|
|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 |
Just to comment: Here in Brasilia it rained in the last July, August and September a LOT. Just to point out, these are the months of the DRY season of the years. When it showers a single DAY in those 3 months it is considered STRANGE (not miracle, not good, STRANGE). And usually, right at October, it starts to rain strongly and frequently. Well, something even stranger than NOT starting to rain in October happened. It CONTINUED to rain. The previous rains should point that the air masses only had been a LOT earlier and that after the dry season would be late, so CONTINUING to rain is a BAD thing. Really, this is one of the most abnormal weather behavior that happened in Brasilia since... EVER (Alright, Brasilia isn't that an old city for this comment to be that strong, but 47 years is still a lot and enough to gather weather data).
Until now, it rains. But not with the intensity of August and September. And, if anything, that's odd. And, of course, it's the global warming. PS: BTW, Justice, did you notice that Heroes Fables got transfered to Deviant Art? --Signal Incoming--  "If I like you, you can call me Sarge. But, guess what, I DON'T LIKE YOU! Do you understand, scumbag? It's Sergeant General to you" |
|||
|
 |
I finally watched the Inconvenient Truth. I recommend it to everyone. Honestly, do watch it if you can
 You wont be diasppointed!"The surest sign that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, is that none of it has tried to contact us" -Calvin & Hobbes |
|||
|
 |
I watched An Inconvenient Truth. It is a brilliant film. Very fact-filled. And Al Gore is a great person in the film. And the film was also rather moving.
 Btw, MC Hammer rules - Can't touch this! |
|||
|
It's so sad that everyone talks about "An Inconvenient Truth" as if some prophet has spoken. The fact is: Al Gore was just speaking the obvious the whole ****ing film.
If you guys ever even a tiny bit of pay attention to the newspaper, science papers, and Greenpeace-related media, you don't even need to see this film. But obviously, most people in the world didn't. This is just so sad... Oh yeah, those who don't believe in Global Warming made some very funny arguments. smith-b-d is it? The fact that climate is heading towards a warmer direction does not mean your little farm will get humid. It's all about geochemistry and climatology, whose patterns are also altered by global temperature. So, it is not as simple as you think. |
||||
|
No, "it's so because I say so" is bad science and most scientists don't do that. And no, they didn't only have two thousand years of data to work with. That is if you want to discredit their geological and ice core analyses. It is clear that we are major ecological footprints anyway. Acid rain, ozone hole, smogs, etc. Now, what will pumping massive amounts of CO2 up the atmosphere would do? You have the right not to believe it will cause global warming, but tens of thousands of scientists world wide had done their homework. If "The Inconvenient Truth" (which is a dumbed down film to let ignorant people catch up) doesn't convince you, go search on some legitimate environmentalism website for better data. |
||||
|
 |
No, I DO believe that CO2 causes global warming. I also DO believe that humans are producing a very big amount of them. Hell, ignoring the rest, just take... what... 7 billion people on earth by now? Just take 7 billion people doing nothing more than breathing and you have a frighteningly big amount of CO2. Ad to that the burning of fissile fuel, and us even producing gasses like ozone (the bad variant) for industrial usage and you will come to a very big amount of CO2.
I don’t dispute that at all. My point was, and it has still not been refuted so it still is the point, that there is no proof at all that we never had these levels of CO2 before. In fact, in the graphics Justice provided, you see that we DID actually have these same CO2 levels before, and that was at a time where human influence was ignorable (10 000 years ago I believe.) There IS proof that we had the same temperatures we have now before as well. There IS proof that we had the same CO2 levels before. There IS proof that weather has been drastically different (rain forests on longitudes where there is desert now.) But there is NO proof that what we have now has never happened before. No proof at all. Those ice core analysis, how far back in time did those go? 10 000 years? 10 000 years is totally ignorable on the time scale that humans are alive. As I stated before, researching 10 000 years and saying that it didn’t happen there, therefore it never happened before is comparable to taking a 24 hour security tape of a store, watching 1 minute of it, and then saying, ‘we now know that in that one minute there was no break in, therefore we now know for certain that there wasn’t a break in in that store at all.’ Tell me, in that movie, what is the furthest they went back in time? No, you know what, that movie is finally playing in the cinema here. I’ll go watch it today (it plays before ghostrider, I’ll just make this my cinema day. ) and see for myself if it gives answer to my points.And to prevent confusion, let me say again that YES, I firmly believe that things should be done. If for nothing more than the ‘better safe than sorry’ mentality. And just because I’m saying that there is no clear proof that it never happened before, doesn’t mean that I’m blindly saying that nothing is wrong. What I AM saying is, yes, things are changing; absolutely. But there still is not enough proof to say whether it’s our (humans) fault or if this is nothing more than nature simply going through the same motions that it has been going through for millions and billions of years. H.W. The real intelligence of mankind is not measured in IQ, but in the results of actions taken. |
|||
|
And what was the corresponding global temperature? Did that trigger a global ecological succession? |
||||
|
|
|
I’m not sure that you mean with that question. Are you asking if the average temperature on Earth changed because of those things? Than the answer is yes.
For instance, the CO2 level that was just as high as we have it now, that was right before an ice age. It might be a bit confusing, and not many people know that, but global warming is sometimes/often a prelude to an ice age. This because the global warming changes the water and weather patterns around the world and that in turn results in an ice age. For instance, there is a circular water flow in the ocean (forgot what it was called) that brings cold water form the north pole do to the equator. Along its trip it warms up again and then flows back to the pole. If that water flow is interrupted (because of global warming) the pole caps start to expand, triggering an ice age. I would actually suggest watching the movie ‘the day after tomorrow.’ Now ignore all the **** about super storms and super cold spots and all that and all of this happening within days. But the underlying facts are actually correct. (According to a Discovery program in which scientists were discussing the fact and fiction of that movie.) Anyway, the point is, yes, these changes have changes the over all earth temperatures. H.W. The real intelligence of mankind is not measured in IQ, but in the results of actions taken. |
|||
|
 |
Look up evaporation d_ck wh_t. The world is 77% water, the hotter the climate the stronger the winds get the more water evaporates the higher the humidity. So yes, yes it f_cking does mean that it will get more humid, and the reference was not just about where i live... think about australia as a small little farm if you like, but its actually a big f_cking country.
*sigh... so what your f_cking psychic now are you? Geee, thanks for pointing out that my thoughts are soo f_cking simple compaired to yours... maybe i dumbed down my comments and kept them short for people like you.
I do pay attention to newspapers, science and such (every day in fact)... im still waiting for them to find these so called "weapons of mass destruction" everyone was on about years ago, not. Or how about the scientist reciently claimed to have cloned a child? he was hailed a huge success in the scientific communities and his research matierial was published in all major magazines... and then he was arrested for being a fraud only he claimed to be doing it for the money & fame it brought in from investors. Point being science & news is not infallible and not immune to fraud & hoaxes in attempts to get money, and the number of times ive seen newspaper reports & tv news & internet news all not match up with their facts and figures when reporting on the same story.., ive just started ignoring them now because they have lost all credit. Greenpeace? why even bother mentioning them. Nimbin, is a suburb near me known as the drug capitol of australia... not so coincidently the majority of greenpeace supporters in australia live there, still pushing for the legalisation of hemp since 1977.
Booo hooo, soo sad their not wasting their money funding a hoax.
And tens of thousands of scientist have also said its a load of bollocks, such contradictions would only take the attention away from the real findings, if there were any... im so very sick of hearing theorist opinions claimed as factual information and just being expected to believe out of ignorance and yet you dare to claim that people are ignorant just because they are skeptical. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quite frankly i dont really care what people believe or do in regards to global warming, trying to prevent change in a metamorphic world is borderline insanity and im sure people in poverty stricken places thank you for wasting your money as they starve to death. And while i dont believe global warming is the disaster everybody claims it is, i still believe the earth undergoes changes with or without our interferance. In every other regard i agree with alias-hw. |
|||
|
|
|
I thought that was the one about america being nuked? or have i got the wrong movie? |
|||
|
|
|
LOL.
You know, come to think of it, I think it was indeed called the same. I was talking about this one though: Click me H.W. The real intelligence of mankind is not measured in IQ, but in the results of actions taken. |
|||
|
 |
Yep, wrong film. The one you mean is called "The Day After" (no "tomorrow", or at least not much of it left). |
|||
|
Interesting. Are you suggesting that incidence of drought should be inversely proportional to the global temperature? I like that idea. Thanks. I'd rather read short and stupid comments than long and just as stupid ones. Oh, of course they have the room to be inaccurate. This is why we have this thing in our head to filter out the junk. I see that you want to skip this step to make things easier for you. That's a very nice correlation. I am sorry. Your skepticism has made me realize that higher global temperature is supposed to increase humidity everywhere. I wouldn't dare to call you ignorant anymore. It does. But does it mean we cannot leave ecological footprints? Part of the main argument is on whether or not the current climate changes are contributed by human activity. |
||||
|
I am afraid you may be going off-track. The emphasis is on the contribution by human activity. Even if such carbon dioxide levels were reached in the past and that they were preludes to ice-ages, shouldn't that be avoided at all cost? I hope this clears up the message. |
||||
|
|
|
That, I fully agree with. And I have agreed with that from my first post. Exactly because of what I have been saying. We have no proof that it never happened before. Well, that automatically means that we also have no proof at all that it DID happen before.
As much scientist that are brought in, as much people that say yes or no, point is that we still don’t know for sure. So, does that mean that we should sit back and do nothing while the research some more? No. This for the simple reason that if we do that and the people like Al are right... it would be too late simply because we sat back while we could have done something. The fact is, we don’t know, and therefore we reach the ‘better safe than sorry’ stage. Yes, we should do... a lot actually. Why? Because if people like Al are right, then we acted in time. If people like Bush are right then the worst thing that happened by us acting now is that we cleaned up a lot of pollutants along the way. Both deals sound pretty good to me since I do want the world to survive, and if it would have survived anyway, I still would like the cleaning of pollutants because it means that I can even 20 years from now take a deep breath and enjoy it instead of coughing up my longs. And now I have to go to work, I’ll give my impression of the movie later today. H.W. The real intelligence of mankind is not measured in IQ, but in the results of actions taken. |
|||
|
|
|
Just to make sure that people don’t think that I went to see the movie and now shut up...
 I went to see the movie and it was pretty good. I especially liked the part where his skull was on fire and... uh, um, right; wrong movie.  Alright, now for real. I went, and even got to see it for free; no entrance fee asked. I do think that it was a decent movie, and even a good movie if you consider that it’s basically a documentary. Now, did I change my opinion? No. Why not? Because I already knew about 70 percent of the things said... well, not including the stuff of Al’s personal life. Then another 20 percent I ‘knew’ from just thinking logically. Like the example used from that Dutch study about those birds. That makes total sense to me. Weather is getting warmer, insects hatch earlier, birds have to adapt. Logic. One thing wasn’t told though (and also one thing I know from that logic thinking, not that I already knew the study) is the fact that this goes in stages. The weather gets warmer, but the insects hatch on time and the birds can eat them. But because the insects hatch too late this year a lot of them die off because the fresh spring leaves they feed on are no longer fresh spring leaves but fully evolved leaves. But then the insects next year (evolution) realize that they are not hatching in time and so they start to hatch earlier. Now the birds hatch too late for their food and they die. Next year the birds will hatch earlier as well. It’s stages, and they didn’t say whether or not the insects died off the years before. It also doesn’t really matter, since the message is still the same ‘see, global warming is happening.’ That’s also probably why the movie didn’t change my opinion. Why? Because 90 percent of the movie was all about trying to show that global warming is happening... well, I already knew that and stated that in the first post. I don’t need convincing that global warming is happening; I know it is. I don’t need convincing that things should be done; I already know that, and agree. If for nothing more than the ‘better safe than sorry’ mentality. But the argument I had from the beginning still stand. There is STILL no proof that it never happened before. Al was also one of those people that said, ‘it never happened before’ but he said that while pointing at a graphic that ‘only’ went back in time 650 000 years. So how does he know it didn’t happen before? We still don’t know what happened as ‘little’ as one million years ago. Let alone 5, 10, or 100 million years ago. Also in that very same graphic you saw four periods where the CO2 levels were (about) as high as they are now. What I find really worrying about that was that all 4 times were before ice ages. So my argument that we might actually be heading for a ice age might not be so far off at all. Now before someone points out that things were off the chart... no. Think back for a moment. The factually recorded CO2 levels are still on the same levels as high levels before. The thing that was off the chart was the ESTIMATE of what would happens if things went on like they are now for another 30-50 years. So, where this leave me? I agree (which I have from the beginning) that things have to change. If for nothing more than ‘better safe than sorry.’ We can simply NOT take the risk and let things to on. Because if it’s really all our fault and we waited to long, it might just be too late to go back. Let me make that part clear. So, is it covered? Is it clear that I think that pollution and CO2 emissions have to be cut/stopped? Alright. Now, I still see no proof that what we have now didn’t happen before. Here, a little quote from Wiki:
The course isn’t important, I’m just using this to show you numbers. Look at that number, an ice age every 100 000 years. So in only seven of those ice ages we are already further back in time than Al went in that movie. Oh, in that same article (just go to Wiki and type ‘ice age’ in the search engine there) I actually found a graphic that goes back 5.5 million years. Want to see something interesting? Here: Click me. What do I find so interesting? That this IS actually proof that that it has been a LOT warmer in the past. Now, it can be said that over all there is a clear line there of the Earth getting cooler. Yes, but there are still spikes there. Rough guess, 2, 4, and 5 hundred thousand years ago it was just as warm as now. Actually, if you look at that you see that all in all the weather has changed from a relatively steady temperature from 5.5 to 3.5 million years ago to not literally being all over the scale like it’s a seismograph during a earthquake of 8 on the Richter scale. I would suggest actually reading that article. Yes It’s about ice ages, and not global warming. But as stated, as a true paradox, they can start the same. It is just that as some point there comes a change. We might simply not yet have reached that point. Anyway, I still see no proof that on a planetary scale we are truly insignificant. There are tons of species (plants and animals) that are dying off. But are we to blame? For those animals/plants that die because of things like a river being dammed up, or because of pesticides being used on a literally industrial scale, hell yes, we are responsible. But for that lizard that is dying because his swap turned into a pasture because nature is warming up... I don’t know. Why? Because I still don’t see any clear proof that it’s all our fault. As cold as this may sound, I don’t loose any sleep aver a species going extinct. Why? Because that’s nature. Yes, nature is a ruthless mass murderer that even at this time still kills off more species that we do. A bird dies out, we cry... and just maybe nature decides that tomorrow that it’s time to once more whip out almost all life on earth. Just think about it. In that movie Al said something like the average temperature on earth rising by 2 degrees resulting in mass extinction... I’m sorry, I forgot if this is truly from the movie of from a Discovery program. Just how many species do you think died off with the last ice age? And the one before that, and the one before that, and... And how about after those ice ages? Life adjusted to the ice age situation and suddenly all starts warming. How many species died off in the last warming, and the one before that, and... Species die off, yes, and in doing so they make room that is taken up by other species. Al said in himself fin the movie. Species are dying off, and parasitic species are moving in. Well, you can call it parasitic species, but fact remains that those are still species. Who know, maybe the whole scheme of evolution is to thin species out until only a few things are left. Only humans, and only 5-10 species of birds that thrive in their expertise. Same for fish, same for land animals. You cannot base a whole conclusion on simply seeing one thing. Species are dying off, yes, but is it normal or not? (NOT talking about those species that we are poisoning to death.) I could go on, but I’m getting tired of typing. :P Here, let me give you another fact. As interesting as that movie is, I tell you what will happen. People go to see it, say that we must do something... and than do nothing at all. Go on, dare you all. Tell me what you have done. Not what you WILL do. ‘Will do’ is just wishful thinking. No what HAVE you done to better the world/lessen your CO2 impart? Did you buy two energy efficient light bulbs? Do you think that this alone will safe the world? You know only too well that that’s nothing more than lying to yourself so that you can say that you did something. No, two light bulbs don’t cut it, and you know it. To all those people that said that we should do things. Tell me, what HAVE you done? Starting with myself, I tell you honestly, I did nothing I wasn’t doing before. I carpool to work, but I already did that because it saves money. I leave the light out in every room of the house except the one I’m in... but I was already doing that because it saves money. But on the same note I still never switch off the TV totally; I leave it on standby. Same for computer. Conveniently over money saving there (and the environment.) Fact is, the majority of people will only do something if doing something is free, or will actually save them money. Buy a hybrid car? Yeah right, like I’m going to spent 30 000 Euro that I don’t have anyway to buy a car that uses a little less gas. Use double glazing? Nope, it costs me 2 000. To expensive. So, what HAVE you done? (Besides saying that you WILL do something.) H.W. The real intelligence of mankind is not measured in IQ, but in the results of actions taken. |
|||
|
Such a long post. Since I am in a hurry, I only briefly glanced through part of it.
Again, the arguments about "this has happened before" and "the past had been warmer than the present" are not very relevant (I also don't have the time to look up the data until after my finals). Earth, according to geological data, had existed in various states subsequent to its formation. Of all these stages, some are more hospitable than others. Sure, ice-age didn't wipe out the entire biosphere, but it most likely wipe out a large part of it. If we are to face an ice age, the result will be disastrous considering its impact on agriculture and water accessibility. Now, that's all *assuming* the assumption of warming = ice age is correct, which I will judge for myself when I have time. |
||||
|
|
|
Higher humidity would equal higher rainfall but it doesnt mean its going to fall in areas it doesnt normally fall in anyway.
Not on the scale needed to cause global warming. Even with the billions of people on this planet we still only take up a very small percentage of land let alone the entire globe, and even then a even smaller percentage is actually producing the right types of polutants. We simply are not consistantly producing enough polution to bring about the changes sugguested.
|
|||
|
I like it when you illustrate such a simple picture of the global weather patterns. Well, do you have the actual figures? Have you actually done those studies or researched about the data? What do you mean by the "right types of pollutants"? Not carbon dioxide I presume. If you are not convinced, you should also consider the connections between deforestation and local geochemistry. I think you might be underestimating the effect of pollution on the environment. Think acid rain and ozone hole. |
||||
|