This is fantastic stuff, truly epic.
-
No, I am not. I want to know how much he really knows about this in order to make statements like 'CO2 traps heat'.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I'd say go ask a real scientist, but you don't seem to give a shit what they have to say either. So here, from a source you might believe, with a surprisingly complete answer: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080109182727AAvuPHC[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Really... And did they swim there, or did humans bring them over?
Just won a bet! I knew you would respond with that! OK, how about locust swarms? They strip the land bare all on their own without any help from man. Actually Beavers have quite a big impact on their environment by damming rivers. This has caused entirely different ecosystems to form. And, byu the way, if you are a pro-native chap, then the north american native had a huge impact on the environment. Check out their forest and game management. Anyway, this is about whether man has a bigger effect on the environment than other species. Of course he does. But so what? Man uses the earths natural materials for buildings. Principly houses, but all kinds of stuff. Why is it a big problem if man takes a load of rock thats lying around, or even breaks it free, and rearranges it into a house shaped object with the help of some trees, and some lime and sand? So an ant, termite, bird, ape, otter, beaver, and many other createures do the same, but to a lesser degree (and only becae they lack intemmigence). So mans only difference to nature is his increased intelligence. And yet you and many others like to make statements such as 'there is no square kilometer of ocean unaffected ny man'. Well there is almost no part of this earth unaffected by an animal in some form or another, why single out man for special attention. Why DONT we have the right to live on, and use, the planet for our own benefit? Of course we need to make sure we dont accidentally dammage it, but lets distinguish very carefully between what is and isnt damaging. And what is and isnt beneficial.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
OK, how about locust swarms? They strip the land bare all on their own without any help from man. Actually Beavers have quite a big impact on their environment by damming rivers. This has caused entirely different ecosystems to form.
Yep, was waiting for the beavers argument, and that one is valid... But again, none of these change the environment as much as humans.
fat_boy wrote:
And, byu the way, if you are a pro-native chap, then the north american native had a huge impact on the environment. Check out their forest and game management.
They're humans too.
fat_boy wrote:
Anyway, this is about whether man has a bigger effect on the environment than other species. Of course he does. But so what?
Ok, as long as you realize that... You seemed to be disputing that for a while.
fat_boy wrote:
Why DONT we have the right to live on, and use, the planet for our own benefit? Of course we need to make sure we dont accidentally dammage it, but lets distinguish very carefully between what is and isnt damaging. And what is and isnt beneficial.
Hey, we can do whatever the hell we want to this planet, but we have to think of the consequences. We're the only species that has the capability to render this planet inhabitable (At least for us). Don't forget that things that are beneficial for the ENVIRONMENT may not be beneficial to us. And I know you keep making the argument over and over that the human race can adapt to any change... It's true that our technology would be able to sustain us further than we would normally be able to, but there are limits. As I keep saying, we need actual numbers, so we know exactly what effect we're having. Until we have that, I'm in favor of some actions to limit our impact. Sure, cut down on pollution... Switch to renewable energy... These are good things regardless of the greenhouse effect.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The attribution of CFCs to ozone depletion isn't even a controversy... Are you just going to make this up as you go along?
OK, so we have stopped using CFCs for almost 20 years now, so please show us all how much smaller the hole in the ozone layer has become in that time.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/16/2092527.htm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
There are extremists on both sides
And yet one of those mentioned is in charge of one of the worlds well used temperature data sets.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Which are you talking about? The IPCC guys? As far as I can tell, they've been sticking to the numbers, and acting like scientists aside from a little immature behavior that was never meant to be public.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I'd say go ask a real scientist, but you don't seem to give a shit what they have to say either. So here, from a source you might believe, with a surprisingly complete answer: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080109182727AAvuPHC[^]
Distind wrote:
I'd say go ask a real scientist
I was asking you, since you stated CO2 traps heat. I wanted to know whether you had looked into this or were just regurgitating popular understanding. However, I see you did a quick search and came up with yahoo answers. Now, to ehance your understanding a little more, search for the excited state duratiohn of CO2 mollecules. Then have a think about it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
OK, how about locust swarms? They strip the land bare all on their own without any help from man. Actually Beavers have quite a big impact on their environment by damming rivers. This has caused entirely different ecosystems to form.
Yep, was waiting for the beavers argument, and that one is valid... But again, none of these change the environment as much as humans.
fat_boy wrote:
And, byu the way, if you are a pro-native chap, then the north american native had a huge impact on the environment. Check out their forest and game management.
They're humans too.
fat_boy wrote:
Anyway, this is about whether man has a bigger effect on the environment than other species. Of course he does. But so what?
Ok, as long as you realize that... You seemed to be disputing that for a while.
fat_boy wrote:
Why DONT we have the right to live on, and use, the planet for our own benefit? Of course we need to make sure we dont accidentally dammage it, but lets distinguish very carefully between what is and isnt damaging. And what is and isnt beneficial.
Hey, we can do whatever the hell we want to this planet, but we have to think of the consequences. We're the only species that has the capability to render this planet inhabitable (At least for us). Don't forget that things that are beneficial for the ENVIRONMENT may not be beneficial to us. And I know you keep making the argument over and over that the human race can adapt to any change... It's true that our technology would be able to sustain us further than we would normally be able to, but there are limits. As I keep saying, we need actual numbers, so we know exactly what effect we're having. Until we have that, I'm in favor of some actions to limit our impact. Sure, cut down on pollution... Switch to renewable energy... These are good things regardless of the greenhouse effect.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Yes, the numbers, if they can be determined, would be interesting, but just using past temperature records, and I mean raw data, not the adjusted stuff, disprove the theory of man made GW. That much is basic science. That there might be an effect underneath all the natural variation is possible of course, but so far a man made effect has not been detected.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Which are you talking about? The IPCC guys? As far as I can tell, they've been sticking to the numbers, and acting like scientists aside from a little immature behavior that was never meant to be public.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Yes, the numbers, if they can be determined, would be interesting, but just using past temperature records, and I mean raw data, not the adjusted stuff, disprove the theory of man made GW. That much is basic science. That there might be an effect underneath all the natural variation is possible of course, but so far a man made effect has not been detected.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, the numbers, if they can be determined, would be interesting, but just using past temperature records, and I mean raw data, not the adjusted stuff, disprove the theory of man made GW
False
fat_boy wrote:
but so far a man made effect has not been detected.
Would say "verified" instead of "detected" The numbers do not DISPROVE the theory. They merely do not PROVE the theory. Right now, it's an unknown, and scientists are trying to correct it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I quoted Hanse, you stated well, there are extremists on both sides. I naturally thought you were refering to Hansen when you used the term extremist. Werent you?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
No, I generally don't refer to specific people. I refer to the research itself, not opinions.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/16/2092527.htm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, the numbers, if they can be determined, would be interesting, but just using past temperature records, and I mean raw data, not the adjusted stuff, disprove the theory of man made GW
False
fat_boy wrote:
but so far a man made effect has not been detected.
Would say "verified" instead of "detected" The numbers do not DISPROVE the theory. They merely do not PROVE the theory. Right now, it's an unknown, and scientists are trying to correct it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Gonzoox wrote:
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas."
Sure, but do you know how it absorbs certain frequencies of radiation?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Read greenhouse effect, you can find your answer there, besides, whatever you say, post, explain, I still believe human race has something to do on global warming, we're not 100% responsible but we have our share of the problem and we should be doing something about it. Technology these days is at the point were we could be driving cars at least 100% more efficient, instead of getting 30-33 miles/gallon we could be getting 60-70 miles/gallon or more, solar energy is an option, but the equipment and maintenance is so expensive that people still relies on the old fashioned way, when you could be saving hundreds of dollars every year using solar energy, we could be having a better way of handling trash, recycling plastic, cans, glass, paper, etc. But because money gets involved and oil companies make a lot, they don't want to see their profits reduced to half with more efficient cars, so they give out millions of dollars every year to stop any kind of new harmful law for their business, and this is just one of the hundreds or thousands of things that happen around
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
Read greenhouse effect, you can find your answer there, besides, whatever you say, post, explain, I still believe human race has something to do on global warming, we're not 100% responsible but we have our share of the problem and we should be doing something about it. Technology these days is at the point were we could be driving cars at least 100% more efficient, instead of getting 30-33 miles/gallon we could be getting 60-70 miles/gallon or more, solar energy is an option, but the equipment and maintenance is so expensive that people still relies on the old fashioned way, when you could be saving hundreds of dollars every year using solar energy, we could be having a better way of handling trash, recycling plastic, cans, glass, paper, etc. But because money gets involved and oil companies make a lot, they don't want to see their profits reduced to half with more efficient cars, so they give out millions of dollars every year to stop any kind of new harmful law for their business, and this is just one of the hundreds or thousands of things that happen around
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
False
Not so. Temperatue is not clearly effected by CO2.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would say "verified" instead of "detected
Hence your statement that it isnt verified.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Not so. Temperatue is not clearly effected by CO2.
We've been through this before, and your sole argument was "I took some physics courses, so I know everything." I'm not wasting another day on that. When it comes to that debate, you're just as bad as CSS.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
And its bigger now than in 2004, 2002, and at any time prior to 1991: http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html[^] Quite clearly banning CFCs has had a massive effect.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
You like graphs, right? http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history.html[^] From the same site... Look at the graph... See the trend? The decline slowed in the 80s, and is either leveling out or curving upward.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Not so. Temperatue is not clearly effected by CO2.
We've been through this before, and your sole argument was "I took some physics courses, so I know everything." I'm not wasting another day on that. When it comes to that debate, you're just as bad as CSS.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)You cant slip out of it that easialy. You stated: "but so far a man made effect has not been detected. Would say "verified" instead of "detected"" You are stating that a mna made effect on temperature has not been verified. You are in agreement with me. The Theory of AGW has not been verified. Your own words.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
So instead of looking into it you just accept what you read in the news papers? Or do youbelieve in GW because it ties in with your environmental views?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
After reading a lot about global warming from all points of view, I agree on part of your statement and that's why I said humans are not 100% responsible of what is happening, but they have their share of the problem, and to expand that, we have a big share of the problem. It has been demonstrated that greenhouse effect is something that happens every day, they have demonstrated the gases involved, etc etc, so how can you think that we as humans creating those gases because our technology, combustion to produce energy, drive a car in amounts way larger than what is normally created by nature, we are not responsible of part of the problem? CO2 can naturally be destroyed, with a simple rain, trees consuming it to grow, but if we are destroying our forests to create paper or houses, how are we going to get rid of all the CO2? every day we have less and less trees to help on the natural way, so if CO2 is something we are creating when driving a car, why not make those cars more efficient? if we're destroying the forests to make paper or houses why not recycle or start building houses of bricks?, that way we will give nature more time to "recover", and don't tell me you believe the resources are infinite, because they're not
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
You cant slip out of it that easialy. You stated: "but so far a man made effect has not been detected. Would say "verified" instead of "detected"" You are stating that a mna made effect on temperature has not been verified. You are in agreement with me. The Theory of AGW has not been verified. Your own words.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
You are stating that a mna made effect on temperature has not been verified. You are in agreement with me. The Theory of AGW has not been verified. Your own words.
I agree that the theory has not been verified/proven. That does NOT mean that it's false, because it hasn't been disproven either. Right now, it means we don't have enough evidence to determine the answer. So as I've said OVER and OVER and OVER again, what we need to do is approach the issue scientifically instead of politically, and get some actual numbers. Why do you keep assuming that I'm in the same camp as Al Gore, just because I don't sit firmly on your side of the fence? CSS does the same thing... "If you're not 100% on my side, you're an evil commie/socialist/eugenicist!"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
After reading a lot about global warming from all points of view, I agree on part of your statement and that's why I said humans are not 100% responsible of what is happening, but they have their share of the problem, and to expand that, we have a big share of the problem. It has been demonstrated that greenhouse effect is something that happens every day, they have demonstrated the gases involved, etc etc, so how can you think that we as humans creating those gases because our technology, combustion to produce energy, drive a car in amounts way larger than what is normally created by nature, we are not responsible of part of the problem? CO2 can naturally be destroyed, with a simple rain, trees consuming it to grow, but if we are destroying our forests to create paper or houses, how are we going to get rid of all the CO2? every day we have less and less trees to help on the natural way, so if CO2 is something we are creating when driving a car, why not make those cars more efficient? if we're destroying the forests to make paper or houses why not recycle or start building houses of bricks?, that way we will give nature more time to "recover", and don't tell me you believe the resources are infinite, because they're not
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
Its difficult to get a handle on exactly what you are saying, your response is ver impassioned and broad in scope, but let me try, and if I misunderstand you please forgive me. Currently AGW is an unproved theory. There is no detectable effect of man made CO2 on temperature. This much is well known by serious scientists and is even stated by the IPCC. However there is a strong suspicion that man made CO2 is having an effect. The problem is is finding it against the background of natural temperature variations, and so determinging how large that effect is. But up untill that time it is unwise to implement government policay as if it were fact. However, as we progress with increased CO2, and temperatures steady or falling like they have been for 8 or so years it is getting increasingly MORE difficult to detect any effect of man made CO2. This is also so for the post war period, falling temperatures with rising CO2. Given that in the last 10000 years temperatures have been steadily getting colder, reaching a minimum during the little ice age, a greater likely hood, and worry, is falling temperatures. So it could well be that a little bit of heating caused by CO2 is a good thing. What we do NOT want is a new ice age. Given the immense benefit of CO2 in agriculture, it is also silly to limit its production while there is no evidence that it will cause any harm.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Its difficult to get a handle on exactly what you are saying, your response is ver impassioned and broad in scope, but let me try, and if I misunderstand you please forgive me. Currently AGW is an unproved theory. There is no detectable effect of man made CO2 on temperature. This much is well known by serious scientists and is even stated by the IPCC. However there is a strong suspicion that man made CO2 is having an effect. The problem is is finding it against the background of natural temperature variations, and so determinging how large that effect is. But up untill that time it is unwise to implement government policay as if it were fact. However, as we progress with increased CO2, and temperatures steady or falling like they have been for 8 or so years it is getting increasingly MORE difficult to detect any effect of man made CO2. This is also so for the post war period, falling temperatures with rising CO2. Given that in the last 10000 years temperatures have been steadily getting colder, reaching a minimum during the little ice age, a greater likely hood, and worry, is falling temperatures. So it could well be that a little bit of heating caused by CO2 is a good thing. What we do NOT want is a new ice age. Given the immense benefit of CO2 in agriculture, it is also silly to limit its production while there is no evidence that it will cause any harm.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription