Home | Community | Message Board


High Mountain Compost
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Music, Art, and Media

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Amazon Balloons, Cracker, Nitrous Oxide, pH Test Strips, Portable Greenhouse, Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleautomanM
blasted chipmunk
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/18/03
Posts: 8,271
The Day After Tomorrow
    #2762251 - 06/04/04 04:11 AM (16 years, 11 months ago)

take some headphones and plenty of mind altering friendlies to see this movie. plot sux, acting mostly sux, music sux, but it sure is pretty to watch!!


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: automan]
    #2762311 - 06/04/04 05:12 AM (16 years, 11 months ago)

the topic (global warming) is the most important thing about this movie.  :smirk:


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJacquesCousteau
Being.
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/10/03
Posts: 7,825
Loc: Everywhere, Everytime.
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2762436 - 06/04/04 08:19 AM (16 years, 11 months ago)

Yeah, too bad the lack of plot and character development will turn away those who might've actually read into the importance of that part...


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLocus
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/11/04
Posts: 6,112
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: JacquesCousteau]
    #2762445 - 06/04/04 08:30 AM (16 years, 11 months ago)

Well the graphics and such look stunning. I'd like to see it just for that.


--------------------

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. ~ Albert Einstein
"Fear is the great barrier to human growth." ~ Dr. Robert Monroe



~~~*Dosis sola facit venenum*~~~

*Check my profile to listen to my music* :smile:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: JacquesCousteau]
    #2763014 - 06/04/04 01:19 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

yeah the science is pretty unfounded, but hopefully it will get the general public to at least ask questions.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleprince_toadstool
Punchline
Registered: 06/14/02
Posts: 285
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: automan]
    #2763081 - 06/04/04 01:42 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

man I went to see this movie cuz with the hype I had heard, I thought it was gonna be /the shit/ like the end of the world movies from y2k, when everone thought "hell it might happen."

very dissappointed. it wasn't terrible, but it wasn't better than a B. especially the gay ending


--------------------
"Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers." Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: automan]
    #2763550 - 06/04/04 03:33 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

Ya the movie was shit, but the special effects were cool. I liked when about 10 huge tornadoes were rippin through LA. Wouldn't mind seeing that happen for real.


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLocus
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/11/04
Posts: 6,112
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2764116 - 06/04/04 06:16 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

Remember though, it is just a movie. I mean it doesn't have to be factual right? I haven't seen this movie, nor do I know what it's about except for seeing a few commercials. But the topic of global warming and pollution really must be addressed ..and if this movie can help at all,(even if it is inaccurate) then that's certainly a good thing.


--------------------

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. ~ Albert Einstein
"Fear is the great barrier to human growth." ~ Dr. Robert Monroe



~~~*Dosis sola facit venenum*~~~

*Check my profile to listen to my music* :smile:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,005
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Locus]
    #2764145 - 06/04/04 06:31 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

I fail to see how global warming and pollution causes massive cataclysms worldwide.. perhaps a pole shift but global warming? pfft That is if I am assuming correctly based on the previews that this movie is about natural global disasters on a large scale..


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLocus
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/11/04
Posts: 6,112
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Shroomism]
    #2764214 - 06/04/04 07:02 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

Eventually in years to come there could be some tremendous worldwide negative effects from global warming and pollution. If not addressed now, there will be no preventing it.


--------------------

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. ~ Albert Einstein
"Fear is the great barrier to human growth." ~ Dr. Robert Monroe



~~~*Dosis sola facit venenum*~~~

*Check my profile to listen to my music* :smile:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinebeatlebangboy
Absinthe-ian
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/31/03
Posts: 2,354
Loc: Bum Fuck Florida
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Locus]
    #2764297 - 06/04/04 09:05 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

The Day After Tomorrow was probably the worst movie of all times. Now I grant you that the effects were like none I have seen before, but by far it was beyond predictable and corny. Was I the only one that noticed that no mist was coming out of the actors mouths? I mean it was supposed to be way below zero and their breath didn't fog up.
Go figya, with all those special effects that went unnoticed.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Shroomism]
    #2764360 - 06/04/04 09:36 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

actually i'm taking a class on global warming right now, and one of the top researchers on climate change in the world is my professor, it's been the best class i've ever taken.

what happens in the movie is unreal.  they base the superstorm and subsequent sudden ice age as what climatologists call a "climate surprise"  most scientists dont see a climate surprise in the next 100 years.  however, past then, who knows. 

we are burning fossil fuels at an ungodly rate, we are double the CO2 (a very powerful greenhouse gas) of normal levels (about 390 ppm we were at 280 at the beginning of hte industrial era and are expected to get to 570 ppm by the end of the century).  it has been proven that CO2 concentration and temperature are directly related.

these are the predictions as posed by the IPCC, just to name a few:

1.  no more glaciers in glacier nat'l park in montana by 2030
2.  1.5-6 C temp change by 2100
3.  more hot days/heat waves--larger range of tropical disease like malaria
4. more flooding, severe weather, more intense precipitation events
5.  increase in hurricanes and their intensities
6. sea level rise (from thermal expansion and land ice on Greenland and Antarctica melting into sea) submerging coastal areas... if the West Antarctic Ice sheet melts... 20 ft sea level rise (we've already risen 20 ft over the past century)
7.  desalination of the ocean from land ice melting causes gulf stream and ocean circulation to cease (premise for the movie)
8.  CO2 being forced into the ocean through mere concentration, acidifying the ocean and destroying the coral reefs

okay, so these are only a few things...and the movie was a little unrealistic in not only the effects but how quickly everything happened.  an ice age is possible... just not in 10 days.  they were pretty accurate on their portrayal of the US government and their irresponsibility.  they're basically denying fact so they can keep burning oil and fossil fuels.

the US emits the most CO2 of anywhere in the world... one gallon of gasoline puts 20 lbs of CO2 in the atmosphere... just think about that when you hop in your SUV and remember that when we sink the developing nations in the south pacific islands... be ready for all the environmental refugees because we sunk their country.

/end rant

but seriously if anyone is interested in learning about the topic, i know alot about it, PM me and i can send you some good info. 

and this isn't a hopeless situation.  we can do something now if we just take action and decide it's important to us.

however, there are already inevitable effects because even if we brought our net CO2 emissions to zero, there are still going to be global warming effects from the CO2 already in the atmosphere... it's already happening

knowledge is power

:sun:
Psily


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLocus
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/11/04
Posts: 6,112
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2764513 - 06/04/04 10:49 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

Yes, I've read many articles pertaining to this. The last one I read a month or two ago or so and there were some pretty frightening predictions. Though still no one cares, and future generations are going to have a lot of trouble with this ..if the world makes it that far anyway, hehe. Of coarse there is a lot that is enevitable already but there are still things that can be prevented if things are done right now.


--------------------

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. ~ Albert Einstein
"Fear is the great barrier to human growth." ~ Dr. Robert Monroe



~~~*Dosis sola facit venenum*~~~

*Check my profile to listen to my music* :smile:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Locus]
    #2764536 - 06/04/04 10:57 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

exactly. we need to take action now if theres any hope for a future for this planet!!


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePositronius
playboy

Registered: 11/27/03
Posts: 947
Loc: montreal-vancouver-tokyo
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Shroomism]
    #2765196 - 06/05/04 02:55 AM (16 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Shroomism said:
I fail to see how global warming and pollution causes massive cataclysms worldwide.. perhaps a pole shift but global warming? pfft That is if I am assuming correctly based on the previews that this movie is about natural global disasters on a large scale..




then you should probably read a few scientific reports, because disaster is very possible.


--------------------
and you know it like a poet, like....babydoll


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLocus
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/11/04
Posts: 6,112
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Positronius]
    #2765280 - 06/05/04 03:27 AM (16 years, 11 months ago)

For a second back there I thought no one was going to agree with me about this stuff haha


--------------------

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. ~ Albert Einstein
"Fear is the great barrier to human growth." ~ Dr. Robert Monroe



~~~*Dosis sola facit venenum*~~~

*Check my profile to listen to my music* :smile:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinevade
veteran

Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 1,737
Loc: Columbus, OHIO
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: automan]
    #2765896 - 06/05/04 12:41 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

yeah, the plot blew, and what the fuck was with the wolves? after that part happened i began to wonder when the dinosuars where gonna come up from under neath all the snow and start roaming the city.  Other then that the special effects rocked...

and donnie darko was in it :grin:


--------------------
I've got this feeling that there's something that I missed...



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLocus
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/11/04
Posts: 6,112
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: vade]
    #2766669 - 06/05/04 06:35 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

haha, how was his acting in this movie?


--------------------

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. ~ Albert Einstein
"Fear is the great barrier to human growth." ~ Dr. Robert Monroe



~~~*Dosis sola facit venenum*~~~

*Check my profile to listen to my music* :smile:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: automan]
    #2769459 - 06/06/04 06:01 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

I'm pissed that this movie sucked so much ass because if they had made it a really GOOD movie, maybe people would have paid attention to the message: its not up to the government to fix this; its up to us - they don't give a shit


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinevade
veteran

Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 1,737
Loc: Columbus, OHIO
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Strumpling]
    #2769590 - 06/06/04 06:53 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Strumpling said:
its not up to the government to fix this; its up to us - they don't give a shit




so true, they don't give a shit.


--------------------
I've got this feeling that there's something that I missed...



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: vade]
    #2769792 - 06/06/04 08:02 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

I'll quote Pres. Bush the First on the Kyoto Protocol:

"The American way of life is non-negotiable." :smirk:


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegarbage

Registered: 06/17/03
Posts: 316
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Locus]
    #2770442 - 06/07/04 12:42 AM (16 years, 11 months ago)

his acting was blah. there was a part in the movie where him and dennis quaid (his dad in the movie) are in a car driving and haing a conversation. the shot looks exactly like the part in donnie darko where he is in the car with his dad. or maybe ive seen dd too many times. the movie itself was a waste of my time. i feel bad for eanyone who had to pay to see that.


--------------------
  Vaporbrothers :smile:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2772379 - 06/07/04 06:41 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

Does anyone remember the interview with Augustus Owsley Stanley III, "The Bear", posted by LearyFan over a year ago. In it, the premire LSD chemist of our times has a lot of great things to say about drugs and , more interestingly, the environment. It is his contention that burning fossil fuels is one of the best things mankind has done for the planet.

Here is a link to the article: http://www.island.org/news/Owsleyinterview3.pdf

The stuff about global warming starts on page 9 when the interviewer says:
"Now let's talk about some of the other ideas that are up on the website. You have some ideas about ecology and global warming that's different than the popular wisdom."

Based on the insights of A.O.S.3 ....

Quote:

we are burning fossil fuels at an ungodly rate, we are double the CO2 (a very powerful greenhouse gas) of normal levels (about 390 ppm we were at 280 at the beginning of hte industrial era and are expected to get to 570 ppm by the end of the century).



I would be curious to know where this CO2 reading came from, both how the reading was derived and from what part(s) of the world and who released this figure.

Quote:

it has been proven that CO2 concentration and temperature are directly related.




CO2 concentration of what? The ocean, if not, which level of the atmosphere? And what temperature: the ocean, the air, the stratosphere? Owsley points out that the temperature of the ocean determines how much CO2 it can absorb, since solubility increases sharply as temperature decreases. So yes, the temperature of the ocean and CO2 concentration in the ocean are directly related. Very basic chemical concept.

Quote:

1. no more glaciers in glacier nat'l park in montana by 2030
2. 1.5-6 C temp change by 2100
3. more hot days/heat waves--larger range of tropical disease like malaria
4. more flooding, severe weather, more intense precipitation events
5. increase in hurricanes and their intensities





More hot days....more flooding....severe weather...these are all empty statements that, without an infrastructure of evidence and outlining of differential conditions, mean essentially nothing. More hot days where, in what range of time, compared to what, how does it fit in to historical cycles we know of, not to mention ones we don't, who is claiming this, what are their motives, etc...?

Quote:

6. sea level rise (from thermal expansion and land ice on Greenland and Antarctica melting into sea) submerging coastal areas... if the West Antarctic Ice sheet melts... 20 ft sea level rise (we've already risen 20 ft over the past century)




Horseshit. The sea level has only risen 10-20 centimeters in the last 100 years, and even so, we do not know how such a change fits into the macro cycles of our planet.

Quote:

8. CO2 being forced into the ocean through mere concentration, acidifying the ocean and destroying the coral reefs





That's rediculous. 99.99% of the Earth's CO2 exists in the ocean. Atmospheric concentration of CO2 has little, if anything, to do with how much CO2 exists in the ocean. It is the temperature of the ocean that determines how much CO2 it will hold.

Quote:

they were pretty accurate on their portrayal of the US government and their irresponsibility. they're basically denying fact so they can keep burning oil and fossil fuels.
...the US emits the most CO2 of anywhere in the world...




Anyone who lives amongst society is equally accountable. We have provided a high demand for fossil fuels and the oil tycoons are sypplying it. Granted, they may have nothing but selfish motives, but my point still stands. We are just as accountable as "the US government".

Quote:

the US emits the most CO2 of anywhere in the world...



The US has, by far, the largest industry of anywhere in the world.

Quote:

however, there are already inevitable effects because even if we brought our net CO2 emissions to zero, there are still going to be global warming effects from the CO2 already in the atmosphere... it's already happening





Everytime it rains, CO2 is scrubbed out of the atmosphere.

Quote:

knowledge is power



But power can be destructive. I think this is an important issue but the debate that exists is pathetic. The movie at topic is evidence of this. Knowledge is useless if it is taken out of context and basically adds up to pseudo-scientific notions that support some politicized world view.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Viveka]
    #2772902 - 06/07/04 09:50 PM (16 years, 11 months ago)

and where is YOUR knowledge founded from? :smirk:

you are clearly uneducated.  the debate is no longer the science, all the science I stated is true and from the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) which is a group of scientists from around the world put together by the United Nations.

the debate is on policy and the media likes to suck in viewers LIKE YOU and make them think that scientists don't think this because we are so addicted to fossil fuels.

and this is not a politicized view, this is the scientific and true view of what is happening.

go to www.ipcc.ch and learn something about what you're talking about before you make a post...

and by the way I wouldn't go to an LSD chemist for my news... especially on climate change. :smirk:


*edit: you are correct about the 10-20 cm, I accidently wrote 20 ft from the prediction.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Edited by Psilygirl (06/07/04 11:06 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2775255 - 06/08/04 05:50 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

you are clearly uneducated.



Ok.  If i'm such an ignoramus then you should have no problem refuting any of the arguments I made in my reply to your post.  So....why haven't you done that?

Quote:

the debate is no longer the science, all the science I stated is true and from the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) which is a group of scientists from around the world put together by the United Nations.





Actually your "science" was pretty elementary to the point of completely failing to grasp basic concepts, such as solubility curves, the scrubbing effect of rain, the difference between centimeters and feet, etc.... :smirk:

Be careful about stating global warming theory as "true" science.  For instance a statistic of surface temperatures may indicate a warming trend, however, the satellite readings don't indicate a warming.  Is it accurate science for the IPCC to completely ignore one set of data, simply because it doesn't support their contention?  (I'll provide a link to the details on that in a minute.) 

It's also pretty laughable that you would be so confident in your position when you claim that all your "true science" comes from the UN's IPCC.  Ever considered checking other sources and opinions?

Quote:

the debate is on policy and the media likes to suck in viewers LIKE YOU and make them think that scientists don't think this because we are so addicted to fossil fuels.





I could just as easily turn that around and say loony college professors like to suck in pupils LIKE YOU and make them believe that an unsubstantiated theory is fact because they are so full of anger about the fact that their socialist utopia where no one consumes resources is a rediculous fantasy.

Quote:

and this is not a politicized view, this is the scientific and true view of what is happening. 




How could you say the debate is on policy in one sentence, and then in the next claim that this is not a politicized view?  Especially when all your information is coming from the UN??  If you take a survey of the scientific community, you'll find that the Kyoto accord, the policy pushed by the UN, is not considered a flawless study.  In fact, there are serious doubts about the soundness of the science involved.  "Consider the following: If our civilization stopped producing carbon dioxide entirely, this would result in a net reduction of six gigatons per year to the atmosphere. This amount is so small in comparison with that produced by nature that it is less than the uncertain-ty in the measurement of carbon dioxide that is transferred in and out of the oceans or the soil and forests each year." - Dr. Tim Ball,environmental consultant and climatology professor for 32 years at the University of Winnipeg

Quote:

go to www.ipcc.ch and learn something about what you're talking about before you make a post...




And I have a website for you, so that you can see a different perspective on the climate change debate.  Do you really trust your one sided view that much?

Here's some things to consider:

Specific examples of glaring omissions, false confidence and misleading statistics in the UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers include the following: 

1. Likely sources of bias in the surface temperature record of the last 150 years, which are well known and considerable, are ignored. The amount of warming is claimed to be known with a false degree of confidence. We do not, in fact, know for certain that the earth has warmed at all.  (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#1 )

2. The profound inconsistency between the recent warming in the surface temperature record, and the absence of warming in the satellite record, is simply shrugged off. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#2 )

3. The enormous, and growing, uncertainty as to the effect of aerosols on climate is masked in the discussion, and is deliberately suppressed in predicting the future. If included, the UN IPCC 100 year prediction would include the possibility of no warming or even cooling. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#3 )

4. The fact that the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions are natural is ignored. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#4 )

5. Advances in climate science that do not support the theory of human interference have been ignored. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#5 )


Quote:

  and by the way I wouldn't go to an LSD chemist for my news... especially on climate change



Of course not, you only trust your professor and the UN  :smirk:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Viveka]
    #2775441 - 06/08/04 07:22 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


Ok.  If i'm such an ignoramus then you should have no problem refuting any of the arguments I made in my reply to your post.  So....why haven't you done that?




I think my main point in all this is that your sources are lacking data to support it's claim, and they are coming from opinion rather than scientific data and research... my knowledge is from thousands of climate geniuses--SCIENTISTS.  not random skeptics.

the skeptics are picking apart the few areas of uncertainty and claiming it as valid evidence that all climate change is completely wrong and that there is no fact in it.  why dont the skeptics address the CERTAINTIES?

Quote:


Actually your "science" was pretty elementary to the point of completely failing to grasp basic concepts, such as solubility curves, the scrubbing effect of rain, the difference between centimeters and feet, etc.... :smirk:




I already explained that I accidently made a typo on centimeters and feet, now you're just making fun of me. :rolleyes: and blatently not listening.

what solubility curves?  CO2 is being pumped into our atmosphere.  based on partial pressures it is being taken up into the ocean, it's one of the carbon sinks, the other being trees.

what the hell is the scrubbing effect of rain?  where is the actual chemistry behind this?  i havent heard of it but i doubt there is anything rain does to "scrub" the atmosphere of its CO2... why is there still 390 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere if this is such a good scrubber?

explain to me the chemical reaction of this process.

Quote:

Be careful about stating global warming theory as "true" science.  For instance a statistic of surface temperatures may indicate a warming trend, however, the satellite readings don't indicate a warming.  Is it accurate science for the IPCC to completely ignore one set of data, simply because it doesn't support their contention?  (I'll provide a link to the details on that in a minute.) 




this just in

and even before that was published, scientists werent totally certain on how the upper troposphere worked... if i recall correctly it has a cooling effect.
"Because of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases, the stratosphere is cooling about five times faster than the troposphere is warming" 
"One reason previous data have not shown enough warming in the troposphere, Fu said, is because the stratosphere influence on the channel 2 temperature trend has never been properly quantified, even though there have been attempts to account for its influence. Those attempts had large uncertainties, so many researchers had simply used the unadjusted channel 2 temperature trends to represent the temperature trends in the middle of the troposphere"
(both from the provided link)




Quote:


It's also pretty laughable that you would be so confident in your position when you claim that all your "true science" comes from the UN's IPCC.  Ever considered checking other sources and opinions?



why would i trust other opinions when i am presented with the data and opinions of thousands of top climate scientists from around the world?

why would i trust the media for SCIENTIFIC information?  or an LSD chemist?  what the hell do they know?  they just have opinions, not facts.  i wouldnt be so quick to trust everything the boob tube tells you, or some random website... does that website look professional or scientific to you??

Quote:


I could just as easily turn that around and say loony college professors like to suck in pupils LIKE YOU and make them believe that an unsubstantiated theory is fact because they are so full of anger about the fact that their socialist utopia where no one consumes resources is a rediculous fantasy.




he is not looney, he is one of the top climate scientists in the world and has been on national television several times.  do you even know my professor?  i think not.  i wouldnt be so fast to make judgemental claims.

Quote:



How could you say the debate is on policy in one sentence, and then in the next claim that this is not a politicized view?  Especially when all your information is coming from the UN??  If you take a survey of the scientific community, you'll find that the Kyoto accord, the policy pushed by the UN, is not considered a flawless study.  In fact, there are serious doubts about the soundness of the science involved.  "Consider the following: If our civilization stopped producing carbon dioxide entirely, this would result in a net reduction of six gigatons per year to the atmosphere. This amount is so small in comparison with that produced by nature that it is less than the uncertain-ty in the measurement of carbon dioxide that is transferred in and out of the oceans or the soil and forests each year." - Dr. Tim Ball,environmental consultant and climatology professor for 32 years at the University of Winnipeg




i never claimed there weren't problems in Kyoto.  and i never said there werent doubts in climate science, it is very complicated especially in feedback mechanisms and forecasting.  but through model validation they have a pretty good idea of whats going to happen and what already is happening.  these general forecasts are accepted by the vast majority of scientists around the world.  the science debate is over, its a policy debate because the science is there, there is model validation and the reason nothing has happened is because of people like you who like to believe something other than the fact.

and the IPCC does indeed address the uncertainties.  but because they are uncertain, why would they publish meaningless data?  these are scientists, remember.

and why are you're "scientists" only acknowledging the uncertainties?  what about the overwhelming certainties???

Quote:


And I have a website for you, so that you can see a different perspective on the climate change debate.  Do you really trust your one sided view that much?





you need to stop listening to one skeptic "scientist" and realize that his opinion is not the majority AT ALL.  why would you trust one so-called scientist with no background info when THOUSANDS of scientists agree on this topic already.  where is his scientific background?

this is not one-sided, this is the unanimous scientific view, and im trusting that, regardless of youre links to skeptics.

Quote:


Here's some things to consider:

Specific examples of glaring omissions, false confidence and misleading statistics in the UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers include the following: 

1. Likely sources of bias in the surface temperature record of the last 150 years, which are well known and considerable, are ignored. The amount of warming is claimed to be known with a false degree of confidence. We do not, in fact, know for certain that the earth has warmed at all.  (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#1 )

2. The profound inconsistency between the recent warming in the surface temperature record, and the absence of warming in the satellite record, is simply shrugged off. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#2 )

3. The enormous, and growing, uncertainty as to the effect of aerosols on climate is masked in the discussion, and is deliberately suppressed in predicting the future. If included, the UN IPCC 100 year prediction would include the possibility of no warming or even cooling. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#3 )

4. The fact that the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions are natural is ignored. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#4 )

5. Advances in climate science that do not support the theory of human interference have been ignored. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#5 )




scientists dont yet fully understand the aerosol effect...
and all the other things you cited are completely foolish.  you are very misconstrued in your facts and i dont know what else to say to that.  everything you quoted is the exact opposite of scientific evidence and the agreement of most scientists in the world

Quote:

 
Of course not, you only trust your professor and the UN  :smirk:



i trust the top scientists from the leading scientific panel on climate change, not some random internet looney who doesnt even know what he's talking about... he's just bored and being one of the very few skeptics selling books trying to make a buck on conspiracy theory or something.

overall, i would say you need to educate yourself a little more on your sources.  you're main problem is you're refusing to recognize the SCIENCE and the agreement of top SCIENTISTS around the world.  why wouldnt you trust thousands of scientists?  thats what i would like to know.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2778023 - 06/09/04 03:30 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

  the skeptics are picking apart the few areas of uncertainty and claiming it as valid evidence that all climate change is completely wrong and that there is no fact in it. why dont the skeptics address the CERTAINTIES?




Incorrect.  I don't claim that climate change is a myth.  In fact the term "climate change" is an oxymoron.  If there has been one constant in climate throughout the history of the planet, it is change. The skeptics are maintaining that we don't have it all figured out.  The reasons the skeptics don't address the "certainites" is because they are only a part of the picture.  One uncertainty could completely negate an entire model based on "certainties".  How can there even be any such thing as a certainty in a model where there are admitted unknowns.  Unknown variable x could destroy the integrity of a theory based only on "true" data.  Global warming theory is a half truth because it claims to be indisputably correct when the fact is, we can't see the whole picture.  We don't fully understand solar and planetary dynamics, the action of the different levels of the atmosphere, cloud science and a whole host of other factors that influence climate.

Quote:

now you're just making fun of me.  and blatently not listening



How could I make an even somewhat coherent point analysis of your arguments if I wasn't listening?

Quote:

what solubility curves? CO2 is being pumped into our atmosphere. based on partial pressures it is being taken up into the ocean, it's one of the carbon sinks, the other being trees



If you are familiar with the concept of CO2 being absorbed by the ocean, you should know about solubility curves. The basic idea is that gas dissolves far more readily in colder water, whereas warmer water holds far less CO2.

Quote:

what the hell is the scrubbing effect of rain? where is the actual chemistry behind this? i havent heard of it but i doubt there is anything rain does to "scrub" the atmosphere of its CO2... 



Have you ever heard of acid rain?  This is where nitric and sulfuric acids, along with gases and solid particles are captured by rain and fall to the Earth. Carbon may dissolve directly into the water as CO2 (carbon dioxide), to attach to water molecules, becoming H2CO3 (carbonic acid). This is a weak acid (the acid in acid rain is a strong acid), and it dissociates--breaks apart in water--to form a balance between H2CO3 molecules, H+(hydrogen ions), HCO3- (bicarbonate ions), and CO32- (carbonate ions). HCO3- and CO32- react in turn to produce OH- (hydroxyl ions). All these negative ions are very effective at capturing the loose H+ ions that come with acid rain.
Do you still doubt that rain has a scrubbing effect?

Quote:

  why is there still 390 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere if this is such a good scrubber?




Because CO2 is constantly being released into the air.  (primarily from non-human sources)

Quote:


this just in

and even before that was published, scientists werent totally certain on how the upper troposphere worked... if i recall correctly it has a cooling effect



So, what you're saying is we don't understand how it all works?  I agree.

Quote:

why would i trust other opinions when i am presented with the data and opinions of thousands of top climate scientists from around the world?




Geee, maybe because they have a political agenda?

Quote:

i wouldnt be so quick to trust everything the boob tube tells you, or some random website... does that website look professional or scientific to you??





Yes, it directly, scientifically, and with clear logic cites specific examples of glaring omissions, false confidence and misleading statistics in the UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers.  But since it refutes the only source you seem to trust, you probably didn't read it and wouldn't know that.

Quote:

he is not looney, he is one of the top climate scientists in the world and has been on national television several times.



What was that about not trusting everything the boob tube tells you again? :smirk:

Quote:

do you even know my professor? i think not. i wouldnt be so fast to make judgemental claims.




And you don't know me, my background, my motives, my inclinations, yet you were quick to relegate me to the status of "viewers LIKE YOU".  Way to be objective.

Quote:

i never claimed there weren't problems in Kyoto. and i never said there werent doubts in climate science, it is very complicated especially in feedback mechanisms and forecasting.......... the science debate is over, its a policy debate because the science is there, there is model validation and the reason nothing has happened is because of people like you who like to believe something other than the fact.





Hello?  How can you admit how incomplete and riddled with doubt the climate science is and then in the same breath claim the science debate is over??.  And what do you mean nothing has happened?  Large domestic producers like Ford have already starting working to reduce emmisions, this has been the status quo for a while now.  Plenty of environmental regulations have been passed and industry is realizing that it must accomodate new consumers who are concerned.  The 'people like me' are simply wary of the exploitation of pseudoscience for political means.  It's about power and the motives of all involved are questionable.

Quote:

and the IPCC does indeed address the uncertainties. but because they are uncertain, why would they publish meaningless data? these are scientists, remember.




You are equating uncertainties with "meaningless data"?  Uncertainties are not meaningless data. Quite the contrary, uncertainties are the only thing that keeps healthy scientific debate alive.  Anyone who discards uncertainites and then points to their irrevocable conclusion is not a scientist but a spin docotr!

Quote:

and why are you're(sic) "scientists" only acknowledging the uncertainties?


 
Someone has to.  What if no one had disputed the uncertainty that the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth?  It's part of the process of refining the scientific method and it's essential.  What, should everyone just say, "Well, you've got some incomplete models and some inconclusive data, hell that's better than nothing, what's your conclusion, let's go with that!"  No! Science is a dialogue, skeptics keep it going.

Quote:

  what about the overwhelming certainties???




What are the overwhelming certainties?

What do they tell us about the whole puzzle?

Quote:

you need to stop listening to one skeptic "scientist" and realize that his opinion is not the majority AT ALL. why would you trust one so-called scientist with no background info when THOUSANDS of scientists agree on this topic already.



So then you are confident that his refutations of the IPCC Summary are erroneous?

Quote:

  where is his scientific background?



 
That can be easily seen had you looked at the article.  It's at the very bottom.

Quote:

this is not one-sided, this is the unanimous scientific view, and im trusting that, regardless of youre links to skeptics. 



There is not a unanimous scientific view on climate change.  A brief survey of any forum on educated climate change debate displays this clearly.  If there was such a unanimous opinion, there wouldn't be such a heated debate on the topic.  You go ahead trusting that there is only one way to view the situation, and I'll keep surveying both sides to see what  develops.

Quote:

 

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here's some things to consider:

Specific examples of glaring omissions, false confidence and misleading statistics in the UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers include the following:

1. Likely sources of bias in the surface temperature record of the last 150 years, which are well known and considerable, are ignored. The amount of warming is claimed to be known with a false degree of confidence. We do not, in fact, know for certain that the earth has warmed at all. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#1 )

2. The profound inconsistency between the recent warming in the surface temperature record, and the absence of warming in the satellite record, is simply shrugged off. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#2 )

3. The enormous, and growing, uncertainty as to the effect of aerosols on climate is masked in the discussion, and is deliberately suppressed in predicting the future. If included, the UN IPCC 100 year prediction would include the possibility of no warming or even cooling. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#3 )

4. The fact that the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions are natural is ignored. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#4 )

5. Advances in climate science that do not support the theory of human interference have been ignored. (details: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#5 )



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


scientists dont yet fully understand the aerosol effect...
and all the other things you cited are completely foolish. you are very misconstrued in your facts and i dont know what else to say to that. everything you quoted is the exact opposite of scientific evidence and the agreement of most scientists in the world




The fact that the vast majority of green house gas emmissions are natural is the exact opposite of scientific evidence?  Wow, please show me the evidence the indicates that the vast majority of greenhouse gases are created by man.

David Wojick did not skillfully display how the IPCC's claim of global warming was asserted with a false degree of confidence?  Read the article again. http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#1

The lack of scientific certainty of the impact of aerosols is not deliberately supressed in the IPCC Summary in order to further support their assertions?  Read the article again. http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#3

Did the IPCC not ignore advances in climate science that do not support the theory of human interference? Read it again http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm#5 .

Quote:

i trust the top scientists from the leading scientific panel on climate change, not some random internet looney who doesnt even know what he's talking about... he's just bored and being one of the very few skeptics selling books trying to make a buck on conspiracy theory or something.




Sure, keep passing off skeptics as looneys. Wojick's not alone.  I'm also curious, could you point me to where he's selling his book?  It's funny how you just pass him off as not knowing what he's talking about, yet you are unwilling or unable to refute any of his points. 

Quote:

  you're main problem is you're refusing to recognize the SCIENCE and the agreement of top SCIENTISTS around the world.


 

Thanks for pointing out my main problem.  Allow me to point out yours.  You have a warped view of what science is capable of and you do not grasp the implications of your so called science.  Accumulating data and building models and making assumptions based on incomplete and isolated information may be a part of the scientific process, but that does not make the the conclusions derived therefrom are the complete "truth" as you are so fond of calling it. 
You seem to think that anything that appears to be "scientific" is completely infalable.  What about the team of scientists whose recent cold fusion theory fell flat on its face.  What about the biologist Lamarck who thought that creatures evolved as a result of their activities?  What about all of the things we've hypothesized about the earth and our solar system that we've sinced discovered are inadequate explanations -- the nature of the Earth's core for instance?  All of these theories had large bodies of scientific evidence to back them up, but that doesn't mean they held any answers.  Science is a process and a theory, by definition, can never be proven true.  Writing off skeptics or anyone who disagrees with even the most powerful scientific body is a grave folly.  We must always be open to the idea that we are wrong.

Quote:

why wouldnt you trust thousands of scientists? thats what i would like to know.



It's not that I distrust them so much as I doubt their infalability.  I do have doubts about the objectivity of a coalition of scientists organized by the UN who all harbor the same agenda.  If their views didn't agree with those of the UN and Kyoto, they wouldn't be of much use to the IPCC would they? 
I wonder why you would trust them so fully.  Why trust anyone, especially a political body with a world agenda?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Viveka]
    #2778156 - 06/09/04 04:18 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

From the article posted:

Quote:

Biographical information.

Dr. David E. Wojick has a Ph.D. in mathematical logic and philosophy of science from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.S. in civil engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. He has been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon, where he helped found both the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, and the Department of Philosophy. He has also served with the Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Laboratory. He is presently a freelance writer covering climate change issues for Electricity Daily, and a policy analyst.




He doesn't exactly strike me as especially qualified in the area of climate change or weather studies, especially as he claims his "comprehensive understanding" of the sciences comes from an internet mailing list.

From his own resume:

My work combines engineering, mathematics and management science, but it is not academic. My experience is working with top Federal and industry executives on the front lines of big change.

He has also been published, and quoted by the Heartland Institute, who seem to get a lot of grants from companies like Exxon, Chevron, Mobil and General Motors to name a few.


I thought the film was pretty entertaining, but nothing more.  I remember being pretty stoned and how awed I was at the opening shot of the glaciers, until I realised that it was all CG.  The way the credits were reflected in the landscape was a bit creepy though, why on earth would you want to give the effect that giant names are literally flying across the landscape?  :what:


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Edame]
    #2778249 - 06/09/04 04:55 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

I'm always intrigued as to why films like this are so popular. What is it about watching the destruction of 'civilisation as we know it' that we keep coming back to? Maybe we (or those of us who watch these things anyway) have some kind of apocalypse fetish. I wonder if it is for the pure spectacle, or maybe an easy way for a storyteller to provoke an emotional response. Is it primarily a 'Western' thing (maybe Bible inspired), or does foreign cinema (Bollywood, Asia, Europe etc..) produce just as many?


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Edame]
    #2778393 - 06/09/04 05:45 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biographical information.

Dr. David E. Wojick has a Ph.D. in mathematical logic and philosophy of science from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.S. in civil engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. He has been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon, where he helped found both the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, and the Department of Philosophy. He has also served with the Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Laboratory. He is presently a freelance writer covering climate change issues for Electricity Daily, and a policy analyst.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



He doesn't exactly strike me as especially qualified in the area of climate change or weather studies, especially as he claims his "comprehensive understanding" of the sciences comes from an internet mailing list.





For the purpose of what he did in that article, he does not need to be especially qualified in climate science.

In point 1 he displays the intellectual dishonesty and factual inconsistency in the IPCC's claim the the global average temperature has increased. He does this not with scientific data but by pointing out the flaws in the IPCC's own words, and considering he has a Ph.D. in mathematical logic and philosophical science I'd say he's more than qualified to competently deal with those semantics.

Point 2 deals with the inconsistency between satellite and surface records. According to this latest study from may of this year, posted by Psilygirl, the data is changing on this. I would still contend that even if we had correct data, we could not acurately extrapolate what it all meant.

Point 3 displays how the IPCC ignored aerosol uncertainties. He does not need to be a master of climate science to do this either.

Point 4 simply points out that the IPCC fails to acknowledge the fact that the majority of greenhouse gasses come from natural sources.

Point 5 displays how the IPCC ignores any science that does not support the theory of human interference.

You can attempt to assasinate the chracter of the skeptic, but his points stand on their own. He uses the IPCC's own literature to deconstruct their assertions.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblechodamunky
Cheers!

Registered: 02/28/02
Posts: 2,030
Loc: sailing the seas of chees...
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2778740 - 06/09/04 07:34 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

sea level rise (from thermal expansion and land ice on Greenland and Antarctica melting into sea) submerging coastal areas... if the West Antarctic Ice sheet melts... 20 ft sea level rise (we've already risen 20 ft over the past century)

I always thought that since 90% of ice is underwater, and when water freezes it expands. So when all the ice starts melting, sea levels should go down. but then again there might be more ice on top of Greenland to compensate for that, and I'm not sure if Antartica is just ice floating on water or if it's an actual land mass covered with snow and ice.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Viveka]
    #2778977 - 06/09/04 08:57 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

i really dont feel like debating this anymore.  i said what i have to say.  as a biochemistry major, who does research at a lab, thus as a scientist, i am going to trust the science and not conspiracy theories.

nothing i say will change you're mind, and nothing you say will change mine.

i have 2 final comments: i think you mean partial pressures when you say solubility curves.

also, everyone has a political agenda.  you're a blind fool if you think you're skeptics don't have one.

and, most importantly, what are these "natural" sources that CO2 is coming from that you speak of?  you need to understand simple combustion chemistry.  if you combust a hydrocarbon, you're products are CO2 and water.  what do you think petroleum is?? A LONG CARBON CHAIN!  so when you combust gasoline in a car engine, you get CO2.  simple.

