What are you doing against Global Warming

Originally Posted by Karasu

I personally dont feel this should be in the political palace, because this is not a political issue, it's a world issue that's real and general, so please don't move it.

I laughed out loud as I read this little tidbit right here. It is HARDLY a real issue nor substantiated by concrete proof. What we're seeing are folks screaming a statement over a loudspeaker wherein everyone not involved in the field (or possessing common knowledge within it) practically gets brainwashed. "Oh the TV says it every day so it must be true. Some dude with a Phd said it was happening. What field? Oh, Engineering but he's a smart dude anyhow."

I've been on a soap box many-a-time on these forums and in real life. I'll refrain from going much further on the subject unless someone wants to try me on this.

On another note, recycling in itself is a good practice. I separate my plastics, paper, and glass typically.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

I open all of my windows and doors then turn my air-conditioner on as high as it can go. Sometimes I leave my fridge door open too. I can't imagine global warming lasting much longer if everyone else joined in.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Karasu

I saw this coming, a skeptic who thinks its all bullshit, but yet scientists all over the world, and enviromental reports and all the other meteorlogical events that have happened in the past four years alone...that's all a delusion? Come on man, these are facts, not fiction or the ideas of madmen. It's real. But this isn't a thread for THAT issue, whether it's real or not...its about what are you doing against global warming. But I shake my head in the fact there are still people that think like you, and think it's all a practical joke.

I've got a degree in Geophysics. In case you don't know, Geophysics is the study of physics upon the Earth. These physics encompass heat, seismic, magnetism, electromagnetism, and gravity. Two of those bear an incredible grasp upon Earth's heating.

I've run heat flow models including atmospherical anomalies (albedo, atmospherical composition by gas ratios, etc) in combination to Geological heat flows.

I've been reading up on this subject for over eight years now, VERY THOROUGHLY.

I've debated meteorological "experts" in to a corner over this subject.

Not to break my arm patting my own back, but I'm not a fucking twat on this subject. My opinion is 100% formulated of my own research, knowledge, and findings, whether it be from my Atmospheric Sciences directed studies I did as an undergrad, tied to my job as an assistant researcher on aerosol particles in the O&M department, or just from scientific journals I have perused.

If you think the Earth's temperature functions on a single straight path with no scatter at all, you're mistaken. And if you think 100 years is plenty of time to formulate a long-term temperature phase when we can't even get the god damn weather reports right, then I suggest you read up on Deep Time. The bottom line is that man cannot begin to fathom what a thousand or even a million years feels like. People feel confined within their lifetime and see small changes. As opposed to dismissing those as "scatter" in the Earth's daily life, they immediately think there is a cause. Scientists are sought. Scientists do not LIKE having a lack of answers and at times will be quick to toss out an idea. "Well. We're progressing technologically and economically. It has been getting warmer. Man-kind must be to blame!" The statement "making a mountain out of a mole hill" fits nicely.

If you want the truth on this matter, you need to do some digging like I and a few others have. The whole of the Environmental and Meteorological fields stand to make a killing off of the grants and funding that'll get thrown toward this. Believing their research as 100% flawless, true, and believable makes about as much sense as saying Politicians are the pillars of our society and are incapable of sin. I don't give a god damn whether these prats have a Masters, PhD, or saw it on CNN. What matters in this debate isn't the roofing or wallpaper of the house. It's the foundation; the basic knowledge of how the Earth operates in conjunction to atmospheric changes. If you secure a BS, getting a MS and PhD merely require patience and time. I often find myself wondering how a PhD or Masters holder even got past semester one of their undergrad curriculum, given their knowledge.

Scientists all over the world? The UN's board on this subject is a complete joke. This debate is scientific, not political. People are trying to mix oil and water, and the end result isn't a pretty thing at all. Lines that were drawn are getting rubbed out, and a field of casual research now stands to make very nice profits off of a topic that they won't scientifically be disproved on for decades. This entire debate reeks of McCarthyism, with all of the black-listing going on in the scientific community. If you aren't on the train with this, the media will mention the "skeptics" at ______ university or ______ research institute. Instantly, the men are seen as buffoons simply from this. Calling this propaganda is pretty darn accurate.

If you want to see foils to this argument, look to DDT bans or opposition to nuclear power. Just scared, stupid people in large numbers.

"Skeptic"? Fine. Have a nice day, "Fearmonger".

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I was moreso making a reference to how they'll get Joe Blow with a PhD in Poultry Science to give a rebuttal on why mankind is ruining the world-wide temperature as a whole, causing his chicken farm to run a-fowl.

The reference I was making was toward a global warming theory wherein they consulted an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER on the subject. He wasn't situated in anything relevant. The point being that if you snag a dude with a PhD, instantly, in the public eye, whatever the guy says must be "infallible". Lo and behold! Another scientist that believes in it (although not in a relevant field)! Leave the meteorological findings and research to the respective fields is my point.

But if you want to nitpick/make a jab at my use of engineer in that arbitrary example, fine. An Environmental Engineer is semi-relevant. Happy?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

EDIT: I don't want to upset Gech or anything with my half-assed green actions. Please don't hate me, Gech!

