[quote who="Jafo" reply="1754" id="3429861"] Quoting petrossa, reply 1752Troll.... stupid remark. The australian icebraker is capable to 1.3 meter of ice. Around the econuts its 3 meters. They'll be airlifted. Yes, it is...probably best to desist. Your 'econuts' are retracing Douglas Mawson's expedition from 1912-13. Look it up. You 'might' learn something and help camoflage your ignorance. I guess &#
[quote who="Jafo" reply="1750" id="3429779"] Quoting petrossa, reply 1745Poor Greenpeace activists still trapped in the Antarctic. And all that to 'prove' how bad it was with the ice on the Antarctic. I really had to laugh when one of the nutcases came with the following expanation: The excessive ice increase is caused by the melting of ice which refreezes. Last I saw it was a Russian breaker commemorating an expedition from a 100 years ago. It's in ic
Poor Greenpeace activists still trapped in the Antarctic. And all that to 'prove' how bad it was with the ice on the Antarctic. I really had to laugh when one of the nutcases came with the following expanation: The excessive ice increase is caused by the melting of ice which refreezes. Hilarious. As the temperatures overall continue to drop we can expect even more insane 'explanations' why the world won't stick to the plan. Getting enormously hot with the increased
I just skip the essays. All that crock has been beaten to death. Luckily that's seeping through to the policymakers who are slowly trying to back out without too much loss of face. Germany, erstwhile AGW believer, who touts their 6 new coal powerplants as 'the cleanest' for example. England withdrawing from the 'alternative energy' and going for fracking. France which isn't withdrawing from nuclear an inch. USA where oil/gas is so plentiful they can become a net export
Good luck with your Prius and solar panels. And the idea a few ants can influence the watervapor in the atmosphere .....
Standard co2 in hothouses for produce is 1000 ppm. Increases yield enormously. Due to logarithmic nature of co2 trapping and the very limited band of infrared it traps any significant effect on climate will be negligible other then changes in local weathersystems due to greening of otherwise not so green places and more greening in already green places. Overall a very good result for mankind and we can only hope we reach that point soonest.
I prefer to look on the long term scale and then this 'sudden temperature rise' is the tiniest squiggle on an undulating vector you'd expect from a non-linear chaotic system. The mere thought the mankind is responsible is yet another doomsday fantasy, same as any other which has been passed down the millennia in various ancient texts. It's a very simple and basic underlying mechanism at work here: the little ape feels lost in a totally uncaring universe
WinCustomize Forums
23% and totally wrong since i have aspergers. Not a very good test.
I once seen a thread on religion with 18000 comments. I see this one going the same direction. Probably because it's also about religion
Ecofriends must love this: North America to Drown in Oil as Mexico Ends Monopoly http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/north-america-to-drown-in-oil-as-mexico-ends-monopoly.html
I'm capable to see the difference between my situation and that of the 'world'. So a few soft winters here or there don't mean much. I see a minor undulation in a gigantic non-linear chaotic system which is of such insignificance compared to other undulations it only is visible due to people actually looking for it. A bit like the ozoneholes. They always were and always will be there but became a 'problem' because someone suddenly saw them and made it a problem. <
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1475" id="3424370"] I still think we should be trying to reduce our impact on our environment. That's why I (and I know it annoys some of the lefties here) unlike anyone else in this discussion, am the only one whose home/vehicle has a negative carbon footprint. My house, powered by solar and my electric car, powered by solar, is doing its part. .... And strangely, those that scream the loudest about CO2 seem to be w
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1466" id="3424280"] He has not offered a reason, so we are left to wonder why.[/quote] Ours is not wonder why but just to do and die Tennyson
The Dutch are indoctrinated from birth with this stuff, it's stronger then themselves. At schools WWF is the main source of information and anyone who dares challenge the "Mankind is the sourceof all evil" meme gets into trouble with their teachers. No joke. Fortunately i'm Dutch from an earlier generation.
[quote who="Ekko_Tek" reply="1408" id="3423163"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 1407 Quoting Jafo, reply 1406 Quoting Frogboy, reply 1404CO2 always goes up after temperatures go up. Yes....that's a chicken and egg situation....which comes first... Not really. Temperatures always go up first. That's the big problem with the CO2 AGW hypothesis. Positive feedback loops...[/quote] Since clear evidence now shows there is
[quote who="Jafo" reply="1301" id="3421982"] Quoting Daiwa, reply 1300And to ignore non-conforming reality. I see both sides of the fence doing that. Without it there IS NO controversy. The problem with this as a debate is it comes down to.....hands up who has the most least dodgey data on their side wins. In truth it is genuinely following the Python 'argument' sketch.... ...this isn't an argument...it's a con
[quote who="Turchany" reply="1235" id="3421230"] Quoting petrossa, reply 1232Negligible effect not no effect. A bit like a mosquito has on the skin of an elephant. Basically you question everything I am learning at university, like my professors are idiots and don't know anything about climate and stuff.[/quote] The proof is in the eating of the pudding. CO2 rises, temperature lowers, climate quiets down. Evidently your professors claim to
[quote who="Turchany" reply="1231" id="3421174"] Quoting petrossa, reply 1230In other words, deserts come and go no matter who lives there or anywhere. Everyone knows this, BUT, human presence and activity can change this, overherding and bad water management are not natural circumstances... Like the whole existence of mankind is not a natural phenomena, machines are not natural, almost anything humans do are unnatural, especially bringing online long inactive power sou
[quote who="Turchany" reply="1226" id="3421010"] Quoting petrossa, reply 1225Anyone who believes that a few primates can influence the climate is delusional. I think you are totally wrong. If we can severely change the climate of entire regions (check the desertification in the South Saharan region), why can't we change the climate of the whole planet? Changing most of the landmass surface has no effect on the planetary climate, saying this is a bi
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="1224" id="3420917"] I don't agree with that. We have a mind, we use it to plan ahead ... for days, years, why not for 100 years ? The stakes are high. [/quote] The stakes are high? How come? I'm fine. Carpe diem and things you can't influence aren't worth bothering about. Anyone who believes that a few primates can influence the climate is delusional. Hubris the only real difference between othe
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="1221" id="3420531"] t's a bit funny writing this stuff while it's cold, dark and cloudy here in the Netherlands. It's like nothing's wrong. But this is not about the "now", it is about the "in 100 years from now" and that's a completely different story.[/quote] Nobody knows what the world will be like 100 years from now so its patently silly to even consider the beginning of an idea to 'influence' it. 100 yrs from now does
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="1212" id="3420372"] Yep. And that can only be fixed on a large scale. If every individual, town, province, or even country tries to invent its own way, then this will lead to an extremely inefficient use of resources. It'll lead to a ginormous waste of money to solve a problem which is already extremely costly as it is. Think about software, of many things. If every region will write its own software, how will those systems be able
[quote who="DrJBHL" reply="1201" id="3420126"] I feel that the solution resides in personal responsibility. If you wish to create change, first change yourself and your actions. That will influence others. When enough people do that, then countries will do it. It all starts with us. [/quote] Ok. Now and go tell that to the 80% of the world population whose lives depend on open woodfires. Nice idealism, but only if you can afford it. Th
[quote who="myfist0" reply="1185" id="3419331"] People think the forest 'service' is there for the well being of the forest? To the gov, the forest is not a natural wonder to be protected, it's a commodity to be exploited. They change everything the forest does naturally and point the fingers at everything else but themselves when it all turns to shit.[/quote] the main cause of damage by forest fires is bad maintenance of underbrush. Since the econuts dec
[quote who="Turchany" reply="1168" id="3418892"] Quoting petrossa, reply 1165As shown before in this thread it's the weight of the atmosphere on Venus that causes the heat. Greenhouse, do you question this word? Or do you question the greenhouse state of the gas CO2? Just curious, and want to know your viewpoint better [/quote] CO2 has a logarithmic effect on a very narrow infrared band. Whilst it has some notable effect fro