1 gallon of gasoline = 20 lbs CO2 just from simple chemistry: moles and molecular weight.

so if we're burning all this petroleum everyday, where exactly is the CO2 coming from, it not petroleum? :smirk:


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Edited by Psilygirl (06/09/04 09:31 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: chodamunky]
    #2778984 - 06/09/04 09:00 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

rising sea levels are caused by thermal expansion and the melting of land ice (like on Greenland and Antarctica) into the ocean (this also causes desalination of the ocean)

ice in the sea should have no effect because the amount it displaces water is the same as if it were in the liquid form.

(think of putting ice cubes in your drink... if you let them melt you're drink won't spill)


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleZero7a1
Leaving YourWasteland

Registered: 10/23/02
Posts: 3,594
Loc: Passing Cloud
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2778995 - 06/09/04 09:07 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Changing temperature of the water can cause weather patterns to change. Along with changing ecosystems as well. Over a few years couldnt you expect it to change to normal?

Less ice on the ground means more ice in the air... Man its been raining here a lot :laugh:


--------------------
What?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Zero7a1]
    #2779003 - 06/09/04 09:11 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

it definitely changes ecosystems. many of the northwest fish species are dying out because predators are moving north into warmer waters.

less ice on the ground means more freshwater in the oceans, causing desalination and disrupting the ocean conveyer belt (like the gulf stream).


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Viveka]
    #2779024 - 06/09/04 09:19 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

You can attempt to assasinate the chracter of the skeptic, but his points stand on their own. He uses the IPCC's own literature to deconstruct their assertions.

That seems to be pretty much all he attempts to do. He doesn't offer any data or theories of his own other than arguing semantics to constantly hint at uncertainty in every area of what is essentially a summary of a larger document. As you can see in his own appendices, he doesn't seem to be averse to a little character assassination himself.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMorbidHamster
Total Head Fook
Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 121
Loc: Un-United Kingdom
Last seen: 16 years, 11 days
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2779104 - 06/09/04 09:43 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Psilygirl said:
exactly. we need to take action now if theres any hope for a future for this planet!!




The planet will live on when we're gone, i would rephrase that myself and say, we need to take action if we are going to survive as a species.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: MorbidHamster]
    #2779140 - 06/09/04 09:54 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

i think it's pretty obvioius that that's what i meant.

but sure, to clarify:

yes, we need to live sustainably and take action now to preserve the world as we know it today.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblechodamunky
Cheers!

Registered: 02/28/02
Posts: 2,030
Loc: sailing the seas of chees...
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2779456 - 06/09/04 11:11 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Psilygirl said:
rising sea levels are caused by thermal expansion and the melting of land ice (like on Greenland and Antarctica) into the ocean (this also causes desalination of the ocean)




thermal expansion of water? H20 that has been heated like 5 degrees C would not take up more space, if you heat water 50C the difference in the amount of volume it takes up would still be neglibile.

Quote:

ice in the sea should have no effect because the amount it displaces water is the same as if it were in the liquid form.




Actually ice in the sea WOULD have a huge effect on the amount of water it displaces. Haven't you ever heard of not putting a closed water bottle or beer in a fridge, because when water freezes it expands? so when you think about it, about 90% of floating ice in the sea is underwater, and when the water UNFREEZES it will take up less space in liquid form than in solid form, therefore theoretically sea levels should go down.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: chodamunky]
    #2779498 - 06/09/04 11:25 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

you are wrong on both accounts.

consider the volume of water you are heating up... it's the fuckin ocean. its huge. if you heat a glass of water by 5C there wont be a measurable difference, but when you talk about the ocean the difference is huge.

ice in the sea floats because it is less dense. it still displaces the same amount of water.

you're bottle-in-the-freezer means the ice itself is taking up a greater space, but we're talking about density and the fact that it is displacing a volume of liquid, not a solid.

i'll say it again: put ice cubes in your drink and measure the water line before the ice melts and after. its the exact same situation with sea ice.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2779593 - 06/10/04 12:00 AM (16 years, 10 months ago)

elementary, my dear watson.


clicky


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleZero7a1
Leaving YourWasteland

Registered: 10/23/02
Posts: 3,594
Loc: Passing Cloud
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2779766 - 06/10/04 01:15 AM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Definately. This has been my chief concern really for being in architecture... well that and seeing some weird shit the first time i took shrooms.

Oregon is a beautiful place. I hope it stays that way. If the ice caps melt... maybe more cold water will come from the north  :grin: .


--------------------
What?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2782775 - 06/10/04 07:56 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

i am going to trust the science and not conspiracy theories



I'll say it again, just because a study is done scientifically, doesn't mean that it is infallible or that it holds all the answers or that it addresses the whole puzzle.

Where's the conspiracy? I'm not saying that humans are in no way affecting climate change, in fact I wouldn't be suprised if we are. All I'm trying to get at is that the results aren't in and it's important to always be ready to accept the fact that you're wrong. It is incredibly unscientific to operate under the stubborn assumption that all your hypothesees are correct. That's where pseudoscience takes hold.

Quote:

nothing i say will change you're mind, and nothing you say will change mine.




No, I'm still open to all the posibilites. What's troubling is that your mind is so set in stone.

Quote:

i think you mean partial pressures when you say solubility curves



Partial pressures are one thing, solubility curves are another. Solubility curves are pertinent to climate science because it involves how much carbon dioxide (or any gas) can be dissolved in the ocean at a particular temperature.

Quote:

also, everyone has a political agenda. you're a blind fool if you think you're skeptics don't have one.




I guess you skipped over the part in my last post where I said:
It's about power and the motives of all involved are questionable.
Of course everyone has their own agenda. And considering that you understand this, I'm even more curious as to why you are so trusting of the IPCC, even if they are an international panel of SCIENTISTS.

Quote:

and, most importantly, what are these "natural" sources that CO2 is coming from that you speak of?



Hmmm, where to begin....
- Mt. Etna, a volcano in Italy that produces 35,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day.

- Every volcano in the world (volcanoes and other vents like geothermal parks and springs all over the world are the largest source of non-anthropogenic carbon dioxide emmisions, not to mention various other greenhouse gasses).

- The 200-mile area of Italy between Florence and Naples produces an enormous amount of carbon dioxide, yet no one has tried to measure the amount before.
When looking at diffuse degassing, the researchers found one area that measured less than a tenth of a square mile, yet emits 150 tons of carbon dioxide per day.
(http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~jrogie/newsrel.html)

- Ever heard of killer lake Nyos? http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mhalb/nyos/nyos.htm Check it out.

- From http://www.aacog.com/naturalresources/1996%20Emissions%20Inventory/1996EI_Biogenics.html :
Vegetation is the predominant biogenic source of VOC and is typically the only source that is used to estimate biogenic VOC but VOC, NOx, and greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3) and carbon dioxide (CO2) may originate from a variety of natural processes. Vegetation and soils, geological activity, lightning, and termites are just a few of the natural sources.

Microbial activity is responsible for the emission of NOx and the greenhouse gases of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Soil microbial activity is responsible for NOx and N2O emissions from agricultural lands and grasslands. CH4 is emitted through microbial action in waterlogged soils or in other anaerobic microenvironments. CO2 is released through the aerobic decay of biomass.

- Carbon dioxide can be found in underground wells at concentrations of 90% to almost 100% depending on the location of the well. Large carbon dioxide wells exist in the United States (e.g. in Colorado, Mississippi, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and in Europe (e.g. at R?pcelak and Oelboe in Hungary and at Bad Driburg-Herste and Rottenburg in Germany). Geothermal carbon dioxide is found in numerous locations across Spain and Italy (e.g. at Torre Alfina).
( http://www.synetix.com/co2purification/sourcesofco2.htm )

- Anytime something ferments carbon dioxide is produced

I could go on for quite a while researching different sources of non-anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide. But I would expect a self-proclaimed scientist such as yourself to already be aware that the vast majority of carbon dioxide emissions are natural and we are only beginning to pinpoint many of these.

Quote:

you need to understand simple combustion chemistry. if you combust a hydrocarbon, you're products are CO2 and water. what do you think petroleum is?? A LONG CARBON CHAIN! so when you combust gasoline in a car engine, you get CO2. simple.

1 gallon of gasoline = 20 lbs CO2 just from simple chemistry: moles and molecular weight.




Thanks for the lesson, teach. What's that have to do with non-anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

Quote:

so if we're burning all this petroleum everyday, where exactly is the CO2 coming from, it not petroleum?



That question perfectly captures your limited thinking on this subject. When did you assume that because burning fossil fuels produces CO2 that that must be the only source?

Quote:

i really dont feel like debating this anymore. i said what i have to say. as a biochemistry major, who does research at a lab, thus as a scientist, i am going to trust the science and not conspiracy theories.





"There are many claiming to be "client scientists", yet (for some strange reason) they don't realize that statistics is not science. Science requires an experimental control. Statistics often provides a scientist a good idea for a hypothesis, but correlations do not prove cause and effect. Furthermore, a computer models are not an experiments in that they again can not discriminate theories into true and false. (They may give one an idea where to poke around, but to claim they "prove" anything is pure fiction and should lead one to discount the source.)

Some things are unknowable. It is human nature not to accept that some things are beyond reach of knowing, but it is often the case.


Being a real scientist means we have to bend over backwards in order to find our human distortions of the object we are trying to draw conclusions about. This takes honesty and courage to report all warts and wrinkles in the subject."

Those words are from http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm
, one of many sources of information you should read if you consider yourself to be the least bit open-minded about this subject.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Viveka]
    #2783377 - 06/11/04 12:46 AM (16 years, 10 months ago)

while it is your perrogative to not trust the top scientists in the world, that is not my choice--I will always trust professional scientific opinion.

i do not disagree with you're uncertainty-argument... no science is thought of as "fact", it is simply statistics. Einstein's theory of relativity can't even be proved to the degree you hope for. but there is statistical evidence based upon countless scientific data that this theory holds true. many chemical mechanisms aren't even fully understood--and they can never actually be known because we cannot physically observe electrons moving--but statistical data supports their belief. climate science is no different.

and, even if you don't think there is enough proof yet, it's better to live on whats called the precautionary principle--it's better safe then sorry. it's like buying insurance: we don't know for certain when or how something will happen, but it is better to prepare for the worst and insure our future.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblechodamunky
Cheers!

Registered: 02/28/02
Posts: 2,030
Loc: sailing the seas of chees...
Re: The Day After Tomorrow [Re: Psilygirl]
    #2784748 - 06/11/04 02:06 PM (16 years, 10 months ago)

lol, that neat little flash program is supposed to convince me? I will admit, I have never heard of thermal expansion of the water as the cause of sea level rise. But c'mon, are you telling me that 2 degrees increase on the surface of the ocean would create like a 22 feet rise is world sea levels? Why the hell won't they teach this stuff in school? Every thing I've ever heard or read about global warming and sea level rise has to do with ice melting.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Amazon Balloons, Cracker, Nitrous Oxide, pH Test Strips, Portable Greenhouse, Scales

General Interest >> Music, Art, and Media

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Your DNA Is a Song: Scientists Use Music to Code Proteins ivi 995 3 10/28/05 12:17 PM
by Simisu
* Conspiracy Book-Need Help Mojo_Risin 1,195 9 08/28/02 10:48 AM
by gnrm23
* ALex Gray Art Show Tomorrow in Seattle mjshroomer 1,202 8 05/02/03 01:37 PM
by Shroomism
* Version of Tomorrow Never Knows on Anthology dazed1980 765 4 06/02/06 04:13 AM
by mr_kite
* 5 BRAND NEW TRACKS OUT TOMORROW! Fliquid 698 3 02/04/03 05:11 AM
by Fliquid
* Cooking for tomorrow... GabbaDj 601 1 11/26/02 09:50 AM
by boO
* Our new mixtape - Sound Scientists present Golden Grams kotik 610 3 07/05/04 07:29 AM
by Psilocybeingzz
* Frank London - Scientist at Work daytripper23 582 3 04/08/07 10:20 PM
by daytripper23

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, automan, DividedQuantum
3,525 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.042 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.