EPTNASA: Strange and sudden massive melt in Greenland - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SeraKuDA
Canada343 Posts
| ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:37 SeraKuDA wrote: Human pollution doesn't help the global warming phenomenon but it's mainly a product of a natural cycle. The effect we have is akin to spitting in a pool. Current science says otherwise so why don't you go ahead and publish your findings? You obviously know something the experts don't. | ||
|
Khul Sadukar
Australia1735 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:32 minilance wrote: ignorant people like this will get us kill ( i guess you voted for Harper...) The only ignorance is believing everything you read from these so called scientists and politicians. Natural events like volcanoes cause much more carbon release into the atmosphere than anything we can possibly do. We only have a very small affect on the planet by comparison. What annoys me is our country has this stupid carbon tax now when our contribution to global emissions (regardless whether it is the cause or not) is miniscule. If we didn't pollute at all it wont have any impact, since its not a localised issue. Its just another tax to reallocate funds away from the people as per usual and is making everything more expensive. Unfortunately the whole political system is corrupt and we cant stop them using the same rules they setup in the first place. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:15 dbald27 wrote: I'm definitely not advocating dictatorship. I'm just pointing out something which people have known about democracy for a long time, that it gives people a voice on issues which they are not qualified to make decisions on. In fact democracy of the not-well-informed keeps us safe and ends up with better results than the experts who would control us. | ||
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:45 Khul Sadukar wrote: The only ignorance is believing everything you read from these so called scientists and politicians. Natural events like volcanoes cause much more carbon release into the atmosphere than anything we can possibly do. We only have a very small affect on the planet by comparison. What annoys me is our country has this stupid carbon tax now when our contribution to global emissions (regardless whether it is the cause or not) is miniscule. If we didn't pollute at all it wont have any impact, since its not a localised issue. Unfortunately the whole political system is corrupt and we cant stop them using the same rules they setup in the first place. Ya, because throwing millions of tons of pollutant into the atmosphere will do absolutely nothing. I'll take the word of a scientist (peer reviewed and whos funding isn't from a corporation that stands to gain something from disinformation) over an armchair internet scholar. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:45 Khul Sadukar wrote: The only ignorance is believing everything you read from these so called scientists and politicians. Natural events like volcanoes cause much more carbon release into the atmosphere than anything we can possibly do. We only have a very small affect on the planet by comparison. What annoys me is our country has this stupid carbon tax now when our contribution to global emissions (regardless whether it is the cause or not) is miniscule. If we didn't pollute at all it wont have any impact, since its not a localised issue. Unfortunately the whole political system is corrupt and we cant stop them using the same rules they setup in the first place. Lol how do you people even come up with this shit? Not by a long shot. I guess you took something a non-scientist told you as fact. See how that worked out for you. Science is without a doubt the best method at our disposal for acquiring knowledge of our surroundings. | ||
|
Khul Sadukar
Australia1735 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:55 hifriend wrote: Lol how do you people even come up with this shit? Not by a long shot. I guess you took something a non-scientist told you as fact. See how that worked out for you. Science is without a doubt the best method at our disposal for acquiring knowledge of our surroundings. Fair enough. Couldn't quite recall where I read that. Still the planet is mainly responsible for the changes to the weather we've been seeing. Everyone focuses on the atmosphere above but don't consider the core below. We're not as influential as we'd like to think. | ||
|
DeAnconia
United States22 Posts
On July 25 2012 09:54 Candadar wrote: I mean, come on. What if we make the world a cleaner and more sustainable place to live in for no reason?! This sentiment always annoys me, "Well we might as well try it to prevent global warming, what is there to lose?" The problem with that view is that you a viewing the world population as one cohesive whole. Truth is, we are bunch of individual nations, often competing against each other. The fear is that implementing stricter environmental standards will impede your country's ability to compete in the global marketplace. If you make these changes, and no one else does, you run the risk of losing jobs, money, standard of living, etc etc. This fear is probably considerably stronger since we seem to be in a global economy funk the past few years. I am not saying that this fear is justified, nor am I saying that it is not worth trying to work together to make it happen. I just wanted to point out that the logic of "We might as well implement all these policy changes to prevent global warming because what is there to lose" servery simplifies the actual complexities that make this challenge a difficult one. Truth is, we all (especially countries considered at the 'top') have a lot to lose. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1078 Posts
Lol - A quick wikipedia check reveals that your source here gets an awful lot of donations from some obscure corporation that goes by the name of "ExxonMobil." I wonder what "ExxonMobil" is hmm. | ||
|
Jumbled
1543 Posts
I recommend reading the actual journal article, rather than spin editorials that claim to be based on it. From the page you linked: And so it is that the question for our day ought to be: Why was much of the CO2-starved world of Medieval and Roman times decidedly warmer (by about 0.3 and 0.5°C, respectively) than it was during the peak warmth of the 20th century? Where do these temperature differences come from? As far as I can tell the writer has simply extrapolated them from this line in the Nature article: ... N-scan reveals a long-term cooling trend of −0.31 °C per 1,000 years (±0.03 °C) over the 138 BC–AD 1900 period.. As you'll note, this specifically excludes the 20th century because the trend changes drastically there, making the core argument of your editorial an outright lie. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1078 Posts
On July 27 2012 12:06 Khul Sadukar wrote: Fair enough. Couldn't quite recall where I read that. Still the planet is mainly responsible for the changes to the weather we've been seeing. Everyone focuses on the atmosphere above but don't consider the core below. We're not as influential as we'd like to think. Lol - yes and the planet is entirely responsible for the species "Homo Sapiens" and oddly enough, all species for that matter. Damnit planet! You murdered the Jews you bastard! Also your goddamn squirrels keep getting in my fucking bird feeder. | ||
|
BookTwo
1985 Posts
Also, the only reason it is in place is because the Greens have enough power to make the current government to make these kind of decisions. Humans are stupid. | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
![[image loading]](http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/holocene_temperature_variations_rev.png) that show trends over a much larger time period. We just have so little understanding of what drives long term climate trends on earth (understandably...we haven't been around taking accurate measurements for 100,000 years) that it really is not currently possible to say that we are driving this warming trend, having no effect at all on it, or somewhere in between. In the near future, we just need to decide if the costs of developing these new technologies and somehow convincing the whole world to adopt them is worth it when we are not sure if huge cutbacks in C02 emissions will even have a reasonable effect. Very difficult situation with no simple answer. If the global economy were a bit more stable, we would be in better shape, as people would be more willing to take a risk on stuff like this. As it is though, we probably wont have a definitive answer to this question for a long time, and I don't think anyone can be blamed for not taking the risk of totally revamping their energy infrastructure. | ||
|
kdgns
United States2427 Posts
On July 27 2012 12:06 Khul Sadukar wrote: Fair enough. Couldn't quite recall where I read that. Still the planet is mainly responsible for the changes to the weather we've been seeing. Everyone focuses on the atmosphere above but don't consider the core below. We're not as influential as we'd like to think. You should be careful about the distinction between weather and climate, weather is short term, and changing quickly, it can be sunny today and raining tomorrow, etc. The issue here is climate, which is long term trends. While the human contribution may seem little to you, its important to note that carbon dioxide has an extremely long lifetime in the atmosphere, so while daily emissions may be small, over time they add up and starts becoming a significant amount of change to the composition of the atmosphere. While you may not influence the weather today or tomorrow, right now we are deciding the policies that will shape the environment in the decades to come. | ||
|
Stoli
Canada173 Posts
On July 27 2012 09:59 dvorakftw wrote: Again I show my refusal to take your fingers-in-your-ears-nah-nah-nah-I-can't-hear-you attitude seriously. What do you think about CERN? http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/svensmarks-theory-of-cosmoclimatology.html On July 27 2012 09:59 dvorakftw wrote: Again I show my refusal to take your fingers-in-your-ears-nah-nah-nah-I-can't-hear-you attitude seriously. What do you think about CERN? http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/svensmarks-theory-of-cosmoclimatology.html On July 27 2012 09:59 dvorakftw wrote: blogspot.com/2011 are you fucking serious right now? | ||
|
Hug-A-Hydralisk
United States174 Posts
![[image loading]](http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/algore.jpg) NOOOO!!! I'm sure the ice will return to normal within months. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On July 27 2012 12:18 Jumbled wrote: As you'll note, this specifically excludes the 20th century because the trend changes drastically there, making the core argument of your editorial an outright lie. It got cooler. What happens if it was cooler and then it returns to normal? It gets.... | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
See. There's this really neat invention called the internet. And on the internet there is a really neat invention called Google. And you can use Google to search the internet. And typically it finds posts about things rather than the actual things themselves. But you can then found out about what they are talking about. It's really fun. you should try it. | ||
|
Jumbled
1543 Posts
On July 27 2012 13:26 dvorakftw wrote: It got cooler. What happens if it was cooler and then it returns to normal? It gets.... Who said anything about returning to "normal"? The data doesn't indicate anything like that. This is why reading is important. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On July 27 2012 13:39 Jumbled wrote: Who said anything about returning to "normal"? The data doesn't indicate anything like that. This is why reading is important. Normal is a relative term. There is no true normal. It has been hotter. It has been colder. It will be hotter. It will be cooler. herp | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg)
