Further proving the point that no matter what you do the environmentalists will bitch

[Karmashock]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5108666.stm

You burn coal and they say it's dirty. You clean all the soot out of it and they say the CO2 will cook the planet. You build dams and they say you're destroying valleys and preventing fish from spawning. You build hydrothermal on a volcano and they say you're desecrating their God. You build a wind farms and they say you're killing all the birds.



I'm sorry... but at what point do we just accept that these people are born to bitch and hit the mute button whenever they start up?... there's no end to it... the only way to make them stop is to kill ourselves... and that only stops it because you can't hear them anymore... no doubt they'll be bitching at trees for leaving all their leaves all over the place and then to fish for pooping in the water...


Just shut the fuck up.

[MVB]

*sigh*

I was also reading another global warming report based off average rural/urban surface temperature readings instead of sattellite global observations. /gag

[Psy]

He said most wind farms would not cause any harm to birds

but

the Smola wind farm had been badly sited in a place where it put white-tailed eagles at risk

If you are to build something build it right is the point, they are not "bitching"

Would you build a windfarm in the middle of a highway forgetting the height of trucks and then shut the fuck up ignoring the fact trucks keep getting hit?

If you do something good, do it right is the only point made. And without that bitching - lesson would not have been learned.

Comprehension - is a wonderful thing.

[Karmashock]

I have yet to hear of a windfarm that didn't kill birds. Or at least didn't get some twit bitching about it. Ever. Name a windfarm anywhere... Try me... I dare you.

I can't wait till some country builds a lot solar plants... that's got to endanger some kind of bush or flower that can't live in that specific spot any more because the solar panels obscure the sun...

[2biT]

Newquay.

[RazielDemon]

Meh, to get rid of CO and CO2 you have to lock the carbon that we're getting out of the ground in the form of fossil fuels, up in something, leaving the oxigen free.

I suppose the easiest way to do that is to asphalt a small continent, say australia, should do the trick.

[2biT]

Or plant more trees?

[ilia]

1000 per person?

Quite hard.

[Karmashock]

Newquay.
http://www.wind-farms.co.uk/whyobject.htm

type newquay and windfarm into google and you'll see all kinds of objections...


My point is sustained... people will bitch regardless.
===========================================
1000 per person?

Quite hard.
the environment naturally takes CO2 out of the ground as is... extra trees would give the environment an extra buffer... we don't need 1000 trees per person.

[RazielDemon]

Yeah, cover over greenland with asphalt 2 yards thick, that outta do the trick, trees are so passe.

[MVB]

The whole debate bugs the crap out of me. Human beings contribute to less than 2% of the CO2/Carbon quantity released into the environment every year. Deforestation is a much bigger contributor to global warming-esque scenarios b/c it removes vast quantities of the world's pollution-management system. Every animal that dies, every plant that dies, everything that decomposes, and the natural respiration of just about everything on Earth contributes a variety of "pollutants" to the atmosphere, all of which can do bad things in too large or too small an amount. Human beings contribute a minor, MINOR portion of this, even when we double our production it's only a small fraction of the Earth's production.

Even with deforestation, other areas of the Earth have in recent years seen tremendous forest growth, and conservation efforts in the US have resulted in the growth in more recent years of some of our deciduous and other forests. Bah, nm ... the idea that we as humans can have that big an impact on this planet's CO2 production and fixing process is arrogant at least, foolish at best.

There are plenty of bad things we can do to this planet, and ARE doing, that we need to worry about. Excess greenhouse gas production, and either global warming or cooling *as a result of human influence* are not among them.

[RazielDemon]

It doesn't realy matter if we're the cause or not, the goal is to avoid problematic climate change.

The earth's climate changes every few tens of thousands of years... and that was fine up untill about 5 thousand years ago, as we humans had a fairly easy time addapting with so few of us around.

Now, it will be harder. A mini ice age will decimate the huge industrial crop growing industry, unless it can addapt quickly and with enormous efficiency, the human population will go down rather drasticaly, right now about a billion people rely on GM crops to survive at all, that number will skyrocket, as will the level of modification required, barring a global diet change. If normal plant growing cycles are disrupted from the norm we have grown used to (an average shift of 5C up or down will do this) we are in very very big trouble.



That damned argument 'oh no we're so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, it's not OUR fault that the world is changing' bugs the crap out of ME because it's just blame shifting/finger pointing in liu of action and if anything is an excuse to just let the earth's climate do whatever the hell it wants, which is not a viable survival strategy for the human race.

[Karmashock]

I understand what you're saying MVB, but that's not the point... the point is that these people are going to bitch no matter what... they're bred in a lab somewhere near the core of the earth and genetically alterned to be annoying... there's nothing you can do about it.

[Karmashock]

The earth's climate changes every few tens of thousands of years... and that was fine up untill about 5 thousand years ago, as we humans had a fairly easy time addapting with so few of us around.

Now, it will be harder. A mini ice age will decimate the huge industrial crop growing industry, unless it can addapt quickly and with enormous efficiency, the human population will go down rather drasticaly, right now about a billion people rely on GM crops to survive at all, that number will skyrocket, as will the level of modification required, barring a global diet change. If normal plant growing cycles are disrupted from the norm we have grown used to (an average shift of 5C up or down will do this) we are in very very big trouble.
Actually, our technological and logistical sophistication will make it quiet easy.

Some areas will become better growing areas and some areas will not. As a result old farms will be shut down and new ones will be plowed and seeded. This process if it effects our crops to a large extent at all will not happen over night but over the course of decades. That's plenty of time to change things. Furthermore, most people have access to imported food. The US for example is one of the world's largest exporters and importers of food in the world.

The only critical problem will be water and how that effects population growth in areas that will get less water. This can be fixed with aquaducts or desaltinization (sp) if they have the money. If they don't, then they can move and build a city someplace else.



That damned argument 'oh no we're so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, it's not OUR fault that the world is changing' bugs the crap out of ME because it's just blame shifting/finger pointing in liu of action and if anything is an excuse to just let the earth's climate do whatever the hell it wants, which is not a viable survival strategy for the human race.
The problem with your point about shifting blame is that there might not be no blame. Furthermore, as to action, you are telling world economies what to do. Most environmentalists are more political then environmental. Most are socialists and some are luddites (even if they don't know what a luddite is... someone that hates technology and the modern world). They're anti capitalists using environmentalism as a weapon against an economic system they disaprove of. Now, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about things. If you hate capitalism that's fine. But they're using the environment to attack it and that is wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the world changes and changes all the time. We're capable of adapting to those changes as human beings. We are a very successful and vital species.

We are being lied to. Environmentalists are telling us that global warming will increase the power of our hurricanes for example. Which isn't true. The US meterological department got very upset with al gore's most recent pile of crap. Hurricanes are fueled by differing temperatures between the poles and the equator. That's why they form at the equator. Global warming being a defuse effect warms the poles more then it warms the equator so in effect it lessens the difference between the temperature of hte poles and the equator... making storms LESS intense. Of course, only by about 1 or 2 percent. But less intense nonetheless. Still when we go into our hurricane cycle that happens every 20 years or so did the environmentalists hesitate to blame a well understood and expected weather pattern on GW? Of course not. They're shameless and they think you're stupid.


And if you buy all their bullshit, then either you're not paying attention or they're right.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[RazielDemon]

Oh, there's lots of different breeds of enviromentalists. Most though are suicidal. They're anti-GM (the biggest boon to human life since, well, ever), they're anti-science (...gah) and they want the world to follow its 'natural course'.

Gods they're stupid. The earths 'natural course' has during about 90% of its time of existance been quite inhospitable to human life, and it's current (very comfortable) state is almost perfect for us, it's what has allowed things like seasonal farming and agriculture as a whole to develop. The earth's natural course in the future could go anywhere, accurate moddels are few and far between, and the ones that are there all say different things, save for the fairly common assessment that it'll be different in some whay or another somewhere from 50 to 5000 years in the future.

What we need to be doing now is keeping it just where it is. That doesn't mean keeping the african turqouise marsupi-hen alive, or making sure than 42.000 species of insect have a viable habitat (evolution will do just fine without the dodo, and the tigre, whale and rhinoceros too for that matter)... it just means keeping levels of various gasses in the atmosphere roughly stable, and stopping the oceans form rising or falling all too much to keep the tidal patterns reasonably steady.


Enviromentalists, on the whole, do not get this. Their reasoning can be summed up as one of the following options:

a: animal species going extinct --> automatticaly bad... MUST BE STOPPED! PROTEST AGAINST CAPITALISM!

b: some animal being hurt by testing --> automatticaly bad... MUST BE STOPPED! PROTEST AGAINST MEDICINE!

c: trees being chopped --> automatticaly bad... MUST BE STOPPED! PROTEST AGAINST INDUSTRIALISM!

d: greenhouse gasses on the rise --> automatticaly bad... MUST BE STOPPED! PROTEST AGAINST ANY HUMAN PROGRESS!


Gah, ask any damn hippy at a protest against anything what the exact problem is, (s)he will say 'it's bad for mother nature man, and it's all this or that company/enterprise/industry's fault!'

[Karmashock]

Oh, there's lots of different breeds of enviromentalists. Most though are suicidal. They're anti-GM (the biggest boon to human life since, well, ever), they're anti-science (...gah) and they want the world to follow its 'natural course'.
Neo luddities.


What we need to be doing now is keeping it just where it is. That doesn't mean keeping the african turqouise marsupi-hen alive, or making sure than 42.000 species of insect have a viable habitat (evolution will do just fine without the dodo, and the tigre, whale and rhinoceros too for that matter)... it just means keeping levels of various gasses in the atmosphere roughly stable, and stopping the oceans form rising or falling all too much to keep the tidal patterns reasonably steady.
That very well might require a vast terraforming project. Are you suggesting massive gas factories and reclamation facilities for the regulation of the world's atmosphere... because cutting carbon emissions isn't going to do that much.

a: animal species going extinct --> automatticaly bad... MUST BE STOPPED! PROTEST AGAINST CAPITALISM!
That isn't how it worked out... you had a political movement in the 60 and 70's that was getting slaughtered. Their arguements were not being listened to. So they joined environmental movements because the environmentalists were being listened to.

The founder of greenpeace QUIT his organization and washed his hands of it because it was taken over by what he calls "politicos"... These people are not just stupid environmentalists. They're communists and socialists hiding under the flag of environmentalism.


b: some animal being hurt by testing --> automatticaly bad... MUST BE STOPPED! PROTEST AGAINST MEDICINE!
The funniest organization if Peta... they believe animals should not be kept in captivity so strongly that they are against pets... any kind of pet... cats, dogs, fish... And when you bring them animals do you know what they do with them? Kill them. Because that's the only humane thing to do with such "tortured" animals.

They say this about Cats and dogs... I know for a fucking fact that most cats and dogs are happy in their homes. Many have formed meaningful emotional relationships with their human hosts... I have a cat for example that's had a great life... he gets everything he wants and gets to sleep all day if that's what he wants to do...

Is he tortured? I think fucking not. And dogs form much closer relationships... but does that stop peta from being crazy?

No... they're fucking nutcakes.

c: trees being chopped --> automatticaly bad... MUST BE STOPPED! PROTEST AGAINST INDUSTRIALISM!

Chopping trees is fine so long as you replace them. Throughout most of the world trees are replanted after being chopped or the area is left alone to naturally regenerate. The VAST majority of the logging in the US is the logging of trees that we planted ourselves years ago. Even "old growth" trees at this point are often just old planted trees.

Gah, ask any damn hippy at a protest against anything what the exact problem is, (s)he will say 'it's bad for mother nature man, and it's all this or that company/enterprise/industry's fault!'
They're tools. Implements to be used by another's will.

[RazielDemon]

Actually, our technological and logistical sophistication will make it quiet easy.

Some areas will become better growing areas and some areas will not. As a result old farms will be shut down and new ones will be plowed and seeded. This process if it effects our crops to a large extent at all will not happen over night but over the course of decades. That's plenty of time to change things. Furthermore, most people have access to imported food. The US for example is one of the world's largest exporters and importers of food in the world.

The only critical problem will be water and how that effects population growth in areas that will get less water. This can be fixed with aquaducts or desaltinization (sp) if they have the money. If they don't, then they can move and build a city someplace else.



desalinization I think, meh

I don't doubt our technological ability, it will be POSSIBLE to do it, but I very much worry about the logistics, and the beaurocracy behind it.

let's say the world becomes 5 degrees warmer on average, leaving asside melting icecaps, the desserts of the world become huge. Hell, hardly any plant life can survive a 3 degree shift up or down. Africa will be desert, australia, large chunks of north america, the middle eastern deserts will encroach on india. That's a rediculously huge chunk of viable land realy out of the picture right away, it will be POSSIBLE to irrigate, but it would be a feat unequalled in human history, it would take centuries.

If the temperature goes down 5 degrees, winters elongate by months, everywhere, growing seasons go down accordingly. We'd have to put up greenhouses EVERYWHERE.

Whichever way it goes, rice will not grow in china, and will have a hard time in indea, various grains will no longer grow in europe and north america, south america will have to addopt completely different crops, bananas might now grow best on the north pole heh.

All the switching and changing is DOABLE, and is made feasable for the pallet by the very diverse diet available in first and seccond world countries, but the poorer people of afrika, the middle east, south america... they'll be in trouble, they're going to be stuck in debt to people who can afford to bring in new crop types, or can invent ones that will grow there. Even if the earth cools, and africa suddenly becomes lush throughout, the inhabbitants will be in debt, barring some mirracle of political evolution in the region where the local governments can handle these things on their own and efficiently.




The problem with your point about shifting blame is that there might not be no blame. Furthermore, as to action, you are telling world economies what to do. Most environmentalists are more political then environmental. Most are socialists and some are luddites (even if they don't know what a luddite is... someone that hates technology and the modern world). They're anti capitalists using environmentalism as a weapon against an economic system they disaprove of. Now, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about things. If you hate capitalism that's fine. But they're using the environment to attack it and that is wrong.

Ok, calling it 'shifting blame' is my mistake then. A better term would be 'finding blame'. There doesn't have to be anyone to blame for it to be a god damned big problem that needs to be solved with efficiency and alacrity, as soon as clear signs emerge of which way its going.

But there won't BE clear signs. At least, not much clearer than there are already. I mean, c'mon, the poles are melting at an alarming rate already and no two enviromentalists can agree on what that MEANS, what the exact cause is, or if it's even a problem to us at all.


The fact of the matter is that the world changes and changes all the time. We're capable of adapting to those changes as human beings. We are a very successful and vital species.

