Anyone Here Use Digg?
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Feb 27, 2007 @ 4:05pm |
 Coolness: 340385 | If so, could you do me a favor and digg this story?
[ digg.com ] It's so close to getting frontpaged.. :P |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» El_Presidente replied on Tue Feb 27, 2007 @ 4:10pm |
 Coolness: 300045 | digg whore! |
| I'm feeling lonely right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Feb 27, 2007 @ 4:11pm |
| Coolness: 340385 | Heheh, man, I just wanna get a story on the frontpage.. :P |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MURDOCK_ROCK replied on Tue Feb 27, 2007 @ 4:55pm |
 Coolness: 84595 | holy crap yo...
i can't watch that al gore movie without passing the fuck out yo... a must see for insomniacs everywhere... it helped get me over the not being able to sleep phase since i quit smoking pot!!! |
| I'm feeling warm unicorn jizz right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Tue Feb 27, 2007 @ 10:15pm |
 Coolness: 201945 | stupid liberals, there is no global warming!
It's just god deciding to heat us up a bit more. |
| I'm feeling gangsta right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Feb 27, 2007 @ 11:02pm |
| Coolness: 340385 | Define "a bit" cause the planet hasn't heated up more than half a degree.. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Wizdumb replied on Wed Feb 28, 2007 @ 1:25pm |
 Coolness: 123030 | i saw a scary documentary on the nature of things, it might even be worse than we thought
[ www.bbc.co.uk ] |
| I'm feeling booze and movies right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MURDOCK_ROCK replied on Wed Feb 28, 2007 @ 5:18pm |
| Coolness: 84595 | yeah... "acording to neo" global dimming is bullshit as well...
somebody get this guy into PARLIMENT!!! |
| I'm feeling warm unicorn jizz right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Feb 28, 2007 @ 6:08pm |
| Coolness: 340385 | Originally Posted By MURDOCK_ROCK
yeah... "acording to neo" global dimming is bullshit as well... somebody get this guy into PARLIMENT!!! Wanna find me a scientific journal that conclusively shows that global warming is occurring due to humans? Or are you just repeating what everyone else says.. ? |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Anarkoid replied on Wed Feb 28, 2007 @ 6:38pm |
 Coolness: 193395 | Scientific American, March 18, 2005..and a lot of other articles
[ www.sciam.com ] This one in nature is not too bad either... [ www.nature.com ] en français Science et Vie a plusieur numéro consacré au réchauffement (exemple. N°1020 septembre 2002) but the problem now is that most scientific have stopped writing papers to prove the link between humans and global warming since pretty much all the scientific community look at the fact and can't deny the obvious link |
| I'm feeling flying in hyperspace right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Teblchple7 replied on Wed Feb 28, 2007 @ 9:01pm |
 Coolness: 44995 | More than 10,000 reputable, peer-reviewed climate scientists believe the evidence that shows rapid shifts in global temperature are caused by human activity. Seven -- that's seven -- doubt it. Al Gore may be a hypocrite, but the jury is still out on who's the moron? The controversy, if any, focuses on the causes of recent warming, likelihood and magnitude of future warming, and what actions, if any, should be taken in response. Not if global warming exists.
[ en.wikipedia.org ] Update » Teblchple7 wrote on Wed Feb 28, 2007 @ 9:13pm My mistake, it's 24 scientists (not all climate experts) who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming:
[ en.wikipedia.org ] Maybe some of us agree with 24 reputable scientists and 10,000 fat asses in front of their computer, but most of us will probably opt towards the 10,000 scientists point of view. Good times. |
| I'm feeling belligerent right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu Mar 1, 2007 @ 9:01am |
 Coolness: 92985 | Originally Posted By DJNEOFORM
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY MURDOCK_ROCK YEAH... "ACORDING TO NEO" GLOBAL DIMMING IS BULLSHIT AS WELL... SOMEBODY GET THIS GUY INTO PARLIMENT!!! WANNA FIND ME A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL THAT CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURRING DUE TO HUMANS? OR ARE YOU JUST REPEATING WHAT EVERYONE ELSE SAYS.. ? if you want an official, modest and indescriminate report the IPCC are probably as close as it gets: [ news.bbc.co.uk ] [ news.bbc.co.uk ] |
| I'm feeling hungava right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Mar 1, 2007 @ 11:10am |
| Coolness: 340385 | [ www.ipcc.ch ]
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. It is currently finalizing its Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007". The reports by the three Working Groups provide a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of the current state of knowledge on climate change. The Synthesis Report integrates the information around six topic areas. More" That is a panel of scientists that have political backing and are looking for evidence that human caused global warming exists. That is NOT science. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MURDOCK_ROCK replied on Thu Mar 1, 2007 @ 11:34am |
| Coolness: 84595 | just outta curiousity what political parties are they being backed by, and do these parties have money invested in any of the "claimed" factors of global warming?
and regardless of tempature... the fact of the matter is that there is a MAN MADE layer of SHIT in our atmosphere that is reflecting light energy from the sun from ever reaching the earths surface. and this is UNDENIABLE. |
| I'm feeling warm unicorn jizz right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Thu Mar 1, 2007 @ 11:38am |
 Coolness: 686310 | UNDENIABLE
As you are soon to find out, that is a word that Ian doesn't know the meaning of  |
| I'm feeling like a bald psycho right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Mar 1, 2007 @ 11:38am |
| Coolness: 340385 | "Intergovernmental"
Do I have to highlight the fact that that means that governments are funding them and picking out the scientists that are part of this panel.. ? "the fact of the matter is that there is a MAN MADE layer of SHIT in our atmosphere that is reflecting light energy from the sun from ever reaching the earths surface." So, what scientific studies have you been reading? or are you just repeating what you saw in the newspaper? one word: Alarmists. I'm all for reduction of pollution and all, but when people start using bad science to push a cause, that's lying. FYI, there is NO consensus on the issue of "man made global warming". If you believe there is, you've been watching CNN too much and no actually reading the studies that are being put out. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu Mar 1, 2007 @ 11:58am |
| Coolness: 92985 | Neoform, have you lost your mind? Bad science? The way that carbon molecules react is not in debate. Do you honestly believe that we would still not know this much about chemistry? Do you honestly believe that all this is based purely on observation? A lot of the climate change thats happening now was predicted a long long time ago by some and it's not a coincidence they were right.
Even a child can understand this, all nice and illustrated for you, you hardly even have to read: [ news.bbc.co.uk ] Update » moondancer wrote on Thu Mar 1, 2007 @ 11:58am you must certainly are not reading any scientific reports neoform and everyone here knows that. |
| I'm feeling hungava right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Teblchple7 replied on Thu Mar 1, 2007 @ 11:58am |
| Coolness: 44995 | Are you totally insane?
Click this link: [ en.wikipedia.org ] The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. I think it's you who's not reading the reports, dude. |
| I'm feeling belligerent right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MURDOCK_ROCK replied on Thu Mar 1, 2007 @ 12:13pm |
| Coolness: 84595 | |
| I'm feeling warm unicorn jizz right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Thu Mar 1, 2007 @ 12:28pm |
 Coolness: 145920 | Originally Posted By MOONDANCER
Neoform, have you lost your mind? Bad science? The way that carbon molecules react is not in debate. Do you honestly believe that we would still not know this much about chemistry? Do you honestly believe that all this is based purely on observation? A lot of the climate change thats happening now was predicted a long long time ago by some and it's not a coincidence they were right. Even a child can understand this, all nice and illustrated for you, you hardly even have to read: [ news.bbc.co.uk ] I love how everyone is willing to accept the science (ie chemistry and thermodynamics) behind global warming when we are talking about something like how to grow tomatoes in an enclosed area in the winter but as soon as we start talking about the whole planet forget about it... we've understood the process of warming since the 1880s... look at this.. "Svante Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect ("On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground", Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76). He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of CO2 and water vapour. Arrhenius' painstaking calculations were later shown to be erroneous. Using the just published Stefan Boltzmann law he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows: if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression. Which is still valid in the simplified expression by Myhre et al. (1998). ΔF = αln(C/C0) Arrhenius' high absorption values for CO2, however, met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906), German translation: Das Werden der Welten (1907), English translation: Worlds in the Making (1908) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more attention. Nevertheless, until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the hot-house / greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth, which has proven to be a powerful predictor of most of the millions of past climate changes. Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback. Arhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 4 degrees Celsius [1]. Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC place this value (the Climate sensitivity) at between 2 and 4.5 degrees, although values greater than 4.5°C cannot be formally excluded. What is remarkable is that Arrhenius came so close to the most recent IPCC estimate. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now predicted by some pundits to take about a century.: [ en.wikipedia.org ] |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
Anyone Here Use Digg?
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
