# Great Lakes Approaching 100% Ice Cover  For The First Time On Record



## insanebassninja (Mar 2, 2014)

I saw this on talkbass.com. Another person posted this so am not going to take the Cerite of saying I found this. 
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...ime-on-record/

Anyways I found this to slap in the face of people that think golblem warming is real.


----------



## MailMan (Mar 2, 2014)

insanebassninja said:


> Anyways I found this to slap in the face of people that think golblem warming is real.



Weather =/= climate

I can't believe how many people don't know this basic rule.


----------



## SpaceDock (Mar 2, 2014)

^right, I hate it when rednecks say "it sure was cold this winter, so much for global warmin, durba dur" 

The issue is not temps all over the planet moving swiftly in one direction, it is the average temp of the planet slowly rising that causes changes in the cyclical nature of weather that we rely on. Global warming does cause super cold weather as well as heat waves, tsunami, blizzard, ect. The problem here is that it is not cold where it is supposed to be.


----------



## Watty (Mar 2, 2014)

insanebassninja said:


> Anyways I found this to slap in the face of people that think golblem warming is real.



Oh, the irony.

Please do yourself a favor and go read an article or two on the issue. Even the most hardcore "deniers" [see: reasonable] admit that the climate is changing. The debate has now shifted to whether or not it's manmade.


----------



## Necris (Mar 2, 2014)

SpaceDock said:


> ^right, I hate it when rednecks say "it sure was cold this winter, so much for global warmin, durba dur"



It's not just "rednecks"; my boss at my old job used to say that on every particularly cold day during the winter. 

It's cool to see something like this potentially happening for the first time on record though.


----------



## insanebassninja (Mar 2, 2014)

SpaceDock said:


> ^right, I hate it when rednecks say "it sure was cold this winter, so much for global warmin, durba dur"
> 
> The issue is not temps all over the planet moving swiftly in one direction, it is the average temp of the planet slowly rising that causes changes in the cyclical nature of weather that we rely on. Global warming does cause super cold weather as well as heat waves, tsunami, blizzard, ect. The problem here is that it is not cold where it is supposed to be.



You do know our earth goes in cycles of cold to hot? I heard back in the 70s There was Goblem cooling problem as well. 

There is this as well. https://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html 
http://science.time.com/2014/02/23/great-lakes-frozen-time-lapse-video/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html


----------



## insanebassninja (Mar 2, 2014)

Watty said:


> Oh, the irony.
> 
> Please do yourself a favor and go read an article or two on the issue. Even the most hardcore "deniers" [see: reasonable] admit that the climate is changing. The debate has now shifted to whether or not it's manmade.



Yes am a Denier... I know this reason I would rather have warm weather than cold.


----------



## SpaceDock (Mar 2, 2014)

I think you made our point for us friend.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 2, 2014)

Climate change in the direction we're going, be it man-assisted or not, might not be a bad thing at all for our species continued existence.
"Global Warming" if you choose to call it that, might just be the thing that ends up giving us a few thousand additional years than we would have had without our silly pollution.

We know so little because it's a constantly shifting equation.
It's better to do things cleaner, but we understand so little about sun cycles and solar flares and the likes, and the issue is mostly just turned into political propaganda by all sides.

The earth itself is a self regulating beast so I doubt we'll have much impact at all over the coarse of centuries upon centuries.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (Mar 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Climate change in the direction we're going, be it man-assisted or not, might not be a bad thing at all for our species continued existence.
> "Global Warming" if you choose to call it that, might just be the thing that ends up giving us a few thousand additional years than we would have had without our silly pollution.
> 
> We know so little because it's a constantly shifting equation.
> ...



didn't the creator of the internet, al gore release a movie about this? a inconvenient truth?


----------



## StevenC (Mar 2, 2014)

This seems appropriate:


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 2, 2014)

ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> didn't the creator of the internet, al gore release a movie about this? a inconvenient truth?


 
That was before he decided to cash in by selling his network to big oil.


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (Mar 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> That was before he decided to cash in by selling his network to big oil.



dudes got it real hard man  i remember watching that movie in one of my freshman geology classes. no wonder why people can't get jobs with degrees anymore.


----------



## Watty (Mar 2, 2014)

insanebassninja said:


> You do know our earth goes in cycles of cold to hot? I heard back in the 70s There was Goblem cooling problem as well.
> 
> Yes am a Denier... I know this reason I would rather have warm weather than cold.



_For the love of all that is good...proof-read your posts, especially for such an important topic._

Yes, the earth cools and the earth heats. What's at stake here is the rate of change relative to our ability to be able to effectively adapt to the resulting changes that stem from the shift in chemistry of the atmosphere caused by our burning of fossil fuels. And unfortunately for you, the earth's climate does not bend to the will of those preferring on temperature over another.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Climate change in the direction we're going, be it man-assisted or not, might not be a bad thing at all for our species continued existence. "Global Warming" if you choose to call it that, might just be the thing that ends up giving us a few thousand additional years than we would have had without our silly pollution.
> 
> We know so little because it's a constantly shifting equation. It's better to do things cleaner, but we understand so little about sun cycles and solar flares and the likes, and the issue is mostly just turned into political propaganda by all sides.
> 
> The earth itself is a self regulating beast so I doubt we'll have much impact at all over the coarse of centuries upon centuries.



A) Climate change is most probably a bad thing (especially relative to agricultural impacts), so positing that it "might not" be a bad thing does about as much good as does burying your head in the sand.

B) It may a constantly shifting equation, but one worth figuring out. The answer to said equation is definitely not "let's continue with fossil fuels and ignore renewables because that's what makes money" as is continually suggested by the conservative folks around the world. And I don't know whether the cycle of the sun and solar flares actually have any significant impact, or what that impact would be relative to the changes we caused in the atmospheric chemistry, but again, saying we don't know is not the way to solve the problem.

C) The earth is self-regulating IN CONTEXT. Like you said, the equation is fluid and we could very well be changing the one variable that keeps it healthy through the continued use of fossil fuels on a global scale. I'm not saying that we should shift all the way to the other side of the spectrum, but trusting that the earth will continue to be as it has always been is a cop out and you know it.



ADevilsDaydream817 said:


> dudes got it real hard man  i remember watching that movie in one of my freshman geology classes. no wonder why people can't get jobs with degrees anymore.



I never saw the movie, but what does this have to do with the discussion? I got a job with my degree? (And heck, said job even applies directly to this conversation).


----------



## ADevilsDaydream817 (Mar 2, 2014)

Watty said:


> I never saw the movie, but what does this have to do with the discussion? I got a job with my degree? (And heck, said job even applies directly to this conversation).



The movie is just al gore's global warming theory laid out in a documentary. i was just joking on the job thing, but i didn't spend a grand to attend a real university class to watch a movie based on al gores "this is what I think is going on" opinions. He predicted by such a date all or the majority of ice will be gone with the rising temperatures, which isn't the case. If you have never seen the movie, it might be worth checking out depending on who you are. This movie about global warming used to be a hot topic of conversation especially with al gore attached to it.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 2, 2014)

Watty said:


> _For the love of all that is good...proof-read your posts, especially for such an important topic._
> 
> Yes, the earth cools and the earth heats. What's at stake here is the rate of change relative to our ability to be able to effectively adapt to the resulting changes that stem from the shift in chemistry of the atmosphere caused by our burning of fossil fuels. And unfortunately for you, the earth's climate does not bend to the will of those preferring on temperature over another.
> 
> ...


 


I never said that we should bury our heads in the sand and not work on researching climate change .

Climate change can hurt agriculture in some places yes, and help agriculture in others.
Canada might end up being the breadbasket of the world someday, but who knows.

There's just no way anyone can say climate change is mostly for the worse, there's no way anyone could possibly know that.
It's exactly like I said, It could just as well be for the better in the long run.

I realize that just doesn't jive with the liberal agenda though, so you are always going to disagree.

Oil isn't a permanent energy source, so I agree we have to keep working on other possible solutions including nuclear safety and efficiency.


----------



## MailMan (Mar 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I never said that we should bury our heads in the sand and not work on researching climate change .
> 
> Climate change can hurt agriculture in some places yes, and help agriculture in others.
> Canada might end up being the breadbasket of the world someday, but who knows.
> ...


Sorry for being grim, but I can't see how a sea level that will possibly rise several meters by the end of the century will benefit anybody. I wonder if the good people of New York are prepared for their city to become the new Venice...


----------



## TheKindred (Mar 2, 2014)

insanebassninja said:


> ]
> Anyways I found this to slap in the face of people that think golblem warming is real.



Which part is a slap in the face exactly? This information supports the theory of climate change.

educate yourself first, then spew on the internetzz


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 2, 2014)

MailMan said:


> Sorry for being grim, but I can't see how a sea level that will possibly rise several meters by the end of the century will benefit anybody. I wonder if the good people of New York are prepared for their city to become the new Venice...


 
Rising sea levels might well be terrible for New York, but the big picture of our species continued existence on earth really doesn't care about NYC .

It's not essential for our planet to house this many billion people anyways.
Just think of all the new lands that could possibly open up to habitation with warmer global average temps.
I truly think the politics of the day has people from both sides thinking so short term.


----------



## Watty (Mar 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I never said that we should bury our heads in the sand and not work on researching climate change .



Well, it was more or less insinuated with the phrasing of your reply; at least at a cursory glance.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Climate change can hurt agriculture in some places yes, and help agriculture in others. Canada might end up being the breadbasket of the world someday, but who knows. There's just no way anyone can say climate change is mostly for the worse, there's no way anyone could possibly know that. It's exactly like I said, It could just as well be for the better in the long run. Oil isn't a permanent energy source, so I agree we have to keep working on other possible solutions including nuclear safety and efficiency.



Yes, global warming could positively influence things in the agricultural sense (growing regions), but the ramifications associated with related infrastructure, population change, geopolitical pressures, etc. would not be properly accounted for on a timescale that would work in favor of the overall survival of our species. So, it's easy to claim that it could be good in the long run, but that's provided that we're around (after the initial detrimental results) to take advantage of it. I'm not saying this in the sense that it would create an apocalypse, but it would certainly be a game changer under the right set of circumstances.



TRENCHLORD said:


> I realize that just doesn't jive with the liberal agenda though, so you are always going to disagree.



This is also a problem that blinds people to what's really at stake here. Yes, I identify as a liberal, but I say .... partisan politics. There are good ideas and there are bad ideas, I simply maintain that most of the latter are associated with conservative principles. Hell, my position on this matter actually negatively influences my future prospects as I work in the natural gas industry, which will likely be a target of future legislation....so if I was a self-serving individual in every respect, I'd agree with you. However, this issue is above politics (regardless of the way the debate is currently framed) and continuing to mention a partisan divide on possible solutions only serves to reinforce the stagnation of the discussion in terms of actionable ideas that could positively benefit us in the event that it is as bad as some scientists predict.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Rising sea levels might well be terrible for New York, but the big picture of our species continued existence on earth really doesn't care about NYC .
> 
> It's not essential for our planet to house this many billion people anyways. Just think of all the new lands that could possibly open up to habitation with warmer global average temps. I truly think the politics of the day has people from both sides thinking so short term.



Yes, NYC is of no consequence in the grand scheme of things. Yes, our planet needs to play host to less people than it currently does. Yes, new lands could become open to habitation and growth, thereby making our existence potentially better in certain instances. And yes, we're thinking short term. However, by the virtue of our biology, we're really only concerned with what happens in the now, but this issue extends so far into the future as to make it a non-starter for those people that can't see beyond their own lifetime. It might be that in two to three centuries, the planet has changed for the better in terms of supporting life, but the interim period is what should concern us. We're so set in a given way of doing things (in general) that the shift between the two positions could prove catastrophic in context without the proper preparation taken. All those arguing about the existence of global warming trends are advocating is the fact that we need to be having the conversation and slowly shifting policy and popular opinion so that the shift is not quite so dramatic. It sounds to me like you more or less agree with that point, so I'm confused as to why you continue to try and reduce the entirety of the issue to political posturing.


----------



## Necris (Mar 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Rising sea levels might well be terrible for New York, but the big picture of our species continued existence on earth really doesn't care about NYC .
> 
> It's not essential for our planet to house this many billion people anyways.
> Just think of all the new lands that could possibly open up to habitation with warmer global average temps.
> I truly think the politics of the day has people from both sides thinking so short term.



You're going off into another argument entirely; you're wandering in to sustainability arguments. New lands opening up with higher warmer temperatures is a nice idea, but it assumes a best case scenario; that each new area opened up was capable of supporting/sustaining a community of people on it's own. Forests don't pop up over night, not all land can be used for agriculture, etc. 

The entire population of the planet could be fit into the United States with _plenty_ of room for each individual person. So we don't really have an issue as far as people having space to live on the planet. 

Our _consumption_, however, is an issue; one that the population of the United States contributes to significantly. I believe I last read we as a country make up about 43% of the total resource use on the planet per year. As other countries develop and grow we _will_ eventually need multiple Earths to sustain the human population.


----------



## liamh (Mar 2, 2014)

insanebassninja said:


> Anyways I found this to slap in the face of people that think golblem warming is real.



Yup, 97% of all scientists just got PWNED by this easily explainable occurrence.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2014)

Watty said:


> And I don't know whether the cycle of the sun and solar flares actually have any significant impact, or what that impact would be relative to the changes we caused in the atmospheric chemistry, but again, saying we don't know is not the way to solve the problem.



Also, we know a lot about the sun and its cycles. There are things we can't necessarily predict in the models, but we know plenty to make very good educated guesses.



TRENCHLORD said:


> I truly think the politics of the day has people from both sides thinking so short term.



That they are.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 2, 2014)

We do certainly consume and pollute too much, so I have no arguments there.
Climate change is a constant though, and if it weren't we would not even be here.
Clean energy is a good thing, but combating climate change by tampering could be just as bad as polluting. 
What about naturally caused forest fires. Should we let them go no matter where they spread? Or should we interject our own selfishness just to save a few mansions?


----------



## Watty (Mar 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> We do certainly consume and pollute too much, so I have no arguments there.
> Climate change is a constant though, and if it weren't we would not even be here.
> Clean energy is a good thing, but combating climate change by tampering could be just as bad as polluting.
> What about naturally caused forest fires. Should we let them go no matter where they spread? Or should we interject our own selfishness just to save a few mansions?



Investing in more clean energy and reducing our carbon footprint isn't "tampering" though, it's simply making sure our impact is less significant, which is in line with your statement about global climate change as having been a constant occurrence up until now. Your logic is hypercritical there.

And naturally caused forest fires account for such a small portion of "emissions" that I don't see why you even bothered to mention them?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 2, 2014)

Watty said:


> Investing in more clean energy and reducing our carbon footprint isn't "tampering" though, it's simply making sure our impact is less significant, which is in line with your statement about global climate change as having been a constant occurrence up until now. Your logic is hypercritical there.
> 
> And naturally caused forest fires account for such a small portion of "emissions" that I don't see why you even bothered to mention them?


 
You are debating your own statements and calling them mine.
I have no time for that stuff.

When the hell did I say reducing carbon emisions was tampering?

Yes sir, fires count for a massive amount of carbon on a global scale.
You're avoiding the principal question of interference vs non interference.


----------



## Necris (Mar 2, 2014)

> Climate change is a constant though, and if it weren't we would not even be here.
> Clean energy is a good thing, but combating climate change by tampering could be just as bad as polluting.


^
There, arguably. If that is not what you meant then please define what you meant by "tampering". 

Also please explain how it is possible to tamper with what you allege to be a natural process. If, as you assert, we are having no effect on the climate now with the amounts of carbon we are emitting, then how would lowering our carbon emissions lead to a worse outcome than the potential results of this "natural process"?

If cutting down carbon emissions _did _have a negative effect on the climate then that would strongly imply that carbon emissions were affecting the climate in some way, would it not?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Mar 2, 2014)

Well...

How about some friendly great lake ice skating to cool everyone off?


----------



## SpaceDock (Mar 2, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> What about naturally caused forest fires. Should we let them go no matter where they spread? Or should we interject our own selfishness just to save a few mansions?



I've read a lot that our micro management of small forest fires has actually caused many of the giant fires we have today. If the forests were able to naturally regulate themselves, they would not get all of the excess build up that causes our giant fires. 

OT, I don't think any rational person can look at post industrial pollution, just check out China's air quality, and say that what we are doing is not detrimental to the planet and ourselves, short term and long term.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 2, 2014)

Necris said:


> ^
> There, arguably. If that is not what you meant then please define what you meant by "tampering".
> 
> Also please explain how it is possible to tamper with what you allege to be a natural process. If, as you assert, we are having no effect on the climate now with the amounts of carbon we are emitting, then how would lowering our carbon emissions lead to a worse outcome than the potential results of this "natural process"?
> ...


 
I was talking about active methods sort of like cloud-seeding only on a larger scale. I've seen documentaries showing how they are currently researching methods to actively reduce carbon.

I'm not coming at this from a political angle. I'm saying climate change is real, and it always has been. 
We can't say that increasing carbon levels will be bad or good on the large scale over hundreds/1000's of years.
Isn't there always more flora and fauna naturally when conditions are warm over more of the planet?


Pollution is bad.
We have no idea how increased carbon will affect our global weather in the long haul.

Should we let fires go, or should we actively "tamper" by putting them out? (when they're natural, of course)


What about all our other activities and their effects on the climate?
Damming waterways, building canals, diverting water, man-made avalanches to keep roads open, they all greatly effect evaporation rates which effects everything else in the equation.


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 2, 2014)

Al Gore You Say?


----------



## MassNecrophagia (Mar 3, 2014)

I don't know why you guys are ragging so bad on the OP. My Goblems aren't getting any warmer.


----------



## SD83 (Mar 3, 2014)

Damn, and over here in Germany we have the warmest winter in... well, pretty much ever. Last month was, on average, 5° warmer than last years February. I prefer -10°C and lots of snow to +5°C, storm and rain any day.


----------



## Mexi (Mar 3, 2014)

MassNecrophagia said:


> I don't know why you guys are ragging so bad on the OP. My Goblems aren't getting any warmer.


 
Came in just to point this out. people need to learn to read, seriously. Goblem warmth has been steady for years now


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 3, 2014)

It's times like these I'm not all that upset about my move to Arizona from Michigan 

In all seriousness though, the idea that a cold winter invalidates climate change is so laughably stupid that I'm surprised that someone who thinks that can breathe and walk at the same time. I had a boss that thought this at my old job. He also didn't believe in evolution. He was also the department manager and a senior scientist. WTF


----------



## MFB (Mar 3, 2014)

Mexi said:


> Came in just to point this out. people need to learn to read, seriously. Goblem warmth has been steady for years now



+1

I mean, can you imagine if this were discussing GLOBAL warming? TOTALLY different from Goblem warming, it's like C'MON PEOPLE!

Get your heads in the game!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Mar 3, 2014)

insanebassninja said:


> Anyways I found this to slap in the face of people that think golblem warming is real.



Finally I get to use this gif!


----------



## hairychris (Mar 4, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Rising sea levels might well be terrible for New York, but the big picture of our species continued existence on earth really doesn't care about NYC .



Problem is that most of the world's major cities, and the vast majority of human population, will also face the same problem.

I live in London. The only reason that we haven't had major flooding over the past few years is due to repeated use of our flood barrier. Which was only supposed to be used occasionally but is actually used very regularly. And soon won't be up for the job!



TRENCHLORD said:


> It's not essential for our planet to house this many billion people anyways.



Yay genocide. *Ahem*

Seriously, though, overpopulation is a massive issue and without addressing it we are all ....ed. How to is a different question completely.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Just think of all the new lands that could possibly open up to habitation with warmer global average temps.



Actually the sea level rises will drown way too much existing habitable land, and temp rises will desertify vast areas.

A rapid change in average temperature will destroy most habitats as the flora & fauna are not adapted to the new conditions. We don't really want this!



TRENCHLORD said:


> I truly think the politics of the day has people from both sides thinking so short term.



Agreed 100%.

The problem is that we already know that seas are rising, and can see changes in global climate.

Reality doesn't care about what you/I/we believe.


----------



## asher (Mar 4, 2014)

There's large consensus in the scientific community that climate change is happening and that humanity's emissions have vastly accelerated the process. Yeah, the Earth has some amount of natural equilibrium. We are pushing the system out of equilibrium in ways that, by itself, it can't cope with.

The rising sea levels are bad, but the relatively narrow temperature bands a lot of our food supply grows in and the increasing severity of storms are worse. Famines and food chain supply issues (ie, suddenly we have way less available) are going to cause a lot more problems than anything else will, because they'll happen much sooner.


----------



## skeels (Mar 4, 2014)

I too am concerned about this Goblem cooling I keep hearing about.


----------



## gunshow86de (Mar 4, 2014)

insanebassninja said:


> Anyways I found this to slap in the face of people that think golblem warming is real.




https://plus.google.com/104566311778739620525/about

There's no profile pic, I found this a slap in the face of people that think Mark is real.


----------



## Necris (Mar 4, 2014)

I've got 99 golblems but... etc.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 4, 2014)

hairychris said:


> Seriously, though, overpopulation is a massive issue and without addressing it we are all ....ed. How to is a different question completely.
> .


 
. This 


If (yes I'm pipe-dreaming) there were less of us and we were less spoiled many of these other issues wouldn't even exist.

I just don't worry much about it because I firmly believe we will fail to make a lifeboat and find a place to land it in time before the planet is completely unlivable.
When the Yellowstone Volcano explodes again it'll do to the atmosphere far more than man has done in the last century. 
One good asteroid properly placed and we'll be so far short of meeting global food demands that millions if not billions will starve in short order.

This age is too far gone to do anything about it anyways.
We need a mass cleansing and then we need to learn how to be anti-expansionist. This way maybe a few million can enjoy a true eden for awhile before all is crushed and the earth is barren again.


----------



## asher (Mar 4, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> When the Yellowstone Volcano explodes again it'll do to the atmosphere far more than man has done in the last century.
> One good asteroid properly placed and we'll be so far short of meeting global food demands that millions if not billions will starve in short order.



Neither of these are preventable occurrences (barring Bruce Willis teaming up with NASA). Climate change from human emissions absolutely is.

Is it difficult? Absolutely. We'd need to nearly go cold turkey on a couple of our current sources of energy. But it's by no means impossible or infeasible, especially when you look at the damage that *will* happen from doing nothing.

Side note: being expansionist has inherently nothing to do with how you actually spend your resources.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 4, 2014)

asher said:


> Side note: being expansionist has inherently nothing to do with how you actually spend your resources.


 
It has everything to do with how much resources are required to fuel it.


----------



## MethDetal (Mar 5, 2014)

Watty said:


> Oh, the irony.
> 
> Please do yourself a favor and go read an article or two on the issue. Even the most hardcore "deniers" [see: reasonable] admit that the climate is changing. The debate has now shifted to whether or not it's manmade.


Indeed, throughout the history of the earth the temperature has varied drastically, and it is very hard to determine whether the rise in temperature as of late is simply the earth doing its thing, or if it is man made.


----------



## Watty (Mar 5, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> . This
> 
> 
> If (yes I'm pipe-dreaming) there were less of us and we were less spoiled many of these other issues wouldn't even exist.
> ...



While I certainly wouldn't have said it quite this way.....

....I actually agree with you on this point; at least to a certain extent. I say we start by ditching the Catholic Church in sub-Saharan Africa, eliminating the male control of women's reproductive rights (especially in poor and Muslim countries; note that these two are not mutually exclusive), and instigating a -per family child policy in first world nations....


----------



## asher (Mar 5, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> It has everything to do with how much resources are required to fuel it.



... all of which could be fuelled sustainably.

As some food for thought, here's how much land you'd need to for solar farms to power nearly _the entire damn world_ (yes, this ignores transmission issues; it's illustrative, not literal):


----------



## SpaceDock (Mar 5, 2014)

^ although that doesn't look like much space! the amount of resources it would take to cover that much area with solid sun following solar arrays would be redonkulous.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 5, 2014)

Food might be more of an issue than electricity. (for 6-7billion growing)

All those solar panels might well help take the place of some that melting polar ice for reflecting some of the light/heat away from the surface.
That's one of those proposed theories for dampening the trend, one of the ways we could "tamper".


----------



## Watty (Mar 7, 2014)

SpaceDock said:


> ^ although that doesn't look like much space! the amount of resources it would take to cover that much area with solid sun following solar arrays would be redonkulous.



It could a whole lot less, but unfortunately, the best solar technology we have that can be reliably produced only has something like an 8% efficiency in turning the waves from the sun into power. Once we're able to break the hump from a technological stance, we'll be golden.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Food might be more of an issue than electricity. (for 6-7billion growing)
> 
> All those solar panels might well help take the place of some that melting polar ice for reflecting some of the light/heat away from the surface.
> That's one of those proposed theories for dampening the trend, one of the ways we could "tamper".



Tamper is generally used in a negatively connotation, so I think it skirts the issues you were associating it with earlier.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 7, 2014)

I have to agree with Trench about growing populations inherently needing more resources. The end of this century will effectively "break" the world's ability to provide enough resources if we assume a pattern of development that increases the amount of industrialized nations with a middle-class. There's really no getting around that. Of course, all this means is that even more poor people will die, something the middle-class cares very little about. As evidence, I'd point to most of us on this forum. Though some of us are poor, some rich, most in the middle, we're still not overly concerned with the masses of people dying across Africa and Asia. 

To be honest, (and I sound like a broken record, agreeing with Trench all the time now ) we need to adopt a very, very conservative approach to resource management ASAP. I'm talking about radical changes, too. Americans somehow manage to use up pretty much everything, and we need to create a new standard of living that wastes less, recycles more, and wants less. Hard to see how that lives up with the culture of unrestrained capitalism, but it needs to happen. Before climate change kills us, we'll kill off the gross equivalent of several small countries because we have to have three of everything every two years. 

I definitely think that climate change is being sped up by human interference, but I fail to see the issue with a process that *could* kill us when we *know* that doing what we do now will. We don't fully understand the effects of a higher global temperature right now, but we don't need to do a lot of speculating to see what will happen with dwindling resources and more demand.


----------



## pink freud (Mar 8, 2014)

Because of where this discussion went, I feel this is pertinent:


----------



## Pooluke41 (Mar 8, 2014)

insanebassninja said:


> [/URL]
> Anyways I found this to slap in the face of people that think golblem warming is real.



Jeff Goldblum has been getting hotter every single day.

just look at this comparison











just look at those glasses, he is a threat to every single straight man out there.


----------



## ElRay (Mar 8, 2014)

Watty said:


> The debate has now shifted to whether or not it's manmade.



That's not even debatable anymore. Anti-anthropogenic-global-warming folks are right-down-there with Creationists, Intelligent Design and the Anti-Vaxers.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Mar 8, 2014)

OP: Based on your response, I'm guessing that you don't even know that they haven't really broken any records yet, correct? 1979 saw just shy of 95% ice coverage.

Also, world-wide, this January was the warmest since 1880.

Ray


----------



## Watty (Mar 8, 2014)

ElRay said:


> That's not even debatable anymore. Anti-homogenic-global-warming folks are right-down-there with Creationists, Intelligent Design and the Anti-Vaxers.
> 
> Ray



Well, this comment was my pseudo compromise in getting him to try and shy away from the extreme side of his position. Figured we could meet in the middle and work towards the (currently understood) truth....


----------



## insanebassninja (Mar 8, 2014)

My Final Response to this.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 8, 2014)

Just a direct point to the ice on the lakes, and this might well have already been stated in the thread, so if it has forgive my jackassery.

The great lakes are in the slow process of draining.
They'll not likely finish draining though because we'll probably enter another ice age (or little ice age, possibly prompted faster by the current situation) and then when the ice finally melts it will refill the lakes to previous or new high levels.

My point though is that currently the lakes are losing water levels which makes them freeze easier than if they were fuller like they were years ago.
Might account for a bit more ice on the surface since their depth is reducing.


----------



## asher (Mar 9, 2014)

insanebassninja said:


> My Final Response to this.


----------



## ilyti (Mar 14, 2014)

insanebassninja said:


> golblem warming
> Goblem cooling



troll.gif


----------



## Varcolac (Mar 15, 2014)

ilyti said:


> troll.gif



Nah not a troll, more like...


----------



## Danukenator (Mar 17, 2014)

insanebassninja said:


> My Final Response to this.




I'm going to weigh in here. First, I love Karlin to death. However he is wrong.

Climate Change = Fact

Currently, It's my primary field of study. So, I'm a tad touchy when it comes to this. I've yet to see compelling evidence that it isn't true. Similar to evolution arguments, the other side simply cobbles together a bunch of cherry-picked facts, mines a couple quotes and assembles something that looks nice but holds no water. 

Global warming was a bad choice of words. The IPCC didn't start using "Climate Change" because of some conspiracy, they started using it because to, to laymen, it gives them a more accurate picture.

I'm quite busy today so I can't bust out some of my notes but global warming will not be good. At all. Much of Southeast Asia has a very low elevation. I don't want to start throwing around random numbers without checking them first but significant populations will be displaced.


----------



## insanebassninja (Apr 8, 2014)

Seriorly... yes am ignorance to a widely researched issue and don't like being called out on it. Reason is Its been a fvcking month now Get over it fvckers. Plus am trying to get back to Zero on my Rep again. am back at -40 when at one point -10.


----------



## Necris (Apr 8, 2014)

You didn't make a mistake. You revealed your ignorance to a widely researched issue and don't like being called out on it.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 9, 2014)

This is the best thread. 

My Goblins climate affect at a Super Effective rate.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 9, 2014)

Necris said:


> You didn't make a mistake.



No, he made a mistscist. Lrn2rd.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 9, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Just a direct point to the ice on the lakes, and this might well have already been stated in the thread, so if it has forgive my jackassery.
> 
> The great lakes are in the slow process of draining.
> They'll not likely finish draining though because we'll probably enter another ice age (or little ice age, possibly prompted faster by the current situation) and then when the ice finally melts it will refill the lakes to previous or new high levels.
> ...


 

^^ Yeah, what he said!


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 9, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> I'm going to weigh in here. First, I love Karlin to death. However he is wrong.



I don't know if I'm misinterpreting what Carlin said, but I don't think anything was really said in that clip about global warming / climate change as we know it. Mostly what he was saying is that regardless of what happens to the human race, the planet will exist for quite some time, and in that respect, I'm pretty sure he's dead right. It might not be capable of supporting life, but it will continue to exist. The skit is about the arrogance of claiming to be concerned about the Earth when it's more likely you're concerned about you and your species. I'm not the only one to notice this misinterpretation of the clip, though I'm not going to interpret his words as Gaia theory, either. 

If anything, we should be wondering why insanebassninja decided to use that clip as if it has anything to do with his argument. I guess the fact that he ...



insanebassninja said:


> Seriorly... yes am ignorance to a widely researched issue



... means he couldn't really see that Carlin's argument was targeting unknowingly self-interested activists as opposed to the scientific research and data that supports the argument that climate change is real and destructive, and probably more importantly, has come a long way since that performance by the comedian was recorded in . . . Damn, I can't figure out which performance that clip came from. His last recorded performance from from 2008, so at best his knowledge on climate change is six years out of touch, which makes it tricky to use his material (that doesn't necessarily support a denier's argument anyway) when just last year it looked like 97.2% of studies on climate change published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that humans are negatively effecting the climate. I mean, I'll take their word for it, even though those people aren't comedians who are famous around the golblem. The goblem. 

Goldblum.

Golbat.






...fukkiti'mout...


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Apr 9, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> I don't know if I'm misinterpreting what Carlin said, but I don't think anything was really said in that clip about global warming / climate change as we know it. Mostly what he was saying is that regardless of what happens to the human race, the planet will exist for quite some time, and in that respect, I'm pretty sure he's dead right. It might not be capable of supporting life, but it will continue to exist. The skit is about the arrogance of claiming to be concerned about the Earth when it's more likely you're concerned about you and your species. I'm not the only one to notice this misinterpretation of the clip, though I'm not going to interpret his words as Gaia theory, either.



the same argument was used at the end of the second Jurassic Park novel. I remember having a geologist in community college who visually taught "earth time" versus the time humanity has been on this earth by saying "the length of your arm from finger tip to shoulder has been the whole existence of earth.. your fingernail represents the amount of time humans have lived here." 

but Carlin's argument holds true, much of what we're debating is the survival of the species, and when you consider that earth has been inhospitable to life as we know it a couple times in its history. so its not inconceivable to believe that eventually we will be extinct and some extraterrestrial archaeologist will digging up our remains on day and pondering the religious significance of the golden arches they've been finding everywhere. 

like TRENCH has been saying, we shouldn't not do our best to improve quality of life; we might as well make the most of it before we become fertilizer for the next paradigm of the planet, but we should be honest with ourselves and recognize the fragile, impermanent nature of humanity.


----------

