A real Inconvenent Truth

Anything that doesn't fit into the subject of other forums goes here. Guns, drugs, religion, politics whatever. No flames!

Moderator: Chris Slack

Post Reply
User avatar
derek666
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:57 am
Contact:

A real Inconvenent Truth

Post by derek666 » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:52 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/

Global temp's have flatlined since 2001?? How could that be?? I was watching the news and heard a small snippet of a guy named Kyle Swanson, so I googled him, and holy shit, for some odd reason him along with numerous other scientists contradict Al Gores bullshit. If all these brainy bastards are correct, which of course I believe they are, we are in a global cooling period and will stay that way for quite a few many years. Think I will have to do my part and start driving my 9mpg Comet daily, non stop until I am completely broke just to warm everyone up!!!


User avatar
DeathFrogg
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by DeathFrogg » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:15 am

A slight levelling trend or downward tick does not an average make. Just because the temperature hasn't continued its upward trend over the last few years does not change the general trend over the last 150 years. The Global average temperature in 2008 was equal to the average in 2001.

Cities such as London, New York, Berlin and Moscow used to see several feet of snow and several weeks of sub-zero temperatures over the course of a winter. Berlin hasn't seen any significant snowfall in 40 years, and Moscows weather is looking more like Seattle does now. New York City hasn't seen more than a couple inches at a time in the last 30 years, and it used to get fucking COLD there in the winter. The ice pack at Antartica and Greenland is still reducing, and that average yearly loss is accelerating. The glaciers there are moving and breaking off faster than they were just 30 years ago.

Bear in mind, that if all the ice in Antartica melted, the ocean level would rise about 130 feet. Thats just Antartica. Not including the several miles of ice on Greenland and the glaciers on the Alps and the north sea ice pack that are dissappearing. And that rate of reduction is accelerating.

That puts nearly all of the east cost, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas under water. As you can see, from the USGS chart, the average over the last 150 years is upward.

Source

Source

Source

Image
-


When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. -Sinclair Lewis


"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Jonathan
Posts: 15257
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Jonathan » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:21 am

I have over 3,000 of my babies dropped in every sea around the globe that says otherwise. If they didn't, I'd be out of a job. Instead, there's an Argo project being proposed for 15,000 more to be deployed. That's 5x more than I've sent out in the last five years. Huge!

The key is oceanic temperature patterns, salt content, oxygen levels, etc. In some parts they're cooling, in some they're warming. The cooling is from shifts in ocean currents that have been the same for hundreds/thousands of years. They're changing, they're going to wreck havoc on 'weather' patterns around the world. Bigger hurricanes. Melting icecaps. Land loss. Snow, where there shouldn't be snow and drought where there shouldn't be drought.

There will be parts of the world that gets colder and of course, people on the extreme anti-global warming stance will jump and say "Look bitches, the shit's gettin' colder!". But that's a part of it. The end result is not good.
Take a picture, trick. I'm on a boat, bitch.

User avatar
PnDsCm
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by PnDsCm » Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:07 am

DeathFrogg wrote: New York City hasn't seen more than a couple inches at a time in the last 30 years,
Actually I was in Manhattan in early February three years ago and we got over 11 inches overnight. Not exactly a climate change indicator but it does still snow on the east coast. Actually I think two days ago they got 9 or so.

In any case it was pretty damn cool being in Times Square with almost no one else there (relatively) totally otherworldly. Check out my video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTxaz-zkMM
[b][color=Pink]Mark it to MARKET bitches![/color][/b]

User avatar
BigHurknFrontman
Posts: 7694
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Lake Stevens, WA

Post by BigHurknFrontman » Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:23 pm

DeathFrogg wrote:Bear in mind, that if all the ice in Antartica melted, the ocean level would rise about 130 feet.

I believe that was proven to be a myth. Use the example of a glass of ice water. If the ice cubes in the glass float to the point that they're an inch above the water line, that doesn't mean that the glass will overflow by an inch once the ice melts. Maybe I'm wrong by quoting this theory, but that's what I heard on the Discovery Channel.
Bryan Hagan - Drummer / Vocalist


[url]http://www.myspace.com/sinhole[/url]

[url]http://www.myspace.com/bighurkin[/url]

[email]pullmyfingerproductions@hotmail.com[/email]

(425)239-3122


User avatar
DeathFrogg
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by DeathFrogg » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:15 pm

BigHurknFrontman wrote:I believe that was proven to be a myth. Use the example of a glass of ice water. If the ice cubes in the glass float to the point that they're an inch above the water line, that doesn't mean that the glass will overflow by an inch once the ice melts. Maybe I'm wrong by quoting this theory, but that's what I heard on the Discovery Channel.

Antartica is land mass. That ice isn't floating in the water yet. It is still contained on land. I don't know if anyone here has seen a real iceberg. Like 100 feet tall floating in the ocean. That means that there is about 900 feet of ice below the surface. When that iceberg melts, that doesn't change the sea level at all. But when ice that is now contained on land, such as Antartica and Greenland and The Alps, it flows down into the ocean eventually. Water always flows to meet its own level. Thats what glaciers are.

The Greenland icepack is almost three miles deep in places, on a minor continent the size of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado combined. It has about 95% total ice coverage. Antartica is almost the size of South America and is about 70% covered in ice that is a couple miles thick in some spots. The other 30% or so is really desert, it gets almost no precipitation at all.

For contrast, if the North Sea icepack melted, it wouldn't raise the oceans by much if at all, as that ice is already floating in the water.

It has already happened at least once in history, when the last ice age ended about 15,000 years ago and the polar icepacks melted down, the sea level rose almost 300 feet. It remains at that level today. With that in mind, I wonder what human artifacts one could find on the coast lines at that old sea level. Thats where the Great Flood legends come from. The sea level rose, I think rather quickly, and flooded the plains that are now the Mediterranian and Black Seas. they have discovered evidence of human settlements on the bottom of those seas.

There are many other factors at play here, atmospheric CO2 levels, O2 and methane concentrations, ocean salinity and O2/CO2 concentrations, current speeds and directions etc. If the average upward temperature trend continues as it has for the last 150 years, the ocean will rise about 12 feet within the next 50 years. Thats just based on a 20% loss of landlocked icepack. Nobody is disputing this, except the wingnuts in the coal and oil industries and their Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter loving bootlickers.
-


When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. -Sinclair Lewis


"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BigHurknFrontman
Posts: 7694
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Lake Stevens, WA

Post by BigHurknFrontman » Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:54 pm

DeathFrogg wrote:If the average upward temperature trend continues as it has for the last 150 years, the ocean will rise about 12 feet within the next 50 years.


Sounds like I may be the proud owner of waterfront property someday!!! GOOD NEWS!!!
Bryan Hagan - Drummer / Vocalist


[url]http://www.myspace.com/sinhole[/url]

[url]http://www.myspace.com/bighurkin[/url]

[email]pullmyfingerproductions@hotmail.com[/email]

(425)239-3122

User avatar
Blonde leading the blonde
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 10:00 pm
Location: Petting Zoo
Contact:

But wait! Don't order yet! There's more!

Post by Blonde leading the blonde » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:01 pm

The ocean currents impact the prevailing air currents. If you dump a metric fuck ton of fresh water (as from melting ice contained on a land mass) into the salt water of the ocean, it has to flip and squirm around and mingle with the salt water until it reaches a sort of equilibrium and is all happy and tumfy again, which alters the ocean currents, altering the air currents, and changing the exchange of warm air with cold air over the adjacent land masses. That, of course, alters the temp on land, but even though it was caused by a cumulative global warming event, it doesn't necessarily mean that any one specific location will be warmer; some will get colder. This causes the snow where there shouldn't be snow and drought where there shouldn't be drought that Jonathan brought up.

Now, how much would you pay?

To me, though, this is all a ridiculous argument. Is global warming real or a myth? Who gives a fuck? I mean really. Who gives a flying fuck whether the cumulative temperature of the entire planet goes up or down? Well, naturally, anyone who ends up underwater does, and a few tree-hugging, granola-eating, dirt-worshipping wildlife-protecting hippies do, but most of us really don't 'care' in any real specific way. We don't have the scientific knowledge, we're not well enough read, and we're not well enough educated to really be able to wrap our minds around a concept like [ELVIS ECHO] Global Warming [/ELVIS ECHO]. We like to debate it and talk about what we 'should' do, who's right and who's wrong, but we don't acutally care at a deep-seated level. So let's just drop that argument and ask a more tangible question: is it any more realistic to believe that we can belch whatever toxins we like into the environment, strip mine, drill, kill off entire species from helecopters, and generally fuck up the planet without any repercussions, than it is to believe that a human being can live on McDonald's, soda pop, alcohol, cigarettes, and Hersheys chocolate, refuse to exercise, and sit at a computer all day and in front of a TV all night, without repercussions? At the end of the day, it's the same argument, really. I can live on Diet Coke, cookies and cigarettes for YEARS without running into any real, documentable health hazards. It doesn't make the risks or repercussions any less real, just less tangible.

And then there's the whole "non-renewable resource" thing. Some day, probably not very soon, but someday, this shit's going to run out. What kind of a fucktard buries his/her head in the sand and hopes they won't get their ass kicked over that one? We're bright enough to begin the transition to renewable resources that don't fuck up the planet. Why not consider moving that direction? You know, we don't just use this shit for cars and heat. We make plastic and clothes out of it, too. Wouldn't it be handy to have a little left for that in a few years? Can you imagine polyester, saran wrap and vasaline being a luxury?
[img]http://23.floweringnightshade.com/shade/images/VernTinkStar.jpg[/img]

[font="Arial Narrow"]It's not who you are, it's what you wear. I mean, who cares who you are?[/font]

[url=http://www.myspace.com/theblondeleadingtheblonde][font="Arial"][SIZE="2"]100,000 Lemmings Can't Be Wrong![/SIZE][/font][/url]

User avatar
Ben
Posts: 2628
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 5:22 pm
Location: Seattle, Wa

Post by Ben » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:46 pm

The planet is fine; the people are fucked. - George Carlin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjfiIow-eW0

User avatar
-deathboy-
Posts: 4621
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 8:35 am
Location: outside your bedroom window...
Contact:

Post by -deathboy- » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:15 am

Ben wrote:The planet is fine; the people are fucked. - George Carlin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjfiIow-eW0
:cheers:
[align=center][font="Comic Sans MS"]
[color=red]G[/color]ore [color=red]O[/color]bsessed [color=red]L[/color]ittle [color=red]F[/color]reak
[/font]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/-deathboy-/bloodbar4gr.gif[/img][/align]

User avatar
PnDsCm
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by PnDsCm » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:54 am

Blonde leading the blonde wrote:
And then there's the whole "non-renewable resource" thing. Some day, probably not very soon, but someday, this shit's going to run out.
The problem is not about "running out"... It's about rate of extraction. The only positive thing about negative GDP right now is that we're not banging up against the upper limits of worldwide crude production. Give it a couple of years though and we'll see what happens.
[b][color=Pink]Mark it to MARKET bitches![/color][/b]

User avatar
The Green Manalishi
Posts: 157
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:25 pm
Location: Seattle Baye-be

Post by The Green Manalishi » Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:57 pm

PnDsCm wrote:The problem is not about "running out"... It's about rate of extraction. The only positive thing about negative GDP right now is that we're not banging up against the upper limits of worldwide crude production. Give it a couple of years though and we'll see what happens.
The only thing that comes to mind when I read the word "extraction" is what Bush decided last year to do up North in AK...more raping and marring of whats left of nature.
Sorry, I'm a tree huger.
I was in remote villages up there in 2002, 2003 & '04. Late last year, so much erosion from the sea rising into the coast, has flooded the coastal villages in just that small amount of time.

Global Warming?

The "End Times"?

Nostradamus?

The Mayan Calendar?



The White Buffalo only has one leg to stand on.
"Ideas, who knows where they frickin' come from".
"Issac Newton invented gravity because some asshole hit him in the head with an apple."

-"Christafah" Moltisanti -Soprano's


:devildoll
[url]http://www.myspace.com/puppyuppers[/url]

User avatar
derek666
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:57 am
Contact:

Post by derek666 » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:47 am

The Green Manalishi wrote:The only thing that comes to mind when I read the word "extraction" is what Bush decided last year to do up North in AK...more raping and marring of whats left of nature.
.
It's Bush' doing?? If that's true, then what the fuck is this?

http://www.anwr.org/case.htm

I had no clue that Bush was in power back in 1968. Since 1977, more than 13billion barrels of oil from Alaska's north slope.. hmmm Guess it was him last year causing havok up north.

To get back on the topic of why I started this thread, most of you on here were praising that shitpot of a "documentary" from Al Gore. He even won a nobel peace prize for that crock of shit. In fact a few of you were blaming Bush and the GOP and the overuse of SUV's blah blah. Now someone on here please explain how the hell, if the temp's have been holding steady since 2001, can it be blamed on the GOP?? You all know who you are, the ones that were bashing Bush and blaming him for it back when that hit the theatre's.

Now to change topic for a second, I was watching Keith Olberman a couple days ago and he made a comment that I found hard to believe and if true, completely shocking. As most of you know he, Keith, is probably the biggest Obama supporter of all big name t.v. personalities on the news, he said that in the 2 months since Obama took office he has spent more than Bush and Clinton combined!?!? How and where does he get those kind of figures?? DF, you seem to find all the lowdown on politicians, where would one research this? I can't find shit on it.

User avatar
DeathFrogg
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by DeathFrogg » Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:14 am

For now, the bill as it was signed into law: (PDF)

Which makes it a pain in the ass to read, 647 pages. No, I have not read the whole thing.

This is the main problem with a fiat money system. Uncle Sugar can wave his magic wand and poof, more money is created. This creates inflation. But what has been happening since Raygun was president is that credit regulations have been loosened so much that it is now the main source of currency and exchange. The more "cash" (credit) that is available, the more things cost. The more things cost, such as raw materials and labor and machinery, the greater pressure on the producers to maximize profit per unit of production whatever that may be.

Fractional Reserve Banking.

Raygunz ideas were to make that "cash" (credit) available to a greater number of people. What this did was create a situation where the producers of goods were encouraged to build things to the high end of the pricing range, using the minimum amount of labor and material possible. That is what a Manufacturing Engineer does. His job is to squeeze the maximum level of product out of the least level of expense as he can figure out. His job is to design shit as cheap to manufacture as possible, and the Industrial Engineers job is to streamline the production system to the minimum of expense per unit in labor and material.

So producers such as car manufacturers and home builders producing things that generate the most profit, rather than the average. So you get Hummers, and Caddillac Escalades, and 4500 sq ft Mcmansions instead of Volkswagens and 1800 sq ft houses that the average person can buy making normal wages. This increases the pressure to borrow the money to buy shit. Producers answer that artificial demand for credit by increasing the prices of things to the maximum the market will bear under the credit system rather than producing things that can be purchased by just saving money.

Unfortunately, Obama is trying to patch this system at this point, rather than crack down on it by reducing credit availability. He's still trying to work within the system as it exists now, rather than going back to regulating the credit system back to what it was in the mid 1970's. I think he understands this very well, and in the next year or so you will see those old regulations come back. Credit will dry up, and prices will start to come down, and producers will start producing things that average people can buy using cash rather than credit.

Unfortunately, this means prices of everything will go up for a while untill those regulations start to have an effect, probably for the next couple of years. You cannot blame Obama for the problem, this goes back to the early 1980's when the SEC was almost totally defunded and regulations were eliminated. This bubble has been setting up to burst for the last 25 years. Reaganomics is a scam. It is just a money mining system controlled by the private bankers. It makes people with lots of cash available a lot more money. They can loan it out willy-nilly to the schmucks, and those money market funds they generate to do this are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

There are banks that need to be broken up, and others that need to be crushed out of existence. Some banks such as Shearson Lehman and Morgan Stanley were "too big to fail". Meaning that if they did, it would fuck the whole system. Shearson Lehman was leveraged at something like 180 to 1. GMAC was leveraged against those banks to about 100-1. EVERYONE was doing this.

Thats what caused the bank run last September, when about a third of the total cash supply was drawn out of the Federal Reserve in just a couple hours. If the Federal Government hadn't forced the halt in Money Market trading when it did, (against the Bush administrations pressure) the entirety of the Federal Reserve would have been withdrawn within a few more hours. That would have collapsed the entire economy.

George Bush and his little Klan of banking buddies were fully aware of this, and tried to let it happen. They were, in every way, shape and form, a resurgence of the German third reich. A total collapse of an economic system brings about desperation in the general population. People grasp for any political idea that claims to be able to solve the problem, even nazism or communism, both which came to power in the massive economic collapse in Europe following WW1. Bush really wanted to be the next Adolph Hitler, and had a lot of people behind him. They were Trotskyite capitalists. They tried to make it happen.

Yes, we did come that close. We're not out of the woods yet. the GOP and the neocon Democrats fucked us pretty damn good. The shit can still hit the fan some more.
-


When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. -Sinclair Lewis


"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
PnDsCm
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by PnDsCm » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:05 pm

The Green Manalishi wrote:The only thing that comes to mind when I read the word "extraction" is what Bush decided last year to do up North in AK...more raping and marring of whats left of nature.
You can substitute "production" for "extraction" if you like.
[b][color=Pink]Mark it to MARKET bitches![/color][/b]

User avatar
Adremelech
Super Member
Posts: 6033
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 12:00 pm
Location: Bellingham, WA

Post by Adremelech » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:26 pm

PnDsCm wrote:The problem is not about "running out"... It's about rate of extraction. The only positive thing about negative GDP right now is that we're not banging up against the upper limits of worldwide crude production. Give it a couple of years though and we'll see what happens.
True dat. The Earth is still swimming in oil. Being able to extract it cost effectively to meet demand is the kicker. We're getting damn close, if we aren't already there. It can't just keep increasing forever.
[color=#000000][font=dotum][b][size=100][color=Yellow]
[/color][/size][/b][/font][/color]


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest