SETI@HOME Causes Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
BillR said:
Germanium wasn’t used in transistors until much later and although cheap to produce they were not reliable and eventually were replaced with silicone.
Click to expand...

Cool, so the aliens gave us big boobs, too?




 
Simpson5774 said:
Not that I don't think seti is a nobel cause, because it is.
Click to expand...

i´m not trying to be a killjoy here, but what if tomorrow SETI@HOME discover intelligent alien life? what happens after that? besides them changing to Folding@Home that is ;)
 
leSLIe said:
i´m not trying to be a killjoy here, but what if tomorrow SETI@HOME discover intelligent alien life? what happens after that? besides them changing to Folding@Home that is ;)
Click to expand...

What would happen? Nothing. The aliens wouldn't be making hotel reservations at the Hilton any time soon.

Plus, the SETI dudes would keep looking and analyzing and looking and whatever else they do.
 
I love how full of [H] facts all you computer enthusiasts are. Let's all baffle a bunch of scientific research by pulling crap we heard on TV or from our neighbor out of our ass and waving it around for everyone to see!!!

:)

Laughing to myself at the ignorance of anyone who still believes that the climate isn't currently changing, that our actions don't directly affect what is basically a closed system we're dumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into that simply have historically only existed in periods of great cataclysm that caused massive extinctions, or that thousands of the worlds most reknowned and respected scientists are simply making up a bunch of shit in order to justify their paychecks which just so happens to corroborate eachother!

You guys are nuttier than the 9/11 truthers.

It's ok, go back to your Sunday television where you get a college degree about the climate from some reporter spouting things an "expert" advises him of who just happens to be working studies bank rolled by an oil company or major carbon producer.

:|

Just stick your head in the sand for long enough and when you pull it out you can pretend the world has always been that way it'll be ok! Change is pretty scary I know.

Climate change isn't a political issue, and all you neanderthals need to get it out of your head that it is, climate change is a scientific issue well beyond the scope of petty argument by a bunch of faux scientists who obviously have little to no knowledge about the field of science within which they're attempting to assert their expertise.

Here is a guide for those of you still in denial of the science behind the climate's current state, and why your beliefs are contrary to science.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
 
being realistic equates to being a neanderthal now? darn. guess i should evolve a bit


or not...
 
schenksmill said:
being realistic equates to being a neanderthal now? darn. guess i should evolve a bit


or not...
Click to expand...

No, evading overwhelming logic, reason and science based purely on your gut feeling that tells you you're being realistic is what makes you a neanderthal.

failcamerawn8.jpg
 
Yeah... I guess you could say the same about your username here... :rolleyes:
 
I'll be perfectly honest....
Do I think global warming exists? Yes.
Do I think it's a big deal? No.

Basing any of the "negative" effects of global warming on a few degrees increase in temperature is purely speculative at best.

Saying that tropical systems will suddenly become uber-storms is ridiculous. Saying that there will be longer periods of low rainfall is ridiculous. Weather systems are effected by far more than an increase in temperature.

As far as increase in sea surface levels is concerned, we will have to see melting of completely land based ice pack to see any sea surface increase. In that sense, considering that the Antarctic ice pack has been seen to be INCREASING, rather than decreasing, we will have to depend on the ice packs of the northern hemisphere to dramatically increase the sea surface level. In this case, you can discount a large portion of the arctic ice mass which is completely ocean based, and will not cause an increase in sea surface levels. This leaves basically Greenland, parts of Canada, and parts of Siberia, which in total end up providing less ice than those areas in Antarctica.

Even IF some areas have their climates change negatively, other areas will have it change positively. I highly doubt you'll see people in cold weather regions like parts of Canada and Siberia complain about a longer, more profitable growing season. Hell, right there we could more than likely offset any loss in farm lands in speculatively dryer areas.

Edit: This is all of course assuming that this isn't part of the overall cycle that the Earth has gone through and will continue to go through until it's blasted from the face of the universe.
 
Teknikallysekure said:
I love how full of [H] facts all you computer enthusiasts are. Let's all baffle a bunch of scientific research by pulling crap we heard on TV or from our neighbor out of our ass and waving it around for everyone to see!!!

:)

Laughing to myself at the ignorance of anyone who still believes that the climate isn't currently changing, that our actions don't directly affect what is basically a closed system we're dumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into that simply have historically only existed in periods of great cataclysm that caused massive extinctions, or that thousands of the worlds most reknowned and respected scientists are simply making up a bunch of shit in order to justify their paychecks which just so happens to corroborate eachother!

You guys are nuttier than the 9/11 truthers.

It's ok, go back to your Sunday television where you get a college degree about the climate from some reporter spouting things an "expert" advises him of who just happens to be working studies bank rolled by an oil company or major carbon producer.

:|

Just stick your head in the sand for long enough and when you pull it out you can pretend the world has always been that way it'll be ok! Change is pretty scary I know.

Climate change isn't a political issue, and all you neanderthals need to get it out of your head that it is, climate change is a scientific issue well beyond the scope of petty argument by a bunch of faux scientists who obviously have little to no knowledge about the field of science within which they're attempting to assert their expertise.

Here is a guide for those of you still in denial of the science behind the climate's current state, and why your beliefs are contrary to science.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Click to expand...


Damn I love a smug post.

I don’t recall anyone saying the climate wasn’t changing. Pretty much everyone agrees on that part.

You made the statement; “our actions don't directly affect what is basically a closed system”

The earth is not housed in a bell jar. That thing we see every day in the sky is called the Sun. As far back as Galileo, who was by the way the first to both notice and record data on sun spots, we have documentation from then till now that sun spot activity plays a direct roll in our climate.

Cosmic rays coming from other places then the sun (read other stars) are now also being measured hourly, daily etc and have been shown to have had and continue to have an effect on our climate. This has only been happening over millions of years and the core samples taken all over the earth of course mean nothing, right?

The rest of any possible discussion belongs in GenMay, not here.

All that said, the only “closed system” here will be fixed when you remove your head from your ass.



 
schenksmill said:
I'll be perfectly honest....
Do I think global warming exists? Yes.
Do I think it's a big deal? No.

Basing any of the "negative" effects of global warming on a few degrees increase in temperature is purely speculative at best.

Saying that tropical systems will suddenly become uber-storms is ridiculous. Saying that there will be longer periods of low rainfall is ridiculous. Weather systems are effected by far more than an increase in temperature.

As far as increase in sea surface levels is concerned, we will have to see melting of completely land based ice pack to see any sea surface increase. In that sense, considering that the Antarctic ice pack has been seen to be INCREASING, rather than decreasing, we will have to depend on the ice packs of the northern hemisphere to dramatically increase the sea surface level. In this case, you can discount a large portion of the arctic ice mass which is completely ocean based, and will not cause an increase in sea surface levels. This leaves basically Greenland, parts of Canada, and parts of Siberia, which in total end up providing less ice than those areas in Antarctica.

Even IF some areas have their climates change negatively, other areas will have it change positively. I highly doubt you'll see people in cold weather regions like parts of Canada and Siberia complain about a longer, more profitable growing season. Hell, right there we could more than likely offset any loss in farm lands in speculatively dryer areas.

Edit: This is all of course assuming that this isn't part of the overall cycle that the Earth has gone through and will continue to go through until it's blasted from the face of the universe.
Click to expand...


Well, assuming you're correct in your assertions above how do we deal with the impact this has on the oceans? We're nearing a point of instability with the reefs that has never been seen in our lifetimes that would have an indefinite drastic impact on a major foodsource for the entire planet.

You are correct in regards to Antarctica gaining ice, IN SOME LOCATIONS, while losing ice in others. This phenomenon is described here http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648 in the links I included above. If you choose to ignore the fact that Greenland is not experiencing the same phenom. as Antarctica and consider the current rate of ocean water return the IPPC concludes not even a meter of sea rise by 2100. The fact is though, that you simply don't know what the result of permafrost changes will have on the overall species variety that inhabit those areas, or the chain reaction that will be caused as a lack of their ability to cope with that. I would cite the problems being experienced throughout several forests all over the Southern American coastline with beetle issues entirely because of an additional week and a half of summer allowing the beetles to reach much further than possible before decimating forests. It's expected that some species of tree are going to go extinct as a result of this in the coming decade, which will result in a massive net loss of available resources to the humans who need them, as well as a lack of ability to renew those renewable resources.


However I think you're deluding yourself if you think you can predict the possible pitfalls to our species of such a drastic change, or how quickly a chain reaction of events can lead to a much more rapid melting. Obviously noone is sure of anything as we never will be this science is literally much larger than all of us. Simply scoffing at the idea that we're facing an imminent danger which could really fuck alot of us over for generations to come however is highly irresponsible, and lends to ignorance far exceeding your current understanding of things*(thank you for offering a congnicent(sic) retort).

Kyoto may very well be a stupid ideal to attain, but the reality is is that sooner or later regardless to the varying degree of damage we do and how rapidly it begins to fuck our species over we have to advance in a fashion that allows us to overcome this fundamental issue within the next 100 years if we're to survive. It's that simple, and I think only the most ignorant of people(or those with a religious bias who believe we'll be magically whisked away before it matters into the sky wizards arms) could go through life without caring the least bit about the results of excesses they take which are having a profoundly negative impact on the environment they're passing their children.

Parts of Canada and Siberia that become available with longer summers and or springs will also be susceptible to massive deforestation as a result of what I've cited above, and this misnomer is also dealt with in those links I posted earlier. While it's a nice theory you've got, it simply doesn't work that way. Those areas have species abundant to predictable weather patterns that they've evolved to thrive in, and will not continue to thrive in such a way(the result is deserts...not the tasty kind).

I guess you could assume that's going to result in everything being just dandy, if you happen to live in an area that's positively affected, but if you don't imagine that this can result in tumultuous political pressure as a result I think you're high.

More to the point, why worry about any of this bullshit if it's well within our capabilities to change and prevent these changes in advance in the first place? Simply so you can continue to selfishly live at the current standard of living you've grown accustomed to while a major portion of the world awakens to the reality that they should could and want to have the same thing?

Do you believe for a moment that between India and China we're not going to see a massive expanse of the very effects the US has been largely responsible for permitting over the last several decades?

Your ideology, while reasonable is also a very convenient shield that protects your way of living and personal comfort unrealistically.

Way I see it, we had a good run, the information age is ready to transition to an age where harnessing new energy is the key to success and everyone who's unwilling to adapt to this new era will become empires left behind just like all the previous failures in forward thinking that have become drunk on excess.

History is a good indicator of what we've become.


As far as getting blasted out of the universe, well I'll just cross my fingers on that one.

Thanks again for an intelligent response, my original post was primarily a result of the disgusting ignorance that [H]'ers are waving around like their favorite nascar numbers...

Brilliant!
 
Jon855 said:
We're one of the billions of the billions and maybe of the billions planets out there... I say there are life out there but are they smart, oh hell with it I've no idea but they all cannot be any smarter than Relic himself... They all already have the mojo in their history books... Just be careful when u go to space... OKAY GUYS?
Click to expand...

Mojo causes global warming?




 
BillR said:
Damn I love a smug post.

I don’t recall anyone saying the climate wasn’t changing. Pretty much everyone agrees on that part.

You made the statement; “our actions don't directly affect what is basically a closed system”

The earth is not housed in a bell jar. That thing we see every day in the sky is called the Sun. As far back as Galileo, who was by the way the first to both notice and record data on sun spots, we have documentation from then till now that sun spot activity plays a direct roll in our climate.

Cosmic rays coming from other places then the sun (read other stars) are now also being measured hourly, daily etc and have been shown to have had and continue to have an effect on our climate. This has only been happening over millions of years and the core samples taken all over the earth of course mean nothing, right?

The rest of any possible discussion belongs in GenMay, not here.

All that said, the only “closed system” here will be fixed when you remove your head from your ass.



Click to expand...

Your lack of an attempt to educate yourself based on my post and instead call me smug is really a good indicator that I'm wasting my time here...

but if you'd bothered you'd have noticed on that page I posted several links pointing out WHY you're suggestions of sunspots are lacking scientific wherewithal to stand as any kind of argument against current climate change models.

Which is why I responded so smugly in the first place, because I'm so annoyed with people arguing garbage science they briefly overheard on the news or from some coworker and passing it off as science when none of us are scientists, obviously.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11651

However, I think you'll find that this has been argued quite to death already.

As far as existing in a bell jar, well would you like to explain just what passes in and out of the toposphere for us making it such a porous(sic) system? As I understand it the combination of gravity and magnetic fields currently protecting us are acting as a pretty sturdy shield that prevents our atmosphere from simply dissipating... is there something I'm missing here?

As far as pulling my head out of my ass, you first.
 
relic said:
Bill is an alien...explains the cattle mutilations.
Click to expand...

I am not an alien damnit!

As for the cattle, that only started after the abduction and I have no memory of doing anything untoward with or to cattle. Or sheep.

I do have vague recollections of something having to do with a pig but that was after one bottle of one of Scotland’s best single malts. But as they say, that’s another story:rolleyes:


 
BillR said:
Damn I love a smug post.

I don’t recall anyone saying the climate wasn’t changing. Pretty much everyone agrees on that part.



Click to expand...

My initial response was to NickS saying global warming wasn't real followed by


sure it is.. global warming is very real, it is a natural cycle the earth goes thought...

now then.. did we as humans have any thing to do with global warming.. maybe.. just a little..

did we really dramaticly speed up the process... nope.. maybe buy a few years....tops

This guy.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
I mean, saying stuff like this is equivocal to saying something like.... there are also people living on mars I saw a late night special on it...

and Cows originally could fly, before cavemen came around and started eating their wings or something inane like that.
 
BillR said:
Cosmic rays coming from other places then the sun (read other stars) are now also being measured hourly, daily etc and have been shown to have had and continue to have an effect on our climate. This has only been happening over millions of years and the core samples taken all over the earth of course mean nothing, right?


Click to expand...

I'd be interested in some verifiable links proving this though, as I understand it the core samples show quite a different story than what you're suggesting.
 
Teknikallysekure said:
Your lack of an attempt to educate yourself based on my post and instead call me smug is really a good indicator that I'm wasting my time here...

but if you'd bothered you'd have noticed on that page I posted several links pointing out WHY you're suggestions of sunspots are lacking scientific wherewithal to stand as any kind of argument against current climate change models.

Which is why I responded so smugly in the first place, because I'm so annoyed with people arguing garbage science they briefly overheard on the news or from some coworker and passing it off as science when none of us are scientists, obviously.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11651

However, I think you'll find that this has been argued quite to death already.

As far as existing in a bell jar, well would you like to explain just what passes in and out of the toposphere for us making it such a porous(sic) system? As I understand it the combination of gravity and magnetic fields currently protecting us are acting as a pretty sturdy shield that prevents our atmosphere from simply dissipating... is there something I'm missing here?

As far as pulling my head out of my ass, you first.
Click to expand...


First the Bell Jar comment, then you end a post with;

“My original post was primarily a result of the disgusting ignorance that [H]'ers are waving around like their favorite nascar numbers...

Brilliant!”

With that last comment you appear to have just relegated all [H] members to some sort of lower form of life form as you see it.

Please, go back to Gore school where you really belong and don’t forget to vote for Hillary.

I fear any further discussion would be totally fruitless.

Being the elitist you appear to be and an obvious member of “Gore Forever” club why would you want to have a discussion with anyone from the [H]?





 
schenksmill said:
I'll be perfectly honest....
Do I think global warming exists? Yes.
Do I think it's a big deal? No.

Basing any of the "negative" effects of global warming on a few degrees increase in temperature is purely speculative at best.

Saying that tropical systems will suddenly become uber-storms is ridiculous. Saying that there will be longer periods of low rainfall is ridiculous. Weather systems are effected by far more than an increase in temperature.


Edit: This is all of course assuming that this isn't part of the overall cycle that the Earth has gone through and will continue to go through until it's blasted from the face of the universe.
Click to expand...


^^^ my thoughts, if anything man has speed up something that would happen anyways if we were here or not, but we didnt "cause" it.

Costa Rica has had %50 more rainfall in half the time this year... also this last month of nights being the coldest i have ever felt them in the 5 years i have lived here.
 
BillR said:
First the Bell Jar comment, then you end a post with;

“My original post was primarily a result of the disgusting ignorance that [H]'ers are waving around like their favorite nascar numbers...

Brilliant!”

With that last comment you appear to have just relegated all [H] members to some sort of lower form of life form as you see it.

Please, go back to Gore school where you really belong and don’t forget to vote for Hillary.

I fear any further discussion would be totally fruitless.

Being the elitist you appear to be and an obvious member of “Gore Forever” club why would you want to have a discussion with anyone from the [H]?





Click to expand...

Thank you Bill. :)
 
BillR said:
First the Bell Jar comment, then you end a post with;

“My original post was primarily a result of the disgusting ignorance that [H]'ers are waving around like their favorite nascar numbers...

Brilliant!”

With that last comment you appear to have just relegated all [H] members to some sort of lower form of life form as you see it.

Please, go back to Gore school where you really belong and don’t forget to vote for Hillary.

I fear any further discussion would be totally fruitless.

Being the elitist you appear to be and an obvious member of “Gore Forever” club why would you want to have a discussion with anyone from the [H]?





Click to expand...

I'm sorry, as that would be very ignorant of me, I wasn't relegating ALL [H] members I was talking about the few in this thread parading ignorance as science, and the irony of that coming from a community of people who historically have been very in touch with the scientific community I would've thought that'd be obvious to anyone reading my post, but apparently I didn't simplify that enough for you. I'll try to keep it simpler for you.

What the fuck does any of this have to do with Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton? I'm not a democrat, have never voted for anything resembling socialism and probably never will. Of course, when people like you are uncomfortable with the facts it's always easier to paint with a broader brush, label the facts as your enemy and write them off isn't it? Nevermind bothering with the truth or reality... just blame it all on whatever opposing political party you happen to dislike.

Al Gore has about as much to do with the facts behind and science behind global warming as the sportscaster announcing a game does with the outcome, and frankly you sound like a dumbass to me for even involving some political spin on what was a scientific discussion.

Call me an elitist all you please, I'm distributing factual science in the face of ignorance in a discussion, while you're pandering to political ideologues. Frankly your contribution so far to this conversation has been so pointless I'm not going to continue to respond to it.

If that isn't smug, I don't know what is.
 
How this discussion has to do with distributed computing ???... Go rant elsewhere, not here. Even if we care about global warming, doing any distributed computing has no real effect on the changes, other ways does.

Unstick your head from your ass so you can look at the right place to discuss. I'm asking Lethal to close this useless thread.

 
Teknikallysekure said:
I love how full of [H] facts all you computer enthusiasts are. Let's all baffle a bunch of scientific research by pulling crap we heard on TV or from our neighbor out of our ass and waving it around for everyone to see!!!

:)

Laughing to myself at the ignorance of anyone who still believes that the climate isn't currently changing, that our actions don't directly affect what is basically a closed system we're dumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into that simply have historically only existed in periods of great cataclysm that caused massive extinctions, or that thousands of the worlds most reknowned and respected scientists are simply making up a bunch of shit in order to justify their paychecks which just so happens to corroborate eachother!

You guys are nuttier than the 9/11 truthers.

It's ok, go back to your Sunday television where you get a college degree about the climate from some reporter spouting things an "expert" advises him of who just happens to be working studies bank rolled by an oil company or major carbon producer.

:|

Just stick your head in the sand for long enough and when you pull it out you can pretend the world has always been that way it'll be ok! Change is pretty scary I know.

Climate change isn't a political issue, and all you neanderthals need to get it out of your head that it is, climate change is a scientific issue well beyond the scope of petty argument by a bunch of faux scientists who obviously have little to no knowledge about the field of science within which they're attempting to assert their expertise.

Here is a guide for those of you still in denial of the science behind the climate's current state, and why your beliefs are contrary to science.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Click to expand...


lol, man after reading your posts, you really are an ass wipe.

I think everyone here agrees that the climate is changing, will the people in FL be screwed, yes, is the increase in Hydocarbons and CO2 the cause? That would be a harder argument to make.

I definitely think the rise in greenhouse gases is playing a role in the temperature rise (small or significant), I do not know. Ice ages have occurred in cycles about once every 30k years. Milankovitch theory accredits the change in the earths climate to the earths orbit cycle. During warm periods, the Earth is at it most elliptical orbit and during the ice ages, it is at its most circular orbit.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

Zack
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top