Global Warming
If you must!
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle
-
- DollarBill Offline
- Posts: 1282
- Joined: March 7th, 2006, 12:57 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
-
- DollarBill Offline
- Posts: 1282
- Joined: March 7th, 2006, 12:57 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Good point, Wes. But there's nothing we can do about it, and it's not warming that much. It's a milder interglacial period than most. So... Just don't everybody believe the alarmist TIME magazine hype. Please don't take away my muscle car (it's not running right now anyway). Thank you.
They call me Dollar Bill 'cause I always make sense.
-
- Evilpandabear Offline
- Posts: 706
- Joined: December 19th, 2005, 4:09 pm
- Location: "Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
- Contact:
Global Warming is total BULLSHIT. Ecologist Patrick Moore, Founder and Former President of Greenpeace, even stated that the phenomena known as "Global Warming" is total BULLSHIT. He's given multiple lectures on this, and has written numerous essays.
"Anyone can teach improv. It's bullshit." -Andy Crouch on June 4th 11:33pm CST
-
- Brian Boyko Offline
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 1:48 am
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
I disagree.
I think global warming would have occured without humanity's interference but we're certainly making it go a hell of alot faster. I also think there's nothing that can be done about it at this point because you've got places warm enough that the "perma"frost is melting and releasing additional CO2s... even if humanity stopped all CO2 production, we've hit the tipping point and it's just going to get worse.
I think global warming would have occured without humanity's interference but we're certainly making it go a hell of alot faster. I also think there's nothing that can be done about it at this point because you've got places warm enough that the "perma"frost is melting and releasing additional CO2s... even if humanity stopped all CO2 production, we've hit the tipping point and it's just going to get worse.
-
- deroosisonfire Offline
- Posts: 553
- Joined: September 10th, 2005, 4:49 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
bullshit, indeed.
Reasons for concern about global climate change:
1. The relationship between global mean temperature increase and damage to or irreparable loss of unique and threatened systems
2. The relationship between global mean temperature increase and the distribution of impacts
3. The relationship between global mean temperature increase and global aggregate damages
4. The relationship between global mean temperature increase and the probability of extreme weather events
5. The relationship between global mean temperature increase and the probability of large-scale singular events such as the breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet or the collapse of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation.
(from the Intergovernmental Pantel on Climate Change Working Group II, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/658.htm )
I will not argue with you about the degree of involvement of humans, that's not the point. The point is that the global climate is changing, and this is not a minor issue. We are losing species. Losing biodiversity causes ecosystems to collapse. Ecosystems that provide us with medicine, food, oxygen. I may sound alarmist, but I assure you that this is some very real, very serious biology. And that's just point 1.
1. The relationship between global mean temperature increase and damage to or irreparable loss of unique and threatened systems
2. The relationship between global mean temperature increase and the distribution of impacts
3. The relationship between global mean temperature increase and global aggregate damages
4. The relationship between global mean temperature increase and the probability of extreme weather events
5. The relationship between global mean temperature increase and the probability of large-scale singular events such as the breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet or the collapse of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation.
(from the Intergovernmental Pantel on Climate Change Working Group II, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/658.htm )
I will not argue with you about the degree of involvement of humans, that's not the point. The point is that the global climate is changing, and this is not a minor issue. We are losing species. Losing biodiversity causes ecosystems to collapse. Ecosystems that provide us with medicine, food, oxygen. I may sound alarmist, but I assure you that this is some very real, very serious biology. And that's just point 1.
"There's no such thing as extra pepperoni. There's just pepperoni you can transfer to another person."
-Wes
-Wes
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
You've all missed the point...
Global warming may or may not be happening.
Humans may or may not be at fault.
Ecosystems may or may not be collapsing.
But...the point is...
We're improvisers. What the fuck do we care!? Stop wasting our time with this intelligent discussion and post something more along the lines of "Who farted?"
thank you.
Global warming may or may not be happening.
Humans may or may not be at fault.
Ecosystems may or may not be collapsing.
But...the point is...
We're improvisers. What the fuck do we care!? Stop wasting our time with this intelligent discussion and post something more along the lines of "Who farted?"
thank you.
-
- HerrHerr Offline
- Posts: 2600
- Joined: August 10th, 2005, 12:14 pm
- Location: Istanbul, not Constantinople
- Contact:
-
- kaci_beeler Offline
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: September 4th, 2005, 10:27 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
The problem is that damn "hockey stick" graph that's got everyone in a tizzy:
Yes, that looks oh so spooky and bad, but (as New Scientist did a great article on in their curent issue) the collection methods are often considered questionable at best for periods before 1850. And this also only takes in to account the past 1000 years (again, only 150 of which have any validity and only 40 or so of those with "modern" techniques and accuracy). When you take into account the whole of post-cambrian history, we're actually in one of the coldest periods in Earth's existence, some 3 or 4 degrees below Earth's average temperature:
The question remains how much do we have to do with it. And I won't deny our involvement in small scale issues like local ecosystem collapses. We can really screw up parts of the planet (Iraq marshlands, anyone? Dust Bowl?), but on the large scale...I'm still waiting for stronger evidence of mankind's involvement. For what it's worth, scientists have already announced that the up-coming 11 year sunspot cycle is thought to be the most intense on record and even Mars is thought by some to have seen minimal warming, shorter winters, and smaller ice caps in the past few decades. But where is this evidence in the fear-mongering? As for weather anomolies and extreme conditions, not all Earth Scientists are convinced of this either. New Orleans was called a time bomb waiting for a Cat 5 since the 60's. And the head of one major weather center in speaking about wether global warming added to Katrina's strength basically said a 1 degree rise in Earth temps would result in about a 5 mph gain in wind speed over the course of about 100 years, so a 150 mph storm would become a 155 mph storm in 2105...so no, it didn't.
Species loss we DO play a roll in, but even then should not the question be asked "does species loss matter?" Sure, personally, I think it does for what are essentially personal reasons, but in nature--even though it can take long periods of time--mother nature has adapted, bred, destroyed, and replaced species many times without the help or hindrance of mankind.
Are we just another species or does our intellectual superiority come shackled with a moral obligation to protect those weaker than ourselves? Invasive species wipe out local populations all the time and they don't think twice about doing so. And we don't condemn them for doing so (save maybe our involvement in introducing the invasive species). It is survival of the fittest and nature's own rule, not ours.
Are we merely the fittest species to yet come along (and would we not deserve, too, to be wiped out by any superior mechanical species we then construct) and thus we are granted immunity in our dealings with other, less-fit species? OR...have we become so smart as to effectively remove ourself from nature, from our status as "animal," and put ourselves on a course of sheperding that which we see as weaker and susecptible to our own craven ravengings?
How's that for hot button?
Yes, that looks oh so spooky and bad, but (as New Scientist did a great article on in their curent issue) the collection methods are often considered questionable at best for periods before 1850. And this also only takes in to account the past 1000 years (again, only 150 of which have any validity and only 40 or so of those with "modern" techniques and accuracy). When you take into account the whole of post-cambrian history, we're actually in one of the coldest periods in Earth's existence, some 3 or 4 degrees below Earth's average temperature:
The question remains how much do we have to do with it. And I won't deny our involvement in small scale issues like local ecosystem collapses. We can really screw up parts of the planet (Iraq marshlands, anyone? Dust Bowl?), but on the large scale...I'm still waiting for stronger evidence of mankind's involvement. For what it's worth, scientists have already announced that the up-coming 11 year sunspot cycle is thought to be the most intense on record and even Mars is thought by some to have seen minimal warming, shorter winters, and smaller ice caps in the past few decades. But where is this evidence in the fear-mongering? As for weather anomolies and extreme conditions, not all Earth Scientists are convinced of this either. New Orleans was called a time bomb waiting for a Cat 5 since the 60's. And the head of one major weather center in speaking about wether global warming added to Katrina's strength basically said a 1 degree rise in Earth temps would result in about a 5 mph gain in wind speed over the course of about 100 years, so a 150 mph storm would become a 155 mph storm in 2105...so no, it didn't.
Species loss we DO play a roll in, but even then should not the question be asked "does species loss matter?" Sure, personally, I think it does for what are essentially personal reasons, but in nature--even though it can take long periods of time--mother nature has adapted, bred, destroyed, and replaced species many times without the help or hindrance of mankind.
Are we just another species or does our intellectual superiority come shackled with a moral obligation to protect those weaker than ourselves? Invasive species wipe out local populations all the time and they don't think twice about doing so. And we don't condemn them for doing so (save maybe our involvement in introducing the invasive species). It is survival of the fittest and nature's own rule, not ours.
Are we merely the fittest species to yet come along (and would we not deserve, too, to be wiped out by any superior mechanical species we then construct) and thus we are granted immunity in our dealings with other, less-fit species? OR...have we become so smart as to effectively remove ourself from nature, from our status as "animal," and put ourselves on a course of sheperding that which we see as weaker and susecptible to our own craven ravengings?
How's that for hot button?
Global warming can be fixed fairly easily.
We have numerous stockpiles of unused nuclear weapons now that the cold war is over. We also have a lot of time on our hands these days now that George W got "Risk" for his X-Box.
All we need to do is transport the unused warheads to areas ( or countries) that dislike us. We detonate them at a predetermined time and the resulting ash will head to the atmosphere and block out the sun's rays, resulting in a 'winter-like' drop in temperatures. Our enemies are gone, and we now have the planet 40 degrees cooler.
On the downside we'll all glow in the dark and radiation doesn't mix well with plant or animal life.
But at least we would have stopped global warming.
We have numerous stockpiles of unused nuclear weapons now that the cold war is over. We also have a lot of time on our hands these days now that George W got "Risk" for his X-Box.
All we need to do is transport the unused warheads to areas ( or countries) that dislike us. We detonate them at a predetermined time and the resulting ash will head to the atmosphere and block out the sun's rays, resulting in a 'winter-like' drop in temperatures. Our enemies are gone, and we now have the planet 40 degrees cooler.
On the downside we'll all glow in the dark and radiation doesn't mix well with plant or animal life.
But at least we would have stopped global warming.
-
- kaci_beeler Offline
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: September 4th, 2005, 10:27 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
-
- DollarBill Offline
- Posts: 1282
- Joined: March 7th, 2006, 12:57 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Well Wes, we agree again. The hockey stick graph is based on freakin tree ring data that could possibly show years of extreme wetness rather than hotness. Tree rings also only represent part of the year, the growth season. It's not even a total record. Plus the graph totally leaves out the "little ice age" in the 1600's because the data used is based on plants that are highly resistant to temperature change! But nobody blames that random appearance of giant glaciers on man's lack of gas output (flatulence or otherwise).
You know how they tell if species are extinct? They look for them... They look for them in a small area and then expand their findings. It's all guess work. Besides, if species don't die out, how are others to rise up?
And while the calving of the antarctic pinensula is still happing the rest of the 90% of it is getting colder and increasing with something like over 200 gigatons of ice per year or something.
The world is fine. People who are afraid of global warming aren't fearing for the world. They are fearing for humans. The earth is such a complicated system that we shouldn't pretend to try and understand it, much less have the balls to think that we could destroy it in a hundred years.
Gia is a salty bitch, and she'll do what she wants.
You know how they tell if species are extinct? They look for them... They look for them in a small area and then expand their findings. It's all guess work. Besides, if species don't die out, how are others to rise up?
And while the calving of the antarctic pinensula is still happing the rest of the 90% of it is getting colder and increasing with something like over 200 gigatons of ice per year or something.
The world is fine. People who are afraid of global warming aren't fearing for the world. They are fearing for humans. The earth is such a complicated system that we shouldn't pretend to try and understand it, much less have the balls to think that we could destroy it in a hundred years.
Gia is a salty bitch, and she'll do what she wants.
They call me Dollar Bill 'cause I always make sense.
-
- beardedlamb Offline
- Posts: 2676
- Joined: October 14th, 2005, 1:36 pm
- Location: austin
- Contact: