What the... Snow in June, then in August!

A forum for discussing world news, ideas, concepts and possibly controversial topics including religion and politics. WARNING: may contain strong opinions or strong language. This does not mean anything goes though!
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
Locked
User avatar
terkio
Mon Master
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:24 pm

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by terkio »

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ial-effort
"You can be on the right track and still get hit by a train!" Alfred E. Neuman
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

"The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change" "This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences" also look at the fjord of ads it has attached, i had to click three things to close to read the article. who is getting the click money i wonder ;)

hahaha, look who funded this article :) have a look of how much Al Gore has made, also check his past history with the oil companies. believers are looking at billions in funds, check Al Gores history.

the question you should be asking is, do you think I am being paid by one of those dip shits? i get paid nothing to know what i know, i it's a hard sell to tell me that there is GW going on right now :)

if you read ths entire forum, you'll see what i think, and trust me it has nothing to do with either side thinks ;) i am using nature, not money or some dip shits fear tactics to guide my thoughts. you do know that these guys who thinkg GW is 95% mans fault are also being paid in one way or another, and that many companes rely on the words GREEN, and environmentally friendly to sell their products right. you do know that these GW believers drive cars and pollute as much of the rest of us, know that they are hypocrites right? and if they were told they were getting a large sum of money in funds that they would say anything to keep their livelyhood going. hehehe, yeah. i can't count the number of articles read by me, many climatologists books read in order to have a well rounded view.

so i ask, what is it that I personally have to gain by making others aware of their goated beliefs in GW.

there are many books out there terkio that you can start to read about this, that's up to you to do that. the more you know, the more you won't know.

GW is a hard sell this year, it's not happening for some reason, i wonder why ??? :) ???

the only thing that will tell the truth is time, i'll wait until then, i don't want to be seen as a fool in the future, heh, fear is no way to run a business is it, and that is what i see happening.

i love this planet and nature just as much or more than the next person, and quite honestly, at least i talk to it. i appreciate you're attempts to win me over and convert me into a believer, heh, i was once one 15 years ago or so, not any more, i learned different.

just for fun, what are weather shamans? have you heard of those before?

have you noticed the increase in volcanic and earth quake activity, i ask you, not some science report, have YOU noticed?
did you check out the sun as asked in the previous messages, did you read those articles? keep checking out all the available articles, i read both sides all the time, never one sided, EVER.

thanks terks, i enjoy your efforts. i guess you're pointing out to me that everyone probably thinks i know very little and am blind sided someohow, hahaha, that i have no credible points and i must be a raving mad lunatic and that i do not see the light or read or research info, follow up leads, discuss articles with i am sure thousands of others. i know they think that, and i am ok with it :)
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Seriously Unserious »

@Chaos-Shaman: Did it ever occur to you that GW proponents and environmentalists have had no choice but to drive a gas-guzzling car and fly in gas-guzzling planes? What do you expect, that they're going to spend months walking across Canada or the US? That they're going to spend a months long and deadly journey crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific by sail? Take a year long, deadly safari trip form Europe to the Cape of Good Hope maybe? That's just not practical and you know it!

It isn't until just recently that good, reliable zero emission vehicles are finally starting to reach market. I just posting about one in the general science thread that's got a good enough range, size and performance to actually compete with gas-guzzlers.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

"@Chaos-Shaman: Did it ever occur to you that GW proponents and environmentalists have had no choice but to drive a gas-guzzling car and fly in gas-guzzling planes?"

exactly, so we can't squeeze this issue to hard without hurting people. we need to burn fuels to survive and be out of the horse and buggy days. the thing is there is money attached to it... you know already how i feel about that. now what i am saying that is occuring with me is, i think man is living out what it is, life, it's full of battles and challenges and species will come and go, it just so happens we burn fuel for advancements and fart :)
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Seriously Unserious »

Did you even check that link? There is at least one alternative to burning gas for transportation, use one of the cars I posted about in that topic. Those cars do not pollute. Once we all get our collective head out of our butts long enough to get our electricity production to zero emission too, it will get even better. The technologies for zero-emission electricity production do exist, even options that are very efficient and cost effective.

We can live our modern life without living toxic, we just need to make the choice to do so. That's the greatest give humans have, our free will to choose our actions with analytical thought and reasoning. We are much, much more then organic robots operating on stimulus-response or preprogramming or any of that crap some would have us believe, just to control us to keep doing what we're doing that's no longer working.

Regardless of your beliefs in the matter of climate change, if you put huge amounts of chemicals and other substances into the environment, which you, yourself have said we know too little about, it will have all kinds of consequences most of which we wouldn't even predict or expect due to this lack of knowledge. How can anyone honestly claim that the massive amounts of chemicals we're pumping into the ground, water, and air isn't having an affect on our climate? or our health? or both? or any combination of other things we wouldn't expect it to?

Going back to a primitive lifestyle isn't the answer, of course, but neither is going on with the status quo, and just keep on poisoning and affecting our home in ways we don't know enough about and can't predict what the consequences will be, other then making our own home a hostile environment for ourselves. That does not seem very conducive to our survival, to me.

If doing what we are doing is having all these negative and unpredictable results, then to me it makes sense to not continue doing things the same way as we've been doing them, the way that got us into this mess, and find new ways of doing things. Ways that do not pollute, ways that do not poison, ways that do not have harmful effects on any part of our environment. We have the ability, knowledge and technologies to make this happen, we just need the will to choose to make it happen.
User avatar
terkio
Mon Master
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:24 pm

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by terkio »

The technologies for zero-emission electricity production do exist, even options that are very efficient and cost effective.
[further explanation needed]
"You can be on the right track and still get hit by a train!" Alfred E. Neuman
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Seriously Unserious »

Well, there are the commonly known techs like solar power, wind power, geothermal and tidal, hydo power to name a few, and hydro does not have to mean huge dams that cause their own set of environmental problems. Here's one company's technology that makes clean, efficient hydro power without huge dams, Blue Energy Canada, Inc.

