146 replies to this topic

[Bryan]

generalgsus, on 03 May 2010 - 04:51 PM, said:

Though our models are not always necessarily 100% correct, our current trend is no doubt one of rising climate. Rising climate, I might add, due to human consumption of fossil fuels and our constant releases of carbon dioxide gas.

Actually, the only basis of the rising climate due to fossil fuels and constant CO2 release is from our models. We have yet to make any scientific observations that our 'trend' is effecting the environment.

[Nex2004]

I think honestly its just a scare tactic too attempt too slow down the usage of fossil fuels, they say that the ice caps are melting but water levels in the past years have risen minimally.
I cant remember the exact measurement but i know it was equal to the width of a human hair.

[Bryan]

Nex2004, on 04 May 2010 - 10:15 AM, said:

I think honestly its just a scare tactic too attempt too slow down the usage of fossil fuels, they say that the ice caps are melting but water levels in the past years have risen minimally.
I cant remember the exact measurement but i know it was equal to the width of a human hair.

Water levels are rising the same amount as they have for thousands of years.

[generalgsus]

Bryan, on 04 May 2010 - 02:35 PM, said:

Water levels are rising the same amount as they have for thousands of years.

Actually, water levels have stayed relatively constant up till ~1880, and then started to rise proportionally each year, resulting in an overall trend of water-levels rising in the post-1880 era up until now. I'd say this has something to do with our Industrial Revolution. Like I mentioned earlier, wouldn't it be logical too? Since carbon dioxide gas and deterioration of the ozone through the harmful gases which we as humans cause to be emitted can hardly be argued as good for our health/the planet's health.

[Bryan]

generalgsus, on 04 May 2010 - 05:48 PM, said:

Actually, water levels have stayed relatively constant up till ~1880, and then started to rise proportionally each year, resulting in an overall trend of water-levels rising in the post-1880 era up until now. I'd say this has something to do with our Industrial Revolution. Like I mentioned earlier, wouldn't it be logical too? Since carbon dioxide gas and deterioration of the ozone through the harmful gases which we as humans cause to be emitted can hardly be argued as good for our health/the planet's health.

Actually, water levels have not risen proportionally each year.

Quote

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm"

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions

Here's the full article: Rising Sea Levels is the Greatest Lie Ever Told

[generalgsus]

Bryan, on 04 May 2010 - 09:34 PM, said:

Here's the full article: Rising Sea Levels is the Greatest Lie Ever Told

Hmm.. that does bring up some valid points, but honestly I think the article is kinda biased, don't you? No offense, but just going off charts and other articles, it seems more so like more scientists and experiments suggest that sea levels are rising than they suggest that sea levels are in fact, not rising. Hard to tell who to believe in this case:p

[jcrboy]

generalgsus, on 04 May 2010 - 09:39 PM, said:

Hmm.. that does bring up some valid points, but honestly I think the article is kinda biased, don't you? No offense, but just going off charts and other articles, it seems more so like more scientists and experiments suggest that sea levels are rising than they suggest that sea levels are in fact, not rising. Hard to tell who to believe in this case:p

Doctors were killing babies and mothers because they thought they were above washing their hands after handling cadavers. They blamed it on weaknesses in women and babies. They didn't know about germs.

Trusting the majority is not necessarily the best course of action. If you can examine the (accurate) figures (like the birthing mortality rate between doctor deliveries and home deliveries) and come to the common consensus, then that is your conclusion. It does not mean it is an accurate conclusion, but it is your conclusion.

The point of writing a scientific article would be either
a) To simply present data
b) To present data and form a conclusion

If the latter is the point of the article, then it will seem biased because it comes to a conclusion. In the end, it comes down to whether or not you believe the data.

EDIT: If I need to grab the data/articles for the infant mortality rate and doctor hand-washing, I can. It was used to make a point and was not applicable to the argument, only for the purposes of proving the point.

Edited by jcrboy, 04 May 2010 - 09:51 PM.

[DragonX]

twink, on 31 March 2010 - 04:25 PM, said:

Supposedly, the average temperatures are rising.
But where I live, it's been nothing but cold. -_-
Global Cooling.

I'm pretty sure that global warming is a result of the greenhouse affect which causes more extreme weather conditions rather than just a warmer environment.

Besides for that.. my thoughts:

Whether global warming is a natural occurance or a human induced one, its pretty evident that there are changes in our climate. We are starting to see more earthquakes and shifts in weather patterns. Even if these changes are normal, have happened before, or are always happening, I think its something to consider in our day in age. As humans who rely on relatively fragile housing, we depend on the current climate staying the same. We either have to ensure flexibility in our way of living or find a way to minimalize change.

Edited by Kendasala, 04 May 2010 - 10:03 PM.

[Bryan]

generalgsus, on 04 May 2010 - 09:39 PM, said:

Hmm.. that does bring up some valid points, but honestly I think the article is kinda biased, don't you? No offense, but just going off charts and other articles, it seems more so like more scientists and experiments suggest that sea levels are rising than they suggest that sea levels are in fact, not rising. Hard to tell who to believe in this case:p

I'd be hard-pressed for you to find any article that isn't biased. You're merely saying that sea levels are rising, and it's clear they're not. Scientists aren't experimenting and saying that sea levels are rising, they're using inaccurate models to 'best predict' what has happened. I'd like you to link me anything where a scientist has performed an experiment according to the scientific method and has accurately determined that water levels are rising around the globe.

The reason that we are so worried about Global Warming is because mass media twists the real facts and warps the minds of the ignorant.

Quote

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

[generalgsus]

Bryan, on 05 May 2010 - 12:54 PM, said:

I'd be hard-pressed for you to find any article that isn't biased. You're merely saying that sea levels are rising, and it's clear they're not. Scientists aren't experimenting and saying that sea levels are rising, they're using inaccurate models to 'best predict' what has happened. I'd like you to link me anything where a scientist has performed an experiment according to the scientific method and has accurately determined that water levels are rising around the globe.

The reason that we are so worried about Global Warming is because mass media twists the real facts and warps the minds of the ignorant.

Ehh, mass media does have something to do with it. But like I have said previously, you'd also be hard-pressed to find reports that our production of carbon dioxide gas among other harmful gases is good for the environment and our atmosphere and ozone.

[Kang]

Cars, wars, missiles, rockets, ect. who else to blame but the humans for speeding up destruction. In the end, humans will fix then screw up again and repeat. Then in one event, screw up is so big that we cant stop it then kaboom. Bye bye earth.

I cant wait till 2012

Edited by Kang2006, 06 May 2010 - 05:04 PM.

[Bryan]

generalgsus, on 06 May 2010 - 04:26 PM, said:

Ehh, mass media does have something to do with it. But like I have said previously, you'd also be hard-pressed to find reports that our production of carbon dioxide gas among other harmful gases is good for the environment and our atmosphere and ozone.

I'd hope that gases classified as 'harmful' are indeed 'harmful'. Doesn't mean that the ice caps are melting and that we're going to die from the greenhouse effect.

By the way, it wasn't really hard.

Quote

There was 5 times as much CO2 in the air during the dinosaur years, and 20 times as much before that, because oceans absorb CO2 and tie it up as calcium carbonate in coral reefs gradually forming limestone. There is now 1/3 as much CO2 in the air as plants need to grow on.

Quote

Nature puts 26 times as much CO2 in the air through decay and respiration as humans do through energy sources.

Quote

Volcanoes put 2.3% as much CO2 into the air as humans every year (gov source). If CO2 could accumulate, the volcanic amount in 43 years would equal the human amount for one year. Volcanoes have been doing it for 5 billion years, and humans for only 150 years. The supposed total amount of human accumulation (240 GT) is put into the atmosphere by volcanoes every 1,200 years.

Quote

Methane is 23 times as strong of a so-called greenhouse gas as CO2. If 5% is boiled off to cool cryogenic containers during shipping, that's 0.05 x 23 = 115% plus the original 100% = 215% x 66% as much CO2 in a power plant = 142% as much of a supposed greenhouse effect from shipped natural gas as from using coal to generate electricity. And the ship would burn about 20-50% as much energy as the methane being shipped. That's more kids and pets dying from shipped natural gas than burning coal would produce.

That's just saying that CO2 isn't as 'harmful' as you think. In reality, the only thing that CO2 does is make the troposphere warmer. It does nothing to surface temperature.

[generalgsus]

Kang2006, on 06 May 2010 - 05:04 PM, said:

Cars, wars, missiles, rockets, ect. who else to blame but the humans for speeding up destruction. In the end, humans will fix then screw up again and repeat. Then in one event, screw up is so big that we cant stop it then kaboom. Bye bye earth.

I cant wait till 2012

Lol. The freshmen at my school will apparently miss out then... Graduation then BAM, smack, whaboom.

[DragonX]

Bryan, on 03 May 2010 - 05:13 PM, said:

Actually, the only basis of the rising climate due to fossil fuels and constant CO2 release is from our models. We have yet to make any scientific observations that our 'trend' is effecting the environment.

It would be hard to conduct studies that determine a cause relationship given its nature .
A correlation is the best at the moment I beleive.

[Bryan]

Kendasala, on 07 May 2010 - 09:28 AM, said:

It would be hard to conduct studies that determine a cause relationship given its nature .
A correlation is the best at the moment I beleive.

Not really. An inaccurate model is far from the 'best' we can have at the moment. We're just using those models to sway public opinion.

[DragonX]

Bryan, on 07 May 2010 - 11:36 AM, said:

Not really. An inaccurate model is far from the 'best' we can have at the moment. We're just using those models to sway public opinion.

What I meant wasn't that our models are the best, but that a cause and effect relationship isn't very plausible.

The best that we would be able to do is determine a correlation between changes in climate, and other changes that have occured.

Individual chemical reactions, etc can be scientifically investigated but it wouldn't be realistic to apply techniques to the world and see what actually happens.

[Warriors]

It's real...Now deal with it..that's it..There is nothing else humans can do, they have far too long polluted the Earth. Cannot change it now, only can slow it down. But I think maybe global warming is nature's way of killing off the humans. Then a new species will rise.

[DragonX]

Warriors, on 07 May 2010 - 01:32 PM, said:

It's real...Now deal with it..that's it..There is nothing else humans can do, they have far too long polluted the Earth. Cannot change it now, only can slow it down. But I think maybe global warming is nature's way of killing off the humans. Then a new species will rise.

Just because human life as we know it may disappear does not mean that humans will go extinct. Yes, we are a fragile physically... but you never know.. perhaps a couple may make it an adapt to live a different lifestyle.

There were several animals who made it through the ice age .

[Warriors]

Kendasala, on 07 May 2010 - 01:37 PM, said:

Just because human life as we know it may disappear does not mean that humans will go extinct. Yes, we are a fragile physically... but you never know.. perhaps a couple may make it an adapt to live a different lifestyle.

There were several animals who made it through the ice age .

While thats true..There have been many more instances of extinction..Hell, I may be wrong about the Era's because I can't remember, but in the Cambrian era there was an extinction of 70% of oceanic life. What we see now is the remaining. However, some humans may survive, but I doubt it. They don't have that much genetic diversity and it takes a long time for humans to evolve, so depending on the nature of the method of extinction, the entire race could be wiped out. And to even have the human race survive you would need at least a million people or more for some genetic diversity or they won't last that long.

[DragonX]

Warriors, on 07 May 2010 - 01:45 PM, said:

While thats true..There have been many more instances of extinction..Hell, I may be wrong about the Era's because I can't remember, but in the Cambrian era there was an extinction of 70% of oceanic life. What we see now is the remaining. However, some humans may survive, but I doubt it. They don't have that much genetic diversity and it takes a long time for humans to evolve, so depending on the nature of the method of extinction, the entire race could be wiped out. And to even have the human race survive you would need at least a million people or more for some genetic diversity or they won't last that long.

It's true that it is improbable. I was simply saying that we might not necessarily go extinct. While genetic diversity is most definately helpful, it isn't an absolute necessity.

Besides, what would happen is totally unknown. Who knows... maybe what happens to the earth will provide a sheltered environment with few predators . or.. Maybe it'll induce fluke mutations.. or maybe I watch too many sci-fi films

Edited by Kendasala, 07 May 2010 - 01:56 PM.

[Kang]

Warriors, on 07 May 2010 - 01:32 PM, said:

It's real...Now deal with it..that's it..There is nothing else humans can do, they have far too long polluted the Earth. Cannot change it now, only can slow it down. But I think maybe global warming is nature's way of killing off the humans. Then a new species will rise.

Agreed. Humans has screw up to a great deal.

Kendasala, on 07 May 2010 - 01:37 PM, said:

Just because human life as we know it may disappear does not mean that humans will go extinct. Yes, we are a fragile physically... but you never know.. perhaps a couple may make it an adapt to live a different lifestyle.

There were several animals who made it through the ice age .

I think 99% of species that existed has been extinct.

[DragonX]

Kang2006, on 07 May 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

I think 99% of species that existed has been extinct.

It's also true that we are the only species out of many that has developed the ability to think as we do (I do not remember the term ).

I'm not saying that it is probable. I'm just saying we don't know anything for sure.

Edited by Kendasala, 07 May 2010 - 02:00 PM.

[jcrboy]

Warriors, on 07 May 2010 - 01:32 PM, said:

It's real...Now deal with it..that's it..There is nothing else humans can do, they have far too long polluted the Earth. Cannot change it now, only can slow it down. But I think maybe global warming is nature's way of killing off the humans. Then a new species will rise.

This sounds like a job for Captain Planet

[DragonX]

jcrboy, on 07 May 2010 - 02:58 PM, said:

This sounds like a job for Captain Planet

LOL.

[DragonX]

jcrboy, on 07 May 2010 - 02:58 PM, said:

This sounds like a job for Captain Planet

LOL.