NationStates Jolt Archive

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!
:eek::eek::eek:

As the climate began to warm up.... Many of the valleys... were eventually inundated completely.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070810/sc_livescience/stoneagesettlementfoundunderenglishchannel

But FnG AND Solarlandus say, and say a LOT, that it's rubbish!!!
What am i supposed to do now?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=535375

Global warming caused the flood, not flooded...

If global warming flooded the community, we'd all be screwed yesterday. :p

Global warming caused the flood, not flooded...

If global warming flooded the community, we'd all be screwed yesterday. :p
But but global warming is so powerful it CIRCUMVENTS temporal consistency! :eek:

But but global warming is so powerful it CIRCUMVENTS temporal consistency! :eek:

Global warming caused my central cooling to phail!!!

Oh, wait... it already does anyway. :p

laugh it up - I hope you know how to giggle through a snorkel!!!

But I thought that, according to climate scientists, the fact that glaciers are currently melting is because of the "evil" corporations and motorists who pollute the planet with carbon dioxide! How could glaciers have melted 8000 years ago if there were no polluting humans to catalyze this change? Science fails again.

But I thought that, according to climate scientists, the fact that glaciers are currently melting is because of the "evil" corporations and motorists who pollute the planet with carbon dioxide! How could glaciers have melted 8000 years ago if there were no polluting humans to catalyze this change? Science fails again.

Because there hasnt been just one flood there has been many and the floods have been caused by the level of salt in the worlds curcalation of water being fucked the first one was caused by the metorite that killed the dinosuars then when the world got warm again the salt level became stable again the glacers would melt or another world calamaty would happen to skrew up the worlds balance so even if the global warming was to happen and cause the world to topel then it would fix its self again. So that means that science has saved its ass again:p

But I thought that, according to climate scientists, the fact that glaciers are currently melting is because of the "evil" corporations and motorists who pollute the planet with carbon dioxide! How could glaciers have melted 8000 years ago if there were no polluting humans to catalyze this change? Science fails again.

I like you.

You're funny :D

Why anybody takes you seriously I'll never know though.

I like you.

You're funny :D

Why anybody takes you seriously I'll never know though.

They don't

But I thought that, according to climate scientists, the fact that glaciers are currently melting is because of the "evil" corporations and motorists who pollute the planet with carbon dioxide! How could glaciers have melted 8000 years ago if there were no polluting humans to catalyze this change? Science fails again.

No one denies that climate change took place in the past.
Rate of change is the issue, not the change itself.

"Lobsters mucking around the seabed at the site....."

Lobster archaeologists :eek:

They don't
Yet:
No one denies that climate change took place in the past.
Rate of change is the issue, not the change itself.
See? Serious answer! And even without the presence of Serious Cat! (http://i11.tinypic.com/44v8itg.jpg)

Rate of change is the issue, not the change itself.

The rate of change in the past two decades has been 1/20 of a degree Fahrenheit per decade. Alarming!

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67#4

This thread and crappy sarcasm fails way too hard.

The rate of change in the past two decades has been 1/20 of a degree Fahrenheit per decade. Alarming!

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67#4

And just look at how trustworthy the Marshall Institute is!

"1. What is the greenhouse effect?

The greenhouse effect is natural and necessary for life on Earth.

2. What will be the effect on global climate of increasing amounts of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the air?

Nobody knows for sure.

18. Does the threat of major climate change justify drastic reductions in CO2 emissions by the United States and other nations?

No."

Hahahahaha.

Remember: This is not happening, it's all a lie to justify increase in taxes*!

http://www.surveygalaxy.com/upload/2748_image_1-p.jpg

*Multi-billion dollar foreign wars of aggression have nothing, I repeat nothing to do with taxes!

The community had it coming >_>. I mean come on! The people were probably living with their ACs on 24/7...because of global warming. Isn't it fun when a catalyst creates its own catalyst with a disaster and an untold story? Maybe God intended to happen. OMGZ!!! WE R IN A NEW GRE8 FLUD!!!

With any luck, the Dutch will be the next ones through the kitchen.
Bunch of bastards with their weed and their dikes and their wooden shoes.

Calm your hysteria bones, God. What ever happened to skepticism?

With any luck, the Dutch will be the next ones through the kitchen.
Bunch of bastards with their weed and their dikes and their wooden shoes.

"through the kitchen" ? :confused:

The reason global warming is because of skepticism. If the whole world was religious they would be like, "OMGZ!!! WE R IN A NEW GRE8 FLUD!!!" Nobody would blame the industry of Bible-Printing for cutting down the rain forest nor the Cross-Smelting industry for sending tons of ash into the atmosphere. Skepticism is a good thing. :D

Remember: This is not happening, it's all a lie to justify increase in taxes*!

http://www.surveygalaxy.com/upload/2748_image_1-p.jpg


You phool. Can't you see that there are new ice formed outside of the boundaries of ice in 1979. Clearly you are wrong and that is evidence of global cooling. So what is it, global warming or global cooling. Make up your mind.





:p

Remember: This is not happening, it's all a lie to justify increase in taxes*!

http://www.surveygalaxy.com/upload/2748_image_1-p.jpg

*Multi-billion dollar foreign wars of aggression have nothing, I repeat nothing to do with taxes!


Oh, please. Look, it's expanded out in the Northern direction, and probably thickened in other areas. And aside from the fact that the poles' ice is constantly shifting, expanding and shrinking, we're just coming out of a damned ice-age! Are you really that surprised?! Only a few millenia ago the Channel didn't exist! It was just a canyon, it only became the way it is now because the ice began melting!

You know how the more mass in a bathtub, the more it rises? It could be the case here. More ice, the higher the ocean rises. Either way we are screwed. Might as well make the best of it and turn our planet into Venus to show them commie bastards that we control our destinies, not some ice.

You phool. Can't you see that there are new ice formed outside of the boundaries of ice in 1979. Clearly you are wrong and that is evidence of global cooling. So what is it, global warming or global cooling. Make up your mind.

:p

That's funny because it's satire...

Oh, please. Look, it's expanded out in the Northern direction, and probably thickened in other areas. And aside from the fact that the poles' ice is constantly shifting, expanding and shrinking, we're just coming out of a damned ice-age! Are you really that surprised?! Only a few millenia ago the Channel didn't exist! It was just a canyon, it only became the way it is now because the ice began melting!

...that's funny because it's not.

Can someone else explain to Magnus Maximus the concept of time? I'm going to go drink myself into oblivion over my shattered faith in humanity.

"through the kitchen" ? :confused:
Inhumed. Iced (haha, irony). Extinguished. Released of their mortal shackles. Killed, dead, undone!

It apparently isn't as common a metaphor as I'd thought, I mainly know it from old science fiction rags and that song from the Clash.

Humanity pretty much condemned themselves the second they discovered water energy. Who knew it would be our downfall? We must pollute the world with nuclear waste to prevent water power from damning our world any more than it has! TO THE FACTORIES!!! :gundge:

Inhumed. Iced (haha, irony). Extinguished. Released of their mortal shackles. Killed, dead, undone!

It apparently isn't as common a metaphor as I'd thought, I mainly know it from old science fiction rags and that song from the Clash.
New metaphor to me... But hey, I've learned something new!

More than I would expect from this thread :)

In all seriousness, however, humanity really has damned our planet with war and pollution. War creates a surge in industry and what does industry cause? Pollution! This just means that the inevitable is sped up, however. If we had discovered wind power much earlier than water power (modern), our fates could be slightly different. Maybe.

In all seriousness...

...you lost me :confused:

Considering how you are the prettiest person here (Purple rulez), of course you have to confiscate something. Purple people also cause Global Flooding because they have no clue what Global Warming nor Cooling is.

And I just realised how ironic the threadstarter's name is.:p

We also need to stop eating so many burritos. Farting makes global warming worse, as proven by the existence of cattle. Cattle and beans, thats a deadly combination. DAMN YOU METHANE, DANMN YUO!

laugh it up - I hope you know how to giggle through a snorkel!!!

One of the many skills i picked up at my fraternity.
*nods*

Oh, please. Look, it's expanded out in the Northern direction

Err...wouldn't any direction be southern?

(This comes after I finished laugh at your timing...)

The rate of change in the past two decades has been 1/20 of a degree Fahrenheit per decade. Alarming!

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67#4

And about 1 degree over of the past century. Your point?

1 degree is a huge change, world wide, buddy.

No one denies that climate change took place in the past.
Rate of change is the issue, not the change itself.

It's not the rate that's the primary issue, it's the cause and permanence: We can't take fossilized CO2 back from the atmosphere at any faster pace than nature deals with it....turning it eventually into oil & limestone. :-)

You should be aware that climate changes can happen rapidly even if there are only natural factors involved through eg. volcanic eruptions or even something more exotic (http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/PerkinsOnceDuring.html).

Need a bit of flooding to kill off the sinners!

It's not the rate that's the primary issue, it's the cause and permanence: We can't take fossilized CO2 back from the atmosphere at any faster pace than nature deals with it....turning it eventually into oil & limestone. :-)

You should be aware that climate changes can happen rapidly even if there are only natural factors involved through eg. volcanic eruptions or even something more exotic (http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/PerkinsOnceDuring.html).

Volcanic eruptions really don't put out much CO2, comparitively. We're putting out about thrice a day than was released by Mount Saint Helens, if I remember correctly.

Volcanic eruptions really don't put out much CO2, comparitively. We're putting out about thrice a day than was released by Mount Saint Helens, if I remember correctly.

Well, man made CO2 is about 6 or 7 billion tons a year. Average natural occuring CO2 is apparently 200 million tons per year. That's about 3% natural, 97% man made.

Basically, in the course of a day, we are putting out about 16,500,000 tons of CO2.

Or, in short, we produce the entire amount of CO2 that occurs naturally during the year in just 12 days. In a month, we put out 2.5-ish times the amount as occurs naturally in year.

So... yeah, those who say man made emissions are nothing compared to natural occurances don't know lick.

And I just realised how ironic the threadstarter's name is.:p

Thanks!

Well, man made CO2 is about 6 or 7 billion tons a year. Average natural occuring CO2 is apparently 200 million tons per year. That's about 3% natural, 97% man made.
.


BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.

The only two sources of CO2 in the world are not volcanoes and man. This is why your position so often falls into the category of JUNK science. You are too quick to leap to irrational assumptions.

Other sources include forest fires, mammal respiration, agriculture (arguably man-made but you'd have to weigh that against the CO2 consumption of agriculture), biomass, etc. You also would have to consider the destruction of CO2 sinks caused by floods,tornadoes, tsunamis etc. then weigh them against the consumption of CO2 as new vegetation replaces the old...

Also is the inverse - and that is - how much CO2 is CONSUMED by man made actiities? Agriculture being a major component but not the only. The US is not only a major creator of CO2 - but also a major CONSUMER of CO2 - in fact I can recall seeing somewhere where if there were a 'balance sheet' of some sort - the us would be in the green (as opposed to in the red).

See? It's not that easy. If it were then someone would have won $100,000 already; http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.

The only two sources of CO2 in the world are not volcanoes and man. This is why your position so often falls into the category of JUNK science. You are too quick to leap to irrational assumptions.

Other sources include forest fires, mammal respiration, agriculture (arguably man-made but you'd have to weigh that against the CO2 consumption of agriculture), biomass, etc. You also would have to consider the destruction of CO2 sinks caused by floods,tornadoes, tsunamis etc. then weigh them against the consumption of CO2 as new vegetation replaces the old...

Also is the inverse - and that is - how much CO2 is CONSUMED by man made actiities? Agriculture being a major component but not the only. The US is not only a major creator of CO2 - but also a major CONSUMER of CO2 - in fact I can recall seeing somewhere where if there were a 'balance sheet' of some sort - the us would be in the green (as opposed to in the red).

See? It's not that easy. If it were then someone would have won $100,000 already; http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

He's talking about all natural CO2. CO2 from a volcanic eruption is orders of magnitude smaller. Also, linking to a Hovindesque challenge doesn't help your argument.

Volcanic eruptions really don't put out much CO2, comparitively. We're putting out about thrice a day than was released by Mount Saint Helens, if I remember correctly.

I was talking more about cooling effects than warming effects...The dust lifted off by a big volcanic eruption can drop average temperature across the world by several degrees for several years in a timespan of under a year.

My main point was that climate *can* change abruptly through natural causes and that the rate of global climate change due to manmade CO2, methane, et al emissions isn't really that rapid in comparison to other natural effects. However the cause, pattern and implications of current change are (probably) unheard of in the history of Earth.

edit:
Well, the implications aren't really unique as there have been many extinction events in the past, some even concerning humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory).

BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.

The only two sources of CO2 in the world are not volcanoes and man. This is why your position so often falls into the category of JUNK science. You are too quick to leap to irrational assumptions.

Other sources include forest fires, mammal respiration, agriculture (arguably man-made but you'd have to weigh that against the CO2 consumption of agriculture), biomass, etc. You also would have to consider the destruction of CO2 sinks caused by floods,tornadoes, tsunamis etc. then weigh them against the consumption of CO2 as new vegetation replaces the old...

Also is the inverse - and that is - how much CO2 is CONSUMED by man made actiities? Agriculture being a major component but not the only. The US is not only a major creator of CO2 - but also a major CONSUMER of CO2 - in fact I can recall seeing somewhere where if there were a 'balance sheet' of some sort - the us would be in the green (as opposed to in the red).

See? It's not that easy. If it were then someone would have won $100,000 already; http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

BZZZT. Wrong. I was talking all naturally occurring processes. Nice try, no cigar.

As well, I would suspect that the amount of CO2 absorbed by agricultural activities to not be to great. Why, you would say? Well, land is needed for farming. To get land to farming conditions, you do what? You guessed it. Clear the bloody land. So, really, there isn't going to be that great of difference between the land before agricultural production, and the land after, as far as I can assume. Unless, you know, you want to give some actual numbers, such as what I did. Really, give me some numbers and not a "gut feeling". Please.

Need a bit of flooding to kill off the sinners!

:D

Nah, like the illustrious sorex family, we'll just scrabble on top of your halos.
:)

BZZZT. Wrong. I was talking all naturally occurring processes. Nice try, no cigar.

As well, I would suspect that the amount of CO2 absorbed by agricultural activities to not be to great. Why, you would say? Well, land is needed for farming. To get land to farming conditions, you do what? You guessed it. Clear the bloody land. So, really, there isn't going to be that great of difference between the land before agricultural production, and the land after, as far as I can assume. Unless, you know, you want to give some actual numbers, such as what I did. Really, give me some numbers and not a "gut feeling". Please.



BZZZZZZZZZZT! Nope - you're still incorrect - 97% of all CO2 produced globally is NOT man-made. Do not pass go - do not collect $200.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

I find it quite humorous actually how much METHANE is 'mad made'. I think we should boycott Mexican Food!

As far as agriculture goes - young plants produce far more O2 and consume far more CO2 than mature ones. IT is late now but I'll find the data some other time - but it is out there to be found if you wish to. The US is in the green! W00T!

Here is something I found which should get you started in the meanwhile; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset