Mooninites wrote:
See the problem with that is, if we are to declare man-mode global warming science, like a number of people here have done, then it has to be definitive proof of man-made influence on global warming. If that's the argument you want to take, then I'd say you can't disprove the existence of God, so therefore he exists.
Well.. I did not go "man-mode" on declaring global warming so I don't know why you have to bring that up with me.. I guess you just wanna switch subject to start an argument with me, but whatever, I'll bite.
Your comparison is horrid. There's a metric TON of **** that disproves the existence of "God" as he is described in various religions. Is there any evidence that directly supports the "theory" of God?
Quoted:
I'm not really sure how you would 'save resources' I think I read an article a while back where someone did the math on Smart Cars and it would take you like 10 years to pay off the amount you save in energy, I can't remember exactly where i read that but it was something like that, if i find the source I'll let you know
It takes 10 years to save the money compared to what car? A hummer? I'm pretty sure hummers are expensive..
It doesn't have to be a smartcar. I just want a car that is good on the environment and functional really.
I'm not big on cars though. I find them pretty uninteresting.
Quoted:
did canoas die? I haven't heard from him in a while, maybe he went to go hide under rocks again
I'm guessing ban or RL stuff. That guy is addicted to arguing.
Xeronn wrote:
I think I scared him away :x
Hahahahaha, NOPE :D
You don't know him well enough.
"I saw [Twilight: Eclipse] in theaters with a girl I was dating at the time. I spent more time staring at my toes and wiggling them than I did watching this abomination. When Edward proposed to Blank Face, I finally looked up with a revelation.
I blurted out loud, in a dead silent theater full of teenage girls on opening night "Wait a minute, Edward has no blood flow. How does he get an erection?" I heard several men laughing, and had several girls turn and stare at me.
I did not get laid that night." - Berengier817
I blurted out loud, in a dead silent theater full of teenage girls on opening night "Wait a minute, Edward has no blood flow. How does he get an erection?" I heard several men laughing, and had several girls turn and stare at me.
I did not get laid that night." - Berengier817
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
@Xeronn
Thank you. What you said proves that the bible is full of ******** and contradictory ideas. If god exists then he must be bipolar. However, why are you going to ignore the morals from the passages I quoted and choose only the ones that coincide with our current values? Why not the other way around? You either accept the bible or you don't, you can't start choosing the passages you like and ignoring the ones you don't.
@Mikuroo
I don't really care whether or not the bible says they'll go to hell. What I care about is that the bible says they must be killed. If you want to believe in an imaginary place you go after you die then fine, I have no problem with it, as long as you don't interfere with gays, atheists, etc. in the real world like the bible wants you to do.
Oh, and please provide evidence to support your claim that texts in the bible were written in several distant places at the same time with almost the same translations.
@Mooninites
You're claiming that the gospels of john and mark were written all over the world with no collaboration? wtf? They were written by the disciples of jesus.. John and Peter (who then told mark about it) could easily make up any story they wanted. They didn't write their gospels from all over the world, they met. How is it impossible for them to have collaborated while writing the gospels?
Now, regarding global warming and how we contributed...
The steepest rise in Co2 until now was a 80 parts per million rise and which took 5000 years. In the last 50 years there was an 80 ppm rise as well. That means CO2 levels rose 100 times faster that the steepest rise in the last 650000 years. Are you sure you want to claim it's not our fault?
Still, you can claim that CO2 doesn't do anything, so here's the terrestrial radiation spectrum:
Oh, and thank you for all the graphics that show that the glaciers only started receding a bit earlier than 1850! Curiously that's at the end of the Industrial revolution! How interesting.. We start using coal and the glaciers start shortening.. hmm.. I wonder why.
And it seems you lack common understanding on why the temperature has not risen. You see, when the temperature rises the glaciers start melting which then lower the temperature. If that didn't happen we would have boiled a long time ago, which we will once the ice caps completely melt off.
Don't believe me? Grab a glass of ice and put a thermometer in it. Eat up the glass and see how the temperature remains the same until all the ice melts. Only after the ice melts completely will the water temperature increase!
Seriously.. If you were scientific illiterate you would have seen that the graphics you provided are actually support human contribution to global warming.
Thank you. What you said proves that the bible is full of ******** and contradictory ideas. If god exists then he must be bipolar. However, why are you going to ignore the morals from the passages I quoted and choose only the ones that coincide with our current values? Why not the other way around? You either accept the bible or you don't, you can't start choosing the passages you like and ignoring the ones you don't.
@Mikuroo
I don't really care whether or not the bible says they'll go to hell. What I care about is that the bible says they must be killed. If you want to believe in an imaginary place you go after you die then fine, I have no problem with it, as long as you don't interfere with gays, atheists, etc. in the real world like the bible wants you to do.
Oh, and please provide evidence to support your claim that texts in the bible were written in several distant places at the same time with almost the same translations.
@Mooninites
You're claiming that the gospels of john and mark were written all over the world with no collaboration? wtf? They were written by the disciples of jesus.. John and Peter (who then told mark about it) could easily make up any story they wanted. They didn't write their gospels from all over the world, they met. How is it impossible for them to have collaborated while writing the gospels?
Now, regarding global warming and how we contributed...
The steepest rise in Co2 until now was a 80 parts per million rise and which took 5000 years. In the last 50 years there was an 80 ppm rise as well. That means CO2 levels rose 100 times faster that the steepest rise in the last 650000 years. Are you sure you want to claim it's not our fault?
Still, you can claim that CO2 doesn't do anything, so here's the terrestrial radiation spectrum:
Oh, and thank you for all the graphics that show that the glaciers only started receding a bit earlier than 1850! Curiously that's at the end of the Industrial revolution! How interesting.. We start using coal and the glaciers start shortening.. hmm.. I wonder why.
And it seems you lack common understanding on why the temperature has not risen. You see, when the temperature rises the glaciers start melting which then lower the temperature. If that didn't happen we would have boiled a long time ago, which we will once the ice caps completely melt off.
Don't believe me? Grab a glass of ice and put a thermometer in it. Eat up the glass and see how the temperature remains the same until all the ice melts. Only after the ice melts completely will the water temperature increase!
Seriously.. If you were scientific illiterate you would have seen that the graphics you provided are actually support human contribution to global warming.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
Xeronn wrote:
I've said what I've said, I'm not gonna bother trying to convince you, that was never my idea to begin with >.>
But you really love to distort everything.
No, I don't. My quotes were directly from the bible. Yes, I know that there are other passages on the bible that say the exact opposite and that we should all be kind to one another, but that only serves to prove it's inconsistency.
Canoas wrote:
No, I don't. My quotes were directly from the bible. Yes, I know that there are other passages on the bible that say the exact opposite and that we should all be kind to one another, but that only serves to prove it's inconsistency.
All questions that you would have in relation to something from the bible can likewise be answered from the bible.
^^ Check out my Gangplank Guide! ^^
+Rep is OP! Special Forces Gangplank!!
Mooninites wrote:
Enjoy courteous of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
^ seasurface temperature history^ a graph on Glacier size when combined to the use of hydrocarbons^ artic surface temperature increases shown in correlation with increases in Solar activity^ US surface temperature of the past century. To think, just 20 years ago people were worried about global cooling. Next doomsday scenario pls.^ average number of annual tornadoes in the US has been slightly decreasing, not increasing^ a graph showing that there is no noticeable increase or decrease in the number of hurricanes reaching land fall, in fact it's been fairly steady for the past 100 years^ a graph showing that there is no noticeable increase in the severity of Hurricanes in the past centurya graph showing the increase in sea level as a gradual increase rather than an accelerating one that probably has little to do with hydrocarbon uses as this trend began in 1850.^ methane level. Methane is the number one greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, ironically 97% of all methane in the atmosphere comes from Cows not humans^ Co2 increases could be attributed to, as the graph states, the increase of forests within the United States by nearly 40%.^ somewhat global warming related, but more economics. This graph examines the cost of solar and wind energy compared to that of nuclear, coal, and gas.http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm - original source.
^ a graph showing global temperature changes over the past 16 years.i find funny that noone noticed the mistakes here.
1s graph: deons't say where the measuremens were made. if it's in oregon, it says nothing since it is a at high latitude, therefore, a slight current change can drop sea surface temperature.
2nd graph: the axis is INVERtED. so, it acually represents a decrease.
3rd graph shows an increase in temperature of 2 degrees due to the sun, perfecly correlating to earth's precession period of 70 ears. estimated increase of temperaure is higher than that.
4h graph: see 3rd.
5h: tornados rely on very precise coniditions. as we've seen that those have been alered, it's predictable to have less.
6h: taking a linear tendency from that data is a bit stupid due to disparity, but i'll play along.
7h: again, raher random event. just says there might be no relation with climate changes.
8h: there is no infinite methane on earth. leveling of concetration in mixtures is an evenuality, not an indication of slower warming.
9h: as if usa had 95% of earth's green... <.<
10h: technology is recent and relies on sme uncertainties but certainly desnt have 40% thermal eficiency or risks to your health. glad to know you'd sell your well being for lower energ cost. oh, i remember: you wanted romney as president...
11h: you are condensing 250 ears in 20. gj on your awesome conclusions.
Canoas wrote:
No, I don't. My quotes were directly from the bible. Yes, I know that there are other passages on the bible that say the exact opposite and that we should all be kind to one another, but that only serves to prove it's inconsistency.
i'm sorry to say, but you have a rather distorted logic to prove your argument. your lgic process is never clear and you easily can be right for the wrong reasons.
and emmission spectra says very little regarding to what is happening.
I have some other comments on the 10th graph, because I happen to know a few things about the power industry in the US (and, to a lesser degree, abroad). I'm going to pass on actually quoting Moon for the sake of making this post shorter, though.
Starting from the right and moving left on the graph:
Micro wind and solar power aren't really intended to be a cost-efficient method for mass power distribution. Their strength is in being able to generate power where the power is needed, rather than at a central plant. So they're really cool solutions for isolated areas, where consumption is very distributed, such that the costs of maintaining a large distribution network could easily outweigh the cheaper costs of central production using a different kind of generation. Solar and micro wind are great solutions for living in the middle of nowhere, rather than maintaining several tens of thousands of miles of power lines for relatively little power usage. This is assuming that these sorts of generation are actually realistic for a location, though.
Wind power's main strength is that it's both fairly cheap and fairly clean. Wind turbines don't throw out much in the way of pollution and they don't really require more maintenance than a coal plant. It's main drawback is that wind generation can only really be used in areas that get consistent winds from a single direction; pivoting turbines are considerably less efficient. Because of this, it's only realistic to use in certain areas with consistent, straight-line winds. Wind power might generate differently at different times of the day, so power companies can use it in a lot of ways.
Coal and gas power are fairly standard. Put fuel in, get power out. Their main strength is that you can change how much fuel you put in to change how much power you get out. This can't really be done with other methods of generation. Power companies use coal and gas plants to be able to cover their peak demands (which happen during the day), but might use other forms of generation to cover their baseline, constant demands (the lowest demand ever gets).
Nuclear is cheap, clean (except for the used fuel), and generally excellent. It's two man issues are bad PR, which makes it really, really hard to get new plants built (a side effect of which is that most of the US's nuclear plants are nearing or past the ends of their supposed lives), and the fact that you don't turn of nuclear plants. Ever. Nuclear generates a constant stream of cheap power, so power companies like to use it to cover their baseline demands where they can.
One thing that's pretty obviously missing from the graph is hydroelectric, probably because it belongs on the far left side of the graph. Hydro is stupidly cheap. Stupidly. Cheap. The Tennessee Valley Authority generates almost exclusively using hydro and has the lowest electricity costs in the nation (and sells excess to nearby power companies, helping keep them cheap as well). Power companies use it wherever they can. The only problem is that "wherever they can" actually isn't very many places and we're already using pretty much all of them. Again, power companies like to use this power to cover their baseline demand, since rivers don't stop flowing at night.
So, yeah, the graph is misleading at best, because it really doesn't take into account why different generation methods might be used over others.
Starting from the right and moving left on the graph:
Micro wind and solar power aren't really intended to be a cost-efficient method for mass power distribution. Their strength is in being able to generate power where the power is needed, rather than at a central plant. So they're really cool solutions for isolated areas, where consumption is very distributed, such that the costs of maintaining a large distribution network could easily outweigh the cheaper costs of central production using a different kind of generation. Solar and micro wind are great solutions for living in the middle of nowhere, rather than maintaining several tens of thousands of miles of power lines for relatively little power usage. This is assuming that these sorts of generation are actually realistic for a location, though.
Wind power's main strength is that it's both fairly cheap and fairly clean. Wind turbines don't throw out much in the way of pollution and they don't really require more maintenance than a coal plant. It's main drawback is that wind generation can only really be used in areas that get consistent winds from a single direction; pivoting turbines are considerably less efficient. Because of this, it's only realistic to use in certain areas with consistent, straight-line winds. Wind power might generate differently at different times of the day, so power companies can use it in a lot of ways.
Coal and gas power are fairly standard. Put fuel in, get power out. Their main strength is that you can change how much fuel you put in to change how much power you get out. This can't really be done with other methods of generation. Power companies use coal and gas plants to be able to cover their peak demands (which happen during the day), but might use other forms of generation to cover their baseline, constant demands (the lowest demand ever gets).
Nuclear is cheap, clean (except for the used fuel), and generally excellent. It's two man issues are bad PR, which makes it really, really hard to get new plants built (a side effect of which is that most of the US's nuclear plants are nearing or past the ends of their supposed lives), and the fact that you don't turn of nuclear plants. Ever. Nuclear generates a constant stream of cheap power, so power companies like to use it to cover their baseline demands where they can.
One thing that's pretty obviously missing from the graph is hydroelectric, probably because it belongs on the far left side of the graph. Hydro is stupidly cheap. Stupidly. Cheap. The Tennessee Valley Authority generates almost exclusively using hydro and has the lowest electricity costs in the nation (and sells excess to nearby power companies, helping keep them cheap as well). Power companies use it wherever they can. The only problem is that "wherever they can" actually isn't very many places and we're already using pretty much all of them. Again, power companies like to use this power to cover their baseline demand, since rivers don't stop flowing at night.
So, yeah, the graph is misleading at best, because it really doesn't take into account why different generation methods might be used over others.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
lifebaka wrote:
I have some other comments on the 10th graph, because I happen to know a few things about the power industry in the US (and, to a lesser degree, abroad). I'm going to pass on actually quoting Moon for the sake of making this post shorter, though.
Starting from the right and moving left on the graph:
Micro wind and solar power aren't really intended to be a cost-efficient method for mass power distribution. Their strength is in being able to generate power where the power is needed, rather than at a central plant. So they're really cool solutions for isolated areas, where consumption is very distributed, such that the costs of maintaining a large distribution network could easily outweigh the cheaper costs of central production using a different kind of generation. Solar and micro wind are great solutions for living in the middle of nowhere, rather than maintaining several tens of thousands of miles of power lines for relatively little power usage. This is assuming that these sorts of generation are actually realistic for a location, though.
Wind power's main strength is that it's both fairly cheap and fairly clean. Wind turbines don't throw out much in the way of pollution and they don't really require more maintenance than a coal plant. It's main drawback is that wind generation can only really be used in areas that get consistent winds from a single direction; pivoting turbines are considerably less efficient. Because of this, it's only realistic to use in certain areas with consistent, straight-line winds. Wind power might generate differently at different times of the day, so power companies can use it in a lot of ways.
Coal and gas power are fairly standard. Put fuel in, get power out. Their main strength is that you can change how much fuel you put in to change how much power you get out. This can't really be done with other methods of generation. Power companies use coal and gas plants to be able to cover their peak demands (which happen during the day), but might use other forms of generation to cover their baseline, constant demands (the lowest demand ever gets).
Nuclear is cheap, clean (except for the used fuel), and generally excellent. It's two man issues are bad PR, which makes it really, really hard to get new plants built (a side effect of which is that most of the US's nuclear plants are nearing or past the ends of their supposed lives), and the fact that you don't turn of nuclear plants. Ever. Nuclear generates a constant stream of cheap power, so power companies like to use it to cover their baseline demands where they can.
One thing that's pretty obviously missing from the graph is hydroelectric, probably because it belongs on the far left side of the graph. Hydro is stupidly cheap. Stupidly. Cheap. The Tennessee Valley Authority generates almost exclusively using hydro and has the lowest electricity costs in the nation (and sells excess to nearby power companies, helping keep them cheap as well). Power companies use it wherever they can. The only problem is that "wherever they can" actually isn't very many places and we're already using pretty much all of them. Again, power companies like to use this power to cover their baseline demand, since rivers don't stop flowing at night.
So, yeah, the graph is misleading at best, because it really doesn't take into account why different generation methods might be used over others.
is part of my studies but i wanted to keep it simple. =)
gj, +rep.
You need to log in before commenting.
<Member>