Global Warming

[EdgeMoragan]

There was a thread about this before, but mentioning the ocean's PH made me wanna bring this up again.

Oceanic gyre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_P..._Garbage_Patch
Basically there are portions of ocean everywhere turning into plastic soup, it gets into the fish--->into things that eat the fish---> and so on. There are even major cross-ocean shippers that entirely avoid these places because of complications with ship speed, debri, and other misc factors.

[aurik]

Obama believes in god right? rofl...

Piss-poor analogy: there's not a huge body of evidence showing that god probably doesn't exist. On the other hand, pretty much all the evidence pointing to evolution suggests that "design" isn't intelligently guided at all.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Piss-poor analogy: there's not a huge body of evidence showing that god probably doesn't exist. On the other hand, pretty much all the evidence pointing to evolution suggests that "design" isn't intelligently guided at all.

Probably, but instead of saying "lol he believes in..." it would make more sense to refute it.

[Aerin]

It's worth noting that just because humans may be able to weather the storm of global climate change, other species wont be able to. And while some believe that even though humans have an impact, it's minimal, that doesn't at all mean we shouldn't try to stop the affect we're having.

Even if the primary cause of global climate change is a hot/cold cycle, we are still in trouble. Take the pH level of seawater I quoted earlier. A higher acidity of the oceans means more species of fish die off. Most likely even ones we depend on for sources of food. Why does this matter?

Well the median projection for the total population in 2050 is around 7.5 billion people. We currently have 6.5 billion, and we also are starting to see a real problem not just with food shortage, but water shortage. Not to mention energy. It takes water to make energy, and it takes energy to make water. Converting sea water to fresh water requires massive amounts of electricity, and nuclear power plants require enormous amounts of water for cooling purposes. Just for some examples.

We can't just turn our back on what we're expelling into the atmosphere, even if you believe the effect humans have on climate change is minimal. The fact is that with our population growth, it cascades into a plethora of other problems.

[aurik]

Probably, but instead of saying "lol he believes in..." it would make more sense to refute it.

It's been refuted lots, check out Wikipedia. I'm just making the point that if he can convince himself to support Intelligent Design, he's obviously not much of a scientist.

We've linked you repeatedly to articles both on this subject and others (tax policy, for example!) and you pretty much just ignore the counter-arguments, redefining words to suit your mental model because you're incapable of learning. Why should we bother linking any more?

[Kaylia]

This is something that we really know nothing about. There is evidence that it is relatively quick compared to the history of the Earth but not relative to humans. It could take years for the flip to take place and there are theories that during the transition the magnetosphere will almost completely disappear.

My guess is during that period albinos will be wiped from the Earth and darker skinned people will prevail.

That's what I meant by quick. Knowing that it should be over before we get wiped is good enough for me.

[zoobernut]

Can you imagine what the Earth would be like if we had to go through 10 years of no cell phones no satellites, no navigation, virtually no electronics?

It would be amazing the human race would be slammed into the dark ages almost instantly.

[Tristam]

Probably, but instead of saying "lol he believes in..." it would make more sense to refute it.

Before you go any further, I want you to be able to tell me what you think that Spencer article means, and then tell me what he showed that proved it. At first glance there were a number of things that jumped out at me, let's see if you caught them.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

We've linked you repeatedly to articles both on this subject and others (tax policy, for example!) and you pretty much just ignore the counter-arguments, redefining words to suit your mental model because you're incapable of learning. Why should we bother linking any more?

No, you just extended a definition to fit your ideology.

@Trist: It means to me that it's inconclusive.

[Aerin]

No, you just extended a definition to fit your ideology.

@Trist: It means to me that it's inconclusive.

That's pretty amazing what you just did there. In two sentences and one post. Bravo.

[Correction]

Using Mr. Craven's logic, I could argue that people should stop eating because, no matter how small the risk, people can (and do) die from choking on food. Paraphrasing Mr. Craven, not eating is the only responsible course of action to prevent choking to death. The only problem with this, of course, is that we would all die of starvation if we quit eating.

This guy is garbage as a scientist if he fails basic logic.

[Metah]

There is as much evidence of global cooling as there is global warming. At this current time there is no possible way in order to definately determine which will occur or when.

At any rate, nothing planet-destroying will happen within our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes. And I don't know about you guys, but I don't care what happens after my theoretical children's lives.

[Aerin]

There is as much evidence of global cooling as there is global warming. At this current time there is no possible way in order to definately determine which will occur or when.

At any rate, nothing planet-destroying will happen within our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes. And I don't know about you guys, but I don't care what happens after my theoretical children's lives.

Global warming is the popular term, it's actually Global Climate Change. It's never going to be one or the other, they both happen simultaneously.

EDIT: I guess I should clarify a bit. As the average temperature on Earth rises, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will just be hotter everywhere. The average temperature has a adverse affect on weather patterns, and while the average temperature may rise or cool, various areas will experience either a cooling or a warming and/or they will experience hotter hots and colder colds. Hence the term climate change.

[aurik]

There is as much evidence of global cooling as there is global warming. At this current time there is no possible way in order to definately determine which will occur or when.

At any rate, nothing planet-destroying will happen within our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes. And I don't know about you guys, but I don't care what happens after my theoretical children's lives.

Global warming is a misnomer: it's climate change that's real scary. Net overall effect is warming, but what's real damaging is not a few extra degrees but rather a change to the underlying status quo.

And, for the record, there's a lot more evidence showing that human activity is a major component of climate change than evidence against that assertion. So much, in fact, that the IPCC (who, by the way, won a Nobel Prize for their work), stated:

"From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750."

Extremely likely here is defined as greater than 95% certitude.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Was Michael Crichton wrong when he said if the atmosphere were a football field CO2/greenhouse gases would take up less than an inch? If not, why does something that makes like .6% of the atmosphere, have such a huge impact?

[aurik]

Was Michael Crichton wrong when he said if the atmosphere were a football field CO2/greenhouse gases would take up less than an inch? If not, why does something that makes like .6% of the atmosphere, have such a huge impact?

Have you read and understood the scientific studies? Therein lies your answer.

[Aerin]

Was Michael Crichton wrong when he said if the atmosphere were a football field CO2/greenhouse gases would take up less than an inch? If not, why does something that makes like .6% of the atmosphere, have such a huge impact?

Why is a .1 change in pH levels quickly, kill species off? Why is a change in average global temperature by 1 degree a big deal.

Point being you can't think of it as being nothing because the number looks small. Because I could do the reverse. How does releasing 100 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere NOT cause something to happen?

[aurik]

Also, Michael Crichton was a bit of a nutcase. Read his book "Travels". Also note a lot of the themes in his fiction is that science will eventually be the DOOM of us all!

[Kaylia]

Was Michael Crichton wrong when he said if the atmosphere were a football field CO2/greenhouse gases would take up less than an inch? If not, why does something that makes like .6% of the atmosphere, have such a huge impact?

Could you please put .6% of cyanide in your next lunch. It's not much.

[Blarg]

Could you please put .6% of cyanide in your next lunch. It's not much.

Damn you, I was going to make a inhale .6% of poison type argument.