Tearloch7 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I, personally, would be heading north. Possibly towards the coast. Food source, fresh water, shelter, and seclusion are the things I would look for. I think typical agriculture would be difficult to depend on, so wild meat and wild plants would be best. Fish is probably the easiest meat to get without a rifle, and whether I had one or not ammo would be limited, so it would be only used out of necessity. I think the key would be to live as close to how the natives lived before we got here, rather than trying to lean on modern inventions and stocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Explosives for fishing is the way to go .. don't kill anymore than you can process tho .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Yes , yes Fox news the pinnacle of ethical journalism. Better break out the ole hairspray cans and crank my cars AC this year, were all good ! Seriously though man occupies 1% of total land mass and in the last 125 years we have eaten hundreds of millions of buffalo, deer, elk, caribou, cows, moose, sheep, fish(in the quadrillions), chickens(in the trillions). We genetically modify every last consumable, marketable, organic or naturally occurring substances on the earth and deny the fact we have an effect on our ecosystem. ? That being said I fully agree with Heretic that global warming is mainly a naturally occurring process. We have been measuring temperature semi accurately since 2000? We have no clue what the weather patterns were like 25000, 100000, or even a million years ago. Global warming is real , no denying it but we are not the root cause by any means. Top 10 causes of greenhouse gas emissions are as follows: 10. Sulfuryl Fluoride: The new kid on the block, MIT scientists identified this chemical as a greenhouse gas on March 11th, 2009. Used as a fumigant, Dow Chemicals produces sulfuryl fluoride to kill termites. The chemical, which is highly inert, has a lifetime of up to 40 years, and traps 4,800 times more heat per molecule than CO2. The chemical only exists in 1.5 parts per trillion in the atmosphere, but according to the recent Journal of Geophysical Research, that number is going up by 5 percent a year. 9. Trichlorofluoromethane: This refrigerant has the dubious honor of contributing to warming on two fronts. Not only does trichlorof luoromethane retain heat 4,600 times better than carbon dioxide, but it also depletes the ozone layer faster than any other refrigerant. The high ozone-depletion rate results from trichlorofluoromethane’s tendency to shed chlorine molecules when struck with ultraviolet light. Chlorine, of course, is also a deadly toxin. 8. Sulfur Hexafluoride: Primarily used in the electronics industry as an insulator, this inert gas moonlights as a tracer for experiments around the wind dispersal of toxic gases during terrorist attacks. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) deemed sulfur hexafluoride the world’s most powerful greenhouse gas, with the chemical weighing in at a stout 22,200 times more heat trapping than CO2. 7. Hexafluoroethane: A chemical used in the creation of semiconductors, hexafluoroethane is the Methuselah of greenhouse gases. While some chemicals linger in the atmosphere for mere decades, hexafluoroethane sticks around for 10,000 years. That longevity, combined with heat retention 9,200 times greater than carbon dioxide, makes hexafluoroethane a chemical the IPCC keeps a close eye on. 6. Trifluoromethane: Trifluoromethane, also called fluoroform, serves two purposes, finding use in the etching of silicon computer chips and as a fire suppressant. By far the most abundant of the hydrofluorocarbons, trifluoromethane has an atmospheric lifetime of 260 years and traps 11,700 times as much heat as carbon dioxide. 5. Ozone: Usually when ozone comes up in the climate debate, the talk centers on a general lack of it. In fact, ozone is also a potent greenhouse gas. But because ozone isn’t equally distributed around the globe, we have simultaneously too much of it (man-made ozone in the lowest part of the atmosphere traps heat and warms the planet), and too little of it (fluorocarbons deplete ozone in the upper atmosphere responsible for shielding the ice caps from solar radiation). 4. Nitrous Oxide: By far the most fast and furious of the greenhouse gases, nitrous finds uses in rocket fuel, making cars more awesome, and as a recreational drug. However, those indulging in huffing and street racing should be aware that laughing gas ranks as the fourth leading cause of the greenhouse effect. 3. Methane: The main component of natural gas and cow farts, methane comes in as the number three worst offending greenhouse gas. The IPCC freely admits that it does not fully understand the methane cycle, and identifies methane release as coming from natural sources like swamps and termites, and from man-made sources like landfills and cow farms. 2. Carbon Dioxide: Despite getting all the press, carbon dioxide only ranks as the second largest contributor to global warming. Let’s reiterate that CO2 is a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels as well as cellular respiration, and carbon dioxide generated by respiration, and carbon dioxide generated by human industry 1. Water Vapor: Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam accounts for 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 More crucially, to deal with the effects of anthropogenic global warming effectively, there has to be systematic changes. Government cannot do anything unless the general population understands the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 That being said I fully agree with Heretic that global warming is mainly a naturally occurring process. We have been measuring temperature semi accurately since 2000? We have no clue what the weather patterns were like 25000, 100000, or even a million years ago. Global warming is real , no denying it but we are not the root cause by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 That works great until you run out of explosives that you had to carry with you where ever you went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 1) There is no credible evidence suggesting that the current warming is due to natural changes, while there are very solid evidences that the CO2 injected into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuel burning can have a very significant effect on the climate. 2) Most "modern" land based instrumental data sets goes back to pre-1900, and thus we have more than a century of data. Satellites have been providing round the clock temperature data since 1979. With proxy data (e.g. tree rings/sediments) we have fairly good understanding of the climate history dating back to 10,000's year ago. In particular data from the last glacial maximum period (26500-20000 years ago) was used as a check to see how sensitive the climate is to changes, and it supports that anthropogenic CO2 can cause significant changes to the climate. With ice core proxy we have a sense of what happened over the past 400,000 years. In fact global temperature estimates starts from 500 million years ago (Note that the time scale on the bottom is nonlinear, so rates of change in the past has been greatly exaggerated): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I'd mention the climategate emails that were hacked where scientists were found to be starting with a conclusion and skewing the data to support it, but then someone will turn around and say that those scientists were all vindicated in some hearing, at some place and at some point, which determined that they were just 'horsing around' or something like that. So we'll just move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucklehead Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Hahahaha, 'believe' in. Next they'll be debating about gravity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 So you're saying you buy the official story on gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 1) There is no credible evidence suggesting that the current warming is due to natural changes, while there are very solid evidences that the CO2 injected into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuel burning can have a very significant effect on the climate. 2) Most "modern" land based instrumental data sets goes back to pre-1900, and thus we have more than a century of data. Satellites have been providing round the clock temperature data since 1979. With proxy data (e.g. tree rings/sediments) we have fairly good understanding of the climate history dating back to 10,000's year ago. In particular data from the last glacial maximum period (26500-20000 years ago) was used as a check to see how sensitive the climate is to changes, and it supports that anthropogenic CO2 can cause significant changes to the climate. With ice core proxy we have a sense of what happened over the past 400,000 years. In fact global temperature estimates starts from 500 million years ago (Note that the time scale on the bottom is nonlinear, so rates of change in the past has been greatly exaggerated): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 But there have been climate changes in the past - right? http://myweb.wwu.edu...ns-climate.html This one in particular is an interesting read: http://myweb.wwu.edu...atic-cycles.pdf "The global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of the profound climate reversals over the past 15,000 years." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 All weather instruments worldwide have been recalibrated since 2000. Wind chill, actual degrees and humidity have all been adjusted. So technically we have been taking more accurate readings since 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Do you have a source for your assertion that instruments have been re-calibrated? Environment Canada issued a statement claiming the actual world readings for the temp scale in regards to cooling were off, by how much I have no clue. The American military has re adjusted the GPS satellites to compensate for this variance. I will try to find this data. I fail to see your point. The failure is not because we don't understand the climate system enough. The issue is that we don't have enough data on relevant factors for a sensible simulation to be carried out. ^^^Exactly my point here. Dare I say we could be wrong on our predictions on data we have compiled over the last 100years. It is such a small sample that geologists cannot make any concrete claims in regards to what the earths actual climate could have been 10,000-500,000 or even a million years ago. 2000 years I can wrap my head around but farther than that so many variables can change the outcome. That's also an assertion not supported by the current science. There is plenty of data to create a new hypothesis. Nasa solar observatory info is excellent Solar variation is the change in the amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and in its spectral distribution over years to millennia. These variations have periodic components, the main one being the approximately 11-year solar cycle (or sunspot cycle). The changes also have aperiodic fluctuations. In recent decades, solar activity has been measured by satellites, while before it was estimated using 'proxy' variables. Scientists studying climate change are interested in understanding the effects of variations in the total and spectral solar irradiance on Earth and its climate. Solar variation, together with volcanic activity are hypothesized to have contributed to climate change Can you provide some examples? I'll be interested in taking a look. The examples are literally everywhere you choose to look. Just as there are many examples to support the theory of man being the major contributing factor to climate change. Really to me it is a matter of perspective on the entire matter. Man technically has created the industries that spew theses toxins into the atmosphere and we can only gauge the measurable affects as they appear. From that we can begin to extrapolate the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Exactly my point here. Dare I say we could be wrong on our predictions on data we have compiled over the last 100years. It is such a small sample that geologists cannot make any concrete claims in regards to what the earths actual climate could have been 10,000-500,000 or even a million years ago. 2000 years I can wrap my head around but farther than that so many variables can change the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 /user/264-madmonk/"> @MadMonk ..as I read your posts i find myself researching what I consider very technical stuff in regards to what is really basic/intermediate physics and thermodynamics. I am not skeptical rather sponging up info as this is a serious matter to all living things..... I do have some theories of my own. Bare with me as I am no scholar If we consider insolation/irradiance in regards to solar energy, I am wondering if global warming is not a direct result of the reflection of that irradiance? Obviously with less of an arctic/antarctic ice sheet there will be more absorption, solar radiation is converted to thermal energy and you get an obvious increase in the objects (Earth's) temperature. What if we couple that with the the internal energy of Earth and maybe the relationship with our core or the heat and work of our planet ? This dynamic may not be as understood as we think ? What if that relationship actually plays a much larger role in the heating and cooling of the planet ? Maybe to the point where we are actually warming up from the inside out ? Yes I now everything flows from a high to a low but what if our absorption is greater then our reflection were we are basically being slightly micro-waved ? I am also considering a different affect with the chemicals we are dropping on/into the surface of the Earth as well as into the atmosphere. In relation to all our industrious ways, these residual particles, elements, by products if you will could be causing greater absorption. I am sure there is evidence out there to support this. This is why I struggle to come to grips with the debate ..IF we agree that we are coexisting in this shared ecosystem of the Earth, that we directly impact this giant living breathing energy producing/consuming system form top to bottom form the inside out........ would not the equilibrium of all these systems dictate that there really is no global warming rather a natural ebb and flow ? Law of Zeroth states that if two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other. This leads me to believe the systems will eventually balance themselves out. Odly enough that could explain nature getting all nasty on us to "cool down" the system if you will. Sounds retarded i know...but science doesn't lie. The presented evidence suggest that equilibrium will prevail. There will be highs and lows dependent on the situation/ingredients at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Sure climate has changed in the past, but that doesn't logically imply human cannot change climate. So what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 If we consider insolation/irradiance in regards to solar energy, I am wondering if global warming is not a direct result of the reflection of that irradiance? Obviously with less of an arctic/antarctic ice sheet there will be more absorption, solar radiation is converted to thermal energy and you get an obvious increase in the objects (Earth's) temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 My point was, there have been climate changes in the past without the assistance of humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.