing that if you want, but i don't disagree. where i disagree is the idea that it has to be either or. cut out the war and we have funding for both.



Take NASA. Give them the money and a 10 year mission and they will make it happen. Not give it to special interest groups in the name of "Green Industry".


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

Sweet! I hope it all melts and we turn into Water world!
Nothing we do NOW will change this. And if you tree hugging fart sniffers think by stopping all the cars plains and power plants will solve this problem you are living a dream. Maybe now you tree monkeys will rethink nuclear power? I doubt it though. The cleanest energy that doesn't add to global warming yet tree hugging freaks have to ban it in America! What a joke! I hope that all the ice caps melt away by 2020! Fuck it I am cold NOW! Turn up the oil stove!


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 13, 2012)

Again, climate scientists have lost all credibility with the public because for the past 45 years they have been predicting doom and gloom but the world has only become a safer place to live.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> Sweet! I hope it all melts and we turn into Water world!
> Nothing we do NOW will change this. And if you tree hugging fart sniffers think by stopping all the cars plains and power plants will solve this problem you are living a dream. Maybe now you tree monkeys will rethink nuclear power? I doubt it though. The cleanest energy that doesn't add to global warming yet tree hugging freaks have to ban it in America! What a joke! I hope that all the ice caps melt away by 2020! Fuck it I am cold NOW! Turn up the oil stove!



The caps melting will at least give you an excuse for not having a job.


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The caps melting will at least give you an excuse for not having a job.



Yeah see some one is looking at the glass half full! 

Better to blame the ice melting rather than your savior Obama right?


----------



## digibucc (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Take NASA. Give them the money and a 10 year mission and they will make it happen. Not give it to special interest groups in the name of "Green Industry".



fair enough, however - two points:

1) green energy is worth trying for. independence from fossil fuels is a good thing.
b) it's not an either or situation. we can have space and energy. just drop the war.

granted it hasn't worked well so far - but that's our government, not the "green industry". it's going to cost money to find a cleaner, better way to give us energy. the idea that it would be a massive profit or even a break even is kind of ridiculous. we are attempting to find new ways to harness energy, different from anything we have ever done before. that's gonna cost money, and it's going to be worth it.



Easy Rhino said:


> Again, climate scientists have lost all credibility with the public because for the past 45 years they have been predicting doom and gloom but the world has only become a safer place to live.



but that's not entirely true. a lot of the doom and gloom is from the reporting and not the actual findings. the majority of climate scientists are quality scientists - who give a percentage chance based on present information. it only takes a few idiots and reporters willing to listen to them to tarnish the entirety of the science, and i think that's a bit unfair.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 13, 2012)

digibucc said:


> but that's not entirely true. a lot of the doom and gloom is from the reporting and not the actual findings. the majority of climate scientists are quality scientists - who give a percentage chance based on present information. it only takes a few idiots and reporters willing to listen to them to tarnish the entirety of the science, and i think that's a bit unfair.



i know, but public perception is what it is. i would argue that most people in the US don't buy into the hype. any global warming caused by man is minuscule. Any occurring warming is completely natural. There are scientists whose findings support that opinion. 

i would also argue that most people in the US, despite being characterized as oil burning rednecks, believe we should take care of the planet. recycling, planting trees, using safer pesticides, prosecuting corps that dump waste, etc are all low cost/high reward solutions to promoting a healthy earth. most people see a carbon tax as another power grab by the people in DC who simply want more money and greater ability to infringe on our day to day lives.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

digibucc said:


> fair enough, however - two points:
> 
> 1) green energy is worth trying for. independence from fossil fuels is a good thing.
> b) it's not an either or situation. we can have space and energy. just drop the war.
> ...



If there is to be profit the private industry will do it a LOT better then government grants. Grants and subsidizing create waste and corruption. Keep those jackals out of it! Keep the corruption in house via NASA.



Easy Rhino said:


> i know, but public perception is what it is. i would argue that most people in the US don't buy into the hype. any global warming caused by man is minuscule. Any occurring warming is completely natural. There are scientists whose findings support that opinion.
> 
> i would also argue that most people in the US, despite being characterized as oil burning rednecks, believe we should take care of the planet. recycling, planting trees, using safer pesticides, prosecuting corps that dump waste, etc are all low cost/high reward solutions to promoting a healthy earth. most people see a carbon tax as another power grab by the people in DC who simply want more money and greater ability to infringe on our day to day lives.



This. The National Park Service was founded by a redneck hunter before saving the planet was cool. Teddy Roosevelt. The original hipster. Most hunters care FAR MORE about the planet then any limo liberal does.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 13, 2012)

yeah no disagreements here on either point


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If there is to be profit the private industry will do it a LOT better then government grants. Grants and subsidizing create waste and corruption. Keep those jackals out of it! Keep the corruption in house via NASA.



Stop voting democratically then. Republicans want smaller government Obama wants to expand it to limits we have never seen before! 
Talk about corruption!!!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> Stop voting democratically then. Republicans want smaller government Obama wants to expand it to limits we have never seen before!



Oh yeah Bush was a small government guy. Patriot act was all about personal liberty........oh wait.


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh yeah Bush was a small government guy. Patriot act was all about personal liberty........oh wait.



LOL. Yeah well we needed some thing! How else can you protect the people when terrorists are HERE?! They come here to get the best education we can give them then just take us out after they leave! Yeah keep that stinkin thinkin!
Still blaming Bush? Man you need to put the Kool-Aid down!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> LOL. Yeah well we needed some thing! How else can you protect the people when terrorists are HERE?! They come here to get the best education we can give them then just take us out after they leave! Yeah keep that stinkin thinkin!
> Still blaming Bush? Man you need to put the Kool-Aid down!



I blame Lincoln.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> LOL. Yeah well we needed some thing! How else can you protect the people when terrorists are HERE?! They come here to get the best education we can give them then just take us out after they leave! Yeah keep that stinkin thinkin!
> Still blaming Bush? Man you need to put the Kool-Aid down!



i really think we should stay on topic rather than succumb to flame throwing.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

Easy Rhino said:


> i really think we should stay on topic rather than succumb to flame throwing.



I agree, I'm done.


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

Easy Rhino said:


> i really think we should stay on topic rather than succumb to flame throwing.



I am not flame throwing Just making a point is all. 
I still think climate change is just BS. This planet goes through cycles and we are in one now. That is all.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

The Earth does go through cycles, but none of the natural sources of warming are enough to explain the significant amount of warming data shows us. Hence, the amount of warming the Earth is experiencing can only be explained via anthropogenic sources. 


Even if we stopped putting out Co2, the Earth would still continue to warm, there is a lag in the system. If we don't do anything now the Earth's temp could go up 2-4 degrees Celsius of which climate experts believe is dangerously high. No doubt all ice would then melt due to the ice albedo feedback. Sea levels would certainly rise not so much from the extra water due to ice melting but from the thermal expansion of water due to heat. We can then expect co2 to increase further more as it seeps out of the oceans again due to the warming oceans. 

Hopefully the economy improves so that people can afford the costs of adapting to fiercer future climates, that or technological advances, preferably both.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> The Earth does go through cycles, but none of the natural sources of warming are enough to explain the significant amount of warming data shows us. Hence, the amount of warming the Earth is experiencing can only be explained via anthropogenic sources.



says who? the earth has been around for how long? it has gone through much much worse warming periods before humans existed.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> The Earth does go through cycles, but none of the natural sources of warming are enough to explain the significant amount of warming data shows us. Hence, the amount of warming the Earth is experiencing can only be explained via anthropogenic sources.
> 
> 
> Even if we stopped putting out Co2, the Earth would still continue to warm, there is a lag in the system. If we don't do anything now the Earth's temp could go up 2-4 degrees Celsius of which climate experts believe is dangerously high. No doubt all ice would then melt due to the ice albedo feedback. Sea levels would certainly rise not so much from the extra water due to ice melting but from the thermal expansion of water due to heat. We can then expect co2 to increase further more as it seeps out of the oceans again due to the warming oceans.
> ...



