Author Topic: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!  (Read 7140 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Snail

  • SC 5
  • 214
  • Posts: ☂
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
what's with the (seemingly) increased volcanic/seismic activity lately? Weird...
Yeah I was wondering about that too.

 

Offline Colonol Dekker

  • HLP is my mistress
  • Moderator
  • 213
  • Aken Tigh Dekker- you've probably heard me
    • My old squad sub-domain
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
Well, apparently it was going to reach Russian airspace by midnight tonight.(gmt)
 
Also just heard this-
 
The reason so much dust and crap has appeared from Iceland?
 
 
Kerry Catona sneezed.
Campaigns I've added my distinctiveness to-
- Blue Planet: Battle Captains
-Battle of Neptune
-Between the Ashes 2
-Blue planet: Age of Aquarius
-FOTG?
-Inferno R1
-Ribos: The aftermath / -Retreat from Deneb
-Sol: A History
-TBP EACW teaser
-Earth Brakiri war
-TBP Fortune Hunters (I think?)
-TBP Relic
-Trancsend (Possibly?)
-Uncharted Territory
-Vassagos Dirge
-War Machine
(Others lost to the mists of time and no discernible audit trail)

Your friendly Orestes tactical controller.

Secret bomb God.
That one time I got permabanned and got to read who was being bitxhy about me :p....
GO GO DEKKER RANGERSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
President of the Scooby Doo Model Appreciation Society
The only good Zod is a dead Zod
NEWGROUNDS COMEDY GOLD, UPDATED DAILY
http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561198011784807.png

 

Offline StarSlayer

  • 211
  • Men Kaeshi Do
    • Steam
“Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”

 

Offline Nuclear1

  • 211
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
Quote
Quote
omg omg omg, theres Ash!
*snip* Derbyshire

Derbyshire, I choose you! :p
Spoon - I stand in awe by your flawless fredding. Truely, never before have I witnessed such magnificant display of beamz.
Axem -  I don't know what I'll do with my life now. Maybe I'll become a Nun, or take up Macrame. But where ever I go... I will remember you!
Axem - Sorry to post again when I said I was leaving for good, but something was nagging me. I don't want to say it in a way that shames the campaign but I think we can all agree it is actually.. incomplete. It is missing... Voice Acting.
Quanto - I for one would love to lend my beautiful singing voice into this wholesome project.
Nuclear1 - I want a duet.
AndrewofDoom - Make it a trio!

 

Offline Wolfy

  • 27
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
Calm down. It's a bunch of ash, it'll settle down.

Or the volcano will blow and it'll take longer to settle down.

Or it's a super volcano and we're all doomed.

Either way, stop panicking. You're English.

omg omg omg, theres Ash! We're all going to die!!!!!!!!!!!! *looks at sky* nope, still cloudy...

not even got much of that in Derbyshire

but i AM in derbyshire! near the town of Belper to narrow it down :P
Wolfy - Ship Modeler for SBP07

 

Offline Liberator

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 210
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
It's my understanding that most of the glacier on the mountainside has melted causing flooding on it's way to the ocean.  I'm pointing this out because nothing we've got could melt that much ice in that short a period time and it's a reminder of just how small we really are.
So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.

There are only 10 types of people in the world , those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
It's my understanding that most of the glacier on the mountainside has melted causing flooding on it's way to the ocean.  I'm pointing this out because nothing we've got could melt that much ice in that short a period time and it's a reminder of just how small we really are.

If you believe the global warming data (which I imagine you don't), what we've got could instead melt much more ice in a much longer span of time.

 

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
It's my understanding that most of the glacier on the mountainside has melted causing flooding on it's way to the ocean.  I'm pointing this out because nothing we've got could melt that much ice in that short a period time and it's a reminder of just how small we really are.


Volcanic eruptions like this are a one off thing that, with some exceptions dont happen too often. The amount of CO2 being released by human industry is considerably more than the volcanic eruptions in a particular year, that's been conclusively proven. Thing is about GW, it doesn't go in a bang, it gradually creeps.
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key

 

Offline Liberator

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 210
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
The thing about GW that makes me doubt it's veracity as being a manmade change is that back in the 80's, it wasn't carbon(which is quietly being forgotten as being a key building block of life on Earth and essential to the continuance of thus), it was CFC's.  When the CFC's didn't pan out "they", the proponents of man made global warming, disappeared from the general public eye for nigh on to two decades and a few years ago they crawled back out of whatever dank hole they climbed into and latched onto carbon emissions as they're new champion "cause", all the while they're loading the deck of their "data" by placing the sensors they used to collect that "data" in places that are abnormally warm year-round like jet washes at int'l airports and basically places where the pavement and geology cause the heat from the sun to collect and not dissipate into the environment and power the world's air conditioner, the water cycle.  Meanwhile they conveniently didn't place sensors in places where the temperature remained the same or went down like locations far from "civilization" like farms and national parks.  Therefore the "data" is suspect and the supposition that is based on it is also flawed.

You guys are always really eager to rag on me and mine about religion, but GW is as much a religion based on faith in(the minds of sceptics) a dubious idea.
So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.

There are only 10 types of people in the world , those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

Offline blowfish

  • 211
  • Join the cult of KILL MY ROUTER!!!!!!!!!!1
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
Actually a few people have identified carbon emissions as the primary cause of global warming as far back as the '50s.



And you're telling me that we can pump all this stuff into the atmosphere and not have adverse effects?

 

Offline headdie

  • i don't use punctuation lol
  • 212
  • Lawful Neutral with a Chaotic outook
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • Headdie on Deviant Art
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!


Calm down. It's a bunch of ash, it'll settle down.

Or the volcano will blow and it'll take longer to settle down.

Or it's a super volcano and we're all doomed.

Either way, stop panicking. You're English.

omg omg omg, theres Ash! We're all going to die!!!!!!!!!!!! *looks at sky* nope, still cloudy...

not even got much of that in Derbyshire

but i AM in derbyshire! near the town of Belper to narrow it down :P

chesterfield mate
Minister of Interstellar Affairs Sol Union - Retired
quote General Battuta - "FRED is canon!"
Contact me at [email protected]
My Release Thread, Old Release Thread, Celestial Objects Thread, My rubbish attempts at art

 

Offline Colonol Dekker

  • HLP is my mistress
  • Moderator
  • 213
  • Aken Tigh Dekker- you've probably heard me
    • My old squad sub-domain
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
Why the heck don't you guys have a HLP UK meet up?
 
On topic, does anyone know how Iceland is doing?
Campaigns I've added my distinctiveness to-
- Blue Planet: Battle Captains
-Battle of Neptune
-Between the Ashes 2
-Blue planet: Age of Aquarius
-FOTG?
-Inferno R1
-Ribos: The aftermath / -Retreat from Deneb
-Sol: A History
-TBP EACW teaser
-Earth Brakiri war
-TBP Fortune Hunters (I think?)
-TBP Relic
-Trancsend (Possibly?)
-Uncharted Territory
-Vassagos Dirge
-War Machine
(Others lost to the mists of time and no discernible audit trail)

Your friendly Orestes tactical controller.

Secret bomb God.
That one time I got permabanned and got to read who was being bitxhy about me :p....
GO GO DEKKER RANGERSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
President of the Scooby Doo Model Appreciation Society
The only good Zod is a dead Zod
NEWGROUNDS COMEDY GOLD, UPDATED DAILY
http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561198011784807.png

 

Offline Wolfy

  • 27
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
Why the heck don't you guys have a HLP UK meet up?
 
On topic, does anyone know how Iceland is doing?

It's drowning.

http://www.ptinews.com/news/611869_800-evacuated-due-to-flood-risk-near-Iceland-volcano
Wolfy - Ship Modeler for SBP07

 

Offline Wobble73

  • 210
  • Reality is for people with no imagination
    • Steam
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
The thing about GW that makes me doubt it's veracity as being a manmade change is that back in the 80's, it wasn't carbon(which is quietly being forgotten as being a key building block of life on Earth and essential to the continuance of thus), it was CFC's.  When the CFC's didn't pan out "they", the proponents of man made global warming, disappeared from the general public eye for nigh on to two decades and a few years ago they crawled back out of whatever dank hole they climbed into and latched onto carbon emissions as they're new champion "cause", all the while they're loading the deck of their "data" by placing the sensors they used to collect that "data" in places that are abnormally warm year-round like jet washes at int'l airports and basically places where the pavement and geology cause the heat from the sun to collect and not dissipate into the environment and power the world's air conditioner, the water cycle.  Meanwhile they conveniently didn't place sensors in places where the temperature remained the same or went down like locations far from "civilization" like farms and national parks.  Therefore the "data" is suspect and the supposition that is based on it is also flawed.

You guys are always really eager to rag on me and mine about religion, but GW is as much a religion based on faith in(the minds of sceptics) a dubious idea.


CFC's wasn't about Global Warming either, that was more to do with the hole in the ozone layer, allowing more radiation in from the sun.
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
 
Member of the Scooby Doo Fanclub. And we're not talking a cartoon dog here people!!

 You would be well adviced to question the wisdom of older forumites, we all have our preferences and perversions

 

Offline watsisname

Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
Quote
From Liberator:
The thing about GW that makes me doubt it's veracity as being a manmade change is that back in the 80's, it wasn't carbon(which is quietly being forgotten as being a key building block of life on Earth and essential to the continuance of thus), it was CFC's.

First off, the major concern with CFC’s was their detrimental effect on the Ozone layer.  This is immediately obvious when looking at the ozone hole over Antarctica, which is a very well-studied phenomenon.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
And yes, CFC’s do affect global warming, but the central concern is CO2.  There is also methane and water vapor and several other trace gases that do the same.

As for “carbon being a key building block of life on Earth and essential to the continuance of thus”, are you seriously trying to use that logic to say that more CO2 is always better?  *Of course* CO2 is necessary.  It would be ridiculous to state otherwise.  The problem is we are upsetting the natural equilibrium by adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere in such a short time.  This is *not* natural.

Quote
From Liberator:
You guys are always really eager to rag on me and mine about religion, but GW is as much a religion based on faith in(the minds of sceptics) a dubious idea.

No, from what I’ve seen, most of our “ragging” on you is because you make false claims against science without giving any reasonable support for them whatsoever.  It’s as if you think all the scientists who study these subjects for a living are wrong, and yet you don’t even have a sound grasp of said subjects.

The rest of your post is filled with such patent nonsense and unfounded conspiracy theory that I’m not going to waste my time responding to it.
In my world of sleepers, everything will be erased.
I'll be your religion, your only endless ideal.
Slowly we crawl in the dark.
Swallowed by the seductive night.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
The thing about GW that makes me doubt it's veracity as being a manmade change is that back in the 80's, it wasn't carbon(which is quietly being forgotten as being a key building block of life on Earth and essential to the continuance of thus)

This is a very stupid thing to say.

First off, no one is forgetting this. Take an organic chemistry class and you'll rapidly be sick of carbon, that's how important it is.

Water is a key building block of life and essential to the continuance of thus. Is more of it better? Would putting extra water into your body make you better? How about putting more water into the world, would that make everything better too?

Think Before You Post.

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
Righto.

Wall of text alert.

TL;DR - there are neglibible disadvantages from preparing for the adverse effects of fast climate change and significant benefits from developing energy production to replace fossil fuels - namely, fusion power. Ergo, there's no reason not to develope fusion power as fast as possible, and prepare for the worst case scenarios as well as possible.

----

On to business.

Now, there's this thing called carbon cycle. In the beginning of the Earth's history (according to all histories except YEC guys), pretty much all of the carbon was freely distributed in the atmosphere. This is the pretty much fixed amount of carbon - apart from volcanic emissions which have added some of it to the cycle - and it took some time for algae to produce free oxygen into atmosphere so that relative amount of carbon in the atmosphere reduced and majority of it become bound to the cells - dead and alive - of organisms.

During the long long geological history, large parts of that carbon has remained bound in the dead cells of organisms and become fossil fuels as we know them. So that's a chunk of carbon that has been off from the cycle for quite a sizeable amount of time, and it's not exactly an irrelevant part of it either.

Now if all that carbon were to be burned and released into atmosphere as CO2, I don't know the exact percentage of it in atmosphere and I'm unwilling to make uneducated guesses.

What I do know is that there are very little arguments for this NOT affecting the climate and thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere.


The largest single threat of this is runaway greenhouse effect which would mean that Earth-that-was could no longer sustain our numbers, or much of anything else either as the oceans would vaporize, dissolve into oxygen and hydrogen, and the hydrogen would be blown away by solar wind. That's the absolute worst case scenario.

One could argue that hey, since that block of carbon was in the atmosphere to begin with and Earth didn't turn out as another Venus, we'll be fine. However there are two flaws in this reasoning:

1. Surplus of carbon from volcanic activity during billions of years
2. Increase of Sun's radiation output.

So this possible (though hopefully unlikely) threat can't just be swept away. I don't want to make badly argumented guesses as to how possible it would be, but it can't really be disproven either so it has to remain in the list of possible outcomes of continued carbon release.


The other outcomes, even if the climate warming doesn't get into positive feedback loop akin to Venus, are not that favourable either. Change itself is a natural part of the climate and it's pretty well documented and historically accepted that there have been much warmer and colder times than present during our planet's history.

What is the problem is the very, very rapid increase of amount of carbon in active cycle caused by widespread usage of fossilized hydrocarbons which is, actually, unprecedented in the history of Earth - until now, the carbon buried in the crust of Earth has pretty much stayed there for very long time, if not virtually forever.

This means a comparatively rapid change in composition of Earth's atmosphere is occurring. At the moment, the amount carbon dioxide isn't anything unforeseen in the history of Earth (there have been times with higher CO2 concentrations) but I think the speed of the change is.

This means that it is also possible that the speed of climate change will be unforeseen as well. It is true that we lack the data to confirm or falsify this possibility with very good certainty, but let's endeavour the results of this possibility.

On general level: Rapid climate change leaves no time to adapt to it, for either humans or other species and biosystems on the planet. This will lead to widespread extinction that will be especially hard on specialized species and long-lived species which are slow to reach fertility and have long generations (thus having longer evolutionary response time to changes).

From humanity's perspective, a rapid climate change can cause correspondingly rapid changes in weather patterns and the dreaded sea level. The problems associated with rise in sea level are obvious - there are a lot of people and infrastructure stuck on the current coastlines. Flooding of these areas would lead to large relocations and economical problems as ports would have to be re-built on new locations, large cities and their industry would be submerged, problems from this alone would be huge.

The change of weather patterns would potentially be even larger hazard. If the distributions of precipitation were to remarkably change, it would leave to even more relocations as previously fertile areas might not be fit for cultivation any more. Desertification of places like India's or China's large wheat and rice fields would be disastrous - two billion people would be on the move searching for better place to grow their food in from those areas alone. Of course, the most obvious area they might look at is Siberia. One doesn't need to be a genius to predict problems from this sort of thing, were it to happen.

So, if a fast climate change were to happen, it would be a sociological, political, economical, humanitarian disaster of unforeseen proportions and there's no denying that. There is an "if" associated to the climate change itself and its speed, but the results of it actually happening should be largely obvious.

From ecological point of view, as said, it would disrupt practically all ecosystems on Earth, eradicate almost all specialized species, put a heavy toll on biodiversity globally and generally make the nature a few notches less interesting and vivacious, for at least a couple hundred thousand or million years. Of course in long term, large scale extinction events open road for new evolutionary steps, but from our perspective this would be irrelevant - losses of nature would be losses for us.

There is hardly any way a fast change in climate could be beneficial for either humans or ecosystems in general. Speed is the problem here.



So these are the main problems associated with the possibility of a fast climate change.


No let's take a look at what we can attempt to prevent the worst from happening.

We can:

-reduce consumption of fossil fuels and other limited resources
-limit population growth

These are partially interconnected. No one wants to drop their standard of living, so either we start being more efficient or there will have to be less of us.

From the perspective of atmospheric composition, limiting the usage of fossil fuels would be the most important thing. However, the energy requirements probably can't be reduced, so research into alternative energy production must be accelerated.

And by this I mean fusion research because that's the only energy source that can offer sustainable production of sufficient energy volume to meet our demands without being unpractical or unrealistic regarding other resources (such as windmills which can't be used as baseline power due to their reliance from weather, or solar power which takes an obscene amount of area to produce enough energy to make a difference).

In fact, I can not fathom why fusion research isn't getting tons of funding from governments, since anyone with a grain of brain in their head should realize these things after thinking them through, but I dunno, maybe exploding other people to bits is considered more productive (although at the moment humanity reproduces faster than they can be offed, so despite valiant efforts it isn't even working for reducing the population).


These are the main things that can and should be done on high level to prepare for and possibly slow down the climate change. On personal level you can try and reduce residential and personal transportation energy consumption by being a bit more frugal and using public transportation or a vehicle with good fuel economy, but you can't really affect the energy consumption of heavy industry, heavy transportation and commercial sector; changes must occur on these sectors as well.




So, there's pretty much the biggest things that can be done to counter (not necessarily prevent or stop) rapid climate change.



Losses from doing these things should the sceptics be correct and climate change not occurring (in our life time):

-some amount of discomfort if you try and consume less
-funds for fusion research away from other public projects

Gains from doing these things should the sceptics be correct:

-we get the fricking fusion power. Shouldn't that be sort of number one target of energy engineering anyway?
-as a result we could limit usage of fossil fuels even if it weren't necessary for the sake of climate stability - this would reduce the amount of particle emissions (which cause a lot of deaths alone) and preserve the stores of fossil fuels for possible future needs.

Gains from doing these things (if climate change is real and as fast as feared):

-working fusion power (long live space race, long live molvania!)
-slowing down or halting rapid climate change, and in general better preparedness for it should it happen


OR, we cold just sit on the pile of coal and let the mother****er burn, infusing the atmosphere with more carbon, hoping that the climate won't change to an unfavourable direction as a result of our actions or lack thereof.

Potential losses from this, should the climate change actually happen fast:

-poor preparedness
-general mayhem (aforementioned possible threats)
-practically irrevocable loss of lots of hydrocarbons that might become useful at some point in the future
-loss of all life on Earth (extreme worst case scenario)

Potential benefits from doing this in case the sceptics are right and the climate isn't going anywhere (in our lifetime):
-compared to present? none, really, unless you count the increased information about the climate and our planet as a benefit.



So all in all, regardless of whether or not the climate change is happening or how fast or not, the benefits from trying to counteract it would be significant in the long run, whereas if we do nothing, we may go on for some time, but it is a mathematical reality that on a finite sized planet there can not be infinite amount of resources, which means at some point we'll run out of fossil fuels anyway - or rather, gathering them will consume more energy than they provide.

At that point it will be necessary to transition to other energy sources anyway, so why not prepare for it as soon as possible...


Curiously, I have never heard or seen any argument why preparing for a rapid climate change as well as possible would be a bad thing. Or in other words how research for reducing fossil fuel usage would be a bad thing.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
Quote
-funds for fusion research away from other public projects

Gains from doing these things should the sceptics be correct:

-we get the fricking fusion power. Shouldn't that be sort of number one target of energy engineering anyway?


Fusion isn't going to be here for another few decades. Until then we still have its younger brother, fission, which also produces no CO2 on its own and is quite efficient, certainly more so than any of the other alternatives (wind, solar, etc) will ever be.
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
Fusion isn't going to be here for another few decades.

I would say that depends entirely on how much effort is put onto it's developement.

At its current pace, I'm inclined to agree with your assessment - it's at lest 15-25 years to the future. But if it suddenly gained a boost in perceived importance, it could very well start driving the research on materials, high-temperature engineering, plasma handling and superconductors instead of being dependant on the discoveries made on these branches of research...

Quote
Until then we still have its younger brother, fission, which also produces no CO2 on its own and is quite efficient, certainly more so than any of the other alternatives (wind, solar, etc) will ever be.

Yes. Even though fission is not a viable long-term replacement to fossil fuels, it's better than other currently available alternatives.

That's why at the moment it would be better to build fission power plants instead of coal combustion power plants, and when fusion power starts being a viable option, replace rest of the fossil fuel combustion power plants with fusion ones, and then shut down fission reactors and start running their generators with fusion reactors...
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline watsisname

Re: Aieeee GET TO THE ARKnowbeforeitstoolate!!
Perhaps we ought to get a thread split for the climate/energy discussion?

Herra, there's only one subject of your post that I have any disagreement on, and that's about the immediate usefullness of solar energy vs. fusion power.  The reasion being that, currently, it takes a huge amount of energy not just to start a fusion reaction, but also to manufacture the equipment involved.  Right now I think the (total) energy input is many orders of magnitude greater than the useful energy output.  That said, I do not disagree that fusion power is a subject that should be getting a great deal more research, because it is theoretically the most clean and powerful means of energy production.  Plus, it's a great investment from a scientific/technological perspective, too.

With solar energy, however, even though it requires a great deal of land space to make a considerable difference, I'd argue that any difference we can make is very beneficial in cutting down our use of coal and various other hydrocarbon fuel sources.  In short, we already have something that works, is rather simple in concept, and has no detrimental effect on the environment... so why not invest in more solar?
In my world of sleepers, everything will be erased.
I'll be your religion, your only endless ideal.
Slowly we crawl in the dark.
Swallowed by the seductive night.