|
Post by swan on Jun 7, 2010 20:01:07 GMT -5
Not to say that we can take all the responsibility off of the individual's shoulders, because we are all still responsible for our own impacts on the environment, but I feel like the much more important thing here is what the industrial/scientific/political world is doing about it. Rather than having us minimize all the bad things we do to the environment, it's the responsibility of these groups to fundamentally change the way we do them so that they don't hurt the environment in the first place. In my opinion, the scientific world is just finally getting up to speed with ridding the world of all of the ways that we harm the environment, but the government/industrial complex are both lagging equally behind. The government should take the bull by the horns and make it so industry adapts to new technologies and resources, or that they rightly and justly die out. I agree, individuals can only do so much and sooner or later the industrial world is gonna have to start taking steps to become more environmentally friendly.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 7, 2010 20:10:38 GMT -5
KipEnyan, if you think all of that is going to hit us, why aren't you doing something about it?
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 7, 2010 20:18:39 GMT -5
KipEnyan, if you think all of that is going to hit us, why aren't you doing something about it? SEE: My last post. I'm not an engineer, scientist, or politician. I can do what I can to minimize my own personal impact, but the effect of my minimization is minimal. The real impact comes when we shift the entire world away from it's current industrial model to a new, greener one.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 7, 2010 20:45:04 GMT -5
Been there done that. Still a myth. Have you ever heard of the expression that "too much of one thing isn't good for you" perhaps you should consider that as it applies for everything. Also, unless your are science major or something there's no reason why you should assume that you are somehow smarter than them. That was uncalled for........I can say the same thing to you on any topic on this forum. So, what is your major?
|
|
j
Moon
Posts: 127
|
Post by j on Jun 7, 2010 22:08:42 GMT -5
I believe that global warming is a natural occurrence. Over centuries the Earth will warm up and cool down. The most recent warming could be sped up due to humanity's fault, but it would've occurred anyway. Where I live the past two or three years have been cooler than normal, hardly ever going above ninety degrees in the summer, which is huge since the average temp is usually above 100. With the ozone hole: the Earth switches magnetic poles periodically. When they are gearing up to switch holes throughout the atmosphere will open and become more numerous, resulting in a loss of nearly all atmosphere. Fortunately, the fossil records show no mass extinction during this time. According to data based on past pole switches, we are more than overdue for the south pole to become the new north. As for what I do for the environment: Nothing. I do not recycle and I drive a 14 year old SUV that probably makes up in emissions for all the hybrids in my city. However, my city is extremely environmentally inclined, mostly because it's a college town. That does not mean that I do not support the development of renewable energy sources. The thing is, we the people cannot depend on the government to fund research into renewable energy since they are tied up in deals with the oil company. Take the oil spill for example: Obama received quite a bit of money from BP. In exchange he let them get away with not having a shut off valve. Smart move that. Bill Gates has taken a step in the right direction and started funding research into the most likely alternative energy source, even if that means nuclear energy. To sum up: Global Warming is just the new fad going around and being overblown. That does not mean that new energy sources don't need to be found, especially since I believe that we might be closer than anyone could imagine to running out of fossil fuels.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 8, 2010 18:01:41 GMT -5
I believe that global warming is a natural occurrence. Over centuries the Earth will warm up and cool down. The most recent warming could be sped up due to humanity's fault, but it would've occurred anyway. Where I live the past two or three years have been cooler than normal, hardly ever going above ninety degrees in the summer, which is huge since the average temp is usually above 100. With the ozone hole: the Earth switches magnetic poles periodically. When they are gearing up to switch holes throughout the atmosphere will open and become more numerous, resulting in a loss of nearly all atmosphere. Fortunately, the fossil records show no mass extinction during this time. According to data based on past pole switches, we are more than overdue for the south pole to become the new north. As for what I do for the environment: Nothing. I do not recycle and I drive a 14 year old SUV that probably makes up in emissions for all the hybrids in my city. However, my city is extremely environmentally inclined, mostly because it's a college town. That does not mean that I do not support the development of renewable energy sources. The thing is, we the people cannot depend on the government to fund research into renewable energy since they are tied up in deals with the oil company. Take the oil spill for example: Obama received quite a bit of money from BP. In exchange he let them get away with not having a shut off valve. Smart move that. Bill Gates has taken a step in the right direction and started funding research into the most likely alternative energy source, even if that means nuclear energy. To sum up: Global Warming is just the new fad going around and being overblown. That does not mean that new energy sources don't need to be found, especially since I believe that we might be closer than anyone could imagine to running out of fossil fuels. Alright, let's dismantle this bit by bit: I believe that global warming is a natural occurrence. Over centuries the Earth will warm up and cool down. The most recent warming could be sped up due to humanity's fault, but it would've occurred anyway. Where I live the past two or three years have been cooler than normal, hardly ever going above ninety degrees in the summer, which is huge since the average temp is usually above 100. I've already addressed this, but I'll do it again. Yes, over centuries the Earth warms and cools, and yes, the most recent warm has been drastically accelerated by humans, and yes, it would've occurred anyways to an extent. The key here is the drastic acceleration. It's like saying "We'd get to that wall going the 2 mph that this car goes just idling anyways. What's it matter if someone slams on the gas and we reach the wall going 70?" It makes a big difference. And your anecdotal two-three years of cooler summers evidence is for all intents and purposes useless. 1) That's subjective evidence, what are the actual average yearly temperatures for that time period. 2) Your time period is too short to measure any actual gradual change in average temperature 3) The greater problem here is average temperatures globally, and specifically, average temperatures in the Arctic. The average temperatures of one warm weather city are fairly irrelevant. With the ozone hole: the Earth switches magnetic poles periodically. When they are gearing up to switch holes throughout the atmosphere will open and become more numerous, resulting in a loss of nearly all atmosphere. Fortunately, the fossil records show no mass extinction during this time. According to data based on past pole switches, we are more than overdue for the south pole to become the new north. Yes, the Earth switches magnetic poles periodically. No, when it is gearing up to switch holes do not magically open in the atmosphere, and no, we don't lose nearly all atmosphere. The fossil record is inconclusive on these switch periods, but it is believed that a plurality of each kingdom survive the change. Yes, we are a little bit overdue for a pole swap from what we can estimate. Back to your confusion about "holes in the atmosphere". First off, if we experienced "a loss of nearly all atmosphere", all but the deepest sea life on the Earth would die. You seem to not have a strong grasp on what the term "atmosphere" means. If we lost nearly all atmosphere, we would be the moon. Next, the ozone layer is a literal layer of the molecule ozone, chemical formula O3. This layer helps immensely in absorbing cosmic radiation. It is unaffected by any shifting of the Earth's poles. What DOES happen when the Earth's poles shift, is that the Earth's magnetic field shifts and becomes extremely diminished. This can be a problem because the electromagnetically charged solar winds are largely deflected by our magnetic field. In the absence of one, we would be hit with massive electromagnetic waves, as well as a somewhat increased level of radiation. It is this occurrence, that scientists believe many species have survived in years past, NOT a "loss of atmosphere". As for what I do for the environment: Nothing. I do not recycle and I drive a 14 year old SUV that probably makes up in emissions for all the hybrids in my city. However, my city is extremely environmentally inclined, mostly because it's a college town. That does not mean that I do not support the development of renewable energy sources. The thing is, we the people cannot depend on the government to fund research into renewable energy since they are tied up in deals with the oil company. Take the oil spill for example: Obama received quite a bit of money from BP. In exchange he let them get away with not having a shut off valve. Smart move that. Bill Gates has taken a step in the right direction and started funding research into the most likely alternative energy source, even if that means nuclear energy. Not recycling and driving a gas-guzzler isn't excusable because you feel that you're offset because you're surrounded by environmentally conscious people. Those environmentally conscious people probably still can't even offset their OWN carbon footprint, nevertheless yours. It is good that you're in favor of renewable energy research/development. And it's not the government's job to do the research, it's the governments job to crack down on high carbon-emission industries that don't work to adapt to newer greener methods. A lot of different people are funding new forms of renewable energy, Bill Gates included. I'm not sure what you mean by "even if that means nuclear energy" like nuclear energy is some taboo no-no. It's not the 50's anymore. And even so, there are much more viable and less hazardous forms of renewable energy than nuclear power. As far as your little Obama comment, it's such a poorly researched and quite frankly inane comment, that I almost feel sick to sink down low enough to rebut it, but rebut it I shall. Yes, in 2008 Obama received $71,000 from BP in campaign contributions. Yes, BP has a fairly prominent role in the lobbying scene. Now here is where your argument gets all wonky. First off, campaign contributions are not bribes. When he was running, Obama didn't go "If you give me 70k, I'll loosen up regulations on your gulf oil rigs." BP contributed so much to the Obama camp (Relatively speaking, the amount is actually very small) because Obama has spoken openly for repealing many of our localized drilling bans, which BP would obviously like, and it would make them want him in office, hence, contributions. Now to the "shut-off valve". I believe the mechanism you're referencing is the blow-out preventer. Obama did not, nor did anyone else, allow BP to "not have one" on their rig. The gulf rig did indeed have a blow-out preventer, but it was in a state of slight disrepair due solely to the fault of BP. (BP blames the manufacturer of the rig itself, but that's no excuse, it's BP's job to maintain it.) When the explosion that destroyed the rig happened, the below-par BOP was made to be completely non-functional, bringing us to our current dilemma. To sum up: Global Warming is just the new fad going around and being overblown. That does not mean that new energy sources don't need to be found, especially since I believe that we might be closer than anyone could imagine to running out of fossil fuels. I think I've covered extensively here and other places how global warming is not a fad. Quite frankly, I find that idea somewhat comical, because who the fuck would want that fad? We're not THAT close to running out of fossil fuels. At present, we're not even in danger. The problem is with rapidly industrializing powers like China putting up at least 1 coal plant per DAY on average, the demand is increasing exponentially while the supply remains a constant (until we extract it, that is, then it is decreased). But yes, obviously alternative fuels are a very real very present necessity. That's pretty much that. If you don't Due to my laziness and short attention span, I have decided not to read your lengthy post. this, you might actually learn a fair amount.
|
|
j
Moon
Posts: 127
|
Post by j on Jun 8, 2010 18:36:16 GMT -5
KipEnyan: Sorry about the Obama bit. I had been told at one point that he lowered regulations for the shut off valve. I should have researched it more to see if that was the truth or not before mentioning it. Yes, I did use the term atmosphere a bit too loosely when talking about the pole switches. Yes, I realize that one city's temperatures are insignificant in global terms, but I am enjoying my little corner of global warming. On the bright side of global warming, people live better in warmer climates. However, the temperature for the past decade has remained steady, not raising, but, if anything, falling. This is even with the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to a doubtful link between temperature raising and the gas.
I'm sorry if you took my comment about be doing nothing because I live in an environmentally minded place wrong. I don't do nothing because others do more. I do nothing because I don't care. In fact mine, and my family's, carbon footprint is much lower than the average family's. And we do nothing environmentally friendly and anything that we do that could be construed as environmentally friendly, we do because it makes more sense financially to do so and ignore the environment part.
Believe it or not, a lot of people do not like nuclear energy for one reason or another. I put the 'even if it's nuclear energy' in because Gates said that when he announced he was financing research. People still hold onto a hatred of nuclear technology from the 50s through the 80s. I do not mind the idea of nuclear energy. Sure I would rather drive a hydrogen car than an nuclear one, but I'll probably drive anything that costs less than having to spend $2.60 a gallon.
China is China. They do not care to regulate anything and just do what they want. They have enough power in the world at the moment so that no one else can really tell them to start monitoring their emissions and clean up their air so people can actually breathe.
About the fad part: There is always something going to be wrong with the world. That thing will be blown out of proportion until a new thing comes along. Humans are occupied with events that could possible end the world and if it's not one thing, it's another. This will eventually pass once we hit another ice age, that is if we can survive 2012 first.
|
|
|
Post by The Monster on Jun 8, 2010 19:06:47 GMT -5
Have you ever heard of the expression that "too much of one thing isn't good for you" perhaps you should consider that as it applies for everything. Also, unless your are science major or something there's no reason why you should assume that you are somehow smarter than them. That was uncalled for........I can say the same thing to you on any topic on this forum. So, what is your major? Let me explain my comment a clearer...cause I admit I was a bit exhausted at the time (got back from work). Okay so as you mentioned earlier "scientists are overreacting to the global warming situation" (which you have failed to provide solid evidence for...). So I responded with the "major joke" which is basically expressing my disagreement with your hypothesis; by stating that unless you have a serious understand on the topic (with evidence i.e. studies, new reports w/e...). then there is no reason why you should be making such a claim. Because so far my understanding of your argument is that based on our "past" scientists have failed to properly estimate the severity of disasters. Which in a way is true, although doesn't explain how global warming isn't happening...
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 9, 2010 1:00:57 GMT -5
That was uncalled for........I can say the same thing to you on any topic on this forum. So, what is your major? Let me explain my comment a clearer...cause I admit I was a bit exhausted at the time (got back from work). Okay so as you mentioned earlier "scientists are overreacting to the global warming situation" (which you have failed to provide solid evidence for...). So I responded with the "major joke" which is basically expressing my disagreement with your hypothesis; by stating that unless you have a serious understand on the topic (with evidence i.e. studies, new reports w/e...). then there is no reason why you should be making such a claim. Because so far my understanding of your argument is that based on our "past" scientists have failed to properly estimate the severity of disasters. Which in a way is true, although doesn't explain how global warming isn't happening... First of all, the response you made before wasn't to me, I think you got me mixed up with another person. Second, there is a huge difference between not believing in something and believing that the situation is being over exaggerate. Third, I acknowledge my lack of understanding in this subject, but at the same time lets keep in mind that this is just some average forum, not a scientific convention. I notice people in this forum making incorrect statements about subjects that I do have understanding about, but I never tell them that their point is invalid just because they don't have an understanding in a given subject, you should attack their statement, not the person itself.
|
|
|
Post by The Monster on Jun 9, 2010 13:59:06 GMT -5
Let me explain my comment a clearer...cause I admit I was a bit exhausted at the time (got back from work). Okay so as you mentioned earlier "scientists are overreacting to the global warming situation" (which you have failed to provide solid evidence for...). So I responded with the "major joke" which is basically expressing my disagreement with your hypothesis; by stating that unless you have a serious understand on the topic (with evidence i.e. studies, new reports w/e...). then there is no reason why you should be making such a claim. Because so far my understanding of your argument is that based on our "past" scientists have failed to properly estimate the severity of disasters. Which in a way is true, although doesn't explain how global warming isn't happening... First of all, the response you made before wasn't to me, I think you got me mixed up with another person. Second, there is a huge difference between not believing in something and believing that the situation is being over exaggerate. Third, I acknowledge my lack of understanding in this subject, but at the same time lets keep in mind that this is just some average forum, not a scientific convention. I notice people in this forum making incorrect statements about subjects that I do have understanding about, but I never tell them that their point is invalid just because they don't have an understanding in a given subject, you should attack their statement, not the person itself. Well if I offended anyone then I am sorry. I just think making blatant statements is very ignorant and deceiving towards the reader...for why make the statement in the first place unless you have some solid evidence to back it up. Now just to clear things up I understand what a joke is, and believe is always good to look to the humorous side of things (with limitations of course). For example I can just say GOD ISN'T REAL of a religious topic or COMMUNISM IS THE WAY TO GO on a political one. Which may be true, but should still be explained. Now this is what I was trying to understand from the previous user I was discussing with. Basically I just wanted to hear his point of view on the matter (I didn't mean to personally attack him). Lastly, if you don't have an understanding of the topic then do some research (learn about it), before all of a sudden assuming that it's true because someone told you. Also, I think this should apply for anything that isn't opinionated, because unless you can back up you ideas (i.e. studies) then their is no reason to express them, correct?.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 9, 2010 20:09:19 GMT -5
Yes, I realize that one city's temperatures are insignificant in global terms, but I am enjoying my little corner of global warming. On the bright side of global warming, people live better in warmer climates. However, the temperature for the past decade has remained steady, not raising, but, if anything, falling. This is even with the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to a doubtful link between temperature raising and the gas. This is the only place where I have serious objective beef with your post. The rest of my qualms could be construed as subjective, so I'll omit them. On the bright side of global warming, people live better in warmer climates. No, quite frankly, they don't. Warmest region on average on Earth--Saharan Africa. Also the lowest standard of living. Just because you enjoy 90 degree weather means nothing. In fact, it's rather ignorant and selfish of you. For the 234692347234 time, read the facts that I post! Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850. The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004. Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss. Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later. Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise. I'll leave it at that in hopes that a shorter, less daunting list means you won't skip over it. However, the temperature for the past decade has remained steady, not raising, but, if anything, falling. This is even with the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to a doubtful link between temperature raising and the gas. Evidence please. The evidence I just posted, and all the evidence I've found on the matter speaks to the contrary. Actually, you HAVE no evidence, because the fact that you just said "leading to a doubtful link between temperature raising and gas" is completely ignorant. The Greenhouse Effect is a scientifically established result of so-called "greenhouse gases". There is no debate on that matter. We know how things like water vapor and CO2 and methane trap heat in the atmosphere. The few credible scientists (and by few, I mean that in the most literal sense) who do still debate global warming do it on the basis of the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycle, which I have also already addressed.
|
|
j
Moon
Posts: 127
|
Post by j on Jun 9, 2010 21:33:42 GMT -5
Okay, I do NOT enjoy 90 degree weather and would much rather live somewhere where the temperature does not get above 70 degrees. I was saying that I enjoy the temperatures in the summer right now because instead of being somewhere between 100 and 110 degrees everyday throughout June, July and August, it now only gets to be about 90 at most. And it IS a fact that humans would thrive better in a climate of about 2 degrees warmer. I'm not talking about Sahara hot, and I'm not talking about standard of living in places that typically have a low SoL in the first place. I'm talking biologically, humans would be able to thrive better in a warmer climate.
Also this isn't the first time all the ice in the Antarctic has disappeared. There is a few centuries old map correctly detailing the landmass, not the ice, the actual LAND, of Antarctica through all the ice. This is something that modern science has not been able to do recently. This also suggests that even if all the ice DOES melt, it will eventually come back.
And there was a study this YEAR saying that the link between CO2 and the raise in temperature is not directly correlated. There have been times where the CO2 stays the same or decreases and the temperature still goes up as well as CO2 increase and the temperature goes down.
Before you start saying that I do not know my facts, maybe you should also check out some for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 10, 2010 14:27:13 GMT -5
You still haven't given me a "fact". only hearsay. Can I have some FACTS please?
|
|
j
Moon
Posts: 127
|
Post by j on Jun 11, 2010 15:00:14 GMT -5
KipEnyan: How is it hearsay?! I have given you straight up facts! Just because they don't agree with your opinion on the matter does not mean they aren't facts. The one about Antarctica: www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htmTemperature increases CO2: motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/co2-lags-temperature-how-alarmists.htmlHigher temperature is good: from various websites pointing out that high temperature means longer growing season with healthier plants which means people would have more, better food. Historical case of this would be the Incas.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 11, 2010 16:46:14 GMT -5
KipEnyan: How is it hearsay?! I have given you straight up facts! Just because they don't agree with your opinion on the matter does not mean they aren't facts. The one about Antarctica: www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htmTemperature increases CO2: motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/co2-lags-temperature-how-alarmists.htmlHigher temperature is good: from various websites pointing out that high temperature means longer growing season with healthier plants which means people would have more, better food. Historical case of this would be the Incas. Your own link explicitly states that the so called Piri Reis map does not, in fact, accurately outline the coast of Antarctica. As to the second one, he really doesn't say anything, he merely cuts down an opposing opinion with such insightful scientific blurbs as: "In my opinion, there can be no doubts that the reader who would think that the relevance of the greenhouse effect has been proven in this particular Reasic's paragraph should see her doctor." "This kind of "argument" could be good enough for something in between orangutans and chimpanzees." "But note that Reasic can spell "outgassing": that's really impressive!" "This is another really cute comment. Most kids in the kindergarden will agree with me" "And some of the alarmist readers are grateful for these great arguments! Well, one person's waste is another person's cake." "Eric Steig has created another meaningless text composed of lies and fog about this topic." Sorry, but it's a bit hard to glean any information through the giant cloud of smug obfuscating his argument.
|
|
j
Moon
Posts: 127
|
Post by j on Jun 11, 2010 18:44:46 GMT -5
I just copied the first link that I found about the topic. Looking back, it was't exactly the best one to choose. However, that does not make the point any less true. Look at any graph showing CO2 and temperature and there is always a 200-800 year lag by the CO2 every time the temperature begins to raise. And the link to the Piri Reis map does nothing but state how it is extremely similar to Antarctica. It clearly identifies the coastline as well as plateaus and rivers running throughout it. The map has also been varified by scientists doing seismic mapping of Antarctica. The only part where they suggest it unlikely that it is a map is when they say that scientists believe the ice covering Antarctica has been around since 4000 BC whereas the map, and others like it, was made in the 1500s.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Jun 11, 2010 20:11:43 GMT -5
What pisses me off is that there are people who have lied to make global warming seem worse than it is. Those people have caused some (though certainly not all) of the rejection of it. Also, it would be more accurate to call it global climate change; some areas of the world have actually cooled rather than getting warmer, and it's causing weather oddities in both directions. A lot of Americans pointed out that winter was unusually cold (which is hardly an accurate example of a global event, but that's beside the point), yet at the same time failed to notice that a lot of Canada was experiencing spring temperatures through the entire winter (causing water problems around here, as there wasn't nearly enough snow pack to replenish our water supplies).
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 11, 2010 20:29:24 GMT -5
Indeed, global warming is just a broad term for the effects of greenhouse gases in high atmospheric concentrations, and there are a seemingly endless gamut of problems it causes. Also, in response to your 800 year lag. www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/images/historical03.gifI'm sorry, but the correlation is just too much for me. Regardless of Earth's historic warming/cooling trends, just look at the data. CO2 clearly starts to rise before temperature, and temperature follows it like a duckling from there on out.
|
|
j
Moon
Posts: 127
|
Post by j on Jun 11, 2010 21:12:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mynameisnotimporta on Jun 11, 2010 22:02:05 GMT -5
1) Global warming is a myth. 2) Getting a job this summer, and save money up for when I'm 18. 3) Oh, those darn fossil fuels. Global Warming isn't a myth the myth us that we are causing it
|
|