Some things need to be taken into account. Like the mini-ice age that was ending when the industrial revolution was starting. We are in a fully natural warming period right now even if man never existed. Again I'm not saying we are not causing an issue, I'm just saying the problem isn't going down how a lot of people would have you believe IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

Easy Rhino said:


> says who? the earth has been around for how long? it has gone through much much worse warming periods before humans existed.



The sun has remained more or less constant throughout the course of history. Nasa has good data on the sun, we know this. So it can't be the sun. In order for the Sun to be responsible for the recent warming, there would need to be a long-term increase in the solar constant over the past few decades. The measurements show no evidence of this. Thus, we can conclude with high confidence that the rapid warming of the past few decades is not caused by a brightening of the Sun.

Continent's moving could also have an effect on the climate, but this occurs to slowly to explain the sudden rise of temps we are experiencing. This is good to explain the slow change of temps over extended periods of time, but not quick ones. It takes millions of years for continental movement to cause significant climate change.

The Earth's orbit also has an effect on climate. These orbital variations are so slow that it takes at least thousands of years to make any significant change in the amount of or distribution of incoming sunlight. The warming of the past century has been much too fast to be caused by these slow orbital variations. The warming must be due to other causes.


Internal variablities in our climate such as the El Nino and La Nina effect our climate by warming and cooling it but they occur every few years and last a year or so. No mechanism of internal variability can explain the warming. Ultimately, we cannot exclude internal variability.  However, there is no evidence supporting it, either.

Then there are Green House gases. 

The geologic record over the past 500 million years shows a strong correlation between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Widespread ice existed when carbon dioxide was low, and no ice was found when carbon dioxide was high. The correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature is particularly clear during an event roughly 55 million years ago known as the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM. This event began with a massive release of either carbon dioxide or methane. Which in turn led to an increase in the Earth’s global average temperature of 5–9°C over the next few thousand years. The amount of carbon was so immense that when the CO2 dissolved into the oceans, the oceans became significantly more acidic. This in turn dissolved calcium carbonate in the sediments at the bottom of the ocean.

The temperatures remained elevated for 100,000 years or so, which is about the length of time it takes the carbon cycle to fully remove the carbon from the atmosphere. The amount of carbon released, a few thousand gigatonnes of carbon, is comparable with the amount contained in all of the Earth’s fossil fuels.

Thus, the PETM is sometimes viewed as a good analog to what will happen if humans burn all of the fossil fuels over the next few centuries. One important difference, however, is that humans are on a pace to release the carbon over several hundred years, whereas it was released during the PETM over several thousand years.Thus, we can expect even more rapid warming than that experienced during the PETM, a period of very rapid warming.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> The sun has remained more or less constant throughout the course of history. Nasa has good data on the sun, we know this. So it can't be the sun. In order for the Sun to be responsible for the recent warming, there would need to be a long-term increase in the solar constant over the past few decades. The measurements show no evidence of this. Thus, we can conclude with high confidence that the rapid warming of the past few decades is not caused by a brightening of the Sun.
> 
> Continent's moving could also have an effect on the climate, but this occurs to slowly to explain the sudden rise of temps we are experiencing. This is good to explain the slow change of temps over extended periods of time, but not quick ones. It takes millions of years for continental movement to cause significant climate change.
> 
> ...



And how does taxes fix this? Oh and the Pacific is in warming trend while the Atlantic is in a cooling trend! Riddle me that Batman!

ALSO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

I never said taxing was a fix. 

A carbon tax could be created to work in the same sense as the gas tax. The gas tax was used to create roads. They could place a carbon tax to tax everybody who releases co2 and then use that money to make better technology. Its just an idea. 

Then there is cap and trade on the amount of Co2 companies release. It worked for So2 so it might work with Co2 but that wouldn't slow down other athropogneic co2 releases like people driving cars. 

Adapting and mitigation our are only two real solutions. Geo-engineering is far to risky but would provide us with immediate results. 

We either have the economy to deal with natural disasters as they occur, build walls, etc... to protect ourselves or we develop more efficient/green energy sources to reduce the amount of Co2 we release.

Thorium Reactors would be an excellent source of green energy, no risk of a catastrophic meltdown, runs cool, has far less waste, relies on the abundant element known as thorium (versus the scarce element of uranium), has been shown to work flawlessly when Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran a test plant. Funding should go into this as a future energy source. Its been known since the 50's but due to the cold war and need for nuclear weapons, uranium was being mined and thorium was treated as waste.

Also Thorium reactors breeds with its own waste to create new fuel to use again.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 13, 2012)

how about we exterminate half the population. caveat, only i get to decide who lives and who dies.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

Easy Rhino said:


> how about we exterminate half the population. caveat, only i get to decide who lives and who dies.



There is an equation to determine the impact we have.

I = P x A x T

P= Poulation 
A= Affluence
T= Technology.

Our impact on the climate is determinate on those three variables. 

Since no one seriously considers telling the Population to limit their family size (Nice try China) or killing humans (as you so boldly recommend, but I think nature will do its part on that), we have to look at the other two variables.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> There is an equation to determine the impact we have.
> 
> I = P x A x T
> 
> ...



that is IF you believe humans are the problem.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Nov 13, 2012)

I read the original post.  Very interesting and informative stuff.

Doesn't one word about taxes.  I'm just saying.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

Easy Rhino said:


> that is IF you believe humans are the problem.



Isn't much of a believe man, the evidence is overwhelming. 

I just told you why and instead of refuting it, that is all you have to say? Irony is the little you have to say says a lot about how right you actually are.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> Isn't much of a believe man, the evidence is overwhelming.
> 
> I just told you why and instead of refuting it, that is all you have to say? Irony is the little you have to say says a lot about how right you actually are.



oh boy. because i am unwilling to spend hundreds of hours rehashing arguments scientists have made against human caused global warming then i must be ignorant of the truth.

buddy, i was arguing against anthropogenic back in 2000 when i learned al gore believed in it. i really don't have the patience to bring it all up again.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

Easy Rhino said:


> oh boy. because i am unwilling to spend hundreds of hours rehashing arguments scientists have made against human caused global warming then i must be ignorant of the truth.
> 
> buddy, i was arguing against anthropogenic back in 2000 when i learned al gore believed in it. i really don't have the patience to bring it all up again.



Alright fair enough, but don't expect to sway me or anyone else based on your precognitive thoughts about something that was just developing back in 2000.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> Alright fair enough, but don't expect to sway me or anyone else based on your precognitive thoughts about something that was just developing back in 2000.



ahem, AGW has been around since the 80s. it was popularized by al gore as an initiative to get elected. he was appealing to those in the Green Party. al gore lost the 2000 presidential election because of Ralph Nader's enviro-freaks who accounted for almost 3 million votes.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

Easy Rhino said:


> ahem, AGW has been around since the 80s. it was popularized by al gore as an initiative to get elected. he was appealing to those in the Green Party. al gore lost the 2000 presidential election because of Ralph Nader's enviro-freaks who accounted for almost 3 million votes.



What I meant to get at, just because you've argued about it elsewhere in the past doesn't mean I or anyone else is going to take merit in that as an excuse for you being right. 

