Quoted from article, "The ice melt area went from 40 percent of the ice sheet to 97 percent in four days, according to NASA. Until now, the most extensive melt seen by satellites in the past three decades was about 55 percent."
Hopefully this event was not accelerated by global warming.
Addtional Information Update: Thank you {CC}StealthBlue
Following the new record low recorded on August 26, Arctic sea ice extent continued to drop and is now below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles). Compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, this represents a 45% reduction in the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice. At least one more week likely remains in the melt season.
Throughout the month of August, Arctic sea ice extent tracked below levels observed in 2007, leading to a new record low for the month of 4.72 million square kilometers (1.82 million square miles), as assessed over the period of satellite observations,1979 to present. Extent was unusually low for all sectors of the Arctic, except the East Greenland Sea where the ice edge remained near its normal position. On August 26, the 5-day running average for ice extent dropped below the previous record low daily extent, observed on September 18, 2007, of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles). By the end of the month, daily extent had dropped below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles). Typically, the melt season ends around the second week in September
Well some people "politically" arguee climate change, I wonder how are they going to explain this. Sad that such a huge problem is not being adressed correctly it already may be too late.
Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
But , but if those useless ice is gone we can finally gather the oil there and make money . Jokes aside the question if global warming exists is pointless . Even if the effect doesn't exist , the worst thing measures against it could achieve is a cleaner and probably healthier environment .
It's definitely not a result of solar activity, the amount of activity you would need for something of this magnitude would knock out communications everywhere, and NASA would definitely have said something. Sounds more like climate destabilization (possibly from global warming), basically a big blob of warm air going where it's not supposed to go.
On July 25 2012 09:49 starfries wrote: Huh... weird...
It's definitely not a result of solar activity, the amount of activity you would need for something of this magnitude would knock out communications everywhere, and NASA would definitely have said something. Sounds more like climate destabilization (possibly from global warming), basically a big blob of warm air going where it's not supposed to go.
I just ignore the denialists. Evidence hasn't worked until now, it likely won't work now.
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
I would have to go with the "wait and see" approach, the danger is not in the fact that this occurred, but rather depends on the frequency of this occurring, remember climate by definition depends on averages over long periods of times. Of course, given the past events, this new one is worrying.
On July 25 2012 09:56 kdgns wrote: I would have to go with the "wait and see" approach, the danger is not in the fact that this occurred, but rather depends on the frequency of this occurring, remember climate by definition depends on averages over long periods of times. Of course, given the past events, this new one is worrying.
The good thing about the 'wait and see approach' is that if you're wrong, by the time you know it, it'll be too late to stop it.
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Things happen because of random variance. Krakatoa fucking exploded, but it wasn't itself evidence that the entire Earth was becoming Mordor. The Tunguska event was a big meteor explosion, but by itself it's not explained by "oh the Earth was just drifting through an asteroid field that year." It's possible that these two things are both true: humans have an effect on their environment AND random shit happens anyways.
I see stuff like this...and then remember things like finding giant shark fossils in the Sahara...and remember that the Vikings called Greenland....Greenland for a reason.
Is this particular event man caused? I have no idea, i would think not, something this drastic seems to be far more powerful than the temperature rising 0.4 degrees. Will epic, world changing crap happen regardless of what we can do? Yes. Should we all panic and blame governments everywhere for ice melting? I don't think so.
On July 25 2012 09:56 kdgns wrote: I would have to go with the "wait and see" approach, the danger is not in the fact that this occurred, but rather depends on the frequency of this occurring, remember climate by definition depends on averages over long periods of times. Of course, given the past events, this new one is worrying.
The good thing about the 'wait and see approach' is that if you're wrong, by the time you know it, it'll be too late to stop it.
The thing about trying to fix something you barely understand, like climate, is that you will be much more likely to screw everything up than fix it.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
While the Sunspot cycle causes a cyclic climate variance on Earth, said cycle's extremes have been steadily increasing. Basically, if you want to argue that global warming is part of this naturally occurring cycle, then you must conclude that we are within a thousand years (probably less) of the worst ice age in measurable history.
Basically - common scientific theory is that we are artificially perpetuating growth in temperature with carbon emissions - but as the old (and yet incredibly applicable to modern environmental science) saying goes "What goes up..."
On July 25 2012 09:56 kdgns wrote: I would have to go with the "wait and see" approach, the danger is not in the fact that this occurred, but rather depends on the frequency of this occurring, remember climate by definition depends on averages over long periods of times. Of course, given the past events, this new one is worrying.
by looking at ice cores, sediment, fossils, and sea floor deposition of calcium carbonates we can get the ratio of elements in our atmosphere from many periods of the earth. During the segments into the past that we can see most time periods experienced change quite like we are experiencing today. So in essence we do have averages of long periods of time, and also in many different eons, epochs, chrons; you name the division of time!
On July 25 2012 09:56 kdgns wrote: I would have to go with the "wait and see" approach, the danger is not in the fact that this occurred, but rather depends on the frequency of this occurring, remember climate by definition depends on averages over long periods of times. Of course, given the past events, this new one is worrying.
The good thing about the 'wait and see approach' is that if you're wrong, by the time you know it, it'll be too late to stop it.
The thing about trying to fix something you barely understand, like climate, is that you will be much more likely to screw everything up than fix it.
Yet if you ask the people that actually know what they're talking about, the scientific community, 95% of experts will tell you that lower carbon dioxide emissions will lead to lower overall temperatures.
The only people that dispute global warming are the people cherrypicking crooked scientists out of the small minority of scientists that are willing to sell out in order to provide political cover.
Wagner said researchers don't know how much of Greenland's ice melted, but it seems to be freezing again.
So at least its freezing, but definitely a reminder that in general as more ice melts the more heat the Earth will be unable to reflect back into space, which will make the problem progressively worse. At least the future will be interesting
On July 25 2012 09:42 caradoc wrote: Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not.
Whether you can tell why any given bug came in is irrelevant. All you need to know is that there's a causative effect from turning the light on, and that you can measure the extent of that effect.
Wagner said researchers don't know how much of Greenland's ice melted, but it seems to be freezing again.
So at least its freezing, but definitely a reminder that in general as more ice melts the more heat the Earth will be unable to reflect back into space, which will make the problem progressively worse. At least the future will be interesting
Haha - interesting to say the least. Day After Tomorrow anyone?
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Things happen because of random variance. Krakatoa fucking exploded, but it wasn't itself evidence that the entire Earth was becoming Mordor. The Tunguska event was a big meteor explosion, but by itself it's not explained by "oh the Earth was just drifting through an asteroid field that year." It's possible that these two things are both true: humans have an effect on their environment AND random shit happens anyways.
Random shit is very bad for making predictions in science. Science is the art of making a correct prediction using some model you have made. Different models can come up with the same outcome, but as long as it accurately predicts then it is a good model.
I assure you the glacialogist didn't believe in random variance and her life work is dedicated in trying to figure out why the 150 year cycle is happening.
As to your example of krakatoa exploding has nothing to do with random variance as well. Krakatoa is located above a hotspot, where temperature gradients in the earth mantel causes the rise of hot viscous solids and liquids.
On July 25 2012 09:42 caradoc wrote: Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not.
Whether you can tell why any given bug came in is irrelevant. All you need to know is that there's a causative effect from turning the light on, and that you can measure the extent of that effect.
You may not be able to tell exactly which bugs came in - but you can measure how many more come in when you leave the light on and window open.
On July 25 2012 09:42 caradoc wrote: Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not.
Whether you can tell why any given bug came in is irrelevant. All you need to know is that there's a causative effect from turning the light on, and that you can measure the extent of that effect.
You may not be able to tell exactly which bugs came in - but you can measure how many more come in when you leave the light on and window open.
Exactly, thanks for phrasing it better than I did.
Doesn't this happen due to the permafrost melting causing a vicious cycle where the methane released from the ice, causes more warming, causing more ice to melt, causing more warming? (and before the denialists use this as an excuse, this was triggered by man-made global warming in the first place)
Pretty sure we are going to see a lot more of these soon.
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Things happen because of random variance. Krakatoa fucking exploded, but it wasn't itself evidence that the entire Earth was becoming Mordor. The Tunguska event was a big meteor explosion, but by itself it's not explained by "oh the Earth was just drifting through an asteroid field that year." It's possible that these two things are both true: humans have an effect on their environment AND random shit happens anyways.
Random shit is very bad for making predictions in science. Science is the art of making a correct prediction using some model you have made. Different models can come up with the same outcome, but as long as it accurately predicts then it is a good model.
I assure you the glacialogist didn't believe in random variance and her life work is dedicated in trying to figure out why the 150 year cycle is happening.
As to your example of krakatoa exploding has nothing to do with random variance as well. Krakatoa is located above a hotspot, where temperature gradients in the earth mantel causes the rise of hot viscous solids and liquids.
I wouldn't read too much into that statement by the glaciologist. She didn't say there was a cycle. She said they "occur about once every 150 years on average," which could mean anything from "they occur periodically, with a period of 150+-5 years", or "they occur randomly, with a 1/150 chance to occur every year". Journalists are notoriously bad at keeping scientific facts straight and generally latch onto any statement they understand, so take anything you read with a grain of salt.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
I wonder why the pH of the ocean is decreasing then. Large solar waves?
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
people have been around for 200000 years, and have been deforesting and plowing lands for a lot longer than 100 years. Driving our cars are not the only way we have been influencing our environments and atmosphere
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
people have been around for 200000 years, and have been deforesting and plowing lands for a lot longer than 100 years. Driving our cars are not the only way we have been influencing our environments and atmosphere
I dont really understand why you quoted me and said this.
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
Extreme? Fact, the Earth has heated up approx 1 degree Celcius (not Farenheit) since 1950, and is going up faster. Grab the raw data yourself and create your own graph if you don't believe it. And if you don't believe the data is accurate, well then there must be a conspiracy where the 10,000 stations around the globe have all been tampered with (unlikely).
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
people have been around for 200000 years, and have been deforesting and plowing lands for a lot longer than 100 years. Driving our cars are not the only way we have been influencing our environments and atmosphere
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Even a moron who looks at the graph can see the upward trend.
This was made after the "climate gate" scandal, pretty sure the study was even initially launched by an oil company, until they found out that they were gonna get the same result and bailed out.
On July 25 2012 09:30 Nevermind86 wrote: Well some people "politically" arguee climate change, I wonder how are they going to explain this. Sad that such a huge problem is not being adressed correctly it already may be too late.
From a scientific perspective this is significant because it more than likely isn't climate related. It might be geothermal....but damn in 4 days!
"Melting" is not "melted", but I do agree that it is a huge problem. The satellites probably just detect water (32+ deg F) on top of the sheets of ice for the first time. Not a good sign to be sure, but not a signal of an immediate crisis either... although the immediate crisis thing would probably be better for environmental legislation.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
I like how you quote some scientific facts to back your theory, then ignore the science behind the concept of global warming.
There's an easy* fix for global warming. Just evacuate a few dozen decent-sized cities, fill them up with incendiary and/or nuclear bombs, and explode them. The resulting fires will lift soot high into the atmosphere, blotting out the Sun for a few months and cooling the Earth's surface by several degrees C.
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
Extreme? Fact, the Earth has heated up approx 1 degree Celcius (not Farenheit) since 1950, and is going up faster. Grab the raw data yourself and create your own graph if you don't believe it. And if you don't believe the data is accurate, well then there must be a conspiracy where the 10,000 stations around the globe have all been tampered with (unlikely).
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
people have been around for 200000 years, and have been deforesting and plowing lands for a lot longer than 100 years. Driving our cars are not the only way we have been influencing our environments and atmosphere
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Even a moron who looks at the graph can see the upward trend.
This was made after the "climate gate" scandal, pretty sure the study was even initially launched by an oil company, until they found out that they were gonna get the same result and bailed out.
On July 25 2012 10:43 lithiumdeuteride wrote: There's an easy* fix for global warming. Just evacuate a few dozen decent-sized cities, fill them up with incendiary and/or nuclear bombs, and explode them. The resulting fires will lift soot high into the atmosphere, blotting out the Sun for a few months and cooling the Earth's surface by several degrees C.
* May not actually be easy.
Why wouldn't you just do it in the deserts where nobody lives?
Won't do much though, it took 50 years of trapped energy to heat up the earth to where it was, its going to take just as much energy to cool it back down, and then in 25 years, we will be back to where we started.
One week. Huge portion of a country melts away. One freaking week, that's a "geological instant". I can't imagine how much worse things will be as time continues to pass...
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
Extreme? Fact, the Earth has heated up approx 1 degree Celcius (not Farenheit) since 1950, and is going up faster. Grab the raw data yourself and create your own graph if you don't believe it. And if you don't believe the data is accurate, well then there must be a conspiracy where the 10,000 stations around the globe have all been tampered with (unlikely).
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
people have been around for 200000 years, and have been deforesting and plowing lands for a lot longer than 100 years. Driving our cars are not the only way we have been influencing our environments and atmosphere
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Even a moron who looks at the graph can see the upward trend.
This was made after the "climate gate" scandal, pretty sure the study was even initially launched by an oil company, until they found out that they were gonna get the same result and bailed out.
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
Extreme? Fact, the Earth has heated up approx 1 degree Celcius (not Farenheit) since 1950, and is going up faster. Grab the raw data yourself and create your own graph if you don't believe it. And if you don't believe the data is accurate, well then there must be a conspiracy where the 10,000 stations around the globe have all been tampered with (unlikely).
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
people have been around for 200000 years, and have been deforesting and plowing lands for a lot longer than 100 years. Driving our cars are not the only way we have been influencing our environments and atmosphere
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Even a moron who looks at the graph can see the upward trend.
This was made after the "climate gate" scandal, pretty sure the study was even initially launched by an oil company, until they found out that they were gonna get the same result and bailed out.
It doesn't matter what the IPCC says, even if they seem to be the gatekeeper to all things global warming.
The raw data of the 10,000 stations around the world show a 1C increase in temperature over the last 50 years. This is irrefutable.
It shows a 1C increase over the last 50 years, but it doesnt show you that 50 years ago it was below the norm and now it is above the norm. It has been a .5 degree increase above the norm. How exactly it is determined, I will trust the IPCC over you.
On July 25 2012 09:42 caradoc wrote: Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not.
Whether you can tell why any given bug came in is irrelevant. All you need to know is that there's a causative effect from turning the light on, and that you can measure the extent of that effect.
You may not be able to tell exactly which bugs came in - but you can measure how many more come in when you leave the light on and window open.
And then before you're done measuring a fuck ton of killer bees come in and rape you your family and your children.
Theres so many more reasons for mankind to adapt other than some dumb debate as to whether or not man has any effect on climate change. Just starting with fuel emissions from fossil fuels. Theres no way our current society which was propelled by oil can be sustained indefinitely, let alone 100 years from now. Even just starting with the rising nations of China and India; billions of people whose demand for oil will rise. It's convenient for politicians to ignore it and believe we have much longer to stumble upon the solution than there really is.
And then we're told not to blame the governments (really the politicians). Billions of dollars are shoved into the pockets of the oil industry in the USA, money better spent towards the research and development of a sustainable future infrastructure that isn't run by gasoline fueled trucks. Same oil industry then turns around and conveniently donates to those politicians' campaigns who get elected to repeat the same broken cycle.
And ontop of that, fuel emissions over time can be linked to the global rise in temperature.
This thread got me depressed over the state of US politics again. sigh
So what? Freaks of nature always happen. Why is everyone surprised? You all sound like ignorant fools right now lol. The article even says the ice is already freezing again. And it's just ice - I'm so confused at all these ignorant responses.
Yuck, no wonder the news is the way it is, gotta feed the people what they want
The next time a freak heat wave hits India - I wonder if it'll be reported. Naaa - doesn't sound like a pandemic/scare/global warming/end-of-the-world-story
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
Extreme? Fact, the Earth has heated up approx 1 degree Celcius (not Farenheit) since 1950, and is going up faster. Grab the raw data yourself and create your own graph if you don't believe it. And if you don't believe the data is accurate, well then there must be a conspiracy where the 10,000 stations around the globe have all been tampered with (unlikely).
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
It is a cycle. Even one of the more extreme theories on change in temperature from the IPCC has us going up 1 degree fahrenheit every 100 years. And even then, not all of that is because of humans (they do say most of that change is humans, but obviously people are still debating that).
A 1 degree average change in the last 100 years wouldnt directly cause something like this.
people have been around for 200000 years, and have been deforesting and plowing lands for a lot longer than 100 years. Driving our cars are not the only way we have been influencing our environments and atmosphere
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Even a moron who looks at the graph can see the upward trend.
This was made after the "climate gate" scandal, pretty sure the study was even initially launched by an oil company, until they found out that they were gonna get the same result and bailed out.
It doesn't matter what the IPCC says, even if they seem to be the gatekeeper to all things global warming.
The raw data of the 10,000 stations around the world show a 1C increase in temperature over the last 50 years. This is irrefutable.
It shows a 1C increase over the last 50 years, but it doesnt show you that 50 years ago it was below the norm and now it is above the norm. It has been a .5 degree increase above the norm. How exactly it is determined, I will trust the IPCC over you.
Ummmm ... here's the graph again, please have a look.
Pretty sure the IPCC now recognises the Berkely Study to be the correct one. The original data the IPCC was falsified in order to improve the position of their agenda and was even more "extreme" as you would put it. The reason your article doesn't have it is because your article is outdated or just wrong (probably just wrong as I'm pretty sure IPCC was originally looking at a rate around 1-3C per decade or something).
The Berkeley study is very recent and is the most accurate and up to date so far. In fact, it was created after the old measurements were falsified (climategate) and decided to do their own study. It was even sponsored by a company who had a vested interest in disproving climate change. Novim then took over as the original sponsor realised the study was going to prove almost the exact same trend anyway.
On July 25 2012 11:00 MrRicewife wrote: So what? Freaks of nature always happen. Why is everyone surprised? You all sound like ignorant fools right now lol. The article even says the ice is already freezing again. And it's just ice - I'm so confused at all these ignorant responses.
Yuck, no wonder the news is the way it is, gotta feed the people what they want
The next time a freak heat wave hits India - I wonder if it'll be reported. Naaa - doesn't sound like a pandemic/scare/global warming/end-of-the-world-story
This was predicted to happen due to global warming.
Its amazing that they predicted to happen between 0.8 and 3.2 degrees of warming. Its now 1 degree of warming now.
Well the effect of massive temperature changes, like an entire country's ice sheet falling into the ocean can cause big disruptions in weather patterns and rising sea levels. It can cause natural disasters, lose entire islands, vulcanic eruptions, completely change rainfall patterns, and even cause an ice age in europe if we are really unlucky.
On July 25 2012 09:42 caradoc wrote: Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not.
Whether you can tell why any given bug came in is irrelevant. All you need to know is that there's a causative effect from turning the light on, and that you can measure the extent of that effect.
You may not be able to tell exactly which bugs came in - but you can measure how many more come in when you leave the light on and window open.
And then before you're done measuring a fuck ton of killer bees come in and rape you your family and your children.
Theres so many more reasons for mankind to adapt other than some dumb debate as to whether or not man has any effect on climate change. Just starting with fuel emissions from fossil fuels. Theres no way our current society which was propelled by oil can be sustained indefinitely, let alone 100 years from now. Even just starting with the rising nations of China and India; billions of people whose demand for oil will rise. It's convenient for politicians to ignore it and believe we have much longer to stumble upon the solution than there really is.
And then we're told not to blame the governments (really the politicians). Billions of dollars are shoved into the pockets of the oil industry in the USA, money better spent towards the research and development of a sustainable future infrastructure that isn't run by gasoline fueled trucks. Same oil industry then turns around and conveniently donates to those politicians' campaigns who get elected to repeat the same broken cycle.
And ontop of that, fuel emissions over time can be linked to the global rise in temperature.
This thread got me depressed over the state of US politics again. sigh
Lol, I totally agree with you. Tell me again why these killer bees are raping me, my family and non-existent children?
On July 25 2012 09:42 caradoc wrote: Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not.
Whether you can tell why any given bug came in is irrelevant. All you need to know is that there's a causative effect from turning the light on, and that you can measure the extent of that effect.
You may not be able to tell exactly which bugs came in - but you can measure how many more come in when you leave the light on and window open.
And then before you're done measuring a fuck ton of killer bees come in and rape you your family and your children.
Theres so many more reasons for mankind to adapt other than some dumb debate as to whether or not man has any effect on climate change. Just starting with fuel emissions from fossil fuels. Theres no way our current society which was propelled by oil can be sustained indefinitely, let alone 100 years from now. Even just starting with the rising nations of China and India; billions of people whose demand for oil will rise. It's convenient for politicians to ignore it and believe we have much longer to stumble upon the solution than there really is.
And then we're told not to blame the governments (really the politicians). Billions of dollars are shoved into the pockets of the oil industry in the USA, money better spent towards the research and development of a sustainable future infrastructure that isn't run by gasoline fueled trucks. Same oil industry then turns around and conveniently donates to those politicians' campaigns who get elected to repeat the same broken cycle.
And ontop of that, fuel emissions over time can be linked to the global rise in temperature.
This thread got me depressed over the state of US politics again. sigh
Yeah but then the oil companies would have you believe that oil will last forever, and solar powered cars will cause melanoma.
On July 25 2012 11:00 MrRicewife wrote: So what? Freaks of nature always happen. Why is everyone surprised? You all sound like ignorant fools right now lol. The article even says the ice is already freezing again. And it's just ice - I'm so confused at all these ignorant responses.
Yuck, no wonder the news is the way it is, gotta feed the people what they want
The next time a freak heat wave hits India - I wonder if it'll be reported. Naaa - doesn't sound like a pandemic/scare/global warming/end-of-the-world-story
It's just ice foos! Its not like its a pro-techtive reflektin shielt for the Urth or nothin. What, we all gonna die of warm sodas?
Global warming is probably one of the most confusing and unknown scientific studies at the moment. No one actually has a clue why climates can shift so greatly on such a large scale. It's the only reason why there's so much controversy involving global warming. There are theories and slight evidences to support both sides, but neither side really knows what the fuck is going on in the first place.
On July 25 2012 09:42 caradoc wrote: Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not.
Whether you can tell why any given bug came in is irrelevant. All you need to know is that there's a causative effect from turning the light on, and that you can measure the extent of that effect.
You may not be able to tell exactly which bugs came in - but you can measure how many more come in when you leave the light on and window open.
And then before you're done measuring a fuck ton of killer bees come in and rape you your family and your children.
Theres so many more reasons for mankind to adapt other than some dumb debate as to whether or not man has any effect on climate change. Just starting with fuel emissions from fossil fuels. Theres no way our current society which was propelled by oil can be sustained indefinitely, let alone 100 years from now. Even just starting with the rising nations of China and India; billions of people whose demand for oil will rise. It's convenient for politicians to ignore it and believe we have much longer to stumble upon the solution than there really is.
And then we're told not to blame the governments (really the politicians). Billions of dollars are shoved into the pockets of the oil industry in the USA, money better spent towards the research and development of a sustainable future infrastructure that isn't run by gasoline fueled trucks. Same oil industry then turns around and conveniently donates to those politicians' campaigns who get elected to repeat the same broken cycle.
And ontop of that, fuel emissions over time can be linked to the global rise in temperature.
This thread got me depressed over the state of US politics again. sigh
Lol, I totally agree with you. Tell me again why these killer bees are raping me, my family and non-existent children?
Cause you left the window open to measure bugs, iunno. Point was basically refuting the idea that waiting and seeing when we have no precedent to compare to in regards to the age of oil is pointless both when the possible consequences of climate change that could be caused by man reaches a point of no return -- AND the fact that some of the solutions are needed either way. ex. reducing fuel emissions/dependency on oil.
Whenever I read a discussion about religion, global warming or IQ on the internet I die a little inside, but I still can't resist the urge to do it over and over again.
HOLY SHIT! ICE IS MELTING IN THE SUMMER! THIS IS MOST UNNATURAL BEHAVIOUR FOR THE PLANET! WE ARE OBVIOUSLY ALL DOOMED!!
All kidding aside, if you ignore the horribly deceptive title and actually read the article it says this happens every 150 years or so and it is about the right time for this to happen, but inconvenient facts have never stopped the warm-mongers from spreading fear in the past.
On July 25 2012 11:39 Perdac Curall wrote: HOLY SHIT! ICE IS MELTING IN THE SUMMER! THIS IS MOST UNNATURAL BEHAVIOUR FOR THE PLANET! WE ARE OBVIOUSLY ALL DOOMED!!
All kidding aside, if you ignore the horribly deceptive title and actually read the article it says this happens every 150 years or so and it is about the right time for this to happen, but inconvenient facts have never stopped the warm-mongers from spreading fear in the past.
YEAH! No one ACTUALLY cares about the Earth - they are just uneccesarily trying to spread fear - as that's what good scientists do. Imean the basic definition of scientist is "One who unnecessarily comes up with explanations for the physical world for the purpose of spreading debilitating fear." Damn - this one time I met a scientist in a dark ally - he reared onto his hind legs, puffed his neck frill and squirted blood from his eyes at me causing me to flee in terror. I sure hope I don't meet one of his kind again.
Who cares? as long as India, China and USA don't stop using fossil fuels, all EU laws and pollution standars will mean nothing, so if there is global warming and it will change climate, we are gonna see it no matter what.
At least i'm living well above sea level. In a concrete building. With my own generator. And lots of wood in case i need it to cook.
I'm not really interested in a debate about climate change, I'm just going to say this: You can't use localized melting as proof of your ideas. It's just a particularly warm summer in Greenland, that's all. Climate change or not, if it exists, or not, this will happen at some points. As the article states, its an expected phenomenon, warm summers in Greenland ARE GOING TO OCCUR.
Earth's weather is not static, guys. Earth's weather wasn't static before humans, it won't be during, and it won't be after. Some summers are warmer. Some are cooler. This is fact. Greenland is having a warm one.
To show global warming, or climate change, you need to show a trend, over years. Localized melting events mean absolutely nothing to your theory, just as localized snow or freezing events mean nothing to a skeptic's argument.
If I were a skeptic, and I told you, "It's snowing in Georgia in May, global warming clearly doesn't exist" you'd laugh me out of the room. Why then, is this okay? Why is a localized event (Which the article states the ice is already refreezing) okay when it supports your ideas, but not when it goes against them?
On July 25 2012 11:00 MrRicewife wrote: So what? Freaks of nature always happen. Why is everyone surprised? You all sound like ignorant fools right now lol. The article even says the ice is already freezing again. And it's just ice - I'm so confused at all these ignorant responses.
Yuck, no wonder the news is the way it is, gotta feed the people what they want
The next time a freak heat wave hits India - I wonder if it'll be reported. Naaa - doesn't sound like a pandemic/scare/global warming/end-of-the-world-story
It's just ice It will be water when coastal cities are flooded in 50 years... Global warming exists, and it exists because of us, because we are breeding more and more animals for food (methane), because we have been sending and are continuing to send excessive amounts of carbon dioxide and NOx from all the transportation in the air. Yes it is true that earth's temperature rises and falls across eons, yet ever since the start of industrial revolution which began great consumption of fossil fuels we are seeing a rapid increase in temperature (relative to the Earth).
Also yes freaks of nature happen, yet because the climate is destabilized those freaks of nature happen more often and are more devastating than they were before.
On July 25 2012 09:42 caradoc wrote: Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not.
Oh, hey, another scientist! Nice to meet you *highfive*.
On July 25 2012 11:39 Perdac Curall wrote: HOLY SHIT! ICE IS MELTING IN THE SUMMER! THIS IS MOST UNNATURAL BEHAVIOUR FOR THE PLANET! WE ARE OBVIOUSLY ALL DOOMED!!
All kidding aside, if you ignore the horribly deceptive title and actually read the article it says this happens every 150 years or so and it is about the right time for this to happen, but inconvenient facts have never stopped the warm-mongers from spreading fear in the past.
Oh my 0.O Sounds like it happend 150 years ago though so it could be a rare event, could be interesting to see if this is the signs that i once read about or watched a documentary about where it goes really warm, and that triggers another ice age. The last ice age was after alot of heat wasn't it? Due to the polar caps moving all the time and then all of a sudden a big change happens which triggers the ice age? Was a documentary i watched a while back so i don't remember all the facts
On July 25 2012 22:18 Pandemona wrote: Oh my 0.O Sounds like it happend 150 years ago though so it could be a rare event, could be interesting to see if this is the signs that i once read about or watched a documentary about where it goes really warm, and that triggers another ice age. The last ice age was after alot of heat wasn't it? Due to the polar caps moving all the time and then all of a sudden a big change happens which triggers the ice age? Was a documentary i watched a while back so i don't remember all the facts
150 years ago and it's rare? People look at time in such a subjective manner, hell even us being on this planet is a blip of time, so if an event happened 150 years ago and now happened again that is not rare whatsoever...
On July 25 2012 22:18 Pandemona wrote: Oh my 0.O Sounds like it happend 150 years ago though so it could be a rare event, could be interesting to see if this is the signs that i once read about or watched a documentary about where it goes really warm, and that triggers another ice age. The last ice age was after alot of heat wasn't it? Due to the polar caps moving all the time and then all of a sudden a big change happens which triggers the ice age? Was a documentary i watched a while back so i don't remember all the facts
150 years ago and it's rare? People look at time in such a subjective manner, hell even us being on this planet is a blip of time, so if an event happened 150 years ago and now happened again that is not rare whatsoever...
150 years ago it supposidly happend, planet has been labelled as The age of the Earth is 4.404 billion years old, means its happend twenty-nine million three hundred sixty thousand times thus its rare
Plus anyway, i beleive that it refroze anyway, so even if this happens again and it refreezes as quick, does it make much difference?
On July 25 2012 22:18 Pandemona wrote: Oh my 0.O Sounds like it happend 150 years ago though so it could be a rare event, could be interesting to see if this is the signs that i once read about or watched a documentary about where it goes really warm, and that triggers another ice age. The last ice age was after alot of heat wasn't it? Due to the polar caps moving all the time and then all of a sudden a big change happens which triggers the ice age? Was a documentary i watched a while back so i don't remember all the facts
150 years ago and it's rare? People look at time in such a subjective manner, hell even us being on this planet is a blip of time, so if an event happened 150 years ago and now happened again that is not rare whatsoever...
150 years ago it supposidly happend, planet has been labelled as 2012 years old, that means its happend 13.4 times, thus its "rare" imo
Well thats just 2012 years since Jesus was born..... the earth is actually 12,000 years old according to reliable biblical sources (adding up the ages of everyone in the Abrahamic line all the way back to Adam) which still means that every 150 years is pretty rare ;p
On a serious note, even if this event is a regular and knowable phenomenon, its impact on the Earth isn't known. With higher temperatures from climate change, the ice might not refreeze (as it obviously did last time), we just don't know.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
What's the CO2 output from a volcano compared to humans?
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
Queegag:
ayaz & Queegag:
If you think your computer-chair opinion is on even footing with more than 100 years of climate science, then I can only pity you.
On July 25 2012 11:31 TheToaster wrote: Global warming is probably one of the most confusing and unknown scientific studies at the moment. No one actually has a clue why climates can shift so greatly on such a large scale. It's the only reason why there's so much controversy involving global warming. There are theories and slight evidences to support both sides, but neither side really knows what the fuck is going on in the first place.
actually there is not really a controversy. The huge majority of the scientists agrees on global warming. But the uneducated clueless random people who never did anything even remotely close to climatology in their life disagrees. I hardly call that a controversy. I just don't get why people feels the urge to give their opinions on scientific facts. Science is not about opinion, noone cares what you think if you don't scientifically works on the subject
On July 25 2012 11:31 TheToaster wrote: Global warming is probably one of the most confusing and unknown scientific studies at the moment. No one actually has a clue why climates can shift so greatly on such a large scale. It's the only reason why there's so much controversy involving global warming. There are theories and slight evidences to support both sides, but neither side really knows what the fuck is going on in the first place.
actually there is not really a controversy. The huge majority of the scientists agrees on global warming. But the uneducated clueless random people who never did anything even remotely close to climatology in their life disagrees. I hardly call that a controversy. I just don't get why people feels the urge to give their opinions on scientific facts. Science is not about opinion, noone cares what you think if you don't scientifically works on the subject
I find it mind boggling how people can deny global warming. "Oh the science is just wrong, I know better" Yeah seriously?
"It's because of the sun!" -- No, it isn't, that has been proven not to be the case. "People are making money of it!" -- Ah, okay, obviously that means it's not true. "We just had a cold winter!" -- Learn how climatology works. "*links random anti global warming website* It's not true, I have this website as a source!" -- www. creationism. com "There was a petition signed by many scientists saying it's not true!" -- Yeah, and none of them were climatologists.
And I could go on and on. What explanation is there for the disbelieve?
On July 25 2012 22:18 Pandemona wrote: Oh my 0.O Sounds like it happend 150 years ago though so it could be a rare event, could be interesting to see if this is the signs that i once read about or watched a documentary about where it goes really warm, and that triggers another ice age. The last ice age was after alot of heat wasn't it? Due to the polar caps moving all the time and then all of a sudden a big change happens which triggers the ice age? Was a documentary i watched a while back so i don't remember all the facts
150 years ago and it's rare? People look at time in such a subjective manner, hell even us being on this planet is a blip of time, so if an event happened 150 years ago and now happened again that is not rare whatsoever...
150 years ago it supposidly happend, planet has been labelled as 2012 years old, that means its happend 13.4 times, thus its "rare" imo
Well thats just 2012 years since Jesus was born..... the earth is actually 12,000 years old according to reliable biblical sources (adding up the ages of everyone in the Abrahamic line all the way back to Adam) which still means that every 150 years is pretty rare ;p
On a serious note, even if this event is a regular and knowable phenomenon, its impact on the Earth isn't known. With higher temperatures from climate change, the ice might not refreeze (as it obviously did last time), we just don't know.
Sorry did you say the earth is 12,000 years old or were you just quoting ridiculous scripture to make your point... If we go by your logic, people can come from thin air, and the earth is the center of the universe. "facepalms"
On July 25 2012 11:31 TheToaster wrote: Global warming is probably one of the most confusing and unknown scientific studies at the moment. No one actually has a clue why climates can shift so greatly on such a large scale. It's the only reason why there's so much controversy involving global warming. There are theories and slight evidences to support both sides, but neither side really knows what the fuck is going on in the first place.
actually there is not really a controversy. The huge majority of the scientists agrees on global warming. But the uneducated clueless random people who never did anything even remotely close to climatology in their life disagrees. I hardly call that a controversy. I just don't get why people feels the urge to give their opinions on scientific facts. Science is not about opinion, noone cares what you think if you don't scientifically works on the subject
I find it mind boggling how people can deny global warming. "Oh the science is just wrong, I know better" Yeah seriously?
"It's because of the sun!" -- No, it isn't, that has been proven not to be the case. "People are making money of it!" -- Ah, okay, obviously that means it's not true. "We just had a cold winter!" -- Learn how climatology works. "*links random anti global warming website* It's not true, I have this website as a source!" -- www. creationism. com "There was a petition signed by many scientists saying it's not true!" -- Yeah, and none of them were climatologists.
And I could go on and on. What explanation is there for the disbelieve?
I am not disagreeing with you on all points but "its because of the sun" is actually a very valid argument, I would equate it. The sun is in a cycle, every 11 years (2012 being the 11th year) it emits (to keep it realy simple we'll call it heat) heat out into space, but about approximately every 10th 11 year cycle it builds up much hotter than usual, in retrospect, which than can actually short out telecommunications/satellites etc... It is also the cause of big heat waves which can result in this "global warming" feeling. That's why specifically the last 10 years were the "hottest ever" because it was additive of the 11 year cycle of heat emission with the inclusion of our pollution.
But are people causing it? Yes, not entirely though, I would give it 70/30 (people the 70) as an approximation.
This is a bit offtopic, but does anyone know what that moviefragment was called about how people should interlink their houses and share energy and grow their own food and stuff. It went "viral" a long time ago and I have searching ever since. I think it's about 15mins long or somehting but not sure and there's also some older guy talking about how we, as world, should start the new environmental revolution or something.
On July 25 2012 23:46 fumikey wrote: We need to send some of our water into space.
Problem: Solved.
I think instead we ought to build a massive, floating reservoir that simply hovers up and down the Atlantic corridor. We shall call it "The Eternity Pool" and all will be well.
On a side note, on exactly what is that 70/30 number based, Nemesis? Your own personal climatology genius or something concrete?
This isn't a controversial topic, and it isn't a debate. It's a fact, and denialists exist. Incentives for denial exist financially and career-wise. Imagine if you'd spent 40 years building a political empire as a conservative, only to have "well, honestly your policies are ruining the climate for humans" thrown in your face. You'd be required to deny it just to keep your job and your wealth.
The fact is, it probably matters zero to denialists that they're damaging the climate of children's futures. The effect of immediacy will cause them to first consider how they're going to pay their mortgage and put their kids through school- and then how to get stupid rich- before they consider damaging the environment. If rich conservative politicians embraced the reforms required to solve the issue, they'd be spitting in the face of the huge businesses that back them financially, and committing career suicide.
This isn't a scientific issue, it's a political issue.
Keep in mind, plenty of people deny that the holocaust ever happened too.
Greenland in our not so distant past didnt even have ice through the whole year. It was a land with grass in the south part and thats why its called Greenland.
I seriously doubt we had anything with the global warming in the past and possibly in the present. Ok we might contribute a little with our human behavior but thats so little to actually matter on a grand scale.
On July 25 2012 22:18 Pandemona wrote: Oh my 0.O Sounds like it happend 150 years ago though so it could be a rare event, could be interesting to see if this is the signs that i once read about or watched a documentary about where it goes really warm, and that triggers another ice age. The last ice age was after alot of heat wasn't it? Due to the polar caps moving all the time and then all of a sudden a big change happens which triggers the ice age? Was a documentary i watched a while back so i don't remember all the facts
150 years ago and it's rare? People look at time in such a subjective manner, hell even us being on this planet is a blip of time, so if an event happened 150 years ago and now happened again that is not rare whatsoever...
150 years ago it supposidly happend, planet has been labelled as 2012 years old, that means its happend 13.4 times, thus its "rare" imo
Well thats just 2012 years since Jesus was born..... the earth is actually 12,000 years old according to reliable biblical sources (adding up the ages of everyone in the Abrahamic line all the way back to Adam) which still means that every 150 years is pretty rare ;p
On a serious note, even if this event is a regular and knowable phenomenon, its impact on the Earth isn't known. With higher temperatures from climate change, the ice might not refreeze (as it obviously did last time), we just don't know.
Sorry did you say the earth is 12,000 years old or were you just quoting ridiculous scripture to make your point... If we go by your logic, people can come from thin air, and the earth is the center of the universe. "facepalms"
On July 25 2012 11:31 TheToaster wrote: Global warming is probably one of the most confusing and unknown scientific studies at the moment. No one actually has a clue why climates can shift so greatly on such a large scale. It's the only reason why there's so much controversy involving global warming. There are theories and slight evidences to support both sides, but neither side really knows what the fuck is going on in the first place.
actually there is not really a controversy. The huge majority of the scientists agrees on global warming. But the uneducated clueless random people who never did anything even remotely close to climatology in their life disagrees. I hardly call that a controversy. I just don't get why people feels the urge to give their opinions on scientific facts. Science is not about opinion, noone cares what you think if you don't scientifically works on the subject
I find it mind boggling how people can deny global warming. "Oh the science is just wrong, I know better" Yeah seriously?
"It's because of the sun!" -- No, it isn't, that has been proven not to be the case. "People are making money of it!" -- Ah, okay, obviously that means it's not true. "We just had a cold winter!" -- Learn how climatology works. "*links random anti global warming website* It's not true, I have this website as a source!" -- www. creationism. com "There was a petition signed by many scientists saying it's not true!" -- Yeah, and none of them were climatologists.
And I could go on and on. What explanation is there for the disbelieve?
I am not disagreeing with you on all points but "its because of the sun" is actually a very valid argument, I would equate it. The sun is in a cycle, every 11 years (2012 being the 11th year) it emits (to keep it realy simple we'll call it heat) heat out into space, but about approximately every 10th 11 year cycle it builds up much hotter than usual, in retrospect, which than can actually short out telecommunications/satellites etc... It is also the cause of big heat waves which can result in this "global warming" feeling. That's why specifically the last 10 years were the "hottest ever" because it was additive of the 11 year cycle of heat emission with the inclusion of our pollution.
But are people causing it? Yes, not entirely though, I would give it 70/30 (people the 70) as an approximation.
No. As I said, it's been proven that the 11 year cycle is not a (major) factor in global warming.
I seriously doubt we had anything with the global warming in the past and possibly in the present. Ok we might contribute a little with our human behavior but thats so little to actually matter on a grand scale.
And you know this because...? Are you a climatologist? No? Then why do you believe you know better than the thousands of experts in this field?
Ice cores from [Summit Station in central Greenland] show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
"But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
So... it's perfectly normal, but it's also unprecedented and rabble rabble rabble global warming.
Does global warming exist? Yeah. Has it always, yeah. That's the point. The world would have never come out of the ice age if not for normal global warming. People just like to blow shit up so that it sounds better. And to all of those "you're fucking the world up for your children." What are you doing exactly? Typing on your computer doing the same stuff I am. So I'm not going to pretend that I give a damn while my actions show the complete opposite.
Ice cores from [Summit Station in central Greenland] show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
"But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
So... it's perfectly normal, but it's also unprecedented and rabble rabble rabble global warming.
On July 26 2012 02:35 Infernal_dream wrote: Does global warming exist? Yeah. Has it always, yeah. That's the point. The world would have never come out of the ice age if not for normal global warming. People just like to blow shit up so that it sounds better. And to all of those "you're fucking the world up for your children." What are you doing exactly? Typing on your computer doing the same stuff I am. So I'm not going to pretend that I give a damn while my actions show the complete opposite.
The fact that we know that global warming has natural causes has no impact on whether or not our interaction with the system accelerates or intensifies global warming in perhaps a destructive way (on top of the destructive nature of pollution in general).
On July 26 2012 01:18 Crownlol wrote: This isn't a controversial topic, and it isn't a debate. It's a fact, and denialists exist. Incentives for denial exist financially and career-wise. Imagine if you'd spent 40 years building a political empire as a conservative, only to have "well, honestly your policies are ruining the climate for humans" thrown in your face. You'd be required to deny it just to keep your job and your wealth.
lolololol, and the scientists who are selling us all this alarming news have absolutely ZERO incentives.
Btw, those policies ruining the climate? That's things like having a nice home with electricity and being able to travel in a car. If only we could be more like Native Americans living in harmony with the environment!
And here's a treat for everyone who has never bothered to look at a chart of Earth temperatures that goes back more than one or two hundred years, let alone the one or two decades that are used in most scare propaganda.
People need to realise that Data can and is manipulated by both sides to prove their point. Yes Big Buisness wants you to believe that global warming is a hoax and you can fell fine about driving your Truck. they are biased toward denial of Global Warming. But there is bias on the other side too. You need to understand who paid for the story you read as it will usually tell you your bias. I;m not going to get into a big Climate Change debate as i don;t know that much on the subject but if you look at the history of earth you can see that climate change happened before we were here and it will happen after we are gone. As was said earlier in this thread there is a reason that Greenland is called Greenland. There is a reason that you can find fossils of jungle plants all over the world. Ice ages happened before man walked this earth.
On July 26 2012 02:44 dvorakftw wrote:lolololol, and the scientists who are selling us all this alarming news have absolutely ZERO incentives.
as soon as i read this sentence i knew you weren't arguing because you are concerned with the facts, it's some sort of personal mission to show the internet how smart and edgy you are. in the same sentence you are making an argument about motives and issues outside of the actual debate, and you are trying to go for a witty critique instead of making it about the facts
On July 26 2012 02:44 dvorakftw wrote:Btw, those policies ruining the climate? That's things like having a nice home with electricity and being able to travel in a car. If only we could be more like Native Americans living in harmony with the environment!
Nobody is suggesting that we need to emulate Native Americans. Once again you are not talking about the actual issue and using manipulative debating tactics to try and prove your point. And as far as the electricity and modern living statement goes, it seems like you are saying that no matter what the effects of our way of life we don't need to change them because, hey, they're great! I can assure you that there are many people from countries outside ones such as the US that don't see "being able to travel in a car" as a privilege.
On July 26 2012 02:44 dvorakftw wrote:And here's a treat for everyone who has never bothered to look at a chart of Earth temperatures that goes back more than one or two hundred years, let alone the one or two decades that are used in most scare propaganda.
Once again you've taken on this witty and condescending tone that adds nothing to your argument. As far as the chart goes, it's hard for me to write a response to it as you have completely failed to make any point about the data, you just put the chart in after a not so subtle comment suggesting that you have researched the topic way more than anyone else. There are many different points I see that you could be trying to make, so instead of me trying to cover all the bases could you add in your actual argument?
Wether global warming is caused by mankind or not, At least its a good concept to rally people together for a cause and push technological progress.
Think greenland just has its occasional heatwave wich happens everywhere now and then, and that this is just a meteorological event , not related to climate. Its more extreme then normal it seems but not an indication the world will end in the next few months.
On July 26 2012 01:39 SkelA wrote: Greenland in our not so distant past didnt even have ice through the whole year. It was a land with grass in the south part and thats why its called Greenland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red When Erik returned to Iceland after his exile had expired, he is said to have brought with him stories of "Greenland". Erik deliberately gave the land a more appealing name than "Iceland" in order to lure potential settlers. He explained, "people would be attracted to go there if it had a favorable name".[...]After spending the winter in Iceland, Erik returned to Greenland in 985 with a large number of colonists and established two colonies on its southwest coast: the Eastern Settlement or Eystribyggð, in modern-day Qaqortoq, and the Western Settlement or Vestribyggð, close to present-day Nuuk. (Eventually, a Middle Settlement grew, but many people suggest it formed part of the Western Settlement.) The Eastern and Western Settlements, both established on the southwest coast, proved the only two areas suitable for farming.
There was only a small southern coastal strip that was free of ice and the scientist aren't even speaking about those, it's the massive inner core which is the topic.
Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
On July 26 2012 01:18 Crownlol wrote: This isn't a controversial topic, and it isn't a debate. It's a fact, and denialists exist. Incentives for denial exist financially and career-wise. Imagine if you'd spent 40 years building a political empire as a conservative, only to have "well, honestly your policies are ruining the climate for humans" thrown in your face. You'd be required to deny it just to keep your job and your wealth.
lolololol, and the scientists who are selling us all this alarming news have absolutely ZERO incentives.
Btw, those policies ruining the climate? That's things like having a nice home with electricity and being able to travel in a car. If only we could be more like Native Americans living in harmony with the environment!
And here's a treat for everyone who has never bothered to look at a chart of Earth temperatures that goes back more than one or two hundred years, let alone the one or two decades that are used in most scare propaganda.
What are you even trying to say with that chart? That it was hotter in some periods in the past? Yes, obviously. But what relevance does that have to global warming right now? One million years ago there weren't any civilizations that could get destroyed by global warming (or cooling). The entire point of the debate is that the global warming that is happening now will have significant, possibly civilization threatening effects on the entire world.
The data shows that CO2 and average temps are increasing over the past decades and that's what counts.
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
an argument such as that suggests that each potential outcome has the same probability of occurring which skews the risk/reward decision. my first thought when i saw the picture was of pascal's wager, and it falls apart for the same reason. my position is the same as yours, but i think that argument isn't going to get you very far
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
an argument such as that suggests that each potential outcome has the same probability of occurring which skews the risk/reward decision. my first thought when i saw the picture was of pascal's wager, and it falls apart for the same reason. my position is the same as yours, but i think that argument isn't going to get you very far
But if the probabilites are unknown (both sides seem very sure on their arguments), regarding it as 50/50 seems like the safest bet
Could one of the reasons, or factors, be that europe lately have been hit by a massive heat wave? In most countries, southern as northern, the weather has been extremely hot. If it somehow has been carried further north, to Greenland, it could explain the sudden change in melting speed. I am no where near an expert, but it seems like a logical reason, for me.
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
an argument such as that suggests that each potential outcome has the same probability of occurring which skews the risk/reward decision. my first thought when i saw the picture was of pascal's wager, and it falls apart for the same reason. my position is the same as yours, but i think that argument isn't going to get you very far
But if the probabilites are unknown (both sides seem very sure on their arguments), regarding it as 50/50 seems like the safest bet
how sure somebody seems on their argument shouldn't be your basis for accepting that argument, and the safest bet is to not reduce it down to a coin flip decision and instead base the decision off of facts
On July 25 2012 09:49 starfries wrote: Huh... weird...
It's definitely not a result of solar activity, the amount of activity you would need for something of this magnitude would knock out communications everywhere, and NASA would definitely have said something. Sounds more like climate destabilization (possibly from global warming), basically a big blob of warm air going where it's not supposed to go.
I just ignore the denialists. Evidence hasn't worked until now, it likely won't work now.
I hope they discover why it only took 4 days for this increase of 57% of ice melt area.
Of course, political blowhards will go straight to global warming or acceleration due to global warming. They are doing the movement a disservice. An unknown phenomenon causing melting lends an easy hand towards, "This process might have occurred later, if not due to higher average world temperatures." But that's not science, any more than pointing your finger at a manufacturing plant and saying that THIS PLANT is responsible for a certain species disappearance without any investigation. Gut-response sayings of hot years corresponding to omg global warming and cool years ... well we predicted that too ... cmon let the investigation go on, get scientists measuring and analyzing the data, and look at "gee whiz it was actually this." Even naysayers would have their trouble if melt zones in ice sheets suddenly doubled every 4 days ... but they don't
2000-2009 corresponded to a bit of stagnation in world temperatures (source, meteorologists) and then it picked up again. A period of homeostasis is by no means a single thing to disprove global warming any more than a single instance of rapid melting is enough to blame on it. So calm down and wait for the real stories on how gradual changing become slightly/moderately accelerated under increasing global temperatures.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly all of Greenland's massive ice sheet suddenly started melting a bit this month, a freak event that surprised scientists.
Even Greenland's coldest and highest place, Summit station, showed melting. Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years.
Yep, about once every 150 years is pretty directly attributable to global warming and is a necessary cause to spur on political action.
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
an argument such as that suggests that each potential outcome has the same probability of occurring which skews the risk/reward decision. my first thought when i saw the picture was of pascal's wager, and it falls apart for the same reason. my position is the same as yours, but i think that argument isn't going to get you very far
But if the probabilites are unknown (both sides seem very sure on their arguments), regarding it as 50/50 seems like the safest bet
So we should jump on every "end of the world"-theory that can't be unproven and throw money at it? Remember that in form of proofs the global warming side has absolutely nothing. It can't be unproven, but that's because the theory is made that way.
And no, spending this kind of money doesn't hurt mostly first world countries. It's the exact opposite. It's the same as killing off a few percent of the poorest people. But I guess that's worth it, huh? Round 'em up!
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again.
It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now.
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again.
It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now.
You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits.
Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox News?
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
Proof really doesn't matter if you don't play by the same set of rules of logic, proof to you is not proof to someone who won't make the same conclusions as you.
In a way this is good, the only things that changes public opinion as results in action is a sudden change, slow change simply doesn't cut it. Take the ozone hole for example, suddenly, giant hole over the antarctic, news media can put a picture of a giant red spot on the south pole, and people are really worried and thus change happens.
Maybe if greenland just suddenly melts it might help us in the long run put pressure on governments to care about climate. Usually it takes a disaster before something happens, humans are usually pretty bad at prevention and foresight.
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again.
It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now.
You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits.
Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news?
Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence.
And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another...
Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe).
Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)?
Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory?
I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane.
edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye.
Then WHAT does constitute proof for you? God saying it's real?
And besides, any sane person CANNOT deny global warming because ACTUAL DATA shows that CO2 AND global average temperature has been increasing over the past decades.
Of course you're going to be ridiculed over it. It's like saying the world is flat.
What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence.
What the FUCK? None of those things were supported by scientific evidence. Only conspiracy theory nut jobs believed in them.
I'm sorry but I get FUCKING MAD over this. I still have an entire life ahead of me and I don't want it to fucking go to waste because some people REFUSE to accept the evidence and proof.
You are a drama queen Thorakh, the worlds not gonna end because some ice melted. Cursing out people on a video game forum wouldn't save it even if it was going to.
Arguing that people were wrong in the past is a fucking terrible argument. We know things now that are pretty hard to ignore from science because we have the technology to see things on a celluar level in the human body and the knowledge to piece it all together with physics and chemistry and biology. I highly doubt humanity will vastly change it's understanding of the human heart for example we pretty much know every single detail there is to know about it. It's pretty hard to deny that humans don't have a horrific effect on the environment even without global warming and it is stupid do so.
On July 26 2012 06:20 Thorakh wrote: Then WHAT does constitute proof for you? God saying it's real?
Sure, if God showed himself and told me it's real I would probably consider that proof, or that I'm clinically insane. Either or. I believe in gravity, evolution, and doctors washing their hands prior to delivering bodies after they have been touching dead bodies, so any evidence that is on par with that I consider pretty rigorous. And that's saying pretty much, actually, since we don't know much about gravity, the theory of evolution is contested, and it was considered ridiculous that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies up until pretty recently.
And besides, any sane person CANNOT deny global warming because ACTUAL DATA shows that CO2 AND global average temperature has been increasing over the past decades.
That doesn't, in any way, show that humans are responsible or that co2 is responsible. Bacon is also more common, maybe bacon is responsible?
Of course you're going to be ridiculed over it. It's like saying the world is flat.
What kind of world do you live in where not believing in a very recent, unproven theory that many people don't believe in is the same thing as believing the world is flat? Pretty strange place, that must be.
I'm sorry but I get FUCKING MAD over this. I still have an entire life ahead of me and I don't want it to fucking go to waste because some people REFUSE to accept the evidence and proof.
Relax. There are way bigger problems to worry about.
On July 26 2012 06:31 tokicheese wrote: Arguing that people were wrong in the past is a fucking terrible argument. We know things now that are pretty hard to ignore from science because we have the technology to see things on a celluar level in the human body and the knowledge to piece it all together with physics and chemistry and biology. I highly doubt humanity will vastly change it's understanding of the human heart for example we pretty much know every single detail there is to know about it. It's pretty hard to deny that humans don't have a horrific effect on the environment even without global warming and it is stupid do so.
Yeah we have perfect knowledge now, hurrr. Seriously, study weather and you will realize how extremely little we know about it. Earth is ridiculously complex system, yet we think we can SIMULATE it in computers. That's silly.
That doesn't, in any way, show that humans are responsible or that co2 is responsible. Bacon is also more common, maybe bacon is responsible?
It doesn't even matter what's responsible. Fact is that average temperatures are increasing at fast rate. Action will need to be taken regardless of the cause.
Although I do believe man is the cause of it (simply because that is the current scientific consensus, and who am I to doubt people who actually do research?) it isn't really of much relevance to the question "Does action need to be taken?", because it does.
Global warming (regardless of the cause!) will cause lots of problems. Harvests going bad, clean water supplies disappearing, all things that are needed for our global society to function. It wouldn't surprise me if wars are going to come of this. Sure, the human race as a whole won't die out, but there's a good chance civilization as we know it won't survive.
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again.
It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now.
You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits.
Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news?
Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence.
And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another...
Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe).
Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)?
Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory?
I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane.
edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye.
Listen, your poster-name is Ramanujan, I am going to assume you mean Srinivasa and thus assume you are interested in math which would attribute you with logic and a scientific mind (math is closely related, at least). If you don't believe me, read the abundance of reports that have been posted. Draw your own conclusions. They will no doubt fall in to the category of "oh shit". I'm not saying we are going to die in 10, 50 or even 500 years. But the world is going askew. I'm almost positive global warming isn't what will kill us anyway, it'll just play the role of a catalyst in an already dysfunctional society. I don't know dude, whatever. As someone pointed out, this is a video game homepage, I don't expect this topic to have a whole lot of well-informed visitors.
On July 26 2012 06:31 tokicheese wrote: Arguing that people were wrong in the past is a fucking terrible argument. We know things now that are pretty hard to ignore from science because we have the technology to see things on a celluar level in the human body and the knowledge to piece it all together with physics and chemistry and biology. I highly doubt humanity will vastly change it's understanding of the human heart for example we pretty much know every single detail there is to know about it. It's pretty hard to deny that humans don't have a horrific effect on the environment even without global warming and it is stupid do so.
Yeah we have perfect knowledge now, hurrr. Seriously, study weather and you will realize how extremely little we know about it. Earth is ridiculously complex system, yet we think we can SIMULATE it in computers. That's silly.
We can make fairly good predictions that get better and better as time passes. Why do you need perfect understanding of a phenomenon to try to predict its behavior now? We don't have perfect understanding of anything, yet we know enough to shoot people into space and back with the bits and pieces that we've gathered about physics.
That doesn't, in any way, show that humans are responsible or that co2 is responsible. Bacon is also more common, maybe bacon is responsible?
It doesn't even matter what's responsible. Fact is that average temperatures are increasing at fast rate. Action will need to be taken regardless of the cause.
Although I do believe man is the cause of it (simply because that is the current scientific consensus, and who am I to doubt people who actually do research?) it isn't really of much relevance to the question "Does action need to be taken?", because it does.
Global warming (regardless of the cause!) will cause lots of problems. Harvests going bad, clean water supplies disappearing, all things that are needed for our global society to function. It wouldn't surprise me if wars are going to come of this. Sure, the human race as a whole won't die out, but there's a good chance civilization as we know it won't survive.
No, even that is not a fact. There's no such thing as an average temperature, by the way, since there exist no standard way of averaging temperatures. Maybe there will, one day, but right now it doesn't. So basically, you can pick any way you want and they will of course yield different results.
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again.
It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now.
You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits.
Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news?
Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence.
And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another...
Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe).
Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)?
Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory?
I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane.
edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye.
Listen, your poster-name is Ramanujan, I am going to assume you mean Srinivasa and thus assume you are interested in math which would attribute you with logic and a scientific mind (math is closely related, at least). If you don't believe me, read the abundance of reports that have been posted. Draw your own conclusions. They will no doubt fall in to the category of "oh shit". I'm not saying we are going to die in 10, 50 or even 500 years. But the world is going askew. I'm almost positive global warming isn't what will kill us anyway, it'll just play the role of a catalyst in an already dysfunctional society. I don't know dude, whatever. As someone pointed out, this is a video game homepage, I don't expect this topic to have a whole lot of well-informed visitors.
Bolded is speculation, obviously.
That's who I mean.
You could be right. But so could anyone. I still think the best solution is just to plant more trees, but ironically, the ones who seem to hate that idea (and trees in general) the most is the global warming believers. I mean, "climate neutral" is actually a thing now, where we plant the same number of trees we chop down and pretend nothing has changed. Yeah. Doesn't work that way.
On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote: I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory?
On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote: I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory?
Under what circumstance is genocide objectively good for the world? That's kind of fucked up.
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
No one is arguing about green energy and optimization of tech is bad, we just have different priorities. What's going to happen will happen.
What people argue for / against is basically the time in which the improvements occur.
On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote: I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory?
Under what circumstance is genocide objectively good for the world? That's kind of fucked up.
I don't know, ask Gandhi?
It was a thought experiment. It's what will happen (their deaths, anyway, not necessarily by a bullet to the head) when you take money and burn it. You know, since they are poor? Obviously it doesn't matter much to us rich people.
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
No one is arguing about green energy and optimization of tech is bad, we just have different priorities. What's going to happen will happen.
What people argue for / against is basically the time in which the improvements occur.
Under what circumstances is waiting to improve our country better than not just..doing it. It's not anything we have any control over (which is sort of an issue), it's the people with the money. Regardless, it should be very obvious that arguing about global warming is both useless and irrelevant, regardless if it's occurring we can be doing things to improve the world, and whether it's happening or not no longer matters.
On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote: I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory?
Under what circumstance is genocide objectively good for the world? That's kind of fucked up.
I don't know, ask Gandhi?
It was a thought experiment. It's what will happen (their deaths, anyway, not necessarily by a bullet to the head) when you take money and burn it. You know, since they are poor? Obviously it doesn't matter much to us rich people.
At what point are we taking money from the poor, what does this have anything to do with what I said? Perhaps your misunderstood me.
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
No one is arguing about green energy and optimization of tech is bad, we just have different priorities. What's going to happen will happen.
What people argue for / against is basically the time in which the improvements occur.
Under what circumstances is waiting to improve our country better than not just..doing it. It's not anything we have any control over (which is sort of an issue), it's the people with the money. Regardless, it should be very obvious that arguing about global warming is both useless and irrelevant, regardless if it's occurring we can be doing things to improve the world, and whether it's happening or not no longer matters.
Well, you see, most of the things "you people" think are helping the world is doing the exact opposite. Like wind turbines and less consumerism and shit like that.
On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote: I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory?
Under what circumstance is genocide objectively good for the world? That's kind of fucked up.
I don't know, ask Gandhi?
It was a thought experiment. It's what will happen (their deaths, anyway, not necessarily by a bullet to the head) when you take money and burn it. You know, since they are poor? Obviously it doesn't matter much to us rich people.
At what point are we taking money from the poor, what does this have anything to do with what I said? Perhaps your misunderstood me.
You wanted to spend alot of money on fixing the world based on conjecture. That's the same thing as rounding up the poorest people and killing them. We will survive. We will still have money and food. They won't. And no, we won't be going up to them and directly steal whatever they have, it's just an effect of having less money in total.
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
No one is arguing about green energy and optimization of tech is bad, we just have different priorities. What's going to happen will happen.
What people argue for / against is basically the time in which the improvements occur.
Under what circumstances is waiting to improve our country better than not just..doing it. It's not anything we have any control over (which is sort of an issue), it's the people with the money. Regardless, it should be very obvious that arguing about global warming is both useless and irrelevant, regardless if it's occurring we can be doing things to improve the world, and whether it's happening or not no longer matters.
Well, you see, most of the things "you people" think are helping the world is doing the exact opposite. Like wind turbines and less consumerism and shit like that.
I don't believe I mentioned those. I also don't know why you quoted "you people", that sounds patronizing towards someone you don't know.
On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote: I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory?
Under what circumstance is genocide objectively good for the world? That's kind of fucked up.
I don't know, ask Gandhi?
It was a thought experiment. It's what will happen (their deaths, anyway, not necessarily by a bullet to the head) when you take money and burn it. You know, since they are poor? Obviously it doesn't matter much to us rich people.
At what point are we taking money from the poor, what does this have anything to do with what I said? Perhaps your misunderstood me.
You wanted to spend alot of money on fixing the world based on conjecture. That's the same thing as rounding up the poorest people and killing them. We will survive. We will still have money and food. They won't. And no, we won't be going up to them and directly steal whatever they have, it's just an effect of having less money in total.
That's not what I said nor what I implied, you misunderstood me.
On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote: Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again.
It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now.
You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits.
Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news?
Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence.
And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another...
Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe).
Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)?
Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory?
I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane.
edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye.
