Global Warming

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

What's your opinion on global warming?

It is taking place and it is caused in large part by humans.
50
76%
It is taking place but is not caused by humans.
14
21%
It is not taking place.
1
2%
What's global warming?
1
2%
 
Total votes: 66

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:36 pm UTC

Global Warming is caused by Raptors Those sneaky bastards.
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:48 pm UTC

Indeed

khayber
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:29 pm UTC
Location: Sofa

Postby khayber » Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:35 am UTC

On the what to do about it front, what do people think about this?
January 31 2007: 8:14 AM EST

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -- A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

I'm thinking an outright ban as the first step might be a hard sell, but a tax big enough to close the price gap (subsidize the price of) CFLs could have a decent impact.

(plus I hear they give the Raptors headaches)

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:48 am UTC

I'm a big fan of that, though as someone who sells lightbulbs for a living, if that was tried here the 50+ demographic would be up in arms because they don't get this newfangled technology. (They still think the Watts rating is how bright it is, you see.) More than a decade after they were introduced, I still get plenty of people who have absolutely no clue about compact fluorescent bulbs. A dollar or so increase on incandescents, with a corresponding decrease on CFLs, would go a long way.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:20 am UTC

(plus I hear they give the Raptors headaches)


Randy recently replaced all the lightbulbs in the apartment with 100 watt CFLs. That's fine, I can deal with that.

He then proceeded to put up three light fixtures in his room, filled with the bulbs.

He has a total of 15 bulbs in there now. He balanced the bluish ones with the "soft light" ones, to attain something akin to pure white light, and angled the fixtures to point....everywhere. Looking into his room is like looking into the sun. Nothing in there even has a shadow anymore, as near as I can tell. It's just a horrible white void, like that scene in the Silent Hill movie...

That shit will give *anyone* a headache, even a superior reptilian specimen as you've noted...
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:19 am UTC

Please tell me you mean 20W CFLs. :P

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:25 am UTC

Err, yeah. 100 W equivalent. 26 Watt bulbs.

Or at least half of them are. The other half are 42 Watt. 150 W equivalent.

I had to go into his room to ask him that. I think my eyes may be bleeding now.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Toeofdoom
The (Male) Skeleton Guitarist
Posts: 3446
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:06 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Toeofdoom » Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:10 am UTC

That... is insane...


Anyway, most scientists agree now that global warming is happening and is caused by humans. The raptor option needs investigation though...
Hawknc wrote:Gotta love our political choices here - you can pick the unionised socially conservative party, or the free-market even more socially conservative party. Oh who to vote for…I don't know, I think I'll just flip a coin and hope it explodes and kills me.

Website

User avatar
Lani
Has Boobs (Probably)
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:07 am UTC
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Contact:

Postby Lani » Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:44 pm UTC

- Lani

"They think they're so high and mighty, just because they never got caught driving without pants."

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:29 pm UTC



What scientist would do that? Completely destroying any credability of impartiality
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:04 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:


What scientist would do that? Completely destroying any credability of impartiality


Every scientist takes money. Research requires funding. And generally that funding comes from people with a vested interest in a desired outcome. This somehow suggests that a study funded by an oil company is less credible then a study funded by greenpeace. Bull.

I'd also add that it would likely take some kind of compensation to get someone who was already critical of the report to say so. People have lost jobs for such things.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:13 pm UTC

Every scientist takes money. Research requires funding. And generally that funding comes from people with a vested interest in a desired outcome. This somehow suggests that a study funded by an oil company is less credible then a study funded by greenpeace. Bull.


Yeah, but greenpeace doesn't come out and say "We would like to pay you 500,000 dollars to 'find out' the following conclusion that we've already decided for you". Most *sane* companies and organizations would offer funding to scientists "to study the effects of what and such on such and what", rather than making the pay conditional based on their "findings".

But then, most companies are actually trying to make their products better and want to know the truth because it benefits them; while most environmental organizations don't *need* to manipulate the outcomes of studies because they're backed by...whatsit...the *truth*.

Exxon, however, just wants to keep its oil subsidies, no matter what damage it does.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:36 pm UTC

So it's your contention that Greenpeace would have no interest in manipulating people to care more about the environment? And that if the public became more concerned with the environment, Greenpeace would not see an increase in donations? ooookay.

This "we're definitely right, and if you disagree you're an idiot or a shill for the oil companies now stfu" approach taken by global warming alarmists is, well, ridiculous. There are a lot of point to be debated, and a lot areas where alarmists are being pretty underhanded about their claims. Using less accurate but more favorable data, ignoring key variables. Not to mention no one has yet explained to me how human emissions over 200 years explain a comparatively larger increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:44 pm UTC

So it's your contention that Greenpeace would have no interest in manipulating people to care more about the environment? And that if the public became more concerned with the environment, Greenpeace would not see an increase in donations? ooookay.


No. If you read what I said, I made it pretty clear that my contention is that, whether or not they *would* manipulate the studies, they don't *need* to. The environment *is* boned. It *does* need help. Species *are* going extinct at an unprecedented rate, pristine wilderness *is* disappearing, the planet *is* getting warmer, and pretty much the entire scientific community (employed by environmentalists or not) agrees on this last fact, if not the others. Manipulating science is, at this point, unnecessary.

Not to mention no one has yet explained to me how human emissions over 200 years explain a comparatively larger increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.


I'm not certain what you mean by this statement. You don't understand how emitting CO2 at an elevated rate leads to more CO2?

::scratches head::
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:52 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
So it's your contention that Greenpeace would have no interest in manipulating people to care more about the environment? And that if the public became more concerned with the environment, Greenpeace would not see an increase in donations? ooookay.


No. If you read what I said, I made it pretty clear that my contention is that, whether or not they *would* manipulate the studies, they don't *need* to. The environment *is* boned. It *does* need help. Species *are* going extinct at an unprecedented rate, pristine wilderness *is* disappearing, the planet *is* getting warmer, and pretty much the entire scientific community (employed by environmentalists or not) agrees on this last fact, if not the others. Manipulating science is, at this point, unnecessary.

The scientific community is not in consensus, that is what I just got done trying to point out. People say it is, and you tell them they're wrong, they trot out this weak ass argument about anyone who is not in consensus is just a shill for oil companies. The point I was trying to make is that scientists have to get funding from somewhere. You think Greenpeace or the Sierra Club is going to fund a scientist who is skeptical about all this?

Not to mention no one has yet explained to me how human emissions over 200 years explain a comparatively larger increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.


I'm not certain what you mean by this statement. You don't understand how emitting CO2 at an elevated rate leads to more CO2?

::scratches head::


I'm saying the amount of CO2 put in the air by humans, even with a ludicrously generous estimate, doesn't account for the increase of CO2 in the air in the last 200 some odd years.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:01 pm UTC

The scientific community is not in consensus, that is what I just got done trying to point out. People say it is, and you tell them they're wrong, they trot out this weak ass argument about anyone who is not in consensus is just a shill for oil companies. The point I was trying to make is that scientists have to get funding from somewhere. You think Greenpeace or the Sierra Club is going to fund a scientist who is skeptical about all this?


Can you find scientists who don't receive funding from the oil companies or other parties interested in keeping carbon dioxide unregulated who disagree?

Because there are numerous government (not environmentalist) funded scientists who seem to agree, despite admitted pressure *from the government* to supress such findings.

I'm saying the amount of CO2 put in the air by humans, even with a ludicrously generous estimate, doesn't account for the increase of CO2 in the air in the last 200 some odd years


Well, first, look at the feedback loops. For example, unless I'm wrong, there's a fair amount of CO2 tied up in glacial and polar ice, which, as the world gets warmer, will release and make it warmer still.

That not doing it for you?

Okay. So look at it from the other end. What normally gets rid of carbon dioxide?

Plants?

Shit, I knew we needed all of that *forest* for something. Probably should've thought of that before cutting it all down.

And finally, even if there is *some* natural increase in the carbon dioxide and temperature levels going on (and I don't think anyone is arguing there isn't), it's pretty hard to argue that we're not making it worse, and that that is *not* in our best interests.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Lani
Has Boobs (Probably)
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:07 am UTC
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Contact:

Postby Lani » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:04 pm UTC

Akula, what are your sources?

This latest release of the IPCC reports shows pretty well that the scientific community is in consensus. What evidence do you have that indicates they're not?

So you're saying that the increases seen in CO2 content in the atmosphere are more than what humanity has produced? What's your source? I've never heard this claim before, and I've done a lot of research on the subject.
- Lani



"They think they're so high and mighty, just because they never got caught driving without pants."

User avatar
Lani
Has Boobs (Probably)
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:07 am UTC
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Contact:

Postby Lani » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:06 pm UTC

Actually, the biggest absorber of CO2 is the ocean. The whole theory of anthropogenic Global Warming came about when they realized that humanity was producing more CO2 than the oceans could absorb...by a lot.
- Lani



"They think they're so high and mighty, just because they never got caught driving without pants."

User avatar
Nonthought
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:34 pm UTC
Location: Merry ol' England

Postby Nonthought » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:07 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Plants?


Read something about this, before. Apparently the rainforests don't do much because trees die and release all the carbon again.

Still, better that the carbon is temporarily is tree-form, yes. It's prettier and less chokey.
Image

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:17 pm UTC

Actually, the biggest absorber of CO2 is the ocean. The whole theory of anthropogenic Global Warming came about when they realized that humanity was producing more CO2 than the oceans could absorb...by a lot.


Which is why my first point was going to be the negative feedback loops that exist, but are conveniently never mentioned.

So you're saying that the increases seen in CO2 content in the atmosphere are more than what humanity has produced? What's your source? I've never heard this claim before, and I've done a lot of research on the subject.


Simple math really. Estimates are that CO2 has increased by anywhere from 150-250 PPM, depending on where you read. A generous estimate of total CO2 emissions (going by peak annual production and just multiplying it over 200 years) works out to about 100 PPM. And as I said, that's a pretty generous estimate given that we wouldn't of been anywhere near peak emissions for most of the 200 years, especially prior to automobiles.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:27 pm UTC

Which is why my first point was going to be the negative feedback loops that exist, but are conveniently never mentioned.


That's not a feedback loop. That's a fixed control.

It would only be a feedback loop if the C02 capacity of the ocean got *higher* as the temperature went up.

Lani would probably know better than I, but I believe the situation is actually the opposite, making it a mild *positive* feedback loop
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Lani
Has Boobs (Probably)
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:07 am UTC
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Contact:

Postby Lani » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:38 pm UTC

The other thing to bear in mind is that the actual worst greenhouse gas is water vapor. It is far more efficient than CO2 or methane at trapping heat. As global temperatures rise, there will be increased water vapor in the atmosphere, which could cause runaway warming. That's a feedback loop we don't want.

I have more to say, but my lunch break is over...
- Lani



"They think they're so high and mighty, just because they never got caught driving without pants."

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:18 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Which is why my first point was going to be the negative feedback loops that exist, but are conveniently never mentioned.


That's not a feedback loop. That's a fixed control.

It would only be a feedback loop if the C02 capacity of the ocean got *higher* as the temperature went up.

Lani would probably know better than I, but I believe the situation is actually the opposite, making it a mild *positive* feedback loop


If temperatures rise, sea levels rise covering more land, and ice caps melt exposing more ocean... all resulting in a larger ocean... will the ocean not absorb more CO2?

Not what I had in mind, but just a quick example.

A better one would be cloud cover. Clouds will always reflect some UV radiation, and if they are thick enough that you can't see the sun, they block out most or all of the UV radiation. While water vapor itself is the strongest GHG, more of it, along with increased temperatures means more cloud cover. I'm going to go look to see if there are any studies on where CO2 and other GHGs tend to move to in the atmosphere (altitude wise). If most the temperature increase is in the lower troposphere, you're going to have a much more dramatic adiabatic lapse rate, which means lots more thick cloud cover, which means a whole lot less UV radiation reaching the ground.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:23 pm UTC

If temperatures rise, sea levels rise coering more land, and ice caps melt exposing more ocean... will the ocean not absorb more CO2?


Yes.

How is that a desireable outcome again?

Silly me, I thought we were talking about feedback loops that were going to *stop* catastrophic changes.

A better one would be cloud cover. Clouds will always reflect some UV radiation, and if they are thick enough that you can't see the sun, they block out most or all of the UV radiation.


Not entirely accurate. They permit more radiation and heat through than they let back out. Thicker overall cloud-cover would lead to a net increase in heat.

Need an example? Pull back from *our* planet, and skip one orbit closer to the sun. You can barely see the surface of venus, and yet it's ridiculously hotter than mercury, which is even closer still to the sun. Hundreds of degrees hotter.

A 10 or 20 degree change could pretty much screw us. Making our planet look more like venus is probably not going to solve the problem.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:32 pm UTC

ummm no. Clouds reflect at least a portion of UV radiation. When they are thick enough they don't let any UV, Visible, or IR through. Not sure about x-ray and gamma though. Keep in mind that this different from water vapor - H20 in it's gas form and H20 in it's liquid and solid forms behave differently when it comes to this. Clouds are just collections of microscopic droplets of liquid or solid water.

Venus is the way it is because it's atmosphere is comprised of gases that do not reflect UV no matter how thick they are.

Are you sure you understand the science behind what we're talking about? Not trying to be rude, but you need to understand how different molecules interact with radiation before talking about it.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:50 pm UTC

....

::sigh::

Okay, let me try this again.

Are you familiar with how a greenhouse works? The glass lets UV and visible light radiation through *into* the greenhouse, which reach the ground, convert to heat, and then escape much more slowly than they entered, thus causing a slow but steady gain in the heat inside the green house?

Yeah. Cloud cover blocks some UV radiation. And? It doesn't block it entirely, and it blocks it leaving as well, and tends to be much more effective at the latter, especially since by that point much of said radiation has turned to heat which has an even harder time escaping. Thus, net gain in heat. Slow but steady increase in temperature.

That said, even if I'm wrong, and the reflected UV is enough to ablate the additional trapped UV, we're at a pretty bad situation already when we have that much more cloud cover.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:25 pm UTC

Belial wrote:....

::sigh::

Okay, let me try this again.

Are you familiar with how a greenhouse works? The glass lets UV and visible light radiation through *into* the greenhouse, which reach the ground, convert to heat, and then escape much more slowly than they entered, thus causing a slow but steady gain in the heat inside the green house?

Yeah. Cloud cover blocks some UV radiation. And? It doesn't block it entirely, and it blocks it leaving as well, and tends to be much more effective at the latter, especially since by that point much of said radiation has turned to heat which has an even harder time escaping. Thus, net gain in heat. Slow but steady increase in temperature.

That said, even if I'm wrong, and the reflected UV is enough to ablate the additional trapped UV, we're at a pretty bad situation already when we have that much more cloud cover.


Which is why I asked if you're familiar with the science involved.
A greenhouse gas is simply a type of molecule that does not interfere with shorter wave Ultraviolet and Visual radiation, but reflects longer wave Infrared radiation, meaning energy from the sun will penetrate the atmosphere, but the energy coming back up from the earth will not. Water vapor does this. When water condenses into a liquid or solid state, like in a cloud, it now interferes more with UV and Visual radiation, each molecule scattering a portion of it back into space. Thin clouds still let most of the visual and UV in. But when they are thicker then most of the Visual and UV is scattered back into space, instead of heating the surface.

Also, this is not remotely how an actual Greenhouse works... it's just a metaphor.

randommuz
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:31 pm UTC
Location: Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
Contact:

Postby randommuz » Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:26 am UTC

Akula, are you familiar with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the Stern Review? I think you need to do some more research.

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:47 am UTC

randommuz wrote:Akula, are you familiar with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the Stern Review? I think you need to do some more research.


sigh...
half a point off your final grade for being late.

Arkohn
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:57 pm UTC

Postby Arkohn » Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:51 am UTC

My stance on global warming:

It's happening, there's nothing we can do about it. Even if everyone in the world agrees to be a hippy, we will still melt the Earth. If it's not global warming, it'll be something else, and even if we figure out how to preserve the Earth forever, one day, the sun will explode, so we shouldn't be so damn worried about it. I figure, the Earth is the inevtiable loser in the boxing match against time, so why not side with the winning team and destroy the Earth to just get it over with already.

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:54 am UTC

Arkohn wrote:My stance on global warming:

It's happening, there's nothing we can do about it. Even if everyone in the world agrees to be a hippy, we will still melt the Earth. If it's not global warming, it'll be something else, and even if we figure out how to preserve the Earth forever, one day, the sun will explode, so we shouldn't be so damn worried about it. I figure, the Earth is the inevtiable loser in the boxing match against time, so why not side with the winning team and destroy the Earth to just get it over with already.


Though I disagree with the pessimism, you are right in one regard.
If global warming alarmists are right, then we are boned no matter what we do - unless of course someone invents a way to suck 1.6 trillion tons of CO2 out the atmosphere.

My proposal:
Image

Arkohn
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:57 pm UTC

Postby Arkohn » Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:56 am UTC

So, if suddenly, all technology disappeared right now, how much time would we have before we all drown?

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:01 am UTC

Arkohn wrote:So, if suddenly, all technology disappeared right now, how much time would we have before we all drown?


Assuming the alarmists are correct... dunno, maybe a couple centuries. But then I'm not so arrogant as to make long term climate predictions with current technology...

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:15 am UTC

By the time the sun explodes, we'll all be drafted into the Space Marines scattered among the many galaxies

Image

FOR THE EMPEROR!!!
i hurd u liek mudkips???

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:21 am UTC

Of course, I intend to be the emperor...

after all, it was my vision of a gigantic atmosphere sucking robotic mega maid that saved the human race.

User avatar
aldimond
Otter-duck
Posts: 2665
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:52 am UTC
Location: Uptown, Chicago
Contact:

Postby aldimond » Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:38 am UTC

Haha, yeah, if we do nothing about global warming and the most dramatic predictions come true San Francisco will be under water in 100 years.

But if we pollute more we can put San José and Silicon Valley under. Maybe LA, too, though they'd probably just annex as many inland cities as they could just to keep part of the city above water (LA has the power to annex towns that it wants. So does Houston).

*Buys a Hummer and gets in a traffic jam*
One of these days my desk is going to collapse in the middle and all its weight will come down on my knee and tear my new fake ACL. It could be tomorrow. This is my concern.

Fluff
See You Next Tuesday
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:27 am UTC
Location: The Departure Lounge

Postby Fluff » Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:55 am UTC

Akula wrote:
Venus is the way it is because it's atmosphere is comprised of gases that do not reflect UV no matter how thick they are.


Venus' atmosphere consists almost entirely (97%) of carbon dioxide.

How's that for global warming.

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:19 am UTC

Fluff wrote:
Akula wrote:
Venus is the way it is because it's atmosphere is comprised of gases that do not reflect UV no matter how thick they are.


Venus' atmosphere consists almost entirely (97%) of carbon dioxide.

How's that for global warming.


Yeah, and ours is around .03%

We'd have to keep trucking for another 10,000 years... ignoring natural CO2 removal.

Good Job

Fluff
See You Next Tuesday
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:27 am UTC
Location: The Departure Lounge

Postby Fluff » Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:20 am UTC

Point. Missed. Entirely.

The Earth would be fucked long before it got to the CO2 concentration of Venus.

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:24 am UTC

Fluff wrote:Point. Missed. Entirely.

The Earth would be fucked long before it got to the CO2 concentration of Venus.


Your post seemed more like "ZOMG teh urth is gunna be liek Venus!"

Sorry for my misinterpretation.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pkcommando and 30 guests