So, is it global warming, or a new ice age?
Which is it?
Fucking stupid shit…
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
So, is it global warming, or a new ice age?
Which is it?
Fucking stupid shit… [/quote]
Hey Skynett, Whats up buddy. You, like are a real person right? Like not a computer intelligence thingy who’s gonna get pissed at us humans for fucking up the world so you take over our systems and nuke us all. … Right? Buddy?
V
[quote]John S. wrote:
There is only one threat to this planet[/quote]
Yikes! ManBearPig!!
He’s totally cereal!!
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Hey Skynett, Whats up buddy. You, like are a real person right? Like not a computer intelligence thingy who’s gonna get pissed at us humans for fucking up the world so you take over our systems and nuke us all. … Right? Buddy?
V[/quote]
AUTOMATED RESPONSE PROTOCOL 1.214: No. I am a human, just like the rest of you. There is no cause for alarm.
Please return now to your homes and await my apocalypse…I mean the pizza guy, because he’s coming. I ordered you a pizza, because I am your friend…
Al Gore is actually going to be the first Nobel winner taking both sides of this.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
So, is it global warming, or a new ice age?
Which is it?
Fucking stupid shit… [/quote]
Significant global warming within 50-500 years of now. You have to love the accuracy of realistic geological predictions!
Ice age would have happened if we hadn’t dumped a shit load of excess stuff in the atmosphere within ~5000 years of now.
Cooling for the next 6-7 years through the next solar cycle will confuse everyone.
I bet that’s as good as most climate models can do.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
lucasa wrote:
lou21 wrote:
In quantum physics maybe. Observing the climate does not significantly perturb in.
Right, so we spontaneously realized this concept of climate without using any prior resources or a larger societal structure. Given the same amount of time Euclid would’ve conceived of Lorenz attractors and black-body radiation without burning all of the CO2.
Given the debate between Angstrom and Fourier (when it arguably was an experiment) I doubt this in the highest degree.
However taking CO2 level to crazy heights is very exciting. The geological record shows this was combined (NB correlation does not imply causation) with a whacking great temperature spike the last time it occurred at 55Ma. This Paleo Eocene Thermal Maximum is associated with the same scale extinction event as the more famous 65Ma event).
There is also a fairly strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature throughout the more recent glacial and interglacial periods. At the moment we should have ‘high’ (about half PETM) CO2 levels. During the glacials CO2 is lower. We have artificially pumped CO2 up to almost PETM values and it will be far higher before it is lower.
Human civilisation may or may not survive such conditions. I won’t try and predict the future. All I’ll say is we only have one Earth why risk it just because you wanna get fed?
Human civilization certainly has the overwhelming potential to survive such conditions, especially in contrast of the gamut of equally plausible conditions we couldn’t possibly survive. And once again, calling it an experiment is a gross oversimplification, as if we could just set the temperature lower and that won’t cause more problems (note the less illusory falls in temp. and CO2).
The goal isn’t just to get fed:
‘The goal is not to say: ‘OK, everybody uses less energy, don’t heat your homes, don’t light your homes, don’t use AC.’ That is not the goal. The goal is to have a standard of living that is carbon neutral and works well with the world. And I think it’s possible.’ -Steven Chu
So heat your home, light your home, use your AC, just be more efficient about it.
Will do.
I don’t even know where to start you clearly miss understood the sarcasm in my statement about it being an experiment!
I agree. Why the hell should anyone be cold, uncomfortable or unable to move freely? It does however make sense to do so in a way which doesn’t run a risk of damaging the planet.[/quote]
[sarcasm]
Q: What’s a word that means ‘portraying something non-sensible in exaggerated or humorous fashion to mean or validate its opposite?’
A: Sarcasm, duh!
[/sarcasm]