Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7102|Canberra, AUS

usmarine wrote:

Asteroid will kill us first.  No worries.
I don't think this'll be a problem in 2880. By then we're either solved the problem and got away to blow that fucker out of the sky, or we're back to caveman status and the asteroid would just be cleaning up the remains.

---

Here's one thing. Who said we can't do anything?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/USEnFlow02-quads.gif

If we could at least turn about 20 quads of wasted energy into useful energy, we will kill a lot of birds with just one stone. It was gonna happen anyway, but it should happen faster.

Last edited by Spark (2008-02-26 21:22:51)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

Spark wrote:

69Crzy wrote:

Spark wrote:

Gee, you know, some of us actually want our kids to have a decent life.

It's called being a human.
And because we're humans, we're destroying the planet.
It's called Human Nature.......
Face it, we WON'T be here forever........
I despise neopopulism in all its forms. We won't be here forever, but who are we to say 'after us, a deluge' in such a offhand way?

We at least could try.
In all honesty there are so many other reasons to address the issue of burning fossil fuels (energy independence, economic stability, immediate environmental damage, global conflicts ..etc). These reasons will impact all of us and our children directly.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7102|Canberra, AUS

Kmarion wrote:

Spark wrote:

69Crzy wrote:


And because we're humans, we're destroying the planet.
It's called Human Nature.......
Face it, we WON'T be here forever........
I despise neopopulism in all its forms. We won't be here forever, but who are we to say 'after us, a deluge' in such a offhand way?

We at least could try.
In all honesty there are so many other reasons to address the issue of burning fossil fuels (energy independence, economic stability, immediate environmental damage, global conflicts ..etc). These reasons will impact all of us and our children directly.
That is an excellent point.

Some, though, use GW as an excuse to do nothing. Which is utterly illogical.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

Spark wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Spark wrote:

I despise neopopulism in all its forms. We won't be here forever, but who are we to say 'after us, a deluge' in such a offhand way?

We at least could try.
In all honesty there are so many other reasons to address the issue of burning fossil fuels (energy independence, economic stability, immediate environmental damage, global conflicts ..etc). These reasons will impact all of us and our children directly.
That is an excellent point.

Some, though, use GW as an excuse to do nothing. Which is utterly illogical.
Political Science is not the politics of science. If people would think for themselves the obvious would come to light.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7102|Canberra, AUS

Kmarion wrote:

Spark wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


In all honesty there are so many other reasons to address the issue of burning fossil fuels (energy independence, economic stability, immediate environmental damage, global conflicts ..etc). These reasons will impact all of us and our children directly.
That is an excellent point.

Some, though, use GW as an excuse to do nothing. Which is utterly illogical.
Political Science is not the politics of science. If people would think for themselves the obvious would come to light.
Isn't it the scientific study of politics?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|7129|Little Rock, Arkansas

Spark wrote:

This is something that I found.

Good explanation of what I think explains why this summer is so cool compared to last, and why the next 6-12 months will be cooler than usual. Before getting hot again.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … Record.png

Notice how warmer times correlate with El Nino's. Cooler times with La Nina's. We've just gone into a La Nina (considering how 150mm of rain has fallen in two months here) hence cooler times til the next El Nino. The only anomaly is 1993-1994, but big, big volcanic eruptions will do that. Pinatubo hasn't seemed to had a major effect beyond that year or two.

Notice, however, the trend is always up.
Oh yeah, Spark? I like my graph better.

https://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

Spark wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Spark wrote:


That is an excellent point.

Some, though, use GW as an excuse to do nothing. Which is utterly illogical.
Political Science is not the politics of science. If people would think for themselves the obvious would come to light.
Isn't it the scientific study of politics?
lol.. Did you really miss my point?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6997|Portland, OR, USA
Global Warming... bollox I say!

The planet is in a constant state of change.  There will be another ice age.  There is nothing anyone can do about it.  We may be catalyzing it with our activities but to be perfectly frank, our time on top is limited.  I'd be surprised if our species lasted another 10,000 years -- which is very short geologically speaking, dinosaurs reigned over the world for millions. The reasons:

-Overpopulation:  This one is huge.  We are at the top of the foodchain, like lions, bears, eagles, tigers..etc.  Because we're at the top there should be, by the rules of nature, fewer of us than our "prey".  Of course, we've cheated this with our technology, but in doing so, we've put a tremendous strain on nature.  In the last 10 years the world has lost somewhere in the ballpark of 7% of the available nutrient rich topsoil because of farming.  In nature, it takes years to grow forests, to grow grasslands, to grow crops like we do.  The land wasn't meant to support the farming that we need to survive.  Because of it, much of the topsoil erodes into the rivers and oceans each year.  We've deforested way too much land (for both timber and rich soil to farm in) and this of course removes huge carbon sinks (carbon dioxide is necessary for photosynthesis) and further catalyzes the erosion of the topsoil.  There aren't supposed to be ~7 billion human beings on this planet.  It doesn't work.  From an economics stand point, you think oil prices suck now, imagine what will happen when we have 15 billion people competing for whatever energy alternative we come up with next.  As selfish as it sounds, the more of us there are, the less there is to go around.  We've beaten the odds, most of our children will survive into adulthood, there's no reason to have 5 kids.

-Pollution: This one's obvious, messing with the chemical make up of the atmosphere will result in changes in natural cycles, and only having the technology to really 'track' weather patterns for less than 100 years now, we have no idea what effect it will have.  It's kind of like aiming a gun somewhere and firing, not knowing what the outcome will be for another 10-20 years.

-Ignorance:  There isn't some high power that is going to correct everything when we've destroyed our earth.  Nature has a funny way of getting rid of the things that don't play within its rules.  There are probably millions of planets out there that have life just like we do.  We are nothing special and need to figure that out fast.  If we as a species cease to exist, the universe won't change at all, in fact our planet would be much better off.

We live our lives so detached from nature because we can, unfortunately, we need that attachment to nature to keep ourselves grounded and understand what our role on earth is.

EDIT: sidenote, the antartic has record level glaciers.

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-02-27 19:26:52)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

CommieChipmunk wrote:

-Overpopulation:  This one is huge.  We are at the top of the foodchain, like lions, bears, eagles, tigers..etc.  Because we're at the top there should be, by the rules of nature, fewer of us than our "prey".  Of course, we've cheated this with our technology, but in doing so, we've put a tremendous strain on nature.  Annually, the world looses somewhere in the ballpark of 7% of the available nutrient rich topsoil because of farming.  In nature, it takes years to grow forests, to grow grasslands, to grow crops like we do.  The land wasn't meant to support the farming that we need to survive.  Because of it, much of the topsoil erodes into the rivers and oceans each year.  We've deforested way too much land (for both timber and rich soil to farm in) and this of course removes huge carbon sinks (carbon dioxide is necessary for photosynthesis) and further catalyzes the erosion of the topsoil.  There aren't supposed to be ~7 billion human beings on this planet.  It doesn't work.  From an economics stand point, you think oil prices suck now, imagine what will happen when we have 15 billion people competing for whatever energy alternative we come up with next.  As selfish as it sounds, the more of us there are, the less there is to go around.  We've beaten the odds, most of our children will survive into adulthood, there's no reason to have 5 kids.

.
Sounds like an endorsement for cloning and interplanetary travel to me.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Marinejuana
local
+415|7012|Seattle
good OP
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6997|Portland, OR, USA

Kmarion wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

-Overpopulation:  This one is huge.  We are at the top of the foodchain, like lions, bears, eagles, tigers..etc.  Because we're at the top there should be, by the rules of nature, fewer of us than our "prey".  Of course, we've cheated this with our technology, but in doing so, we've put a tremendous strain on nature.  Annually, the world looses somewhere in the ballpark of 7% of the available nutrient rich topsoil because of farming.  In nature, it takes years to grow forests, to grow grasslands, to grow crops like we do.  The land wasn't meant to support the farming that we need to survive.  Because of it, much of the topsoil erodes into the rivers and oceans each year.  We've deforested way too much land (for both timber and rich soil to farm in) and this of course removes huge carbon sinks (carbon dioxide is necessary for photosynthesis) and further catalyzes the erosion of the topsoil.  There aren't supposed to be ~7 billion human beings on this planet.  It doesn't work.  From an economics stand point, you think oil prices suck now, imagine what will happen when we have 15 billion people competing for whatever energy alternative we come up with next.  As selfish as it sounds, the more of us there are, the less there is to go around.  We've beaten the odds, most of our children will survive into adulthood, there's no reason to have 5 kids.

.
Sounds like an endorsement for cloning and interplanetary travel to me.
No.. not at all.  Vegetarian endorses cloning for more meat?  Not in this lifetime.

If anything I'm endorsing a limit on population, or a limit on children per couple.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

-Overpopulation:  This one is huge.  We are at the top of the foodchain, like lions, bears, eagles, tigers..etc.  Because we're at the top there should be, by the rules of nature, fewer of us than our "prey".  Of course, we've cheated this with our technology, but in doing so, we've put a tremendous strain on nature.  Annually, the world looses somewhere in the ballpark of 7% of the available nutrient rich topsoil because of farming.  In nature, it takes years to grow forests, to grow grasslands, to grow crops like we do.  The land wasn't meant to support the farming that we need to survive.  Because of it, much of the topsoil erodes into the rivers and oceans each year.  We've deforested way too much land (for both timber and rich soil to farm in) and this of course removes huge carbon sinks (carbon dioxide is necessary for photosynthesis) and further catalyzes the erosion of the topsoil.  There aren't supposed to be ~7 billion human beings on this planet.  It doesn't work.  From an economics stand point, you think oil prices suck now, imagine what will happen when we have 15 billion people competing for whatever energy alternative we come up with next.  As selfish as it sounds, the more of us there are, the less there is to go around.  We've beaten the odds, most of our children will survive into adulthood, there's no reason to have 5 kids.

.
Sounds like an endorsement for cloning and interplanetary travel to me.
No.. not at all.  Vegetarian endorses cloning for more meat?  Not in this lifetime.

If anything I'm endorsing a limit on population, or a limit on children per couple.
Good idea in theory I guess. It goes against basic human instinct though. The inherent survival of a species revolves around the idea of reproduction. In this instance it may be counter productive. The only solution I see would be sterilization. That might resolve our resource issues while at the same time satisfying our primal urges.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7102|Canberra, AUS

Kmarion wrote:

Spark wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


Political Science is not the politics of science. If people would think for themselves the obvious would come to light.
Isn't it the scientific study of politics?
lol.. Did you really miss my point?
No, but I've forgotten what polisci is. I don't like to forget things.

EDIT: sidenote, the antartic has record level glaciers.
Which was what was expected in some areas of Antarctica...

In any case I've seen several posts completely ignored, simply because the information contained was... what?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6650|Escea

sergeriver wrote:

Why is there a need for conservatives to deny climate change, we don't blame you for this...yet.
Its massively overhyped as being a result of man's economical evolution. What we've done in our short time is a pebble in an ocean. If consider the large fluctutations in temperature throughout history, what has occured due to our input is minimal.
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6997|Portland, OR, USA

M.O.A.B wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Why is there a need for conservatives to deny climate change, we don't blame you for this...yet.
Its massively overhyped as being a result of man's economical evolution. What we've done in our short time is a pebble in an ocean. If consider the large fluctutations in temperature throughout history, what has occured due to our input is minimal.
That's true, but it's still going to continue to fluctuate, and there will be another ice age.  Whether it be in 50 years, or 5,000 years
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6650|Escea

CommieChipmunk wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Why is there a need for conservatives to deny climate change, we don't blame you for this...yet.
Its massively overhyped as being a result of man's economical evolution. What we've done in our short time is a pebble in an ocean. If consider the large fluctutations in temperature throughout history, what has occured due to our input is minimal.
That's true, but it's still going to continue to fluctuate, and there will be another ice age.  Whether it be in 50 years, or 5,000 years
No doubt of that, but basically saying that we've knackered up an enormous cycle beyond recognition in little over 100 yrs is a bit far fetched.
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6997|Portland, OR, USA

Kmarion wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


Sounds like an endorsement for cloning and interplanetary travel to me.
No.. not at all.  Vegetarian endorses cloning for more meat?  Not in this lifetime.

If anything I'm endorsing a limit on population, or a limit on children per couple.
Good idea in theory I guess. It goes against basic human instinct though. The inherent survival of a species revolves around the idea of reproduction. In this instance it may be counter productive. The only solution I see would be sterilization. That might resolve our resource issues while at the same time satisfying our primal urges.
You'd think death by ruining the planet would go against human instinct too.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7102|Canberra, AUS

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

No.. not at all.  Vegetarian endorses cloning for more meat?  Not in this lifetime.

If anything I'm endorsing a limit on population, or a limit on children per couple.
Good idea in theory I guess. It goes against basic human instinct though. The inherent survival of a species revolves around the idea of reproduction. In this instance it may be counter productive. The only solution I see would be sterilization. That might resolve our resource issues while at the same time satisfying our primal urges.
You'd think death by ruining the planet would go against human instinct too.
Slow death. No one really notices.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

No.. not at all.  Vegetarian endorses cloning for more meat?  Not in this lifetime.

If anything I'm endorsing a limit on population, or a limit on children per couple.
Good idea in theory I guess. It goes against basic human instinct though. The inherent survival of a species revolves around the idea of reproduction. In this instance it may be counter productive. The only solution I see would be sterilization. That might resolve our resource issues while at the same time satisfying our primal urges.
You'd think death by ruining the planet would go against human instinct too.
The story is not over. Evolution is reactionary (adaptive).
Xbone Stormsurgezz
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6997|Portland, OR, USA
Reactionary over thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Reactionary over thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years.
Unfortunatly Fortunately Natural selection tells us that our traits will adapt over a long period of time. We are mostly just carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen. Created from stars tbh. How we choose to shape ourselves and our environment has never been predictable in the long term.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6389|Washington DC
Looking at the forecast, it's gonna be shitty weather again next week. 2 days of GOOD March weather (68 and 62F) but otherwise cold as fuck.

Where the hell are my rising sea levels and unbearable heat? This is pissing me off Al Gore. I expected beachfront weather but instead I get a bunch of wind and cold temperatures.

For example, last year I went to Utah for one week around the first of April. When I woke up at 4AM in Utah to go to the airport to return to DC, I was wearing a t-shirt and jeans and yeah it was a bit chilling, but a quick application of a fleece fixed that.

I arrive in DC some hours later, and as soon as I step into the gate I'm freezing my ass off. Keep in mind I was in the MOUNTAINS in Utah where the temperature was not favorable to good snow (most days it was close to 32, and one or two days it went above that).

God I hate the weather in DC so much. We get about 2, maybe 3 months of nice Spring weather before it gets really humid and somewhat hot. Then 2 months of cool Fall weather before it gets to be like the fucking Arctic for another obscene amount of time.
Hope_is_lost117
Psy squad
+49|6424|Belgium
So true
Tomorow it's carnaval and carnaval in rain sucks quite hard

I would prefer a dryer and hotter climate anyday...
my hands are always freakin purple cause of the cold...
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6389|Washington DC
Also, go ahead and call it "climate change" or whatever. I mainly made this topic to bitch about the shitty weather. Glenn Beck put it best... some 30 degrees of global warming in the winter, 10 degrees of global cooling in the summer, and global breezing year round

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard