Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - HHunter

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >
1
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: February 11, 2015, 11:16:04 PM »
I think it would be prudent for us to take a step back and note that this revelation of what has been denoted as "data change" is relatively recent, and has not yet had enough time to be properly addressed by the parties involved, or rather normal people doing normal research. After looking at the two different data sets for the adjusted data, it's obvious that there is a discrepancy.  Also one can note the addition of data sets that were not previously included.

Anyways, i'd like to see how this plays out over the next couple of months, considering conspiracy theorists are usually not on the forefront of experts' concerns. Also, considering how the first two graphs are placed to be deceptively misleading, it would not be a surprise to see these claims fall flat on their faces, just as those who jumped at "Climategate" did.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US arming terrorists
« on: July 17, 2014, 03:53:55 AM »
Israel needs to be dissolved as a state.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US arming terrorists
« on: July 15, 2014, 12:44:47 AM »
Don't forget the billions of dollars of aid we spend on our terrorist puppet state, Israel.

4
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: July 11, 2014, 06:50:48 AM »
Quote
Don't be absurd, the consequences of climate change are only really of a concern to the human population. If we wipe out 99.9% of life on Earth, then evolution will eventually repopulate the Earth with something, even if it's just blue-green algae again.

True, true. The world doesn't really give a crap whether or not we are living. It just sucks to be a non-human animal right now. Though the affects of anthropogenic climate change are very threatening to much of humanity. Economically, i'm more inclined to agree with Thork.

Unfortunately, the refusal to recognize the settled science in nations such as the United States is deeply troubling. It's amusing how many are more inclined to believe their friendly politicians rather those who have devoted their life and talents to studying the climate.

5
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways
« on: May 25, 2014, 12:26:18 AM »
Quote
Okay, so let me get this straight, your argument is that there is literally no space at all left for anything in Europe? If the German government wants to build a new, well, anything, they fling their arms into the air and say "we don't have any room for anything!"

...Really?

Thanks for the straw man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man . How ironic.

Quote
No winds outside of a tornado or hurricane is going to damage a solar panel. You're just spouting nonsense at this point.

Edit: Uh oh, looks like I was wrong. Better mark hurricanes off the list:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1119/Are-renewables-stormproof-Hurricane-Sandy-tests-solar-wind.
Damage on solar panels by a weak hurricane. Easily debunked.

Severe storms can have wind speeds not related to tornadoes above 150 miles per hour. As shown by Hurricane Sandy, sustained tropical storm-force winds are enough to damage solar panels.

Quote
Yes, septic tanks are much better.

No, septic tanks are well known suffer from inadequate maintenance and upkeep from their owners. Often septic tanks will be found polluting the local water supplies with nitrogen and other detrimental substances.

Quote
What exactly is your point? Have you given up? Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You gave an example against my point. I gate multiple examples supporting my point. Do you not understand what a straw man is?

6
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways
« on: May 24, 2014, 08:08:49 PM »
Quote
Did you even read that little bout she had? All she did was show the opposite to be true, that every country on the planet has a lot of free space.



Yellow land is land currently being used by humans. Much of the green land that is left is preserved. Please explain how this is "a lot of free space". Most other first world countries (such as south korea and japan) have the same issues.

Quote
Sorry, I thought we were talking about winds high enough to tear off solar panels. Those are only present in hurricanes.

See: Severe Weather
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_weather
Quote
And you actually called me the naive one. Wow.

See Privately Owned and Decentralized Septic Tanks vs. Centralized, Government Water Treatment Plants

Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003

Thank you for providing a single example. For more on Decentralization vs. Centralization, see:

Global Warming
Ozone Depletion
Oil Spills
Gay Marriage in America
Slavery in America
Civil Rights in America
Feudalism

7
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways
« on: May 24, 2014, 05:21:30 AM »
Quote
Your definition of first world nation must differ from mine then, because as I see it all of them have loads of empty space.

Rooster already demonstrated the issues of this statement. Most first world countries have little amounts of open space, and the little that is left is preserved land.

Quote
I'm not inherently worried about hurricanes hitting solar farms, since they tend not to be near the coast.

That's rather naive, high-wind events can occur in many situations, including, but not limited to, hurricanes.

Quote
If the government is doing it, you can be guaranteed the maintenance will be even worse.

From what i've studied, government maintenance is consistently superior to individual private maintenance in all areas.

Quote
I should know, I work for them.

Irrelevant.

Quote
Centralized solutions to large problems should always be avoided.

Centralized solutions are consistently superior to decentralized solutions.

Quote
Who is this "they" person and why is their opinion relevant?

They is a multidimensional being that is almost always correct.

8
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways
« on: May 24, 2014, 01:37:04 AM »
Quote
We're not exactly low on this.
Most first world nations don't have a lot of space. And in any case, saving any space rather than destroying and fracturing habitats is always beneficial.

Quote
Solar panels aren't vulnerable to wind, unless you're talking about particulates, which definitely applies to a solar panel that is on the ground.

Directional panels are very vulnerable to wind, and can be damaged by high winds.

Solar panels that sit flat on the roof will usually cause that part of the roof to rise a little bit above the rest of the roof. This can lead to these panels being blown off in high winds.

Quote
What does this have to do with it? Are you implying non-road solar panels are automatically done by amateurs?

Many private solar panels are in situations such as being placed on someone's roof. However, when there's an issue with the panel, people will either not realize it, or improperly try to fix it themselves, rather than hire a professional. The same phenomenon can be seen when comparing septic tanks to centralized treatment plants. When these utilities are decentralized, the level of professional maintenance is decreased, which causes issues in the functioning of the item. However the centralized treatment plants are much more able to employ dedicated professionals to deal with maintinence.

The same goes for solar roads. They will be centralized, government-controlled source of productions of solar energy. Therefore, these roads will likely be better maintenance than decentralized, private panels.

Quote
These solar panels cost loads more just to manufacture, the installation and infrastructure cost, not to mention maintenance, will be astronomical.

You had to subtract the costs of asphalt placement and removal and maintinence. You also have to subtract the costs of the solar panels that would otherwise be used to produce this power. Centralized production in cases like these will often be much more efficient than decentralized solar energy production.

Quote
It's an absolutely awful idea.

They said TVs were awful ideas. Look where we are now.

9
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways
« on: May 23, 2014, 10:17:39 PM »
I still don't see the ultimate purpose for these. We aren't exactly running out of space to put solar panels, which are cheaper, more efficient, easier to install, and won't have cars driving around on them all day. I really don't see these ever catching on or being anything more than a novelty.

Saves space, less vulnerable to wind, will be handled professionally, can save money, stuff like that. It's a really good idea.

Largest issue: Big oil won't be having any of this, at least in America.

10
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: May 22, 2014, 07:02:18 PM »
Quote
Or we could kill all humans.  That would solve global warming.

Mass genocide is often considered the best solution to many environmental problems.

Too bad mass genocide is "immoral" and "evil."

By what standard? A massive cull in he population will only result in a baby boom to replace them. The best ways to reduce the human population are education, birth control, giving women rights over their bodies, and a basic standad of living.

Well really, the best way to solve it is kill all humans.

But most people don't like that, so we'll go down to killing only certain humans.

So let's kill everyone in the developing and undeveloped worlds. First world countries are going to have low birth rates regardless of the size of the country. Not all land would be utilized (you'd see an expansion of large mechanized farms in areas that were formerly subsistence farms, though this wouldn't expand too much since supply and demand would be easily balanced with so little people and so much land) and, while commodities would likely be more expensive since super-low-wage workers would be eliminated, and likely replaced to some extent with machinery.

Though this wouldn't really solve problems like CO2 output too much, since the USA is still a major creator of CO2, unless the US made major steps towards safer energy production. It would also probably make oil cheaper since you wouldn't have to worry about the dangers coming from the native people in the area where oil is being drilled, which could exacerbate climate change.

On reducing the world population, giving everyone a decent standard of living would be enough to curtail population growth. This includes the poor. It's why I always find the idea of a guaranteed income interesting, like what was suggested in Switzerland a good bit ago.

But back to Ghost Spaghetti, yeah, those are the best ways to reduce human population, it's too bad so many people are unwilling to allow this.

P.S. Don't criticize my economic "theory", i'm not a student of economics  :P

11
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: May 19, 2014, 11:08:01 PM »
Quote
Or we could kill all humans.  That would solve global warming.

Mass genocide is often considered the best solution to many environmental problems.

Too bad mass genocide is "immoral" and "evil."

12
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: May 19, 2014, 10:12:27 PM »
It looks like the scientific community think climate change is related to human activities.

It probably is, if even just a little bit. But so what? Instead of bitching to everyone about it, they can get their asses in the lab and fix it. In the meantime, all of us regular people can just be more aware of, and try to limit the amount of energy we consume.

The technology to significantly reduce technology relatively cheaply is already in place. Public policy and prole-opinion are the main barriers to the implementation of this technology.

On "fixing" global warming, the only way to do that, other than limiting greenhouse gasses (which won't completely remove the effect), is really through geoengineering (both have their own issues). Geoengineering would include taking actions such as increasing aerosols in the air (which is usually bad for people) and extracting carbon from the air with the use of algae or something else that'll extract carbon (these can have their own obstacles and consequences.)

Though in terms of risk and cost, limiting the release of greenhouse gasses is generally best. We don't want to have another Stormfury.

13
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: May 11, 2014, 03:17:36 AM »
Quote
I'm telling you that humans aren't causing global warming by creating heat.  Something you agree with.

Well yes, my point is that no one will disagree with this, so why is it worth mentioning?

Quote
You said
Quote
The key word in that statement is maximum, which means that the actual value is likely well below this number.
But based on the inequality written it's likely somewhere above 13% but below 14%.  And they never seem to indicate that it's significantly lower than 14% (otherwise why put 14%?)

Hmm, I went through the data given in the article. While they never state in the article that it's likely close to 14%, after looking at the data given, it would seem to support it. From what I could ascertain, assuming that the relationship between Solar Irradiance is linear, or somewhere around 12.6%. The tilda was likely added in on the abstract since it wasn't mentioned in the conclusion.

Quote
Oh I didn't know the Earth's orbit was altering or that it's tilt was altering.  I mean, we have a wobble but that's predictable and it's not like it takes decades to occur.  At most it wobbles every 7 years. 
And if the Earth's orbit is altering, then it's not stable.  And if it's not stable, it shouldn't have been stable for a long time as nothing large enough to alter our orbit has crossed close enough to us.

I'm not aware of a 7-year wobble, but I do know that the full cycles for both precession and obliquity takes tens of thousands of years. On the orbit:

I'm not learned enough on orbital mechanics to provide a logical explanation. All I know is that the Earth has cycles of becoming more elliptical and eccentric, then becoming more circular and round. The the the perigee and the apogee might actually shift over time as well, but i can't be too sure about that.
 

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: May 09, 2014, 05:31:05 AM »
I could be wrong, but is this thread still going on topic? I'm a bit too tired to tell atm, but it seems like the topic has moved from Coriolis to FE models.

If the topic has shifted, can be loop it back to Coriolis? If not, then please, continue on.

15
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: May 09, 2014, 04:11:53 AM »
Quote
I'll try to put it in complex terms, then simple terms so you understand:
Humans produce heat.  Almost every bit of energy we use produces heat.  From power plants like coal which heat the air to nuclear plants near rivers which heat the surrounding water.  From air conditioners to cars.  We create heat.  Most of the time this heat simply dissipates into the atmosphere.  However with a dense enough location (like a city) the heat can build up faster than it dissipates.  This can result in the city having a slightly higher temperature on average than the surrounding area.  New York city is a good example of this.
However, the heat is insignificant compared to the total thermal energy from the sun hitting the surface.  Therefore, while locally it can cause a noticable impact, globally it's insignificant.

Simply put:
"The energy from the humans hasn't increased significant"

So what does this have to do with anthropogenic global warming?

Quote
1. > means "greater than"
http://www.mathsisfun.com/equal-less-greater.html
2. they wrote :
Quote
Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity,we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is %5Cleq14%of the observed global warming.
Sadly the >with a tilda under is not supported nor can I find any mention of it.  My guess is that the author meant "less than or almost equal to" as the ~ usually means "approximately".

Now, do you see the difference between what they wrote and what you wrote?

First of all, thanks for pointing out a typo. Secondly:

Please read the the conclusion of the paper.
"[The] effect of varying solar activity, either by direct solar irradiance or by varying
cosmic ray rates, must be less than 0.07◦C since 1956 i.e. less than 14% of the observed global
warming."

What I said: "less than 14%"
What the paper says: "less than 14%"

What difference?

Quote
I have no desire to crawl through this thread.  I am simply stating an observation based on what I've read so far.

Not only have I never stated that anthropogenic forcings are the only forces that change the climate, i've actively discussed specific how several different factors of the Earth's orientation and movement can cause changes in the climate. Here's a quote:
Quote
There are mainly three different Earth-centered reasons for climate change, involving the Earth and it's position and orbit in space. These is eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Increasing eccentricity (how elliptical the orbit is) will result in more extreme seasons. Obliquity is the tilt of the earth's axis. Our current obliquity is 23.4 degrees. Obliquity determines how extreme (or not extreme) the seasons will be. Precession is the direction of the tilt, and doesn't have much of an effect on climate. All three of these occur over long periods of time, and therefore cannot be credited with recent warming.

16
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: May 08, 2014, 09:08:19 PM »
Discussions limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy = Pissing contest

So if this discussion involved the 'other levels' of Blooms taxonomy there would be no pissing contest?

Personally I think it's because of intellectual snobbery.

Definitely a valid opinion

17
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: May 08, 2014, 08:36:37 PM »
Discussions limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy = Pissing contest

18
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: May 08, 2014, 07:06:46 PM »
Lets just argue for argues sake.



It's what happens when discussions are limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy, which would amount to an argument rather than a debate. I'd rather it stay in the upper tiers. Providing and analyzing data is what I want to see here. Though questions are welcome, and encouraged. It's easy to become misinformed or confused over the issue, especially when it's so politically heated.

19
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: May 08, 2014, 02:59:01 AM »
Quote
Can you type back what you think I said?  I feel like you're not understanding anything I say.

Please explain the point of this statement thoroughly: "The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale"

Quote
Nice assumption.  Good thing we don't make assumptions in science eh?

If you actually read the source, you'd find that this is actually explicitly stated in the first paragraph. Please do this. (Hint: <14% means less than 14%)

Quote
Done.
No, please find where I explicitly state that "AGW [is] the ONLY source of climate change".

20
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« on: May 07, 2014, 08:40:51 PM »
Quote
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

No scientist is going to tell you that human-produced heat as any noticeable effect upon the global temperatures. This is either a misconception from you, an attempt at a straw man, or simply mistaken placement.

Quote
My post suggested that perhaps an increase in solar energy hitting the Earth accounted for some warming.  And indeed, you seem to agree with that while simultaniously dismissing my suggestion.  (14% is a lot

The key word in that statement is maximum, which means that the actual value is likely well below this number.

Quote
Why is it that you're looking at AWG as the ONLY source of climate change when you just posted several articles stating that increased solar activity accounts for a part of global climate change?

Please quote me on this.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >