Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8147181 - 03/14/08 07:16 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Causality can never be proven.

From a philosophical purist point of view, it's true that causality can't be proven, but from that point of view, nothing can be proven. The same arguments can be used to state that the only thing that can be proved is that I exist.

But that's for philosophy, not the real-world. In the real world, causality can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Anthropic global warming currently falls WAY short of that standard if only because the Earth had many warm spells long before people were even around.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
New Study Out: Solar Activity NOT to Blame for Global Climate Change [Re: Diploid]
    #8233620 - 04/03/08 01:53 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/04/03/scisolar103.xml

Quote:

Changes in the sun's intensity are not behind modern climate change, new evidence suggests.




Quote:

The research, carried out by physicists at Lancaster University, undermines claims by climate sceptics that cosmic rays are key drivers in cloudiness and temperature. The theory claims that variation in solar activity leads to a corresponding variance in cosmic rays.

However, the Lancaster team, whose findings are presented in an article in the journal Environmental Research Letters, have found no significant link, the BBC reports.

The scientists used three different methods of searching for a correlation but found almost nothing.

The cosmic ray theory, put forward by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, has already been under scrutiny in recent years.

The latest findings are sure to add further doubt to the hypothesis, which was made famous in the controversial 2006 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

"We started on this game because of Svensmark's work," said Terry Sloan, part of the Lancaster team behind the research.

"If he is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal."

The Svensmark theory claimed that in periods of strong solar activity fewer cosmic rays made it to Earth, whereas in periods of weaker activity the reverse was true.

It then said that the rays led to cloud formation, reflecting the sun's heat back in to space. The planet therefore cools down when the sun's activity is weak, and heats up when it is strong.

However, the Lancaster team found no link between solar activity and cloud cover, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s research suggests that the contribution of man-made greenhouse gases to global warming outweighed that of the sun by a factor of thirteen to one.




Looks like the "Great Global Warming Swindle" video was wrong about something else.
I actually read the study, its a very good one that just came out. There is no correlation between solar activity and cloud cover, and temperature.

"Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover." T Sloan and A W ,Wolfendale. Volume 3, Number 2, April-June 2008. Environmental Research Letters


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: New Study Out: Solar Activity NOT to Blame for Global Climate Change [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8238233 - 04/04/08 01:12 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/04/03/scisolar103.xml

Quote:

Changes in the sun's intensity are not behind modern climate change, new evidence suggests.




Quote:

The research, carried out by physicists at Lancaster University, undermines claims by climate sceptics that cosmic rays are key drivers in cloudiness and temperature. The theory claims that variation in solar activity leads to a corresponding variance in cosmic rays.

However, the Lancaster team, whose findings are presented in an article in the journal Environmental Research Letters, have found no significant link, the BBC reports.

The scientists used three different methods of searching for a correlation but found almost nothing.

The cosmic ray theory, put forward by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, has already been under scrutiny in recent years.

The latest findings are sure to add further doubt to the hypothesis, which was made famous in the controversial 2006 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

"We started on this game because of Svensmark's work," said Terry Sloan, part of the Lancaster team behind the research.

"If he is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal."

The Svensmark theory claimed that in periods of strong solar activity fewer cosmic rays made it to Earth, whereas in periods of weaker activity the reverse was true.

It then said that the rays led to cloud formation, reflecting the sun's heat back in to space. The planet therefore cools down when the sun's activity is weak, and heats up when it is strong.

However, the Lancaster team found no link between solar activity and cloud cover, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s research suggests that the contribution of man-made greenhouse gases to global warming outweighed that of the sun by a factor of thirteen to one.




Looks like the "Great Global Warming Swindle" video was wrong about something else.
I actually read the study, its a very good one that just came out. There is no correlation between solar activity and cloud cover, and temperature.

"Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover." T Sloan and A W ,Wolfendale. Volume 3, Number 2, April-June 2008. Environmental Research Letters




They didn't look for a correlation between temperature and solar activity. They looked for a correlation between cloud cover and solar activity. Not the same thing, is it? Or did this article just leave out that they looked for a temperature correlation as well?


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: New Study Out: Solar Activity NOT to Blame for Global Climate Change [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8238882 - 04/04/08 04:26 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

This paper built on a big paper (that was also built on a few other major supporting papers) that investigated correlation between temperature and solar activity that was put out towards the end of last year:

Lockwood M and Fröhlich C 2007 Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature Proc. R. Soc. A 463 2447

Both of these papers, after combing through evidence, proved that the sun's affects on global mean temperatures are not changed by slight (.01-.1%) variations in the TSI as much as they are by CO2 concentrations, nor does variations in the solar output have a good correlation to global temperatures. There is a contribution, that has never been denied, but the contribution is minor and contributes more to a cyclical variation of temperature up and down rather than a continuous upward trend.


Here is the graph from the Lockwood paper:



Quote:

. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.





However, after this study came out, there was a harsh critic, who said that TSI was not to blame, but cosmic rays and cloud formation due to the sun. This paper addressed that issue,and examined it from 4 different proposed mechanisms for cloud cover modulation by the sun and changes in cosmic ray intensity. It came to the conclusion that there is simply no connection.

So as of now, there are no proposed mechanisms for solar variation being the primary contributor to today's obseved climate change.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: Diploid]
    #8251594 - 04/07/08 04:44 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
Causality can never be proven.

From a philosophical purist point of view, it's true that causality can't be proven, but from that point of view, nothing can be proven. The same arguments can be used to state that the only thing that can be proved is that I exist.

But that's for philosophy, not the real-world. In the real world, causality can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Anthropic global warming currently falls WAY short of that standard if only because the Earth had many warm spells long before people were even around.




The Fundamental Problem of Causality (The Problem of Induction) is a tenet of science and the reason Karl Popper advocated falsifiability.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8254952 - 04/08/08 10:48 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

But that's for philosophy, not the real-world. In the real world, causality can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Anthropic global warming currently falls WAY short of that standard if only because the Earth had many warm spells long before people were even around.





Causality does not fall way short of the reasonable doubt standard. I've already hashed out over the last 12 pages major arguments for causality. This includes the link between CO2 and temperature graphs and their correspondences to each other, the proven physics behind the CO2 radiative blockage effects, the importance of CO2 in the PPM in the upper atmosphere, where water vapor does not play a major roll in the greenhouse effect, the abrupt increase in temperature much faster than most of the previous increases in temperature in earths history (Milankovitch cycles, responsible for the majority of earth's major climatology changes before today, happen over thousands of years), the decreasing output of the sun with respect to earth's continued warming, and the countless physics ranging from Tyndall to Arrhenius to Calender to Plass to even the recent conclusion by Lopez-Puerta.

The body of evidence behind anthropogenic global warming is HUGE.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8254968 - 04/08/08 10:56 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Oddly enough, what you have done over the past twelve pages is say that you did those things without once actually doing them. One study that actually shows a CO2 concentration rise causes global temperature increase. No more spam. Just the one. Thank you.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8255651 - 04/08/08 02:41 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Zappa, I already did exactly what you are requesting:

Where I post a source showing that CO2, not Water Vapor and Ozone, cocnentration is most important above 70km, where heat is transfered from the upper atmosphere to space through radiative cooling

I also gave Zappa 3 sources which all concluded the same as the above source here

I also posted PLENTY more sources that go much more into detail of the individual influences on global warming by scientists all through the last 12 pages. In fact, almost everything I've said factually was backed by at least 1 peer reviewed source, many times more than just 1.

Here are some quotes from the above:

Quote:

The conclusion of the first hot and isotopic CO2 bands near 4.3 micrometers has been shown to be important to the radiative energy budget of the mesosphere because they augment CO2 net heating rates at altitudes near the 80 km level.

In summary, we conclude that net heating rates by carbon dioxide are important for the radiative ballance of the mesosphere since they maximize at the place where the most important radiative sources and sinks are minimum.




That one was from the first link.

Here's a quote from the second link:

Quote:


Thus, the distribution above 70 km given by figure 10 corresponds to the rate of temperature change by CO2 alone [instead of CO2, water vapor, and ozone]. The general pattern of radiative cooling in the upper stratosphere andmesosphere follows the rate of temperature change for CO2.




Here's another though that I picked up for you:

Quote:

Ice-core measurements of carbon dioxide1, 2 and the deuterium palaeothermometer reveal significant covariation of temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations throughout the climate cycles of the past ice ages. This covariation provides compelling evidence that CO2 is an important forcing factor for climate3, 4, 5.




"Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice core after deuterium-excess correction." Françoise Vimeux. Nature 412, 523-527 (2 August 2001)

Here is another:

Quote:

The increased concentrations of CO2 , CH4 , and N2 O between 1750 and 1998 have produced forcings of +1.48, +0.48, and +0.15 Wm^−2 , respectively. The introduction of halocarbons in the mid-20th century has contributed an additional +0.34 Wm^−2, for a total forcing by WMGHGs of +2.45 Wm^−2 with a 15% margin of uncertainty. The positive sign of these forcings reflects the fact that the climate system is releasing less and absorbing more
radiative energy than in its unperturbed state.





Collins, W.D.; Ramaswamy V.; Schwarzkopf M.D.; Sun Y; Portmann R.W.; Fu Q.; Casanova, S.E.B.; Dufresne, J.L.; Fillmore, D.W.; Forster P.M.; Galin, V.Y.; Gohar L.; Ingram, W.J.; Kratz, D.P.; Lefebvre, M.P.; Li J.; Marquet, P.; Oinas, V.; Tsushima, Y.; Uchiyama, T.; Zhong, W.Y. (2006) Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, pp.1-2.

I can keep going. There is pretty much no end to the number of papers concluding what you are asking me to provide you with.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8256283 - 04/08/08 05:25 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Covariation is not causality.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8256611 - 04/08/08 06:35 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Covariation is not causality. I agree with that. However, it is one important evidence for causality. It certainly does not hurt the causality argument.

However, you pick out one study that (using covariation, along with OTHER obsevations noted in that paper) said CO2 concentrations correlate with temperature change, and ignore the other 5 that all come to the same conclusion that CO2 concentrations affect temperature.

Covariation by itself is not causality. Covariation, plus the CO2 blocking of the 2.3, 4.1, and 15 micron bands, plus the calculated radiative forcings (Watts/m^2), plus the concentration of CO2 relative to other GHGs above 70km (where radiative heat is lost into space), all pointing to the same explanation, IS causality.

It is these facts, combined with many more, that have led these researchers to conclude that increasing concentrations of CO2 represent a strong positive forcing of goal temperature. The evidence is dramatic, vast, and quite honestly, beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, it would be impossible for CO2 NOT to heat up the earth in increasing concentrations, as the blocking of the radiative cooling bands is both observed AND theorized.


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (04/09/08 06:35 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Tourist
Visiting Stranger
Male
Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 145
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8267569 - 04/11/08 01:02 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Alright, sorry to break into your argument about semantics and causality and all that, but Zappaisgod, I'm wondering why all of this is of so much concern to you?
The way I see it, we are polluting our atmosphere. Period. Maybe the constant pumping of trillions of pounds of CO2 into the air will cause our planet to heat up and oceans to kill us all, maybe it won't. But if God himself swooped down and tapped you on the shoulder and whispered "Zappaisgod (it is me, Frank Zappa) I say unto thou, global warming has not, and will not ever have an effect on the survival of your species", would you then proceed to buy 6 Hummers?

Do you not care if we are poisoning nature, the very thing that created you, me and all other life on Earth? Why should we NOT use only wind, solar and water energy? What's your fuss all about? People are concerned about our environment and our Earth, and why should they not be? We are introducing unnatural toxins, pollutants and increased greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere at a pretty incredible rate, given our short industrial history and our relatively tiny size.

Your arguing with this position is like telling me I shouldn't worry about using car cleaner as toothpaste. There might be no scientific evidence that tells me my throat will break out in hives or something, but should I keep using it? And if the label does actually warn of health risks, should I wait to hear of scientific evidence that proves that my yellow skin and bloody stool are CAUSED by the cleaner?
The weird symptoms might not be CAUSED by introducing potentially harmful toxins to my body's natural environment, but I would probably choose to stop doing it. You know, just to humor my body.


--------------------
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"
Jiddu Krishnamurti

"That's a marvelous structural technique of propaganda... It is only in folk tales, children's stories, and the journals of intellectual opinion that power is used wisely and well to destroy evil. The real world teaches very different lessons, and it takes willful and dedicated ignorance to fail to perceive them.”
Noam Chomsky


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Tourist
Visiting Stranger
Male
Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 145
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8267586 - 04/11/08 01:06 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

And by the way,

Quote:

In fact, it would be impossible for CO2 NOT to heat up the earth in increasing concentrations, as the blocking of the radiative cooling bands is both observed AND theorized.




^^ Word.


--------------------
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"
Jiddu Krishnamurti

"That's a marvelous structural technique of propaganda... It is only in folk tales, children's stories, and the journals of intellectual opinion that power is used wisely and well to destroy evil. The real world teaches very different lessons, and it takes willful and dedicated ignorance to fail to perceive them.”
Noam Chomsky


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: The Tourist]
    #8269723 - 04/11/08 02:31 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

The Tourist said:
Alright, sorry to break into your argument about semantics and causality and all that, but Zappaisgod, I'm wondering why all of this is of so much concern to you?




Because the global warming nitwits are essentially a wealth redistributionist coalition of scam artists. And it is my wealth they are trying to scam us out of. Yours too, by the way.
Quote:


The way I see it, we are polluting our atmosphere. Period. Maybe the constant pumping of trillions of pounds of CO2 into the air will cause our planet to heat up and oceans to kill us all, maybe it won't. But if God himself swooped down and tapped you on the shoulder and whispered "Zappaisgod (it is me, Frank Zappa) I say unto thou, global warming has not, and will not ever have an effect on the survival of your species", would you then proceed to buy 6 Hummers?



No, but it wouldn't matter, I could only drive one of them at a time. The only thing that allows humanity to live above the brute level is harnessing energy sources other than our own physical labor. There is always going to be repercussions. I have seen the haze over Tucson. Some of that can and should be alleviated. But there is no way to alleviate CO2 emissions outside of a moratorium on burning, be it wood or coal or oil. Nor have I found a compelling real argument made that something measured in the hundreds of parts per million can cause an increase in the earth's temperature. If that were the case we would be as hot as Venus right now. CO2 is a minor bit player that cannot rise above that role.
Quote:



Do you not care if we are poisoning nature, the very thing that created you, me and all other life on Earth? Why should we NOT use only wind, solar and water energy?




We should use them. But those things aren't without consequence either. Nor is nuclear energy. And they have severe limitations. Fission, on the other hand, I believe to be our only hope for truly sustainable energy (thousands and thousands of years).
Quote:

What's your fuss all about? People are concerned about our environment and our Earth, and why should they not be? We are introducing unnatural toxins, pollutants and increased greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere at a pretty incredible rate, given our short industrial history and our relatively tiny size.




Being concerned and buying snake oil do not necessarily go hand in hand. Nothing we introduce is unnatural. Is it unnatural for a tree to take in CO2 and produce O2? No. We are as natural as a tree. Condemning millions and billions of people to a brutish existence for a bunch of alarmist crap over global warming is evil. And make no mistake, that is the only choice. Or culling the population severely.
Quote:



Your arguing with this position is like telling me I shouldn't worry about using car cleaner as toothpaste. There might be no scientific evidence that tells me my throat will break out in hives or something, but should I keep using it? And if the label does actually warn of health risks, should I wait to hear of scientific evidence that proves that my yellow skin and bloody stool are CAUSED by the cleaner?
The weird symptoms might not be CAUSED by introducing potentially harmful toxins to my body's natural environment, but I would probably choose to stop doing it. You know, just to humor my body.




And if it isn't caused by that and it costs you your entire lifestyle to change it would THAT be OK? You just fucked up your whole life in the interests of preventing something that is of no consequence. Is that your idea of smart policy? Have you joined the lawsuit to stop the supercollider? Because of t3h black hole?


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8274606 - 04/12/08 04:38 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Nor have I found a compelling real argument made that something measured in the hundreds of parts per million can cause an increase in the earth's temperature. If that were the case we would be as hot as Venus right now. CO2 is a minor bit player that cannot rise above that role.




I've given you so many peer reviewed sources that it's ridiculous that you maintain this assertion. On the other hand, your arguments, like "we would be as hot as Venus right now," are completely unsourced, unfounded, and quite honestly, I'm going to call you out on this. You're pulling it out of your ass. If you are not, give me a peer source that shows that if CO2 causes an increase in the earths temperature, we would be as hot as venus.

Anyway, I showed you sources going from Plass to Callander to Arrhenius to Tyndall and modern sources too from scientists in every time period showing exactly why an increase in a few hundred PPMs of CO2 will cause the earth to heat up. I even gave you the radiative forcings in watt/square meter for CO2. Just because you hope there is no evidence, just because you want the evidence to go away, does not mean there is no evidence.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8274624 - 04/12/08 04:46 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Not one single one of the links you offered says that. Every single one of them notes a correlation without determining causality in regard to the specific issue at hand.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8274650 - 04/12/08 04:57 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Nope, Zappa. Almost all of them show not only that CO2 affects temperature, but to make it easy for people like you, they even explain HOW!

Hell, are you blind? Even in my last peer reviewed source on that list that I gave you, I changed the text color to red to show you unequivocally that CO2 increase causes a heating of the earth, and that CO2 represents the highest forcing in watts/square meter of all of the forcings.


"The increased CO2 has a positive forcing of (such and such watts per square meter). This positive sign reflects the fact that the earth is absorbing more radiative energy than in its unperturbed state."

And CO2 is the highest forcing. There is a DIRECT, CAUSATIVE relationship between CO2 and heat trapping, and not only is this effect observed and theorized, it is CALCULATED.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineweallsmoke
Rap god frombeyond the moon
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/03/07
Posts: 1,023
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8274660 - 04/12/08 05:01 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

I'm pretty sure this is because of the sun.....the rings of Jupiter are melting too so i doubt that its global warming.....someone might have already said this, i don't feel like reading all of it though:shrug:

I read somewhere by Alex Jones that global warming is just being used so that we can have another huge fuel industry.
I think instead of using all this new technology we should just plant more trees :potleaf:  to even out the oxygen/carbon levels


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: weallsmoke]
    #8274668 - 04/12/08 05:06 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

Weallsmoke, the sun's output has been going DOWN in the past 30 years. Not all planets in the solar system are heating. The rings of Jupiter are not melting, and before someones goes on about mars, the reason for mars heating is not CO2, Solar Irradiance, or anything like that. It's the lack of dust storms on its surface right now. When mars has dust storms, it is cooler (see global dimming). When mars has fewer dust storms, it is warmer.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineweallsmoke
Rap god frombeyond the moon
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/03/07
Posts: 1,023
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8274673 - 04/12/08 05:10 PM (15 years, 9 months ago)

perhaps were getting closer to the sun?

I don't think the answer is really gonna be that simple though

The world is "supposedly" gonna end in 2012 and the change is supposed to be happening right now

I think it might look something like this:shitstorm:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Tourist
Visiting Stranger
Male
Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 145
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: weallsmoke]
    #8276337 - 04/13/08 01:21 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

If there IS a profound change in 2012, and it is not mental/ spiritual, then I owe you 20 bucks.

All I can say is that a physical disaster would be pretty much the most boring fulfillment of an "apocalyptic" prophecy I could imagine. Did you know that the direct root definition of "apocalypse" is "lifting of the veil"? I'm sure it was the Catholic church that caused us to think that it had something to do with the end of the world. The word represents the end of the world AS WE KNOW IT, sure, but not doomsday.

I know that the numbers such as ".7 degrees" which are created by biased think-tanks and are supposed to represent global temperature change over the past 200 years or whatever are complete bullshit, but it would take quite the miracle for the Earth to heat up enough to cause a massive catastrophe just over 4 years from now. That's assuming you want to base your doomsday theory in physical, earth- and science-based events, which it sounds like you do.


--------------------
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"
Jiddu Krishnamurti

"That's a marvelous structural technique of propaganda... It is only in folk tales, children's stories, and the journals of intellectual opinion that power is used wisely and well to destroy evil. The real world teaches very different lessons, and it takes willful and dedicated ignorance to fail to perceive them.”
Noam Chomsky


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,997 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 13,994 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,177 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,911 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,409 37 07/18/03 06:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 994 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Blair must tackle global warming Xlea321 463 1 05/28/04 10:30 AM
by phi1618
* "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,887 20 03/14/04 12:45 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
39,558 topic views. 0 members, 5 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.