Global Warming
I don't need to provide anything specific because they all publish almost the same data. Take a look at global/surface/atmospheric temperatures over 200 years. You will notice for the most part that they have increased quite steadily. Some global temperatures are based on other countries records so they are not very accurate or are only based on a small scale 20 years or whatever.
As for natural vs. natural sources, not sure the exact #'s off the top of my head. The levels have been rising (sharply since the late 1700's - coinciding with the increased consumption of fossil fuels.)
We know CO2 levels are increasing. We are also emitting other greenhouse gases (for example methane) through grazing cattle, etc. Methane is more efficient than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
At the same time depleting CO2 sinks.
Follow the logic. The trend can't continue.
Almost everything I would say is right in here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg ... -FRONT.PDF
As for recycling, what type of recycling do you mean?
Like waste to energy plants? Or just plain aluminum/plastic/etc. recylcing?
We know CO2 levels are increasing. We are also emitting other greenhouse gases (for example methane) through grazing cattle, etc. Methane is more efficient than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
At the same time depleting CO2 sinks.
Follow the logic. The trend can't continue.
Almost everything I would say is right in here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg ... -FRONT.PDF
As for recycling, what type of recycling do you mean?
Like waste to energy plants? Or just plain aluminum/plastic/etc. recylcing?
-
eepberries
- Posts: 1975
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:14 pm
"Matt. Matt, Matt, you don't even-- you're glib. You don't even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, okay. That's what I've done. Then you go and you say where's-- where's the medical test? Where's the blood test that says how much Ritalin you're supposed to get?"shiznit wrote:I can tell you haven't read much about global warming because the world's scientific community does agree with me. The evidence you probally looked at is not very scientific at all and exaggerates the cause and outcome. How about you provide me with evidence that there is an immediate danger from global warming.
By immediate I mean in the next 100 years or so.
here you go morons.
a start...
a start...
The oceans have a tremendous capacity to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Results from a large international research effort published last year indicated that the oceans have already absorbed nearly half of the carbon dioxide produced by humans in the past 200 years--about 120 billion metric tons of carbon.
When carbon dioxide dissolves in water it makes the water more acidic. Ocean acidification starts at the surface and spreads to the deep sea as surface waters mix with deeper layers. The sediment cores studied by Zachos and his coworkers showed the effects of a rapid acidification of the ocean during the PETM. The acidification was more severe than they had expected, suggesting that the amount of carbon dioxide that entered the atmosphere and triggered global warming during the PETM was much greater than previously thought.
The study's conclusions hinge on the effects of ocean acidification on the chemistry of calcium carbonate, the mineral from which certain kinds of phytoplankton (microscopic algae) and other marine organisms build their shells. When these organisms die, their shells rain down onto the seafloor.
Marine sediments are typically rich in calcium carbonate from these shells, but increased acidity causes it to dissolve. The dissolution of calcium carbonate enables the ocean to store large amounts of carbon dioxide in the form of bicarbonate ions.
"The calcium carbonate sitting on the seafloor increases the ocean's buffering capacity, so that it can eventually neutralize most of the changes in acidity caused by the carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere," Zachos said.
Re: Y
discoDave wrote:or bothHM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:either you're trolling or just another huge retardshiznit wrote:We are not arguing biblical beliefs over science here; you are basing your opinion on some naturalist hysteria and a couple of scientists that think we can correctly model our future climate based on computer models. We can’t, we can’t even predict the eruption of volcanoes.
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
Ok. I didn't read this whole thread but here is my take:
Science, and scientists, have an incomplete picture of the natural world when it comes to something as complicated as the climate.
Any information gathered to date is only a miniscule portion of data compared to the age of the planet, even when you leave out the millenia before the habitable climate we now enjoy came into being.
Science knows more about the human body than they do the planet. Simply because while it is complex, it is easier to get more than one sample to study. Not so with Earth.
According to many geologists, we are comming out of an ice age. This would indicate a warming trend. Are we helping it along? Maybe/probably.
Just because the majority of scientists agree on something, does not make it fact. At one point all the scientists in the world believed the world was flat and earth was the center of the univierse. I like to think we've come a long way since then but in the grand scheme of things we've gone from .01cm on the meter stick to maybe .1cm (debatable I'm sure.)
To think that human life and our activities do not effect our environment is idiotic. Everything we do effects the world around us, good and bad.
Thinking we can 'fix' the problem in many cases is equally idiotic. We don't understand nearly enough to fix a problem, and in some attempts have done more harm than good. Curtailing damaging activities is one thing, cures are another.
Science, and scientists, have an incomplete picture of the natural world when it comes to something as complicated as the climate.
Any information gathered to date is only a miniscule portion of data compared to the age of the planet, even when you leave out the millenia before the habitable climate we now enjoy came into being.
Science knows more about the human body than they do the planet. Simply because while it is complex, it is easier to get more than one sample to study. Not so with Earth.
According to many geologists, we are comming out of an ice age. This would indicate a warming trend. Are we helping it along? Maybe/probably.
Just because the majority of scientists agree on something, does not make it fact. At one point all the scientists in the world believed the world was flat and earth was the center of the univierse. I like to think we've come a long way since then but in the grand scheme of things we've gone from .01cm on the meter stick to maybe .1cm (debatable I'm sure.)
To think that human life and our activities do not effect our environment is idiotic. Everything we do effects the world around us, good and bad.
Thinking we can 'fix' the problem in many cases is equally idiotic. We don't understand nearly enough to fix a problem, and in some attempts have done more harm than good. Curtailing damaging activities is one thing, cures are another.
Attempting to paint the issue in an idealistic fashion is risky. Often people use the 'we can't actually fix the problem' as an excuse for inaction.
To echo what you said -
Scientists cannot tell you EXACTLY what the result of our impact on the climate will be in the future, just like a doctor cannot tell you with 100% certainty that you will get cancer if you smoke.
We have lots of solid data to tell us that we are doing *something* and we are observing the effects of this something right now.
The possible price of inaction is too great to ignore the problem.
On a bigger, philosophical picture, I find it odd that someone will go to the doctor when they are sick, listen to the doc's diagnosis and follow the doc's orders. (That is a bit of a generalization obviously - but for the comparison I am getting at it works) They do this because the doctor has spent his or her life studying the human body and the conditions that affect it. Most wouldn't feel qualified, scientifically, in arguing with the doctor over what a specific test result meant, or how to perform a given surgery, or whatever. They respect the doctor's expertise, because his/her diagnosis usually has the person's best interest in mind and their treatment will allow the person to live a better life.
Turn the situation into evolution or climate change, though, and suddenly every soccer mom and businessman dad are qualified enough to discount the opinions and theories of the majority of the world's PhDs in those subjects. I mean hell, we've got elementary school teachers in Kansas involved in the decision about the scientific validity of evolutionary theory. So, what is it about those subjects that makes everyday folks feel scientifically qualified to discount them? It's not the uncertainty behind the science - there is just as much uncertainty behind medicine in many cases. Rather, it is the fact that the findings of these sciences will impact their lives in some way - forcing them to depart from a comfortable norm that they have been living so blissfully in. Evolutionary theory can, in one sense, destroy the conception that they are 'special' and above nature, with a blank check to do as they wish with it. The results of climate change studies show us that we might need to consider changing some of our normal behaviors or perhaps make some sacrifices (for example having to drive environmentally friendly automobiles). When the results of the science hit home - when they upset the happy balance that so many people live in, there is always going to be a lot of resistance. It's just a mini-Copernican revolution playing itself out over and over again.
And lastly, Riker, I think most (but not all) of the measures being looked at to minimize our impact on climate change do involve the curtailing of damaging activities as opposed to being 'cures.'
To echo what you said -
Scientists cannot tell you EXACTLY what the result of our impact on the climate will be in the future, just like a doctor cannot tell you with 100% certainty that you will get cancer if you smoke.
We have lots of solid data to tell us that we are doing *something* and we are observing the effects of this something right now.
The possible price of inaction is too great to ignore the problem.
On a bigger, philosophical picture, I find it odd that someone will go to the doctor when they are sick, listen to the doc's diagnosis and follow the doc's orders. (That is a bit of a generalization obviously - but for the comparison I am getting at it works) They do this because the doctor has spent his or her life studying the human body and the conditions that affect it. Most wouldn't feel qualified, scientifically, in arguing with the doctor over what a specific test result meant, or how to perform a given surgery, or whatever. They respect the doctor's expertise, because his/her diagnosis usually has the person's best interest in mind and their treatment will allow the person to live a better life.
Turn the situation into evolution or climate change, though, and suddenly every soccer mom and businessman dad are qualified enough to discount the opinions and theories of the majority of the world's PhDs in those subjects. I mean hell, we've got elementary school teachers in Kansas involved in the decision about the scientific validity of evolutionary theory. So, what is it about those subjects that makes everyday folks feel scientifically qualified to discount them? It's not the uncertainty behind the science - there is just as much uncertainty behind medicine in many cases. Rather, it is the fact that the findings of these sciences will impact their lives in some way - forcing them to depart from a comfortable norm that they have been living so blissfully in. Evolutionary theory can, in one sense, destroy the conception that they are 'special' and above nature, with a blank check to do as they wish with it. The results of climate change studies show us that we might need to consider changing some of our normal behaviors or perhaps make some sacrifices (for example having to drive environmentally friendly automobiles). When the results of the science hit home - when they upset the happy balance that so many people live in, there is always going to be a lot of resistance. It's just a mini-Copernican revolution playing itself out over and over again.
And lastly, Riker, I think most (but not all) of the measures being looked at to minimize our impact on climate change do involve the curtailing of damaging activities as opposed to being 'cures.'
To take your example a step further, there are several people who will take the advice of a physician with no question good or bad, just as there are several people who will never trust a doctor and not get medical attention no matter how sick they are.
I would think however that physicians have an upper hand on other scientific diciplines because there, i would believe, has been more time spent on curing/treating human disease then ecological. To the point where an average MD may really only study enough to practice his trade rather than research the human body.
Unfortunately, people in general, will take a very short sighted path to an opinion and sometimes miss a larger picture. In the case of the environment there are many factors that contribute to any given issue. In some cases however only a few gain the public attention.
A recent example of this public opinon has been on hybrid cars. A few manufacturers have been releasing these vehicles for years but some have jumped on the SUV bandwagon as well with 'hybrid-SUVs.' I had my doubts, but it took a while for anyone to realize that compared to the non-hybrid model which got 17mpg, the hybrid got a whopping 18!! But people rushed to buy them not realizing (I won't say in droves, but...) I've yet to see a mainstreem article about this however.
Science and scientists are the ways to answer these questions but if only it were scientists making the plans and promoting the fixes. In many cases environmentalists are the ones making the speeches and interpreting the science. It may make it easier to digest, but it also risks leaving a lot out.
A good read on some environmental issues and fixes (good and bad) can be found in the book 'A walk in the Woods' by Bill Bryson. The book isn't about the environment in the sense we are talking here and is more humorous but has some interesting examples and pieces about a great many things.
I would think however that physicians have an upper hand on other scientific diciplines because there, i would believe, has been more time spent on curing/treating human disease then ecological. To the point where an average MD may really only study enough to practice his trade rather than research the human body.
Unfortunately, people in general, will take a very short sighted path to an opinion and sometimes miss a larger picture. In the case of the environment there are many factors that contribute to any given issue. In some cases however only a few gain the public attention.
A recent example of this public opinon has been on hybrid cars. A few manufacturers have been releasing these vehicles for years but some have jumped on the SUV bandwagon as well with 'hybrid-SUVs.' I had my doubts, but it took a while for anyone to realize that compared to the non-hybrid model which got 17mpg, the hybrid got a whopping 18!! But people rushed to buy them not realizing (I won't say in droves, but...) I've yet to see a mainstreem article about this however.
Science and scientists are the ways to answer these questions but if only it were scientists making the plans and promoting the fixes. In many cases environmentalists are the ones making the speeches and interpreting the science. It may make it easier to digest, but it also risks leaving a lot out.
A good read on some environmental issues and fixes (good and bad) can be found in the book 'A walk in the Woods' by Bill Bryson. The book isn't about the environment in the sense we are talking here and is more humorous but has some interesting examples and pieces about a great many things.
Actually, this made me think a second more (hard to believe I know.)tnf wrote:Attempting to paint the issue in an idealistic fashion is risky. Often people use the 'we can't actually fix the problem' as an excuse for inaction.
Some times, action of any kind, is better than no action at all. But sometimes, bad action, can make things worse then having done nothing.' It's a double edged sword.
Doesn't mean we don't do anything. But sometimes just doing 'something' is worse.
-
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
- Posts: 14375
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am
-
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
- Posts: 14375
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am