Climate change has been looked at since the 1800's but combining all that knowledge into something conclusive hasn't occurred till recently. All this knowledge is now being used in advanced computer simulations to get a rough idea of what to expect. And they all point to warming.


----------



## erocker (Nov 13, 2012)

I think a good start would be to take away politicians airplanes. Force them to buy electric cars to travel in. I also wonder how much large military's contribute to global warming? I bet they don't have emissions to worry about. The governments of the world need to set an example for the little people.


----------



## 3870x2 (Nov 13, 2012)

erocker said:


> I think a good start would be to take away politicians airplanes. Force them to buy electric cars to travel in. I also wonder how much large military's contribute to global warming? I bet they don't have emissions to worry about. The governments of the world need to set an example for the little people.



But we need out military!  If we can't defend ourselves as a country, our politicians will lose their jobs!

Let that sink in for a bit.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Not really. Historically speaking its been pretty normal.



Well it sure seems that way dude and I am not just talking about all the destruction I see on the news but also my own experience plus those around me including my 72 year old father who is certainly no "tree hugger". Yeah well let's see in 25 or even 50+ years. If there is indeed a new permanent pattern of severity that is emerging then we wouldn't have the "historical data" to confirm or deny that either way as yet would we?

In case it needs to pointed out I would love to be wrong about this more than anything else.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

erocker said:


> I think a good start would be to take away politicians airplanes. Force them to buy electric cars to travel in. I also wonder how much large military's contribute to global warming? I bet they don't have emissions to worry about. The governments of the world need to set an example for the little people.



You mean our jet turbine powered tanks are killing trees! OH NOES!


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

Actually jets and ships produce clouds which reflect sunlight back into space but at night clouds act as a blanket warming us. 

There was this Idea to ban all night flights but obviously that won't work.


----------



## erocker (Nov 13, 2012)

Oh, you mean chemtrails?







Not only does it reflect sunlight back into space, it's most likely killing off some of the population. Win/Win.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

erocker said:


> Oh, you mean chemtrails?
> 
> http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0109/images/holly-chemtrail.jpg
> 
> Not only does it reflect sunlight back into space, it's most likely killing off some of the population. Win/Win.



Aaaaaaaaand here we go.


----------



## erocker (Nov 13, 2012)

True story, I have a customer who is a commercial airline pilot. He knows they're real. He might be an alien too, but that's not here nor there. 

I don't live near an airport or anything, but some days the sky is thick with these chemtrails. Even the former FBI chief has claimed they are very much real.

Is it really that hard to believe? Or do you think the fine folks who run things like our government would never do such things?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

erocker said:


> True story, I have a customer who is a commercial airline pilot. He knows they're real. He might be an alien too, but that's not here nor there.
> 
> I don't live near an airport or anything, but some days the sky is thick with these chemtrails. Even the former FBI chief has claimed they are very much real.
> 
> Is it really that hard to believe? Or do you think the fine folks who run things like our government would never do such things?



I grew up next to an Air Force Base and I have seen them since I can remember. What exactly do they claim they are spraying?


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 13, 2012)

Yes...they are most certainly "real" but if not regular condensation trails, then what?


----------



## Drone (Nov 13, 2012)

Even before humans and their technologies, Earth's climate was changing, so humans can't be responsible for today's global warming. It was so before, it will be after. Earth's climate was always sensitive. Atm humans has zero power to change the climate or weather. However, I hope that climate control technology will exist oneday. No idea how it'd look maybe some kind of shield or some thermodynamical system which can alway retain the balance. I dunno


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 13, 2012)

Did the ice caps at the poles all essentially just melt in a span of less than 50 years ever before? Frankly, I really don't know so please enlighten me. Yes, there have been plenty of changes in the past but there is always a cause-and-effect reason(s). Why can't dumping a fuckton of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by humans be one of those causes now?

Some people think it's common sense that it's NOT humans. But I feel the exact opposite! But as I am happy to point out I am no scientist.


----------



## erocker (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I grew up next to an Air Force Base...  ...What exactly do they claim they are spraying?



Apparently it limits higher brain function? Coincidence MailMan? Coincidence?

I'm kidding. Some say barium.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

erocker said:


> Apparently it limits higher brain function? Coincidence MailMan? Coincidence?
> 
> I'm kidding. Some say barium.



Yeah the government isn't what you call good at secrets. I find it hard to believe they could orchestrate this many "Chemtrails" over 30+ years and NO ONE drop a dime on the plot.


----------



## Drone (Nov 13, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Did the ice caps at the poles all essentially just melt in a span of less than 50 years ever before?


50 years? Is that a joke? For global scale even 10000 years is nothing. There was extreme global warming in the Eocene (~56 to 34 million years ago). Because climate is too sensitive to CO2. Carbon dioxide levels must have at least doubled over a period of around *400000* years. I don't think people was kicking around that time. At least they didn't have factories then  Sayin that people *alone* changed entire Earth's climate is the same if you say ''if a grandma had a dick she'd be a grandpa'.


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

Why is it that we can not take the CO2 out of the atmosphere? We have technology that can do this so why is it we are not making HUGE C)2 removal plants? I do not get this at all. We have technology that can save us from every thing and deliver water to every one yet we do not put any of it to use. What a waste. We have only our selves to blame, I know the democrats here want to blame bush for this too.


----------



## Peter1986C (Nov 13, 2012)

Drone said:


> 50 years? Is that a joke? For global scale even 10000 years is nothing. There was extreme global warming in the Eocene (~56 to 34 million years ago). Because climate is too sensitive to CO2. Carbon dioxide levels must have at least doubled over a period of around *400000* years. I don't think people was kicking around that time. At least they didn't have factories then  Sayin that people *alone* changed entire Earth's climate is the same if you say ''if a grandma had a dick she'd be a grandpa'.



During the eocene, the continents were lying in different positions which lead to different oceans and different ocean currents. So the role of the oceans (among other factors) has changed over time. Those matters are no constants and therefore climate is hard to hind- and forecast.

There is a likely human role, but there are large uncertainties about how big that role is and what exactly it will lead to.


----------



## Drone (Nov 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> Why is it that we can not take the CO2 out of the atmosphere? We have technology that can do this so why is it we are not making HUGE CO2 removal plants? I do not get this at all.


You're right. There's many methods of CO2 capturing and removing.

Those methods are economically feasible and can remove CO2 directly from the air.

Zeolite (SSZ-13) can easily capture CO2 while leaving other gases alone. Look at the facts: each pore halts one CO2 molecule - and each cubic cm of the zeolite has enough pores to stop 0.31 grams of CO2. 






I agree, it's pathetic that such things are ignored. CO2 is toxic. High concentration of CO2 will screw our atmosphere. What can be more important than the air we breathe ...


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

Drone said:


> You're right. There's many methods of CO2 capturing and removing.
> 
> Those methods are economically feasible and can remove CO2 directly from the air.
> 
> ...



Exactly! Then why is it we as humans can not seem to band together and CLEAN up the air? We have the tech we have the means yet no one is even going to try? What a sad thing the human race really is. It is our fault it will be our undoing!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> Exactly! Then why is it we as humans can not seem to band together and CLEAN up the air? We have the tech we have the means yet no one is even going to try? What a sad thing the human race really is. It is our fault it will be our undoing!



You have plenty of free time, why don't you solve the worlds problems?


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You have plenty of free time, why don't you solve the worlds problems?



Seems you do as well. 
You seem to be trolling me a lot, maybe if you put that superior intellect of yours to better use we would have some clean air.? 
I often wonder with all the tech we have just what good does it really do? All I see is a generation of Youtube face book people hell bent on wasting there lives away! Well I am old and have but a short time left on this planet so you young ones will have to deal with this shit NOT me! For now the air is fine wait till you have to have an oxygen mask on just to live!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> Seems you do as well.
> You seem to be trolling me a lot, maybe if you put that superior intellect of yours to better use we would have some clean air.?
> I often wonder with all the tech we have just what good does it really do? All I see is a generation of Youtube face book people hell bent on wasting there lives away! Well I am old and have but a short time left on this planet so you young ones will have to deal with this shit NOT me! For now the air is fine wait till you have to have an oxygen mask on just to live!



I work from home and hate polar bears.


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I work from home.



Not as much as you think. Why don't you do some thing? I mean you have the superior intellect and can do no wrong so put that thing to good use and start to come up with a plan to solve this problem. The tools are there and the tech we have! You could make billions if you just used that superior intellect you show us all the time!


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

Sheer fact is a lot of money is being made through the burning of fossil fuels. 

Even with perfectly good alternative like Thorium reactors known to work, it needs money to give it proper traction and those with the money to fund it are either the Government or companies banking from the burning of fossil fuels.


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> Sheer fact is a lot of money is being made through the burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> Even with perfectly good alternative like Thorium reactors known to work, it needs money to give it proper traction and those with the money to fund it are either the Government or companies banking from the burning of fossil fuels.



Not to worry as there is only so much fossil fuel left. Soon there will be none and that will force a change!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

trickson said:


> Not as much as you think. Why don't you do some thing? I mean you have the superior intellect and can do no wrong so put that thing to good use and start to come up with a plan to solve this problem. The tools are there and the tech we have! You could make billions if you just used that superior intellect you show us all the time!



Because I don't care?


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Because I don't care?



But with out your superior intellect to solve the worlds problems you will be condemning an entire world to global warming!


----------



## Drone (Nov 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> Even with perfectly good alternative like Thorium reactors


And what's good about it? How to manage all the waste? It's highly toxic and radioactive. Fossil fuels are crap but at least they won't make us glow in the dark.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

Drone said:


> And what's good about it? How to manage all the waste? It's highly toxic and radioactive. Fossil fuels are crap but at least they won't make us glow in the dark.



You clearly know nothing about it. 

I recommend you do some research. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Advantages

That might be a good start.


----------



## trickson (Nov 13, 2012)

Drone said:


> And what's good about it? How to manage all the waste? It's highly toxic and radioactive. Fossil fuels are crap but at least they won't make us glow in the dark.



LOL. thing is they are finite, Oil is going to run out sooner or later and then what? Just what is left? Coal? Yeah coal driven cars and trucks! 
We do need to look at things like this. the waste can be safely disposed of we have thousands of miles of desert that we can put the crap. See it is this kind of crap thinking that has the USA in a quagmire you people think that all forms of nuclear power should be taken off the table yet the rest of the world is using it. Isn't Germany and France like 90% nuclear power? While America still uses coal and Oil as the main source of generating power. What a fucking joke!


----------



## Drone (Nov 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> You clearly know nothing about it.
> 
> I recommend you do some research.
> 
> That might be a good start.



Here's a snippet from your fantastic wikipedia link



> There is also a need to manage the waste, which is still very radioactive



However I dunno maybe you're an uber expert in that then ... if so then my bad.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

Drone said:


> Here's a snippet from your fantastic wikipedia link
> 
> 
> 
> However I dunno maybe you're an uber expert in that then ... if so then my bad.



You don't have to be an uber expert, you just have to know how to read. 

Thorium offers a spectacular solution to the challenge of 4.5 billion year decay rates of Uranium byproducts. 83% of Thorium byproducts decay in 100 years’ time, and 99.9% of byproducts have become inert in a mere 300 years.

"Destruction of existing long lived nuclear wastes." The LFTR can "burn" problematic radioactive waste with transuranic elements from traditional solid-fuel nuclear reactors without producing new transuranic waste in the process, thus solving the long term high level waste problem by turning the liability into an asset.

It can run off waste from traditional reactors. 

It isn't where it ought to be yet, which is why funding is still needed. It has great potential. It can breed with its own waste and if they get it at a 1:1 then its almost like free energy, near unity. 

Lower fuel cost.
Reactor efficiency.
Thorium abundance
No shortage of natural resources.
Destruction of existing long lived nuclear wastes. 
Fail safe core.
No co2... 

To name a few...

Its automatically perceived negatively in general. People hear reactor, think nuclear and think danger.


----------



## Peter1986C (Nov 13, 2012)

@ Trickson: All German NPPs will be closed by 2022. This new legislation has come into existence because Fukushima Daiichi got into trouble during the latest quake in Japan. That disaster and the one at Cherno (among others) made the Germans decide that it enough is enough.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Because I don't care?



Can't tell if trolling blah blah but pretty fucking reckless, regardless. Especially for a father who I know "cares"about his kids. Even with this climate change shit aside as David Letterman said "I have an 11-year-old son. What's the world going to be like when he is my age?"

Staying out of this thread now.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 13, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Can't tell if trolling blah blah but pretty fucking reckless, regardless. Especially for a father who I know "cares"about his kids. Even with this climate change shit aside as David Letterman said "I have an 11-year-old son. What's the world going to be like when he is my age?"



Nothing I can make a difference in? Ill teach my kids how to survive the world and its BS man made or nature as I cannot control either. That's the problem with a lot of people today. They really believe they have control over things. You have none. Zero. People are gonna be people. Governments will always try and gain control by any means and the only thing you can do is teach your children how to survive. You let me know when you think you can control the weather and governments and Ill start listening. Until then I DON'T CARE.



Chevalr1c said:


> @ Trickson: All German NPPs will be closed by 2022. This new legislation has come into existence because Fukushima Daiichi got into trouble during the latest quake in Japan. That disaster and the one at Cherno (among others) made the Germans decide that it enough is enough.


 What are they going too? I think closing NPP is stupid unless those crafty Krauts came up with something better.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Nothing I can make a difference in? Ill teach my kids how to survive the world and its BS man made or nature as I cannot control either. That's the problem with a lot of people today. They really believe they have control over things. You have none. Zero. People are gonna be people. Governments will always try and gain control by any means and the only thing you can do is teach your children how to survive. You let me know when you think you can control the weather and governments and Ill start listening. Until then I DON'T CARE.



Well I have news for you, I can control weather! I have climate control in both my house and my car so you sir are wrong!

And people already control governments, they are just shitty. I can't guarantee the next wave of ppl will be any less shity either.


----------



## Drone (Nov 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> "Destruction of existing long lived nuclear wastes." The LFTR can "burn" problematic radioactive waste with transuranic elements from traditional solid-fuel nuclear reactors without producing new transuranic waste in the process, thus solving the long term high level waste problem by turning the liability into an asset.
> 
> It can run off waste from traditional reactors.
> 
> ...



If it can easily deal with its own waste why did they list waste treatment as a challenge? Or wiki is full of shit again?  Radioactive waste can't just be "burnt". Energy don't appear and disappear, it's conserved. Jiggly subatomic particles won't just stop flying. 
Thorium is abundant but its extraction and transportation isn't easy because it's pyrophoric. 

Many things have great potential (photovoltaics and wind power) which deserve funding as nothing else but if it's one of them so be it *shrugs*


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 13, 2012)

Drone said:


> If it can easily deal with its own waste why did they list waste treatment as a challenge? Or wiki is full of shit again?  Radioactive waste can't just be "burnt". Energy don't appear and disappear, it's conserved. Jiggly subatomic particles won't just stop flying.
> Thorium is abundant but its extraction and transportation isn't easy because it's pyrophoric.
> 
> Many things have great potential (photovoltaics and wind power) which deserve funding as nothing else but if it's one of them so be it *shrugs*



Molten Salt Reactor, uses a moderated nuclear breeding reaction involving Thorium 232 and Uranium 233 in a Fluoride-Lithium-Beryllium molten salt fuel, the system can be improved upon providing greater breeding yields. 

Due to the fuel component being a high temperature, low pressure liquid, the reaction vessel never exceeds a pressure of .5 MPa, more than an order of magnitude less than the high pressures of solid-fueled nuclear reactors, which often exceed 15 MPa.22.

Thorium’s improvement over conventional fuel cycles, produces only 1.6kg of Plutonium, .3kg of Americium, and 5.4kg of Minor Actinides over 30 years of energy production nothing when compared to the hundreds of kilograms of each produced by Uranium cycles. 

Thorium fuel cycles are proven to eliminate virtually all of the problems preventing Uranium fuel cycles from displacing fossil fuels as a main fuel source, and the science behind the technology shows that it is a viable candidate for global power production. Wind and sun are not consistent, this would be. The little issues it has is nothing that some good funding couldn't get rid of.


----------



## trickson (Nov 18, 2012)

This is just how I feel about this issue. Enjoy.


----------



## Jetster (Nov 19, 2012)

trickson said:


> This is just how I feel about this issue. Enjoy.



Perfect. Pack your shit folks


----------



## Super XP (Nov 19, 2012)

Chevalr1c said:


> What is going to change? The climate? We all know global warming is real. No need to point that out. What I meant with the "paradox" is the seemingly contradicting "growth" of ice (due to drift-ice packing together, as we know now) and melting of ice. That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> I know it is not going to fix anything, but people still tend to think relying on governments is the solution to everything. Science might yet solve it nonetheless.


This Global Warming nonesence is a deliberate scene to tax the crap out of people so a select few can get richer. The so called Man Made Global Warming is a Hoax. If there is warming, it's not caused by man, but a natural process cycle. 
Fossil fuels is another manipulated Hoax to give people the illusion that we are running out of it oil.   fossil fuels = Oil? LOL, Umm, no. Oil naturally occurs over time and eventually replenishes itself.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 19, 2012)

So what are you a fucking psychic? I think it's too early to tell the exact cause(s) but the facts are clear that there IS warming over the last 30 years. Has not been a colder-than-average month the entire time and the ice at the poles is melting fast. You sure aren't looking at science based on that crap you just spewed. You're just a wackjob conspiracy theorist. And even if it wasn't specifically "fossil fuels", using less of that dirty, hard-to-find and process crap is better for everyone and every remaining species on the planet.

And no "select few" get rich at the expense of others quite like oil executives. So give me a damn break.


----------



## MT Alex (Nov 19, 2012)

What a crock.  That "if you're 27 years old" crap about colder than average months is just that, crap.  It's a new shocking meme to steer the masses, nothing more.  I had no idea what the hell you were talking about, so I copy pasted "Has not been a colder-than-average month" straight from your post into google.  The first nine posts are just what you are talking about, and none are older than three days.  The tenth is from Ohio, titled "October recap: 3rd consecutive cooler-than-average month."


----------



## trickson (Nov 19, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> So what are you a fucking psychic? I think it's too early to tell the exact cause(s) but the facts are clear that there IS warming over the last 30 years. Has not been a colder-than-average month the entire time and the ice at the poles is melting fast. You sure aren't looking at science based on that crap you just spewed. You're just a wackjob conspiracy theorist. And even if it wasn't specifically "fossil fuels", using less of that dirty, hard-to-find and process crap is better for everyone and every remaining species on the planet.
> 
> And no "select few" get rich at the expense of others quite like oil executives. So give me a damn break.



Yes I predict the planet will be just fine till the day I die. After that I do not give 2 fucks what happens. And really why should I worry about it even now? I do not care! I also predict this planet will be here for another 10 trillion years. Am I supposed to worry about that too? Get over your self. just live on it enjoy it for the 80 or so years you get because I can tell you this WE ALL DIE! But this planet? Yeah it will still be here!


----------



## MT Alex (Nov 19, 2012)

Another dandy about the new shocking meme, from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...-experienced-many-colder-than-average-months/



> This is not even remotely the case, though it certainly makes for an astonishing, alarmist headline.


----------



## Drone (Nov 19, 2012)

trickson said:


> Yes I predict the planet will be just fine till the day I die. After that I do not give 2 fucks what happens. And really why should I worry about it even now? I do not care! I also predict this planet will be here for another 10 trillion years. Am I supposed to worry about that too? Get over your self. just live on it enjoy it for the 80 or so years you get because I can tell you this WE ALL DIE! But this planet? Yeah it will still be here!



'I-don't-givafuck' attitude isn't something really awsum but _you have a point_. All those people screaming with foaming mouths how 'humans destroy Earth' actually don't do a single fucking thing to stop it. If you look closely they all have cars, they use electricity, they exhale CO2 and so on. The real thing is: if people (each and everyone of us, absolutely everyone) really cared, this world wouldn't had been like this now. It really seems that people don't really love this beautiful planet if they have no will to keep it clean.


Speaking for myself: I don't have a car, I don't smoke, I use electric power as less as I can, I've planted a dozen of trees and saved a tiny forest from wildfire but even all these things don't make me feel any better. Because it hardly changes anything. I just live my life.


----------



## trickson (Nov 19, 2012)

I love how people say they planted tress. That is an oxymoron, The trees were planted already if you think about it, You had to go to the plant store to get the tree that you plant right? Well that tree was planted before you put it in front of you over sized home you have to heat! 
You do not have a car? So you take the bus right or the train or whatever form of public transportation there is right? Well YOU FAILED! Do you eat food from the store? Well I have news for you that food got there by a fossil fuel burning big rig, Another FAIL. You are on a computer or smart phone or iPad right? Got news for you it took more energy to make that thing and trans port it to you than you think. See no matter what YOU do there is always some thing that will counter balance it in a big way. Good old Al Gore spreading his BS all over the place. Soon every person will have to pay a carbon tax just to breath and fart! And that assclown got the Nobel prize? For what? Hell I think I should get one to because I am alive as well!


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 19, 2012)

Please watch this to learn facts about climate change and why people tell you various things about it.










This is from UC Berkeley, not some random internet video. There is no math or complex language. It should be mandatory before engaging in any climate discussions.

Watch the other lectures for Letters and Science C70V (aka Physics for Future Presidents) to be able to pwn people in all physics topics related discussions.


----------



## trickson (Nov 19, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> Please watch this to learn facts about climate change and why people tell you various things about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is just to long to watch maybe you could give us a general run down of it? You know put it terms we could understand, Yes you can use cartoons if you have too. Maybe a popup book or some thing?


----------



## Drone (Nov 19, 2012)

trickson said:


> I love how people say they planted tress. That is an oxymoron, The trees were planted already if you think about it, You had to go to the plant store to get the tree that you plant right? Well that tree was planted before you put it in front of you


Trees were planted by my granddad before me and now it was just my turn. I didn't buy anything from store. So you failed.



> You do not have a car? So you take the bus right or the train or whatever form of public transportation there is right? Well YOU FAILED!


I walk and when I have to. So you fail.



> Do you eat food from the store? Well I have news for you that food got there by a fossil fuel burning big rig, Another FAIL.


Another fail for you. 90% of food is from my uncle's garden.



> You are on a computer or smart phone or iPad right? Got news for you it took more energy to make that thing and trans port it to you than you think. See no matter what YOU do there is always some thing that will counter balance it in a big way.


And this is news? I'm only responsible for myself. So no need to talk some crap if you have no idea about the things that happening on the other end.


----------



## trickson (Nov 19, 2012)

Drone said:


> Trees were planted by my granddad before me and now it was just my turn. I didn't buy anything from store. So you failed.
> 
> I walk and when I have to. So you fail.
> 
> ...



so you crawl out from your rock every now an again? Man YOU got it going ON! Good for you. Thank you because every thing YOU do not use I will gladly!


----------



## Drone (Nov 19, 2012)

What it go to do with rock? Your logic is meaningless. It sucks to be you then, use whatever you want, I couldn't care less. Like I said before I'm responsible for myself only. Go play your battlefield.


----------



## trickson (Nov 19, 2012)

Drone said:


> What it go to do with rock? Your logic is meaningless. It sucks to be you then, use whatever you want, I couldn't care less. Like I said before I'm responsible for myself only. Go play your battlefield.



Let me see. The way you make it sound is as if you live in some bubble. you get all you food from the farm on site. You live with out going any place like a store or in town as you walk every were. Do you have any connection with the outside other than the internet? You do not go to the store? Every thing you said to me is like a person that lives off the land. Yet you are on line so some where down the line that thing got to you some how. Are you a Gennie?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 19, 2012)

trickson said:


> That is just to long to watch maybe you could give us a general run down of it? You know put it terms we could understand, Yes you can use cartoons if you have too. Maybe a popup book or some thing?



It doesn't use any math, or complex language. If you want to understand a complex issue you have to invest some time, or shut up and chant the name of whatever god you believe in


----------



## brandonwh64 (Nov 19, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> It doesn't use any math, or complex language. If you want to understand a complex issue you have to invest some time, or shut up and chant the name of whatever god you believe in



Nail has been hit on the head!


----------



## trickson (Nov 19, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> It doesn't use any math, or complex language. If you want to understand a complex issue you have to invest some time, or shut up and chant the name of whatever god you believe in



What? You mean you can not say one way or there other? I mean come on man there is ether global warming or not. It is ether caused by man or not. 
I personally could careless. I know I am not going to be on it that much longer. My GOD is invisible and has never told me his name.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 19, 2012)

trickson said:


> What? You mean you can not say one way or there other? I mean come on man there is ether global warming or not. It is ether caused by man or not.
> I personally could careless. I know I am not going to be on it that much longer. My GOD is invisible and has never told me his name.



The consensus is that there is 0.64°C to 0.69°C man-made warming so far.

Which won't help you understand the issue any better


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 19, 2012)

Someone just shut the thread down.  It's turned into the typical pseudo science and political piss fight that I fully expect from so many posts that end up in this bloody infernal "science and technology" forum.

The most sense I've read in the past few pages has been from Mailman.  He's hit it on the head.  It doesn't matter what's happening because there is jack shit you or anybody else is going to do about it.

In France, the worlds fledgling fusion project ITER is starting to get built up but it's costs are phenomenal.  Fusion will happen one day, it's just a matter of time and technology catching up with the science.

But it's so far in the future in political lifespans that any government that invests heavily in it will NOT see it's fruition.  It wont benefit their election chances.  Politics is governed by money and right now, there are no incentives to go green.  We still have enough of those old fossil fuels.

So, when coal/petrol runs out we'll need nuclear (fission) until fusion comes along (which needs a miracle breakthrough or some heavy investment).

Meanwhile we get more babies, less natural  land and more urban areas.  Our seas fill with shit and it's all going to be bad for someone eventually.  But it wont be me.  It wont be my offspring.  

And the earth wont die.  It doesn't have that capacity.  It's a rock and we exist on it - nothing more.  We could all work together for world peace and green sustainability and we could all one day get there.

So what?  Life is not guaranteed.  Ask T-Rex.  Wait for the continents to drift together again.  Wait for a meteor strike (there will be one again one day). Wait for a super virus.  Wait for mecha Bieber.

Something out there will one day end life.  All we can do now is survive.  And comfortably for 21st century western people - surviving is fun.  Ask someone is Sudan if they give a shit about global warming and eco-refill pouches when some idiot warlord burns down a village.

Ask a third world child whose brother has just been adopted by Madonna if he cares about global warming when he can't even find a grain of rice for his emaciated belly.

Should we do something? Yes.  Help an old lady across the road.  Help out at a soup kitchen, crunch for research (and suck mains power while you're at it), help clean out a river or keep a beach free of fishing twine.

But can you stop the big things happening?  No. You can't.  You can't stop the relentless march of governments and money.  You will do what they make you do.  And you will survive regardless.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 19, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> that I fully expect from so many posts that end up in this bloody infernal "science and technology" forum



yeah i had higher expectations, too



the54thvoid said:


> when coal/petrol runs out



not any time soon



the54thvoid said:


> there is jack shit you or anybody else is going to do about it



there is nothing anyone in the western world can do, that's why it's out of the news. developing countries will drive climate change in the next 50 years.


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 19, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> yeah i had higher expectations, too



I saw all these things coming.  If we have a science forum it should have explicit banning rules regarding bringing in pseudo science and religion.

Yeah, i know coal's safe for a while.  Too many billions of years of life to be excavated for us.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 19, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> I saw all these things coming.  If we have a science forum it should have explicit banning rules regarding bringing in pseudo science and religion.
> 
> Yeah, i know coal's safe for a while.  Too many billions of years of life to be excavated for us.



that's an interesting idea. but long term perspective is that everybody ends up being banned from the forum


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 19, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> that's an interesting idea. but long term perspective is that everybody is banned from the forum



lol

Also,



W1zzard said:


> there is nothing anyone in the western world can do, that's why it's out of the news. developing countries will drive climate change in the next 50 years.



And who's going to invest in that infrastructure? cough* America* cough *China* cough *everyone*


----------



## trickson (Nov 19, 2012)

The problem is that it take a scientist to point this stuff out to us. We are just the drones, We work, We play, we live. It is above the "normal" persons head and this is why many many millions of people just do not care. they see it just like Millions of others do, There is NOTHING I can do about it. Even if I was to move to the mountains and live like some hermit it will not change a thing. Then you get the ones that are the smartest on forums knocking and making us not so smart ones feel like crap for saying what we say. 
Tell me one thing that I can do that would change what Mother Earth is going to do? I recycle! I walk when I can where I can. I eat cows as much as I can! And pigs and chickens. I am doing my part as much as my tiny little brain will let me. I am not like all of you that know tons more than I do. I just think there is nothing that can be done from my end. I can not make any one stop doing any thing let alone tell say China to stop using fossil fuels for manufacturing the things we buy here in America!   

Berate and belittle away at me now for my lack of education and low intelligence if you will.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 19, 2012)

trickson said:


> There is NOTHING I can do about it.



so you don't care about god, news, people around you ? can't do anything about those, too. Humans are curious and want to understand things.. a good thing



the54thvoid said:


> And who's going to invest in that infrastructure? cough* America* cough *China* cough *everyone*



Not sure what infrastructure you are talking about. US and Europe are essentially broke and don't even have money to feed their poorest.

Developing countries where people are just getting fridges and cars won't give a shit about climate change (and they have every right to not care imo).

Investment happens where money is to be made


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 19, 2012)

I think at times like these we need to remember the teachings of the worlds greatest prophets,
Ted Theodore Logan and Bill S Preston - Be excellent to one another.

By infrastructure i meant albeit politely the ransacking of natural resources by western companies.  China already has massive influence i Africa but I'm not anti-China.  By all accounts their business model is better than many Western counterparts.


----------



## trickson (Nov 19, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> so you don't care about god, news, people around you ?



I care about God as my beliefs say to. The news? No not really. People around me? Yeah if some one is in need I do my best to help. But that is about it.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Nov 19, 2012)

Climate Change is not that bad, We won't be extinct, the planet won't "die", we will just be fine. If the planet really "changes climate", it will just re-fix itself. resources won't run out, we are not throwing them outside the planet anyway aside from a few spaceships and satellites. and small asteroids coming in with resources are counter-balancing them anyway too.

Unless something massive and external comes like a big solar flare or asteroid we will be just fine. also, We have survived a couple of ice ages and "doomsday" events without modern technology and with fewer numbers.

to prevent this man-made climate change we would need to stop using almost everything we use in our day to day lives. and we cannot do that, we might as well live in the caves, which will also be the outcome if we happen to "destroy" the planet with climate change in a long enough timeline. I would rather live comfortable today than thinking about the potential miserable lives of the future humans.

only solution is to move forward in technology so that we can develop ways to reduce the effects or maybe adapt to them. but not completely stop using them.

Humans advances in technology because of the desire to make lives easier, and to do more things, fueled by the people's wants, needs and a little bit of curiosity. If we really felt the need to make changes and if the planet is really becoming hard to live in we would surely develop the technology to make lives easier(again).


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 19, 2012)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ent/en/embeds/flash/4-degrees-large-map-final


----------



## Super XP (Nov 19, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> So what are you a fucking psychic? I think it's too early to tell the exact cause(s) but the facts are clear that there IS warming over the last 30 years. Has not been a colder-than-average month the entire time and the ice at the poles is melting fast. You sure aren't looking at science based on that crap you just spewed. You're just a wackjob conspiracy theorist. And even if it wasn't specifically "fossil fuels", using less of that dirty, hard-to-find and process crap is better for everyone and every remaining species on the planet.
> 
> And no "select few" get rich at the expense of others quite like oil executives. So give me a damn break.


There was warming 100+ years ago, there was warming 1000+ years ago. How do you think ships passed through the North Pole, you know the time where there was hardly any ice there. 

I am all for Clean Energy and Cold Fusion and Clean Air etc. but the issue which I've already stated is these A-Holes are going to use anything they can Tax the SHIT out of us :shadedshu


----------



## MT Alex (Nov 20, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> Please watch this to learn facts about climate change and why people tell you various things about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ha!  Yes, because UC Berkeley has a historical reputation for being completely non biased and centric in its ideology - much like the John Birch Society.


----------



## Super XP (Nov 20, 2012)

New Study Thoroughly Debunks Global Warming, Will Media Notice?


> In the past several weeks as much of the nation suffered under a massive heatwave, global warming-obsessed media depicted the high temperatures as *evidence of Nobel laureate Al Gore's favorite money-making scam.*
> 
> Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...lobal-warming-will-media-notice#ixzz2CjXw07B5


----------



## Peter1986C (Nov 20, 2012)

^ They profile themselves as conservative (it is in the last line of text in their logo). --> Crap source.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 20, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> Please watch this to learn facts about climate change and why people tell you various things about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm very open to learning new things W1zz. Do you have any sources outside of Berkley that would be reputable? I only ask because you are not from the US and don't have any idea how BAT SHIT CRAZY that school tends to be. They are worse then an evangelical preacher talking about how life started only 2000 years ago. Yeah I said it.....worse then the evangelicals. That school should have been shut down DECADES ago.

I'm not a climate denier by the way. I just like non-biased facts on the matter.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 20, 2012)

If there is enough overwhelming evidence and consensus in the scientific community to suggest that warming isn't happening and further that it isn't caused by us, scientists will gladly follow the facts. 

A good book to read. 

Introduction to Modern Climate Change

by Andrew Dessler


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 20, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> If there is enough overwhelming evidence and consensus in the scientific community to suggest that warming isn't happening and further that it isn't caused by us, scientists will gladly follow the facts.
> 
> A good book to read.
> 
> ...



Al lot of the evidence I have seen has been circumstantial. Now with that being said I do believe man is having a negative impact on the world. Not by the emissions we produce so much as to the amount of deforestation we practice. People assume its just the gases we produce when in fact its the filters (trees) we have removed. The WORST offender of this is Brazil. However our governments think taxing its OWN people will solve the issue. One thing I can tell you with 100% certainty is taxes will not fix the Ozone. Comprehensive forestation will. Our Oceans are now the biggest producer of C02 due to their acidity PEOPLE gave them by removing so much of what filtered the air (trees). Turning off all man made things (cars, factories, planes) wouldn't make a difference because of this. It would take a 100+ years of ZERO fossil fuel burning and 100% of the air forests INTACT to turn this thing around. (That was the study numbers I read a few years back). 

So the bottom line is stop crying about carbon taxes. They are just to make the rich richer. Go out side and plant a tree and write a letter to the UN to embargo any nation that practices slash and burn deforestation.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Nov 20, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I'm very open to learning new things W1zz. Do you have any sources outside of Berkley that would be reputable? I only ask because you are not from the US and don't have any idea how BAT SHIT CRAZY that school tends to be..



Thanks for clearing that up.     

That way you don't have listen to what the man says or do any kind of thinking that may be hard for you.

Life is really that simple, isn't it?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 20, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> That way you don't have listen to what the man says or do any kind of thinking that may be hard for you.
> 
> Life is really that simple, isn't it?



Anything out of Berkley has to be questioned. They are left of Lennon.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 20, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> It doesn't use any math, or complex language. If you want to understand a complex issue you have to invest some time, or shut up and chant the name of whatever god you believe in



Oh but surely it's all just an "Al Gore scam". Really, dude, you are wise to generally question "the world" and people and their motives etc but you are really misguided and taking it way too far if you think "global warming" is an total pre-meditated scam. Outside of all the evidence to the contrary, there are much better ways of getting rich, especially for "connected" people like Al Gore. 

And you know, Mailman, Berkeley also gave us a lot of awesome-sauce like much of what we know today as "Unix".

Yeah Carbon Taxes are weak and won't do crap really and only serve to make skeptics more skeptical as it involves a "tax".


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 20, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Oh but surely it's all just an "Al Gore scam". Really, dude, you are wise to generally question "the world" and people and their motives etc but you are really misguided and taking it way too far if you think "global warming" is an total pre-meditated scam. Outside of all the evidence to the contrary, there are much better ways of getting rich, especially for "connected" people like Al Gore.
> 
> And you know, Mailman, Berkeley also gave us a lot of awesome-sauce like much of what we know today as "Unix".
> 
> Yeah Carbon Taxes are weak and won't do crap really and only serve to make skeptics more skeptical as it involves a "tax".



Al Gore did more damage to global warming science then the nukes did to Japan. Because of him trying to make government bigger and gain new tax revenue he deligitimized a very serious issue.

Also if you ever read some of what Berkley "Think Tanks" come up with you might change your mind on those dip shits.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 20, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Al lot of the evidence I have seen has been circumstantial. Now with that being said I do believe man is having a negative impact on the world. Not by the emissions we produce so much as to the amount of deforestation we practice. People assume its just the gases we produce when in fact its the filters (trees) we have removed. The WORST offender of this is Brazil. However our governments think taxing its OWN people will solve the issue. One thing I can tell you with 100% certainty is taxes will not fix the Ozone. Comprehensive forestation will. Our Oceans are now the biggest producer of C02 due to their acidity PEOPLE gave them by removing so much of what filtered the air (trees). Turning off all man made things (cars, factories, planes) wouldn't make a difference because of this. It would take a 100+ years of ZERO fossil fuel burning and 100% of the air forests INTACT to turn this thing around. (That was the study numbers I read a few years back).
> 
> So the bottom line is stop crying about carbon taxes. They are just to make the rich richer. Go out side and plant a tree and write a letter to the UN to embargo any nation that practices slash and burn deforestation.



I most certainly agree we aren't just effecting things in one area, and it isn't just one thing to blame, its been cumulative of all the negative things we do that have been adding up over the time span we have been doing them. Ozone has been slowly recovering ever since scientists discovered CFC's were damaging it and created CFC alternatives. Change has to happen soon, we have to start nullifying some of the negative shit we do.  It would definitely take a while to reverse the effects, even if we stopped releasing all our CO2 now it would take around 100 years for our "treatment" (whatever that may be) to take effect due to the lag in the Earth's Climate system. Co2 that we release today won't effect our climate till 100+ years from now and the warming we feel today is the result of the post industrial era. We can't really blame them cause they had no idea about climate change then, now we do. 

I'd also like to add that I am not crying about carbon taxes. Only reason why I assume you refer to me is cause you quoted me. Didn't even mention a thing about carbon taxes in that quote.


----------



## erocker (Nov 20, 2012)

Everybody recycle and think about how you contribute to environmental factors and how you can create less of an impact on how you pollute it.


You're welcome.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Nov 20, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Anything out of Berkley has to be questioned. They are left of Lennon.



John Lennon? 

The world is so simple after all. 



erocker said:


> Everybody recycle and think about how you contribute to environmental factors and how you can create less of an impact on how you pollute it.
> 
> 
> You're welcome.



I've stopped using batteries.  No more wireless keyboards for me.  Seemed like I was going through batteries every week.

And they are one of the worst things for the environment.  Apart for the whole global warming thing that is.


----------



## DannibusX (Nov 21, 2012)

I just finished watching the entirety of the lecture.  Thanks for posting it W1zzard.

I'm not sure if MM and MT_Alex watched any of it, but the professor was excellent at discussing what was going on, exactly how much the temperature has risen from "the concensus" at IPCC and that the majority of the politicians, press and even some of the scientific community uses alarmism to scare people into doing things to solve the problem.

He makes some excellent points about what we can do to change the trend of global warming/climate change, but nothing we do will change a thing because of emerging economies around the world, namely, China.  Surprisingly, he endorses Natural Gas fueled power plants over coal powered because natural gas emits nearly half as much Carbon Dioxide as a traditional coal plant.

Also, surprisingly, he endorses Fracking in this lecture to get at our large reserves of natural gas and even points out the fact that fracking has reduced the cost of natural gas by a large margin.  I forget exactly what unit of measure but from his lecture the cost of natural gas has gone down from $12 per unit of measure to $2.50 per unit of measure.  He also suggests that the US government share the fracking techniques with the Chinese so they can bring the cost of their own natural gas reserves below what it would cost to build and fuel coal powered plants, actually cutting their carbon output, theoretically (more like actually, but it can't be absolutely proven right now) in half.

There is a lot that can be done to solve the problem with climate change, and a lot of that can be done by switching from coal to natural gas/nuclear technologies while we wait for more "green" technologies to become affordable enough to replace the fossil fueled ones.  No one solution is perfect.

Edit:  Also, the professor was very specific.  We are at the same temperature as we were before the little ice age occured, with the possiblity of the warming to continue to higher levels than civilization has seen before, but theres no proof that the warming will be nearly as bad as the alarmists say, that New York won't be flooded any time soon.  He actually mentioned Al Gore's movie and the scientist that said New York would be flooded, but New York won't flood, at the current rate of warming, for 1000 years.  Al Gore's movie just happened to omit that part.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 21, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> that fracking has reduced the cost of natural gas by a large margin



http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm

It's like a new gold rush out there (continental US). Look for words "unconventional gas" in news coverage. The US will probably become an exporter of LNG (liquid natural gas); it is importing now. Right now the biggest issue seems to be political (do we want to sell our precious gas to china and india?) and the import-focused transport networks are not yet configured for export.

good read: http://today.duke.edu/2012/11/hydrocarbons


----------



## DannibusX (Nov 21, 2012)

Can't wait to drive my Hydrocarbon powered Eco-Vehicle.

/giggle


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 21, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> Can't wait to drive my Hydrocarbon powered Eco-Vehicle.
> 
> /giggle



I just learned: "Hydrocarbon is an organic compound consisting *entirely* of hydrogen and carbon", before that I thought Hydrocarbon = any compound that contains H and C


----------



## DannibusX (Nov 21, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> I just learned: "Hydrocarbon is an organic compound consisting *entirely* of hydrogen and carbon", before that I thought Hydrocarbon = any compound that contains H and C



Cars powered by marijuana.

Green technology at its best.

(I know, I know THC is not HC)


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 21, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Also I aint gonna argue we spend way to much on bombs.



Not that I say that I defend how much the US spends on our (I say our, as I am American,) military, but keep in mind that not all of that is spent on bombs and the other subsequent effects that cutting te DoD's budget would do. Keep in mind that the US Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world. Cutting military spending means that there is a good chance that people are going to lose their jobs, not just reduce then number of weapons being built. Also keep in mind that there tend to be private companies that produce a lot of these weapons, not state-owned factories, this isn't China and then those companies who are contracted out to do this work lose business. Reducing the DoD's budget too quickly could hurt our economy if it isn't done correctly.

As for global warming, clearly we need to plant more trees and not be ridiculous when it comes to monitoring our carbon foot print. I can't say that cap and trade is the best thing for the industry.


----------



## magibeg (Nov 25, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Anything out of Berkley has to be questioned. They are left of Lennon.



What sources are valid to you? Most studies are done by either governments or universities. The video W1z linked is simply a current explanation, not a research report. The information he gave was correct but I don't think you watched any of it.

So yea, can you give me a list or something of acceptable sources because if we rule out government and universities there isn't going to be any sources.


----------



## MT Alex (Nov 25, 2012)

I wondered when you were going to chime in.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 25, 2012)

magibeg said:


> What sources are valid to you? Most studies are done by either governments or universities. The video W1z linked is simply a current explanation, not a research report. The information he gave was correct but I don't think you watched any of it.
> 
> So yea, can you give me a list or something of acceptable sources because if we rule out government and universities there isn't going to be any sources.



Not universities man. Berkley. Crackpot central of the world. As for governments I wouldn't believe one if they told me the sky was blue. If you do then I hear Darfur is a nice vacation destination.


----------



## magibeg (Nov 26, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Not universities man. Berkley. Crackpot central of the world. As for governments I wouldn't believe one if they told me the sky was blue. If you do then I hear Darfur is a nice vacation destination.



Well the other problem i suppose is that individual papers don't really tell you a lot. If you only want University born peer reviewed research you're basically dooming yourself to reading hundreds if not thousands of individual research papers in order to gain an understanding of what's happening.

In a nut shell though here's the situation:

-Global temperatures appear to be rising
-The upper atmosphere is cooling
-The amount of energy the earth has been getting from the sun hasn't changed significantly
-The amount of energy leaving the earth has been dropping at the specific wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

And that is essentially the TL;DR argument for man made global warming.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 28, 2012)




----------



## 3870x2 (Nov 28, 2012)

Chevalr1c said:


> ^ They profile themselves as conservative (it is in the last line of text in their logo). --> Crap source.



If you look at this image:






They show that the earth has been cooling in the past 2000 eyars.  What they fail to point out is what *only* matters: the last 100 years, where we see a spike in temperatures that is close to the hottest point on the graph.  I think that the term _crap news source_ is correct.  Hell, it is the hottest point in the last 1000 years.

This is coming from a person who disagrees with global warming theories.


----------

