How Climate Change is Causing Antarctic Sea-ice to Expand

[Super XP]

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

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

[MT Alex]

Originally Posted by W1zzard

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.

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]

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-sh...#ixzz2CjXw07B5

[Chevalr1c]

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

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by W1zzard

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

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

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]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

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]

Originally Posted by PopcornMachine

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]

Originally Posted by W1zzard

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]

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

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]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

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

John Lennon?

The world is so simple after all.

Originally Posted by erocker

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

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]

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

/giggle

[W1zzard]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

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]

Originally Posted by W1zzard

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]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

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]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

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]

I wondered when you were going to chime in.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by magibeg

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]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

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]