flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Ice Age 2040, The Meltdown of the North Pole

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/sphinx.html
The point being that erosion at the base of the 12k year old Sphinx was caused, as noted above, by WATER. Ok, we are writing here, about the EGYPTIAN DESERT, a place where water has not been found in the past 5000 years....
Meantime, just a couple thousand years before the Sphinx was having trouble with erosion from rain fall in the desert (which, in those days was probably a jungle), a few thousand kilometers to the East,
http://www.si.edu/resource/Faq/nmnh/origin.htm
the people we now call "Indians" traveled across the Bering Sea land bridge, into North America, because the water level was SO MUCH LOWER than it is today, (due to the much colder climate, i.e. with the polar ice caps MUCH larger than they are at present.) In a matter of only a few hundred years these Asian invaders killed all of the mammoths, which had prospered in North America for more than 200,000 years, prior to the arrival of homo sapiens. The mammoth's destruction by Asian immigrants, was repeated by the Europeans, who, twelve thousand years later, again invaded North America and this time, destroyed all the Buffalo, since there were no more Mammoths to be killed. Writing of methane from herbivores, like cattle, buffalo, and mammoths, it is worth noting that North America was COVERED with buffalo, from East to West, and North to South, before the advent of Columbus. The Buffalo were EVERYWHERE. That's a lot of methane. No one seemed to notice any effect on global warming from that source, examining the ice core samples of the last millenium.
Smile
Post 15 Dec 2006, 21:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
tom: good argument Very Happy
Post 15 Dec 2006, 22:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
tom tobias wrote:
the Europeans, who, twelve thousand years later, again invaded North America and this time, destroyed all the Buffalo, since there were no more Mammoths to be killed. Writing of methane from herbivores, like cattle, buffalo, and mammoths, it is worth noting that North America was COVERED with buffalo, from East to West, and North to South, before the advent of Columbus. The Buffalo were EVERYWHERE. That's a lot of methane. No one seemed to notice any effect on global warming from that source, examining the ice core samples of the last millenium.
Smile


You're forgetting that steam is also a greenhouse gass.

D*mn, nobody taking those bloody Finnish saunas into account when examining the ice core samples!! Razz
Post 16 Dec 2006, 01:18
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
And today on the radio: decrease in polar bears.
Post 18 Dec 2006, 23:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
Possible evidence of NATURAL causes of Global Warming

Russian scientists note warming on Mars in recent years possibly indicate changes in the sun is the reason for earth global warming, not man-made reasons. Makes sense to me.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Al Gore - call your crackpot scientists....
Post 04 Mar 2007, 15:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
to discover more on topic, watch southpark 10-06 - Manbearpig Very Happy
Post 04 Mar 2007, 17:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
I feel as if people make up this global warming crap because they wish they had control over crap that they don't have control over. Because some one revived this topic, i guess i'll post some new information that i've since realized that i don't think i posted here.

From what i've heard, all the holes in the ozone move to the ice caps. This is an interesting concept, especially because those areas are typically DARK. That's because the sun seldom has rays that go far enough north or south to hit those places. In all reality, the UV rays are being stopped by a layer thinner than a peice of paper. I personally think that if the purpose wasd for UV radiation, we've already done so much damage that we're doomed anyway. Not to mention, if it's do to UV radiation (one of Sol's many types of electromagnetic rays) it should have done cause more cancer by now. If you wanna blame it on any kind of radiation or human technology, we have plenty of radiation from powerlines, microwaves (both which won't wack our ice caps) but we also have satalite (which i'm sure plenty of access waves wack our ice) and lots and lots of radio waves from our radio towers. Now if you want to get even deeper into the subject, i do remember from 8th grade science, that Radio waves, microwaves, VISIBLE LIGHT (better turn off your flashlights), UV rays, and gamma rays are all the same type of waves, which are electromagnetic waves. The only difference is the freaquency. And yes, that means most of the suns rays are being deflected by the earth's magnetosphere, which we have no control over. I'd be more worried about all the waves we're shooting all over the place giving us cancer than our ice caps inevitably melting. Which is funny to me. If we had an ice age that came after a time just like now, shouldn't the ice have formed pretty much evenly since all the water would have diffused all over the place before it froze? Please, i find that most people who beleive that this earth was around for billions of years also beleives this global warming crap. I'm sick of people comming up with theories based on other theories which weren't even proven and then causing mass histeria with them. Most people don't question what they hear, especially if a HUMAN scientist says it. I remember watching a show on gamma rays on the science channel. They say they come up with one algoritham that explains something, then they moved to the next without making it a fact first. They were even trying to challenge E=mc^2. In my book, science lost it's floor a long time ago, and the only decent source of information must be at least a hundred or so years old. I don't even know anymore if the stuff i know on rays is true, because of it all. And i'm sure people have seen my theories on science a long time ago, when i made a comment on how i don't beleive that humans have any clue about what's going on because we can only understand what we experience, and there could be many things right around us that don't directly affect us and can't be identified with our 5 sences, so we can't experience it or know it's effects of things around us. They talk about finding Jesus' tomb, how can that guy be sure? I'm sure that some people wanted to make fun of others back then, especially those who beleived in christianity (as it really wasn't that popular in the beginning) and could have made that tomb as a joke. I'm sure there are other explimations that work, but no one can prove the true identity of anyone there. I'm sick of these "discovories." People do like to make up stuff to make people think a certain way to get what they want. They do it with politics all the time, and scientists get lots of money out of it. When talking about viruses in biology this year, i came up with a simple vaccein for H.I.V.
Post 04 Mar 2007, 21:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Goplat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 181
Goplat
HyperVista wrote:
Russian scientists note warming on Mars in recent years possibly indicate changes in the sun is the reason for earth global warming, not man-made reasons.
Well, we all know Russians would never push bad science based on ideology, right?
Post 04 Mar 2007, 22:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
And you don't think that people going in to prove global warming don't already have an agenda on their own? I've heard some evidence for global warming being based on the idea that the earth is millions of years old, which reminds me alot of evolution. Am i the only one that notices this? Lemme put it this way. 9 times out of 10, none of us have a clue of what we're talking about, and neither side may even have the right idea for why the caps are melting. For all we know, they're melting slower than usual. All we know is that they're melting, and really none of us can be sure why. So instead of this "oh no, new york'll be under water soon!" stuff, perhaps we could build boats with dirt cause those people need to go some where.
Post 04 Mar 2007, 22:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Goplat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 181
Goplat
vid wrote:
to discover more on topic, watch southpark 10-06 - Manbearpig Very Happy
Out of a random sample of 928 papers from peer-reviewed scientific journals, not one of them presented an argument rejecting the consensus on the existence and the cause of climate change. This would indicate that the opposition to the consensus position is not based on any actual science but is instead coming from politically motivated think-tanks, often funded by groups with an interest in seeding doubt while actually, denial of global warming has about as much basis in reality as astrology or homeopathic medicine.

However, some right-wing TV show made fun of Al Gore.

Obviously, global warming is a total myth.


Last edited by Goplat on 04 Mar 2007, 23:04; edited 1 time in total
Post 04 Mar 2007, 22:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Goplat: you take it too seriously...
Post 04 Mar 2007, 23:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Goplat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 181
Goplat
When people are willfully ignorant on scientific matters just because it's hip to be anti-intellectual, that's a serious problem.
Post 04 Mar 2007, 23:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
vid, LOFL!! Laughing

Image
Image

Goplat - I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the climate has changed (slightly) over the past few years. The question is why. Some believe it's man-made, others believe its a natural cycle. Regarding your comment about Russian scientists, please see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Russian_scientists
When I studied chemistry at university, we were obliged to take Russian language courses because many of the original and pioneering works in chemistry were done by Russians, who have a very rich and colorful history of scientific achievment.
Post 05 Mar 2007, 01:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Goplat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 181
Goplat
HyperVista: Bush and Cheney are always telling us we're about to get nuked by terrorists, but somehow that doesn't qualify for a mocking in the eyes of the South Park creators.
HyperVista wrote:
Goplat - I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the climate has changed (slightly) over the past few years. The question is why. Some believe it's man-made, others believe its a natural cycle.
Some believe that Xenu, dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, killed a ton of his citizens 75 million years ago, that the ghosts of them are now possessing people and causing all psychological problems, and that exorcising them gives you magic powers. (This, incidentally, was also the subject of a South Park episode.) Just because someone believes something doesn't make it credible.
Quote:
Regarding your comment about Russian scientists, please see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Russian_scientists
When I studied chemistry at university, we were obliged to take Russian language courses because many of the original and pioneering works in chemistry were done by Russians, who have a very rich and colorful history of scientific achievment.
I didn't say Russians never made any contributions to science. But I wouldn't consider Russia to be free of the same kinds of propaganda posing as science that happens in the US. (Russia is still a major oil-producing nation)
Post 05 Mar 2007, 02:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
HyperVista: Bush and Cheney are always telling us we're about to get nuked by terrorists, but somehow that doesn't qualify for a mocking in the eyes of the South Park creators.
Not exactly this, but fear of "terrorism" is often mocked (by the way, my real-world last name is "Mocko" Very Happy ). watch episodes 10-03 and 10-04 with burying heads into sand Smile
Post 05 Mar 2007, 03:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Goplat, if you don't think that any athiest scientists don't go in assuming that there isn't a God, then you're crazy. And common sence and history will tell you that any one beginning an investigation assuming something will not investigate if their belief is indeed true. All athiests go into study assuming that there is no God, so they ignor any evidence that proves something that would also support a God's existance. Equally, if you go as a thiest, you'll see only evidence that supports thiesim. No one has ever been able to stay in the middle, it's a human weakness, but people forget that scientists are human, thus subject to human weaknesses. That, in my eyes, is why we have so many scientists backing up theories based on other theories. It's funny. There are lots of non-secular scientists as well. I find it interesting that those scientists don't get much publicity or credit. Maybe because they don't contradict popular belief, which would mean they don't give enough ratings. People want to hear that there isn't a god, not that there is one. People want to hear we can do something about global warming, not that we can't. I think people are just too scared to admit that we will eventually die off, one way or another (thiest or athiest), and there's nothing we can do about it. Maybe these old discoveries are true. Maybe some one discovered that there is a force more powerful than humans. There's a shocking idea. Maybe instead of getting smarter like we wish we were, maybe we're actually getting dumber. Thermodynamics (and i know that we're not heating elements) says that things deminish and not get better, which i find interesting considering even our own culture is slowly falling apart. We used to have new ideas and inventions. Now all we can come up with is copies or things based on other inventions? A CD is a new record, hard drives are special CDs, a plasma TV is a more expensive TV. Whatever happenedto the invention of a computer, or the invention of a lightbulb or the wheel. Supposedly we can still invent things, so why is it always based on an invention we already have? I don't think we're getting much smarter, people.

Quote:
1. Thermodynamics. a. (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
b. (in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S

2. (in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
3. (in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death).
4. a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.


Now i know the 4th deffinition of the word isn't a fact, but no one has proven it wrong. I just had a 3 hour debate with my father on evolution, and he lost, even though i was on the side of evolution (despite not beleiving it). He has grown so old that his mind has closed like the rest of society, society's decline (in my beleif) slowly taps on your mind, closing it up. Slowly all the societies of the world are becomming one, and the many diverse cultures are closing into one, and that closes our mind to not only the different cultures (which we forget exist due to all the common cultures) but to anything we discover. The older we get, the more the common culture closes our mind, which in effect, we can't argue against new evidence, because our mind is too closed to see exactly what the other person is arguing. With the closing of the mind, old ideas and other old ideas become new ideas to others. Any one of those old ideas that were lost could have been a good thing, and even the loss of them may take effect on everyone, for the closedness of certain ideas in the mind at an early stage won't accept these ideas. That's why they tell you to talk to your kids early about drugs, because the sooner you make them beleive something, the sooner you'll have their mind closed on the topic, and they'll beleive what you told them, and they'll never change their view, because their mind is already set to it, and minds don't like to reopen, especially on topics that people beleive strongly about. That includes global warming, evolution or creationism, abortion or no abortion, and things like that. Because the more sensative the topic, the more important it is to close the person's mind to your belief at an early age. And the only way to reopen the mind, is to prove that there is a need to reopen it, which would mean if you believe that god exists, you have to have god appear and give proof that he or she is god, and hence obviously their minds would be forced open, but without proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, both sides of a debate will continue to argue for a long time, and the younger the person indoctrinated, the less chance that they'll ever reach a middle ground. Problem is, with all these sensative issues and with a lack of parenthood, the most important things aren't being taught at an early age, so they don't have their minds closed to such things. If you have a child where "murder is wrong" isn't taught to him, when he has a chance to murder, there is a 50% chance that his mind'll lock onto the idea that murder is ok, and if you give that child a motive, it's now a 100% chance that he'll take advantage of that chance and kill some one. While we're sitting here indoctrinating our kids from an early age on which side of the political spectrum to be on on stupid issues that no matter what side you're on you won't make a difference anyway, your kids are out abusing drugs, becomming murderers, selling themselves on the street, cheating on their partners (because many still havn't told their kdis that it's wrong) and you have only so much time before the kid gets the idea that you might be wrong about something you tell him. So guess what, once your kids start asking questions that they know (or think) you don't have answers too, it's pretty much too late to teach them what is important. These pointless debates result in young indoctrination because we're so selfish about winning an argument that we indoctrinate our kids and our culture is falling apart because we only have so much time to teach them so much. When the time to come up with their own opinions comes, it comes. Your belief on contraversial things should be (in my opinion) at a further lower priority than teaching them what they need to survive or how to even come to a conclusion. Many people don't know how to put two and two together to get four (yes, this is a figure of speech and not to be taken literally). Now, even if we are the cause of global warming, we're not making that ozone come back so no matter how much we cut back, we're only delaying the inevitable. How about we start building those boats and stop worrying about winning the argument on who's fault it is, ok?

Thought a few people could benefit from that speech.
Post 05 Mar 2007, 07:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
tantrikwizard



Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 142
tantrikwizard
any advanced society should be able to control their weather. We could achieve same with terraform factories stratigically placed around the globe. A simple process of electrolosis can convert water to O2 and Hydrogen gas. Evaporate the oceans already!
Post 05 Mar 2007, 11:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or picking on the humanists, but lemme point out that either way, we should be more worried about that than global warming itself. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen, it's just a matter of weather or not we'll keep arguing about the inevitable or if we're going to try to come up with an idea.
Post 05 Mar 2007, 11:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
kohlrak, pretending to be ignorant of the fundamentals of English spelling wrote:
...it's just a matter of weather or not we'll keep arguing
thereby demonstrating his brilliant tongue in cheek mastery of English humor by expressing an uneducated opinion about the whether. Laughing
Global warming is not a fantasy, or political opinion. Those who maintain that this is some sort of normal solar/earth cycle are not in error. Those who maintain that much of the new heat is due to the ten fold increase in the number of humans during the past century (put a few of them in a closed room, or an airplane, and see how hot it gets!!!) are ALSO correct. Conspiracy theorists are simply wrong on this point. Temperatures globally are rising, which has led to polar ice caps melting, in turn leading to an influx of COLD water into the oceans near the ice caps, thus causing weather patterns (or whether patterns for kohlrak) for certain countries NEAR the melting glaciers, counterintuitively, to manifest COLDER climates as a result of the world wide global warming.
With regard to desalination of the oceans to procure fresh water, this is a rising industry that needs lots of devices=lots of computer programs to write.
Smile
Post 05 Mar 2007, 12:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
Goplat wrote:
Quote:
I didn't say Russians never made any contributions to science. But I wouldn't consider Russia to be free of the same kinds of propaganda posing as science that happens in the US. (Russia is still a major oil-producing nation)

Point well made.

I personally believe tom tobias is correct in his assessment that the relative minor changes in climate warming over the past few years can be attributed to BOTH natural / normal cycles of the cosmos and environmental impacts of humans. I disregard shrill arguments from both sides.
Post 05 Mar 2007, 12:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.