|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
anak krakatoa
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| anak krakatoa
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| mugzilla |
A new volcano is building and getting ready to erupt.
This will throw a major curve in any climate postulations.
Should we try something radical like trying to vent pressure
with a bomb?
Should we just let mother nature run it's course ?
How about turning it into a media event ? |
|
|
| Flick |
| the planet is fine; the people are fucked-- g. carlin |
|
|
| gribnack |
| where is the mountain? and will it affect me driving my big suv that get's 8 miles to the gallon? |
|
|
| mugzilla |
anak (new) krakatoa is in the sumatra straight
does your s u v float? |
|
|
| clonetrooper |
| I bet all that shit going into the air is going to be bad for global warming. Stop driving your cars now. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
| love Indonesia. |
|
|
| BeerPal |
Quote: Originally posted by mugzilla
A new volcano is building and getting ready to erupt.
This will throw a major curve in any climate postulations. |
How do you figure? |
|
|
| Crazytree |
| mt. pinatubo turned the sky red for two months... don't think it made it any warmer though. |
|
|
| mugzilla |
Quote: Originally posted by BeerPal
How do you figure? |
what u have is particulate matter that reflects heat from sun back into outerspace.......might just cool things off when added to particulates from industrial pollution |
|
|
| BeerPal |
Quote: Originally posted by mugzilla
what u have is particulate matter that reflects heat from sun back into outerspace.......might just cool things off when added to particulates from industrial pollution |
I understand how a huge volcanic eruption can affect climate on a planetary scale... what I don't understand is how you figure this particular volcano is gonna do that. |
|
|
| mugzilla |
It is situated on the same site as old krakatoa.
The same conditions exist that blew up the old volcano,
you have a magma chamber w/ relatively light molten rock.
If some of this vents out , hotter denser magma enters the chamber stirs up the mixture and boom . |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
mt. pinatubo turned the sky red for two months... don't think it made it any warmer though. |
If you recall it didn't make it any warmer, in fact it rained and was much cooler the entire summer after it happened. |
|
|
| mugzilla |
O.K. we have this hotspot...It's going to cost a lot of lives and resources when it blows.
So we bring in a liberal government , spend cash on studying the situation and HELPing local entities prepare . This will have the benifit of amassing a nice data base on volcanoes , and the local population.This would showcase Americas ability to be a positive influence , and contribute to education in the local population.
A big ticket item would be bleeding off the energy through geothermal power production . W/ cheap energy and inexpensive
labor this area could be a major source of investment. Once again we will be a positive influence .
I don't know this just seems a better use of our cash , resources , and LIVES. |
|
|
| shocktheballs |
Quote: Originally posted by mugzilla
O.K. we have this hotspot...It's going to cost a lot of lives and resources when it blows.
So we bring in a liberal government , spend cash on studying the situation and HELPing local entities prepare . This will have the benifit of amassing a nice data base on volcanoes , and the local population.This would showcase Americas ability to be a positive influence , and contribute to education in the local population.
A big ticket item would be bleeding off the energy through geothermal power production . W/ cheap energy and inexpensive
labor this area could be a major source of investment. Once again we will be a positive influence .
I don't know this just seems a better use of our cash , resources , and LIVES. |
Are you a total idiot or only 99.9%? We rushed to help the tsunami victims and the world still hated us and still does. Nothing we do there will improve the world's opinion of us, get used to it. |
|
|
| DREAD |
Massive eruption will reverse global warming- big sun shade if you will. Next ice age is up on us. Buy more SUV's if you can. Humans cannot and have not caused global warming.
Cyclical and controlled by far more things than us. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
There is no doubt past eruptions and "events" like the meteor that caused the giant crater on the Yucatan affected the climate, but most of the historic warming and cooling cycles were regional in nature. The reason so many scientists believe the current warming is caused by humans is because:
#1. The current warming is global vs. regional
#2. When they run computer models recreating past climate change, into present times, if they remove the KNOWN human factors, things would have continued without the current spike in warming. Only when they add in those human factors does the model fit.
The earth is used to changing this much over a period of thousands and millions of years, not 200. We have altered the earth's ability to repair itself by causing an extended spike in greenhouse gases that it normally could have dealt with on it's own over a long period of time... |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Again the Flat Earth Society thrives!!
Is Eric Idle the spokesman??? |
|
|
| DREAD |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
There is no doubt past eruptions and "events" like the meteor that caused the giant crater on the Yucatan affected the climate, but most of the historic warming and cooling cycles were regional in nature. The reason so many scientists believe the current warming is caused by humans is because:
#1. The current warming is global vs. regional
#2. When they run computer models recreating past climate change, into present times, if they remove the KNOWN human factors, things would have continued without the current spike in warming. Only when they add in those human factors does the model fit.
The earth is used to changing this much over a period of thousands and millions of years, not 200. We have altered the earth's ability to repair itself by causing an extended spike in greenhouse gases that it normally could have dealt with on it's own over a long period of time... |
How do you model human factors with only 200 years of data? Come on now AB- we have zero to do with the climate here- |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by DREAD
How do you model human factors with only 200 years of data? Come on now AB- we have zero to do with the climate here- |
There is much more than 200 years of data. They can tell you what the quality of the air was thousands of years ago by testing ice, soil, and fossilized plants.
The 200 years ago is when industry really took off and they noticed a distinct change in climate... |
|
|
| DREAD |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
There is much more than 200 years of data. They can tell you what the quality of the air was thousands of years ago by testing ice, soil, and fossilized plants.
The 200 years ago is when industry really took off and they noticed a distinct change in climate... |
And the data in those ice crystals is not that of human interaction- the eruption of the original krakatoa put more pollution into the atmosphere than all of our existance to date has.
My point is- computer models only have 200 years of human recorded data- they are inacurate. The reality, from my perspective, is that the current "warming" is largly a natural cycle.
200 years is too short a period to determine anyting. In the 70's they were predicting an ice age. That was the result of global cooling- |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by DREAD
And the data in those ice crystals is not that of human interaction- the eruption of the original krakatoa put more pollution into the atmosphere than all of our existance to date has.
My point is- computer models only have 200 years of human recorded data- they are inacurate. The reality, from my perspective, is that the current "warming" is largly a natural cycle.
200 years is too short a period to determine anyting. In the 70's they were predicting an ice age. That was the result of global cooling- |
Those things are all taken into consideration. The fact that the air data from thousands of years ago does NOT show the effect of industry only highlights further the affect we are having. In the past the temperature changed over thousands and millions of years. Since the addition of human industry, the same amount of change has taken place over a couple hundred years... The computer models can REMOVE the human effects and that sharp change doesn't happen...
I can get more into specifics later - I am away from home right now, posting from my Treo... |
|
|
| DREAD |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Those things are all taken into consideration. The fact that the air data from thousands of years ago does NOT show the effect of industry only highlights further the affect we are having. In the past the temperature changed over thousands and millions of years. Since the addition of human industry, the same amount of change has taken place over a couple hundred years... The computer models can REMOVE the human effects and that sharp change doesn't happen...
I can get more into specifics later - I am away from home right now, posting from my Treo... |
Please do get more specific |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
If/when it does blow hopefully it'll keep the place cool for a summer or two.
Hate the heat. :D |
|
|
| mugzilla |
Quote: Originally posted by shocktheballs
Are you a total idiot or only 99.9%? We rushed to help the tsunami victims and the world still hated us and still does. Nothing we do there will improve the world's opinion of us, get used to it. |
Yes, I am a total loss
I bet we have a very positive image around the world. Why is
everybody trying to get in?
The effects are debatable . I just wonder if we could tame
anak krakatoa . |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by shocktheballs
Are you a total idiot or only 99.9%? We rushed to help the tsunami victims and the world still hated us and still does. Nothing we do there will improve the world's opinion of us, get used to it. |
The rest of the world doesn't hate Americans(sure the wacko muslims do, but they're fucking insane), the rest of the world likes Americans, and American culture, and your way of life(more or less), what the rest of the world hates is your gov't, and can you really blame them?
And yes no matter what America does there will always be those who coplain, the problem is is they are the only ones you'll ever see any press on. |
|
|
| shocktheballs |
Quote: Originally posted by mugzilla
Yes, I am a total loss
I bet we have a very positive image around the world. Why is
everybody trying to get in?
The effects are debatable . I just wonder if we could tame
anak krakatoa . |
Tame a volcano? Not in this lifetime. |
|
|
| shocktheballs |
Quote: Originally posted by thoroldjames
The rest of the world doesn't hate Americans(sure the wacko muslims do, but they're fucking insane), the rest of the world likes Americans, and American culture, and your way of life(more or less), what the rest of the world hates is your gov't, and can you really blame them?
And yes no matter what America does there will always be those who coplain, the problem is is they are the only ones you'll ever see any press on. |
Wackos don't like anyone, I'll give you that.
Our current government did a fabulous job of turning the 9/11 sympathy into hatred. Until that is fixed, we will have more enemies than friends. Why do you think so many countries are no longer willing to back us up in the UN about some of the countries that are doing things that endanger the world? We are the nosy neighbor to the world. Rather than fixing our own problems, we run around telling everyone else what they should be doing. Nobody likes a nosy neighbor. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by shocktheballs
Are you a total idiot or only 99.9%? We rushed to help the tsunami victims and the world still hated us and still does. Nothing we do there will improve the world's opinion of us, get used to it. |
you're the idiot.
you clearly know exactly shit about Indonesia.
please stick to topics that you have at least 1% knowledge on. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by DREAD
Please do get more specific |
DREAD, I'm not going to insult you by spelling it out like I would for NCMike or cockpirate. I will give you some links and let you look for yourself.
This site is one of the best. You can find many of the myths like the "predicted" ice age discussed here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
This site is run by some of the leading climate scientists, addresses most of the issues raised by skeptics. On the right hand side you can choose the appropriate subject you are looking for:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Here is a something from them on past temperature variation:
Quote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7
Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and the so-called "Hockey Stick"
Filed under:
Climate Science
Paleoclimate
Greenhouse gases
Sun-earth connections
Climate modelling
— mike @ 6:22 pm - ()
Instrumental data describing large-scale surface temperature changes are only available for roughly the past 150 years. Estimates of surface temperature changes further back in time must therefore make use of the few long available instrumental records or historical documents and natural archives or 'climate proxy' indicators, such as tree rings, corals, ice cores and lake sediments, and historical documents to reconstruct patterns of past surface temperature change. Due to the paucity of data in the Southern Hemisphere, recent studies have emphasized the reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere (NH) mean, rather than global mean temperatures over roughly the past 1000 years.
The term "Hockey Stick" was coined by the former head of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern common to numerous proxy and model-based estimates of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature changes over the past millennium. This pattern includes a long-term cooling trend from the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" (broadly speaking, the 10th-mid 14th centuries) through the "Little Ice Age" (broadly speaking, the mid 15th-19th centuries), followed by a rapid warming during the 20th century that culminates in anomalous late 20th century warmth (Figure 1). Numerous myths regarding the "hockey stick" can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites and other non-scientific venues.
Estimates of Northern Hemisphere average temperature changes from climate model simulations employing estimates of long-term natural (e.g. volcanic and solar) and modern anthropogenic (greenhouse gas and sulphate aerosol) radiative forcings of climate agree well, in large part, with the empirical, proxy-based reconstructions. One notable exception is a study by Gonzalez-Rouco et al (2003) that makes use of a dramatically larger estimate of past natural (solar and volcanic) radiative forcing than is accepted in most studies, and exhibits greater variability than other models (Figure 2). Yet, as in all of the other simulations, even in this case unprecedented warmth is indicated for the late 20th century.
The simulations all show that it is not possible to explain the anomalous late 20th century warmth without including the contribution from anthropogenic forcing factors, and, in particular, modern greenhouse gas concentration increases. A healthy, vigorous debate can be found in the legitimate peer-reviewed climate research literature with regard to the precise details of empirically and model-based estimates of climate changes in past centuries, and it remains a challenge to reduce the substantial uncertainties that currently exist. Despite current uncertainties, it nonetheless remains a widespread view among paleoclimate researchers that late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth is anomalous in a long-term (at least millennial) context, and that anthropogenic factors likely play an important role in explaining the anomalous recent warmth. |
The Pew Center on global climate change:
http://www.pewclimate.org/
The Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
Quote:
Fact vs. Fiction on Climate Change
We've just had the coldest day in June -- so much for global warming!
Fiction: Just look at X: it's the coldest day/month/year on record ... or: Region X has cooled by Y°F over the past two years! There is no global warming!
Fact: Statements like the one above are deliberate attempts by climate contrarians to confuse and mislead the public. It's an attempt to disprove the reality of global warming with a cold weather anomaly. This is not only scientific bogus, comparing apples and oranges, but outright dishonesty. Weather is the state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, defined by variables such as temperature, moisture, wind, and barometric pressure. It is highly variable from day to day. By contrast, climate describes long-term weather patterns, with average temperatures and precipitation totals as well as typical occurrences of climatic extremes (such as normal dry periods or tropical storms) being used to characterize the climate for a particular region. This distinction is very important. Averages are always made up of numbers differing from the mean. Global warming is about the average going up. Over time this will make extreme colds become less likely.
Oh, what's a few degrees?
Fiction: A few degrees temperature increase won't matter much, and besides, warmer is better -- fewer cold-related deaths, longer growing seasons, lower heating bills. How many people actually notice the difference between 86 and 88.5°F?
Fact: Considering that in some regions people experience large daily temperature ranges (20-30°F), climate skeptics try to convince the public that global warming by a few degrees is nothing to worry about. This is another version of deliberately confusing weather and climate (see above). A small increase in the average temperature, however, obscures extremes and patterns of warming that are quite troubling: nighttime temperatures increase more than daily averages; there are already and will be more extreme heat but less extreme cold events; poleward latitudes warm more than other areas, etc. While the benefits of warming pointed out in the skeptics argument are certainly among the potential impacts of climate change, the potential negative impacts -- such as heat-related illnesses and deaths, increased heat stress for crops, greater energy needs for cooling etc. -- are strategically omitted. Moreover, it bears emphasis that the difference in global average temperature between the last ice age and the present day is about 9°F! This puts the IPCC's projected range of climate change-related global average temperature increases of 2.5-10.4°F in an entirely different light.
Human CO2 emissions are small compared to natural CO2 exchange.
Fiction: The 4.5% of the world's greenhouse gases that humans generate is insignificant when compared to the 95.5% generated by nature.
Fact: It is indeed true that human emissions of CO2 are a small percentage of the total carbon cycled through the different components of the Earth system: plants, soils, rocks, the oceans, and the air. But these human emissions are by no means insignificant. For the last 420,000 years, until the beginning of the industrial revolution (~1750), this cycle of carbon exchange was in a quasi-stable equilibrium, i.e., the continual release and uptake of carbon kept CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere fluctuating between 180 ppm (parts per million) and 280 ppm. Since 1750, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31%, to a present level of 367 ppm. This increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels and large-scale deforestation and land-use change. These human activities have forced the carbon cycle out of the state of equilibrium and out of the known range of variation.
Satellite temperature records don't show any global warming.
Fiction: Satellite temperature records do not show a warming trend over the past 20 years, and ground-level data are incorrect and exaggerate the warming.
Fact: It is true that temperature records derived from satellites show either less warming than surface temperature data or even a cooling trend. Recent studies (most notably a study by the National Academy of Sciences published in 2000) found, however, that satellite data needed to be adjusted for some measurement and calibration problems. These adjustments bring surface and satellite records into better agreement, both showing a warming trend. It is important to note that many surface temperature records date back to 1860, while satellite records only date back to 1979. With such a short data record, observed trends can be strongly affected by extreme conditions -- such as the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which decreased atmospheric temperatures for several years. In addition, satellite and surface data differ in what they record: surface thermometers measure the air temperature at the Earth's surface, while satellite data take temperatures of different slices of the atmosphere. Including records for the upper atmosphere -- where the depletion of the ozone layer has had a cooling effect -- will lower the overall temperature trends observed from satellites.
The observed warming is all due to solar variation, not human activities.
Fiction: An increase in solar irradiance is the main cause of the Earth's current warming trend. Therefore, reducing fossil fuel emissions would not impact the Earth's temperature.
offsite
Working Group I report
Fact: Current scientific understanding leaves little doubt that the sun's radiant output impacts the Earth's climate on both decadal and centennial time scales. However, it is only one of many components affecting terrestrial climate. According to the findings of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, the warming effect due to increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is estimated to be more than 8 times greater than the effect of solar irradiance.
What about the 19,000 scientists who claim we should not worry about global warming?
Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on climate change. Just look at the 19,000 scientists who signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project.
Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations. |
A good "myth vs. fact" on global warming:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org...hsvFacts_05.pdf
I can give you plenty more, but I think you get the picture.
Also, keep in mind that many of the "scientists" shouting about the "myths" of global warming are on big oil's payroll... Here is a good who's who among warming skeptics and where their money comes from, and a link to an actual Exxon memo stating their plan to hire their own scientists to combat the real research that might hurt their bottom line.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org...FTOKEN=82239168
Also see here for an extensive database of how all the skeptics are connected:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ |
|
|
| clonetrooper |
| Yet these people cannot truly say if it is going to rain tomorrow. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
LOL! No argument there!
But when you paint a picture of the past with tests, it's not that hard to continue the trends and get an idea of what the future will be. And since the TYPE of crap we put into the air has our distinct fingerprints on it, it easy to subtract that from the equation for research sake... |
|
|
| DREAD |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
DREAD, I'm not going to insult you by spelling it out like I would for NCMike or cockpirate. I will give you some links and let you look for yourself.
[/url] |
AB-
Thanks.
I havbe though, seen much of that and heard all of this- I do believe that yes we are warming, but I am only skepticle of our contribution. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by DREAD
AB-
Thanks.
I havbe though, seen much of that and heard all of this- I do believe that yes we are warming, but I am only skepticle of our contribution. |
Fair enough. I do hope you look closer at the sources saying we are not the cause, though. They are a very vocal and well funded minority.
And that's not to say the questions shouldn't be asked, just that they should put their research through the same processes as the other scientists... as of yet they are not... |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
just a silly observation, but every time i see this thread title I think it says "Anal Krakatoa"
the ass volcano does sound like something we should be concerned about. :D |
|
|
| mugzilla |
| ass volcano...sounds like fbi code name 4 bush |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
| I ate some hot pepper sauce once and the next day I felt like my ass had hot lava squirting out. The sauce's tag line is, "So Hot it'll Burn ya Twice" which I did not understand until the next day. |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by Turbo_Nerd_Eric
I ate some hot pepper sauce once and the next day I felt like my ass had hot lava squirting out. The sauce's tag line is, "So Hot it'll Burn ya Twice" which I did not understand until the next day. |
http://hotsauce.com/detail.aspx?ID=877 |
|
|
| mugzilla |
habaneros r duh kine....
I make fresh w/ habs onion...lotsagarlic...hot radishes,carrots |
|
|
| mugzilla |
Quote: Originally posted by shocktheballs
Tame a volcano? Not in this lifetime. |
how about a bunker buster ...to relieve the pessure
since we have a spot where heat from the interior is so close to the surface couldn't we use it.... |
|
|
| maxhazerd |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Fair enough. I do hope you look closer at the sources saying we are not the cause, though. They are a very vocal and well funded minority.
And that's not to say the questions shouldn't be asked, just that they should put their research through the same processes as the other scientists... as of yet they are not... |
AB makes a very good point. There are small increases in temperature seen in regional areas around the globe, but most of those increases are based on development (increase in population that results in more buildings, asphalt, etc). In fact they have documented small increase in temperature around airport runways due to the thermal effect of the asphalt. The problem that arises when trying to determine global warming is that there are global monitoring stations all over, but they lack the appropriate mathematical formula to accurately determine a true cause and effect relationship to the by-products of industrialized society and golbal warming. They have used weather satellites and thermal imaging to determine global temperatures have have only noticed a change of 1.5 degree difference since 1979 (when they first started using weather satellites). |
|
|
|
|
|