Crash --
CO2 is a pretty pissant little greenhouse gas. Its big brothers, water vapor and methane deserve more attention if folks wanna parade around saying the sky is falling. Methane likes to live life wildly as a gas, but it burns out fast (nooo, not literally). Methane in the atmosphere doesn't have a long life at all. CO2 and all that is emptied out by carbon cycles, but that's a slow rate. The CO2 that gets in to the atmosphere stays for a good few thousand years if I recall right. Methane has an atmospheric life of, like, a few decades.

Anyhow; yeah, cows do indeed chug out large amounts of methane. Also termites yield large amounts of methane. Yet another reason to kill all the bastards~ But there are also marshlands and what-not that yield it.

Animals farting is hardly anything new at all. The number of megatons of methane dumped in to the atmosphere annually is pretty large, but it is dealt with on its own. A concern some folks have with warming trends lies with the Methane traps in Siberia. But that delves in to the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis sorta stuff. And folks still don't know in that debate if the methane in the atmosphere during temperature rises is a cause or effect of the heat waves. Methane's supposed deadliness as a greenhouse gas directly correlates to this, but the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis (which is basically "Global Warming") is still a hypothesis. There's been no concrete proof, only speculation along some coincidences.

Most amazing jew boots

Save yourself is the rule to live by. Mother nature is a crazy old lady whose done crazy, trippy stuff to herself that even Keith Richards can fathom. She's trying to kill us all, for sure.

We've gotta kill the bitch before she kills us first >=( But... How?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

True environmentalists support nuclear power



FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by ramoth

Regardless of wether or not you "believe in" Global Warming (which is really asking wether or not you believe in SCIENCE), ...

I beg to differ.

Most amazing jew boots

What do you want me to say? I've already attacked the issue on a fuckload of fronts. It's hardly an argument of believe in science or not. It's an amalgam of politics and science, creating a source for bias in research. I've read journals stating warming is happening and I've seen others that state it is NOT happening, making references to doctored data which was used to fuel the debate on the warming side of the aisle.

I'm sure the next line would be "find me a link to one". Well that ain't gonna happen. They're in the library stacks back at A&M, pertaining to masters and PhD research.

Inadequate information? Hey, I've got an idea -- read the thread =V Or peruse older global warming topics. I've said my piece in those on the science end of things. If you want, I'll start playing the record alllllll over again.

Most amazing jew boots

ram --
Was on edge last night; somethings went wrong and I was in a pissy mood, so apologies =O What set me off was the way you put it as "ignoring science". It's controversial for a reason, y'know Some are guilty of not researching properly (flaws in the knowledge/logical approach) or in the experiments/research itself is flawed, such as unforeseen variables. In science, logic is always questioned, but typically overwhelmingly correct knowledge is accepted based on fact. The Global Warming spiel going on right now has no solid, concrete proof or fact.

One thing that folks seem not to accept is that temperature is a constantly changing dynamic. If the shoe were on the other foot and we were trending toward cooler weather, another thing would be cooked up to pin on man-kind. Hate to sound like a wacko about this, but as soon as something changes, whether it be the weather or what-not, the first thought is "alright, whose fault is it this time?"

The CO2 theory has a number of flaws in its approach. The primary one? It is focused on Theory, and not actual observation or true science fact. Virtually everything the news has told us about GW is from a computer model, which are incredibly flawed. There are countless things left unaccounted for in these, such as cloud activity (ie: increased? Decreased? Consolidated? Dispersed? etc), sunlight effects are often dumbed down, heat flux, and humidity figures.

BILLIONS of dollars have been thrown in to this research for almost twenty years, yet there is no definitive, concrete proof. A few folks with the wrong ideas speaking quite loudly are misleading the whole debate. Someone coming in to Meteorology as a purist of sorts might've had a prof who told them global warming was the big-bad evil, engineered by CO2 strictly. Well, their eventual research won't be in questioning their professor's logic -- it'd be in further exploration of the field, such as designing a computer model that'll interpret "where we're headed", given the scenario and variables given by the mentor (which is more or less the same thing as picking at a fresh wound).

But enough of that. I guess I'll lob out those journals...

A&M's library cockblocks former students (and nonstudents) quite well from viewing abstracts, etc. online. Instead, I can only see title and author details. So I will use *full* journals/research from elsewhere. Hope there's not a problem with that:

Due to the large number of graphs and less rhetoric/equations, this is probably the clearest one.

Otherwise --
Nyoroo~n

Wrapping it up with a few news articles (not FoxNews or CNN here, folks):
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Other Views
High price for load of hot air | The Courier-Mail
cbs4.com - Wx Expert: People Not To Blame For Global Warming
RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - What climate changes does Antarctica predict?

GW is hardly "widely accepted". Maybe in the average person's eyes, yes, but not in the actual scientific field, itself (the most important part), and that's where the fight rages on. And as much as folks refuse to agree, grants are a substantial reason why scientists side with warming being man-made and caused by CO2. See the CBS4 link (People not to blame...) for a direct quote of this from a senior scientist.

But that is some formal evidence I base my stance on. Just laying it out like you wanted, no debating, etc about it asked or required.

On another note, I'm going to pivot and agree with you 100% on something -- I see one benefit to this warming scare: getting us off of oil. It'll get our hands out of a number of beartraps we're stick in. There is a lot of oil left, and technology costs are meeting the price per barrel, but we can't continue with this forever. Even after we've moved away from petroleum as a fuel source, we're going to need to find a means of reproducing plastic *without* petrol. And that'll be ugly in itself.

There's nowhere I can't reach.