We are being lied to. Environmentalists are telling us that global warming will increase the power of our hurricanes for example. Which isn't true. The US meterological department got very upset with al gore's most recent pile of crap. Hurricanes are fueled by differing temperatures between the poles and the equator. That's why they form at the equator. Global warming being a defuse effect warms the poles more then it warms the equator so in effect it lessens the difference between the temperature of hte poles and the equator... making storms LESS intense. Of course, only by about 1 or 2 percent. But less intense nonetheless. Still when we go into our hurricane cycle that happens every 20 years or so did the environmentalists hesitate to blame a well understood and expected weather pattern on GW? Of course not. They're shameless and they think you're stupid.



Seriously, who cares about hurricanes?

I hate to bring up katrina but that fiasco was pollitical an beaurocratic, not enviromental.

If the US had had a decent rapid response organisation that knew what to do in case of an emergency such as what happened at that time, problems would most likely have been marginal to non-existant. Hell, if polliticians had been paying attention to threats other than terrorism they'd probably have put some money into improving the defenses already in place, which could have severely limited the damage.

The technical knowledge was there, the scientists had predicted the threat level (accurately), and little to nothing was done in preparation because of beaurocracy and the current attention focus on terrorism.




We, the human race, are so fucking near gods to this planet as for it to hardly make any difference, we CAN make it and its enviroment jump through hoops, if we try, but without seriously strong willpower and pollitical and beaurocratic focus nothing WILL happen.

[RazielDemon]

Neo luddities.

That very well might require a vast terraforming project. Are you suggesting massive gas factories and reclamation facilities for the regulation of the world's atmosphere... because cutting carbon emissions isn't going to do that much.


WTF? I think we actualy agree here ^^

amazing.


Anyways, yes, it might just require us to terraform earth, heh.

We can do it, technologically speaking. Economically speaking, not yet, give the US, china, japan and indea 50 years and between them they'll come up with the industrial capacity, labour capacity, and scientific improvements in efficiency to make it a real possibility.

The cultural and geopolitical effects will be MASSIVE and probably incomprehensable to us at the moment.



The funniest organization if Peta... they believe animals should not be kept in captivity so strongly that they are against pets... any kind of pet... cats, dogs, fish... And when you bring them animals do you know what they do with them? Kill them. Because that's the only humane thing to do with such "tortured" animals.

They say this about Cats and dogs... I know for a fucking fact that most cats and dogs are happy in their homes. Many have formed meaningful emotional relationships with their human hosts... I have a cat for example that's had a great life... he gets everything he wants and gets to sleep all day if that's what he wants to do...

Is he tortured? I think fucking not. And dogs form much closer relationships... but does that stop peta from being crazy?

No... they're fucking nutcakes.


Well, i'm not a pet person, we travelled around too much when I was younger to keep any, so I just never got used to having a pet around.

What I know of PETA comes from the Pen&Teller Bullshit show about those oddballs.

It doesn't surprise me they kill animals, I mean, there's not a hell of a lot you can do with them otherewise besides putting them in cages, which they can't do for publicity reason, and there's no open piece of nature you can put cats and dogs... they have no natural habitat any more, they're domesticated versions of long extinct wilder animals.

It surprised me somewhat that they supported sending convicted terrorists (animal lab bombers, people who threaten the children of people who hunt deer or pheasant, etc) into schools, to teach them how to make IED's for use against testing facilities.
Actualy that's another of the things which influences my oppinion of american schools, can the teachers realy be so brainwashed by pollitical correctness to allow these barbarians to tell kids this stuff in the name of freedom of oppinion and speech?



Chopping trees is fine so long as you replace them. Throughout most of the world trees are replanted after being chopped or the area is left alone to naturally regenerate. The VAST majority of the logging in the US is the logging of trees that we planted ourselves years ago. Even "old growth" trees at this point are often just old planted trees.

Trees arn't all that important realy. They lock up a bit of carbon, but their main use is as habbitat for various defunct species of animal that realy has no impact on the world in one way or another.

The net oxigen production of a rainforrest is 0, that what they free from the carbon bonding during the day they use up again at night for various processes.


They're tools. Implements to be used by another's will.


Indeed, the trick would be to find someone to lead them who has some sense.

Seriously though, I don't get how it is directed. Is it just a huge mob mentality that will follow the first bit of information it gets to an inevitable protest? Is it led at all? Do the people in charge of greenpeace understand their own pollitical and social impact? Or is it jus a lumbering freight train that got started on a downhill slope and isn't gonna be stopping till it hits something important?

[Karmashock]

desalinization I think, meh

I don't doubt our technological ability, it will be POSSIBLE to do it, but I very much worry about the logistics, and the beaurocracy behind it.
Capitalism solves all the logistical problems... socialism and definitely communism ironically would be fucked however.

let's say the world becomes 5 degrees warmer on average, leaving asside melting icecaps, the desserts of the world become huge. Hell, hardly any plant life can survive a 3 degree shift up or down. Africa will be desert, australia, large chunks of north america, the middle eastern deserts will encroach on india. That's a rediculously huge chunk of viable land realy out of the picture right away, it will be POSSIBLE to irrigate, but it would be a feat unequalled in human history, it would take centuries.
we've had much larger temperature shifts without things going to hell in a handbasket.

