Since all of you are are producing 3+tons of carbondioxide.

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
anyone get the memo about the temperature of mars increasing by ~0.5 C

That's igoratio elenchi Fenix.

Jupiter rasises surface temp 25c per mont, that means it's okay when in 2 years we've increased surface temperature by 10c?

ben

exdeath is a fool, don't reply to him anymore.

Rogo

It's ignorant because it's not what you want to hear and doesn't support your argument. Ignore anything that is inconvenient. :laugh:

And if Jupiter's temp raises 25c and ours raises 10c, and Mars goes up 5c thats called a trend and shows that warming is constant through the solar system. There isn't much our insignificant feeble human powers can do about it is there?

Coincidentally, that Mars is predominately C02 in it's atmosphere, like 95% and has increased it's temps by the least compared to Earth and Jupiter... is hilarious and makes a mockery of the global warming proponents.

I don't need to start researching hard evidence against you yet. I'm kicking your ass well enough with common sense and simple scientific observations.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,081
10,883
136
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
anyone get the memo about the temperature of mars increasing by ~0.5 C

That's igoratio elenchi Fenix.

Jupiter rasises surface temp 25c per mont, that means it's okay when in 2 years we've increased surface temperature by 10c?

ben

exdeath is a fool, don't reply to him anymore.

Rogo

mars resembles earth more than jupiter does. heightened solar activity = higher temps. we've seen throughout history periods of temperature fluctuation, and DT just had an article about solar activity causing global warming.

i'm not saying we shouldn't reduce emissions, as a cleaner earth is definitely better for everyone and everything, but it's not going to cause weather events from "the day after tomorrow" any time soon.
 
Jan 31, 2002
40,819
2
0
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
exdeath is a fool, don't reply to him anymore.

Rogo

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
reply goes here
Rogo

I'd tell you to go die in a fire, but that would produce too much carbon emission. So how about returning to the earth more quietly and drowning yourself?

- M4H
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
You just keep acting like I'm clueless instead of providing any evidence. Because there is no evidence, it is a theory that cannot be validated just like the existence of a god can be validated.

I've linked one U.N. source-you've posted nothing to refute that global warming isn't empirical. When you post anything about GW that is based on primary source material I'll read it.

I have to ask you again-what is your educational level?

Rogo

I am 3/4 of the way to graduation with a 4.0 GPA in Comp Sci, Electrical Engineering, and Physics.

And you said you harvest wheat and bake bread.

Neither of us are really qualified to be talking about atmospherics now are we? :D
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,219
0
0
It's ignorant because it's not what you want to hear and doesn't support your argument. Ignore anything that is inconvenient.

Hey man, I choose not to live the complacent life. I don't ignore anything that impacts my life. I could easily purchase a home in the town, go to the local bar every night, go to the local eagles meetings, and give the finger to my local chamber.

I choose not to do that. I also choose not to support the large agriculture prevelant in this county. I've purchased property in a county that support 'green buy back' and is hydro grid.

I just don't understand why you choose not to understand what is being written about the world you'll have to live in.

Rogo
 

Fardringle

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2000
9,197
763
126
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
I'm not worried at all. I could probably stretch a tank of gas out a month by stepping up my bike commuting. In fact, I may do it just for fun so I can laugh at all the cagers sitting in their cars stuck in traffic burning their precious money. Hell, maybe some of them will free themselves from the shackles of their cars and take to the bike too!

That's a response I was looking for. Even though JM is taking a small step it's more than most of you.

I'm buying a SZ 1000 for my commute.

Rogo


So you're going to spend many thousands of dollars to buy a new scooter (wasting a lot of money) to produce a TINY bit less pollution, and yet the pollution created by making the parts for the bike far outweighs any reduction you might see by burning less gas while riding it.

I'm not saying that efficient vehicles are bad, but buying an entirely new vehicle just because of its fuel efficency when your existing vehicle functions just fine is NOT going to reduce your impact on the environment. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy all over, but is that worth the cost?

 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: Fardringle
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
I'm not worried at all. I could probably stretch a tank of gas out a month by stepping up my bike commuting. In fact, I may do it just for fun so I can laugh at all the cagers sitting in their cars stuck in traffic burning their precious money. Hell, maybe some of them will free themselves from the shackles of their cars and take to the bike too!

That's a response I was looking for. Even though JM is taking a small step it's more than most of you.

I'm buying a SZ 1000 for my commute.

Rogo


So you're going to spend many thousands of dollars to buy a new scooter (wasting a lot of money) to produce a TINY bit less pollution, and yet the pollution created by making the parts for the bike far outweighs any reduction you might see by burning less gas while riding it.

I'm not saying that efficient vehicles are bad, but buying an entirely new vehicle just because of its fuel efficency when your existing vehicle functions just fine is NOT going to reduce your impact on the environment. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy all over, but is that worth the cost?

Yeah, and the nickel and cadmium and alloys for the batteries in hybrids, how much fuel is used to run those giant diesel electric earth movers, to transport them by freighter across the ocean to one side of the world to process and refine, to ship them back to the other side of the world to make into batteries...

Not to mention the industrial mass production of chemicals, synthetic lightweight composites and resins, etc...

Think people.

Energy isn't free, it's going to be consumed somewhere. If it wasn't for thermodynamics there wouldn't be a such thing as an energy crisis.
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,219
0
0
I'm not saying that efficient vehicles are bad, but buying an entirely new vehicle just because of its fuel efficency when your existing vehicle functions just fine is NOT going to reduce your impact on the environment. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy all over, but is that worth the cost?

That's a valid question and response.

I actually chose to purchase a 1989 Saab 900s 5 speed to commute. I spent $600 for a car that gets 36hw 30city.

It needs a water pump-I can replace that for $100.

Warm and fuzzy is offset by my graywater/rainwater collection system. I'm also going to join my local farmersmarket.

Rogo

 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
BTW if fuel ran out, we have renewable natural equivalents we can substitute as high energy density liquid fuels such as alcohol, like the kind that pushes a funny car down the quarter in 6 seconds.

Might require compromise with our food production and land allocation and be less convenient then something that was already in the ground for 1000 years waiting for is, but it's there, it's an alternative, and it's better than nothing.

In other words, all the natural petroleum in the world could be depleted, but we would still be capable of running internal combustion engines and scaring the 'global warming'ists.

:D

On a serious note though, the vegetation used to produce the yeasts and alcohol would intake the C02 emissions and balance the cycle into something nice and tidy and I can still have 700 HP.
 

FleshLight

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2004
6,883
0
71
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
anyone get the memo about the temperature of mars increasing by ~0.5 C

That's igoratio elenchi Fenix.

Jupiter rasises surface temp 25c per mont, that means it's okay when in 2 years we've increased surface temperature by 10c?

ben

exdeath is a fool, don't reply to him anymore.

Rogo

mars resembles earth more than jupiter does. heightened solar activity = higher temps. we've seen throughout history periods of temperature fluctuation, and DT just had an article about solar activity causing global warming.

i'm not saying we shouldn't reduce emissions, as a cleaner earth is definitely better for everyone and everything, but it's not going to cause weather events from "the day after tomorrow" any time soon.

"Solar Activity" (SW radiation) directly causes global warming. The SW radiation that hits the earth's surface is emitted back into space as LW radiation mostly in the form of latent heat (evaporation). But the greenhouse gases trap the LW radiation in the troposphere and thus the earth warms. That's it.
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,219
0
0
BTW if fuel ran out, we have renewable natural equivalents we can substitute as high energy density liquid fuels such as alcohol, like the kind that pushes a funny car down the quarter in 6 seconds.

Post a primary source that validates this claim. Whatever follows, beyond the post of this unsustainable post, needs an empirical source. You have not posted anything like a source that is valid, you've only posted you opinion.

Rogo
 

futuristicmonkey

Golden Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,031
0
76
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey
Originally posted by: exdeath


And hundreds of millions of acres of forest fires that burn in just a few states and volcanic activity like Mt. St. Helens (sp?), have been around for much longer than we have, and pumping more 'oxides' into the air in one natural event than several decades of human industrialization combined.

What is your point?

You seriously MUST be ****** kidding me.

-ben

Why? I know volcanoes aren't as fashionable to crusade against as SUVs. I somehow doubt the crystal clear water and C02 coming out of my exhaust is more harmful than the C0, C02, sulfur, carbon, soot, given off by natural causes.

I also mentioned that other places in the solar system have also experienced unusual climate changes.

You just keep acting like I'm clueless instead of providing any evidence. Because there is no evidence, it is a theory that cannot be validated just like the existence of a god can be validated.

Correlation has screw-all to do with causality. If the temperature on Venus suddenly decides to increased a few orders of magnitude I sure as hell won't care. On the other hand, the earth's natural system of weather is a hell of a lot more complex than that of Venus, and I should say a hell of a lot more important to preserve in its natural state, given the fact that we depend on it to live. Complex tends to indicate delicate, and in the earth's atmosphere a change of only a few degrees does matter.

Regarding the natural emission of pollutants into the air....all I can say is read this. Nature cannot compare to the stupidity of some humans.

Edit: What the hell, might as well crunch some numbers. According to the wiki, the fires burned for about 8 months, consuming roughly 6 million barrels of oil a day. Not all of the fires were burning for the whole time, so to facilitate the math let's just say oil was burned at the max rate of 6mbpd for, say, the equivalent of 4 months. 4 months x 30 days = 120 days. 120 days x 6mbpd = 720,000,000 barrels of oil. There are ~159 litres to a barrel, so the whole disaster burned roughly 114.5 billion litres of oil. Now, the process of converting this volume to a stoichiometric amount is complicated due to the fact crude oil is composed of many different organic compounds. But think: If 114.5 billion litres of oil (a conservative guess, I think) burned, then there would have been an absolute ******-load of oxides and dioxides being pumped into the atmosphere. (the point is, one tonne of coal contributes multiple tonnes of pollutants to the atmosphere)

There is no way in hell nature can compete with that.
-ben
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,219
0
0
I need a woman to design my new kitchen-any of you lovely beasts want to try? So strange that the women on this forum don't chime in when the qualifier is intrinsic. I expected more from gb, mosh, and lw.

Rogo
 

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
why can't politicians come out and say this if this is how they feel?

Because a majority of America's poplulation can't survive without cheap fuel, food, and energy.

When SampSon can't buy food at the local supermarket he'll understand what "self-sufficency" means-and he'll do whatever it takes to acquire food for his family. He's a parasite.

Rogo
I grew up on a farm, my generations before me were farmers. I don't need to hear it from some newage hippie sustenance farmer that I don't have the skills to utilize my land to support myself. The land my family owns has been supporting our entire family tree and beyond for longer than you've been alive and probably longer than your opportunist family has been on this continent. I and at least 10 generations before me have been supporting themselves on nothing more than their land. Do you honestly think you hold some magic secrets that my family tree hasn't been using for hundreds of years? I think you're smug enough to think that you do.

So you have a cute little hobby farm, thinking about setting-up a gray water system and thinking about ajoining a farmers market, wow, really, wow. You're telling someone who's family has been involved in that community for centuries, without the modern conveniences of todays technology. Without generations of knowlege passed down, it appears you would know nothing. So you're 150 years behind my family tree, good for you. Do you really think you're that much better than everyone else? No, you're just better than everyone who doesn't believe in your utopian fantasy. Way to be a community-driven, humanist man.

I could go on about how you're so far behind the curve (but think you're ahead because you discovered the wonders of farming). But I'll spare you that realization, and me the pains of discussing/arguing it with you. Hopefully you will eventually realize how hopelessly dependent you are on modern technology and society in order to run your "farm". Mabey the impending crisis you so hope will come will teach you a few things. Usually they take a couple generations to really sink in and make you adapt, so your grand, or great-grandchildren should have it down to a daily science.

My Grandfather warned me about hypocritically smug people like you. I never believed him, or I didn't want to believe that what he was saying could possibly be true. Well I guess, or know, in the end that man and everyone before him was absolutely right, and that is sad. All I really need to say to you is "Get over yourself, because you're nothing but a mere shadow of generations past". You won't accept that easily, but it's the truth, like it or not. So go farm your fields without beasts of burden and sell your wares at cute little famers markets bolstered by thoes who don't follow your pseudo-purist ways and feel good about yourself. Because in the end the only person who thinks you're the real deal is you.

Glad your welathy and it's to bad that you wish ill will towards the people that bring you food and gas. no gas and you are dead to you dumb moron.
This is coming from someone who holds higher education and white collar jobs in high regard. While at the same time looking down on minorities, the poor and third world countries. You need to get over yourself as well.
The whole point was; in the end the only people on the planet that matter are me, my family and my closest friends. If you have and inkling of vision you will understand this is a cold hard fact in humanity. If you're some bleeding-heart tool, when you are truely confronted with a pivotal decision you will (or should if you have any balls at all) pick the three I mentioned in the statement above.

Rogodin wants (or is convinced) the entire world to collapse and fall back into a time similar to the feudal/dark ages. Even then we were more than just cavemen with rock hewn implements. I'm not sure if he is just arguing semantics, or if he is actually silly enough to be speaking with conviction. Either way I find it amazing, amazingly asinine.
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,219
0
0
Rogodin wants (or is convinced) the entire world to collapse and fall back into a time similar to the feudal/dark ages. Even then we were more than just cavemen with rock hewn implements. I'm not sure if he is just arguing semantics, or if he is actually silly enough to be speaking with conviction. Either way I find it amazing, amazingly asinine

I don't 'argue semantics', that's an inane statement. I' Norwegian (31/32). It's in my blood to work for my family. Vorpvik is my old name. My family still fishes-Halibut and Salmon.

I was landlocked though-I had to 'farm' the soil, not the sea.

Rogo
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: SampSon
"So go farm your fields without beasts of burden"

Hehe, yup, humanity has subsisted for 1000s of years. The industrial and oil revolution only occurred in what, the last 100? Comfort and convenience, that is all. Heaven forbid we have to get our elbows dirty again at some time in the future.

Oxen, steam engines, etc.

We are humans. We will used the tools available to us, starting with the ones that are easiest and most readily attainable (that being oil right now).

When we can't drive our cars we will formulate our own gasoline out of natural and renewable alternatives such as methanol or ethanol.

If that doesn't work, we go back to horses and buggies and use our genetic engineering capabilities to breed horses that are even better stronger and faster than before.

If the planet cannot support everyone, then natural selection will run it's course and populations will drop back to pre-industrialization levels until it can.

In the mean time what SampSon is saying is that he is capable of taking care of himself and his family and providing for his own, and not care what is going on with the rest of the world. If you plunder and pillage his wares because you were unable to cope and provide for yourself, he will shoot you dead to ensure that his family properly retains ownership of the resources they produced.

We are human, surviving and coping is what we do. At least those of us left with survival instinct anyway.
 

Xyclone

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
10,312
0
76
If fuel runs out, then I will be a damn good bicyclist. For now, I can survive with those ridiculous prices (unless they reach $5/gal or more, like in Europe).
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,219
0
0
We are human, surviving and coping is what we do. At least those of us left with survival instinct anyway.

What is the modern survival instinct? Do you know intrinsically the most efficacious way to raise spelt? Does it instill the ability to smelt, still, and cultivate?

I highly doubt it. You two are 'city boys'.

Without the skills of your greatgrandfathers (which were more than likely SEWING), you're fvcked.

I've give you some butter though ;)

Rogo
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,088
722
126
Rogo, you require evidence from anybody that disagrees with you, but you still have shown nothing that says our oil is in imminent danger of drying up.

I'll give you a hint why: It's not.

As I said earlier, new sources of oil are just now becoming profitable to extract. Sources large enough to dwarf current reserves ie. tar sands, and oil shale.

And, if that's not enough, biodiesels and alcohols can easily be produced to supplement our needs.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
We are human, surviving and coping is what we do. At least those of us left with survival instinct anyway.

What is the modern survival instinct? Do you know intrinsically the most efficacious way to raise spelt? Does it instill the ability to smelt, still, and cultivate?

I highly doubt it. You two are 'city boys'.

Without the skills of your greatgrandfathers (which were more than likely SEWING), you're fvcked.

I've give you some butter though ;)

Rogo

You don't have to be a traditional farmer with a plow and field to enter the wilderness with a pocket knife and a rifle. Do I know the crops that you might know? Maybe not.

But I don't need a lighter to start a fire like a 'city boy' Did you know that prickly pear pads, and not just the fruits, are edible? Go for the younger pads though, the older ones can be a little bitter.

If I need butter or grain, and it's easier to let you make it for me, I'll come up with something you need that you are incapable of producing yourself, and we will trade.

Thats how it works.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: MrPickins
Rogo, you require evidence from anybody that disagrees with you, but you still have shown nothing that says our oil is in imminent danger of drying up.

I'll give you a hint why: It's not.

As I said earlier, new sources of oil are just now becoming profitable to extract. Sources large enough to dwarf current reserves ie. tar sands, and oil shale.

And, if that's not enough, biodiesels and alcohols can easily be produced to supplement our needs.

It will be more inconvenient and more costly, that goes without saying. But it's not like we will never ever know the benefits of the internal combustion engine again.

But I'm not going to stop eating out the carton of ice cream in my freezer and leave it sitting there because it's half gone. I'll stop eating it when it's gone.
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,219
0
0
Rogo, you require evidence from anybody that disagrees with you, but you still have shown nothing that says our oil is in imminent danger of drying up.

I've already posted primary source material for solution to 'peak oil', from both the U.S Military, and the U.S. corp of engineers.

Here is a link to the GAO's report (Government Accountability Office).

GAO on Peak Oil Production.

The U.S. economy depends heavily on oil, particularly in the transportation sector. World oil production has been running at near capacity to meet demand, pushing prices upward. Concerns about meeting increasing demand with finite resources have renewed interest in an old question: How long can the oil supply expand before reaching a maximum level of production-a peak-from which it can only decline?

This your own government telling you that you're fvcked ;) Godspeed lads.

Wankers

Rogo

 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,219
0
0
transportation sector

This is how your safeway receives it's stock ;) Once your safeway doesn't have food for your dumb azs to purchase how will you get food lads?

This is what I was trying to explain-but you choose not to listen.

Rogo
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,219
0
0
But it's not like we will never ever know the benefits of the internal combustion engine again.

We won't ever have the capacity to produce cheap energy (without making storage sites radioactive-we dont' have any more sites to store the surpless we already have-unless you want it in your suburbian back yards;))-but we'll still understand the benefits of the internal combustion engines-it will be worthless though.

Rogo