Listen, your poster-name is Ramanujan, I am going to assume you mean Srinivasa and thus assume you are interested in math which would attribute you with logic and a scientific mind (math is closely related, at least). If you don't believe me, read the abundance of reports that have been posted. Draw your own conclusions. They will no doubt fall in to the category of "oh shit". I'm not saying we are going to die in 10, 50 or even 500 years. But the world is going askew. I'm almost positive global warming isn't what will kill us anyway, it'll just play the role of a catalyst in an already dysfunctional society. I don't know dude, whatever. As someone pointed out, this is a video game homepage, I don't expect this topic to have a whole lot of well-informed visitors.
Bolded is speculation, obviously.
That's who I mean.
You could be right. But so could anyone. I still think the best solution is just to plant more trees, but ironically, the ones who seem to hate that idea (and trees in general) the most is the global warming believers. I mean, "climate neutral" is actually a thing now, where we plant the same number of trees we chop down and pretend nothing has changed. Yeah. Doesn't work that way.
I could be right. Not everyone could be.
Planting trees is a step. There are a lot of things that should be done as a progression of our species, it's just that damned economy.
And yes, you are correct in that climate "neutral" is a weird way of putting it, but that's semantics. It's not that anyone is expecting the climate to go unchanged and remain this way forever, no sir. What it truly implies is that it's meant to negate (or minimize) any negative effects humans are responsible for.
And sure, we may die anyway from a gigantic solar flare or asteroid (more specifically if its trajectory traverses southern america (if I recall correctly?)), a viral outbreak or something else. But why shoot ourselves in the foot? I don't get it. I mean. Assuming I'd live until the end of humanity, I'd rather live in a comfortable environment than an inhospitable place.
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
No one is arguing about green energy and optimization of tech is bad, we just have different priorities. What's going to happen will happen.
What people argue for / against is basically the time in which the improvements occur.
Under what circumstances is waiting to improve our country better than not just..doing it. It's not anything we have any control over (which is sort of an issue), it's the people with the money. Regardless, it should be very obvious that arguing about global warming is both useless and irrelevant, regardless if it's occurring we can be doing things to improve the world, and whether it's happening or not no longer matters.
It's better in the sense of the economy being shit and if we were to radically invest a lot in upgrading stuff less money would go to taking care of people. Essentially, the discussion is a gamble between when we think the most people will suffer. While upgrading or when the shit hits the fan. We will see.
This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway.
Of course not.
Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big
Which is completely fucking ridiculous.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again.
It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now.
You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits.
Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news?
Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence.
And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another...
Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe).
Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)?
Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory?
I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane.
edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye.
Listen, your poster-name is Ramanujan, I am going to assume you mean Srinivasa and thus assume you are interested in math which would attribute you with logic and a scientific mind (math is closely related, at least). If you don't believe me, read the abundance of reports that have been posted. Draw your own conclusions. They will no doubt fall in to the category of "oh shit". I'm not saying we are going to die in 10, 50 or even 500 years. But the world is going askew. I'm almost positive global warming isn't what will kill us anyway, it'll just play the role of a catalyst in an already dysfunctional society. I don't know dude, whatever. As someone pointed out, this is a video game homepage, I don't expect this topic to have a whole lot of well-informed visitors.
Bolded is speculation, obviously.
That's who I mean.
You could be right. But so could anyone. I still think the best solution is just to plant more trees, but ironically, the ones who seem to hate that idea (and trees in general) the most is the global warming believers. I mean, "climate neutral" is actually a thing now, where we plant the same number of trees we chop down and pretend nothing has changed. Yeah. Doesn't work that way.
I could be right. Not everyone could be.
Planting trees is a step. There are a lot of things that should be done as a progression of our species, it's just that damned economy.
And yes, you are correct in that climate "neutral" is a weird way of putting it, but that's semantics. It's not that anyone is expecting the climate to go unchanged and remain this way forever, no sir. What it truly implies is that it's meant to negate (or minimize) any negative effects humans are responsible for.
And sure, we may die anyway from a gigantic solar flare or asteroid (more specifically if its trajectory traverses southern america (if I recall correctly?)), a viral outbreak or something else. But why shoot ourselves in the foot? I don't get it. I mean. Assuming I'd live until the end of humanity, I'd rather live in a comfortable environment than an inhospitable place.
Well it doesn't negate it. It takes a hundred years to repay the "debt". Stop chopping down trees to burn them for energy. Burn oil instead. It's a fuckton better for the environment. I like trees. I like the environment. I think us humans should live more in big fucking cities instead of putting a strain on the environment. I think we should stop building dams, wind turbines, and shit like that, and instead use nuclear power which is much cleaner and safer. I think we should use oil until we find something better, instead of destroying wildlife to grow crops. I think we should stop believing theories that are pushed by politicians with an agenda.
The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit.
The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns.
Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off.
Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh?
The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better.
To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)...
You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god...
There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again.
It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now.
You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits.
Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news?
Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence.
And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another...
Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe).
Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)?
Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory?
I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane.
edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye.
Listen, your poster-name is Ramanujan, I am going to assume you mean Srinivasa and thus assume you are interested in math which would attribute you with logic and a scientific mind (math is closely related, at least). If you don't believe me, read the abundance of reports that have been posted. Draw your own conclusions. They will no doubt fall in to the category of "oh shit". I'm not saying we are going to die in 10, 50 or even 500 years. But the world is going askew. I'm almost positive global warming isn't what will kill us anyway, it'll just play the role of a catalyst in an already dysfunctional society. I don't know dude, whatever. As someone pointed out, this is a video game homepage, I don't expect this topic to have a whole lot of well-informed visitors.
Bolded is speculation, obviously.
That's who I mean.
You could be right. But so could anyone. I still think the best solution is just to plant more trees, but ironically, the ones who seem to hate that idea (and trees in general) the most is the global warming believers. I mean, "climate neutral" is actually a thing now, where we plant the same number of trees we chop down and pretend nothing has changed. Yeah. Doesn't work that way.
I could be right. Not everyone could be.
Planting trees is a step. There are a lot of things that should be done as a progression of our species, it's just that damned economy.
And yes, you are correct in that climate "neutral" is a weird way of putting it, but that's semantics. It's not that anyone is expecting the climate to go unchanged and remain this way forever, no sir. What it truly implies is that it's meant to negate (or minimize) any negative effects humans are responsible for.
And sure, we may die anyway from a gigantic solar flare or asteroid (more specifically if its trajectory traverses southern america (if I recall correctly?)), a viral outbreak or something else. But why shoot ourselves in the foot? I don't get it. I mean. Assuming I'd live until the end of humanity, I'd rather live in a comfortable environment than an inhospitable place.
Well it doesn't negate it. It takes a hundred years to repay the "debt". Stop chopping down trees to burn them for energy. Burn oil instead. It's a fuckton better for the environment. I like trees. I like the environment. I think us humans should live more in big fucking cities instead of putting a strain on the environment. I think we should stop building dams, wind turbines, and shit like that, and instead use nuclear power which is much cleaner and safer. I think we should use oil until we find something better, instead of destroying wildlife to grow crops. I think we should stop believing theories that are pushed by politicians with an agenda.
For what it's worth, we don't build many dams any more-- most dammable rivers, in the US at least, have already been dammed.
On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote: I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
Misleading phrasing. Made to sound as if the entirety of the ice has melted. However, if you bother to read the whole thing, you come across the following explanation.
Nearly every part of the massive Greenland ice sheet suddenly and strangely melted a bit this month in a freak event that concerned scientists had never witnessed before. NASA says three different satellites saw what it calls unprecedented melting from July 8 to July 12. Most of the thick ice remains, but what was unusual was the widespread area where some melting occurred.
On July 26 2012 06:31 tokicheese wrote: Arguing that people were wrong in the past is a fucking terrible argument. We know things now that are pretty hard to ignore from science because we have the technology to see things on a celluar level in the human body and the knowledge to piece it all together with physics and chemistry and biology. I highly doubt humanity will vastly change it's understanding of the human heart for example we pretty much know every single detail there is to know about it. It's pretty hard to deny that humans don't have a horrific effect on the environment even without global warming and it is stupid do so.
Yeah we have perfect knowledge now, hurrr. Seriously, study weather and you will realize how extremely little we know about it. Earth is ridiculously complex system, yet we think we can SIMULATE it in computers. That's silly.
I really hope trolling or you have horrific reading comprehension... I never said we have perfect knowledge because any logical person knows that is not possible. All science is theories that as time go on will either be essentially proven (heart pumps blood, water good, blood carries oxygen) or disproven (flat earth etc etc).
But we will never know anything 100% because you cant prove a negative. You can't prove to me that the moon doesn't have living beings on it because we haven't found them yet. Just like climate change/humans mutilating the earth dont have a negative effect there is shit loads of evidence that it does BUT I can't 100% prove that it doesn't no one can or will ever be able to.
It is really ignorant to think nearly 7 billion people can't fuck up earth beyond repair. I forget the exact number but if you went a billion seconds back in time from now you would be somewhere in the 1970s imagine that times 7... All the trees we cut and burn all of the cars ships planes trains ovens heaters the cows we harvest and other things pump shit loads of green house gases into the air. Idk why people fight going a bit greener so hard... Sustainability is usually a good thing. It just screams of ignorance and too much fox news to hate changing how humanity does things to make life better for those down the road.
People Waiting for an imaginary wizard friend to come from the sky to tell us absolute truths is just horrifying that people still think like this.
On July 26 2012 07:39 Mr.Faces wrote: Misleading phrasing. Made to sound as if the entirety of the ice has melted. However, if you bother to read the whole thing, you come across the following explanation.
Nearly every part of the massive Greenland ice sheet suddenly and strangely melted a bit this month in a freak event that concerned scientists had never witnessed before. NASA says three different satellites saw what it calls unprecedented melting from July 8 to July 12. Most of the thick ice remains, but what was unusual was the widespread area where some melting occurred.
Yeah it's worded a bit strangely and the OP is blowing it way out of proportions. What it seems like is happening is that the temperature has increased above zero degrees celsius all over the place, which obviously leads to melting. It's a spike in the temperature, but doesn't mean anything as a singular event. Now if it pertains to exist it might be a problem. Or all the water in the middle might get trapped and start forming lakes that when the temperature decreases again will start freezing again.
The bad part is when the temperature drops near the coast, so that zones that are holding up large masses of ice deteriorate and crack so that the huge icebergs are formed.
On July 26 2012 03:22 thrawn2112 wrote: Once again you've taken on this witty and condescending tone that adds nothing to your argument. As far as the chart goes, it's hard for me to write a response to it as you have completely failed to make any point about the data, you just put the chart in after a not so subtle comment suggesting that you have researched the topic way more than anyone else. There are many different points I see that you could be trying to make, so instead of me trying to cover all the bases could you add in your actual argument?
Wow, I drew you a picture and you still don't get it! Well, I didn't actually draw the picture but still.
Pop quiz: What is the avg Earth temperature today and what was it 100 million years ago and 200 million years ago?
On July 26 2012 03:22 thrawn2112 wrote: Once again you've taken on this witty and condescending tone that adds nothing to your argument. As far as the chart goes, it's hard for me to write a response to it as you have completely failed to make any point about the data, you just put the chart in after a not so subtle comment suggesting that you have researched the topic way more than anyone else. There are many different points I see that you could be trying to make, so instead of me trying to cover all the bases could you add in your actual argument?
Wow, I drew you a picture and you still don't get it! Well, I didn't actually draw the picture but still.
Pop quiz: What is the avg Earth temperature today and what was it 100 million years ago and 200 million years ago?
Lol. I think its funny that you keep posting that graph and yet you have no idea what it actually means.
Imean humans evolved on the earth so we are just as natural as anything else. You could argue that this whole debate is pointless because all causes of climate change are natural.
Anyways - the reason "But look it was hotter than this a hundred million years ago" doesn't matter is that we weren't here then. 4.5 billion years ago the Earth's average temperature was molten lava. I defy you to survive in molten lava. 300 million years ago the atmosphere was so oxygen rich that dragonflies were a meter long and thunderstorms were basically terrifying pillars of flaming hell-blasts from the sky. If the atmospheric oxygen level started rising would you be like "oh don't worry it was like this in the Cambrian Period?" because I would be like "Oh shit, while we can get kinda high on air now, this will certainly have more drastic and catastrophic implications."
The fact is - there is an abnormal upward trend in temperature growth that has been occurring over the past hundred years or so. Even if global climate obeys its historical pattern - that means we are headed for the worst ice age since the time of the Alaskan Land-Bridge and Mastodon hunting. Whatever human contribution there may be - it is helping to perpetuate a rise that must fall at some point. And when that temperature growth comes crashing down - Hell is gonna freeze over, literally.
On July 26 2012 10:03 Arghmyliver wrote: The fact is - there is an abnormal upward trend in temperature growth that has been occurring over the past hundred years or so.
The fact is there are claims of blah blah blah but there are problems with the data, problems with the models, failed prediction after failed prediction, and stupid claims of weird things going on, like this suddenly disappeared ice, that actually aren't so weird. But hey if it gives politicians an excuse to increase their power over the little evil common people who are ruining everything, who cares, right?
On July 26 2012 07:39 Mr.Faces wrote: Misleading phrasing. Made to sound as if the entirety of the ice has melted. However, if you bother to read the whole thing, you come across the following explanation.
Nearly every part of the massive Greenland ice sheet suddenly and strangely melted a bit this month in a freak event that concerned scientists had never witnessed before. NASA says three different satellites saw what it calls unprecedented melting from July 8 to July 12. Most of the thick ice remains, but what was unusual was the widespread area where some melting occurred.
Yeah, it's basically as if someone drove a Zamboni over Greenland.
So we're fucked already basically is that it? I lost interest in the "global warming debate" a long time ago, imo we shouldn't need something like that to strive to move away from primitive energy sources such as fossil fuel burning.
On July 26 2012 10:03 Arghmyliver wrote: The fact is - there is an abnormal upward trend in temperature growth that has been occurring over the past hundred years or so.
The fact is there are claims of blah blah blah but there are problems with the data, problems with the models, failed prediction after failed prediction, and stupid claims of weird things going on, like this suddenly disappeared ice, that actually aren't so weird. But hey if it gives politicians an excuse to increase their power over the little evil common people who are ruining everything, who cares, right?
I'll just say it again - the fact is - there is an abnormal upward trend in global temperature that has been occurring over the past 100-1000 years and your argument is "Blah, blah, blah keep your stupid facts?" Good job buddy.
I don't give a rat's piss about the politics of the matter. I do give a great deal of rat's piss if the fucking Earth gets destroyed. Because that's where I (and, unfortunately, assholes who don't give a shit) live. I don't care if you're suicidal, but I sure as hell am not.
On July 26 2012 06:54 Djzapz wrote: We can make fairly good predictions that get better and better as time passes.
They can't tell me for sure if it's going to rain three days from now.
And yet YOU can make predictions that go against the majority of climatologists based on your extensive experience on the Internet? Maybe they should toss you a couple PhDs.
Anyway, they know why rain happens and they have a fairly effective way of knowing the short term weather using that knowledge.
Unlike you, they probably don't rely on a single graph comparing 2 variables and call it a day. Oh also the source of that graph comes from a website that looks like this: Good ole Geocities looks!
Some of the website's sources are simply not credible, some are estimates from 1994 - most sources are old as well. And more importantly, when there are conflicting sources, how do you know those are reliable and the others aren't? Because let's be clear here - a majority of sources essentially state the opposite of this.
On July 26 2012 03:22 thrawn2112 wrote: Once again you've taken on this witty and condescending tone that adds nothing to your argument. As far as the chart goes, it's hard for me to write a response to it as you have completely failed to make any point about the data, you just put the chart in after a not so subtle comment suggesting that you have researched the topic way more than anyone else. There are many different points I see that you could be trying to make, so instead of me trying to cover all the bases could you add in your actual argument?
Wow, I drew you a picture and you still don't get it! Well, I didn't actually draw the picture but still.
Pop quiz: What is the avg Earth temperature today and what was it 100 million years ago and 200 million years ago? + Show Spoiler +
Gee, it's almost like the emergence of cyanobacteria, then plant life, and then animal life had some kind of effect. The temperature data means nothing as it is uncontrolled. Not sure why you're so proud of this graph, it doesn't have anything to do with the effect we're having on global atmospheric [CO2].
When we are able to sail from Canada to Russia, the short way, I'm sure that people will still be saying that it's expected and happens every 6000 years on schedule. The cool thing is that we can drill under the Arctic ocean for Oil, because the Azolla Event may have left some massive oil deposits up there. Here is to hoping!!
On July 26 2012 15:01 dvorakftw wrote: Fine, you don't like that pic how about this one:
I would like to see how the data was calculated, and it seems to be missing the latest decade which is getting close to 0.6 degrees anomaly.
I don't think people will disagree that the earth certainly has warmed and cooled. I think what people are worried about is that in conjunction with this warming trend, our current environment is different from medieval times in the sense that we have much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is known to cause a greenhouse effect, essentially, the highs are going to be higher because of how we have changed the atmosphere.
On July 26 2012 03:22 thrawn2112 wrote: Once again you've taken on this witty and condescending tone that adds nothing to your argument. As far as the chart goes, it's hard for me to write a response to it as you have completely failed to make any point about the data, you just put the chart in after a not so subtle comment suggesting that you have researched the topic way more than anyone else. There are many different points I see that you could be trying to make, so instead of me trying to cover all the bases could you add in your actual argument?
Wow, I drew you a picture and you still don't get it! Well, I didn't actually draw the picture but still.
Pop quiz: What is the avg Earth temperature today and what was it 100 million years ago and 200 million years ago? + Show Spoiler +
Gee, it's almost like the emergence of cyanobacteria, then plant life, and then animal life had some kind of effect. The temperature data means nothing as it is uncontrolled. Not sure why you're so proud of this graph, it doesn't have anything to do with the effect we're having on global atmospheric [CO2].
basically the earth goes in cycles. there have been extremely warm periods and ice ages. our existance is on earth is very short compared to the existance of earth. look at how much shit has happened on earth before we even lit a fire before you spew garbage.
I agree we arent helping earth any and are probably making things worse but our impact is minimal at the moment, that could always change though.
Dont try to guilt people into feeling bad because they take a 15 minute shower or something.
On July 27 2012 04:24 yourepicend wrote: basically the earth goes in cycles. there have been extremely warm periods and ice ages. our existance is on earth is very short compared to the existance of earth. look at how much shit has happened on earth before we even lit a fire before you spew garbage.
I agree we arent helping earth any and are probably making things worse but our impact is minimal at the moment, that could always change though.
Dont try to guilt people into feeling bad because they take a 15 minute shower or something.
you surely have a lot of urefutable scientific data backing up your view, i can't wait to read all of them !
Yeah, the fact is the earth has warmed and cooled without any influence from humans in the past. The problem is it is currently impossible for us to tell with any kind of certainty if the current trend is being caused by our actions. Since it is not currently possible to prove the link, it is very difficult to convince anyone to take immediate action given the costs involved. As it is, IF we are in fact causing warming, the warming would continue for a long time even if we were to make a drastic change RIGHT NOW. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html check that for a basic summary.
Anyway, even if the EU and US suddenly came to an agreement and hugely reduced CO2 emissions, once again IF we are in fact causing the warming, the earth would continue to warm because of emissions coming from India/China etc. We would have to bear the cost of majorly shifting our own habits, but would likely also have to help developing countries with the cost of shifting their own energy to be more earth-friendly, simply based on the fact that they would probably not agree to do so on their own (really, they are just using the same methods we in the West did to get where we are) based on the lack of certainty regarding anthropogenic warming.
So basically, if we are in fact causing global warming, I think we can expect it to continue for a very long time - well past all of our lifetimes, and much longer probably...because I really don't see all those stars aligning/everyone getting on the same page anytime soon.
even in the US. Politicians already 'control' these industries. Global warming regulation isn't an inherent expansion of government (in some cases it can be obviously) but it is an inherent increase to the allowed
On July 26 2012 17:36 Ramanajan wrote: Hahaha I was banned for having a different opinion. This site is just like any other, I guess.
Enjoy debating amongst yourselves, with people that think exactly like you do. Courtesy of Evilteletubby.
I don't know what you were banned for, but climate "denial" is in my experience, entirely the result of ignorance. It's the inability to research for yourself, and evaluate sources.
For example:
On July 26 2012 15:01 dvorakftw wrote: Fine, you don't like that pic how about this one:
This website is my favourite source by far, I'm yet to see a denial argument it doesn't counter:
Still, you didn't need that website, a VERY simple google search would have answered your question without demanding someone do the research for you simply by referencing some arbitrary website:
Note, the last result is a reputable journal. Stick to reputable science instead of sourcing internet blogs. There is nothing to debate: this is not debate, this is education.
On July 27 2012 05:19 GwSC wrote: Yeah, the fact is the earth has warmed and cooled without any influence from humans in the past. The problem is it is currently impossible for us to tell with any kind of certainty if the current trend is being caused by our actions. Since it is not currently possible to prove the link, it is very difficult to convince anyone to take immediate action given the costs involved. As it is, IF we are in fact causing warming, the warming would continue for a long time even if we were to make a drastic change RIGHT NOW. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html check that for a basic summary.
Anyway, even if the EU and US suddenly came to an agreement and hugely reduced CO2 emissions, once again IF we are in fact causing the warming, the earth would continue to warm because of emissions coming from India/China etc. We would have to bear the cost of majorly shifting our own habits, but would likely also have to help developing countries with the cost of shifting their own energy to be more earth-friendly, simply based on the fact that they would probably not agree to do so on their own (really, they are just using the same methods we in the West did to get where we are) based on the lack of certainty regarding anthropogenic warming.
So basically, if we are in fact causing global warming, I think we can expect it to continue for a very long time - well past all of our lifetimes, and much longer probably...because I really don't see all those stars aligning/everyone getting on the same page anytime soon.
China is still developing, much of it's economy is still agricultural. In all fairness, the "burden" of it for them is millions of people remaining in poverty. For us, it's a few less McDonalds, maybe a more expensive iPhone.
Those peoples development will mean more iPhones, more scientists, and more assistance to those affected by environmental disasters because more people have the resources to do so.
No one is pretending we can "fix" this problem, but anything that lessens it's impact will lessen the implications. Extreme environmental events cost money and lives; making them less extreme makes them less costly to handle.
China will get on board, it just has to make sure that the majority of it's population isn't peasant farmers before it does. There are no peasant farmers in the US.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
pretty much, my dad used to be a meteorologist and did weather forecasting for the air force and he always gets mad when people start talking about global warming. He looks at the solar activities and explains how it affects the ice caps and the temp of earth. Most people just don't understand and don't want to understand how it works.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
pretty much, my dad used to be a meteorologist and did weather forecasting for the air force and he always gets mad when people start talking about global warming. He looks at the solar activities and explains how it affects the ice caps and the temp of earth. Most people just don't understand and don't want to understand how it works.
Your father is ignorant, Moose. Do you really think an entire field of hard science would go without substantial criticism (in the EU/Canada/Asia) if there was evidence to contradict it? It's peer reviewed, and it would be a major coup to "disprove" it by citing a different cause. Meteorologists are not climate scientists. They deal with 3-7 day forecasts, not trends throughout history.
On July 27 2012 05:19 GwSC wrote: Yeah, the fact is the earth has warmed and cooled without any influence from humans in the past. The problem is it is currently impossible for us to tell with any kind of certainty if the current trend is being caused by our actions. Since it is not currently possible to prove the link, it is very difficult to convince anyone to take immediate action given the costs involved. As it is, IF we are in fact causing warming, the warming would continue for a long time even if we were to make a drastic change RIGHT NOW. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html check that for a basic summary.
Anyway, even if the EU and US suddenly came to an agreement and hugely reduced CO2 emissions, once again IF we are in fact causing the warming, the earth would continue to warm because of emissions coming from India/China etc. We would have to bear the cost of majorly shifting our own habits, but would likely also have to help developing countries with the cost of shifting their own energy to be more earth-friendly, simply based on the fact that they would probably not agree to do so on their own (really, they are just using the same methods we in the West did to get where we are) based on the lack of certainty regarding anthropogenic warming.
So basically, if we are in fact causing global warming, I think we can expect it to continue for a very long time - well past all of our lifetimes, and much longer probably...because I really don't see all those stars aligning/everyone getting on the same page anytime soon.
China is still developing, much of it's economy is still agricultural. In all fairness, the "burden" of it for them is millions of people remaining in poverty. For us, it's a few less McDonalds, maybe a more expensive iPhone.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise, that was why I said it probably would take international assistance to help them get on the right track if we want things to happen quickly. We can't fairly expect them to not use the same methods we did to achieve better living standards while at the same time bearing all the cost of reform.
On July 27 2012 06:35 TheFish7 wrote: How on earth do people still question the fact of global warming? There is no debate to be had here; people must be seriously trolling this thread.
There are different ways of interpreting 'global warming'. On the one hand you have those, claiming global warming is purely a consequence of human pollution. On the other hand you've got those who say it's purely nature based and humans have no influence on it. And then you got people like me who think global warming is happening naturally, but human pollution acts as a catalyst.
even in the US. Politicians already 'control' these industries. Global warming regulation isn't an inherent expansion of government (in some cases it can be obviously) but it is an inherent increase to the allowed
On July 26 2012 17:36 Ramanajan wrote: Hahaha I was banned for having a different opinion. This site is just like any other, I guess.
Enjoy debating amongst yourselves, with people that think exactly like you do. Courtesy of Evilteletubby.
I don't know what you were banned for, but climate "denial" is in my experience, entirely the result of ignorance. It's the inability to research for yourself, and evaluate sources.
Still, you didn't need that website, a VERY simple google search would have answered your question without demanding someone do the research for you simply by referencing some arbitrary website:
Note, the last result is a reputable journal. Stick to reputable science instead of sourcing internet blogs. There is nothing to debate: this is not debate, this is education.
Climate Science can describe what is happening, and it can even describe why it is happening. Climate Science alone is insufficient to evaluate what to do as a response. This becomes a political problem that needs to be solved at a cross discipline level. Take a look at the TSA if you want to see an example of how political solutions to "big scary" problems can have a deleterious effect on the average person. The bigger the fear, the easier it is to trample decency and dignity in the name of "just do something".
even in the US. Politicians already 'control' these industries. Global warming regulation isn't an inherent expansion of government (in some cases it can be obviously) but it is an inherent increase to the allowed
On July 26 2012 17:36 Ramanajan wrote: Hahaha I was banned for having a different opinion. This site is just like any other, I guess.
Enjoy debating amongst yourselves, with people that think exactly like you do. Courtesy of Evilteletubby.
I don't know what you were banned for, but climate "denial" is in my experience, entirely the result of ignorance. It's the inability to research for yourself, and evaluate sources.
For example:
On July 26 2012 15:01 dvorakftw wrote: Fine, you don't like that pic how about this one:
This website is my favourite source by far, I'm yet to see a denial argument it doesn't counter:
Still, you didn't need that website, a VERY simple google search would have answered your question without demanding someone do the research for you simply by referencing some arbitrary website:
Note, the last result is a reputable journal. Stick to reputable science instead of sourcing internet blogs. There is nothing to debate: this is not debate, this is education.
Again, you highlight your inability to evaluate sources. That is an editorial (http://www.co2science.org/index.php) not a peer reviewed article submitted to an academic journal.
Basically, it's a website, and a public charity. It has no scientific credibility beyond the fact that it has references. None of those references, however, make the assertion that climate change is not occurring.
On July 27 2012 07:26 EvilContrarian wrote: Climate Science can describe what is happening, and it can even describe why it is happening. Climate Science alone is insufficient to evaluate what to do as a response. This becomes a political problem that needs to be solved at a cross discipline level. Take a look at the TSA if you want to see an example of how political solutions to "big scary" problems can have a deleterious effect on the average person. The bigger the fear, the easier it is to trample decency and dignity in the name of "just do something".
Yes, I agree. I don't think those two are remotely comparable, however- Terrorism has minimal objective risk and is largely the result of mass hysteria/fear. Climate change is not feared (quite the opposite) but has scientific validation and objective risk that could be on a far larger scale (flooding or disease for example).
Still, that is no reason not to make an effort, and there is little to no real effort being made. It is just a good reason to carefully evaluate the means of those efforts.
On July 27 2012 09:09 Stoli wrote: Again, you highlight your inability to evaluate sources. That is an editorial (http://www.co2science.org/index.php) not a peer reviewed article submitted to an academic journal.
Basically, it's a website, and a public charity. It has no scientific credibility beyond the fact that it has references. None of those references, however, make the assertion that climate change is not occurring.
I think this thread proves the biggest flaw in democracy. Ignorant people (all of us) thinking they know something about subjects so complicated that they could only understand if they had dedicated their life to studying it. I don't think a single person who posted in this thread saying either it shows global warming is definite, or unrelated has anywhere near the credentials to speak with such confidence. Decisions on such issues should be left to those who actually know about them, especially when its such a complicated and difficult issue.
On July 27 2012 10:25 dbald27 wrote: I think this thread proves the biggest flaw in democracy. Ignorant people (all of us) thinking they know something about subjects so complicated that they could only understand if they had dedicated their life to studying it. I don't think a single person who posted in this thread saying either it shows global warming is definite, or unrelated has anywhere near the credentials to speak with such confidence. Decisions on such issues should be left to those who actually know about them, especially when its such a complicated and difficult issue.
tldr: idiots telling idiots that they're idiots
Sir, you just posted one of the most intelligent posts I've ever seen.
I vote that we keep continue deforestation, pollution, and general destabilization of the environment.
Because fuck everything else.
Furthermore, you guys realize that even if there's no general obvious net correlation of data to make for a good headline, there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles that explain that what's going on isn't a part of a cycle but a general increase - ________ -;;; not every piece of evidence has to be a braindead "CO2 RISE 5 YRS HERPDERP"...
Global warming is technically "real" but not in the way we picture it as something humans brought upon the earth. The sun goes through solar phases in which at some times the larger solar waves map the earth warmer and at other times the smaller waves make the average temperature cooler. This is scientifically proven through the current fossil record we have at our disposal. Scientists discovered the fossil of a snake in South America that was estimated to be over 80 feet long. For a cold blooded reptile of this size to survive scientists conclude the average temperature would have had to been around 110F much higher than our current average temperature. And back then there were no factories or green house gases to cause this.
In short, there is no reason for people to stress over the melting of the ice caps. It is natural that global temperature will increase and then decrease with the sun's solar cycles. I can be sure that in a few centuries people will be scared due to cold
On July 27 2012 09:09 Stoli wrote: Again, you highlight your inability to evaluate sources. That is an editorial (http://www.co2science.org/index.php) not a peer reviewed article submitted to an academic journal.
Basically, it's a website, and a public charity. It has no scientific credibility beyond the fact that it has references. None of those references, however, make the assertion that climate change is not occurring.
Yay CERN. Good job not reading an article that doesn't even attempt to build an argument for the crucial bit - that cosmic rays had to significantly affect "the global warming" (in whatever solid terms you want to put it in, not just a handwave kthx) during the 20th century. Not to mention a lot of that data is fucken sensitive as hell.
I love how many of you guys just assume that an entire domain of hard science is curiously unaware of sun cycles, natural variations in climate etc and failed to account for them in their peer reviewed research.
Those damned climatologists with their multi-billion dollar grants, sitting on their expensive yachts while stroking siamese cats and screwing poor old petroleum industry out of their profits. :'(
On July 27 2012 10:36 MannerBro wrote: Global warming is technically "real" but not in the way we picture it as something humans brought upon the earth. The sun goes through solar phases in which at some times the larger solar waves map the earth warmer and at other times the smaller waves make the average temperature cooler. This is scientifically proven through the current fossil record we have at our disposal. Scientists discovered the fossil of a snake in South America that was estimated to be over 80 feet long. For a cold blooded reptile of this size to survive scientists conclude the average temperature would have had to been around 110F much higher than our current average temperature. And back then there were no factories or green house gases to cause this.
In short, there is no reason for people to stress over the melting of the ice caps. It is natural that global temperature will increase and then decrease with the sun's solar cycles. I can be sure that in a few centuries people will be scared due to cold
Finding out temperatures is actually relatively hard to do with fossils. 110 F is above the temp where proteins break down, so that makes no sense. Secondly, we have a rough idea of the temps in the dinosaur ages, and I don't get how they survived. Obv then the solution is physiological, not geosystems-related.
On July 27 2012 10:25 dbald27 wrote: I think this thread proves the biggest flaw in democracy. Ignorant people (all of us) thinking they know something about subjects so complicated that they could only understand if they had dedicated their life to studying it. I don't think a single person who posted in this thread saying either it shows global warming is definite, or unrelated has anywhere near the credentials to speak with such confidence. Decisions on such issues should be left to those who actually know about them, especially when its such a complicated and difficult issue.
tldr: idiots telling idiots that they're idiots
People like you are why millions get murdered in places like Russia and China.
On July 27 2012 10:25 dbald27 wrote: I think this thread proves the biggest flaw in democracy. Ignorant people (all of us) thinking they know something about subjects so complicated that they could only understand if they had dedicated their life to studying it. I don't think a single person who posted in this thread saying either it shows global warming is definite, or unrelated has anywhere near the credentials to speak with such confidence. Decisions on such issues should be left to those who actually know about them, especially when its such a complicated and difficult issue.
tldr: idiots telling idiots that they're idiots
People like you are why millions get murdered in places like Russia and China.
edit: why, not while
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.
Global and regional temperature change has never ever occurred throughout the lifetime of the earth until now. Until recent times the earth's temperature has always been completely static. The science that "proves" otherwise is concocted by right-wing extremists in attempt to justify their ever expanding ~corporations~ and let nobody dare propose otherwise!
On July 27 2012 10:25 dbald27 wrote: I think this thread proves the biggest flaw in democracy. Ignorant people (all of us) thinking they know something about subjects so complicated that they could only understand if they had dedicated their life to studying it. I don't think a single person who posted in this thread saying either it shows global warming is definite, or unrelated has anywhere near the credentials to speak with such confidence. Decisions on such issues should be left to those who actually know about them, especially when its such a complicated and difficult issue.
tldr: idiots telling idiots that they're idiots
People like you are why millions get murdered in places like Russia and China.
edit: why, not while
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.
Your stuck in the mentality that science explains everything. Everyone can have their opinion if they want.
I for one think this could be a natural occurrence. The planets weather system is changing on a whole.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
ignorant people like this will get us kill ( i guess you voted for Harper...)
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.
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.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
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.
On July 27 2012 10:25 dbald27 wrote: I think this thread proves the biggest flaw in democracy. Ignorant people (all of us) thinking they know something about subjects so complicated that they could only understand if they had dedicated their life to studying it. I don't think a single person who posted in this thread saying either it shows global warming is definite, or unrelated has anywhere near the credentials to speak with such confidence. Decisions on such issues should be left to those who actually know about them, especially when its such a complicated and difficult issue.
tldr: idiots telling idiots that they're idiots
People like you are why millions get murdered in places like Russia and China.
edit: why, not while
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.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
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.
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.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
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.
Unfortunately the whole political system is corrupt and we cant stop them using the same rules they setup in the first place.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
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.
Unfortunately the whole political system is corrupt and we cant stop them using the same rules they setup in the first place.
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.
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.
even in the US. Politicians already 'control' these industries. Global warming regulation isn't an inherent expansion of government (in some cases it can be obviously) but it is an inherent increase to the allowed
On July 26 2012 17:36 Ramanajan wrote: Hahaha I was banned for having a different opinion. This site is just like any other, I guess.
Enjoy debating amongst yourselves, with people that think exactly like you do. Courtesy of Evilteletubby.
I don't know what you were banned for, but climate "denial" is in my experience, entirely the result of ignorance. It's the inability to research for yourself, and evaluate sources.
For example:
On July 26 2012 15:01 dvorakftw wrote: Fine, you don't like that pic how about this one:
This website is my favourite source by far, I'm yet to see a denial argument it doesn't counter:
Still, you didn't need that website, a VERY simple google search would have answered your question without demanding someone do the research for you simply by referencing some arbitrary website:
Note, the last result is a reputable journal. Stick to reputable science instead of sourcing internet blogs. There is nothing to debate: this is not debate, this is education.
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.
even in the US. Politicians already 'control' these industries. Global warming regulation isn't an inherent expansion of government (in some cases it can be obviously) but it is an inherent increase to the allowed
On July 26 2012 17:36 Ramanajan wrote: Hahaha I was banned for having a different opinion. This site is just like any other, I guess.
Enjoy debating amongst yourselves, with people that think exactly like you do. Courtesy of Evilteletubby.
I don't know what you were banned for, but climate "denial" is in my experience, entirely the result of ignorance. It's the inability to research for yourself, and evaluate sources.
For example:
On July 26 2012 15:01 dvorakftw wrote: Fine, you don't like that pic how about this one:
This website is my favourite source by far, I'm yet to see a denial argument it doesn't counter:
Still, you didn't need that website, a VERY simple google search would have answered your question without demanding someone do the research for you simply by referencing some arbitrary website:
Note, the last result is a reputable journal. Stick to reputable science instead of sourcing internet blogs. There is nothing to debate: this is not debate, this is education.
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.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
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.
Unfortunately the whole political system is corrupt and we cant stop them using the same rules they setup in the first place.
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.
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.
Too true. Australia is a great example. A Carbon Tax has been introduced and it taxes the largest companies that omit the most co2. The tax has been condemned by pretty much everyone. I remember seeing ads on TV for AGESS about how terrible it is and how it will make your superannuation go down tons (401k for you yanks). And those ads were pretty much all subsidised by the gigantically big mining companies here in Australia.
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.
We should probably be paying a bit more attention to graphs like these 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.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
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.
Unfortunately the whole political system is corrupt and we cant stop them using the same rules they setup in the first place.
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.
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.
On July 27 2012 09:09 Stoli wrote: Again, you highlight your inability to evaluate sources. That is an editorial (http://www.co2science.org/index.php) not a peer reviewed article submitted to an academic journal.
Basically, it's a website, and a public charity. It has no scientific credibility beyond the fact that it has references. None of those references, however, make the assertion that climate change is not occurring.
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
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....
On July 27 2012 09:59 dvorakftw wrote: blogspot.com/2011
are you fucking serious right now?
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.
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....
Who said anything about returning to "normal"? The data doesn't indicate anything like that. This is why reading is important.
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....
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
On July 27 2012 12:19 Arghmyliver wrote: 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.
I'm not sure how you developed this line of thinking. There is no blame here. Was just stating that these fluctuations in temperature are a result of the planet changing and not entirely our actions. Like the graph above shows we've only been around for a few thousand years and cannot possibly measure the long term cycles of the planets climate change.
On July 27 2012 12:44 kdgns wrote: 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.
Thanks. I'll try to be more specific with terms. I get caught up trying to describe the general meaning of my idea/message and forget about the words lol.
On July 27 2012 10:25 dbald27 wrote: I think this thread proves the biggest flaw in democracy. Ignorant people (all of us) thinking they know something about subjects so complicated that they could only understand if they had dedicated their life to studying it. I don't think a single person who posted in this thread saying either it shows global warming is definite, or unrelated has anywhere near the credentials to speak with such confidence. Decisions on such issues should be left to those who actually know about them, especially when its such a complicated and difficult issue.
tldr: idiots telling idiots that they're idiots
People like you are why millions get murdered in places like Russia and China.
edit: why, not while
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.
Yeah, they said I couldn't dig a hole in my front yard because it violated zoning regulations or some shit. So I just said "Take your oppressive technocratic ideals and do something with them other than impose them on me, mr scientist." World would be a much better place if we didn't have experts running shit.
We can't let power-hungry environmentalist organizations like the IPCC brainwash the public about anthropogenic influence on the climate and melting glaciers, lest they start banning all forms of greenhouse gas emissions, which include breathing (which according to "science" involves the production of CO2).
On July 27 2012 09:59 dvorakftw wrote: blogspot.com/2011
are you fucking serious right now?
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.
You know anyone can put anything on the internet, right?
On July 27 2012 10:25 dbald27 wrote: I think this thread proves the biggest flaw in democracy. Ignorant people (all of us) thinking they know something about subjects so complicated that they could only understand if they had dedicated their life to studying it. I don't think a single person who posted in this thread saying either it shows global warming is definite, or unrelated has anywhere near the credentials to speak with such confidence. Decisions on such issues should be left to those who actually know about them, especially when its such a complicated and difficult issue.
tldr: idiots telling idiots that they're idiots
People like you are why millions get murdered in places like Russia and China.
edit: why, not while
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.
Ironically, the initial theory of the "wisdom of crowds" was almost entirely based on one expert (Galton's) opinion from one experiment that was found to be falsified. From what I understand, later research has found that while aggregate average opinion can be more accurate than individual or low numbers of expert opinions in some very specific cases, aggregate expert opinion is usually far better than the aggregate average.
Of course, Galton's example is completely irrelevant even if it wasn't fake because it was about predicting the weight of a pig and many of the people at the fair that participated were actually farmers who had experience predicting the weight of their own pigs.
Following the new record low recorded on August 26, Arctic sea ice extent continued to drop and is now below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles). Compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, this represents a 45% reduction in the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice. At least one more week likely remains in the melt season.
Throughout the month of August, Arctic sea ice extent tracked below levels observed in 2007, leading to a new record low for the month of 4.72 million square kilometers (1.82 million square miles), as assessed over the period of satellite observations,1979 to present. Extent was unusually low for all sectors of the Arctic, except the East Greenland Sea where the ice edge remained near its normal position. On August 26, the 5-day running average for ice extent dropped below the previous record low daily extent, observed on September 18, 2007, of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles). By the end of the month, daily extent had dropped below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles). Typically, the melt season ends around the second week in September.
People have to understand that the layer of ice was very very thin there, hence its very easy for it to melt this fast. Nothing unusual,only the fact that Greenland hit record temperatures for a few weeks.
There you go. All the fucking ice melted and the world did not end, as far as I can see. What was all the hype about global warming??
I was under the impression that if, god forbid, some glaciers melted the sea level would rise and everything would get fucked up and in turn the greenhouse effect would incease exponentially and we would all die horribly painful deaths while watching civilization collapse.
Everything seems fine to me. Its a bit colder than yesterday, oh no the 100.000 year ice age is coming!!! Or maybe its just the normal 8 month Finnish winter, I guess we'll see in time.
On July 25 2012 09:30 Nevermind86 wrote: Well some people "politically" arguee climate change, I wonder how are they going to explain this. Sad that such a huge problem is not being adressed correctly it already may be too late.
I don't think anyone "politically" argues climate change. What people argue over, often due to a political agenda, is whether or not climate change (which is accepted as happening throughout) is caused by Man or not.
And to be perfectly honest, I've never heard of, nor seen, any conclusive evidence suggesting it is one way or another. Global Warming is happening. What's causing it is unknown, but theories are used to support various political agendas, which also encourages a lot of bad science, falsified data, or misleading statistics.
For me, personally. I'm not all too worried about it, because "I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children's children. Because I don't think children should be having sex." - The Great Jack Handey
On September 07 2012 14:48 PittlerGG wrote: There you go. All the fucking ice melted and the world did not end, as far as I can see. What was all the hype about global warming??
I was under the impression that if, god forbid, some glaciers melted the sea level would rise and everything would get fucked up and in turn the greenhouse effect would incease exponentially and we would all die horribly painful deaths while watching civilization collapse.
Everything seems fine to me. Its a bit colder than yesterday, oh no the 100.000 year ice age is coming!!! Or maybe its just the normal 8 month Finnish winter, I guess we'll see in time.
No, lol. I'm pretty sure Sea Level would just raise by a couple hundred feet, devastating coastlines. Manhattan, Denmark, Bangladesh, New Orleans, etc would all be gone. It takes the polar ice caps, not just the Greenland ice sheet, which they said in the article is re-freezing.
On September 07 2012 14:48 PittlerGG wrote: There you go. All the fucking ice melted and the world did not end, as far as I can see. What was all the hype about global warming??
I was under the impression that if, god forbid, some glaciers melted the sea level would rise and everything would get fucked up and in turn the greenhouse effect would incease exponentially and we would all die horribly painful deaths while watching civilization collapse.
Everything seems fine to me. Its a bit colder than yesterday, oh no the 100.000 year ice age is coming!!! Or maybe its just the normal 8 month Finnish winter, I guess we'll see in time.
On September 07 2012 14:48 PittlerGG wrote: There you go. All the fucking ice melted and the world did not end, as far as I can see. What was all the hype about global warming??
I was under the impression that if, god forbid, some glaciers melted the sea level would rise and everything would get fucked up and in turn the greenhouse effect would incease exponentially and we would all die horribly painful deaths while watching civilization collapse.
Everything seems fine to me. Its a bit colder than yesterday, oh no the 100.000 year ice age is coming!!! Or maybe its just the normal 8 month Finnish winter, I guess we'll see in time.
By all means, just post here without reading anything other than the provocative title. However, do realize that the more quality posts will be made by those who actually have any idea what they are talking about.
On July 27 2012 14:16 Khul Sadukar wrote: I'm not sure how you developed this line of thinking. There is no blame here. Was just stating that these fluctuations in temperature are a result of the planet changing and not entirely our actions. Like the graph above shows we've only been around for a few thousand years and cannot possibly measure the long term cycles of the planets climate change.
We humans have a rather large ego to think that we can change something as big as the earth's climate by driving a few cars around in select areas of the planet. Anyways, no worries. Our friend the Dutchman has an ark standing by. Just a quick jump over the sea and I'm there!
I have a new theory on global warming, that disproves the greenhouse effect. Its called the Metallica t-shirt effect. It is know that a Metallica t-shirt effect causes a increase of temperature upon the wearer, unlike a white tenis t-shirt. It is also know that temperatures inside a very big city are biggers than in surounding country side. If there is a global warming proved by statistics and measurements than it is more likely to be caused by the exponential increase of asphalt surface in the last 50 years.
On September 07 2012 20:47 tertos wrote: I have a new theory on global warming, that disproves the greenhouse effect. Its called the Metallica t-shirt effect. It is know that a Metallica t-shirt effect causes a increase of temperature upon the wearer, unlike a white tenis t-shirt. It is also know that temperatures inside a very big city are biggers than in surounding country side. If there is a global warming proved by statistics and measurements than it is more likely to be caused by the exponential increase of asphalt surface in the last 50 years.
On September 07 2012 21:03 Inori wrote: In my country (eastern Europe, up north compared to most), each winter is colder than previous, breaking records of 100s years. We basically don't have a summer anymore, only 6 months of winter with 3 months of winter-ish autumn inbetween and maybe 10-15 days of +20-25 C.
What's this global warming you're speaking of?
That's why it's called global warming - some regions will experience average cooler temperatures for a bit but overall the average global temperature rises.
Hmm i'd like to add something else into the equasion;
England (and the UK i guess) have noticed over the last 2 years that our seasons are fucked up. Majorly. For example, our summer does not seem to happen at all and we have a good "rain" season for 1-2 months, much longer than it should be (april for a few weeks). It has got to the point now where our seasons seem to go like;
Late December-Late March = Winter April - June = Spring Late July(if we are lucky) - Oct = Summer Oct - Dec = Autumn
It basically is like that with i guess alot of overlapping. Alot of rainning spring moments after the winter which normally ends at the end of March then a stupidly late summer. Last year i remember my mums birthday on October 28th out in the garden having a BBQ...END OF OCTOBER!!! My dads used to be the BBQ birthday August 9th and it has rained the last 2 years throughout the month.
Could it just be that the climate is changing due to the Polar Ice Caps are shifting around again.
If you have a spare 5minutes and you are interested in this topic give this a read; Polar Shift Theories
I first learnt about the Polar Shift Theroies when listening to a Stephen Hawking documentary on the subject, it was very good and interesting :D
It's annoying when people harp on and say, "What global warming? It was like super duper cold in the summer". It's climate change that is the effect. Warmer in some places, colder in others. More frequent disasters caused by disturbed weather patterns.
But along will come an intelligent person and say, "Don't believe it, it's been raining all week and it's summer."
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
I'm sure we'll be fine if we all put our trust into uneducated laypeople like yourself and not the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.
If they didn't predict this, the models and/or the data must be very flawed. Thus, climate science and meteorology are still in its infant stages and their agents shouldn't be able to portray their opinions as absolute science.
On July 25 2012 09:34 HaXXspetten wrote: Time for someone to start building that Ark
you do know that its Ice thats floating on water right?
You do know that 1/3 of the ice cap is emerged, and therefore the water level rises when the ice melt right?
On September 07 2012 21:15 Pandemona wrote: Hmm i'd like to add something else into the equasion;
England (and the UK i guess) have noticed over the last 2 years that our seasons are fucked up. Majorly. For example, our summer does not seem to happen at all and we have a good "rain" season for 1-2 months, much longer than it should be (april for a few weeks). It has got to the point now where our seasons seem to go like;
Late December-Late March = Winter April - June = Spring Late July(if we are lucky) - Oct = Summer Oct - Dec = Autumn
It basically is like that with i guess alot of overlapping. Alot of rainning spring moments after the winter which normally ends at the end of March then a stupidly late summer. Last year i remember my mums birthday on October 28th out in the garden having a BBQ...END OF OCTOBER!!! My dads used to be the BBQ birthday August 9th and it has rained the last 2 years throughout the month.
Could it just be that the climate is changing due to the Polar Ice Caps are shifting around again.
Two years of data is at best anecdotal evidence...
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
I'm sure we'll be fine if we all put our trust into uneducated laypeople like yourself and not the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.
Oh wait.
how do you know he's uneducated? Because his point of view is different from the majority? Learn to respect other peoples opinions
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
You just said, "global warming doesn't exist" and "the earth gets warmer"
If the globe, aka earth, gets warmer then global warming exists. I think you might mean changes in climates occur regardless of human interaction. Which is true. Whether we accelerated it is up for debate.
I wonder what information they have on the Antarctic, would hope there isn't a similar occurrence there in a couple years.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
I'm sure we'll be fine if we all put our trust into uneducated laypeople like yourself and not the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.
Oh wait.
how do you know he's uneducated? Because his point of view is different from the majority? Learn to respect other peoples opinions
There is a large difference between respecting people's opinion and dismissing an uneducated and irrelevant piece of information.
Let's say this was a debate on wheter gay people should be allowed to adopt children. Both parties are discussing, and someone shows up and says "LOL FAG SHOULD GO TO HELL". Is it an opinion, or an uneducated and irrelevant piece of information?
On September 07 2012 21:15 Pandemona wrote: Hmm i'd like to add something else into the equasion;
England (and the UK i guess) have noticed over the last 2 years that our seasons are fucked up. Majorly. For example, our summer does not seem to happen at all and we have a good "rain" season for 1-2 months, much longer than it should be (april for a few weeks). It has got to the point now where our seasons seem to go like;
Late December-Late March = Winter April - June = Spring Late July(if we are lucky) - Oct = Summer Oct - Dec = Autumn
It basically is like that with i guess alot of overlapping. Alot of rainning spring moments after the winter which normally ends at the end of March then a stupidly late summer. Last year i remember my mums birthday on October 28th out in the garden having a BBQ...END OF OCTOBER!!! My dads used to be the BBQ birthday August 9th and it has rained the last 2 years throughout the month.
Could it just be that the climate is changing due to the Polar Ice Caps are shifting around again.
Two years of data is at best anecdotal evidence...
No i was just adding that it's not just Greenland that is suddenly changing temperature and most of my argument is just about the polar ice caps shifting about.
This is a quote from the article i linked you obviously didn't read or look at to back up my statement i wrote;
Some supportive historical facts were given by Hapgood to support these shifts in continental position and climate:
The presence of ice caps in North America and Northern Europe, highly eccentric compared to the present north pole.
The contemporaneous absence of ice caps from Siberia, which was actually populated to its northernmost regions by an impressive zoological community.
The Arctic Sea was warmer than it is today, and there were human beings living in the New Siberia Islands.
Antarctica was partially free of ice.
The general climatic situation of the Earth was coherent with a different position of the poles
Are all facts to help support that the climate has changed over the course of history from what we see today to what we have seen in the past, its just a huge circle due to shifting of the earth's axis and the changing of the Polar Ice Caps
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
I'm sure we'll be fine if we all put our trust into uneducated laypeople like yourself and not the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.
Oh wait.
how do you know he's uneducated? Because his point of view is different from the majority? Learn to respect other peoples opinions
1. He said that there's no such thing as global warming and then admitted that there are cycles of global warming and cooling (even if he may not know how they're caused).
2. Also, these quotes:
"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming ... No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
I'm sure we'll be fine if we all put our trust into uneducated laypeople like yourself and not the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.
Oh wait.
how do you know he's uneducated? Because his point of view is different from the majority? Learn to respect other peoples opinions
There is a large difference between respecting people's opinion and dismissing an uneducated and irrelevant piece of information.
Let's say this was a debate on wheter gay people should be allowed to adopt children. Both parties are discussing, and someone shows up and says "LOL FAG SHOULD GO TO HELL". Is it an opinion, or an uneducated and irrelevant piece of information?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but though the melting of ice is a very graphic and easily recognised event, it's not proportional to the rise in sea levels, which is the phenomenon we should worried about.
A simplified example: Water is most dense at 4 degrees celcius, so if you took a bunch of floating ice, and melted that ice to 4 degrees celcius, the sea level would actually drop.
Of course, the result of heavy global warming is still a net rise in sea levels (an increase in the ratio of warmer water to 4 degree water), but this is still a thing to consider.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
I'm sure we'll be fine if we all put our trust into uneducated laypeople like yourself and not the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.
Oh wait.
how do you know he's uneducated? Because his point of view is different from the majority? Learn to respect other peoples opinions
There is a large difference between respecting people's opinion and dismissing an uneducated and irrelevant piece of information.
Let's say this was a debate on wheter gay people should be allowed to adopt children. Both parties are discussing, and someone shows up and says "LOL FAG SHOULD GO TO HELL". Is it an opinion, or an uneducated and irrelevant piece of information?
If anything your comment resembles the "LOL FAG SHOULD GO TO HELL" more so than his. His "irrelevant" piece of information is much better than your condescending attitude. Refute him if you don't agree,
To fight global warming maybe we should stop heating our houses. People always talk about how co2 causes global warming , but all the heating of our houses, the cooling water of energy plants,and such things must add some heat as well? Basicly anny industrial activity comes with the output of a huge amount of warm gasses/water/air,not to mention volcanos and such (not meaning the co2 from them, just their heath) Is the contribution of all this heath to global warming insignificant compared to the contribution of co2? Its a thing i sometimes wonder about and i cant seem to find anny info on it on the web.
On September 07 2012 23:17 Tanukki wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but though the melting of ice is a very graphic and easily recognised event, it's not proportional to the rise in sea levels, which is the phenomenon we should worried about.
A simplified example: Water is most dense at 4 degrees celcius, so if you took a bunch of floating ice, and melted that ice to 4 degrees celcius, the sea level would actually drop.
Of course, the result of heavy global warming is still a net rise in sea levels (an increase in the ratio of warmer water to 4 degree water), but this is still a thing to consider.
No, because some the ice is floating above the water, so it's not displacing any water.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
This was the impression I was under as well. Who knows these days...
On September 07 2012 23:17 Tanukki wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but though the melting of ice is a very graphic and easily recognised event, it's not proportional to the rise in sea levels, which is the phenomenon we should worried about.
A simplified example: Water is most dense at 4 degrees celcius, so if you took a bunch of floating ice, and melted that ice to 4 degrees celcius, the sea level would actually drop.
Of course, the result of heavy global warming is still a net rise in sea levels (an increase in the ratio of warmer water to 4 degree water), but this is still a thing to consider.
No, because some the ice is floating above the water, so it's not displacing any water.
Now that is wrong mate. The volume of a piece of ice floating (no matter how high above the water the ice is) is equal to the volume of water displaced. Archimedes told us so.
Only thing that counts at sea level increase is the ice melting from the land areas, glaciers and stuff.
One volcanic eruption offsets all that we can possibly contribute to global warming over a year. Couple this with natural cycles and solar storms, solar maximums and various other factors....Global warming is like an ant climbing Mt. Everest.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
This was the impression I was under as well. Who knows these days...
People who aren't ignorant know. The evidence is blatantly obvious.
There are no "Heat" cycles of our sun. And I know several astronomers. There is however Earth based procession cycles which is the reason for the Ice Age. This is in fact....the hot period of our procession. That is why the North Pole is melting WAY more than Antarctica because the procession cycle is pointed there.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
This was the impression I was under as well. Who knows these days...
People who aren't ignorant know. The evidence is blatantly obvious.
Yea its incredible the kind of nonsense people come up with...
Seriously, I've met a few climate scientists during my time studying physics at a very prestigious university. There is no 'debate' on climate change, its a complete academic consensus and all the denial comes from cherry picked evidence at best which is no legitimate science.
Its utterly maddening, people with zero qualification discussing a subject they have no understanding of. You don't debate the Higgs, you just applaud when its found (despite its discovery not having the best implications), you don't question the electrical engineers who construct your phone. However as soon as science tells you something you don't want to hear, you're suddenly against it. Its McCarthyism, pure and simple.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
I don't know enough about trustworthy UK sites. But so tired of people tryin' to say "People are the reason for climate change". Cows alone outproduce 18% of "Greenhouse gases"...obviously climate change is a cyclical pattern as the Earth tilts on its axis. The last reports I've read of the southern hemisphere is that the shelf is actually slowly growin', not at the rate the north is meltin', but that's do to the chemistry of salt water, not a greenhouse gas effect. Global warmin'/climate change is just a whole bunch of crap tryin' to scare people into buyin' more expensive "alternative energy" products. Sure there may be some truth to greenhouse gases bein' captured by the atmosphere, but our ozone let's most of the deadly gases escape, we aren't Venus that traps everythin'. Our ozone is structured differently.
On September 07 2012 23:17 Tanukki wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but though the melting of ice is a very graphic and easily recognised event, it's not proportional to the rise in sea levels, which is the phenomenon we should worried about.
A simplified example: Water is most dense at 4 degrees celcius, so if you took a bunch of floating ice, and melted that ice to 4 degrees celcius, the sea level would actually drop.
Of course, the result of heavy global warming is still a net rise in sea levels (an increase in the ratio of warmer water to 4 degree water), but this is still a thing to consider.
No, because some the ice is floating above the water, so it's not displacing any water.
Now that is wrong mate. The volume of a piece of ice floating (no matter how high above the water the ice is) is equal to the volume of water displaced. Archimedes told us so.
Only thing that counts at sea level increase is the ice melting from the land areas, glaciers and stuff.
I think you need to look up Archimedes' Principle again.
On September 07 2012 19:30 Poltergeist- wrote: We humans have a rather large ego to think that we can change something as big as the earth's climate by driving a few cars around in select areas of the planet.
There are more than half a billion cars used daily worldwide and we have the power to end all life on earth with nuclear weapons... I don't find it very hard to believe.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
I don't know enough about trustworthy UK sites. But so tired of people tryin' to say "People are the reason for climate change". Cows alone outproduce 18% of "Greenhouse gases"...obviously climate change is a cyclical pattern as the Earth tilts on its axis. The last reports I've read of the southern hemisphere is that the shelf is actually slowly growin', not at the rate the north is meltin', but that's do to the chemistry of salt water, not a greenhouse gas effect. Global warmin'/climate change is just a whole bunch of crap tryin' to scare people into buyin' more expensive "alternative energy" products. Sure there may be some truth to greenhouse gases bein' captured by the atmosphere, but our ozone let's most of the deadly gases escape, we aren't Venus that traps everythin'. Our ozone is structured differently.
Yes cows produce a lot of methane and it probably does account for more global warming than car emissions. But there would be a hell of a lot less cows in the world without agriculture. It's still human caused greenhouse gas even if we aren't directly creating it.
Electromagnetic radiation doesn't heat the Earth, bros.
There are people who deny the holocaust too. Fighting the uneducated, misinformed, and too-lazy-to-research in this country (the US) is impossible- largely due to polarizing bipartisan politics.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
I don't know enough about trustworthy UK sites. But so tired of people tryin' to say "People are the reason for climate change". Cows alone outproduce 18% of "Greenhouse gases"...obviously climate change is a cyclical pattern as the Earth tilts on its axis. The last reports I've read of the southern hemisphere is that the shelf is actually slowly growin', not at the rate the north is meltin', but that's do to the chemistry of salt water, not a greenhouse gas effect. Global warmin'/climate change is just a whole bunch of crap tryin' to scare people into buyin' more expensive "alternative energy" products. Sure there may be some truth to greenhouse gases bein' captured by the atmosphere, but our ozone let's most of the deadly gases escape, we aren't Venus that traps everythin'. Our ozone is structured differently.
And why would you think this many cows exist in the first place? Their skills at eluding predators?
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
I don't know enough about trustworthy UK sites. But so tired of people tryin' to say "People are the reason for climate change". Cows alone outproduce 18% of "Greenhouse gases"...obviously climate change is a cyclical pattern as the Earth tilts on its axis. The last reports I've read of the southern hemisphere is that the shelf is actually slowly growin', not at the rate the north is meltin', but that's do to the chemistry of salt water, not a greenhouse gas effect. Global warmin'/climate change is just a whole bunch of crap tryin' to scare people into buyin' more expensive "alternative energy" products. Sure there may be some truth to greenhouse gases bein' captured by the atmosphere, but our ozone let's most of the deadly gases escape, we aren't Venus that traps everythin'. Our ozone is structured differently.
The article you posted doesn't say a god damned thing about Cows outproducing Humans in co2 emissions, it says that domesticated Cows (Propagated by Humans) outproduce CARS (Also produced by Humans) in co2 emissions. In essence, that article addresses two sources of co2 that are totally dependent on Human civilization. (Albeit, we could certainly stop making so many cars and breeding so much beef.)
Still, you must realize that Cows are a domesticated animal that no longer have viability in nature without our constant stewardship - they have undergone thousands of years of intentional breeding to make them docile and fat for our own benefit. Without Humans, cows would not have implemented massive deforestation or have been able to conquer such impressive swaths of the globe as they now enjoy.
Notice that the temperature of very recent years is not included. This is because these years completely diverge from the trend and do not tell the story the pseudoskeptics want you to believe.
On September 08 2012 03:12 Crownlol wrote: Heat cycles, baaaahahahahahahaha.
Electromagnetic radiation doesn't heat the Earth, bros.
There are people who deny the holocaust too. Fighting the uneducated, misinformed, and too-lazy-to-research in this country (the US) is impossible- largely due to polarizing bipartisan politics.
The idea that the sun warms up the earth is indeed laughable
No point in trying to lecture people on sunspots or annything else sun related. Its all irrelevant since the sun simply can not heat up the earth at all /sarcasm.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
I don't know enough about trustworthy UK sites. But so tired of people tryin' to say "People are the reason for climate change". Cows alone outproduce 18% of "Greenhouse gases"...obviously climate change is a cyclical pattern as the Earth tilts on its axis. The last reports I've read of the southern hemisphere is that the shelf is actually slowly growin', not at the rate the north is meltin', but that's do to the chemistry of salt water, not a greenhouse gas effect. Global warmin'/climate change is just a whole bunch of crap tryin' to scare people into buyin' more expensive "alternative energy" products. Sure there may be some truth to greenhouse gases bein' captured by the atmosphere, but our ozone let's most of the deadly gases escape, we aren't Venus that traps everythin'. Our ozone is structured differently.