Europe warmed greately about 600 years ago (I think... could be off by a several hundred years there) and the reaction was a HUGE population boom.

Whichever way it goes, rice will not grow in china, and will have a hard time in indea, various grains will no longer grow in europe and north america, south america will have to addopt completely different crops, bananas might now grow best on the north pole heh.
5 degrees won't change that much in growing things unless things get colder. Mostly because you can't have frost on your crops.

My family were california farmers... heat isn't a problem. You need water and you need to keep the frost off. If you have heat issues there are lots of crops that like it hot.

All the switching and changing is DOABLE, and is made feasable for the pallet by the very diverse diet available in first and seccond world countries, but the poorer people of afrika, the middle east, south america... they'll be in trouble, they're going to be stuck in debt to people who can afford to bring in new crop types, or can invent ones that will grow there. Even if the earth cools, and africa suddenly becomes lush throughout, the inhabbitants will be in debt, barring some mirracle of political evolution in the region where the local governments can handle these things on their own and efficiently.
The only reason africa is dry is because it doesn't have enough mountains. It isn't heat or cold. It needs water. That's IT.

Warmer weather means more evaporation which means more rain. If anything Africa might bloom.




Ok, calling it 'shifting blame' is my mistake then. A better term would be 'finding blame'. There doesn't have to be anyone to blame for it to be a god damned big problem that needs to be solved with efficiency and alacrity, as soon as clear signs emerge of which way its going.
Fine. You'll find that most people are willing to deal with things practically. But we're not going to run around in circles like chickens with our heads cut off either.


We need know exactly what to do and throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't a respectable option.


Frankly for modern countries global warming would be perferable to the complete annhilation of our industrialized economies. That's just a fact...

So we need an option that doesn't destroy us in the process.
I mean, c'mon, the poles are melting at an alarming rate already and no two enviromentalists can agree on what that MEANS, what the exact cause is, or if it's even a problem to us at all.
Actually, they can't even agree that it's melting.


In the north many american scientists believe that the only reason it looks like the ice sheets are melting is because the ice is shifting into canada.

You see, we used to measure the thickness of northern ice sheets with american nuclear submarines. But we can no longer use our subs in their territory.... fucking canadians... and as a result all we can really measure is ice in international waters or our own.

So in fact there is no conclusive proof in the north. As to the south there are also mixed reports of ice thickening in some parts and thinning in others.


There has also been a bad habit by some enviromentalists to cite seasonal melting as being something unsual. When the warm season rolls around they take pictures etc... then later on say "see!"...


If there has been any warming it's been extremely slight. Only the most pathetic life on earth will have a problem with even significant warming...

Things like panda bears are doomed... anyone that knows anything about panda's knows why they're endangered... they're practically designed to die off...



Seriously, who cares about hurricanes?

I hate to bring up katrina but that fiasco was pollitical an beaurocratic, not enviromental.

If the US had had a decent rapid response organisation that knew what to do in case of an emergency such as what happened at that time, problems would most likely have been marginal to non-existant. Hell, if polliticians had been paying attention to threats other than terrorism they'd probably have put some money into improving the defenses already in place, which could have severely limited the damage.
It had more to do with corrupt and lazy people in the south. They've been warned about this stuff and they ignore it.

Look at cali. We get earthquakes... what's our solution? Lots of steel in the concrete.

Look... understand, our states are like mini governments. If a state has to get bailed out then it fucked up. It's just that simple.

The technical knowledge was there, the scientists had predicted the threat level (accurately), and little to nothing was done in preparation because of beaurocracy and the current attention focus on terrorism.
Nope... it was because they're fucking idiots. Anyone that followed katrina knows that it was fully the locals fault.



We, the human race, are so fucking near gods to this planet as for it to hardly make any difference, we CAN make it and its enviroment jump through hoops, if we try, but without seriously strong willpower and pollitical and beaurocratic focus nothing WILL happen.
If you want people to take it seriously, then people need to stop using the environment for political advantage and then start accepting what makes sense instead of what fucks up businesses the most.

[LardGibs]

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.01.jpg

:lala:

if anyone needs me i'll be hunting whales from my hummer in my mink coat.

[Karmashock]

Your 'study' says that CO2 concentrations have gone up 30 percent since roughly 200 years ago... you really want to stand behind that?

As to whales, their populations have recovered very well due to restrictions put into place by organizations that didn't want to over'fish' the whales... that is... they wanted to preserve them FOR hunting.

The hummer has been discontinued do to poor sales.

and what is the environmental problem with mink coats? They're farmed like fucking chickens. They're not endangered... so what's your problem?

Bitching to bitch? That's my point.

[RazielDemon]

Hm, I don't know about CO2 levels, just found a BBC report about the same thing, from last novermber:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/05/22_icecore.shtml

This stuff is easy enough to find, but it looks like pretty much all of this research is based on glacial and arctic ice-coring, measuring the gas levels as they were based on how many little co2 bubbles there are in the coring sambles at various depths.

Now I don't have any particular reason to doubt that this method works, but it still is only 1 way of measuring, and it's not impossible that there are other effector factors causing such differences.

[Karmashock]

I think a 30 percent rise in CO2 would have a bigger effect on the environment then .5 degress warming in the later half of the 20th century. It seems like an exaggeration...

[Psy]

The only reason africa is dry is because it doesn't have enough mountains. It isn't heat or cold. It needs water. That's IT.

Warmer weather means more evaporation which means more rain. If anything Africa might bloom.

This is the most stupid thing I have ever read. Uber dumb, pinacle of bullshit mountain. Human evolution of mouth where anus used to be.....

Any argument is pointless.

As for windfarms I don't need to prove anything - that is a known windfarm problem in a lot of places, newer farms address it so the article is one of two things:

1. A new farm ignorant of established methods of siting prompting a reminder
2. A bored journalist rehashing a very old topic.

Neither makes the point any less valid, incidentaly I addressed the point, not your tangent of "well all windfarms have the same problem" - because they dont. Older and poorly planned ones do. Newer and especially offshore windfarms do not or at the very least minimize it to "acceptable" levels

It is also idiotic to take a valid argument, and turn it into something that it is not. FYI real estate agents "bitch" about windfarm sites driving prices down too. What now? downed birds, downed prices... maybe those windfarms SHOULD be situated to account for their impact - whatever it is.

Which incidentaly IS the whole point of the article. In this case its impact on wildlife, it could just as well have been impact on real estate. Neither says, don't build windfarms, both say - build them in smart places.

I'll never understand why intelligent people masturbate their intelect to such bullshit which they themselves KNOW is wrong. Or maybe I'm just naive and think nobody can be THAT delusional. Then again considering the above quote......

[Karmashock]

This is the most stupid thing I have ever read. Uber dumb, pinacle of bullshit mountain. Human evolution of mouth where anus used to be.....
I find it interesting that you quote something I said about mountains in africa and then never actually reply to it.

Kind of dumb really.

Any argument is pointless.
With closed minded bigots it usually is pointless... but you're fun anyway.

As for windfarms I don't need to prove anything - that is a known windfarm problem in a lot of places, newer farms address it so the article is one of two things:

1. A new farm ignorant of established methods of siting prompting a reminder
2. A bored journalist rehashing a very old topic.

How does this protect birds?... My point was merely that enviromorons will always bitch.

You're not contesting that... you're actually agreeing with my statement by saying "who cares and we shouldn't listen to them"

I agree... we shouldn't... they're whiny bitches.


One day you will learn to read and then on that day will be fit to join any text based discussion. Until then... keep it to verbal.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Psy]

I read very well thank you and no amount of your usual 'reword to distort meaning then attack the newly created argument which has nothing to do with original intent' will help you.

The quoted is a stupid statement, it is an indicator of complete lack of understanding of this case (africa) specific climate dynamic to begin with.

and then never actually reply to it

sorry not gonna waste time educating someone who always acts as an expert on topic - just pointed out how dumb that actually was.

Ill give you a hint tho look up atmospheric winds, ocean currents and coastal rainforests, maybe youll get it. This is more for ebenfit of those who fall for your bullshit than your own. TBH I think you KNOW just how stupid some shit you spew is.


Cheers

[Karmashock]

:lol: Look twit.
vegitation map
http://www-tem.jrc.it/images/pages/psds/africa-mosaic-spot-vgt1.jpg
topographical map
http://wxd.weather-watch.com/mml_sys/img/africa_topo.jpg
See in the south where the large moutain ranges are there is water... and in the north where it's largely flat there are giant f'ing deserts.

Kill yourself.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[2biT]

karma would you say muslims are all extreamist? No? Then dont say enviromentalists are extreamists. You are comming off as silly.

There are enviromentalists that do reconise the problem of climet change and how we impact it as humans. And the fact that once it is gone we can not get it back. So we should invest in renewable energy sources, and should be taking steps to make sure we preserve our easy way of life.

There other type i give you permission to wail against, PETA and all the other anti-GM, anti-animal testing, cock tards. We can call them enviromental extreamists!11!!

Oh the article you posted, is about a new wind farm not Newquay. Newquay is fucking miles from anywhere, only the A30 runs past it. I should know i live 30 minutes away. Having stood underneath one, they are not that loud.

Most of the new wind farms are built off shore now anyway, as psy said people bitch about slapping them down anywhere, rather than putting them in sensible places.

[Karmashock]

karma would you say muslims are all extreamist? No? Then dont say enviromentalists are extreamists. You are comming off as silly.
If environmentalism is a religion, then those that follow it are extermists from a political perspective in the same way that if any feeling I had reached religious levels it too would be extreme.

Religion is seperated from the rest of philsophy specifically because it is extreme and unreasonable. You can't argue people out of religion. Why? Because almost by definition they're close minded about some things. Now this extends to atheists as well who are extremists as well only they believe different things.

If you're so environuttish that it's gone to religious levels, then you're an extremist. A religious extremist is like an extreme extemist... a whole higher power of zealot.


Oh the article you posted, is about a new wind farm not Newquay. Newquay is fucking miles from anywhere, only the A30 runs past it. I should know i live 30 minutes away. Having stood underneath one, they are not that loud.
and I pointed out that people bitch about them killing birds... do birds go out there? Yes...

Do I really care if they kill birds? Not really... I used it to make a point that even when you do everything the environut's way they always bitch about something else. It's like getting ordered around by a pack of spoiled 3 year olds.

[Psy]

See in the south where the large moutain ranges are there is water... and in the north where it's largely flat there are giant f'ing deserts.

Kill yourself.

Kill myself? You just proven how retarded mountain argument is and what you always do with your uninformed debating. You are under the impression that if you post a big pic and bitch you somehow win the argument. You are also delusional in that thinking - retarded people may agree simply because like you they do not know better - blind leading the blind.

In this zone, the effects of the spinning earth. are least marked and. with the exception of the east coast, widespread uniformity of temperature and humidity gives the nearest approach to the classical model of the general circulation of the atmosphere, the Hadley cell

This zone is often termed the 'intertropical convergence zone' (ITCZ), and the migration north and south of the equatorial troughs associated with the ITCZ, following the apparent movement of the sun, is one of the most important climatic factors in Africa. The ITCZ is not a zone of rainfall. It is a zone of instability within which a number of factors can lead to a triggering of the rainfall mechanism. Often the zone is difficult to identify, or it may be split into a series of zones within the equatorial troughs. Because of the relatively uniform pressure and temperature, small pressure gradients often modify the flow pattern on the surface of continents in the equatorial regions. The interaction between the flows and topographic barriers (such as the highlands of East Africa) and large lakes (such as those in the Great Rift Valley) gives rise to local forced convection and to heavy rainfall.


The devastating droughts in the Sahel region of West Africa during 1972 can be explained in terms of anomalous easterly flow patterns over western Arabia and Africa between the equator and 20°N (Krueger and Winston, 1975). This easterly flow inhibited the growth of the normal westerly flow and has been shown by Minja (1982) to have arisen from anticyclones centred over North Africa and Egypt. Mean flow patterns show that anticyclones are usually confined to the North African coast and are very much weaker than those which occurred in 1972. This example is given to show that an understanding of dynamic climatology assists in explaining much of the deviation from the statistical means on which most regional climatological studies are based.



The dryness of the western side of the continent south of the equator is usually attributed to the dominance and persistence of the south Atlantic anticyclone, which gives rise to strong subsidence in the layers near the surface

http://i3.tinypic.com/15qot8w.gif

Further deforestation in the region "could cause the complete collapse of the West African monsoon", says Xinyu Zheng of the Centre for Global Change Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Rainforests need high rainfall to grow. But they also help to generate rainfall elsewhere. Half or more of the rain falling on the forest quickly evaporates from the forest canopy, providing moisture in the air to form clouds that produce rainfall further downwind. In this way, West African coastal rainforests, which receive copious amounts of rain from winds coming off the Atlantic Ocean, have helped to maintain rainfall in the drier lands of the interior.



A lot more complex then zomg build mountains and kill psy.

[Karmashock]

Wind patterns are changed by moutains.

I'm going to try one more time with you... look at these WORLD maps and notice the fucking pattern. Seeing patterns requires a little intellgences so I suggest you take your time with this...
World vegitation map
http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/world-natural-vegetation-map.gif
World topographical map
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/indassoc/dm2/graphics/worldtopo_map_agla_ghan.JPG

Look. Then kill yourself.

[Psy]

They are not the primary element affecting this specific regional climate and thus are not the only relevant aspect to the region...hopeless.

Mountains do affect rainfall but you are too stupid to know how let alone how they apply to Africa. According to your logic more mountains is better well dolt - the reverse is true also.

In africa mountains play a smaller role due to the positioning of the continent and it consist of 6 (some say 7) evenly distributed zones. Sure you can bitch about Sahara and hinge your argument on zomg look no mountains, zomg look sahara, zomg mountains ftw!1111.

But have you heard about kalahari and namib deserts in the south??


A rain shadow (or more accurately, precipitation shadow) is a dry region on the surface of the Earth that is leeward or behind a mountain with respect to the prevailing wind direction. A rain shadow area is dry because, as moist air masses rise to top a mountain range or large mountain, the air cools and water vapor condenses as rain or snow, falling on the windward side or top of the mountain. This process is called orographic precipitation. The effect of the process is the creation, on the leeward side, of an area of descending dry and warming air, and a region that is quite arid[1].



Orographic lift occurs when an air mass is forced from a low elevation to a higher elevation as it moves over rising terrain. As the air mass gains altitude it expands and cools adiabatically. This cooler air cannot hold the moisture as well as warm air and this effectively raises the relative humidity to 100%, creating clouds and frequently precipitation.



now i ppoint you to this image - notice the Great rift valley going up against the atlas range, notice how the rising air cools, notice how its green, zomg is it mountains? Or perhaps something else? ?


Notice how deserts in africa follow the rain shadow effect also?

http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/aflnd.htm


Precipitation
Precipitation induced by orographic lift occurs in many places throughout the world. Examples include:

The eastern seaboard of Australia, which faces prevailing easterly winds,
The mountains of New Zealand, which faces a prevailing westerly flow, off the Pacific Ocean.
The southern Andes, which faces a prevailing westerly flow, off the Pacific Ocean.
The Northwestern United States and Canada (Oregon, Washington and British Columbia) see prevailing westerly flow off the northern Pacific Ocean. Places on the sea-facing side of coastal mountains see over 100 inches (over 2.5 m) of precipitation per year. These locales are on the side of the mountains which are in the path of storm systems, and therefore receive the moisture which is effectively squeezed from the clouds.
[edit]
Rain shadowing

A lenticular cloud in New Mexico.
A cap cloud.
Wave clouds forming over Mount Duval.
Koryaksy volcano, Kamchatka, Russia, showing banner clouds streaming to the right from the peaks\.
Chinook arch in Calgary, Alberta, November 19, 2005
A view of the Front Wall of the Rockies capped by a foehn wall.Main article: Rain shadow
The highest precipitation amounts are found slightly upwind from the prevailing winds at the crests of mountain ranges, where the relief and therefore the upward lifting is greatest. As the air descends the lee side of the mountain, it warms and dires, creating a rain shadow. On the lee side of the mountains, sometimes as little as 15 miles (25 km) away from high precipitation zones, annual precipitation can be as low as 8 inches (200 mm) per year.[1]

Areas where this effect is observed include:

Switzerland's Rhone valley.
Areas east of the Cascade range in the Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon).
Areas east of the Olympic Mountains in Washington state.
This phenomenon is also prominent on the Hawaiian island of Kauai.
California's Central Valley
The Great Basin

now pay attention since you call intelligence into question I assume you are aware of such a thing existing and possess some:

Downslope winds occur on the leeward side of mountain barriers when a stable air mass is carried over the mountain by strong winds that increase in strength with height. Moisture is removed and latent heat released as the air mass is orographically lifted. As the air mass descends, it is compression heated. The warm Föhn wind, locally known as the Chinook wind, Bergwind or Diablo wind depending on the region, provide examples of this type of wind, and are driven in part by latent heat released by orographic lifting induced precipitation.

Africa
The windward side of the island of Madagascar, which sees easterly on-shore winds, is tropical, while the western and southern sides of the island lie in the rain shadow of the central highlands and are home to thorn forests and deserts.

Kinda opposite according to your argument. Because as far as africa is concerned to the south west you have the highest elevation and yet you have a desert ALSO.

So obviously OTHER mechanisms are more important in the region that would account for it being the opposite of what mountains alone account for.

And ps your MAP indicating grasslands etc between the mountain ranges in the south is WRONG as indicated on map I provided showing a desrt in the south west:

Kalahari Region
The huge Kalahari Desert spans seven different countries in Southern Africa and also occupies a corner of south-eastern Namibia.


http://idcs0100.lib.iup.edu/~tconelly/Africa/Images/AfricaElevationMap.jpg

http://www.peakware.com/areas.html?a=432

Now notice how africa is graded almost evenly north to south centered around equator REGARDLESS of the mountains while still showing SOME of the normal mountain range effects? Notice also how green belt is centered around the great rift valley?


And finally -

Africa’s annual cycle of weather is seasonally predictable as a pattern, if at times erratic on a year to year basis. The winds which bring moisture to Africa north of the equator move in patterns from south to the north of the equator with the rotation of the earth toward the sun in the summer months (June to September). The movement of the turbulence north of the equator brings summer rains in the northern hemisphere.

Funny how it runs PARALLEL to the mountain range and not against it.

Now pop quiz - what if, by some insane reason - everything got a little warmer, and there were fewer trees in those coastal rainforests to tag team the rainfall on higher elevation by generating some of its own back and causing rain further inland? Would africa get drier? Or greener?

DO mountains play a role in rainfall? Yes. Are mountains the primary factor in african climate? - not by a long shot. Winds, temperature, continent position relative to equator and winds all relative to earth rotation are what makes or breaks the african climate.

hopeless....

[Karmashock]

It isn't just their presence, but their position in relation to water bodies, wind patterns, and shape of the moutains.

A single mountain typically will only have a very limited effect. However, a moutian range going from north to south creates a wall. If that wall blocks clouds then it typically forces the clouds to dump their water on that side of the mountain range.

In the north there is no such moutain range and in the south the wind goes in the wrong direction as you just pointed out.


You know I'm not stupid Psy... I've made that point obvious... don't humilate yourself by denying the obvious out of nothing but your seemingly endless pettyness.