Snow !

[alex.s]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Production

it doesn't seem anywhere near as bad as gasoline production.

[spooph]

2 things I know about this argument:
1.) If you are in support of global warming, sell your bike and get off this forum cause you're a part of the problem, and apparently, enjoy being a part of the problem.

2.) The quickest/easiest way to solve global warming and all other issues plaguing the earth today is to limit the human population, as it's the only organism out of balance with the earth's rhythms...

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by spooph

limit the human population, as it's the only organism out of balance with the earth's rhythms...

i'm not exactly sure what you mean by the "earth's rhythms" but i believe this statement is still highly inaccurate. overpopulation of species and species going extinct happens all the time. many species have off'ed themselves by their behavior in the past. and remember- if we ****ed up bad enough and the earth turned to venus, we'd all be dead.

[ninjamunky85]

Lithium doesn't occur in nature in a pure state, it only occurs in compounds which are also ionic in state. The world,s larges deposit, roughly 50-70%, is in Salar De Uyuni, Bolivia. It is also the worlds largest salt flat.



Looks like a great place for mineral extraction.

[alex.s]

a whole lot of noise with very little fact.

care to explain how the lithium salts are extracted from the slurry and packaged into naphtha? i've already looked this **** up; to say that its worse for the environment than petroleum production is simply not true.

[ninjamunky85]

Didn't say it was worse for the environment, but is it any better?

[ninjamunky85]

http://www.reduse.org/en/blog/lithiu...-chilean-north

[ninjamunky85]

The truth is that batteries have just as many limitations as internal combustion engines. There are better ways of storing energy if they are just allowed to succeed.

Link to original page on YouTube.

[alex.s]

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-noaa-gl...est-month.html


but don't believe those scientists. they're trying to take your money.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by ninjamunky85

The truth is that batteries have just as many limitations as internal combustion engines. There are better ways of storing energy if they are just allowed to succeed.

Link to original page on YouTube.

compressed air cars have many limitations. the biggest of which is that they suck.

hydrogen fuel cells is the future. the first mass marketed hydrogen fuel cell cars are coming out next year. honda and toyota, as well as GM later on.

[ninjamunky85]

Yeah but they haven't come up with any efficient way of producing hydrogen yet.

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by alex.s

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-noaa-gl...est-month.html


but don't believe those scientists. they're trying to take your money.

A lesson in propaganda for you. Read the actual information not what you want to see.
Think about the following:
"Antarctic sea ice extent was 4.8% above the 1981- 2010 average"
or "
"US experienced the fourth warmest october in 120 years." ie there were 3 warmer Octobers historically, it's no record.
and
excessive use of "above average" (any month has a 50/ 50 chance of being above average)

Yes they are trying to take your money. Research grants carbon taxes and green NGO funding. It's a whole industry Alex
Why do you think they don't give a monkeys about saving the rainforest? Answer; No tax potential.

[choneofakind]

Paul, do you understand how standard deviations and probability based on a normalized curve works?

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

Paul, do you understand how standard deviations and probability based on a normalized curve works?

Which part are you disputing?
the 50/50 warmer/ cooler than average or the distribution of the previous warm Octobers?
The antarctic sea ice has been growing for a while though they don't make a big noise about that.


ps No warming for 17 years says Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...bal-warming-17

.

[choneofakind]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

Which part are you disputing?
the 50/50 warmer/ cooler than average or the distribution of the previous warm Octobers?

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

"US experienced the fourth warmest october in 120 years." ie there were 3 warmer Octobers historically, it's no record.

EDIT: let's be real, I don't have much to add here. I'm long winded and off base a bit.

[ninjamunky85]

The problem for all the climate change/ global warming supporters out there is that the percentage of doubters is rising. http://www.gallup.com/poll/167879/no...us-threat.aspx

I'm one of them and I'll give you a few more reasons why, and yes @choneofakind I'll be graduating this spring with a degree in Mechanical Engineering so I understand how statistics and standard deviations work.

First off you can't make a drastic conclusion like humans are causing global warming because of a 20-30 year period of slightly rising temps. CO2 levels have been rising and falling all throughout history, in fact when the dinosaurs were alive CO2 levels were 5 times what they are now. Must have been from all the coal they were burning. http://www.livescience.com/44330-jur...n-dioxide.html

But 97% of scientists believe global warming, or climate change, or whatever you want to call it today is real... Are these the same scientists that repeatedly make wild predictions like the average temps are going to rise one degree every year? Or that costal towns will all be under water? Or that there will be a drastic increase in the number of catastrophic storms? Predictions that are proven wrong year after year. The fact is that the American public is getting tired of it.

In my opinion there is a lot of overreacting going on here. Which isn't a surprise as it's what tends to happen. Remember all the hype after the earthquake that hit the Fukushima nuclear plant? Everybody was going on about all the radiation released and how none of the fish in the Pacific would be safe to eat, and so on.

I guess all these people forgot about the 1950's when the U.S. bombed the crap out of Pacific islands like Bikini Atoll. We put way more radiation into the ocean from those tests, and basically destroyed a whole population of native people at the same time all in the name of science. Where was all the outrage back then?

[Ninjinsky]

Top marks for explaining principles (proof by verbosity?) but not so much for not using actual figures.
(I ps'd an article by a Professor of Atmospheric Science which indicates no warming for 17 years "the 5 last Octobers and the 5 before them and the five before them" plus2)
The problem is that the propagandists will seize on something like Katrina (which I would regard as an outlier in terms of strength and path) as evidence of climate change whilst ignoring the many years since which have been nearer the middle of the bell.
If you read the works 25 years back on chaos theory and weather you might, as I do, ask whether the weather systems are actually as amenable to statistical analysis as some present them as.
The actual temperature figures (NASA Goddard, NOAA, East Anglia) do not show warming as the Prof. points out. The Models do but the reality does not. so something is wrong. Not least the selected events on the earlier map. You realize I hope that the map is not the full picture but cherry picked?

Now you may wish to write to Dr Christie and tell him he is wrong because you had a warm October. But that would be the weather/ climate error (with which, paradoxically I opened the thread but no one called me on it LoL)

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by subxero

you gone & dun dun it, here we go again

https://www.ninjette.org/forums/show...global+warming

Jeez I get your point, I missed the last one. It's a real firestarter isn't it?
If I had known I would never have gone in that room!
Time is rapidly approaching for

[choneofakind]

^^ lol. Proof by verbosity.

My bad for that essay that was entirely unneeded

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

^^ lol. Proof by verbosity.

My bad for that essay that was entirely unneeded

Don't get me wrong, I was impressed!

[ninjamunky85]

Originally Posted by subxero

you gone & dun dun it, here we go again

https://www.ninjette.org/forums/show...global+warming

Haha, I'd never seen that thread before. Just shows you how people's opinions rarely change on subjects like this.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by ninjamunky85

Haha, I'd never seen that thread before. Just shows you how people's opinions rarely change on subjects like this.

I trust the overwhelming opinion of experts in the field and that has not changed. I pretend no such expertise. Some how you know better then the experts

[ninjamunky85]

Originally Posted by allanoue

I trust the overwhelming opinion of experts in the field and that has not changed. I pretend no such expertise. Some how you know better then the experts

I would have voted,.. except that global warming is a hoax wasn't one of the options, so I couldn't.

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by allanoue

I trust the overwhelming opinion of experts in the field and that has not changed. I pretend no such expertise. Some how you know better then the experts

I spent 30 years of my life in academia and trust me many of them are no better than politicians. You think science research is immune from politics but you couldn't be more wrong.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

I spent 30 years of my life in academia and trust me many of them are no better than politicians. You think science research is immune from politics but you couldn't be more wrong.

You know nothing about me and what I know.

[ninjamunky85]

It's amazing how people get so personally offended by topics like this.

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by allanoue

You know nothing about me and what I know.

Really?

Originally Posted by allanoue

I trust the overwhelming opinion of experts in the field and that has not changed. I pretend no such expertise. Some how you know better then the experts

I think I do, by your own admission

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by ninjamunky85

It's amazing how people get so personally offended by topics like this.

Yes It is kind of ad hominen in reverse "Disagreeing with the warming claims is a personal attack on my character"
I think you and I (and possibly Spooph ) are the only dissenters
I'm outa here because this is just getting circular. Any hope of changing peoples opinions is futile.
The rarest phrase in any debate is
"Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, I've changed my mind"
Summed up succinctly by Alex in post #45

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

Yes It is kind of ad hominen in reverse "Disagreeing with the warming claims is a personal attack on my character"
I think you and I (and possibly Spooph ) are the only dissenters
I'm outa here because this is just getting circular. Any hope of changing peoples opinions is futile.
The rarest phrase in any debate is
"Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, I've changed my mind"
Summed up succinctly by Alex in post #45

Me saying you know nothing about me is an insult.

OK, sorry?

[ninjamunky85]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

I'm outa here because this is just getting circular. Any hope of changing peoples opinions is futile.
The rarest phrase in any debate is
"Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, I've changed my mind"
Summed up succinctly by Alex in post #45

Agreed, it appears that this is a can of worms best left unopened.

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Me saying you know nothing about me is an insult.

OK, sorry?

LoL No!
"Disagreeing with the warming claims is a personal attack on my character" was replying to ninjamunky and was a 'third person' response hence the quotes.
We are getting crossed wires here.

You haven't insulted me at all.
We are cool

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

"Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, I've changed my mind"

when was the last time you have actually said this?

[alex.s]

the problem with this thread, and the way paul speaks. is he is being overly assertive with his "decisions about the world"

you are saying that you are right. even though we all know you don't know what you are talking about. neither do any of us. but your opinion is as strong as someone who is paid to be an expert in the field.

why is that, paul? why so much assertiveness in your correctness? every response you give is why someone else is wrong. not, "that's an interesting direction, here is some research i've done about what you just said"... no, instead its "that's wrong, look in this completely different direction because you were wrong on that, so you'll be wrong on this too!"

that's not how productive conversations work.


let me give you a good example of the typical paul response:

"Don't need to, I already know it. I'm trying to help you, remember ? "

and yet you have admitted that you are not a climatologist. but you're trying to teach us what you know for fact? how do you know this paul?

what is your educational background? how long have you taugh weather studies and climatology at cambridge?

[alex.s]

wait, you dont teach climatology?

you don't have better credentials than literally every scientist that has said anything on the subject?

but you know better than they do because they get paid by government right? (like basically every other scientist that isn't working on a copyrighted gene or patented drug line)

you have not provided any kind of real scientific data supporting what you are saying. the best that you have done was the (legitimate) statement that the past 10k years has been relatively stable compared to the previous million years. which if you look at the other events that have happened in the timeline, makes perfect sense. but absolutely does not indicate any kind of secured future stability. after all the earth has gone through countless cycles. what prevents it from going into another one?

you yourself have said we are coming out of an ice age. but you don't believe global warming is happening? how do you come out of an ice age without the world heating up?

REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE, most people agree the globe is heating up slowly. wouldn't it be nice to know exactly how that will affect us? and prevent bad things from those changes from happening, BEFORE THEY HAPPEN?

[alex.s]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...as-climate-law

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by alex.s

when was the last time you have actually said this?

When I changed my mind about Global warming.
I used to recite the book on 60 meter sea rises and vinyards in Scotland etc' until the reality departed from the theory to such an extent that the theory had to be questioned that was ten years ago it is now 17 years without warming. That includes complete sunspot cycles which negates another excuse for the failure of the model. (Or ongoing "hiatus" to use the contemporary circumlocution )
Feynman explains the principles of theory and reality here.
I always back reality and backfill, much smarter than trying to impose a failing theory on reality.
Enjoy

Link to original page on YouTube.

[ninjamunky85]

I did some more looking into it and it turns out that 97% figure is totally bogus. Not a surprise really, just shows how stats can be manipulated to get people on your side.

[APEmike]

[alex.s]

i <3 feynman.

experiences are interesting things. here's what i know from experience. the experience of living in and around LA.

smog sucks.

i hate smog. smog seems to mostly come from cars, and from heavy industry. i want smog to go away. car emissions, heavy industry emissions... same things are also the targets of carbon emission cuts. for global warming.

do i give a **** about if it will help global warming? **** no. i'll be dead by then.

do i give a **** about if it will help the air quality around my house? absolutely.

so maybe you're right about the inconsequence of global warming, or cooling, or pausing. but one thing i know is that i really ****ing hate pollution and smog. it's annoying. it tastes terrible. it looks terrible. there is not a single beneficial thing about it. so i am 100% absolutely FOR anything that cuts emissions into the air.

because i breathe air.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by ninjamunky85

I did some more looking into it and it turns out that 97% figure is totally bogus. Not a surprise really, just shows how stats can be manipulated to get people on your side.