And why would you think this many cows exist in the first place? Their skills at eluding predators?
Indeed.
The point is industry causes the bulk of problems. Cows count as industry as we breed them on an industrial scale.
Climate change is an issue, yes the earth has certainly been in worse predicaments but that isn't the point. Noone is worried about the health of the earth, its the ability to sustain our massive population, changes in climate will have a dramatic effect on food production, water supply and extreme weather, problems in which will caused increased immigration from areas worst hit, further straining those areas which are still habitable. These problems are already visible in a lot of the third world and will only increase.
It's a sad truth but we really can't sustain this rate, and for the record I don't think "alternative energy" is the solution being pushed. It's a general reduction is our rate of consumption, energy problems can be solved with nuclear power, which the alternative energy movement ignorantly opposes, resulting in a lack of development in nuclear production technology, leaving us with a bunch of less than ideal sites all over the place which should've been updated.
On September 08 2012 03:12 Crownlol wrote: Heat cycles, baaaahahahahahahaha.
Electromagnetic radiation doesn't heat the Earth, bros.
There are people who deny the holocaust too. Fighting the uneducated, misinformed, and too-lazy-to-research in this country (the US) is impossible- largely due to polarizing bipartisan politics.
The idea that the sun warms up the earth is indeed laughable
No point in trying to lecture people on sunspots or annything else sun related. Its all irrelevant since the sun simply can not heat up the earth at all /sarcasm.
On September 08 2012 06:54 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: It's not all that bad. At least we won't have to get shot at by Somalian pirates anymore.
That is nice. Global warming caused by oil, lets us find more oil (article mentions how this opens up new areas for oil and gas drilling) Wich will increase global warming so that we can find even more oil!
I actually support nuclear power. People keep whining about nuclear accidents and potential fission side effects, but nuclear power is far from the only source of energy that causes accidents. It's safe and has the potential to be safer with some investment, and is a good springboard towards clean fusion.
On September 07 2012 23:17 Tanukki wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but though the melting of ice is a very graphic and easily recognised event, it's not proportional to the rise in sea levels, which is the phenomenon we should worried about.
A simplified example: Water is most dense at 4 degrees celcius, so if you took a bunch of floating ice, and melted that ice to 4 degrees celcius, the sea level would actually drop.
Of course, the result of heavy global warming is still a net rise in sea levels (an increase in the ratio of warmer water to 4 degree water), but this is still a thing to consider.
No, because some the ice is floating above the water, so it's not displacing any water.
Now that is wrong mate. The volume of a piece of ice floating (no matter how high above the water the ice is) is equal to the volume of water displaced. Archimedes told us so.
Only thing that counts at sea level increase is the ice melting from the land areas, glaciers and stuff.
I think you need to look up Archimedes' Principle again.
Because that's not what it tells us. At all.
He's still right though cow. Any piece of ice that floats in the water displaces as much water (in weight) as the piece of ice weighs, if the ice melts the water it turns to will still weigh the same, and so it will not increase the sea level more so than the original piece of ice did in the first place.
On September 07 2012 23:17 Tanukki wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but though the melting of ice is a very graphic and easily recognised event, it's not proportional to the rise in sea levels, which is the phenomenon we should worried about.
A simplified example: Water is most dense at 4 degrees celcius, so if you took a bunch of floating ice, and melted that ice to 4 degrees celcius, the sea level would actually drop.
Of course, the result of heavy global warming is still a net rise in sea levels (an increase in the ratio of warmer water to 4 degree water), but this is still a thing to consider.
No, because some the ice is floating above the water, so it's not displacing any water.
Now that is wrong mate. The volume of a piece of ice floating (no matter how high above the water the ice is) is equal to the volume of water displaced. Archimedes told us so.
Only thing that counts at sea level increase is the ice melting from the land areas, glaciers and stuff.
I think you need to look up Archimedes' Principle again.
Because that's not what it tells us. At all.
lol go fill up your bathtub to the top and lay in it
On September 07 2012 23:17 Tanukki wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but though the melting of ice is a very graphic and easily recognised event, it's not proportional to the rise in sea levels, which is the phenomenon we should worried about.
A simplified example: Water is most dense at 4 degrees celcius, so if you took a bunch of floating ice, and melted that ice to 4 degrees celcius, the sea level would actually drop.
Of course, the result of heavy global warming is still a net rise in sea levels (an increase in the ratio of warmer water to 4 degree water), but this is still a thing to consider.
No, because some the ice is floating above the water, so it's not displacing any water.
Now that is wrong mate. The volume of a piece of ice floating (no matter how high above the water the ice is) is equal to the volume of water displaced. Archimedes told us so.
Only thing that counts at sea level increase is the ice melting from the land areas, glaciers and stuff.
I think you need to look up Archimedes' Principle again.
Because that's not what it tells us. At all.
lol go fill up your bathtub to the top and lay in it
tell me what happens to the water
thats irrelevant. Free floating ice will not raise the water level as they melt. The problem is that greenland is not a giant piece of ice cube. Its an ice sheet that sits on top of a bedrock.
I've found that global warming deniers (particularly some people I'm friends with on facebook) who use the sun argument have never taken a good, rigorous course on solar physics. Sun spots have almost no impact on total radiative flux, they're just points where the magnetic field lines converge due to the charged plasma rotating at differential speeds. A bit more radiation does escape through these holes, but the measurements show a maximum increase in radiative flux of about 1.3 W/m^2 - the sun emits an average of 1366 W/m^2 normally. The change is just extremely negligible, and does not even begin to account for the changes in our climate measurements.
That's a lot of melt, hopefully this will slow down by itself, because I have absolutely zero faith in our politicians dealing with it. Too few votes to be scored by a true green profile :-(.
On September 08 2012 11:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I actually support nuclear power. People keep whining about nuclear accidents and potential fission side effects, but nuclear power is far from the only source of energy that causes accidents. It's safe and has the potential to be safer with some investment, and is a good springboard towards clean fusion.
I am not against nuclear power, but your logic is kindda flawed, because a (major) nuclear disaster will ruin all land around the nuclear for several generations. Compared to this, other sources of energy will be more like to only cause short term damage (aside from greenhouse gas emission ;-)).
As a final word, guys you shouldn't worry, because winter is coming!
Notice that the temperature of very recent years is not included. This is because these years completely diverge from the trend and do not tell the story the pseudoskeptics want you to believe.
There's a good portion on this in here. Then you could start reading the literature.
Sorry nooby question: What's so bad about climate change? I mean, it's bad that it gets hot and shit but is there any disastrous effects of climate change?
On September 09 2012 04:24 Kluey wrote: Sorry nooby question: What's so bad about climate change? I mean, it's bad that it gets hot and shit but is there any disastrous effects of climate change?
Yes, eventually all life ends and the environment becomes so extreme that life can't ever develop or thrive again. I'd say that counts as "disastrous".
On September 09 2012 04:29 claybones wrote: I understand that global warming is probably occurring but... has anyone considered geothermal activity having something to do with this?
The Earth's core is changing but its widely believed that there's some sort of cycle we're going through. The magnetic shield is weakening and also rotating which will eventually result in compasses pointing south when its North and vice versa.
On September 08 2012 03:12 Crownlol wrote: Heat cycles, baaaahahahahahahaha.
Electromagnetic radiation doesn't heat the Earth, bros.
There are people who deny the holocaust too. Fighting the uneducated, misinformed, and too-lazy-to-research in this country (the US) is impossible- largely due to polarizing bipartisan politics.
The idea that the sun warms up the earth is indeed laughable
No point in trying to lecture people on sunspots or annything else sun related. Its all irrelevant since the sun simply can not heat up the earth at all /sarcasm.
This cant be correct at all, the Maunder minimum corresponds to extended periods of VERY low temperatures. Are you implying that there isn't even a correlation between them?
On September 09 2012 04:29 claybones wrote: I understand that global warming is probably occurring but... has anyone considered geothermal activity having something to do with this?
Yes. Lots of people have. Lots of people have shown that it's not substantial.
Geez, people think that they have this novel idea that nobody has ever thought of before even though there are thousands of PH.Ds that spend every single day thinking about this subject. How egotistical are you? Really, this is the one reason why people need to take philosophy classes in college, it teaches you that any idea you have had, someone has had before. To get to anything novel, you have to read through all of the ideas that you have had and then would have had next (maybe, if you have another 2000 years to think about it) to finally get to a point where you may have an idea that someone hasn't had before.
Yes, unless you're a PH.D on the subject, your idea has been thought of before and if it's not mentioned as a "good idea" then it has already been thrown out. I can guarantee it.
On the other hand, if it really is so easy for you to come up with such a stellar argument, just write down the whole thesis and any PH.D program will instantly accept you with lots of funding. Don't sit on your ass, take the free money!
This came off as a lot more aggressive than I intended, but still the idea is there. Really, in every subject you study you're probably saying "geez, why do people listen to people who are not experts!". Even a guy I know who is a fish salesperson gets pissed when a friend tells another friend how to care for fish! No matter who you are, you know that non-experts say the dumbest shit about the subject and think they know it all and everyone must either be dumb or corrupt. Now flip the argument, are you an expert on this subject? What do you sound like to the people who study it all day?
No good indepth coherent argument for/against any of these arguments will appear on a web form because it would be a semester long project. Accept expert opinion if you are not willing to read it all.
On September 09 2012 04:29 claybones wrote: I understand that global warming is probably occurring but... has anyone considered geothermal activity having something to do with this?
Yes. Lots of people have. Lots of people have shown that it's not substantial.
You couldve stopped right there, gave him his answer (he asked a question, he didnt say he had some brilliant idea nobody ever thought of), and not sounded like an ass, but...
On September 09 2012 04:29 claybones wrote: I understand that global warming is probably occurring but... has anyone considered geothermal activity having something to do with this?
Yes. Lots of people have. Lots of people have shown that it's not substantial.
You couldve stopped right there, gave him his answer (he asked a question, he didnt say he had some brilliant idea nobody ever thought of), and not sounded like an ass, but...
On September 09 2012 04:37 rackdude wrote: Accept expert opinion if you are not willing to read it all.
*sigh...
how about, accept nothing until proven otherwise by 1) evidence or 2) common sense?
that get me too frustrated lol. Makes you laugh at first then you're sad this is the world you live in. You have to stand up against it sometimes. Everyone seems to accept weird things like quantum mechanics and differentials without too much proof and just think "experts have studied this for years and this is what they have come to, sure I don't understand it all but I will accept parts that I do not know for now" yet when you get one idea you think is novel about climate you throw out all expert opinion and think "I live in this world. I know climate. How are these people so wrong? I mean, I haven't read it all, but this hunch, it's something special."
On September 09 2012 05:12 rackdude wrote: that get me too frustrated lol. Makes you laugh at first then you're sad this is the world you live in. You have to stand up against it sometimes. Everyone seems to accept weird things like quantum mechanics and differentials without too much proof and just think "experts have studied this for years and this is what they have come to, sure I don't understand it all but I will accept parts that I do not know for now" yet when you get one idea you think is novel about climate you throw out all expert opinion and think "I live in this world. I know climate. How are these people so wrong? I mean, I haven't read it all, but this hunch, it's something special."
Lets all get back to real work.
stand up against skepticism? why would you?
ftr, i don't "accept" quantum mechanics or differentials, or anything else for that matter without solid evidence or proof and proper explanation.
experts studied air for a looooong time before they came up with a reasonably correct theory as to what it was, what it was comprised of, and why it reacted and acted the way it does. there were a lot of theories before the right one, and they all had evidence that seemed to suggest that their (incorrect) theory was correct. a lot of these people were highly intelligent scientists with no hidden agenda, but they were still flat out wrong, despite having most people convinced.
nowhere did i say shit about my opinion on global warming, or any other scientific theory, so.... yeah, try to refrain from putting words in my mouth.
my point still stands: people should be more skeptical of scientists and scientific theories, not less.
On September 09 2012 05:12 rackdude wrote: that get me too frustrated lol. Makes you laugh at first then you're sad this is the world you live in. You have to stand up against it sometimes. Everyone seems to accept weird things like quantum mechanics and differentials without too much proof and just think "experts have studied this for years and this is what they have come to, sure I don't understand it all but I will accept parts that I do not know for now" yet when you get one idea you think is novel about climate you throw out all expert opinion and think "I live in this world. I know climate. How are these people so wrong? I mean, I haven't read it all, but this hunch, it's something special."
Lets all get back to real work.
stand up against skepticism? why would you?
ftr, i don't "accept" quantum mechanics or differentials, or anything else for that matter without solid evidence or proof and proper explanation.
experts studied air for a looooong time before they came up with a reasonably correct theory as to what it was, what it was comprised of, and why it reacted and acted the way it does. there were a lot of theories before the right one, and they all had evidence that seemed to suggest that their (incorrect) theory was correct. a lot of these people were highly intelligent scientists with no hidden agenda, but they were still flat out wrong, despite having most people convinced.
nowhere did i say shit about my opinion on global warming, or any other scientific theory, so.... yeah, try to refrain from putting words in my mouth.
my point still stands: people should be more skeptical of scientists and scientific theories, not less.
When it comes to global warming it would seem that a lot of people have no faith in scientists but would rather go with alternate explanations that are more convinent. This is not the logical option, but the easy one. It has nothing to do with real skepticism.
That said, let's discuss skepticism of science. In a way you are right. The way in which you are right concerns frivolous studies that suggest things without actually proving its conclusion. Here's a very simple example which a lot of people would take for granted if they rated the title; McDonalds makes you fat - 80% of all fat people visit McDonalds! While this may be true, it may also simply be due to the fact that fat people like to eat at McDonalds, rather than it being McDonalds that's the crucial factor making them fat. In situations like this people should be more critical. They should stop and thing, understand the scientific process and if possible actually look up the controlling factors (if any) in the news article they are reading or the paper itself.
When it comes to issues which people simply don't understand (because frankly they are too stupid to understand it, and yes, this includes me) like astrophysics or quantum mechanics, it's better to just listen to what smarter people tell you. In fact, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, there are a lot of theories to read about. There's nothing certain at this moment and, as far as I know, everyone is honest about that. What we do know is that there is a lot left to explore, both in that area and others.
To go against established scientific facts, however, just makes you ignorant. This includes global warming, evolution, the sun being the center of our solar system, gravity, and similar established scientific facts.
i think the flat-out rejection of global warming is due to a couple of factors, the main ones being 1) that it is highly political in nature, 2) that there is a stifling of honest debate about it, and 3) that it is a relatively untested hypothesis.
on your point about "issues which people simply don't understand", I might agree, if it wasn't put with the "just listen to what smarter people tell you" statement and attitude. in my opinion, such fallacious appeals to authority, combined with the strange self-deprecation that inevitably follows them, are dangerous and should be fought against even to the point of error. what i mean is, it is better to err on the side of skepticism than it is to err on the side of blind acceptance.
established scientific facts are few and far between. in fact, i think only the sun being the center of the solar-system could be called a "fact". evolution is a theory (i do understand what a scientific theory is so please don't try to tell me), gravity is... well i'm not sure if "gravity" counts as even a hypothesis. as to what gravity is, i'm pretty sure the science is still out on that one (could be wrong.) global warming, in my opinion, is little better than a hypothesis, due to lack of testing and the (relative) lack of observable data.
"To go against" established scientific fact and theory is probably usually fueled by ignorance. i can take that. however, to be skeptical about established scientific anything is not bad, nor is it necessarily fueled by ignorance. skepticism is specifically not taking a position, so it is hard to blame one for being skeptical, especially about something like science, which begins and ends with skeptical questioning. in science, one should usually try to disprove one's assertion, rather than attempt to prove it.
I love how people don't see the connections between how Japan had alot of meltdowns and this right here. Radiation leaked into the atmosphere causing the ozone layer to have a few hiccups which result in this. I believe this will be temporary.
On September 09 2012 04:37 rackdude wrote: Geez, people think that they have this novel idea that nobody has ever thought of before even though there are thousands of PH.Ds that spend every single day thinking about this subject. How egotistical are you?
Okay first of all I was referring to the posters in this thread. Neither the article or any of the posts I have seen have so much as mentioned geothermal activity. Secondly I'm not saying humans aren't contributing to climate change, I'm just saying that this PARTICULAR occurrence could be related to the common geological activity in that area of the Atlantic. Don't tell me to take philosophy classes, I'm educated in science and I don't accept theories that cannot be proven with any degree of certainty.
You wrote a page in response to a sentence and oddly chose the word egotistical to describe me.
On September 09 2012 06:13 decker247777 wrote: I love how people don't see the connections between how Japan had alot of meltdowns and this right here. Radiation leaked into the atmosphere causing the ozone layer to have a few hiccups which result in this. I believe this will be temporary.
:-D
just like that "Cold War" occured right after nuking Japan in 1945 and test sites all over the world. Right?
On September 09 2012 06:13 decker247777 wrote: I love how people don't see the connections between how Japan had alot of meltdowns and this right here. Radiation leaked into the atmosphere causing the ozone layer to have a few hiccups which result in this. I believe this will be temporary.
LOL.
That is, unfortunately, not correct in any way, shape, or form. Nuclear explosions result in massive quanitites of debris being released into the air, thus causing a local cooling effect. The term "nuclear winter" is in fact literal because of this phenomenon.
However, a nuclear meltdown with a hundred times less the raw explosive force of a bomb would not create any significant change in the atmosphere, and would not create such a massive effect thousands of miles away.
On September 09 2012 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think the flat-out rejection of global warming is due to a couple of factors, the main ones being 1) that it is highly political in nature, 2) that there is a stifling of honest debate about it, and 3) that it is a relatively untested hypothesis.
on your point about "issues which people simply don't understand", I might agree, if it wasn't put with the "just listen to what smarter people tell you" statement and attitude. in my opinion, such fallacious appeals to authority, combined with the strange self-deprecation that inevitably follows them, are dangerous and should be fought against even to the point of error. what i mean is, it is better to err on the side of skepticism than it is to err on the side of blind acceptance.
established scientific facts are few and far between. in fact, i think only the sun being the center of the solar-system could be called a "fact". evolution is a theory (i do understand what a scientific theory is so please don't try to tell me), gravity is... well i'm not sure if "gravity" counts as even a hypothesis. as to what gravity is, i'm pretty sure the science is still out on that one (could be wrong.) global warming, in my opinion, is little better than a hypothesis, due to lack of testing and the (relative) lack of observable data.
"To go against" established scientific fact and theory is probably usually fueled by ignorance. i can take that. however, to be skeptical about established scientific anything is not bad, nor is it necessarily fueled by ignorance. skepticism is specifically not taking a position, so it is hard to blame one for being skeptical, especially about something like science, which begins and ends with skeptical questioning. in science, one should usually try to disprove one's assertion, rather than attempt to prove it.
Which is funny, because this is also what most well known scientists say. If you're not skeptical to science, then you're simply using it as your religion (using the word loosely here, but you get the point).
Can we please stop blaming everything on global warming? At this point its such a loosely term tossed around in politics to provoke fear. There is no such thing as Global Warming. Yes, there could very well be a connection between pollution, and the ice melting faster on the north pole due to weakening of the ozone layer. And I'm absolutely not saying we shouldn't be working towards cleaner energy. But there is absolutely no proven connection between "global warming" and a sudden 90% melt of a given area in 4 days. At this point, we simply don't know what caused it.
lol, nothings funnier than the Global warming people who think the world is going to be consumed by water. Modern day apocalypse criers. Yeah, maybe this will be bad and we'll get a bit more flooding or whatever than usual; so what? New Orleans still stands for a couple hundred years despite it being in the most retarded of locations. Free the market, deregulate industry and allow the economy to explode --- nothing withstands climate catastrophes better than wealthy humans. The third world will get smashed as long as it is poor, which ironically the global warming idiots policies will merely exacerbate if they were actually followed. In reality, because its an economic suicide pact, it will be ignored BUT be used as justification for greater state control. Nothing will happen but we will grow at a slower pace, and the damage done by climate will be greater.
The Arctic Sea is experiencing rapid ice loss at a pace so fast that the area will soon be ice-free in warmer months, scientists confirmed in a report this week—showing a collapse in total sea ice volume to one fifth of its level in 1980.
The alarming rate of melting was measured by the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 satellite, which uses new technology to measure the thickness of the sea ice in addition to how much of the region is covered.
While ice thickness is more difficult to see with the naked eye, its decline in volume is a harbinger of faster and more alarming ice loss, the scientists urged.
"Not only is the area getting smaller, but also its thickness is decreasing and making the ice more vulnerable to more rapid declines in the future," Christian Haas, a geophysicist at York University in Canada, told NBC News.
The Arctic sea already hit record lows in 2012 with the lowest amount of ice on record, covering only half the average area covered between 1979 and 2012.
The newly released data confirms earlier reports—which included data from NASA's ICESat satellite between 2003 to 2008—that the Arctic, which normally maintains vast amounts of ice throughout the year, may soon be ice-free during warmer months. Another team of scientists came to the same conclusion in September using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the University of Washington’s Polar Science Center.
"As the satellite measurements show that not only the area decreases but also its thickness, it is actually becoming more likely that the ice will disappear sooner rather than later," Haas told NBC News.
Researchers published the study online in Geophysical Research Letters. "Other people had argued that 75 to 80 percent ice volume loss was too aggressive," said co-author Axel Schweiger in a press release. "What this new paper shows is that our ice loss estimates may have been too conservative, and that the recent decline is possibly more rapid."
Thanks {CC}StealthBlue an informative post that doesn't make me want to tear my eyes out, a rare thing in this thread. Very interesting topic, an official climate change thread would be pretty cool...
For the first time, scientists have managed to demonstrate that ten times more ice melts in the summer months on the Antarctic Peninsula now than it did 600 years ago.
The Antarctic Peninsula is the biggest and most prominent peninsula in Antarctica. It consists of a rugged mountain chain, which rises more than 2000 m high.
Unlike the majority of the continent, the ice on the peninsula experiences a degree of melting every summer. Over recent decades the amount of ice which has melted has been increasing.
It has been known for some time that temperatures across the Antarctic Peninsula have risen dramatically. Over the past fifty years there has been an increase of 2.8C, making this the most rapidly warming region in the Southern Hemisphere. This is over five times the global average and comparable to rapidly warming regions of the Arctic.
At the same time, around 25,000 km2 of ice have been lost from ten floating ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula. This is particularly significant as it takes a long time to replenish snow and ice in this part of the world.
With under 250 mm of precipitation per year, Antarctica is officially classed as a desert. In fact, some parts of the continent haven’t seen any rain or snow for many years. Across the Antarctic Peninsula, the snow and ice simply melts and refreezes. Currently the ice that is lost to melting far exceeds that which is replenished in a year.
Very interesting. A part of me feels bad for those living in low-lying regions, but the other is extremely interested in how world climate and local weather will be affected by all of this. In some sense, its really exciting because the world is kind of changing in drastic and very interesting ways! How will it affect geopolitics? How will it affect the struggling economies of the world? Will this be the trigger for a worldwide depression? And then what will the world be like in the ensuing chaos?? Maybe this will lead to resource wars, and I'll be living in a subway system with my AK47, going on excursions to get raw materials and hunt the local mole rats for my community. And we'll all go on adventures to find better weapons!! WOOOOO
I guess this is the symptom of playing too many RPGs
The flow of Greenland’s glaciers toward the sea may have increased significantly in the past decade, but a new report in Nature finds that rate of increase is unlikely to continue. “The loss of ice has doubled in the past 10 years, but it’s not going to double again,” said lead author Faezeh Nick, a glaciologist at the University Centre in Svalbard, in Longyearbyen, Norway, in an interview.
That conclusion, based on a new, sophisticated computer model, makes the worst-case scenario of sea level rise — an increase of 6 feet or so, on average, by 2100 — look less likely to play out.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that, in the model at least, the slowdown doesn’t necessarily bring glaciers back to their original, stately rate of flow. And since the heat-trapping gas that has already put into the atmosphere will be there for hundreds of years to come, Greenland will continue to melt indefinitely. The fact that it may not happen quite as fast as the worst-case scenarios might forecast isn’t all that reassuring.
Because even if sea level goes up by only half that much, the combination of rising seas and periodic storm surges could devastate coastal areas around the world. Scientists have concluded, based on earlier studies, that the lower figure of about 3 feet is most likely, and while that research didn’t explicitly calculate anticipated sea level rise, it appears consistent with those estimates.
Earlier studies, based on satellite observations, had also noted that Greenland’s ice flow has started to slow, which means the dumping of icebergs into the ocean should slow as well. Projecting what’s likely in the future, however, is the province not of observations but of models. In this case, Nick and a half-dozen colleagues used a new model that factors in the effects of climate change on both the air above Greenland and on the ocean below.
Those effects, Nick said, depend on the characteristics of individual glaciers. The Petermann glacier in northwest Greenland, for example — one of four the scientists modeled — “has a very long floating shelf, so it’s very sensitive to ocean warming.” As a result, the Petermann has loosed two massive “ice islands” into the sea, one in 2010 that was four times the size of Manhattan, and another, about half as big, in 2012.
"And since the heat-trapping gas that has already put into the atmosphere will be there for hundreds of years to come, Greenland will continue to melt indefinitely. The fact that it may not happen quite as fast as the worst-case scenarios might forecast isn’t all that reassuring."
Can someone clarify, I thought CO2 in the atmosphere only stayed there for thirty something years before breaking down.
The year 2012 was a terrible time for the planet, according to a new report released by the American Meteorological Society this week.
Edited by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 2012 State of the Climate report revealed that Arctic sea ice reached a record low, while sea levels and greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning hit all-time highs last year.
2012 was also one of the top 10 warmest years on record globally, according to the report, which received input from hundreds of climate experts from more than 50 countries. The United States and Argentina specifically experienced their hottest years ever.
"The findings are striking," said Kathryn Sullivan, acting administrator of the NOAA, according to the Agence France-Presse. "Our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place."
Conditions in the Arctic were a major story of 2012, with the region experiencing unprecedented change and breaking several records. Sea ice shrank to its smallest “summer minimum” extent since satellite records began 34 years ago. In addition, more than 97 percent of the Greenland ice sheet showed some form of melt during the summer, four times greater than the 1981–2010 average melt extent.
On May 09 2013 11:39 Roman wrote: "And since the heat-trapping gas that has already put into the atmosphere will be there for hundreds of years to come, Greenland will continue to melt indefinitely. The fact that it may not happen quite as fast as the worst-case scenarios might forecast isn’t all that reassuring."
Can someone clarify, I thought CO2 in the atmosphere only stayed there for thirty something years before breaking down.
There are greenhouse gases trapped in the arctic ice, not just CO2 but also methane and other gases. When the ice melts it releases this trapped gas into the atmosphere causing a chain reaction.
Earth warms -> ice melts -> release greenhouse gases -> earth gets warmer -> more ice melts -> more greenhouse gases released
This is also irreversible, once the gases are released, you can't re-trap the gas back into the ice, the gases are in the atmosphere to stay.
Fun fact: Without the greenhouse effect (and with a other few environmental changes), Venus could serve as a nice holiday planet, actually. Instead, the temperatures are closer to the boiling point of sulphur. With Venus having roughly the same gravity as Earth, Venus is as close to "Hell on Earth" as one could possibly get. People should use this to scare religious people who don't believe in science and don't believe in limiting greenhouse gases. I think it makes for a fun argument
Also, if the sea level rises "only" 3 feet (approx. 1 meter), this map shows what the effects would be. Take a look at the east coast of China a little north of Shanghai...
Isnt venus like way closer to the sun then earth? And if see water rises with 1m, you just need make all the dams 1 m higher 1m or even 3m rise in seawater should not have a devastating influence, when it gets to 10m+ it gets worrysome though.
"This is also irreversible, once the gases are released, you can't re-trap the gas back into the ice, the gases are in the atmosphere to stay."
Then how did the gas get trapped in the first place?
Yeah 'Murica had its hottest year in ages, but the likes of the UK and Australia had relatively cool summers. English summer last year was just rain. And we than had our harshest winter in years as well, the most snow falling in years. It also lasted way into 2013. Australia also had lots of rain too and i the Tennis tournament was also not as hot as it normally is.
So i think that is a bit bias report personally, another scare mongering exercise.
No question that there might of been an increase in water levels and reduction in ice levels last year but im pretty sure it balances itself out of the last 50 years. No doubt you get hotter summers than previous years or cooler than previous years. You do in England that's for sure.
On August 07 2013 18:50 Pandemona wrote: Yeah 'Murica had its hottest year in ages, but the likes of the UK and Australia had relatively cool summers. English summer last year was just rain. And we than had our harshest winter in years as well, the most snow falling in years. It also lasted way into 2013. Australia also had lots of rain too and i the Tennis tournament was also not as hot as it normally is.
So i think that is a bit bias report personally, another scare mongering exercise.
No question that there might of been an increase in water levels and reduction in ice levels last year but im pretty sure it balances itself out of the last 50 years. No doubt you get hotter summers than previous years or cooler than previous years. You do in England that's for sure.
Actually the Global Warming will cause a different effect in Europe. It will freeze eventually because the Gulf Stream will disappear from Europe (I am not sure if I used the right English names for this).
On August 07 2013 18:46 Rassy wrote: Isnt venus like way closer to the sun then earth? And if see water rises with 1m, you just need make all the dams 1 m higher 1m or even 3m rise in seawater should not have a devastating influence, when it gets to 10m+ it gets worrysome though.
"This is also irreversible, once the gases are released, you can't re-trap the gas back into the ice, the gases are in the atmosphere to stay."
Then how did the gas get trapped in the first place?
On August 07 2013 18:46 Rassy wrote: Isnt venus like way closer to the sun then earth? And if see water rises with 1m, you just need make all the dams 1 m higher 1m or even 3m rise in seawater should not have a devastating influence, when it gets to 10m+ it gets worrysome though.
"This is also irreversible, once the gases are released, you can't re-trap the gas back into the ice, the gases are in the atmosphere to stay."
Then how did the gas get trapped in the first place?
The result of dead plant and animal matter being trapped for thousands of years.
Also another fun fact
Permafrost can also store carbon, both as peat and as methane. The most recent work investigating the permafrost carbon pool size estimates that 1400–1700 Gt of carbon is stored in permafrost soils worldwide.[3] This large carbon pool represents more carbon than currently exists in all living things and twice as much carbon as exists in the atmosphere.
On August 07 2013 18:50 Pandemona wrote: Yeah 'Murica had its hottest year in ages, but the likes of the UK and Australia had relatively cool summers. English summer last year was just rain. And we than had our harshest winter in years as well, the most snow falling in years. It also lasted way into 2013. Australia also had lots of rain too and i the Tennis tournament was also not as hot as it normally is.
So i think that is a bit bias report personally, another scare mongering exercise.
No question that there might of been an increase in water levels and reduction in ice levels last year but im pretty sure it balances itself out of the last 50 years. No doubt you get hotter summers than previous years or cooler than previous years. You do in England that's for sure.
Actually the Global Warming will cause a different effect in Europe. It will freeze eventually because the Gulf Stream will disappear from Europe (I am not sure if I used the right English names for this).
Yeah you used the right English. Pretty sure that this wont happen in a while. Whilst last year England had a bad Summer, this year seems very good and i know from TL alone that Germany has had a pretty hot summer so far too? And France. So im guessing no signs of that Ice Age yet
Summer was decent but the past 5 years summers here have been significantly worse then in the 1995-2005 era and winters have been stronger. though i think this has more to do with natural fluctuation and the lower activity of the sun in recent years, some scientists even predict a new maunder minimum like period for several decades. The gulfstream stopping would be quiet devastating though for northern europe, and i realy hope it wont come to that. Not to found of verry cold weather.
Denialists are just retard making up things they have no clue about. They are playing the game of the big companies and countries who try to find excuses to continue to make huge amounts of CO2, methane, poluted chimics etc... without any regard to the planet or the future generations.
Yes Earth has period of warm and cold but it's every 50 000 yrs. 4°c in 100 yrs is totally anormal.
still a believer in that global warming and climate crap is all crap, the earth is its own engine it will do what is pleases. We are insignificant. I sat a seminar (not to do with school or college or uni) where this lead researcher said we(humans) make no difference to the planet at all. Life seems to go through periodical mass extinctions, 6 i bleieve have happened since the birth of the planet. As far as im concerned, noone should be concerned. we are becoming to be a very adaptive race but we simply cant stop the earth/suns/moon - other contributing bodies cycle and evolution. Sorry guys its just facts, we mean nothing to this planet, she will do with us as she pleases.
People who are still skeptical about global warming caused by humans make me facepalm so hard. Why do the overwhelming majority of scientist (the ones that arent bribed by big companies that would suffer if we would take actions against global warming) in this area of science agree that man-made global warming is real then? surely they are 500x times the clue about this than the average poster in this thread(me included)
On August 07 2013 19:33 StatixEx wrote: still a believer in that global warming and climate crap is all crap, the earth is its own engine it will do what is pleases. We are insignificant. I sat a seminar (not to do with school or college or uni) where this lead researcher said we(humans) make no difference to the planet at all. Life seems to go through periodical mass extinctions, 6 i bleieve have happened since the birth of the planet. As far as im concerned, noone should be concerned. we are becoming to be a very adaptive race but we simply cant stop the earth/suns/moon - other contributing bodies cycle and evolution. Sorry guys its just facts, we mean nothing to this planet, she will do with us as she pleases.
Are you blind? Have you never scene a cloud of brown / yellow gaz on top of big cities? Do you not know that in Australia there is a hole in the auzone film and that's why it's the country with the most cancer of the skin? Glacier that were so big in the 20's have dissapeared in 80 yrs and it's all natural?
So you want us not to act? You are not concerned at all with the different gazes we put in the atmosphere. In 100 years we changed the pourcentages of gaz in the air etc...
Sorry I won't argue more with retards like you. Oh and this researcher was fake btw, any person with a real brain would not say that.
On August 07 2013 19:33 StatixEx wrote: still a believer in that global warming and climate crap is all crap, the earth is its own engine it will do what is pleases. We are insignificant. I sat a seminar (not to do with school or college or uni) where this lead researcher said we(humans) make no difference to the planet at all. Life seems to go through periodical mass extinctions, 6 i bleieve have happened since the birth of the planet. As far as im concerned, noone should be concerned. we are becoming to be a very adaptive race but we simply cant stop the earth/suns/moon - other contributing bodies cycle and evolution. Sorry guys its just facts, we mean nothing to this planet, she will do with us as she pleases.
Are you blind? Have you never scene a cloud of brown / yellow gaz on top of big cities? Do you not know that in Australia there is a hole in the auzone film and that's why it's the country with the most cancer of the skin? Glacier that were so big in the 20's have dissapeared in 80 yrs and it's all natural?
So you want us not to act? You are not concerned at all with the different gazes we put in the atmosphere. In 100 years we changed the pourcentages of gaz in the air etc...
Sorry I won't argue more with retards like you. Oh and this researcher was fake btw, any person with a real brain would not say that.
You weren't really arguing much to begin with, your statements seem to just be "You don't agree with me, so you are fucking stupid." I am sure you would be much better at getting your point across if you weren't such a tool.
See, thats the problem. There is nothing to argue.
All you can do is "believe" the research. If you disagree with it thats fine, as fine as believing in scientology or the 2000 year old earth (in other words, it's ridiculous and people will make fun of you).
Btw: Even if denialists are "right", at this point, with the stuff "we" know right now, your still a friggin retard for being one.
On August 07 2013 19:31 Acertos wrote: Denialists are just retard making up things they have no clue about. They are playing the game of the big companies and countries who try to find excuses to continue to make huge amounts of CO2, methane, poluted chimics etc... without any regard to the planet or the future generations.
Yes Earth has period of warm and cold but it's every 50 000 yrs. 4°c in 100 yrs is totally anormal.
But that is guesses and estimates from the past, yes it is a real good estimate but it still doesnt account for the majority of time. 4c plus in 100 years sounds alot, but after an Ice Age the numbers might of been similar. We might be due an ice age according to some scientists. My theory which i will always stand by after hearing from Professor Hawkins is about the Polar Ice caps moving (North and South pole) which is the main reason to all these "climate shifts" which are being talked about, and it just happens to coincide with the rise in Global Warming
On August 07 2013 19:33 StatixEx wrote: still a believer in that global warming and climate crap is all crap, the earth is its own engine it will do what is pleases. We are insignificant. I sat a seminar (not to do with school or college or uni) where this lead researcher said we(humans) make no difference to the planet at all. Life seems to go through periodical mass extinctions, 6 i bleieve have happened since the birth of the planet. As far as im concerned, noone should be concerned. we are becoming to be a very adaptive race but we simply cant stop the earth/suns/moon - other contributing bodies cycle and evolution. Sorry guys its just facts, we mean nothing to this planet, she will do with us as she pleases.
Are you blind? Have you never scene a cloud of brown / yellow gaz on top of big cities? Do you not know that in Australia there is a hole in the auzone film and that's why it's the country with the most cancer of the skin? Glacier that were so big in the 20's have dissapeared in 80 yrs and it's all natural?
So you want us not to act? You are not concerned at all with the different gazes we put in the atmosphere. In 100 years we changed the pourcentages of gaz in the air etc...
Sorry I won't argue more with retards like you. Oh and this researcher was fake btw, any person with a real brain would not say that.
You weren't really arguing much to begin with, your statements seem to just be "You don't agree with me, so you are fucking stupid." I am sure you would be much better at getting your point across if you weren't such a tool.
Ok ok I will take time to respond to you. I was arguing about the existence of global warming caused / greatly amplified by humanity and it was implicit if you didn't understand. Then I began to give him all kinds of easy understandable things that prove that there is a problem with warming and that it was caused by humans. Then I say I won't argue anymore with retards who can't grasp reality.
Like another one said. Yes creationists, scientologists, denialists of the global warming or any delusional stupid theory can be "right" with each its own "scientific way" to prove the stupid theory.
They are even "right" when confronted with reality so for me they are just retards.
On August 07 2013 19:58 Velr wrote: See, thats the problem. There is nothing to argue.
All you can do is "believe" the research. If you disagree with it thats fine, as fine as believing in scientology or the 2000 year old earth (in other words, it's ridiculous and people will make fun of you).
Btw: Even if denialists are "right", at this point, with the stuff "we" know right now, your still a friggin retard for being one.
I never said I was a "denialist", I was simply stating he should learn to argue a point without attacking someone.
On August 07 2013 18:46 Rassy wrote: Isnt venus like way closer to the sun then earth? And if see water rises with 1m, you just need make all the dams 1 m higher 1m or even 3m rise in seawater should not have a devastating influence, when it gets to 10m+ it gets worrysome though.
"This is also irreversible, once the gases are released, you can't re-trap the gas back into the ice, the gases are in the atmosphere to stay."
Then how did the gas get trapped in the first place?
yep venus is outside the green zone for life, also the achse isnt in the right position and its move to slow so thats one of the horror reasons there ^^ (we have 24h day they have 243 days day so 243 times longer days ^^)
on the +1 meter thing, no it would not help make the dams 1 m higher ... its 1 meter everywhere even on the beaches. so every beach would be gone bye bye, there are not everywhere dams etc it would have an horrible effect ...
This is a drastic event. Climate change is obviously the major cause for this, but what exactly is responsible for the climate change? Governments need to take a harder look at what the future will look like in a few years to come if they decide not to do anything about it. They can't spin the situation around by 180 degrees, but they definitely can implement some ways to better the situation and prevent further disaster from occurring.
Global warming could be the main cause, or it could not. It doesn't matter really, because what matters is dealing with the problem before it gets out of hand. It's probably too late now to do anything about it, yet the negative effects can be postponed until a later date in human existence. We'll all die out eventually I think, yet the earth will recover and reclaim the territory that man as so arrogantly taken over with now regard to nature itself, which is the reactor to our civilization. People have to just think more about the repercussions of their actions, and plan accordingly without doing actions impulsively.
On August 07 2013 19:33 StatixEx wrote: still a believer in that global warming and climate crap is all crap, the earth is its own engine it will do what is pleases. We are insignificant. I sat a seminar (not to do with school or college or uni) where this lead researcher said we(humans) make no difference to the planet at all. Life seems to go through periodical mass extinctions, 6 i bleieve have happened since the birth of the planet. As far as im concerned, noone should be concerned. we are becoming to be a very adaptive race but we simply cant stop the earth/suns/moon - other contributing bodies cycle and evolution. Sorry guys its just facts, we mean nothing to this planet, she will do with us as she pleases.
Are you blind? Have you never scene a cloud of brown / yellow gaz on top of big cities? Do you not know that in Australia there is a hole in the auzone film and that's why it's the country with the most cancer of the skin? Glacier that were so big in the 20's have dissapeared in 80 yrs and it's all natural?
So you want us not to act? You are not concerned at all with the different gazes we put in the atmosphere. In 100 years we changed the pourcentages of gaz in the air etc...
Sorry I won't argue more with retards like you. Oh and this researcher was fake btw, any person with a real brain would not say that.
It's impossible for me to comprehend this troll post. We has humans have no effect on planet earth? Right...
I'm not a denialist. I geuss at some point we have to trust sciency people to make the conclusions. But I'm not so sure we can actually do anything about it. With billions of people living in steadily developing nations, there seems little hope for anything other than an increase in greenhouse gas production by humans. We are not ready to sufficiently decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and cattle, not even close to ready. We are not prepared to take serious steps towards controlling the world population.
Though efforts to find new and better sources of energy should be encouraged, at some point it is necessary to be realistic and prepare for the scenario that we may not find anything better in time. I do not believe we are in any danger of becoming like Venus because of human activity, but rather a new, hotter, and somewhat less comfortable equilibirum will be reached at some point. Though this will certainly have negative effects, it seems unlikely that warmer is worse in every possible way.
I say let it happen and manage the effects the best we can. Manage water better, have better emergency plans, get some more polar bears in our zoos, or whatever, untill we reach a point where all of humanity is capable of working together to cure the disease and make our existence truly sustainable. The best we can do now is manage the symptoms. Atleast that is my humble opinion.
Not to say that global warming caused by humans is false (as I dread being called a retard by Velr, lol) but how does it fit into that picture the notion that all planets of the solar system are currently undergoing a global warming?
Im not sure how much truth there is to that information but it does seem relevant to the discussion.
The greenhouse effect is not a theory. Venus is hotter than Mercury because of it even though Mercury is closer to the Sun. The greenhouse effect is caused by carbon dioxide gas.
We are currently taking billions of tons of carbon from BURIED UNDERGROUND for billions of years and releasing it into the air every day.
There's going to be some effect from that and if you're too stupid to connect dots stay the fuck out of the argument.
On August 07 2013 20:40 Crushinator wrote: I'm not a denialist. I geuss at some point we have to trust sciency people to make the conclusions. But I'm not so sure we can actually do anything about it. With billions of people living in steadily developing nations, there seems little hope for anything other than an increase in greenhouse gas production by humans. We are not ready to sufficiently decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and cattle, not even close to ready. We are not prepared to take serious steps towards controlling the world population.
Though efforts to find new and better sources of energy should be encouraged, at some point it is necessary to be realistic and prepare for the scenario that we may not find anything better in time. I do not believe we are in any danger of becoming like Venus because of human activity, but rather a new, hotter, and somewhat less comfortable equilibirum will be reached at some point. Though this will certainly have negative effects, it seems unlikely that warmer is worse in every possible way.
I say let it happen and manage the effects the best we can. Manage water better, have better emergency plans, get some more polar bears in our zoos, or whatever, untill we reach a point where all of humanity is capable of working together to cure the disease and make our existence truly sustainable. The best we can do now is manage the symptoms. Atleast that is my humble opinion.
I completely agree. There is no escape from this dire situation, and the best we can do is manage our resources and aim to get as many people as possible to adopt a green lifestyle.
These debates about climate change for the most part are contaminated by ideological furor, whether it is fueled by some form of eco-extremism (hello to you, Professor who seriously suggested to execute those who question AGW) or religious/conservative world view (hello, right-wingers, who also believe that the earth is flat).
Regardless of my own stance on this topic - which I would sum up as cautious, when it comes to all the cataclysmic headlines and computer models (for the record, I work in a scientific field, where simulations that are far less complex are done, and these simulations are still sometimes crap) - everyone should take a deep breath before discussing this topic.
And a simple help for this kind of discussion is to make sure it does not deviate too much. Ask the following questions and locate the actual main point of discussion. Hopefully, this avoids the typical vigor and hatred.
1) Is there a climate change and what type (hotter/colder)? 2) Is the climate change anthropogenic/To what extent is it anthropogenic? 3) Why is it anthropogenic (CO2, urbanization, CFCs, nuclear winter,...)? 4) What are the consequences and in what timeframe? 5) How can these consequences be prevented and what are the risks of these preventive actions (i.e. energy saving light-bulbs contaminating your homes with mecury, etc.)? 6) Would it be better to just adapt to the consequences/Are there benefits (one thing I wanted to mention: + Show Spoiler +
I've never understood the assertion that increasing temperatures will cause more and more powerful storms. Since most of the turbulent atmospheric effects are caused by the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles, the fact that the poles heat up faster than the equator should actually lead to weaker/less storms (I heared that from a meteorologist). Of course I know the idea that more water evaporates etc., but the difference in temperature are the main engine for storms.
)?
Now, I hope these questions can moderate this discussion a bit. I am really tired to see a few people discuss the legitimacy of CFCs contributing to climate change, when suddenly someone starts to argue that the government is doing the wrong thing to save energy, shortly followed by someone claiming that the sea level will rise 10 km in 10 years and others postulating that 5000 years ago, the earth was warm enough that you could just wear fig leaf...
Imo nuclear powerplants should be the way to go for the next 100 yrs in the countries that can't afford "green" powerplants.
Yes it has huge problems due to the radioactive rejects (be it solid or in the water used to cool) and the risks of explosion. But the coil powerplants (who produce masses of CO2 and other gazes) dominant in the developing countries and rising in numbers especially in China are worse if we take a look at the global warming.
On August 07 2013 20:42 NukeD wrote: Not to say that global warming caused by humans is false (as I dread being called a retard by Velr, lol) but how does it fit into that picture the notion that all planets of the solar system are currently undergoing a global warming?
Im not sure how much truth there is to that information but it does seem relevant to the discussion.
We know that man-made global warming is heating up the planet. We also know that, absent of feedback effects, this warming will heat up the planet 1 degree celcius for every effective doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
What we _don't_ know is the magnitude or the direction of these feedback effects, such as cloud cover, how much CO2 is stored in the ocean, and so on; for instance, if more CO2 concentration increases cloud cover, that would mitigate the warming- if it decreased cloud cover, it would compound warming.
Considering the possible range of feedback effects, each doubling of CO2 could cause less than 1 degree celcius of warming; this is the negative feedback effect scenario, where the world is a stable system and which despite the "consensus" myth, many serious climatologists defend; look up scientists like Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer for their views- or more than 1 degree and up to 4 or 5 degrees celcius of warming if you believe the crazy computer models from the IPCC which have consistently and greatly overshot warming in their predictions; this is the positive feedback effect scenario- it is the upper estimates (which are almost certainly wrong) that cause global warming alarmism, where the world is an unstable system and a much stronger greenhouse effect would end life as we know it. The lower estimates of positive feedback effects are certainly plausible though. To put this into perspective, global warming alarmists claim that an increase from 320 ppm to double that, or 640 ppm, could have catastrophic effects- when a couple hundred million years ago, we've had CO2 levels of 3000 to 6000 ppm, naturally caused: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
To be fair, for the past few hundred thousand years, CO2 levels have fluctuated between 300 ppm and 200 ppm.
On August 07 2013 20:42 NukeD wrote: Not to say that global warming caused by humans is false (as I dread being called a retard by Velr, lol) but how does it fit into that picture the notion that all planets of the solar system are currently undergoing a global warming?
Im not sure how much truth there is to that information but it does seem relevant to the discussion.
We know that man-made global warming is heating up the planet. We also know that, absent of feedback effects, this warming will heat up the planet 1 degree celcius for every effective doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
What we _don't_ know is the magnitude or the direction of these feedback effects, such as cloud cover, how much CO2 is stored in the ocean, and so on; for instance, if more CO2 concentration increases cloud cover, that would mitigate the warming- if it decreased cloud cover, it would compound warming.
Considering the possible range of feedback effects, each doubling of CO2 could cause less than 1 degree celcius of warming; this is the negative feedback effect scenario, where the world is a stable system and which despite the "consensus" myth, many serious climatologists defend; look up scientists like Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer for their views- or more than 1 degree and up to 4 or 5 degrees celcius of warming if you believe the crazy computer models from the IPCC which have consistently and greatly overshot warming in their predictions; this is the positive feedback effect scenario- it is the upper estimates (which are almost certainly wrong) that cause global warming alarmism, where the world is an unstable system and a much stronger greenhouse effect would end life as we know it. The lower estimates of positive feedback effects are certainly plausible though. To put this into perspective, global warming alarmists claim that an increase from 320 ppm to double that, or 640 ppm, could have catastrophic effects- when a couple hundred million years ago, we've had CO2 levels of 3000 to 6000 ppm, naturally caused: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
To be fair, for the past few hundred thousand years, CO2 levels have fluctuated between 300 ppm and 200 ppm.
This is a similar stance that I have, too.
Relying solely on computer models is just not real science. Especially if the complex interactions of CO2 and other parts of the atmosphere/oceans and biosphere are not understood. Typically, a correction factor is used to fit the prediction to what actually is measured later on and thus "correcting" the model. However, using polynoms with enough variables, I can plot EVERYTHING with perfect accuracy. As far as I know, this has been tried with stock markets. The fit was perfect, but the prediction was still worthless, because the underlying interaction was not understood and taken into consideration.
On August 07 2013 21:06 Acertos wrote: Imo nuclear powerplants should be the way to go for the next 100 yrs in the countries that can't afford "green" powerplants.
Yes it has huge problems due to the radioactive rejects (be it solid or in the water used to cool) and the risks of explosion. But the coil powerplants (who produce masses of CO2 and other gazes) dominant in the developing countries and rising in numbers especially in China are worse if we take a look at the global warming.
It would be replacing an evil by a lesser evil.
You do realize that nuclear power plants also emits considerable amounts of CO2 ? I do not think your plan has any long term vision. In my eyes we should change our life styles and invest alot in green science. Not that I believe it is ever going to happen.
I'm humorously contemplating what would happen if the great ocean belt shutdown and Europe freezed over.
Would anyone actually make any changes or will the first world countries just break down into a finger pointing contest and continue to emit greenhouse gases the same way we always have been.
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."
Let's all cross fingers for planet earth and hope that "we" arrive soon.
On August 07 2013 19:33 StatixEx wrote: still a believer in that global warming and climate crap is all crap, the earth is its own engine it will do what is pleases. We are insignificant. I sat a seminar (not to do with school or college or uni) where this lead researcher said we(humans) make no difference to the planet at all. Life seems to go through periodical mass extinctions, 6 i bleieve have happened since the birth of the planet. As far as im concerned, noone should be concerned. we are becoming to be a very adaptive race but we simply cant stop the earth/suns/moon - other contributing bodies cycle and evolution. Sorry guys its just facts, we mean nothing to this planet, she will do with us as she pleases.
I think this is only partly true. We humans do effect the earth and are contributing to climate change. But our slogan should not be 'Save the Earth' it should be 'Save Humans'. Eventually the earth will shed the blight upon her, via things like storms, earthquakes, possibly ice ages and restore the balance of nature.
On August 07 2013 22:06 Douillos wrote: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."
Let's all cross fingers for planet earth and hope that "we" arrive soon.
The Matrix was a fantastic movie and this is a great quote if you don't think about it too much :p
On August 07 2013 22:06 Douillos wrote: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."
Let's all cross fingers for planet earth and hope that "we" arrive soon.
The Matrix was a fantastic movie and this is a great quote if you don't think about it too much :p
I agree it is a great quote as it really puts things into perspective, but I think I would rather live than be exterminated by somebody else. Call me selfish, but I like living
I don't see why the world absolutely needs to be unchanging. Thousands of years ago, we had the ice ages. Maybe we'll get the heat ages a few years from now, whatever, but it's not as if everything was perfectly stable and sustaining before we got here. Any effort to preserve the current environment may or may not have disastrous consequences (see: how the park service attempted to keep Yellowstone the same and all but destroyed its ecology ... multiple times.) Nature is never in balance, it's always changing.
We are the apex predators on Earth, the entire world is subject to human whims and needs. Earth will never be infinitely sustainable, entropy dictates that sooner or later, we will run out of fuel and resources on this planet. Why bother putting effort bailing out the sinking Titanic with a bucket when you could turn that money and energy over to more important matters involving the survival of our species, like space exploration? I find all this environmental preservation nonsense to be backwards and useless.
On August 08 2013 03:04 Phael wrote: I don't see why the world absolutely needs to be unchanging. Thousands of years ago, we had the ice ages. Maybe we'll get the heat ages a few years from now, whatever, but it's not as if everything was perfectly stable and sustaining before we got here. Any effort to preserve the current environment may or may not have disastrous consequences (see: how the park service attempted to keep Yellowstone the same and all but destroyed its ecology ... multiple times.) Nature is never in balance, it's always changing.
We are the apex predators on Earth, the entire world is subject to human whims and needs. Earth will never be infinitely sustainable, entropy dictates that sooner or later, we will run out of fuel and resources on this planet. Why bother putting effort bailing out the sinking Titanic with a bucket when you could turn that money and energy over to more important matters involving the survival of our species, like space exploration? I find all this environmental preservation nonsense to be backwards and useless.
Because you need the Titanic to stay afloat long enough for people to get into the lifeboats.
In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
On August 07 2013 18:46 Rassy wrote: Isnt venus like way closer to the sun then earth? And if see water rises with 1m, you just need make all the dams 1 m higher 1m or even 3m rise in seawater should not have a devastating influence, when it gets to 10m+ it gets worrysome though.
"This is also irreversible, once the gases are released, you can't re-trap the gas back into the ice, the gases are in the atmosphere to stay."
Then how did the gas get trapped in the first place?
yep venus is outside the green zone for life, also the achse isnt in the right position and its move to slow so thats one of the horror reasons there ^^ (we have 24h day they have 243 days day so 243 times longer days ^^)
on the +1 meter thing, no it would not help make the dams 1 m higher ... its 1 meter everywhere even on the beaches. so every beach would be gone bye bye, there are not everywhere dams etc it would have an horrible effect ...
This has to be a joke. "every beach would be gone bye bye".
Oh god .........
The beach would just ...... move further inland
1 meter high oceans would not have a horrible effect, building damns 1 meter higher would help ... you don't have to build everywhere obviously, just at the area that would be submerged, the other areas remain above sea level.
I think this is actually the first time a German poster has made me facepalm.
On August 08 2013 03:04 Phael wrote: Earth will never be infinitely sustainable, entropy dictates that sooner or later, we will run out of fuel and resources on this planet.
I might have misunderstood you. But are you saying, that since the sun wil run out of energy in some billions of years anyway, then there is no reason to preserve the earth? We should just trash it, and try to move out to the space, since that is much cheaper than just taking slightly care of the planet?
If that is somewhat near what you meant, I kinda disagree.
Well the only real model we have that explains why the earth is getting hotter and cooler from time to time is the greenhouse-gas model. If we look at these gases in icecaps and we go back in time we can see a strong correlation between their concentration and the global temperature. And because we also blow this stuff into our atmosphere it makes a lot of sense that we're influencing the climate of the planet.
But i think that's not even the important part when it comes to what we actually need to do about it and i think the discussion about our energy mix is kind of obsolete. The important part is not that renewable energies are super healthy for our planet, the important part is that they're unlimited.
Oil , gas and uranium are going away. Uranium probably a lot faster than any other resource. Also nuclear energy is pretty expensive (someone needs to clean the stuff up after all) and is in general highly subsidized. Also the need for uranium will outgrow it's production which will make it even more expensive.
Oil and gas also have the problem that they're not growing on trees (although these two will be around for a little longer), but with the growing need for energy in developing countries the struggle for natural resources will probably cause a ton of geopolitical problems.
So all in all there's no way around renewable energy after all, not just because climate change is a problem but because there's just no other solution if we don't wanna go back into the stone age in ~200 years.
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
I'm sure the earth will run out of sustainable resources far earlier than the Sun will stop shining. But regardless, my argument is that the green movement is misguided.
1.) The most important goal of humanity is the continued survival of the species. 2.) Every single environmental change to Earth, up until this point, has been enormously beneficial to humans. From the first bacteria that evolved photosynthesis which cased the worst extinction event in this planet's history, to the dinosaur meteor, to the ice ages ... everything has been only of benefit towards us. 3.) The earth is constantly changing. Its current ecosystems are unrecognizable compared to those a million years ago, and there have been many millions of years in our planet's ecological history. Is there any reason that we simply decided *now* is the best version of earth that has ever been, so therefor we must preserve it? 4.) New species and lifeforms are evolving all the time as older ones die off and become extinct. Why should we endeavor to preserve obsolete species at the cost of new ones? While the new bacteria that evolve in our landfills aren't exactly more majestic than a bald eagle, is their life fundamentally worth less? For novelty's sake, I can see having a panda or a cheetah in a zoo, but they are relics of a bygone age. Adapt or die. 5.) Humanity is in a precarious situation right now. For the first time in our history, we possess the technology for a very small portion of the population to systematically eliminate a very large portion. In the past, our risks were essentially all natural disasters, but now we live constantly under the risk of nuclear annihilation.
All of these statements suggest to me that instead of attempting to hold back the tide, as environmentalists are so eager to do, we should instead be concentrating on other, far more important and long reaching matters (such as the dispersion of our species). So no, we shouldn't deliberately trash our planet, but neither should we fear changing it in any way because it's going to change no matter what we do.
PS. For the sake of clarification, nuclear energy is borderline renewable:
Nuclear fuel, is also, by most estimates, to be the longest lasting resource on earth: "fast breeder reactors, fueled by uranium extracted from seawater, could supply energy at least as long as the sun's expected remaining lifespan of five billion years" - http://sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf
2.) Every single environmental change to Earth, up until this point, has been enormously beneficial to humans. From the first bacteria that evolved photosynthesis which cased the worst extinction event in this planet's history, to the dinosaur meteor, to the ice ages ... everything has been only of benefit towards us.
Off course, thats the logical result of the way in wich evolution works. If the changes where unfavourable for us we would have turned out to be a different species and still see every event as favourable.
On August 08 2013 04:27 Rassy wrote: 2.) Every single environmental change to Earth, up until this point, has been enormously beneficial to humans. From the first bacteria that evolved photosynthesis which cased the worst extinction event in this planet's history, to the dinosaur meteor, to the ice ages ... everything has been only of benefit towards us.
Don't forget the black plague or any other deadly disease.
On August 08 2013 04:24 Phael wrote: I'm sure the earth will run out of sustainable resources far earlier than the Sun will stop shining. But regardless, my argument is that the green movement is misguided.
1.) The most important goal of humanity is the continued survival of the species. 2.) Every single environmental change to Earth, up until this point, has been enormously beneficial to humans. From the first bacteria that evolved photosynthesis which cased the worst extinction event in this planet's history, to the dinosaur meteor, to the ice ages ... everything has been only of benefit towards us. 3.) The earth is constantly changing. Its current ecosystems are unrecognizable compared to those a million years ago, and there have been many millions of years in our planet's ecological history. Is there any reason that we simply decided *now* is the best version of earth that has ever been, so therefor we must preserve it? 4.) New species and lifeforms are evolving all the time as older ones die off and become extinct. Why should we endeavor to preserve obsolete species at the cost of new ones? While the new bacteria that evolve in our landfills aren't exactly more majestic than a bald eagle, is their life fundamentally worth less? For novelty's sake, I can see having a panda or a cheetah in a zoo, but they are relics of a bygone age. Adapt or die. 5.) Humanity is in a precarious situation right now. For the first time in our history, we possess the technology for a very small portion of the population to systematically eliminate a very large portion. In the past, our risks were essentially all natural disasters, but now we live constantly under the risk of nuclear annihilation.
All of these statements suggest to me that instead of attempting to hold back the tide, as environmentalists are so eager to do, we should instead be concentrating on other, far more important and long reaching matters (such as the dispersion of our species). So no, we shouldn't deliberately trash our planet, but neither should we fear changing it in any way because it's going to change no matter what we do.
Do you get all your history from right-wing documentaries dude? Human population bottle-necked to just a few thousand during the last ice age and could easily have went extinct.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate. Over billions of years, the Earth has changed many many many times, and we've only lived in a tiny sliver of time, clearly "now" is the best version of Earth for "us".
You know you can find "theoretical solve all problems" articles on every source of energy right.
Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
In the long run the plague wasnt that bad, it got rid of overpopulation and gave the survivors better opportunities due to abundant resources, wich eventually led to the renaissance (well thats one theory at least lol, am not sure i believe in it but you can explain nearly everything in a positive way).
5.) Humanity is in a precarious situation right now. For the first time in our history, we possess the technology for a very small portion of the population to systematically eliminate a very large portion. In the past, our risks were essentially all natural disasters, but now we live constantly under the risk of nuclear annihilation
This risk is virtually zero imo,since the cuba crisis the world has never been close to nuclear war annymore. And even if there would be a full out nuclear war humanity would still survive it (though it would take 1000 years to recover probably) Only risk for anihilation comes from outer space, even diseases i dont see as a risk for humanity as a whole because some people will be imune and a disease wich would kill all humans is not realy a good tactic for the virus/bacteria from an evolutionary point of vieuw.
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
Yes the science is settled No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
I will admit this is really not within my field of expertise, but:
Also some of the scenarios to the best of my belief suggest desert expansion as well as colder and longer winters in the northern countries in Europe due to the impact of no more Gulf-stream. I am happy to be proven wrong, but even in that case, the push for sustainable energy is not going to be wasted as suggest by the post I initially replied to. We would also need sustainable energy for our spaceshuttles as well as where we would eventually settle.
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
Yep, lots of droughts. Very good for plant growth and for people who rely on their annual harvest.
On August 08 2013 04:40 Rassy wrote: In the long run the plague wasnt that bad, it got rid of overpopulation and gave the survivors better opportunities due to abundant resources, wich eventually led to the renaissance (well thats one theory at least lol, am not sure i believe in it but you can explain nearly everything in a positive way).
5.) Humanity is in a precarious situation right now. For the first time in our history, we possess the technology for a very small portion of the population to systematically eliminate a very large portion. In the past, our risks were essentially all natural disasters, but now we live constantly under the risk of nuclear annihilation
This risk is virtually zero imo,since the cuba crisis the world has never been close to nuclear war annymore. And even if there would be a full out nuclear war humanity would still survive it (though it would take 1000 years to recover probably) Only risk for anihilation comes from outer space, even diseases i dont see as a risk for humanity as a whole because some people will be imune and a disease wich would kill all humans is not realy a good tactic for the virus/bacteria from an evolutionary point of vieuw.
I hope you're not implying Aliens. To the other point: I would argue differently. Look at the conflict between Pakistan and India. There have been many occasions in the last two decades where a nuclear war between those countries was almost inevitable. One of the main reasons for the hatred between those countries is Kashmir. Kashmir is located at the border of Pakistan and India and is the largest resource of fresh water in India and Pakistan. Guess what happens if it rains less and if it gets hotter.
On August 08 2013 04:46 Ghostcom wrote:
I will admit this is really not within my field of expertise, but:
Also some of the scenarios to the best of my belief suggest desert expansion as well as colder and longer winters in the northern countries in Europe due to the impact of no more Gulf-stream. I am happy to be proven wrong, but even in that case, the push for sustainable energy is not going to be wasted as suggest by the post I initially replied to. We would also need sustainable energy for our spaceshuttles as well as where we would eventually settle.
According to NASA the Gulf stream is not slowing down. Source
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
Wait, what?
The Apollos, the ISS, and underwater labs don't count?
I never denied man-made climate change, I'm just saying that attempting to restrain it is an act of futility, similar to "conservation". We need to learn to deal with it instead of trying to stop the inevitable.
This risk is virtually zero imo,since the cuba crisis the world has never been close to nuclear war annymore. And even if there would be a full out nuclear war humanity would still survive it (though it would take 1000 years to recover probably)
Virtually 0 is not the same as 0. Given long enough, almost all possibilities will occur. The goal is to be diversified enough that such full-out nuclear warfare does not annihilate the human population. (Also, the risk of a nuclear war in our lifetime is roughly 10%, some Stanford professor says. So not virtually 0 either. http://phys.org/news167327145.html )
As for the crops ... if we are less able to plant and raise crops naturally, we'd have to turn to unnatural ways to raise them. Hydroponics, or other such tech. That would actually be really awesome, expanding tech for when we settle other planets.
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
Yep, lots of droughts. Very good for plant growth and for people who rely on their annual harvest.
Can you tell me one famous era in Earth's history where there was much more heat and much more carbon in the atmosphere?
I'll give you a hint, it was when the largest creatures that ever roamed the Earth... roamed the Earth.
(The irony of calling them "greenhouse gasses" and implying that they will be bad for plant growth is not lost on me.)
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
Yep, lots of droughts. Very good for plant growth and for people who rely on their annual harvest.
On August 08 2013 04:40 Rassy wrote: In the long run the plague wasnt that bad, it got rid of overpopulation and gave the survivors better opportunities due to abundant resources, wich eventually led to the renaissance (well thats one theory at least lol, am not sure i believe in it but you can explain nearly everything in a positive way).
5.) Humanity is in a precarious situation right now. For the first time in our history, we possess the technology for a very small portion of the population to systematically eliminate a very large portion. In the past, our risks were essentially all natural disasters, but now we live constantly under the risk of nuclear annihilation
This risk is virtually zero imo,since the cuba crisis the world has never been close to nuclear war annymore. And even if there would be a full out nuclear war humanity would still survive it (though it would take 1000 years to recover probably) Only risk for anihilation comes from outer space, even diseases i dont see as a risk for humanity as a whole because some people will be imune and a disease wich would kill all humans is not realy a good tactic for the virus/bacteria from an evolutionary point of vieuw.
I hope you're not implying Aliens. To the other point: I would argue differently. Look at the conflict between Pakistan and India. There have been many occasions in the last two decades where a nuclear war between those countries was almost inevitable. One of the main reasons for the hatred between those countries is Kashmir. Kashmir is located at the border of Pakistan and India and is the largest resource of fresh water in India and Pakistan. Guess what happens if it rains less and if it gets hotter.
Also some of the scenarios to the best of my belief suggest desert expansion as well as colder and longer winters in the northern countries in Europe due to the impact of no more Gulf-stream. I am happy to be proven wrong, but even in that case, the push for sustainable energy is not going to be wasted as suggest by the post I initially replied to. We would also need sustainable energy for our spaceshuttles as well as where we would eventually settle.
According to NASA the Gulf stream is not slowing down. Source
I was under the impression that it would be a threshold thing? Again, not really my specialty, but I know it is in some of the scenarios considered realistic, thus probably shouldn't be written off.
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
Yes the science is settled No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
It's so good to know that no more scientific discussion or experimentation needs to be done. What we have now is not the hypothesis of man-made climate change, nor even the theory.... no, it is the scientific fact. Enshrined as law. Deserving of a place next to Newton's own laws! All hail the new order!
Yeah, sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to. Actually, it sounds worse. At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong. And as far as I know, they weren't foolish enough to call the science settled and then suggest we pass enormous legislative action demanding that meat stop rotting.
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
Yes the science is settled No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
It's so good to know that no more scientific discussion or experimentation needs to be done. What we have now is not the hypothesis of man-made climate change, nor even the theory.... no, it is the scientific fact. Enshrined as law. Deserving of a place next to Newton's own laws! All hail the new order!
Yeah, sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to. Actually, it sounds worse. At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong. And as far as I know, they weren't foolish enough to call the science settled and then suggest we pass enormous legislative action demanding that meat stop rotting.
No theory can be proven to 100%, and no evidence is enough for you. Why does the government do anything at all? Actually, why has a government? Nothing is settled. Show me proof that having a police/firemen/doctors are beneficial to society, actually don't bother, if you do I'll just tell you we need more evidence, why waste our valuable money on these people, when we have no proof they help at all.
Hah, funny you should mention Newton's "laws", do you think there is absolute evidence for them? What's makes them scientific fact? believe me, jesus did not whisper them to his year, I guess that's what you'd need to believe something,
So "sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to" ---------------> "At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong" SEEMS LEGIT
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
Yes the science is settled No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
It's so good to know that no more scientific discussion or experimentation needs to be done. What we have now is not the hypothesis of man-made climate change, nor even the theory.... no, it is the scientific fact. Enshrined as law. Deserving of a place next to Newton's own laws! All hail the new order!
Yeah, sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to. Actually, it sounds worse. At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong. And as far as I know, they weren't foolish enough to call the science settled and then suggest we pass enormous legislative action demanding that meat stop rotting.
No theory can be proven to 100%, and no evidence is enough for you. Why does the government do anything at all? Actually, why has a government? Nothing is settled. Show me proof that having a police/firemen/doctors are beneficial to society, actually don't bother, if you do I'll just tell you we need more evidence, why waste our valuable money on these people, when we have no proof they help at all.
Do you really think the existence of police/fireman/doctors is dependent upon scientific conclusions and that these professions did not exist before these rigorous studies were done?
Hah, funny you should mention Newton's "laws", do you think there is absolute evidence for them? What's makes them scientific fact?
Good Lord, you actually do think man-made global warming is as settled as Newton's laws...
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
Yes the science is settled No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
It's so good to know that no more scientific discussion or experimentation needs to be done. What we have now is not the hypothesis of man-made climate change, nor even the theory.... no, it is the scientific fact. Enshrined as law. Deserving of a place next to Newton's own laws! All hail the new order!
Yeah, sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to. Actually, it sounds worse. At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong. And as far as I know, they weren't foolish enough to call the science settled and then suggest we pass enormous legislative action demanding that meat stop rotting.
No theory can be proven to 100%, and no evidence is enough for you. Why does the government do anything at all? Actually, why has a government? Nothing is settled. Show me proof that having a police/firemen/doctors are beneficial to society, actually don't bother, if you do I'll just tell you we need more evidence, why waste our valuable money on these people, when we have no proof they help at all.
Do you really think the existence of police/fireman/doctors is dependent upon scientific conclusions and that these professions did not exist before these rigorous studies were done?
On August 08 2013 04:24 Phael wrote: Is there any reason that we simply decided *now* is the best version of earth that has ever been, so therefor we must preserve it?
I guess we see this differently. I feel like the earth in this phase is close to perfect. All we need to do is to seek and discover the possibilities. We only harvest a silly fragment of the energy, that is brought to us by the sun. Why not spend billions of dollars to unviel the possibilities in green science (instead of warfare/missle defense / luxuary wares). In only 30 years windmills/ sun cells/ biofuels has become much more efficient (even though no real investment has been made). To gamble with the climate of the earth is just not needed in my eyes. If I ever won a billion dollar, I wouldn't just place them all on the roulette.
On August 08 2013 04:24 Phael wrote: All of these statements suggest to me that instead of attempting to hold back the tide, as environmentalists are so eager to do, we should instead be concentrating on other, far more important and long reaching matters (such as the dispersion of our species). So no, we shouldn't deliberately trash our planet, but neither should we fear changing it in any way because it's going to change no matter what we do.
I feel a lot of people care close to nothing about environment - it almost seems like they deliberately trash the planet. Why would you ever drive in a fricking 4 ton heavy jeep (or just any american car)? It is not like it will save you a lot of money.
Does it really matter if the climate change is man-made or natural? It's going to happen regardless, why fight to place blame rather than work to adapt around it? It's easier to walk up the beach than to construct a dam to stave off the tide ...
I feel a lot of people care close to nothing about environment - it almost seems like they deliberately trash the planet. Why would you ever drive in a fricking 4 ton heavy jeep (or just any american car)? It is not like it will save you a lot of money.
Yes, as a matter of fact the environment is nothing but a disposable resource for us. I don't give a shit about the environment more than the extent that it aids us and provides resources. Why would you care more about it? I don't understand. I drive a 8V engine because I like my car.
Leave that mouth breather be. Some people are simply too stubborn or dumb to understand/change their mind. Climate models cannot at this point be 100% accurate, there is simply too many variables to input and understand. They support however the increase of catastrophic events (floods, droughts, heat waves, etc.). The models predict an increase in the frequency (in part due to increased atmospheric enthropy) they cannot pinpoint where and when, nor the exact scale. But statistical evidence (historical databases) seems to support what scientists and the models claim. Wether cyclical or purely man-made, changes are happening and accelerating. These extreme events are not life threatening for humanity, but will have a toll on water and food scarcity, infrastructure repair costs, and obviously claim some lives.
Edit: You do realize that thousands if not millions of disease cases (cancer and others) are mostly due to water, atmospheric and soil pollution, dont you...?
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
Yep, lots of droughts. Very good for plant growth and for people who rely on their annual harvest.
Can you tell me one famous era in Earth's history where there was much more heat and much more carbon in the atmosphere?
I'll give you a hint, it was when the largest creatures that ever roamed the Earth... roamed the Earth.
(The irony of calling them "greenhouse gasses" and implying that they will be bad for plant growth is not lost on me.)
I believe you're mistaking CO2 for O2 there big boy.
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
Yes the science is settled No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
It's so good to know that no more scientific discussion or experimentation needs to be done. What we have now is not the hypothesis of man-made climate change, nor even the theory.... no, it is the scientific fact. Enshrined as law. Deserving of a place next to Newton's own laws! All hail the new order!
Yeah, sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to. Actually, it sounds worse. At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong. And as far as I know, they weren't foolish enough to call the science settled and then suggest we pass enormous legislative action demanding that meat stop rotting.
No theory can be proven to 100%, and no evidence is enough for you. Why does the government do anything at all? Actually, why has a government? Nothing is settled. Show me proof that having a police/firemen/doctors are beneficial to society, actually don't bother, if you do I'll just tell you we need more evidence, why waste our valuable money on these people, when we have no proof they help at all.
Do you really think the existence of police/fireman/doctors is dependent upon scientific conclusions and that these professions did not exist before these rigorous studies were done?
Hah, funny you should mention Newton's "laws", do you think there is absolute evidence for them? What's makes them scientific fact?
Good Lord, you actually do think man-made global warming is as settled as Newton's laws...
When did I say that LOL, I was asking what you think is necessarily for something to constitute scientific fact
A hell of a lot more than a bunch of politicians who have no scientific training or experience whatsoever saying it's settled and then pushing for massive legislative action that could very well drive our already faltering economy into the ground.
Oh good lord, you actually do think flies are spontaneously generated by rotting meat....
Am i doin it right?
Point taken, but then again, my point still stands: any time someone says that "the science is settled" you need to start becoming wary, because they are mostly likely trying to sell you something. I can probably count on one hand the amount of things "science" has settled, and global warming doesn't come close to being one of them.
On August 08 2013 05:26 Phael wrote: Does it really matter if the climate change is man-made or natural? It's going to happen regardless, why fight to place blame rather than work to adapt around it? It's easier to walk up the beach than to construct a dam to stave off the tide ...
I dont think it is that simple. Im personally not afraid of the water rising some meters (even though it would suck for the netherlands and Denmark). I'm more afraid of some sort of collapse of all ecosystems. There are a lot of positive feedback effects that we are not fully aware of. And I'm not sure it would be cheaper to "just walk up the beach". It is not like green technology is completely useless. We need it anyway as fossil fuel is running out.
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
Yep, lots of droughts. Very good for plant growth and for people who rely on their annual harvest.
Can you tell me one famous era in Earth's history where there was much more heat and much more carbon in the atmosphere?
I'll give you a hint, it was when the largest creatures that ever roamed the Earth... roamed the Earth.
(The irony of calling them "greenhouse gasses" and implying that they will be bad for plant growth is not lost on me.)
I believe you're mistaking CO2 for O2 there big boy.
The Cretacious period had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than today. (and O2, but let's be clear here... more CO2 is not bad for plants... lol)
Decherd studies the ecology of the Cretaceous period, some 160 million years ago, when Earth’s atmosphere contained more oxygen and more carbon dioxide and was, in her words, “a hothouse.” She believes, and is working to demonstrate, that this richer atmosphere helped plants grow bigger and faster. With lots of food, herbivorous dinosaurs thrived -- and became lumbering prey for their carnivorous cousins.
Both plant-eaters and meat-eaters grew fearsome, in effect, because food was plentiful.
Decherd’s research doesn’t focus on the dinosaurs, though, but on the role of Earth’s atmosphere on plant life. She’s using one of the most ancient plants, the Ginko biloba tree, to test her hypothesis.
“Research has shown that elevated carbon dioxide levels result in higher productivity, faster photosynthetic and growth rates, and greater rates of carbohydrate synthesis,” she says. “My work involves measuring how modern ginko trees react to Cretaceous-like atmospheres, and how the higher levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide affect the leaves’ nutritive value and digestibility. We’re also comparing these experimental ginko leaves with fossilized ginko leaves from the Cretaceous period to help verify our work.”
Ecosystems collapse all the time. They are literally constantly collapsing as we type, and they will continue to do so regardless of the level of water, temperature, global weather, etc. Why is the possibility that a few more will collapse any harder to bear?
No, "walking up the beach" is probably not as simple as it sounds of course, but ... let me put it this way: we can't even accurately predict the weather for the next month. How the hell do you think we can implement the right changes to keep the climate stable for any amount of time? Weather alone on earth generate/consume many thousands more times energy than homo sampiens can produce. Do we have the expertise and ability to keep climate stable? Not a chance in hell. So adapting to climate change is difficult, yes, but attempting to stop climate change is essentially impossible at our current technological development. If every human on this earth simply died out this very minute and stopped making any environmental changes ... the environment will still chug on, adapting, evolving, and changing with or without our help. We need to stop fearing change, it's going to happen whatever we do.
Fossil fuels may or may not be running out, who knows. I've heard experts come out and say they're running out in XX amount of years! and so far, seems like it's still pumping out just fine. Honestly I don't really care if fossil fuels run out or not, if they do, we'll figure out something else. Technology generally greatly improves during a crisis so more of them is good for us.
Also had methane but I fail to see your point. Dinosaurs certainly did'nt have trillions worth of infrastructures vulnerable to a change of shoreline. Dinosaurs certainly did'nt react to hurricanes, more floods, more droughts. What are you even trying to point out...I fail to understand...
Yes plants do intake CO2, yes more CO2 can actually be beneficial to plant growth (up to a point). Average temperature during cretacious/jurassic era w/e was also much higher that what we have now. Coral reefs are already dissapearing due to increases in water temps. Species that could provide cures or food sources are also dissapearing.
Please remind us what your point is for trying to sabotage this thread with your extremely poorly thought out arguments.
You cannot look at CO2 levels in isolation without considering other aspects of the atmospheric composition.
sc2superfan, regarding scientific theory, the issue is that it doesn't MATTER what you think or what the vast majority of people think. It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study. The fact that many people are familiar with Newton's theories doesn't make them any more valid than obscure theories that provide equally predictive models.
There IS a scientific consensus on climate change. The debate in the media, on forums such as this one, and amongst non-experts in general is not representative of the state of the field.
On August 08 2013 05:45 AeroGear wrote: Also had methane but I fail to see your point. Dinosaurs certainly did'nt have trillions worth of infrastructures vulnerable to a change of shoreline. Dinosaurs certainly did'nt react to hurricanes, more floods, more droughts. What are you even trying to point out...I fail to understand...
The problem here would then be the trillions of dollars of infrastructure put on untenable locations. That is, of course, assuming that the sea levels are actually rising to such a degree that it puts at risk those locations. Hurricanes and floods are natural events, and also serve important environmental roles. Droughts are again, natural events. They occur. We can react to them, but stopping them or preventing them is not only impossible, it would be foolish given the environmental role they play and the unforeseen consequences of actually succeeding.
Yes plants do intake CO2, yes more CO2 can actually be beneficial to plant growth (up to a point). Average temperature during cretacious/jurassic era w/e was also much higher that what we have now. Coral reefs are already dissapearing due to increases in water temps. Species that could provide cures or food sources are also dissapearing.
Species that COULD provide food sources and/or cures are disappearing regardless, as they always have. Enacting enormous pieces of legislation that severely limit the cheap development of third-world/second-world countries, and severely limit the industries in first-world countries is not a very tenable solution to that problem.
Please remind us what your point is for trying to sabotage this thread with your extremely poorly thought out arguments.
My point is:
1) Rising CO2 and temperatures will not cause mass starvation. 2) The Earth's temperature and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past as the result of natural changes in the environment/atmosphere. 3) The Earth's climate has gone through far more drastic and widespread changes in the past as a result of natural changes in the environment/atmosphere 4) It is impossible for humans to have any real effect upon the general climate of the Earth 5) The solutions most often offered to the "problem" of global warming are conveniently political and conveniently fall in line with one specific political/economic position (socialism). 5A) This is strong evidence that global warming is less science and more rabble-rousing over a (incorrectly) perceived threat in an effort to effect a specific political/economic goal.
On August 08 2013 05:45 Phael wrote: Ecosystems collapse all the time. They are literally constantly collapsing as we type, and they will continue to do so regardless of the level of water, temperature, global weather, etc. Why is the possibility that a few more will collapse any harder to bear?
Ecosystems surely collapse all the time. But it is not really an argument. You could use the same logic about nuclear waste. Why would mass nuclear bombing be a problem, when nature evolve anyway? My point is that global warming could potentially lead to unseen disasters. I'm not talking about a 2% decrease in the mosquito population ^^.
On August 08 2013 05:45 Phael wrote: How the hell do you think we can implement the right changes to keep the climate stable for any amount of time? Weather alone on earth generate/consume many thousands more times energy than homo sampiens can produce. Do we have the expertise and ability to keep climate stable? Not a chance in hell.
I'm not very extreme about "keeping the climate stable". Everybody knows that climate change all the time, and a natural ice age is probably going to be a problem within the next thousands of years. I just do not see any reason to provoke the ecosystems badly by multiplying the CO2-lvls, when it is not really needed, and easily can be avoided in some extent.
On August 08 2013 05:45 Phael wrote: Fossil fuels may or may not be running out, who knows.
Well you dont belive that the sun has unlimeted energy, but you believe fossil fuel has?? Of course it will run out. If it is 50 years or 200 years is very difficult to tell. Those who said it will run out in 2020 was obviously not doing their science work very well. But nevertheless, it will run out before or later.
On August 08 2013 05:45 Phael wrote: Technology generally greatly improves during a crisis so more of them is good for us.
I like to avoid unneccesary disasters. We got all the information. We could invest in improving the technology right now. But you prefer to wait after a crisis.... Why not just fricking do that technology leap now, instead of gambling with the human race. oh I forgot.. you like 8V car.
That is somewhat disturbing. inb4 The Day After Tomorrow becomes reality (except in reverse with everything becoming a desert as opposed to the global cooling in that movie)!
Science isn't strictly democratic - but any capable scientist will review the work done in their field, critically evaluate it, and put it in place with the rest of the knowledge comprising what is known of the field. When 99% of scientists in a field have rationally evaluated the peer-reviewed evidence for and against a particular theory, and come to the same conclusion, that generally speaks in favour of the validity of that theory's predictive abilities.
On August 08 2013 06:25 Freak705 wrote: Science isn't strictly democratic - but any capable scientist will review the work done in their field, critically evaluate it, and put it in place with the rest of the knowledge comprising what is known of the field. When 99% of scientists in a field have rationally evaluated the peer-reviewed evidence for and against a particular theory, and come to the same conclusion, that generally speaks in favour of the validity of that theory's predictive abilities.
Granted, however, the number is not near 99% for global warming. Even the oft-sourced 97% number used faulty methodology.
On August 08 2013 05:53 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote: It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study.
Wrong. What matters is the actual fact of evidence, not some cherry-picked or real consensus. Science is not a democratic process.
And what would you define as facts in this field? We are dealing with something where there will never be evidence of an upcoming disaster before it is already there! Climate is relative and change is happening slowly, dont trust the 97 %, they are conspirators, fake experts and cherry picking their way to fame!
On August 08 2013 05:53 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote: It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study.
Wrong. What matters is the actual fact of evidence, not some cherry-picked or real consensus. Science is not a democratic process.
And what would you define as facts in this field? We are dealing with something where there will never be evidence of an upcoming disaster before it is already there! Climate is relative and change is happening slowly, dont trust the 97 %, they are conspirators, fake experts and cherry picking their way to fame!
The fact that you 1) admit that there is no evidence of a "coming disaster" and that there will be none, and 2) cite the already debunked 97% claim, is telling.
On August 08 2013 05:53 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote: It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study.
Wrong. What matters is the actual fact of evidence, not some cherry-picked or real consensus. Science is not a democratic process.
No, you are wrong about how science works.
I'd list my credentials but I would sound like a douchebag, so lets just say I'm a scientist.
Go ahead and list your credentials.
So science is a democratic process?
Science works by consensus, not vote, so I wouldn't call it democratic. Any one scientific finding in isolation is not meaningful until the results are replicated, preferably using different techniques in isolation. Powerful conclusions can only be drawn in science when researchers arrive at the same conclusions independently (starting from different observations, using different ways to measure things, and then even analyzing the data in different ways). Eventually, you reach a point where the entire field has accepted a new finding (but this is not to say it might be disproven later), and this a consensus.
You invoke "facts" as something anyone can interpret on their own. The issue is that it is very difficult to understand the full implications of any one "observation" unless you are well-versed in how the measurement was made, how the statistics were done, and what other outstanding variables might you be failing to recognize, etc.
I only said I was a scientist to try to avoid going into the above explanation. But there it is.
On August 08 2013 06:04 Napoleon53 wrote: Ecosystems surely collapse all the time. But it is not really an argument. You could use the same logic about nuclear waste. Why would mass nuclear bombing be a problem, when nature evolve anyway? My point is that global warming could potentially lead to unseen disasters. I'm not talking about a 2% decrease in the mosquito population ^^.
Of course it's an argument. I'm stating that trying to stop environmental change is absolutely futile, and to stop what-if'ing about the climate. Nuclear explosions don't go on every day, and the few reactions that do exist every day are not threatening to the human race. Nuclear warfare is.
I'm not very extreme about "keeping the climate stable". Everybody knows that climate change all the time, and a natural ice age is probably going to be a problem within the next thousands of years. I just do not see any reason to provoke the ecosystems badly by multiplying the CO2-lvls, when it is not really needed, and easily can be avoided in some extent.
Can you show exactly how multiplying CO2 levels affects the environment "badly"? If an ice age is happening soon, isn't a warmer climate to offset the ice ages better? I don't really know all the intricacies involved, and I'm pretty sure scientists don't have accurate models either. Or rather, some claim they have one accurate model another claims they have the better one, etc.
And yeah, of course fossil fuels are going to run out, I'm not saying they won't, I won't really care if or when they do. We already have the foundations of the tech to exist without oil, but they're simply not being developed because oil is cheaper and more efficient. When that changes, we'll get more tech.
I like to avoid unneccesary disasters. We got all the information. We could invest in improving the technology right now. But you prefer to wait after a crisis.... Why not just fricking do that technology leap now, instead of gambling with the human race. oh I forgot.. you like 8V car.
Inertia. Without a driving force, there is less effort involved. You can try all you like to get non-fossil fuel technologies developed but without a shortage breathing down your neck, there's really no incentive to push for it. It's not particularly gambling - we're not fully dependent upon oil.
On August 08 2013 05:53 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote: It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study.
Wrong. What matters is the actual fact of evidence, not some cherry-picked or real consensus. Science is not a democratic process.
And what would you define as facts in this field? We are dealing with something where there will never be evidence of an upcoming disaster before it is already there! Climate is relative and change is happening slowly, dont trust the 97 %, they are conspirators, fake experts and cherry picking their way to fame!
The fact that you 1) admit that there is no evidence of a "coming disaster" and that there will be none, and 2) cite the already debunked 97% claim, is telling.
1) I admit that in your universe evidence cannot exist on this issue. I believe in looking at the strongest indications and those are becoming more and more settled. 2) Telling of someone not following this specific discussion, sure!
The fact that there was a time when temperatures and/or CO2 levels were higher, with a relative abundance of life, does not mean we will be able as organisms to live through similar conditions. This thread is just a trainwreck, but I have to say my peace lol. The fact is that we are causing rapid climate change, that's something we know.
It's kind of funny that people cite extant prehistoric conditions with ecosystemic abundance as reasons we should not be worried, as they're basically claiming that the prior existence of prehistoric conditions unsuitable for human life are indication that similar replicated conditions in modernity would ultimately be harmless--the catch, of course, being that they don't realize that those environments would not be hospitable to the human population, at its current level.
Somewhat related to that, assertions that the Earth will be able to adapt to climate change and move on are probably true. It's just probably going to move on without us (and whatever species we take with us to extinction, which is a separate ethical matter). If climate change doesn't wipe us out, as a species we will still be massively reduced in numbers. I'd have to go samizmad's way and say that in this regard, our lack of completely knowledge with regard to the infinitely complex mechanisms of the environment means a large uncertainty in certain details, but the general gist of the narrative is pretty clear I should think, and it doesn't mean we should be continually striving to understand more.
I am concerned solely with the ramifications of observed shifts in the biosphere, which remain to an extent nebulous, and am not interested in disputing the reality of said changes [or lack thereof], or their connection to humanity. However, Wikipedia has an excellent collection/list of indicators which you may read, and choose yourself to accept or dismiss on either front (meaning existence as well as anthropogenesis).
Well i hope humanity can tech out of what´s coming(when and if something is coming) but i doubt it. I doubt because the tech we need don´t bring money. Now. Therefore, if at all, the technologies will only be there in the last moments of human man kind.
On August 08 2013 06:48 Aerisky wrote: The fact is that we are causing rapid climate change, that's something we know.
how do we know that?
We know because there is a vast amount of evidence leading to a strong scientific consensus. It is the same reason we "know" anything scientific. "Know" doesn't try to assert 100% certainty but close to it. No one is gonna waste time laying the evidence out for you.
On August 08 2013 06:25 Freak705 wrote: Science isn't strictly democratic - but any capable scientist will review the work done in their field, critically evaluate it, and put it in place with the rest of the knowledge comprising what is known of the field. When 99% of scientists in a field have rationally evaluated the peer-reviewed evidence for and against a particular theory, and come to the same conclusion, that generally speaks in favour of the validity of that theory's predictive abilities.
Granted, however, the number is not near 99% for global warming. Even the oft-sourced 97% number used faulty methodology.
This quibbling about the exact number is irrelevant. There are close to a dozen polls or surveys done to analyze what the opinions of scientists are concerning man-made climate change. You can read them yourself on Wikipedia here: Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.
Suffice to say it is >90% at the minimum. That is, the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and they are generally consistent with the conclusions made by the IPCC.
I think its important to remind people how the increase in carbon dioxide will affect us, as there are many people here who think that models are unreliable and that maybe we'll get increased vegetation and farmland in the northern areas, and that the future may be some kind of perpetual tropical paradise. I thought it would be good to show people what one of the *modest* models predict in a study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research indirectly linked through this think progress article, called "Drought under global warming: a review". The findings can be summarized by the following image and a quote from the IPCC Extreme Weather Report:
The Palmer Drought Severity Index on a “moderate” warming path (via NCAR, click to enlarge). “A reading of -4 or below is considered extreme drought.” During the 1930s Dust Bowl, the PDSI spiked briefly to -6 but rarely exceeded -3. We probably can’t stop this, but we can avert far, far worse post-2050 (see below).
...
The UK Met Office came to a similar view four years ago in their analysis, projecting severe drought over 40% of the Earth’s habited landmass by century’s end (see “The Century of Drought“).
In 2007, Science (subs. req’d) published research that “predicted a permanent drought by 2050 throughout the Southwest” — levels of aridity comparable to the 1930s Dust Bowl would stretch from Kansas to California. And they were also only looking at a 720 ppm case.
Now maybe technology will become incredibly advanced about 50 years from now, and maybe geoengineering will save us without wrecking the planet due to unforeseen consequences. But I don't think anyone would argue that we should become wholly dependent on a technological breakthrough.
Theres only two ways you arrest global climate change provided it exists:
1) Massive economic controls that inhibit liberty and economic growth, depreciating the quality of all of our existence. Not wanted and not likely to occur, because it requires a global concerted effort. 2) The market finds alternatives on its own and replaces the technology gradually.
So this thread, really, seems strange to me, because if your not arguing 1 [and if you are, your crazy], what is there to discuss? Simply express our hope that 2 occurs quickly?
Either way, Canada is going to benefit from any global warming so I'm not particularly invested in any solution regardless.
For those of you who are are anti science in this thread there is a good lecture by Noam Chomsky on corporate influence on teaching climate change denial
On August 08 2013 09:05 Dazed_Spy wrote: Theres only two ways you arrest global climate change provided it exists:
1) Massive economic controls that inhibit liberty and economic growth, depreciating the quality of all of our existence. Not wanted and not likely to occur, because it requires a global concerted effort. 2) The market finds alternatives on its own and replaces the technology gradually.
So this thread, really, seems strange to me, because if your not arguing 1 [and if you are, your crazy], what is there to discuss? Simply express our hope that 2 occurs quickly?
Either way, Canada is going to benefit from any global warming so I'm not particularly invested in any solution regardless.
There is also the third option: climate geoengineering. It will likely be orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to reduce fossil fuel use, but may have other drawbacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
To those denying climate science, let me explain it to you very simply: 1. CO2 is the only potent greenhouse gas in for its spectral range (water, methane etc are greenhouse gases responsible for different spectral ranges). 2. If you calculate the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere by summing all up to date coal, oil and gas consumption, it will be similar the the amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere (the calculation is made here, you can double-check all numbers: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/). Therefore CO2 levels have nearly doubled during the last few decades. All other things related to CO2 changed to smaller extent.
1+2 means that we cause climate change primarily by burning fossil fuels.
Having said that, I believe that climate geoengineering (potentially very inexpensive way to control climate) has to be explored more, and that its drawbacks have to be better evaluated.
Also although I am a scientist, I think that Climate Change topic is blown way out of proportion. In my personal list, Climate Change does NOT make it into top 10 most important humanity's problems, although it probably does make it into top 20. There is a number of potentially more severe issues than Climate Change, and they are given very little coverage in mass media.
On August 08 2013 09:05 Dazed_Spy wrote: Theres only two ways you arrest global climate change provided it exists:
1) Massive economic controls that inhibit liberty and economic growth, depreciating the quality of all of our existence. Not wanted and not likely to occur, because it requires a global concerted effort. 2) The market finds alternatives on its own and replaces the technology gradually.
So this thread, really, seems strange to me, because if your not arguing 1 [and if you are, your crazy], what is there to discuss? Simply express our hope that 2 occurs quickly?
Either way, Canada is going to benefit from any global warming so I'm not particularly invested in any solution regardless.
There is also the third option: climate geoengineering. It will likely be orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to reduce fossil fuel use, but may have other drawbacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
Actually, yeah, I've heard of some of this, like the iron fertilization to make 'dead' parts of the sea productive again. Oddly, it resulted in a bunch of environmental law cases [up here in Canada] that have yet to be resolved.
On August 08 2013 05:53 SlayerS_BoxxY wrote: It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study.
Wrong. What matters is the actual fact of evidence, not some cherry-picked or real consensus. Science is not a democratic process.
No, you are wrong about how science works.
I'd list my credentials but I would sound like a douchebag, so lets just say I'm a scientist.
Go ahead and list your credentials.
So science is a democratic process?
Science works by consensus, not vote, so I wouldn't call it democratic. Any one scientific finding in isolation is not meaningful until the results are replicated, preferably using different techniques in isolation. Powerful conclusions can only be drawn in science when researchers arrive at the same conclusions independently (starting from different observations, using different ways to measure things, and then even analyzing the data in different ways). Eventually, you reach a point where the entire field has accepted a new finding (but this is not to say it might be disproven later), and this a consensus.
This last sentence proves my point. Consensus only tells us one thing: that a majority of scientists in the field who are polled agree with the theory. It says nothing whatsoever about why they believe it, if they are correct in believing it, or even if the polling data is not being skewed. Most of all, it only raises the likelihood that something is true, it does not make something that isn't true, true.
You invoke "facts" as something anyone can interpret on their own. The issue is that it is very difficult to understand the full implications of any one "observation" unless you are well-versed in how the measurement was made, how the statistics were done, and what other outstanding variables might you be failing to recognize, etc.
Facts are something people can interpret. Whether on their own or not is irrelevant, I said nothing about it. The issue is that a theory that has a great many flaws, has been shown to be wildly overblown in many instances, is almost unfalsifiable, and further is being pushed with a religious fervor, is being used as a basis for advocating massive industrial overhauls and severe limitations on the economy and on free-choice among the citizens and businesses. There is good reason for the lay-man AND the scientist to be concerned with the theory and it's validity, and to be doubtful of it.
I only said I was a scientist to try to avoid going into the above explanation. But there it is.
On August 08 2013 09:39 Alex1Sun wrote: To those denying climate science, let me explain it to you very simply: 1. CO2 is the only potent greenhouse gas in for its spectral range (water, methane etc are greenhouse gases responsible for different spectral ranges). 2. If you calculate the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere by summing all up to date coal, oil and gas consumption, it will be similar the the amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere (the calculation is made here, you can double-check all numbers: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/). Therefore CO2 levels have nearly doubled during the last few decades. All other things related to CO2 changed to smaller extent.
1+2 means that we cause climate change primarily by burning fossil fuels.
Having said that, I believe that climate geoengineering (potentially very inexpensive way to control climate) has to be explored more, and that its drawbacks have to be better evaluated.
Also although I am a scientist, I think that Climate Change topic is blown way out of proportion. In my personal list, Climate Change does NOT make it into top 10 most important humanity's problems, although it probably does make it into top 20. There is a number of potentially more severe issues than Climate Change, and they are given very little coverage in mass media.
I agree with you (as far as I can tell). I have long thought climate engineering is the best way to address global climate change, for many reasons. At the same time, I too find the emphasis on climate change too large. There are a number of bigger problems that we could solve with much more noticeable consequences, possibly with less effort as well.
On August 08 2013 07:10 Nachtwind wrote: Well i hope humanity can tech out of what´s coming(when and if something is coming) but i doubt it. I doubt because the tech we need don´t bring money. Now. Therefore, if at all, the technologies will only be there in the last moments of human man kind.
love free economics and the white man ♥
Yes thats one of the big drawbacks (besides huge inequality in living standards) of capitalism. If it doesnt make monney in the short run there are nearly no resources dedicated.
One of the big drawbacks from the other economic systems is they typically do far worse than capitalism would.
Don't assume everything would be rosy with the environment and the standards of life if you could just get extremely smart people to be able to do with other people's property as they wished.
I hope we find some explanation for the strange timing of this event.
Regardless of where you stand on climate change, don't you think the executives of major corporations have committed one of the greatest crimes in history - ever, by sponsoring enormous amounts of disinformation. Given what is potentially at stake, spending money to spread lies and buy uncertainty is an almost unthinkable act, sort of like treason against the human race. Honestly, they should all be summarily executed. To sell out a civilization to buy an extra beach mansion that you don't even fucking need is evil on a scale that boggles the mind.
And that's probably the biggest drawback to capitalism. It does very well at solving optimization problems, but is really bad at longer term planning. The American model of capitalism is a complete fucking mess and yet it's touted as the premier economic system. Not so. We've seen what happens when you let money go wild in China (ironically, the former communist state is far more lassiz faire economically than the US), the pollution problems there are a microcosm of what further deregulation of corporations would cause. I don't know how invisible handers justify corporate spending on propaganda and disinformation, it creates no goods, optimizes nothing, saves no resources, and is good only for the bank accounts of the few at the expense of the many. Champions of "private property" should think about how this private property came into present ownership before declaring it sacrosanct.
On August 08 2013 15:46 Danglars wrote: One of the big drawbacks from the other economic systems is they typically do far worse than capitalism would.
Don't assume everything would be rosy with the environment and the standards of life if you could just get extremely smart people to be able to do with other people's property as they wished.
I hope we find some explanation for the strange timing of this event.
Nearly everyone posting here from the usa is middle class or higher,they only see the good side of the system and never had to face the downside in wich the majority of americans is living. This system as its practiced now in america gives maybe 25% of the people a decent live, all the others only go along because they never have known better. Think the biggest isue is not even income, its more the run down and with crime and violence filled nabourhoods in wich manny people live. Though i do realise this is easy to say from europe, people never realy had to work hard like in the usa, europeans can be rather spoiled. In 1000 years from now we will probably look back on this period of human history as beeing the dark ages of capitalism. Though i have to agree with you that not everything would be rosy with whatever system we would have.
The timing of this event isnt that strange btw, its summer after all
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
Yep, lots of droughts. Very good for plant growth and for people who rely on their annual harvest.
Can you tell me one famous era in Earth's history where there was much more heat and much more carbon in the atmosphere?
I'll give you a hint, it was when the largest creatures that ever roamed the Earth... roamed the Earth.
(The irony of calling them "greenhouse gasses" and implying that they will be bad for plant growth is not lost on me.)
Many factors have an effect on our climate system, that is why it is so hard to make models and predictions. One of the major factors is the location of the continents. During miost of the Mesozoic Era we had basically one continent. No glaciers on earth. Marine Currents (extremely important to our climate) were completely differently. The situation back then can in no way be used as an example for anything. However, true is that the mean temperature of our earth is about 30°C. Which means that someday it will be like that again. These bursts of ice ages (including todays one) are relatively short.
On August 08 2013 20:14 Crying wrote: There is no global warming.It is made so that governments can control us even more.
I think there was a good read that i had about that thousand years ago it was hotter than now it is.
Since when does a good read that you once had override an overwhelming scientific consensus?
You can find compelling articles on the internet that prove pretty much ANYTHING you want to see proven. Just go look for it if you don't believe me.
They will tell you what you want to hear, present compelling (but usually superficial, selective, or incorrect) evidence to convince you what you want to hear is what you needed to hear, and make you believe you have formed an educated opinion on the subject. Whereas in reality, you will know just as little (probably less) on the topic than you knew before you read the article/book/etc.
Sustainable economy is what is sought, not one extreme or the other. It would be selfish to call the current situation "okay" given over 1 billion (or more) person starving or lacking access to clean water but this is going off-topic. Just like it would be ignorant to ask for a sudden stop to all industries and go back to the stone age.
All that money spent on lobbying and disinformation campaigns could be instead spent on researching greener alternative. Green alternatives are getting increasingly competitive with gas and oil as exploration and extraction costs soar. The shift, while inevitable, could be faster given social pressure and political commitment. As it is now the world's leading nations (USA, China) dont want to be the one making the first step, which is downright silly. Taking the lead now in alternative energy, while at a cost, will pay up in the long term. Basic economy.
Energy is not going away obviously, but there are ways to limit emissions, wether by carbon sequestration, relying on biofuels (zero net carbon emission when you account for what the plant/alguae consumes and what is released when you burn it), solar, wind, geothermal you name it. There's no such thing as a zero emission solution when you take into account the construction or fabrication process, but they are still usually ahead of coal or gas powered power stations. Not only in carbon emissions, but also in other pollutant releases (heavy metals, sulphur, etc.)
Most of the world's current problems stem from lack of education, lack of ethics or lack and/or missuse of ressources. The lack of education is pretty evident coming from some posters in here. Wander outside your gated communities or wherever you live, go walk on a garbage littered beach, visit a landfill or an active or abandonned mine shaft. If you dont want to trust specialists who devote their lives to these fields, go look by yourself.
Edit: A 180 degree shift is clearly not possible, it has to be gradual. Even the v8 drivers can understand that turning 1 degree now (rather than 10 years/miles further) makes a difference, not only in the direction you're heading but on the strain you put your truck through by avoiding a sudden turn.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
agreed, hard to believe its man made when its the world bank that is set up to collect everyone's "carbon taxes"... the man made part is a sham to cash in.
On July 25 2012 09:44 electrondude wrote: But , but if those useless ice is gone we can finally gather the oil there and make money . Jokes aside the question if global warming exists is pointless . Even if the effect doesn't exist , the worst thing measures against it could achieve is a cleaner and probably healthier environment .
if that was the intent. the gorebots out there are only advocating global cap and trade, basically carbon tax. just another way for the banks of the world to steal more of your money.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
agreed, hard to believe its man made when its the world bank that is set up to collect everyone's "carbon taxes"... the man made part is a sham to cash in.
World... bank? Must be interesting living a life where everything is a conspiracy.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
agreed, hard to believe its man made when its the world bank that is set up to collect everyone's "carbon taxes"... the man made part is a sham to cash in.
You honestly don't believe with all the fossil fuel like oil we dig up from underneath and the high energy usage mankind has, has ANY cause on earth at all...
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
On August 08 2013 07:10 Nachtwind wrote: Well i hope humanity can tech out of what´s coming(when and if something is coming) but i doubt it. I doubt because the tech we need don´t bring money. Now. Therefore, if at all, the technologies will only be there in the last moments of human man kind.
love free economics and the white man ♥
Yes thats one of the big drawbacks (besides huge inequality in living standards) of capitalism. If it doesnt make monney in the short run there are nearly no resources dedicated.
This is why capitalist societies have the smallest inequalities in living standards of any society ever :/
That's also a very ignorant statement about capitalism that nearly no resources are dedicated to endeavors that don't make money in the short run :/
Nearly everyone posting here from the usa is middle class or higher,they only see the good side of the system and never had to face the downside in wich the majority of americans is living.
my income is under the poverty line for an individual i have all the amenities of a middle-class life
including: a car, a computer, high-speed internet access, 200-some channels on my television, a microwave, a refrigerator, central heating and air conditioning units (no central air conditioning for me, kinda sucks sometimes but whatever it's not a problem), a dishwasher, a clothes washer and dryer, etc.
im not just some outlier either, most people in america "facing the downside" have all or most of those conveniences and amenities as well
this "downside" you speak of is not something a majority of americans are living by any means
you're just pulling stuff out of your butt
This system as its practiced now in america gives maybe 25% of the people a decent live, all the others only go along because they never have known better.
lololol
really how is someone supposed to respond to such an ignorant comment
Think the biggest isue is not even income, its more the run down and with crime and violence filled nabourhoods in wich manny people live
you do know that crime has been falling in america for 20 years including violent crime
and that america has a lower violent crime rate than several european countries and im talking about countries in western europe not east europe
In 1000 years from now we will probably look back on this period of human history as beeing the dark ages of capitalism.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
On August 08 2013 07:10 Nachtwind wrote: Well i hope humanity can tech out of what´s coming(when and if something is coming) but i doubt it. I doubt because the tech we need don´t bring money. Now. Therefore, if at all, the technologies will only be there in the last moments of human man kind.
love free economics and the white man ♥
Yes thats one of the big drawbacks (besides huge inequality in living standards) of capitalism. If it doesnt make monney in the short run there are nearly no resources dedicated.
This is why capitalist societies have the smallest inequalities in living standards of any society ever :/
That's also a very ignorant statement about capitalism that nearly no resources are dedicated to endeavors that don't make money in the short run :/
Nearly everyone posting here from the usa is middle class or higher,they only see the good side of the system and never had to face the downside in wich the majority of americans is living.
my income is under the poverty line for an individual i have all the amenities of a middle-class life
including: a car, a computer, high-speed internet access, 200-some channels on my television, a microwave, a refrigerator, central heating and air conditioning units (no central air conditioning for me, kinda sucks sometimes but whatever it's not a problem), a dishwasher, a clothes washer and dryer, etc.
im not just some outlier either, most people in america "facing the downside" have all or most of those conveniences and amenities as well
this "downside" you speak of is not something a majority of americans are living by any means
This system as its practiced now in america gives maybe 25% of the people a decent live, all the others only go along because they never have known better.
lololol
really how is someone supposed to respond to such an ignorant comment
In 1000 years from now we will probably look back on this period of human history as beeing the dark ages of capitalism.
you wish
Hmmkay, you have a point and i was overdoing my critisism a bit, maybe i was thinking to much about detroit or compton lol. I dont think the usa is that bad of a country but i also dont see it as the best country to live in like manny americans do, just trying to give some counterweight.
And yes i do wish that in 1000 years from now we will have left this system behind as i dont see it as giving the best results and the fastest way to technologicaly advance. But then again,we will all long be dead by then so i guess i just have to live with the system like its now
On August 08 2013 07:10 Nachtwind wrote: Well i hope humanity can tech out of what´s coming(when and if something is coming) but i doubt it. I doubt because the tech we need don´t bring money. Now. Therefore, if at all, the technologies will only be there in the last moments of human man kind.
love free economics and the white man ♥
Yes thats one of the big drawbacks (besides huge inequality in living standards) of capitalism. If it doesnt make monney in the short run there are nearly no resources dedicated.
This is why capitalist societies have the smallest inequalities in living standards of any society ever :/
Prove it ? Or are you assuming that south americans, africans and asian countries are not "capitalists" ?
What you guys call "capitalism" (which most of the time is wrongly used) doesn't mean much to me. I hate people that critic "capitalism" as much as I hate people who defend it. It doesn't mean shit aside from the idea of accumulating capital and permitting the private property of the production tools (did you know that Karl Marx never used the word capitalism ? he used to talk about "das kapital" which is the capital). After that, there are thousands of different "capitalisms".
Still, from an historic perspective, the "capitalism", has done as much good as bad. I'm still struggling to actually agree with the idea that our modern economy created any wealth, because for all the great thing we have created, we have destroyed as much, but what we destroyed is not "in the numbers" (GDP, how can you measure the value of a tree ? of a species ? of a landscape ?).
whether or not global warming is man made or not. I think its a disservice to only just talk about it and do nothing. The fact is its happening. What can we do about it? Its a known fact that carbon dioxide increases the heat retention on earth. Just look at venus for a massive green house effect example. So even if its not "man made". Reducing carbon is still something we should strive for.
can we release massive oxygen bombs in the air or something? is there any solutions to reverse the heating? just ideas, obviously nobody here will be able to answer
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
Yeah tbh the fact that we're coming out of an ice age probably has something to do with the fact that the world appears to be getting warmer. Also we have shit for temp measurements before like 200~ years ago or so I've heard. The end result is the same: as it gets warmer and warmer, eventually humans will event more efficient air conditioning or we die out. I'd wager AC since we've already accomplished it.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
Yeah tbh the fact that we're coming out of an ice age probably has something to do with the fact that the world appears to be getting warmer. Also we have shit for temp measurements before like 200~ years ago or so I've heard. The end result is the same: as it gets warmer and warmer, eventually humans will event more efficient air conditioning or we die out. I'd wager AC since we've already accomplished it.
We actually have thousands of years of research, its called ice cores. The more you know...
On August 08 2013 07:10 Nachtwind wrote: Well i hope humanity can tech out of what´s coming(when and if something is coming) but i doubt it. I doubt because the tech we need don´t bring money. Now. Therefore, if at all, the technologies will only be there in the last moments of human man kind.
love free economics and the white man ♥
Yes thats one of the big drawbacks (besides huge inequality in living standards) of capitalism. If it doesnt make monney in the short run there are nearly no resources dedicated.
Thats simply demonstrably false. How do you think we invent technology for crying out loud? Small firms in fact are the most innovative organizationally and technologically; the cash strapped entities are the ones that push the boundaries.
On August 08 2013 07:10 Nachtwind wrote: Well i hope humanity can tech out of what´s coming(when and if something is coming) but i doubt it. I doubt because the tech we need don´t bring money. Now. Therefore, if at all, the technologies will only be there in the last moments of human man kind.
love free economics and the white man ♥
Yes thats one of the big drawbacks (besides huge inequality in living standards) of capitalism. If it doesnt make monney in the short run there are nearly no resources dedicated.
Thats simply demonstrably false. How do you think we invent technology for crying out loud? Small firms in fact are the most innovative organizationally and technologically; the cash strapped entities are the ones that push the boundaries.
Giving out up to 20 years of monopoly? Patents are making deficit spending more attractive. It is hard to gain funding for a company if you haven't ensured that you own the intellectual rights. If the invention is not patentable, you have to find other means to protect it against competition or pray for public funding. Since some of the technology needed is outside the scope of what patents can help with, it takes government funding to plug the holes in the system. So all in all he is probably wrong, but the basics of corporations is a focus on starting to pay off the initial investments as soon as possible and that leads to short- or medium- sighted decissions.
When that is said, climate change sucks bigtime for certain parts of the world, while others will get better conditions. Climate change is not gonna be the end of the world on its own. What it does is holding back research by denying access to gene pools by accelerating extinction of more obscure organisms, Increasing extreme weather globally to cause more of the economy to go into rebuilding, melting ice on the poles which increase the sealevel and therefore reduce the inhabitable landmass and potentially several other more or less known effects.
A sidenote is the sustainability of the world. Several resources are being reused at far too low a rate and it is causing the unsustainability of the current use to create a future deficit.
On August 08 2013 07:10 Nachtwind wrote: Well i hope humanity can tech out of what´s coming(when and if something is coming) but i doubt it. I doubt because the tech we need don´t bring money. Now. Therefore, if at all, the technologies will only be there in the last moments of human man kind.
love free economics and the white man ♥
Yes thats one of the big drawbacks (besides huge inequality in living standards) of capitalism. If it doesnt make monney in the short run there are nearly no resources dedicated.
Thats simply demonstrably false. How do you think we invent technology for crying out loud? Small firms in fact are the most innovative organizationally and technologically; the cash strapped entities are the ones that push the boundaries.
Most R&D is public funded and ran by governmental organizations. Small business is keen (and best at) monetizing these innovations and results.
On August 09 2013 23:55 sandg wrote: probably nothing to do with global warming, and more to do with the secret haarp facility the usa built in the middle of greenland a while ago.
+1 I've also heard Osama Bin Laden is in charge of this particular facility. Damn this guy!
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
That time from ~1975 to 1980 could just be a coincidence, just like the time from ~1860 to ~1875.
agreed. This is not a debate-ending graph. If you google the coherence between solar activity and temperature, you will notice a lot of different graphs, and this is just one of them. It takes a lot of insight to get a fair grasp of this coherence, so you don't get manipulated by simple statistical cleverness.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
That time from ~1975 to 1980 could just be a coincidence, just like the time from ~1860 to ~1875.
agreed. This is not a debate-ending graph. If you google the coherence between solar activity and temperature, you will notice a lot of different graphs, and this is just one of them. It takes a lot of insight do get a fair grasp of this coherence, so you don't get manipulated by simple statistical cleverness.
Exactly, that is why I believe scientists who do have a fair grasp of our climate, and most of them ( as in 95% of them) agree with eachother. Of course there is a chance that they are wrong and maybe something other than CO2 causes our change of climate. But I am not willing to take that chance.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
That time from ~1975 to 1980 could just be a coincidence, just like the time from ~1860 to ~1875.
agreed. This is not a debate-ending graph. If you google the coherence between solar activity and temperature, you will notice a lot of different graphs, and this is just one of them. It takes a lot of insight do get a fair grasp of this coherence, so you don't get manipulated by simple statistical cleverness.
Exactly, that is why I believe scientists who do have a fair grasp of our climate, and most of them ( as in 95% of them) agree with eachother. Of course there is a chance that they are wrong and maybe something other than CO2 causes our change of climate. But I am not willing to take that chance.
Agree. No reason to take any chances. Also because other problemes can be fixed while reducing CO2 emissions.
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder.
Many of you are missing the point. Yes, the Earth does go into warmer and cooler periods...that is normal. What you're overlooking is the significance of humans' impact. Humans have been pumping out gases (that are not beneficial) into the atmosphere very recently, considering the overall age of Earth. These gases act like a greenhouse effect--Venus being a prime example--and trap the heat. We may not see increases of 10 degrees yet, but that is because it is still in the "beginning" stages. Wait 50 years and then tell me it does not exist...
Ice in Antarctica and Greenland is disappearing faster and may drive sea levels higher than predicted this century, according to leaked United Nations documents.
Greenland’s ice added six times more to sea levels in the decade through 2011 than in the previous 10 years, according to a draft of the UN’s most comprehensive study on climate change. Antarctica had a fivefold increase, and the UN is raising its forecast for how much the two ice sheets will add to Earth’s oceans by 2100.
The changes in the planet’s coldest areas are a “very good indicator” of a warming planet, according to Walt Meier, a research scientist with the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
“It’s an early warning system,” Meier said by phone from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “When you think about a couple of degrees of warming, in the U.K. or U.S., it’s not something that would be too noticeable, whereas in an area of snow and ice, it can have a huge effect. With sea ice, minus 1 to plus 1 is the difference between skating on the ice and swimming in the ocean.”
I think Carl Sagan gave us a good reasons why we should be worry about greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide level in his book:
Those who are skeptical about carbon dioxide greenhouse warming might profitably note the massive greenhouse effect on Venus. No one proposes that Venus's greenhouse effect derives from imprudent Venusians who burned too much coal, drove fuel-inefficient autos, and cut down their forests. My point is different. The climatological history of our planetary neighbor, an otherwise Earthlike planet on which the surface became hot enough to melt tin or lead, is worth considering — especially by those who say that the increasing greenhouse effect on Earth will be self-correcting, that we don't really have to worry about it, or (you can see this in the publications of some groups that call themselves conservative) that the greenhouse effect is a "hoax"
Venus is closer to the sun than Earth so it's going to be hotter but to be hotter than 500 degree Celsius implicates the effect of carbon dioxide (which is main component in Venus atmosphere) on the climate. We might not get to that level of carbon dioxide concentration (as long as we don't cut down most of the trees) but that doesn't mean current carbon dioxide level won't have any effect on our climate at all.
On September 07 2013 15:21 Veldril wrote: I think Carl Sagan gave us a good reasons why we should be worry about greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide level in his book:
Those who are skeptical about carbon dioxide greenhouse warming might profitably note the massive greenhouse effect on Venus. No one proposes that Venus's greenhouse effect derives from imprudent Venusians who burned too much coal, drove fuel-inefficient autos, and cut down their forests. My point is different. The climatological history of our planetary neighbor, an otherwise Earthlike planet on which the surface became hot enough to melt tin or lead, is worth considering — especially by those who say that the increasing greenhouse effect on Earth will be self-correcting, that we don't really have to worry about it, or (you can see this in the publications of some groups that call themselves conservative) that the greenhouse effect is a "hoax"
Venus is closer to the sun than Earth so it's going to be hotter but to be hotter than 500 degree Celsius implicates the effect of carbon dioxide (which is main component in Venus atmosphere) on the climate. We might not get to that level of carbon dioxide concentration (as long as we don't cut down most of the trees) but that doesn't mean current carbon dioxide level won't have any effect on our climate at all.
I agree with Mr. Sagan completely. It seems to me that it hardly matters whether climate change is manmade or otherwise - I defy you to live in 500* Celsius weather.
Prove it ? Or are you assuming that south americans, africans and asian countries are not "capitalists" ?
No most of those countries aren't capitalist
Most South American countries are corrupt quasi-socialist autocratic economies where the ruling class enriches itself off high-priced commodities (oil, cocaine, beef etc.) or in some other way through crony capitalism while papering over their economic failures by handing out more and more to the poor while the middle class shrinks. Examples: Bolivia, Ecuador Venezuela, Argentina. Counter-example: Brazil.
Most African countries are the same. Examples: Every country north of the Sahara. Every country south of the Sahara except South Africa. Counter-example: South Africa.
Most Asian countries again the same. Examples: India, Pakistan, all the other -stans. Counter-examples: Japan, South Korea.
Also I don't think I need to "prove" what is common knowledge, that living standards in the First World are superior to those in any prior period in human history, and that inequality in living standards is lower than any prior period in human history. The main area of improvement has been in food but there's also housing transportation and consumer goods. Five hundred years ago if you were rich enough to buy a horse you were in the 1% pretty much. Today, 90%+ of adults living in the First World can afford for most of their adult lives if not the entirety of their adult lives to own an automobile. Or they have access to well-developed public transportation networks. Even the saying that once again only the rich can afford horses is not entirely true.
(GDP, how can you measure the value of a tree ? of a species ? of a landscape ?).
I don't know how you can if you look at it from a philosophical On Walden Pond type perspective but people can and do measure the monetary value of those things all the time.
Are they really crying about -5C? Really?! That's some mild weather.
I only consider it 'cold' when temps get below -10C (14F) with at least 80% humidity (humidity has more impact on how you feel the cold than actual temperature). And we get -20C (-4F) easily here during winter.
They are talking about the average temperature from december - March 2013/14 being 22 °F (-5.6 °C). At times, temps in Chicage were below -30 °C.In Warsaw the average December - March temp is about -2 °C.
And Australia the hottest summers ever last year. Also, basically Europe did not have a Winter this year. That is not climate though. That is Weather. Although I have to admit the weather is going crazy the last couple of years. At this time last year it was cold and it was snowing (I live in Germany). Today it's about 23°C and it hasn't rained since weeks.
On April 02 2014 21:57 Arnstein wrote: Are there still people who don't believe that climate change is happening?
Evidently there are people who think that unless temperature in every single area in the world is consistently rising by a couple degrees every year, then climate change is not occurring. Because every counter example I see is "well my area got colder this year than usual, global warming is a hoax!".
Ice Age next year, heard it here first. I live in Miami and we are still getting cold fronts here which is the weirdest thing in the word for a location that is constantly hot as hell.
On April 02 2014 21:57 Arnstein wrote: Are there still people who don't believe that climate change is happening?
All your science and fact is no match for my personal anecdotal experience
You have to remember not everyone thinks like a scientist. If, and I'm going to use the word normal because non-scientific minds seem to be far more common, normal people hear science say "the world is heating up" and they experience the opposite, you can't expect them not to disagree with science because it is not in their natures to rigorously investigate and question what they experience. But just because they are not scientific that doesn't mean they are all stupid. Those who have seen the evidence for climate change and understand it should be patient in waiting for everyone else to "get it", and persistent in presenting the evidence. To be frank most of the time those who argue for climate change just go on about "how obvious it is" and don't tell anyone why its obvious; they have no reason to think they won't be ignored (this behavior also acts along the lines of the "everybody knows" fallacy by the way).
On April 02 2014 21:57 Arnstein wrote: Are there still people who don't believe that climate change is happening?
All your science and fact is no match for my personal anecdotal experience
You have to remember not everyone thinks like a scientist. If, and I'm going to use the word normal because non-scientific minds seem to be far more common, normal people hear science say "the world is heating up" and they experience the opposite, you can't expect them not to disagree with science because it is not in their natures to rigorously investigate and question what they experience. But just because they are not scientific that doesn't mean they are all stupid. Those who have seen the evidence for climate change and understand it should be patient in waiting for everyone else to "get it", and persistent in presenting the evidence. To be frank most of the time those who argue for climate change just go on about "how obvious it is" and don't tell anyone why its obvious; they have no reason to think they won't be ignored (this behavior also acts along the lines of the "everybody knows" fallacy by the way).
Well I would argue that the human factor in climate change is as evident as the human factor in creating environments where germs or bacteria thrive, the people who don't want to believe that their vehicles and factories constantly spewing out green house gases might influence climate change for what ever political or religious or personal reason; are just like the people who don't want to believe that their vehicles and factories constantly spewing out toxic shit into the environment might create cesspools of infection or disease. There isn't a single scientific body of national or international standing that rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change right now.
You can always find dissenting voices in any community, there's probably a much higher number of doctors who don't believe in vaccination for political / religious / personal reasons than there are scientists or climatologists who don't believe in climate change.
On April 02 2014 21:57 Arnstein wrote: Are there still people who don't believe that climate change is happening?
All your science and fact is no match for my personal anecdotal experience
You have to remember not everyone thinks like a scientist. If, and I'm going to use the word normal because non-scientific minds seem to be far more common, normal people hear science say "the world is heating up" and they experience the opposite, you can't expect them not to disagree with science because it is not in their natures to rigorously investigate and question what they experience. But just because they are not scientific that doesn't mean they are all stupid. Those who have seen the evidence for climate change and understand it should be patient in waiting for everyone else to "get it", and persistent in presenting the evidence. To be frank most of the time those who argue for climate change just go on about "how obvious it is" and don't tell anyone why its obvious; they have no reason to think they won't be ignored (this behavior also acts along the lines of the "everybody knows" fallacy by the way).
Well I would argue that the human factor in climate change is as evident as the human factor in creating environments where germs or bacteria thrive, the people who don't want to believe that their vehicles and factories constantly spewing out green house gases might influence climate change for what ever political or religious or personal reason; are just like the people who don't want to believe that their vehicles and factories constantly spewing out toxic shit into the environment might create cesspools of infection or disease. There isn't a single scientific body of national or international standing that rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change right now.
You can always find dissenting voices in any community, there's probably a much higher number of doctors who don't believe in vaccination for political / religious / personal reasons than there are scientists or climatologists who don't believe in climate change.
I agree with you that many people don't want to believe in climate change, for what ever reason. I also agree that scientists are almost unanimous in that we are affecting climate change. But to reassert my point: we need to stop simply shouting "climate change is true!" and then point to the scientific community; we need to argue why its true. And its not that hard, fairly straight forward evidence is not that hard to find: + Show Spoiler +
I am hopeful that if the evidence is presented and time is given for it to be thought through most people will at least admit that climate change is a valid argument; to be honest with time I think most will accept it wholeheartedly, if they are shown the reasons why it is valid. Will they then do something about it? There I am less hopeful .
EPT![[image loading]](http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/08/Figure1-350x417.png)
![[image loading]](http://berkeleyearth.org/images/decadal-land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/30a849l.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/24fbn0o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i45.tinypic.com/14rvv8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/holocene_temperature_variations_rev.png)
![[image loading]](http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/algore.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/400px-Sunspot_Numbers.png)
![[image loading]](https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/imagesizer_0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.countercurrents.org/OceanLabels_0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://thethoughtstash.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/colclimatcopenhbighoaxpett.jpg)
