Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 64
  1. #26
    Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    11-07-2010 @ 09:24 AM
    Location
    Ho Chi Minh City
    Posts
    264
    This, of course, is the same Met office who last year predicted a "barbeque summer" and a "warmer than normal" winter for Britain.

    The same Met office who are abandoning seasonal weather forecasts because they can't get them right.

  2. #27
    Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    11-07-2010 @ 09:24 AM
    Location
    Ho Chi Minh City
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by FailSafe
    (yes, variations in the Earth's orbit cause the seasons, but that's not the same thing).
    Wrong, the Earth's seasons are caused by the obliquity of the ecliptic (the tilt of the axis). The variation in the orbit is like you standing six feet (1.83m) from a fire and moving closer by 3/4 inch (2cm). Four tenths of phi alpha in fact.

  3. #28
    Excitable Boy
    FailSafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Depends on your point of view...
    Posts
    6,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Belepheron View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FailSafe
    (yes, variations in the Earth's orbit cause the seasons, but that's not the same thing).
    Wrong, the Earth's seasons are caused by the obliquity of the ecliptic (the tilt of the axis). The variation in the orbit is like you standing six feet (1.83m) from a fire and moving closer by 3/4 inch (2cm). Four tenths of phi alpha in fact.
    Sorry I simplified it- the Earth does not move in a circular obit- it's elliptical, and I realize that it's actually the angle at which the sun hits the Earth (the sun spends more time overhead during the summer, i.e.) that causes seasonal change- it's really not very germane to the point, though.

  4. #29
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Online
    22-11-2011 @ 08:27 AM
    Location
    Christian Country
    Posts
    15,017
    ^ Ah, the TD scientists at work. I think the UN needs some more climatologists. Remind me, what happened to the last guys? Try this: Kill off about five billion humans and see what happens. Oh, those dam cows and their farts...
    Last edited by Jet Gorgon; 06-03-2010 at 01:51 PM.

  5. #30
    Thailand Expat
    Agent_Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    08-01-2021 @ 04:12 AM
    Location
    Locked down tight
    Posts
    5,106
    Whether or not you believe in man-made global warming (a preponderance of the evidence has convinced me) one should support the transition to "clean" renewable energy simply for economic and health reason. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar et al are economically viable for the long term (nuclear not so much--produces concentrated toxic waste) and do not produce near the amount of toxic chemicals that combustables do.

    The "dirty" energy robber barons of our age delaying this switch will just prolong human misery and it just may lead to our extinction.

  6. #31
    Excitable Boy
    FailSafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Depends on your point of view...
    Posts
    6,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon View Post
    ^ Ah, the TD scientists at work.
    You've got the right idea- you can keep your head a few degrees cooler if you bury it in the sand.

  7. #32
    I Amn't In Jail PlanK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 09:21 PM
    Location
    Tezza's Balcony
    Posts
    6,934
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson
    Your rebuttal to a report from climate scientists and based on scientific evidence and testing is that it's bullshit based on theories, and not scientific evidence.
    Yes, that's all it takes. Even monkey-girl summed it up in one line.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingwilly
    It aint scientific evidence, it's modeling, a very big difference.

  8. #33
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    27-12-2020 @ 05:44 PM
    Posts
    4,219
    Quote Originally Posted by blackgang View Post
    there might be something to the rapidity of the change due to humans and their fucking up.
    But to say that we are responsible for it to happen is horseshit.
    It has happened before and even a couple of times before humans were even here, so what made it happen those times?
    How does the fact that climate change occurs naturally, preclude man made climate change? Its like saying murder is not possible as people die of natural causes all the time. The concept is meaningless.

    It aint scientific evidence, it's modeling, a very big difference.


    Pay no attention to that giant nuclear reactor that rises in the East every morning. That has NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING. The debate is settled.


    The only way that variations in the sun's cycles can be made to account for the current changes in climate, if at all, is through....modelling. Its funny that these modellers also fail to neglect to mention that the only way that this idea is even remotely plausible is by multiplying the variation in the sun's radiation output by several factors, they also never mention that they have not managed to come up with a any explantion for doing this multiplication.







  9. #34
    Member
    dotcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    28-04-2013 @ 10:48 PM
    Location
    Big Mango Onnut
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent_Smith View Post
    Whether or not you believe in man-made global warming (a preponderance of the evidence has convinced me) one should support the transition to "clean" renewable energy simply for economic and health reason. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar et al are economically viable for the long term (nuclear not so much--produces concentrated toxic waste) and do not produce near the amount of toxic chemicals that combustables do.

    The "dirty" energy robber barons of our age delaying this switch will just prolong human misery and it just may lead to our extinction.
    Yes if we get it right we can get 1/2 of 1% of our energy needs from solar & wind.

  10. #35
    I am in Jail
    attaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    11-12-2013 @ 11:30 AM
    Posts
    4,042
    Quote Originally Posted by FailSafe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dotcom View Post
    Pay no attention to that giant nuclear reactor that rises in the East every morning. That has NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING. The debate is settled.
    So the sun is the only factor that contributes to the Earth's temperature? If that were the case, temperatures could be predicted the same way that tide tables and sunrises and sunsets are predicted- they aren't, though- they vary from day-to-day (yes, variations in the Earth's orbit cause the seasons, but that's not the same thing).

    There are other factors that hold the heat in (the same way the interior of your car is hotter than the ambient outside temperature after you park it in the sun for a while)- why is the average surface temperature of Venus higher than that of Mercury, even though it's further from the sun? Because it has an atmosphere that has a high proportion of greenhouse gases (Mercury has no atmosphere at all).

    Mankind dumps a lot of greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere- is the rise in global temperatures over the last century a coincidence? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it.
    If Mercury did have an atmosphere than a person could compare the two planets. I don't see how distance from the sun can be included in the argument to make a point.

    The Earth's moon is equidistant with the Earth from the sun, it has no atmosphere and it is cold. How do these facts prove climate change?

  11. #36
    Excitable Boy
    FailSafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Depends on your point of view...
    Posts
    6,683
    Quote Originally Posted by attaboy View Post
    If Mercury did have an atmosphere than a person could compare the two planets. I don't see how distance from the sun can be included in the argument to make a point.

    The Earth's moon is equidistant with the Earth from the sun, it has no atmosphere and it is cold. How do these facts prove climate change?
    They don't- that wasn't the point I was trying to make (which was that the sun is not the only factor when it comes to temperature change- atmosphere has a lot to do with it, and excessive dispersal of greenhouse gases by mankind may be changing the composition of our atmosphere).

  12. #37
    RIP
    blackgang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    08-07-2010 @ 08:33 PM
    Location
    Phetchabun city
    Posts
    15,471
    Quote Originally Posted by dotcom
    a preponderance of the evidence has convinced me)
    Sounds to me like someone is watching to many old Perry Mason TV shows

  13. #38
    Member
    Friedclams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    27-10-2010 @ 09:08 AM
    Location
    The land of misfits
    Posts
    186
    Less people and freer migration/immigration is the best solution for all the world's environmental, social, and economic problems. Why is it such a taboo topic?

  14. #39
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Online
    22-11-2011 @ 08:27 AM
    Location
    Christian Country
    Posts
    15,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Friedclams View Post
    Less people and freer migration/immigration is the best solution for all the world's environmental, social, and economic problems. Why is it such a taboo topic?
    Good idea! Send all these whacko Gore followers to a moon station. I wonder, how many of these whiners drive cars/motorbikes, often fly in airplanes, throw all their trash in the bin for the garbage dump, waste electricity, etc. Ha. Bunch of hypocrites here, I wager.

  15. #40
    Thailand Expat Jesus Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    22-09-2017 @ 11:00 AM
    Posts
    6,950
    What i find hilarious is the folks that believe we are the main culprit for GW, believe paying taxes will cure it.

    Ant, having people that don't think along the same lines as you with this matter must be very frustrating for you!

  16. #41
    Thailand Expat
    BobR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    19-03-2020 @ 02:26 AM
    Posts
    7,762
    Regardless of how it's caused, higher taxes and more government will not make it go away.

  17. #42
    Out there...
    StrontiumDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    BKK
    Posts
    40,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus Jones View Post
    What i find hilarious is the folks that believe we are the main culprit for GW, believe paying taxes will cure it.

    Ant, having people that don't think along the same lines as you with this matter must be very frustrating for you!
    Why is it that some folks just don't like paying taxes?

  18. #43
    Thailand Expat
    Agent_Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    08-01-2021 @ 04:12 AM
    Location
    Locked down tight
    Posts
    5,106
    Quote Originally Posted by dotcom
    Yes if we get it right we can get 1/2 of 1% of our energy needs from solar & wind.
    Not true. I've read that just blanketing Southern Nevada with solar arrays would be enough to power the US at current consumption (not even factoring in wind power). As for providing electricity for the whole planet it would only take about 500,000 km2 (roughly the land area of Spain).

    How Much Surface Area Would It Take to Power the World Completely With Solar or Wind? | Sustainability | Fast Company

  19. #44
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:44 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    7,056
    Quote Originally Posted by FailSafe
    excessive dispersal of greenhouse gases by mankind may be changing the composition of our atmosphere
    Make that

    excessive dispersal of greenhouse gases by mankind IS changing the composition of our atmosphere.

    If anything this is proven beyond any doubt, not only beyond reasonable doubt.

  20. #45
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:44 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    7,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Friedclams
    Less people
    Care to explain how you want to achieve that?

    I do agree it would help much with the solution to our problems.

  21. #46
    I am in Jail
    attaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    11-12-2013 @ 11:30 AM
    Posts
    4,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent_Smith View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dotcom
    Yes if we get it right we can get 1/2 of 1% of our energy needs from solar & wind.
    Not true. I've read that just blanketing Southern Nevada with solar arrays would be enough to power the US at current consumption (not even factoring in wind power). As for providing electricity for the whole planet it would only take about 500,000 km2 (roughly the land area of Spain).

    How Much Surface Area Would It Take to Power the World Completely With Solar or Wind? | Sustainability | Fast Company
    Basically sterilize an area the size of Southern Nevada. No animals no weeds just gravel and a surrounding fence and the transmission lines leading from it.


    'Whole Earth's' Stewart Brand Backs Nuclear Power


    February 20, 2010 President Obama announced federal support this week to build the first new nuclear power plants in nearly three decades and many environmentalists announced their opposition. But not the man who published the Whole Earth Catalog, and helped invent Earth Day. Host Scott Simon talks with Stewart Brand about the Obama administration's efforts to promote nuclear energy as a clean source of power.


    Copyright © 2010 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.


    SCOTT SIMON, host: For a entire generation, nuclear power has been a kind of third rail of alternative energy sources. Although nuclear power doesnt pollute the sky or produce carbon emissions, a generation that grew up with the specter of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island believed that the chances of a nuclear accident were so great and potentially so grave, most environmentalists also consider themselves anti-nuclear power activists.

    This week, the Obama administration said that it would support the construction of two nuclear reactors in the state of Georgia the first in the U.S. since the 1970s. That plan, of course, has brought about concerns about the safety and the associated costs. Stewart Brand is one of the inventors of the environmental movement in the United States. Of course, he's founder and editor of "The Whole Earth Catalog. He joins us now from KQED in San Francisco. Mr. Brand, thanks so much for being with us.

    Mr. STEWART BRAND (Founder and Editor, The Whole Earth Catalogue): Thanks for inviting me.

    SIMON: So how do you feel about these perhaps new construction of nuclear power plants?

    Mr. BRAND: I think it's great news. I think whats happened is basically President Obama has ended one argument probably started another. The one he has ended is whether or not the U.S. will expand its nuclear power capacity; the one that's beginning is how it will expand. He has absolutely changed the flavor of the debate. And thats terrific.

    SIMON: Hmm. We should make plain, youve surprised a lot of people by supporting nuclear power.

    Mr. BRAND: I surprised myself. I used to be, you know, pretty much a kneejerk environmentalist on this particular subject. And then because of climate change I reinvestigated the matter and discovered that Id been misled in many of the details on how nuclear works. And I finally got to the point where Im so pro-nuclear now that I would I would be in favor of it even if climate change and greenhouse gases were not an issue.

    SIMON: You also are one of the few people I've ever interviewed who said I was wrong.

    (Soundbite of laughter)

    SIMON: So tell us exactly what you learned.

    Mr. BRAND: Well, what I learned, you know, Ive been researching this stuff for a book I did called Whole Earth Discipline. And the research led me into looking at what are the real threats of radiation - way less than we thought; what really happened at Chernobyl - way less than we thought; what are the efficiencies of nuclear - way better than I thought; what is the tradeoff against solar and wind, and one of things environmentalists are just learning now is that because solar and wind are so dilute, they make an enormous footprint on the land in order to collect them and then another large footprint with the long transmission lines. And one of the things I learned...

    SIMON: You are talking about, for example, in something like wind energy, miles and miles that have to be turned over to turbines.

    Mr. BRAND: Hundred of square miles get turned over to turbines or even more deleteriously to solar farms. And then the other major thing I learned about is that there are now small nuclear reactors being designed that could be distributed in a micro-power format that looks very attractive to an environmentalist.

    SIMON: And what about the concern about nuclear waste?

    Mr. BRAND: Well, nuclear waste is sort of a first two generations of reactors issue. U.S. has decided to use once through rather than to reprocess the way French and Japanese do. And so weve got a fair amount of nuclear waste thats sitting around in dry cask storage being perfectly okay while we think about it. And either we will use it as fuel in the so-called fourth generation reactors that are being designed now or we could reprocess it the way the French do, or we could stick in the ground, not in Nevada, but it looks like New Mexico, the so-called waste isolation pilot plant, its been putting nuclear waste in a salt formation for 10 years now, looks like a good place to put this stuff if we wanted just file it and forget it.

    SIMON: And what do you say to people who dont want to live next door to a nuclear reactor or down range of one or adjacent to?

    Mr. BRAND: The polling is pretty clear on this. The people who turn out to be the most positive about nuclear are people who live near a present nuclear plant; they have tented to have visited the plants, see how clean and safe it is, the local jobs; they'd love to see a couple more reactors added to the side which are usually already licensed. So its one of those things of, you know, you hear the not in my backyard argument, but if you actually ask people who have nuclear in their backyard, they're pretty enthusiastic about it.

    SIMON: And what about the concern that maybe the chances of an accident are small but the consequence are so grave, we shouldnt even risk that small chance?

    Mr. BRAND: Ive been hearing lately about what really happened at Three Mile Island, which was about as bad as you can get. That was a classic core meltdown. It came 12 days after the movie China Syndrome and so everybody figured, well, this is The China Syndrome underway. And apparently what actually happened is indeed the core melted and got about half an inch into the seven inch containment vessel, cooled off, hardened, and that was the end of the incident. Nobody was hurt and it was instructive. So incidents like that have not occurred since. The safety record of the nuclear industry again, that turned up in my research - is impeccable.

    SIMON: Quite about vulnerability to terrorism?

    Mr. BRAND: Boy, I think it would take a pretty dumb terrorist.

    (Soundbite of laughter)

    Mr. BRAND: There's so many other vulnerabilities. I've been evolved in some of the researcher that intelligence community the last few years. And one of the things that happened after 9/11 is every nerd I know, including me, started figuring out various ways that we could bring down America, and there are so many - one could be grateful that they have not been explored by actual terrorists. Nuclear is way down the list; its really hard to do something terroristic with the way nuclear power is done.

    SIMON: Stewart Brands new book - Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. He joined us from KQED in San Francisco. Nice to be with you, sir.

    Mr. BRAND: Thank you, sir.

    Copyright © 2010 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.


    'Whole Earth's' Stewart Brand Backs Nuclear Power : NPR

  22. #47
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Online
    22-11-2011 @ 08:27 AM
    Location
    Christian Country
    Posts
    15,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus Jones View Post
    What i find hilarious is the folks that believe we are the main culprit for GW, believe paying taxes will cure it.
    For a sec there, I thought you were referring to GW as in Bush.
    Quote Originally Posted by attaboy View Post
    Basically sterilize an area the size of Southern Nevada. No animals no weeds just gravel and a surrounding fence and the transmission lines leading from it.
    Ya, who gives a toss about Nevada anyway? bamboy hates Vegas, level that, too. Why not pick the Roswell, NM area? Oh...

  23. #48
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Stay out of it Jet. You know the square root of fuck all about this, and sarcasm is no longer amusing.

  24. #49
    Excitable Boy
    FailSafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Depends on your point of view...
    Posts
    6,683
    Quote Originally Posted by chassamui View Post
    Stay out of it Jet. You know the square root of fuck all about this, and sarcasm is no longer amusing.
    Waste of time, Chas- this is a knucklehead who sends red to people who post comments he considers "cute" and "snarky", but his only form of retaliation (he's limited by the bounds of party lines) is to do exactly what he claims to despise (independent thought is stifled when you judge the messenger instead of the message)- we call that 'hypocrisy' where I'm from.

  25. #50
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Almost 100% correct. Jet is a canadian red neck female pensioner, with a hide as thick as a dockers sandwich.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •