|
Recent Natural Disasters! (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Kamka |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The satellite images show no such thing, and it's not in dispute that atmospheric CO2 levels are up, not even among the so-called "skeptics".
Next. |
Really???
Cause I saw a report on the news that talked about it and actually showed some images...
It even talked about the rising ocean levels and the melting glaciers in recent years...
I don't believe that this is all a lie... do you? |
|
|
| exstasie |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The satellite images show no such thing, and it's not in dispute that atmospheric CO2 levels are up, not even among the so-called "skeptics".
Next. |
The whole debate is on why the CO2 levels are up and whether or not it is in fact a result of human intervention...
or if it is just a continuous cycle of the earth's change in temperature throughout its existence, which therefore would render this period of global warming inevitable and not a result of us driving our cars too much! :D
|
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamka
Really???
Cause I saw a report on the news that talked about it and actually showed some images...
It even talked about the rising ocean levels and the melting glaciers in recent years...
I don't believe that this is all a lie... do you? |
It's not a lie, more of a half-truth. The top ice is melting but the ice sheets below the surface are getting thicker.
Rising ocean levels is definitely BS if there's any statistically significant trend implied.
There is a known warming cycle of approximately 1500 years. We're seeing part of that, and any warming happening today won't continue for much longer as we're nearing the end of that cycle.
Must we re-hash this debate? No offense but this isn't exactly new material. :p |
|
|
| Kamka |
| quote: | Originally posted by exstasie
The whole debate is on why the CO2 levels are up and whether or not it is in fact a result of human intervention...
or if it is just a continuous cycle of the earth's change in temperature throughout its existence, which therefore would render this period of global warming inevitable and not a result of us driving our cars too much! :D
|
yeah, I already know that dude. :D
But, as it was clearly shown that atmospheric levels of CO2 are rising, and that we *have* been burning a large amount of fossil fuels recently (which obviously wasn't the case prior to - at the earliest - late 18th century), can you not concede that there might quite likely be a very significant correlation? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by exstasie
The whole debate is on why the CO2 levels are up and whether or not it is in fact a result of human intervention... |
I don't think many people dispute that humans raised the CO2 levels. All that exhaust has to end up somewhere. The debate is over whether this can actually cause a global-scale greenhouse effect, which has never been scientifically proven. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamka
...can you not concede that there might quite likely be a very significant correlation? |
There is correlation - if you restrict the axis to the past 50 years and throw out a few "inconsistent" data points. But even if you ignore the obvious problems in the correlation, it still does not prove causation.
All of these points have been hashed out already in the other 48 global-warming threads. I'm going to bed. :p |
|
|
| Kamka |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
It's not a lie, more of a half-truth. The top ice is melting but the ice sheets below the surface are getting thicker.
There is a known warming cycle of approximately 1500 years. We're seeing part of that, and any warming happening today won't continue for much longer as we're nearing the end of that cycle.
:p |
Yeah, but don't forget that in those thousands of years of slow climactic cycles that occurred the past, there was no large-scale occurrence of fossil fuel burning happening at all. This is a new variable that should be accounted for in the overall equation, and those scientists who are ignoring it are not looking at and objectively evaluating the full picture. |
|
|
| Kamka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamka
|
Okay. There might have been volcanic eruptions spewing out large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere back then... but I'm not sure if this can be compared with the large-scale fossil-fuel burning that's happening today... I mean, even those volcanic eruptions would have been specific to a few stationary locations, and not happening all around the globe simultaneously (as it is happening with cars today, for example)? |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamka
Yeah, but don't forget that in those thousands of years of slow climactic cycles that occurred the past, there was no large-scale of fossil fuel burning happening at all. This is a new variable that should be accounted for in the overall equation, and those scientists who are ignoring it are not looking at and objectively evaluating the full picture. |
even with that in the picture, CO2 makes up only a fraction of Earth's atmosphere. 0.004% or something like that
Are you telling me that the Earth is so fragile that slight change in balance of atmospheric composition is mucking up everything?
Aaron is also correct. This has been rehashed many a times. |
|
|
| Kamka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
Are you telling me that the Earth is so fragile that slight change in balance of atmospheric composition is mucking up everything?
|
I don't think that the Earth is fragile :p
Earth as a geo-physical entity can cope with whatever changes are imposed onto it (or happen through a natural process of billions of years of transformation and development) in its own way. The question is whether you, and other living organisms for whom the present conditions are favourable for ensuring survival, can cope with those changes as well :toothless |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
true. and one day, we can reach the level of science to be able to manipulate the weather but this will be hundreds of years I think
|
doubt it will be ANYWHERE near that long.
ur thinking arithmetically, yohan, not exponentially (thought one can hardly be faulted for that... the human mind simply does not think exponentially naturally, nor is it an easy concept to *truly* comprehend when you are extrapolating in your mind)
Technology (science) grows at an exponential rate, not an arithmetic one.
In 20 years alone its very likely we'll see solar energy that can be produced in quantities and magnitude MORE CHEAPLY than fossil fuels.
How can we even truly comprehend even that today? Seems impossible. But thats only bc our brains are not able to think along exponential lines like they are so easily able to along arithmetic ones.
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamka
Really???
Cause I saw a report on the news that talked about it and actually showed some images...
It even talked about the rising ocean levels and the melting glaciers in recent years...
I don't believe that this is all a lie... do you? |
You realize many glaciers are actually EXPANDING too, right?
True story. Some are indeed receding. Some are indeed expanding. Huh... |
|
|
| KaiLee |
Myanmar's death toll is estimated at 128,000
Just think....that's 128,000 living, breathing human beings who love, laugh, cry, get angry gone.
Who knows how many family, friends who have lost a person they love.
:( |
|
|
|
|