The clean car can be found in the science discussion which I've already linked to.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

"Did you even check that link?"

yes i did, and my answer is already been stated. to make that car pollutes, to get that steel, the battery, rubber, the paint, the plastics, the amount of different pollutants we'll find in that car, the fuel is only part of it, manufacturing of billions of cars is really producing pollutants, the shipping of it, it's not much better i am afraid, it depends on ones point of view. people still have not learned that making the car is just as much of a problem, and as population increases it won't matter how much we try and not pollute, the answer is not making more cars, that's the problem. i just do not believe making more fuel efficient cars are going to make any difference, that's my take. how does a third world country even afford such a car as well. it is tailored made for those who have money, it does not solve anything except line the pockets of businessmen.

i've read many books on psychology, which is why i find weather\climate talks so interesting because everyone talks about the weather :) after decades of listening to others i began to see a pattern. i can't explain that to anyone, they don't care anyway. i see everyone wants to belong and be responsible, then i see the devious side of the businessman. it doesn't take too long to see how fear works on the population. i'll say it again, fear and money are a bad combo for the public and it is in no way the best method. it is being abused, but how many of us understand that what i have just said, not many. when i told my family in 2001 how the goverment was listening in to everything you say and do, they laughed at me. they thought i was crazy of course. they just didn't fathom how info was stored and how much could be stored about their personal lives. i instructed them to protect themselves from it. but today they're just beginning to see what i was saying. i feel the same about this topic, and when 20 years goes by, only then can we start to see what i was refering to. so i'll wait, the earth isn't going to die, if anything the earth would be better off without us right, and for the next 2 billion years it will go on as nature intended, this does not scare me, and it shouldn't scare anyone. nature will have its way with us and we're not going to stop it. we can't control it, we can't tell it what to do, or at least i am not that ignorant of it, i know better.

i love these chats, and if i am lucky somebody just might say, oh, i see what you mean now. i have patients, that's what a good scientist does, waits until the answer is made as clear as possible, and that takes time, not 30 years of sat data which is a drop in an ocean in earth time. i don't base anything on that short time frame when the earth is here for which it seems eternity to our short lived presence on the planet. if we did the earth would be still flat, the sun would still be going around the earth, and the stars would be deities lanterns, we'd fall off the edge of the earth etc. so what we know today is not what we'll know tomorrow.

if man made CO2 was going to kill the planet, the correct thing to do is stop producing the things that create it. can't get much more simple than that. it sure beats the hell out of making cars, but the question is, can we live without them? YES we can, do we need all this high tech?, NO we don't. will people still use a product that they are told is bad for the environment for their own gain?, YES they will. i think that sums it up.

please take everything as nothing more than a discussion, i enjoy the posts.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Seriously Unserious »

You say fear and money are 2 of the biggest problems, is what I'm gathering from your posts in here to date. Here's a video of a concept that takes those 2 problems out of the equation altogether: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... phWsnhZ4Ag.
to make that car pollutes, to get that steel, the battery, rubber, the paint, the plastics, the amount of different pollutants we'll find in that car, the fuel is only part of it, manufacturing of billions of cars is really producing pollutants, the shipping of it, it's not much better i am afraid, it depends on ones point of view.
Yes, making cars does pollute at this time, and it would take quite a bit of time and resources (such as money) to convert all our heavy manufacturing over to non polluting alternatives. However I disagree that making a car that does not itself pollute is a waste and that we should just keep on making cars that themselves pollute. If the car does not pollute that's one less thing producing pollution, and cars burning fossil fuels is a major source of pollution.

Is building non-polluting cars the complete answer to all our pollution problems? Of course not, not by a long shot. Does it help to reduce the amount of pollution we're making? Of course it does, tremendously. Remember It makes just as much pollution to build a polluting gas guzzling vehicle as it does to build a non polluting 0 emission vehicle does. The difference is in how much pollution the vehicles themselves produce, which is significant in the case of gas guzzlers of any sort.

For the moment let's ignore the GW vs no GW debate and look at it this way, regardless of whatever effects our pollutants are having on the climate, they are slowly poisoning the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and the land we live on. Now poison is a substance that causes some degree of sickness and eventually death in sufficient quantities of any living thing that it gets into. We also just don't know enough about this complex array of systems we call Planet Earth to know what other effects these pollutants are having to the many individual systems at work here, or the complex interactions between them. What are all the effects these pollutants are having? No one really knows. Are these effects good? Who knows, but we do know that at least some are very bad, bad enough to override any good effects that may be present, although I personally am no aware of any good that pollution has done.

So what you said, combined with what I just said above there just goes to show that converting all our cars to 0-emission vehicles is only the first step in a long journey towards converting all of our technology over to non-polluting alternatives. Is that journey a long and daunting journey? You bet. Can we do it if we really want to? Of course we can. We are only limited by our considerations of what we can and can not do. Don't let the money it would cost and fear of the immensity of the journey cause you to shy away from even attempting it. Something that betters the survival potential of both ourselves, and all the other organisms that live on this planet is a very worthwhile goal and one that I see as being worth the effort to get there. Do you?
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by cowsmanaut »

"Those cars do not pollute." this is a naive assumption. Where do you think these cars come from? the stork? what do they run on? fairly farts?

As already mentioned above, production of the car itself has a number of emissions to account for, as well as the creating of the "fuel" in the battery cell. Then there is the actual charging of the device, which is (despite Tesla's cliams) only at about 85% efficient..(this means each time it's charged you're paying for 15% more than you're using) There are also losses while the battery is idle, though they are working on reducing these "vampire losses". All of this goes to leave a carbon footprint. Even in areas where energy is mostly clean sourced like BC. We're not 100% clean just yet.

Recent study has put the Tesla about on par for emissions with this gas driven vehicle
http://www.scion.ca/scion/en/vehicles/i ... erformance

Far more efficient than most gas guzzlers to be sure, especially as it's a full sized car, but hardly zero emissions in the end.

You also have to consider they market the battery with only an 8 year warranty. This means it "works" for 8 years, but anyone knows with batteries, they tend to gain shorter and shorter lifespans. Replacement cost for it is speculated at about $5000 for the battery. On the plus side, they claim about 60% + of the battery is recyclable and even in the creation of new batteries.. still 40%-ish landfill..

So, is it doing a good job to lower emissions? yes, not too bad.. but not as great as they would like you to think.. I mean come on, they need to sell vehicles. Just because it runs on a battery, doesn't mean it doesn't pollute. People keep jumping up and down making these bold claims because they saw it in an ad.. seriously.. the company is trying to sell you something and that's the only person you listen to? dude.. I think that's where the "pulling of collective heads out of asses" should be taking place. You should always research both ends.. it took me all of 2 seconds to find a page full of links to articles countering many of the zero emission claims(several respectable sources even!), that in my book says you didn't even try. Even in the production of these power plants which are supposed to be zero footprint, are not. They need to be manufactured and maintained.. the reason why they are so great is because the gain is far above the cost in terms of pollution.

"all that glitters is not gold" ;)
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Seriously Unserious »

I do do my research. Just because currently used manufacturing processes pollute does not mean that they will always have to pollute. Pollution is not a mandatory part of life and existence. That's just a scam those that do the most pollution and would have to pay the most to clean it up would have us believe to as to not have to bother with cleaning things up. If everything pollutes, even the cleanup efforts, then why bother, why not just keep on as is until we kill ourselves and a whole lot of other organisms too while we're at it.

The Cynics have never gotten anything done, they just block the actions of those who do have good ideas on how to solve our problems. We do have many good solutions even now, and those we don't yet have, we can find with a little effort.

If you read my post you would notice that I said that manufacturing these cars and the electricity that powers them does pollute. I also said that it does not have to pollute. We can, if we want to, design new manufacturing processes that do not pollute. We only need to choose to do it. As for the battery claim, well gas powered cars also have a battery, it's mandatory otherwise the car would not even start. So again, electric does pollute far less then gas, and with the changes I mentioned above to industrial processes it can get down to 0 emissions. In the meanwhile, I'd rather drive a car that does not poison our air every moment it is running, even if the current manufacturing processes still do pollute, those processes pollute just as much whether the car being built is gas powered or electric powered. Do most currently used electric producing processes pollute? Of course, that's not even being disputed here. So all gas producing processes and facilities.

The differences are in what the car itself does when it is actually running, and in what is possible. With fossil fuel power there is no choice but to pollute, it's in the laws of physics, burn a hydrocarbon and it will produce certain byproducts which just happen to be toxic pollutants. Produce hydrocarbon based fossil fuels and there will be off-gassing and other toxic byproducts produced and inevitably released into the environment.

So I say it again, with a 0 emission vehicle that does not use fossil fuels it is possible to make a no pollution industry where everything from using the end product to all manufacturing and refining processes being non polluting. If people open their eyes and look, we would all see that we can build new industries that do not pollute. There are those who control the current, toxic industries that do not want these changes because they fear that will lose power and control.

It really all comes down to fear. Fear of change, fear of loss of power and fear of other people.

With courage, honor and conviction, we can make a world for ourselves where pollution is nothing but a bad memory. It's about having the vision and dream of such a world and each doing our part to make it happen. Anything that brings us more towards that goal then away from it is good in my books.
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by cowsmanaut »

if you look at the time stamp, you may notice that I would have been typing that message as you were typing yours... meaning I would have been unable to read the post of which you are scorning me for not reading.

But i dare say.. you MUST be right.. there is a vechicle that could be 100% manufactured at zero emission and runs with zero emissions..

Image

Again, I say.. DO YOUR RESEARCH..
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Seriously Unserious »

:lol:
Yubba-dubba-doooooooo!!!!!!! :P
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by cowsmanaut »

on a more serious note.. look into ceramic engines and bio-ethanol fuel. Ceramic engine blocks can apparently work without need for lubricants and maintain higher heat for more efficient burns. Their production however, is still not 100% clean... but they are a CLEANER engine.. we learned about them back when I was doing my mechanics portion of my "Aircraft manufacture and repair" course.. (long ago before I got into animation around 1998) The ethanol fuels primary byproduct is water vapour... making it clean. They use it down at the mission raceway for race cars.. However at the time, they were not allowed on the roads by aircare because they didn't meet the "minimum emissions" of the testing, which was put in place to prevent cheating.. I think they have since revised their standing on "minimum" given the newer vehicles.

I will tell you that based on the very real needs of such a vehicle like the Tesla, or any car not carved from wood.. just preparing the raw materials produces pollutants as part of their initial refinement.. this is a process that can not be escaped. For a great number of reasons I won't bother with here, unless you really can't figure them out through research. I've worked in the manufacture of various items in wood, plastic, and metal. The latter, I've used most methods of welding known (butane, oxy/acet, MIG, TIG, ARC, and even just a forge and a hammer) .. I've repaired numerous engines in the past, including the complete disassembly and reassembly of entire engines as part of my learning process. I've even done minor electronics repair as a teen.. sometimes just for fun :P I've been up and down this research path, gotten my hands dirty a number of times.. Hell, my roomate was making biodiesel for his car from nothing more than vegetable oil... and used the remainder to make soap :D

You're missing details and shaking your finger in dismay for not meeting unrealistic expectations.. unfortunately physics is not going to rewrite itself.. All we can do is work within it's constraints, and believe it or not, many people are... and you need to separate the weirdos from the true science. No matter how appealing the weirdo's sales pitch is :D There's a guy in new westminster who claimes he can produce anti-gravity.. he's even been featured in interviews.. it's totally bogus.. but they wanted to show off his home, which is entirely filled with electronics.. the thing LOOKS like a high tech lab from the 50's :D There was a movement a few years back with people claiming they could run a combustion engine off nothing but water :P They even had youtube videos .. which proved nothing.. "here watch me pour this water into this thing I've slapped on the side and told you leads to a special component I won't show you that converts the water to fuel magically.... " yeaaaaahhhhhhhhh.. it sounded really nice, and even a few of their videos seemed almost convincing.. but never with actual proof. but I digress.. point is, if you really want to see the change you're talking about above .. you need to research, and then act upon it. Support those who are in the right direction.. and be sure it is.. by purposefully looking for their errors, rather than basking in the ideas you HOPE are true..

Otherwise, you are doomed to be disappointed..
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Seriously Unserious »

cowsmanaut wrote:look into ceramic engines and bio-ethanol fuel. Ceramic engine blocks can apparently work without need for lubricants and maintain higher heat for more efficient burns.
That is definitely another way to take a step in the right direction.
cowsmanaut wrote:The ethanol fuels primary byproduct is water vapour... making it clean. They use it down at the mission raceway for race cars.. However at the time, they were not allowed on the roads by aircare because they didn't meet the "minimum emissions" of the testing, which was put in place to prevent cheating.. I think they have since revised their standing on "minimum" given the newer vehicles.
Now that's funny in a pathetic sort of way, a program designed to reduce pollution does not allow the cleanest vehicles on the road because they're too clean. Talk about an arbitrary standard based on nothing scientific or factual... :P
cowsmanaut wrote:I will tell you that based on the very real needs of such a vehicle like the Tesla, or any car not carved from wood.. just preparing the raw materials produces pollutants as part of their initial refinement.. this is a process that can not be escaped.
There's no disputing the fact that base materials need to be processed in some way to convert them into the form needed for production. That is inescapable. What is not inescapable is that we can research into and develop new ways of accomplishing this that pollute less, and eventually find a way to not pollute at all. Just because we do not know about it now does not mean it does not exist and can not exist, and can not be done, all it means is we have not yet found out how.
cowsmanaut wrote:You're missing details and shaking your finger in dismay for not meeting unrealistic expectations
Not at all, I'm not shaking my finger in dismay about unrealistic expectations, but rather at closed minded thinking that focuses on why we can't rather then on how we can.

What I've been posting about are the possibilities we can and must strive towards. We may never get there but that does not mean we can not, and should not try. We can and must make the efforts to better ourselves. I'd rather set a lofty goal and not achieve it, but still achieve something much better then I would have if I'd gone for and achieved something easier. Striving for something worthwhile is not a cause for disappointment just because of setbacks or later finding out you can't figure out how to achieve it, that's just part of living. The true disappointment is in not even bothering to make the attempt because you can't see how to achieve it, or are afraid you might fail. Failures are part of living and learning. If I let fear of failure paralyze me, or let myself be disappointed because I didn't get everything I wanted I'd be terrified and disappointment permanently. No, that is no way to live, if I don't get everything I wanted, I take stock of what I did get, and what I can do differently to do better in the future. I'm not afraid of failing or being disappointed because I know those things happen and I can live through them and learn from them.
cowsmanaut wrote:unfortunately physics is not going to rewrite itself.. All we can do is work within it's constraints, and believe it or not, many people are.
This may be true, but our understanding of physics is constantly changing as we research the physical world and it's nature and learn more about how it works. There was once a time when we though the Earth was the center of the universe and everything else orbited it. We researched the universe and learned better. So that "law" of physics was discarded as false. Who know what we think is true about the physical universe is really not true and that some of the "laws" of physics are at least partially incorrect. So basically our understanding of physics are always changing as we learn more about it and further our knowledge of what is true and what is false.

That, of course, will never happen if we allow ourselves to be bogged down with dogmas that create a belief that what we know now is all there is to know and all we ever can know so all we can do is putter around with what we already know.

Yes there are quacks and charlatans out there who will try to push faith out there and call it "science." That does not mean that everything that challenges and upsets our current beliefs on how the universe works is all quackery and fakery. At one time scientific greats like Galileo, Newton, Darwin and many others were called quacks and frauds, yet what they found were more true and workable then what came before, so eventually it got accepted as fact. I seriously doubt those people, brilliant as they were and as important to furthering the physical sciences as they have been, managed to discover everything there is to know about the physical sciences or that they were infallible and couldn't possibly have made mistakes in their research, assumptions and conclusions. They did their part and left us more knowledgeable then before they were here, now it's our time, to do our parts in discovering the things they didn't discover, our couldn't, and discovering where they may have gone wrong and correcting it.

If we accept all the ideas of the past scientists as writ and succumb to dogma, worshiping at the alter of science all we do is trade one blind faith for another. If we keep challenging our beliefs and ideas and when they fail to meet the challenge, replace them with new ideas and beliefs, always working our way towards better and more complete understanding of our universe, we will continue to grow and thrive and find new solutions that didn't seem possible in the past. If we keep on progressing we will eventually find solutions in the future that do not seem possible right now.

I am not shaking my finger in dismay at failures or not achieving the impossible, I am seeking to inspire people that we can solve our problems. We can learn more and find ways to do things that just don't seem possible at this time.

Dismay is not the message I'm intending to convey, my message is that we can. If we be what we want, do what it takes to achieve it, we can have it. If we truly want a clean and healthy world for ourselves, we can have it by doing what it takes to make it happen and being the clean world we want to have.
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by cowsmanaut »

inspire by doing, use of action rather than word.

it's like saying "I think more people should recycle, because I think that's better for the planet" and then not recycling anything yourself.

unless you're staying involved, providing input, resources, and making positive action for change. You're just saying: "service me and my wants... bla bla bla inspiring words."

When your actions lack the conviction of your words, you cease to inspire people.

as to removal of pollutants from production, this is not something ignored because people are greedy and bla bla bla.. There is serious cost to waste and waste management. If a solution to turn waste into profit arrived, then so much the better.

Let's look at smelting. When smelting steel, you get slag, and slag is a mineral rich byproduct which can be used in construction and cement, or can be used as a fertilizer for crops. It produces toxic gasses too which are bad.. but the option for the company to make a profit on their waste is not beyond their sight.. if they could gather and use the gasses in a way that was cost effective, they would do it.

you may have noticed "cost effective" .. well there's your greed right there right? WRONG.. Cost effectiveness relates to a number of smaller issues that lead to resource management and end cost to the consumer. If they consumer can not afford the end product, then the process has been for naught... they can not sell to you at a loss without having some other method of making back the money in other ways.. Various costs go into management of a company, cost of supplies, energy, time devoted to research and repair, cost of labour, and land, license, plus taxation which can be higher depending on your production, then cost of basic living.. incentives as well, and then of course potential for growth.. and foresight for inflation. that's just down to money, then there's resource management and that's physics and chemistry right here.. Reaction of substances which change form, deals with energy exchange of compatable elements. you pour a base into an acid and you get salt water. as an example.. and the end result is a hopefully non toxic or less toxic resource. which may or may not be useful. The substance from smelting is a gas that we wish to deal with, and we need to identify the components of that gas (they are aware of them, but it's not important to post here) and they need a reactive substance, and temperature control within their container to get the to combine into a less harmful substance. The potential energy required and the reactive components needed could be a VERY difficult one to achieve and so cost ineffective that in order to carry it out, you would not be able to stay in bussiness.

that's the VERY basic view of it, but I hope you can see there is more involved than "fear of change" and people saying "it can't be done" .. take a look at our current situation with radiation from Japan, they've pooled all resources domestic and foreign that they can in trying to deal with the radiation.. but it's proven impossible to resolve.. and not for lack of resource, focus, and desire to fix the problem. Nothing makes a person try harder than when faced with life threatening situations.. :P
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Seriously Unserious »

cowsmanaut wrote:Nothing makes a person try harder than when faced with life threatening situations
I quite agree with you there :D

For the record, I am doing my part to contribute to the solutions to the problems we're facing today. I could go into the details of how I'm going about it, but that would involve writing many very large books about it and that's already been done. I'm no expert in metallurgy, chemistry, engineering, physics or anything like that and don't have any interest in studying those things, so my time would not be productive for anyone for me to spend in on solving it from that angle, I'll leave that to the experts in those fields and do my part in the field of study I am interested in and learning about, which is the reasons why people make the decisions they make and do the things they do, including those that are not optimum for survival. Most of all, in learning effective methods to cure people who exhibit such non-optimum behaviors and clear people of such things that inhibit us from being our best and true selves.

No, I'm not studying Psychology or Psychiatry, those have already been in use for decades and haven't solved a thing, really.

Back to the original topic. While watching a program on what when happen if Mt Krakatoa next erupts, by analyzing what happened the last 2 times it erupted (mid 5th and late 19th centuries), and the effects both eruptions had on our climate reminded me that we had 2 huge eruptions last summer, one in Mexico, and one in Alaska, not to mention the one we had not so long ago in Iceland that went on for weeks. The effects were releasing massive clouds of dust particles and sulfur compounds, especially sulfur dioxide which readily combines with water to form sulfuric acid, which is highly reflective, as are the volcanic dust particles, which block enough of the sun's energy to lower temperatures noticeably. In the case of the 5th century Krakatoa eruption, it lowered temperatures globally an estimated 15 degrees, which is what really sparked the dark ages more than anything else.

The reason I bring this up is with that much volcanic material ejected into the atmosphere over the past year, from more then 1 major eruption may very well be having downward effect on our temperatures for this winter. The weather's been very odd in many places ever since both those eruptions happened, so it's not exactly a stretch to look into the possibility that the combined effects of them are having an effect on our weather this winter.

Chaos-Shaman's been commenting on the unusual cold this winter, and in light of that, and those eruptions, it is entirely possible that they're having an effect on our weather and climate this winter and contributing to the unusual cold many regions are experiencing, and the odd weather the Vancouver area's been getting
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

ok, that's a lot to read :)

this latest cold spell, breaking all kinds of records. it didn't take long for some twit to say that it was GW, we broke temperature records in Antarctica, we've broke temperature records alll across America, we broke records on the amount of ice forming in the Arctic, and so a dip shit posts an article like that. i have it for reference to the stupidity of man. my god we can be stupid sometimes. almost every response hammered the fool for the article. believe it or not but many refered to the polar vortex in terms of MAGNETISM. no matter how hard many of us try to explain this, they don't listen. it falls on deaf ears. this is the brainwashing conditioning i am refering to.

baby it's cold outside!

i'll get back to reading those post in a bit, i have to thaw myself out :) i will respond to them.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

finally, a science article that explains just a little about what i have been saying all along, MAGNETICS in some form of cycle

http://news.yahoo.com/sun-stars-solar-m ... ts-postbox
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Seriously Unserious »

Interesting find Chaos. Yes, a potential significant reduction in energy output from the sun, which is my understanding of what that article is about, definitely would trigger global cooling if it does happen over an extended period. Regardless of greenhouse gasses or not, that would at least slow any GW trend if not reverse it if it's as bad as some such solar cycles have been in the past.

There are also 2 out of 3 Earth-based cycles that also favor a global cooldown, Earth's orbit, which is not a constant distance from the Sun year round, or a perfect circle but rather is somewhat elliptical, and right now we're in a stage where the north is further from the sun in the summer, which gives more distance for the sun's energy to diffuse as it travels here (less energy overall reaches Earth as a result) and the cycle of progression, which is the orientation of Earth's axis, which also causes the northern hemisphere to get less energy from the sun in its current stage in the cycle. The 3rd Earth based cycle, in the one that actually favors a natural global warming, and is the one that usually has the most effect too, that's the angle of Earth's axis, which cyclically varies from about 21 degrees to about 24 degrees, and it currently at about 23.5 degrees. This effects how hot the summers are, and the biggest contributor to global icing is cool summers, and not so much bitterly cold winters as most might expect. So the cycle of Earth's tilt that most favors ice build-up and thus global cooling as the ice makes Earth more reflective* is when it's at the 21 degree tilt.

