Upload
Login or register

thermobil

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:10/10/2011
Last Login:12/08/2016
Location:Czech Republic
Stats
Content Ranking:#4626
Comment Ranking:#7160
Highest Content Rank:#4394
Highest Comment Rank:#3880
Content Thumbs: 21 total,  23 ,  2
Comment Thumbs: 1186 total,  1376 ,  190
Content Level Progress: 40.67% (24/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 198 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 199 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Subscribers:0
Content Views:1283
Total Comments Made:467
FJ Points:945

latest user's comments

#28 - How about that around 6 million people that die annually becau…  [+] (2 replies) 5 hours ago on Alex Jones Compilation 0
#30 - messier (3 hours ago) [-]
**messier used "*roll picture*"**
**messier rolled image** Alright. Give a creditable source for this claim.
#31 - thermobil (2 hours ago) [-]
www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Environment%20and%20Energy/Sustainable%20Energy/energy-access-situation-in-developing-countries.pdf
In this report it is reported that around 2,3 million people die annually just because they use home stoves with imperfect combustion, which is leading source of increased diseases like pneumonia. Plus it also says that burning fuel and biomass locally effects global warming (not as significantly as developed countries, but enough).
To be fair I can´t find the source of the 6 million figure, and I sifted through the WHO and UN death reports, but they didn´t specifically say "lack of electricity related deaths", so the numbers are hidden in the "respiratory infections", "neonatal conditions" and "nutritional deficiencies" categories, amongst others.

#199 - Well, while flora productivity might not be really a negative …  [+] (1 reply) 12/06/2016 on Trump meets with Gore 0
#208 - durkalurk (12/06/2016) [-]
I mean, the cow thing is a problem. Modern diets are high in meat comtent and there's a constant demand for beef. So now there is incresing deforestation to make room for cattle, which are huge methane producers.

The problem with the cloud cover argument is that while is does reflect more incident solar radiation, it also contributes to trapping heat within the atmosphere; so the net effect of increases in cloud cover tends towards heating.

The filtering of CO2 from energy producers isn't viable either. They can sequester carbon emissions and/or use microbes to convert CO2. No one has really found a way to do these in an economic fashion, but its getting closer every year. (research enhanced geothermal systems and their potential to be paired with carbon capture and sequestration)

The long and short of it is that we have all the technology to produce energy cleanly, it's just not economically viable yet. People are most influenced through economics. I'm sure that everyone is concerned with ecosystem destruction to some degree, but unless it happens in their backyard or it impacts them financially, they don't give enough a shit to do anything.
#198 - Yeah, I know, but the way you phrased your previous comment (1…  [+] (2 replies) 12/06/2016 on Trump meets with Gore -1
#207 - anon (12/06/2016) [-]
You're right, every science textbook should follow each sentence with (this is current understanding but may not be true.) or maybe we abbreviate it to TICUBMNBT and make biology look like the fucking Quran.

Or maybe DUHH BURR
User avatar
#204 - herofuckingder (12/06/2016) [-]
Theory in science is a wellproven phenomenon that has yet to be debunked. So in simple terms. Theory=truth(or at least the truth we assumes due to our knowledge)
#168 - ****, didn´t mean refraction, but reflection.  [+] (4 replies) 12/06/2016 on Trump meets with Gore 0
#177 - durkalurk (12/06/2016) [-]
I agree with all the points you've been making and I think that this is definitely a topic that needs more open discussion. (I also cannot stand the politicalization of scientific issues; we need data, not bias)

I have seen the cloud cover argument as well as the argument for increased flora productivity. Admittedly, I haven't done much research into the cloud cover feedback, but I have looked into the productivity argument.

By nearly all accounts, the increased plant productivity can be almost completely ignored. At one time, increased productivity of flora may have been able to counteract atmospheric CO2, but its population has been severely decreased by deforestation and ecosystem destruction. There is also the counter-argument that increases in temperature and the small (but still measurable) climate changes have been reducing the life expectancy of trees, making it harder for them to have a negative feedback and balance the system.

Two of the biggest positive feedback loops are:
-decreases in the earth's total albedo. We are loosing square footage of ice coverage, so therefore more heat is being absorbed by the earth as opposed to being reflected back.
-melting of permafrost regions. The organic matter once trapped beneath the ice is now being allowed to decompose and release CO2 and mass amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Methane actually has 25 times the global warming potential of CO2, but a much lower atmospheric lifetime.
#199 - thermobil (12/06/2016) [-]
Well, while flora productivity might not be really a negative feedback, it´s really nice that it is a positive feedback for humans and fauna generally. The balance between what is "good" for the planet and what is "good" for us humans (especially in short term) is another topic that climate scientists (or maybe economists) could focus on more - is it economically better to try and prevent the changes in climate (if we even can) or to adapt to the consequences? Is it better that 6 million people (according to UN) die anually because they don´t have electricity, or the fact that we can build a few coal plants with modern filters? No easy answers where the potential survival of humanity is concerned.

I recently read somewhere that Earth´s total albedo is affected more by cloud cover (especially around equator) than the polar ice caps (the main argument was, I think, that the angle of sunrays at the poles was too great to effect much). Might be wrong, haven´t really dug into it, but it seems reasonable and logical enough.
Yeah, I heard that some people wanted to get rid of cows, because they produce too much methane (literal bullshit ). Mother Nature would be royally stupid if it could be "killed" by cows .


#208 - durkalurk (12/06/2016) [-]
I mean, the cow thing is a problem. Modern diets are high in meat comtent and there's a constant demand for beef. So now there is incresing deforestation to make room for cattle, which are huge methane producers.

The problem with the cloud cover argument is that while is does reflect more incident solar radiation, it also contributes to trapping heat within the atmosphere; so the net effect of increases in cloud cover tends towards heating.

The filtering of CO2 from energy producers isn't viable either. They can sequester carbon emissions and/or use microbes to convert CO2. No one has really found a way to do these in an economic fashion, but its getting closer every year. (research enhanced geothermal systems and their potential to be paired with carbon capture and sequestration)

The long and short of it is that we have all the technology to produce energy cleanly, it's just not economically viable yet. People are most influenced through economics. I'm sure that everyone is concerned with ecosystem destruction to some degree, but unless it happens in their backyard or it impacts them financially, they don't give enough a shit to do anything.
User avatar
#183 - gadgetzan (12/06/2016) [-]
>>#177, >>#167, Guys, what are you doing? You know you can't have a rational and calm, fact-based, sensible discussion about a controversial topic here on FJ
#167 - Lately I heard arguments that cloud cover can play a significa…  [+] (5 replies) 12/06/2016 on Trump meets with Gore 0
#168 - thermobil (12/06/2016) [-]
Shit, didn´t mean refraction, but reflection.
#177 - durkalurk (12/06/2016) [-]
I agree with all the points you've been making and I think that this is definitely a topic that needs more open discussion. (I also cannot stand the politicalization of scientific issues; we need data, not bias)

I have seen the cloud cover argument as well as the argument for increased flora productivity. Admittedly, I haven't done much research into the cloud cover feedback, but I have looked into the productivity argument.

By nearly all accounts, the increased plant productivity can be almost completely ignored. At one time, increased productivity of flora may have been able to counteract atmospheric CO2, but its population has been severely decreased by deforestation and ecosystem destruction. There is also the counter-argument that increases in temperature and the small (but still measurable) climate changes have been reducing the life expectancy of trees, making it harder for them to have a negative feedback and balance the system.

Two of the biggest positive feedback loops are:
-decreases in the earth's total albedo. We are loosing square footage of ice coverage, so therefore more heat is being absorbed by the earth as opposed to being reflected back.
-melting of permafrost regions. The organic matter once trapped beneath the ice is now being allowed to decompose and release CO2 and mass amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Methane actually has 25 times the global warming potential of CO2, but a much lower atmospheric lifetime.
#199 - thermobil (12/06/2016) [-]
Well, while flora productivity might not be really a negative feedback, it´s really nice that it is a positive feedback for humans and fauna generally. The balance between what is "good" for the planet and what is "good" for us humans (especially in short term) is another topic that climate scientists (or maybe economists) could focus on more - is it economically better to try and prevent the changes in climate (if we even can) or to adapt to the consequences? Is it better that 6 million people (according to UN) die anually because they don´t have electricity, or the fact that we can build a few coal plants with modern filters? No easy answers where the potential survival of humanity is concerned.

I recently read somewhere that Earth´s total albedo is affected more by cloud cover (especially around equator) than the polar ice caps (the main argument was, I think, that the angle of sunrays at the poles was too great to effect much). Might be wrong, haven´t really dug into it, but it seems reasonable and logical enough.
Yeah, I heard that some people wanted to get rid of cows, because they produce too much methane (literal bullshit ). Mother Nature would be royally stupid if it could be "killed" by cows .


#208 - durkalurk (12/06/2016) [-]
I mean, the cow thing is a problem. Modern diets are high in meat comtent and there's a constant demand for beef. So now there is incresing deforestation to make room for cattle, which are huge methane producers.

The problem with the cloud cover argument is that while is does reflect more incident solar radiation, it also contributes to trapping heat within the atmosphere; so the net effect of increases in cloud cover tends towards heating.

The filtering of CO2 from energy producers isn't viable either. They can sequester carbon emissions and/or use microbes to convert CO2. No one has really found a way to do these in an economic fashion, but its getting closer every year. (research enhanced geothermal systems and their potential to be paired with carbon capture and sequestration)

The long and short of it is that we have all the technology to produce energy cleanly, it's just not economically viable yet. People are most influenced through economics. I'm sure that everyone is concerned with ecosystem destruction to some degree, but unless it happens in their backyard or it impacts them financially, they don't give enough a shit to do anything.
User avatar
#183 - gadgetzan (12/06/2016) [-]
>>#177, >>#167, Guys, what are you doing? You know you can't have a rational and calm, fact-based, sensible discussion about a controversial topic here on FJ
#111 - What you wrote is a theory that MIGHT explain the natural hot-…  [+] (4 replies) 12/06/2016 on Trump meets with Gore 0
#194 - anon (12/06/2016) [-]
Theory =/= hypothesis. They're not interchangeable.

'This might be how it works' is all of science. The data we have and models which fit that data support this theory for now. If new data becomes available the theory changes appropriately. Writing off a data and model based theory for 'nuh uh, thats just a THEORY' is pants-shittingly retarded.
#198 - thermobil (12/06/2016) [-]
Yeah, I know, but the way you phrased your previous comment (108) suggests that it is a certainty (THE exact mechanism), while it is only a theory that fits the empirical data, and as such it should be presented.
"This might be how it works" is really just a part of science, the other part is "Are you sure?". Questioning and proof.
#207 - anon (12/06/2016) [-]
You're right, every science textbook should follow each sentence with (this is current understanding but may not be true.) or maybe we abbreviate it to TICUBMNBT and make biology look like the fucking Quran.

Or maybe DUHH BURR
User avatar
#204 - herofuckingder (12/06/2016) [-]
Theory in science is a wellproven phenomenon that has yet to be debunked. So in simple terms. Theory=truth(or at least the truth we assumes due to our knowledge)
#26 - Next edition will come, sooner or later. Also Eldar are gay  [+] (2 replies) 12/06/2016 on Pixel Maleceptor 0
User avatar
#27 - mikhailovych (12/06/2016) [-]
Yeah, at least GW sort of redeemed itself by releasing Traitor Legions
Even if by the rumours Iron Warriors got the shaft, again
#28 - thermobil (12/06/2016) [-]
Well, it seems to be their lot in life. First supposedly shafted by the Emprah, then by Fulgrim, now by GW. They should finally clue into the fact that it seems to be their lot in life, embrace it and mop the floor with anyone and everyone
I don´t like traitors in general, but I like Iron Warriors for the fact that they only wanted to better their position, to prove that they are good at something else than destroying things, and not for some warp trinkets, or promises of ultimate power, or some bullshit like that

user's friends