Discussion in 'General Nonsense' started by SK-1, May 7, 2008.
Never lose hope, for then all is lost.
The whole global warming thingy might be a ''natural'' course of events towards a new ice-age or something that we don't (necessarily) know of just yet. Or, then in about 100-200 years the whole planet will be brown, incredibly warm and full of deserts and no water in sight, thanks to the vanity of people. We'll see...
... oh wait, most of us won't live by then. Hey, let's just spend all the electricity and strain the environment as much as we can! shadedshu)
its not us its those who make electricity...
just a thought:
we keep seeing a steady rise in worldwide temperatures, the glaciers are continuing to recede, the oceans are very slowly rising . . .
but, we've only been recording daily temperatures for a little over 150 years, and we've been seeing a very steady increase since we started recording; and the glaciers have been slowly receding for thousands of years at this point . . .
now, we have to stop thinking like humans tend to do with concern to our time now and look at the big picture - we're still coming out of an ice age . . . and what generally happens in between ice ages? The earth warms up a bit, then the poles shift, and we start heading into another ice age as the earth cools back down. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years or so ago, and human history can only be traced back on written record for about 5,000-6,000 years ago . . . although we've found human remains that have been dated from before the last ice age. Geologists also tend to place that there is about a 50,000 year interval or so between ice ages, it's happened before, it'll happen again . . . and what generally happens between ice ages? The glaciers recede and global temperatures slowly climb.
Now, I'm not saying that human interference hasn't accelerated the steady rise in global temperatures, but I don't think we've had as big of an impact as some "experts" would have us believe. TBH, I feel a lot of these campaigns to "stop global warming" are more about getting the donated funds to be filtered into other pointless projects and campaigns. Really, how would one STOP global warming? You can't, it wil slowly continue. We've become too focused on our current time (now +/- 100 years) instead of trying to think on a geological scale (in which case, a 200 hundred year expanse of time is nothing, repeat, nothing compared to a 50,000 to 100,000 year expanse).
Just another thought in the bucket . . .
I mean, you could completely ignore global warming, and humans are still drastically changing the planet. Deforestation, landfills, more co2 in the air, these are just a few things that humans do on a massive scale, which of course this will affect the eco-system. Global warming has more or less become a symbol these days for the detrimental effect man has on his home. You can completely ignore the fact that it exists, and the argument that conservation needs to be practiced far more often still remains.
I'm not interested in getting into another drawn out argument, but who's to say that we can't change our planet? What makes earth so much better 200 years ago than it is now? As long as we don't recklessly dump smog everywhere *cough, China* we don't have much to worry about. Sure, we might technically be animals but unlike every other animal that has ever lived humans have the unique ability of rational thought and reasoning. In other words, we are able to grasp the big picture. If you don't want to keep changing our environment, get off your computer, go into the woods, and live with nothing but a loin cloth.
If you cut down all the trees, if you throw massive amounts of CO2 into the air, I could go on but I will leave it at those two, the Earth will be unable to sustain life. Period. If technology becomes quick enough to allow us to live on the moon, then we could live in a barren wasteland of the Earth. I personally, don't think I'd want to. Balance is the key, as always. Coexistence is usually the most advantageous route for all involved.
Or how about just turning off the lights and recyclying?
There is a difference between living in a loin cloth in the woods and being environmentally responsible.
Some people are willing to make no sacrifices for the well being of others, and the future of mankind. :shadedshu
We are doomed.
I think if the leaders of the world dont take action its up to the people but how many would give up there car etc.. i know i wouldnt unless it was made law so like i said we are doomed.
Its like this 95% of britain didnt want to go to war in iraq but did the government listen? NOPE!! it did what the hell it wanted. so if it wanted to stop british people from contributing to global warming it could but it will never happen the money loss would be massive.moneys the only importance to people in power not our kids or the planets future.
That's why I'm not having kids lol.
I agree - but, I think "global warming" has been blown way out of proportion by the media.
I do believe, though, that human impact has drastically accelerated the issue, and I do believe that there is a lot that can be done to slow it back down to "normal" levels.
If for nothing else, humans can at the very least start practicing better coservation practices, recycling practices, and becoming more energy efficient; while also, instead of putting more money into pointless overseas conflicts, the federal government and EPA could put more money towards developing better alternatives instead of keeping us on fossil fuels, and enacting inane attempts to clean-up and curb use (i.e. making 10% ethanol mix in fuels is completely idiotic - to grow the "fuel" for ethanol, we need to use vast amounts of crop land, plus, ethanol is burnt quicker in a motor, meaning we're getting less miles to the gallon, so we're back at the gas station more often . . . completely defeating the purpose of putting ethanol in fuel in the first place).
Perhaps, also, if more companies started working together to address issues . . . especially the oil companies. There's a lot of power if they were to work together to solve things; only a couple of oil compaines have started trying to make a difference (I can think of BP and Texaco off the top of my head). GE is also trying to make a drastic change as well, as is GM.
But, too many other companies are too concerned about profits and competition to pay any head to global concerns
Yea,..but have you tried welding while on drugs
I have a prophesy omg!
The world will end on the next Friday the 13th (6/13/2008). Our planet, no, our entire solar system, will be vaporized. A black hole will pass at super-high speed, much faster than the speed of light. It won't suck us up, but it will drag us to Betelguese, where the gravity of Betelguese overwhelms that of the black hole (the black hole is really far away), and our solar system will orbit Betelguese. The black hole syphons the little remaining fuel Betelguese has as it screams by, causing the aging star to collapse, finally causing its death in spectacular supernova form. The supernova will engulf us, and the sheer heat will cause us to be vaporized...
What a pleasent birthday gift...
Now that one I haven't heard before.
Er... well, for one Betelguese is 430 lightyears away so even if we do start heading in that direction we'll have some time to think about it. We would also notice the black hole ahead of time when it starts beating up on our larger siblings like the gas giants. Even before that though we would notice a new pull in the solar system. The black hole has a fairly small event horizon so its doubtful that it would be able to tow our solar system with it (at least in 1 piece anyway). Actually instead of going through all the trouble theres actually a documentary by BBC that highlights roughly what would happen if a blackhole were to travel to our solar system. It features Sam Neill and the episode is called "Staying Alive".
Not that any of this has to do with global warming of course.
And just a quick shot out to the whole global warming thing, the issue isn't that the earth is warming the issue is how quickly its warming.
The media does blow everything out of proportion however that doesn't change the fact this is still a serious issue. The medias job is to get your attention and hold it there so they do it with lots of doom and gloom. Unfortunately they give a disproportionate amount of time to skeptics on the subject to create more drama and imply that the science is less sound than it actually is, or that theres some sort of raging debate in the scientific community about it. The only debating thats going on is at a political level and a media level. Its the same idea with creationism vs evolution. Theres no debate in the scientific community over if creationism is a valid science, its just politics and media that make things complex.
Also not sure about this whole coming out of an ice age talk because that happened a long time ago now. However there was a slight cooling period about 300 years ago. However that is all explained scientifically.
It would also be hard to assume that climate scientists would not take that sort of information into account as its their job. Although this is probably the hardest thing for most people to understand, that most of these scientists live and breathe their work and they still don't have a complete grasp of whats going on.
Some of the most advanced computers in the world are used for this very research. Unfortunately this is also the down fall of the science because of its complexity. Neither you nor I have any true grasp on what exactly is happening from a science perspective. All we get is the tail end of the research and basic ideas of things and to think that they would miss something so obvious as that just seem pretty far fetched.
Also moving on to the economics standpoint of things i also find it fairly surprising that we have so many people with their doctorates in economics here at TPU. If we switch our economy away from fossil fuels and towards more clean energy its true there will probably be an increase in energy cost however it would also spur technological advance in those areas which would eventually drive costs down again. However when talking about the economy its all speculation.
And finally the conclusion:
What scares me the most about these debates is how mis-informed people are on the subject. In all honesty however it isn't really anyones fault except for the media which will often display articles in misleading ways and often contradict itself. If you want to really learn the 'truth' so to speak don't watch documentaries like "the great global warming swindle". You should immediately know that its propaganda when the first 15 minutes of it contain next to no science other than making claims to try and discredit the current science on the matter, and when the information they use is cherry picked and old. Instead read scientific journals that have been peer reviewed and have stood up to scrutiny. Stay away from a lot of independent groups as most of them have an alternative agenda.
From a peer review standpoint here is what is happening in the world of climate science.
1. The earth is warming, and warming faster than it has naturally in the past
2. It is almost certain that this extra warming is being caused by man, not to say its entirely man made of course but we've disrupted the balance.
3. Inaction could cause the earth to experience a 'run-away' train effect when methane deposits from dead frozen vegetation in permafrost begins to thaw. Hence why action is needed sooner rather than later.
A bit more on #3 would be the fact theres actually a lag on the effects of global warming as well due to the size of the earth.
In any event its late and I'm tired now. I'll work at finding some of the more hardcore science journals if any of you are interested but I'll probably have to go to the school for that to get access to their systems.
Sorry for overall ranting nature of this post but some of you need to cut through the politics of this and get straight to the cold hard facts... which are surprisingly hard to get to now.
Thats a ton of fantastic info right there, thanks magibeg . Peer reviewed is the way to go for any true scientific info, I'm glad you brought that up. The only problem is its often very heady, thick, highly statistical, and well, often boring. Some of those articles you just presented are incredibly long as well. Still, great links. I'll have to wade through them more thoroughly sometime when I'm less tired.
Also, I think hat was kind of joking, at least I hope so.........
Lol i know hat was joking, i kind of was there too but then got caught up in the science of it. BBC Horizon actually has an interesting set of videos on space and the effects of a black hole moving through our solar system was featured in one.
And as for my little post, i did kinda touch on the fact that global warming is an extremely complex science and as such none of us are experts on it. Theres a lot to it and if people want to make statements i feel they should do a large amount of research on the subject through multiple reliable sources that have been peer reviewed. Science is not about showmanship, its about science. And science is boring.
True, at least data and methodical experimentation can be boring. However, the meaning behind it I find to be anything but. It in fact, is the most interesting pursuit one could possibly follow, at least when applied in a broad sense of the word (science).
Perhaps for the sake of debate, do you know of any peer-reviewed scientific findings that contradict any of the articles above? I might go a searching later, but I'll have to read them better first.
Actually if you find some you could let me know. Finding peer reviewed science journals that contradict those earlier statements is extremely difficult, most of the arguments used against global warming don't actually survive the peer review process. You may also need access to a university Intranet to really get access to a lot of peer review articles. You could try looking on the IPCC website, believe it or not they publish articles regardless of findings so long as they hold up to scrutiny. The fact that a large number of skeptical papers get shot down is not because they have an agenda towards global warming so much as the skeptical papers not providing enough evidence, or strong enough evidence to support itself.
I'm not sure why people think the IPCC is bias, its an extremely large group of people from various fields of science, and the larger the number of scientists the more strict the science would be. Some may claim that grant money plays a role but what they don't realize is that in many cases the research they are doing would be done if they have grant money or not, and i also find it so hard to believe that theres so many scientists on the same conspiracy, especially when they have so little to gain.
I'm in college for a couple more months, so I have access to the universities recourses (EBSCO host and Gallileo). I will look around a bit tomorrow maybe, although I do think the actual scientific community is pretty unanimous on their interpratitations of the data. I could at least maybe find something that contradicts some of the implications.
People have a hard time trusting anything they find to be unreasonable. People put their values on certain things and will be more inclined to believe one thing than the other, no matter how reputable the source is that contradicts their initial thought process. At least thats what I've come to infer.
Any potential global warming problems from this bad boy? (Also posting it because a lightning storm over an active volcano looks cool.)
bah, by the time we destroy the planet, we'll be able to pick up a new one at wal-mart for 5.99
Haha actually it would be quite the opposite. All the ash being shot up into the atmosphere would actually reflect sunlight away from the surface of the earth and cause cooling. Sweet pics
Separate names with a comma.