News article claiming sun is to blame with "scientific" proof
But he has been spamming this "cycle" stuff since 2001, one might ask why he didn't predict the drought then.

It's disturbing how people believe that a slight increase in carbon can increase the atmospheric temperature (something they've been unable to reproduce in ANY lab conditions whatsoever by adding gasses to an enclosed environment) more to blame than, oh I dunno, a few billion tons of burning hydrogen.
Yeah, fine, we might be making SOME small dent in the temperature. But to believe that we're putting out significant enough gasses to terraform a whole planet, and dismiss the idea that the Sun (which, by the way, is the cause of there being any and all heat on this planet in the first place) might be the major contributing factor?

f***ing lunacy.

By the way, the earth is also flat, and is the center of the universe. Oh, and if you want more rain get back to doing rain dances because you've made the gods angry. Duh.

last edited by Raven at 12:10:37 19/Mar/07

the article isn't really saying the solar magnetic cycle is to blame for the droughts. it's saying there seems to be a correlation between the solar magnetic cycle & the soi. definitely worth further investigation imo.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

Ice cores would suggest that we have actually done a pretty good job of increasing C02 levels.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/IceCores2.gif
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/IceCores3.gifhttp://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/IceCores4.gif

But who knows...

we might be making SOME small dent in the temperature

I think the problem is we don't know how big a dent is significant enough to cause a problem.

Yeah, I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" too. I struggled after the first 30 minutes to sit through the rest considering how flawed many of the arguments in the first 30 minutes were.

hmph.. doesnt that first graph show that co2 levels & temp have spiked higher than present 3 times on the last 400000 years?

on fairly regular intervals, with the current rise looking like it's the next spike in the cycle?

Except CO2 is a fair bit higher this time than the other spikes. Then I guess it depends on how much is cause/effect and how much of a cause/effect.

C02 is already 27% higher then any other recorded spike.

its not just carbon its the rampant global deforestation and farting cattle for beef burgers.

Interesting. I hope he's right cause god knows we need some rain

how do you know god knows?

Didn't we all agree in the previous thread that "life's meaning is only what you make it?"
Therefore, unless your meaning is procreatio nand the survival of the human species... Who rightly gives a f*** what happens to this planet after you're gone :D

It's disturbing how people believe that a slight increase in carbon can increase the atmospheric temperature (something they've been unable to reproduce in ANY lab conditions whatsoever by adding gasses to an enclosed environment)

CO2 absorbs various Infrared frequencies. An object emits energy at the same rate it absorbs it. When there is more energy 'outside' of the object, the object absorbs the energy, ie during daylight hours the CO2 molecules absorb some of the infrared radiation, many other molecules in the atmosphere also absorb some infrared frequencies including O2. At night, when there is less energy 'outside' of the object it emits the energy, similar to glow in the dark materials. So the stored up energy is emitted out of the CO2 molecules, in all directions. So aprox half is emitted back out into space, while the other half is emitted to the Earth. The earth has (had?) a nice balance of this untill we started throwing more CO2 into the atmoshere then the Earth could deal with. So instead of having a roughly equal amount of energy coming into Earth and leaving, it has been tipped in favour of energy coming into Earth, slightly increasing the worlds average temperature.

I spent several weeks doing a much more complicated version of this at Uni, crunching lots of numbers, anaylising Infrared spectrums and emittance/absorbance of various molecules, focusing mainly on CO2. I got 100% for it, one of the few who did.

The above is a really basic overview, in short there is certainly a problem with excess CO2 (and other molecules) in the atmosphere. I'd explaine more, however I have a biochemistry lecture to attend to.

Also, There has also been a correlation with the Sun's solar flares and patterns of cloud cover. Something along the lines of more solar flares reduce cloud formation or something like that.

Anyway, must go. Enjoy.

how do you know god knows?

cause he's god man sheesh get with the program.

And the moral of the story is, we're all going to die.

hmmm I'm definitely getting a prius now

how is the prius gonna alter the solar magnetic cycle though?

how is the prius gonna alter the solar magnetic cycle though?

I dunno... internet?

The thing about all those dumb "zomg green house gasses aren't our fault" people is that a lot of them seem to be overlooking the most important factor:

-Even if it's not our fault, we're still f***ed if we don't fix it

Are we all just going to sit here and die because some idiots want to sit there with their fingers in their ears and avoid any blame?

-Even if it's not our fault, we're still f***ed if we don't fix it

Time to send a bunch of oil riggers on an emergency mission to the sun. At night.

Somebody was telling me the other day about some invention that involved massive amounts of phytoplankton in tanks being used as a kind of oxygen factory. I don't know how true or feasable this is. Also, good luck getting governments to pay to build/run them : /

i do my bit to produce less C02

LPG

-Even if it's not our fault, we're still f***ed if we don't fix it

fix what? the global rise in temperature? how?

Are we all just going to sit here and die because some idiots want to sit there with their fingers in their ears and avoid any blame?

what are you gonna do? sell your car? stop buying fossil feuls? stop using electricity? buy a prius & launch it at the sun? anything at all!?!? :P

Well I don't own a car, I don't burn anything really, I'm pretty energy conscious.

If we put as much money into fixing global warming as we put into defense or fossil fuels I reckon we could make some pretty solid advances.

If we put as much money into fixing global warming as we put into defense or fossil fuels I reckon we could make some pretty solid advances.

Provided that the problem is actually fixable.

Why dont you put global warming in a choke hold fpot.

i hate winter anyway

all the fairy f***ing lightbulbs and priuses (prii?) in the world ain't gonna save us from the industrial behemoth, China, so keep f***ing consuming and forget about your worrying so much.

if you are looking for a summary of the two sides IQ2US held a debate which had some of the guys from the channel 4 documentary on one side, and a real climate guy and other high profile scientists on the other side.

i hate winter anyway

you can foad imo

Well I don't own a car

homo

just to be clear I was really, REALLY serious about buying a prius, so more of you should make serious comments in response

speaking of... does anyone know if they're gonna release a diesel prius? the stats on the electric one are a bit lame

cue southpark episode about prius.

d000000d, I did that back in post #15

I'd rather die of global warming than live on a planet filled with WoW players...

Also there has to be some one that profits from the solution to this problem or else who is going to give a s***

all the fairy f***ing lightbulbs and priuses (prii?) in the world ain't gonna save us from the industrial behemoth, China, so keep f***ing consuming and forget about your worrying so much.

And there you have it.

Same with a few other very large countries. They don't give a toss about the issues, and never will.

But, as already pointed out, cars aren't the problem, cows and vegetarians are. (Don't get me started on vegetarians, they think they're so righteous and doing the right thing, but in actual fact on average the requirements for producing crops typically found in a vegetarian diet can be bigher than an average person).
But yes, on average a cow produces more methane per day than an SUV :) Take that, environmentalists.

It's also pretty bloody obvious how ignorant some people are who want changes/fixes yet oppose nuclear power, which is pretty much completely clean.

Of course if people were actually serious about fixing the problem, we'd actually switch off the power plants.
Oh wait, that'd be too inconvenient. Oh well, guess we'll just keep doing what we're doing then.


People are so two-faced :)

It's also pretty bloody obvious how ignorant some people are who want changes/fixes yet oppose nuclear power, which is pretty much completely clean.

Haha Yeah, cos we can just fire the nuclear waste at the sun and hope our rockets don't blow up in the earth's atmosphere.

nuclear power in australia would be a good alternative to all our coal powered generators... as long as they build them a long way away from population centres & water tables. sure they are usually very safe but the accident at chernobyl still highlights the sort of devestation that could occur with a single failure. i watched a doco on channel bittorrent the other night called 'the battle of chernobyl' from the discovery channel & was pretty amazed at the coverup & how bad the accident could have been if the soviets hadn't poured manpower into the nuclear cleanup.

Link to torrent if you are interested.

the main problem they highlight in this doco is that the reactor near chernobyl was built on top of a massive water table that supplied fresh water to all of the ukraine. if the meltdown from the nuclear feul had not been stopped before it sunk low enough to reach the water table the resulting explosion would have left all of europe uninhabitable. which is the sort of thing that would be good to avoid :P

jim: get a nuclear prius.. they must motor! ;p

Why not out where we blew up the bombs on the natives.

It's also pretty bloody obvious how ignorant some people are who want changes/fixes yet oppose nuclear power, which is pretty much completely clean.

reckon

the REAL solution:LPG PRIUS

It's also pretty bloody obvious how ignorant some people are who want changes/fixes yet oppose nuclear power, which is pretty much completely clean.

It's completely clear some have NFI. It is known there is a finite amount of high grade uranium to be mined particularly in Australia. Once the high grade is consumed which is considered a timeframe of about 30 to 50 years, given the predicted consumption by the global market, the Nuclear industry will be by necessity required to use low grade Uranium. To turn low grade uranium into useable yellow cake for nuclear power stations it actually produces more CO2 in it's production then a similar energy output coal powered electricity generator actually produces as output. So the net effect is that a coal powered station over time produces less CO2 then a nuclear powered in comparison. The main difference is a coal powered station produces it as a final byproduct of generating energy, whereas a nuclear powered station will eventually use more CO2 in the input stages of producing energy.

Go figure.

But yes, on average a cow produces more methane per day than an SUV :) Take that, environmentalists.

That's because SUV's don't produce methane ya git.

Transportation involves the combustion of fossil fuels to produce energy translated into motion. Pollution is created from incomplete carbon reactions, unburned hydrocarbons or other elements present in the fuel or air during combustion. These processes produce pollutants of various species, including carbon monoxide, soot, various gaseous and liquid vapour hydrocarbons, oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, sulphate and nitrate particulates, ash and lead. These primary pollutants can, in turn, react in the atmosphere to form ozone, secondary particulates, and other damaging secondary pollutants. Combustion also produces carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas. (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development)

People are so two-faced :)

and some are just plain gullible.

I do my bit for the environment and consume as much fossil fuels as possible in the shortest amount of time. I own a V8, 2 air cons that run even when no ones is home, leave lights on when no one is in the room and computers running all the time.

The sooner all the oil is used, the quicker we'll force the government to put in alternative fuels... WHOS WITH ME!??

We need a perpetual motion machine.

The sooner all the oil is used, the quicker we'll force the government to put in alternative fuels... WHOS WITH ME!??

Hell yeah! Let's use up all the world's coal too, that's a nice big 'f*** YOU!' to China's power systems!

We need a perpetual motion machine.

Magnets are the way imo.

yeah. magnets.

try LPG.

It's completely clear some have NFI.

Only idiots stuck in the past still consider 'nuclear power' to mean the need for Uranium and Plutonium. Or those who only really want nuclear power for the 238 needed for weapons.

Thorium-based fusion has been known about for years, and is FAR more abundant, with very little leftover waste, and even then that leftover waste has a very short half-life. It's cheaper, cleaner, and MUCH much safer than Uranium and Plutonium based fusion.

It's also funny but I don't remember any law of physics stating that CO2 has to be vented into the atmosphere. There's nothing to state that it can't be collected and/or passed via a hydroxide of some variant (usually sodium or potassium) to literally separate the Carbon and Oxygen. Carbon goes back into a compressor, Oxygen goes wherever you want... and there you have it. Output = Coal + Oxygen.

And for those thinking we have an unlimited supply of Gas, Coal and Oil...

You know what, never mind.

Unfortunately having a pile of carbon doesn't mean you have a pile of coal.

It's cheaper, cleaner, and MUCH much safer than Uranium and Plutonium based fusion.

Good to see you know the difference between fission and fusion oh wise one.

aren't thorium reactors still just theoretical though?

Obes, that's true. But, as you probably know, the basic requirement for coal (and diamond) is pressure for *normal* formation (though diamonds can be grown).

fpot, ;P

demon, no. On a large scale, you're correct noone has built one, but on a small scale it's been done.

I'm building one right now, in my mind

On a large scale, you're correct noone has built one, but on a small scale it's been done.

We are not intending to build Thorium reactors we are going to build your everyday typical uranium based reactors. So your point is moot.

The only thing to save us from dumb U.S car companies(soon to be broke).

The Electric SUV.

http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=4560

doesn't look like an suv to me

guys can't we just make luv? right now?

There needs to be a study in to how many Scientists are employed in Green House effect related industry.

Even if it was scientifically proved that it was all bulls***, how strongly do you think it would get refuted in the scientific community if it was to put a sizable portion of scientists out of work?

oh and future power source = anti matter!

There needs to be a study in to how many Scientists are employed in Green House effect related industry.

Probably nowhere near the number in the energy industries, such as oil, coal, gas and nuclear. Thus I would say many owe their weekly paypacket to these industries and are surely not wanting to rock the boat in case this avenue of income is lost.

Self interest is a mighty persuasive talker and does not belong solely in the realm of those supporting global warming.

oh and future power source = anti matter!

We could always ask you to part with yours that you so warmly treasure between your ears.

no yours

no yours

May I ask are you bitter about my previous posts concerning another topic? Honest question and not meeant to inflame.

youre an idiot

come back when you've done a science degree... hippy

come back when you've done a science degree... hippy

I suppose in your eyes my BAppSc. Applied Chemistry which I completed in 1981 and 26 years in IT wouldn't count. Moron.

Comback when you have a clue.


last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 09:25:16 23/Mar/07

Ewww, IT, why not stick to your Chemisty, plenty of jobs around for industrial chemistry.

IT is played out, engineering is where it's at

hi5 fade2black

last edited by paveway at 12:35:09 23/Mar/07

http://dem0n.qgl.org/images/gassit/Fred_Vs_The_Ozone_Layer.jpg

heh.

May I ask are you bitter about my previous posts concerning another topic? Honest question and not meeant to inflame.

you sure can ask - no I'm not bitter about your posts


when someone on qgl says "no u r" or "so's your face" or similar, you're not meant to read it as being a serious comment. in this case, it was a joke in response to your comment which implied fade2black doesn't have brain matter - attempting to highlight the childishness of such an implication by making a ridiculously childish response to it

hehe, somefat bastard.

Fade2black is probably smarter then you btw. You may have a few more years under your belt and probably more wisdom, just not smarter.

Also, SIF be an engineer. ;P

thook

Ewww, IT, why not stick to your Chemisty, plenty of jobs around for industrial chemistry.

When I finished my degree I basically had had enough of Chemistry for a while. I decided I'd take a year off and do something different before I trundled off down my chosen career path. Just to get a different perspective and think about something else. I applied for a job as a Cadet Programmer. They used to have them in those days. You didn't have to have a degree in Information Technology or Computer Science as there was a shortfall of over 800 positions a year in QLD in those days. Companies would employ cadets and perform training in-house and pay for it to try and meet the demand. I got employed by the largest software house of that time.

I enjoyed it ever so much and in those days IT Professionals were highly revered in the business world and in the community, unlike today where you are considered a second class citizen. So I decided to stay and chose this as my career. Given I would probably be better, if I was starting out now, in Industrial Chemistry, but for me, given my qualifications were acquired so long ago, I'd say it would be hard to do so now.

Fade2black is probably smarter then you btw. You may have a few more years under your belt and probably more wisdom, just not smarter.

Could be. But I doubt it, LOL :)

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 14:57:38 23/Mar/07

Classic Jim with the Scrubs quote.. thats why we love him.