The main idea behind GW is that certain substances, when suspended in the atmosphere act as a layer of insulation, trapping energy within Earth's atmosphere that would otherwise escape. Too little greenhouse gasses and Earth would become much like a cooler version of Mercury, Deadly hot in the day, deadly cold at night as the sun's energy would have few barriers to entering the Earth, and the Earth's energy would have few barriers to leaving. Too much greenhouse gasses and the Earth becomes like a slightly cooler version of Venus, energy can't easily enter the Earth, true, but it also can't easily escape, and since the sun outputs far more energy at the Earth's distance, that the Earth does, more energy will enter then leave, causing temperatures to nearly continuously trend upwards, until they approach the amount of energy that's being received from the sun. Of course these are the ultimate extremes, as Mercury has virtually no atmosphere and Venus has a thick atmosphere that's about 98% CO2, whereas Earth has the right atmospheric thickness for life and the CO2 levels are currently at 0.0360% or 394.45 ppm (Sources: The Encyclopedia of Earth Scientific Psychic)About 500 million years ago CO2 levels were about 20 times today's levels, and I do remember from my Geology class last summer that global sea levels were far higher then they are today, in fact about 50% of North America's present day landmass was underwater. Then CO2 levels dropped off and sea levels also dropped off exposing the previously underwater parts of North America's land. Then CO2 levels rose again to about 4-5 times current levels about 200 million years ago, right in the middle of the age of dinosaurs, and again more then half of the present day North American landmass was underwater. Since then CO2 levels have been steadily falling off to around their present day levels, at least until the rise of the industrial age when they have begun to rise again. (Source: Climate Change Past and Future)

During the periods of high CO2 levels, Earth's temperatures rose dramatically and the planet became largely tropical, with massive plant tropical style plant growth accompanying each such event from about 420 million years ago onwards. Before 420 million years ago there were no land plants yet.

The other thing to keep in mind, is that naturally occurring cyclic changes, barring a sudden catastrophic event, which is easily detectable, take place over a period of 1000s or more years, very slow by our standards. The currently observed changes in temperatures and CO2 levels are taking place over a period of decades or centuries, not millennia or aeons. Decades! That's shorter then a geological eyeblink!

Now, we are still far from CO2 levels being enough to do anything like those dramatic events of the past, but if we continue to do what we are doing, and not find better ways of doing things, we will reach critical levels quickly. With places like China, India and Africa modernizing at a phenomenal rate, the increase in pollutants and climate altering substances in the environment will increase exponentially. The time to change our ways to clean energy sources and clean building practices is now, not when we're in the middle of a major global crisis of climate change, sea level raise and massive storms that would make those typhoons that devastated the Philippines look like a light shower! To deny that we're having an effect on our environment when the evidence is all around us, and the start of unnaturally rapid trends like the CO2 raise, temperature changes and such, to me seems ridiculous. All it takes is looking. By looking you will see those factories pumping poisons into our breathing air, drinking water, and farmlands. you will see the car exhaust poisoning our air, don't believe me, just try locking yourself in your garage and running your car, I doubt you'd survive the experience for long.

The thing of it is, we have good, clean energies now, we just aren't using them, we're too busy ridiculing the developers because we just can't believe it's possible to make our energy without poisoning ourselves, or to manufacture products without poisoning ourselves. What we don't know how to do clean now, we can learn how to do clean if we're willing to put in the effort needed to develop ways to do things clean. Poisoning ourselves is NOT an unavoidable part of progress, it's just that, poisoning ourselves. We are perfectly capable of clean progress if we want it and are willing to work for it, and support it.

I am not an engineer, chemist or physicist to do the research myself, and I wouldn't want to be one of those professions, they just aren't within my area of personal interest, aside from knowing generally how they affect me. That does not mean I can not and am not supporting clean energies by encouraging those who are interested in and good at the sciences needed to develop clean technologies. That does not mean I can't support those who are needed to do the direct research in other ways, by providing the services these people desperately need in areas they are not good at or interested in, but that I am.

I don't know who originally said this but
it takes a village to raise a child
and likewise, it takes a community to solve problems and survive.

Additional source: Levin, Harold. The Earth Through Time. 9th Edition. Publisher: John Wiley & Sons.

* Note: ice and snow send about 90% of the energy that hits it back, so most of the sun's energy goes right back out into space when the Earth is heavily iced over as in an Ice Age, whereas rock and liquid water both absorb more of the sun's energy then reflect it, meaning more energy that reaches Earth's surface stays at Earth's surface, causing warmer temperatures.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

The other thing to keep in mind, is that naturally occurring cyclic changes, barring a sudden catastrophic event, which is easily detectable, take place over a period of 1000s or more years, very slow by our standards. The currently observed changes in temperatures and CO2 levels are taking place over a period of decades or centuries, not millennia or aeons. Decades! That's shorter then a geological eyeblink!
yes yes, but there are reports that the ocean was warm when the ice age occured, and it was the air that was colder hence all the snow buildup, and the more snow, the more white reflects back out. what is different is we have not been studying the sun for that long, but scientists are saying that the sun has lost output, the same can be said for last few decades that the suns output was greater, therefore higher temperatures, this would have happened if there was CO2 or not and we are still coming out of the last ice age. one thing i will point out though is Venus has no water, we're a planet much further away and our oceans will play a roll in CO2 levels rising and falling, Venus doesn't have that, and it is far closer to the sun. Venus is not a good comparison for the earth. it may be near the same size but it certainly is nothing like the dynamics that the earth has and the fear of earth turning into a Venus is astronomically small. might as well just say never. boy you really spewed out some chat today :)
To deny that we're having an effect on our environment when the evidence is all around us, and the start of unnaturally rapid trends like the CO2 raise, temperature changes and such, to me seems ridiculous.
there is no deny on EVERYTHING has an effect, but we can all attribute that to LIVING, that's what life does, when things get out of hand there is nature to look at, it'll fix everything every so often, that is how nature works. to state that man is a disease and we are the only thing destroying or can save the workd is rediculous too, we're here, we breathe, we destroy and we create. it is a natural part of the cycle. ALL LIFE works on the same principle, we're no different. i think that is where many people go wrong, they seem to think we're some germ on the planet and we're the ones who are reponsible to save it, i beg to differ there, i certainly will not put us in that spot where we're the hand of god and above all other animals. the only difference there is is we ask WHY, we have guilt, we blame ourselves. that would be like a locust knowing it causes famine, or a life form that eats until there is none left which is by the way nature works, it doens't work on our made up rules, nature does not care. all i can say is take up a dialogue with nature, express yourself to it, ask it questions, don't be afraid of it, open your mind. one of the things i learned about shamanism is we're not in control for one, hahaha, foolish to think we have control, just darn right foolish. when nature is ready we won't have a say if you know what i mean, we'll be done for and nature will again start up something new. that's how it works. so if we are putting out CO2 and it was to be, it is not bad or good, it just IS.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

a quick statement, anyone who really wants to help out or want to feel they have done something, they can teach themsleves and others not to drive, and if they can't then the point i just made is true. also, those who believe that the Kyoto carbon tax is going to help the world, please send their checks to the poor, not to the UN, who i am slowly finding out they are as evil as can be, but i won't go there because that is a whole other topic.

and finally, if our government was so sure about rising temps, why have they not stopped producing the very things they say pollute? it is obvious why to me. our gov is not putting a stop, they are putting their foot on the accelerator. i personally don't like the double edged sword they use. if people want to save the world, they better get serious about which i don't see any sign of.

GW occurs natural, we may have an effect in both directions, but that's what man is. throwing money at it is NOT the right thing to do.

if you understand how the carbon tax credits work you'll see that it is designed to help the rich and keep the poor countries from developing. look at Japan, it is now in a fight for oil with China, the very country who brought on hardships to poor countries is now seeing how awful that can be. i want them to sell their tax credits not buy. it is a country with no natural resources, how stupid can we be here having the 5th largest industry on islands with no energy resources to fuel their economy, just plain dumb, but that's another story why they are the way they are, States fault :)

we're expecting another Arctic blast for the next 6 weeks with temps way below the average daytime high of -1, more like -10 to -20c, and that is for most of the N hem, except you SU, you lucky bastard out there in BC. those warm ring of fire waters certainly make me jealous
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

does everyone agree on the increased volcanic activity we've seen in the past few years, has anyone taken notice of that? have they noticed the sun is acting a bit strange, the last article does explain it is acting up. one pole flipped but the other has not. if we're at a solar high climax then it is possible we're going back to a low one over the next 1, 2 or even three solar cycles, this is not unusual for this to happen, so we get warm and cool and warm and cool which is why i say i'll wait another 20 years to see if the planet continues to warm, this is the way science works, gotta have patience, our first thoughts and predictions as you know will not be accurate, i certainly don't think so and our past thoughts proves that to be true, we've been wrong on a lot of things.
keep your gor coin handy
gerganrab
Apprentice
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:35 pm

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by gerganrab »

"everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it" Samuel Clemins GB
User avatar
Seriously Unserious
Master Superior
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 am
Location: Wandering around aimlessly in Lynchgate Woods
Contact:

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Seriously Unserious »

Chaos-Shaman wrote:yes yes, but there are reports that the ocean was warm when the ice age occured, and it was the air that was colder hence all the snow buildup, and the more snow, the more white reflects back out. what is different is we have not been studying the sun for that long, but scientists are saying that the sun has lost output, the same can be said for last few decades that the suns output was greater, therefore higher temperatures, this would have happened if there was CO2 or not and we are still coming out of the last ice age. one thing i will point out though is Venus has no water, we're a planet much further away and our oceans will play a roll in CO2 levels rising and falling, Venus doesn't have that, and it is far closer to the sun. Venus is not a good comparison for the earth. it may be near the same size but it certainly is nothing like the dynamics that the earth has and the fear of earth turning into a Venus is astronomically small. might as well just say never. boy you really spewed out some chat today :)
Where are those reports? I certainly haven't seen any such reports, and such reports based on my studies of climate and geology don't add up. Temperatures on Earth are cooler then normal, the oceans are a PART of Earth, but they're temperatures are apparently unrelated to Earth's temperatures? Everything I have ever learned, and everything I have ever observed all tell me the opposite is true. Cool oceans cause cool air, and cool air causes cool oceans, you can't have one without having the other, they're interconnected. When and where one cools, the other will be sure to follow.

It also seems you missed my point completely there, judging by your comments on my comments. I never once said Venus is like Earth, or Earth and Venus are the same or any such thing to that effect. I was bringing up what effects greenhouse gasses like CO2 have on a planet. Your argument that Venus is closer to the sun is valid, but it also proves my point because Mercury is the closest planet to the sun, yet Venus is hotter then Mercury, but by your reasoning above it seems to me that you're arguing that closeness to the sun is all that matters. The facts are unavoidable, Venus, the 2nd closest planet to the sun is the hottest planet in the solar system, Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, is only the 2nd hottest planet. Why? because Venus has a thick atmosphere of 98% CO2 gas, this traps the sun's heat in Venus so it stays hot. Mercury has almost no atmosphere, aside from some off-gassing of things like argon, so when the sun sets it gets extremely cold.

So my point in making the comparisons was not to say these planets are the same, but so show how they're different, and to highlight the processes at work and how that effects the overall climate of these planets. Would Venus be hotter then Earth if both planets had similar atmospheres? Of course it would, it gets more energy from the sun because it's closer to the sun, but if Venus had an Earth type atmosphere and Earth had a Venus type atmosphere, which planet would be hotter then? Well, in that scenario it would be Earth. In fact, Earth would be the hottest planet in the solar system, and Venus would then be much cooler, possibly even cool enough to support tropical or desert lifeforms. The point is not which planet is how far from the sun, it's what effect a well-insulating atmosphere has on surface temperatures, climates and conditions. Thick atmosphere with many greenhouse gases means a very hot planet, relative to its distance from the sun. Thin to nonexistent atmosphere with little to no greenhouse gasses means very volatile temperatures, climate and surface conditions that fluctuate wildly, relative to its distance from the sun. Earth-like atmosphere in terms of thickness and greenhouse gas composition means surface temperatures, climate and conditions that are mildly volatile, relative to the distance from the sun.

The closer to the sun the planet is, the more volatile it's conditions will be, due to the increased energy it will revive, that's why our moon is much more stable in terms of surface temperatures and conditions then Mercury is despite the similarities in composition, our moon is much further from the sun then Mercury is, so peak energy input from the sun is naturally much lower, thus more stable conditions.
Chaos-Shaman wrote: i think that is where many people go wrong, they seem to think we're some germ on the planet and we're the ones who are reponsible to save it,
There are people that do claim we're some sort of evil destroyer of our homeworld, and I couldn't disagree more. If we were a germ, destroying our planet would be our base nature, yet it isn't. Doing things that destroy our planet is born from a combination of ignorance and greed. At first people didn't know we were harming our home, now we have so many activities based on harming our home that people are afraid to change then for fear of the short term consequences and still operate in ignorance of the long term consequences of not changing.
Chaos-Shaman wrote: is we're not in control for one, hahaha, foolish to think we have control, just darn right foolish.
I find that idea to me just plain apathetic. We do control our environment more so that anything in the history of Earth. I challenge you to find another organism that can build a house that keeps the wind, rain, snow and cold out, put machines in that house that makes the temperature be whatever we want it to be, and develops devices like clothes, umbrellas and much more that keeps the elements more or less off of us even while outside... Nothing? That's right, we're the only species that can do that. We can enter a machine and within hours be on the other side of the world, is there anything else that can do that? No. Just us. We don't yet have perfect command over our environment, but we do have a huge amount of command over our environment. I've discovered that to be the ultimate purpose of life, to control the environment and the physical universe. Some organisms are more effective at it then others, but all do this to at least some extent.

Don't like the cold and snow? You can fix that, turn on a heater and you just made the cold go away. Hop on a plane and go someplace warm, you just moved yourself to someplace warm, you just adjusted your environment to suit your purposes. No other organism on Earth can do that. We humans can.

So I fundamentally disagree that we're just puppets being pulled around by our environment. We are the puppeteers, and we control our environment, whether good or bad, we are the ones that make it happen. We've all simply forgotten how, but I'm learning how and am starting to notice the changes in my ability to have command over my environment.
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

Where are those reports?
well, if i tell you those reports are real, they are. there is nothing to gain by making things up, that's not my way. everything i have said is true about the reports. i know you don't believe that the last decade and a half have not shown an increase in temperatures, but keep researching on it, you'll find that info. it's all about the wording. i don't post a whole lot of what i read, who'd read it anyway :)

the volcani report is is in this thread... http://news.yahoo.com/greenland-ice-she ... 13201.html
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

of course i have read 1000 times what i post, this forum would be a mess otherwise :)

i do spend time reading all sides, this is not a one sided ignorant point of view i take at all. i take the psychological point of view, and i certainly do not rely on everything i have read or watch, to me most of everything is meant to condition the mind, which is why i hate any kind of commercial and spokes people, i'll never fall prey to their suggestions without propper investigation which i can tell you 30 years of sat dat is certainly by no means in time comparible to how long the earth has been here and will be after we're long gone.
It also seems you missed my point completely there, judging by your comments on my comments. I never once said Venus is like Earth, or Earth and Venus are the same or any such thing to that effect.
i read somewhere about that, i'd have to search the forum on that, let me look.

terkio will just love this, looks like we are getting another Global Warming thread after all.

"but yeah, Venus is a great example of global warming at it's finest." this is one comment, but i think ther eis more, hold on.

"... it -- and have access to. If you don't believe the experts about what CO2 in the atmosphere does to planetary temperatures just take a look at Venus. It's about the same size as Earth. It's about the same Mass as Earth. It's seismically and volcanically active like Earth is. Yet average surface ..."
yup, there is more :)

"I know Venus is the way it is due to natural processes. The reason I brought it up is that it's a great example of the sort of process that we can trigger on Earth if we keep raising the levels of greenhouse gasses, and as an ..."

i just happened to remember it, but as i said it is not a good comparison for GW on earth.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

Your argument that Venus is closer to the sun is valid, but it also proves my point because Mercury is the closest planet to the sun, yet Venus is hotter then Mercury, but by your reasoning above it seems to me that you're arguing that closeness to the sun is all that matters. The facts are unavoidable, Venus, the 2nd closest planet to the sun is the hottest planet in the solar system, Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, is only the 2nd hottest planet. Why?
neither venus or mercury have water which is my point, and oddly enough water is the most biggest grenhouse gas we have on the planet, it holds heat well.
keep your gor coin handy
User avatar
Chaos-Shaman
High Lord
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: The Gates of Hell

Re: What the... Snow in June, then in August!

Post by Chaos-Shaman »

I find that idea to me just plain apathetic. We do control our environment more so that anything in the history of Earth.
basics here, we won't stop nature, we are a part of nature, we create, we destroy etc, we don't have control although we seem to think we do, and that makes me laugh :lol: i do not see man surving on earth for too long, it won't be us that causes are die off, and we won't be the last ones on the planet either, in terms of billions of years, we are a sneeze. BUT if we can get off this blue marble we might continue in some way.
keep your gor coin handy
Locked