[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
However, the gravity argument holds little gravity. Primarily for the fact that it doesn't take a scientist to prove gravity exists. Simply take an apple and let go. Bam! You're Isaac Newton.[/QUOTE]
If Gravity is so easy and obvious, tell me the reason why Gravity is the only thing stopping quantum physics scientists from making a single theory explaning everything, as they simply can't "explain" Gravity like they did with the other forces.
Now, tell me you don't believe Gravity exists anymore because it can't be fully explained.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Some great and valid posts all round.
My feeling is mankind is having a huge impact on the pace and rate of accelaration of global warming.
Can I ask what kind of spin the US media is generally putting on this? Are you being fed reports and literature that have been backed by the powerful companies with the most to lose? I'm trying to understand the general difference in US and European opinion.
Market forces are going to play a huge part in how we change our ways as individuals. For example Petrol, Gas and Electric prices are going through the roof here in England. If prices continue to rise at the current rate people will simply have to make changes or face financial hardship.
We cannot blame individual countries but there needs to be consensus to change, and fast. It's scary to think that if Britain flicked off the power for a whole year, China would have built more coal burning power stations in six months to swallow up the saving. Also Bush could do with a word of advice form Schwarzenegger.
Oh and I'll be driving one of them 4.5 litre tanks masquerading as cars through Yosemite and Death Valley (any site seeing tips?)come July and I'd by a hypocrite to say I'm going to feel guilty about my carbon footprint. We've all got a long way to go.
My feeling is mankind is having a huge impact on the pace and rate of accelaration of global warming.
Can I ask what kind of spin the US media is generally putting on this? Are you being fed reports and literature that have been backed by the powerful companies with the most to lose? I'm trying to understand the general difference in US and European opinion.
Market forces are going to play a huge part in how we change our ways as individuals. For example Petrol, Gas and Electric prices are going through the roof here in England. If prices continue to rise at the current rate people will simply have to make changes or face financial hardship.
We cannot blame individual countries but there needs to be consensus to change, and fast. It's scary to think that if Britain flicked off the power for a whole year, China would have built more coal burning power stations in six months to swallow up the saving. Also Bush could do with a word of advice form Schwarzenegger.
Oh and I'll be driving one of them 4.5 litre tanks masquerading as cars through Yosemite and Death Valley (any site seeing tips?)come July and I'd by a hypocrite to say I'm going to feel guilty about my carbon footprint. We've all got a long way to go.
I hate to clarify so late, but the issue is not whether or not global warming exists. It can be documented that the moving average of the earth's temperature has experienced trend X over Y years.
The actual debate is the degree to which changes in temperature are affected by human action, and what human actions affect these changes to what degree. One must consider what gas emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect, and also their sources (what percent is natural vs. what percent is man-made). One must also consider what actions contribute to these specific emissions. Does aggregate transportation in SUVs really contribute significantly, or is it negligible? Even that simple answer is inconclusive.
Considering that the vast majority of greenhouse gases are due to natural causes, perhaps the answer lies in curtailing these natural causes. Or perhaps the greenhouse effect is overstated, and not the actual problem at hand.
So far, there have been no conclusive and consistent studies or experiments which provide closure to this argument.
The actual debate is the degree to which changes in temperature are affected by human action, and what human actions affect these changes to what degree. One must consider what gas emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect, and also their sources (what percent is natural vs. what percent is man-made). One must also consider what actions contribute to these specific emissions. Does aggregate transportation in SUVs really contribute significantly, or is it negligible? Even that simple answer is inconclusive.
Considering that the vast majority of greenhouse gases are due to natural causes, perhaps the answer lies in curtailing these natural causes. Or perhaps the greenhouse effect is overstated, and not the actual problem at hand.
So far, there have been no conclusive and consistent studies or experiments which provide closure to this argument.
@ Pow Wow
That's a good question actually. Even three years ago, you'd see some stories on the news about it. But it was approached from the "Maybe this is actually happening, but we don't know yet" perspective. Within about the last year or so the news has actually started to cover it with more regularity, and even the people who before were saying "We don't know for sure it exists" are finally starting to admit that maybe yeah, it does actually exist. But that's all the farther we've come. A lot of people are campaigning for green houses, green cars, all this kind of thing (the new Education Building on my university campus is a green building), but for the most part things like Hybrid cars and what not haven't really taken hold yet.
Gas and home heating prices have gone up quite a bit in the last three years or so here, but so far people just b*tch about it and then fork over the extra cash. When gas jumped to $3.00/Gallon there were outcries about all of this kind of thing, but after about three weeks nothing happened because it hasn't reached the point that it is an economic hardship for most to continue to drive their huge Hummers around. (Or, maybe more accurately, the people who have the money to buy the Hummers have enough money that paying $3.00/Gallon for a vehicle that gets 10 miles/Gallon isn't a problem)
That's a good question actually. Even three years ago, you'd see some stories on the news about it. But it was approached from the "Maybe this is actually happening, but we don't know yet" perspective. Within about the last year or so the news has actually started to cover it with more regularity, and even the people who before were saying "We don't know for sure it exists" are finally starting to admit that maybe yeah, it does actually exist. But that's all the farther we've come. A lot of people are campaigning for green houses, green cars, all this kind of thing (the new Education Building on my university campus is a green building), but for the most part things like Hybrid cars and what not haven't really taken hold yet.
Gas and home heating prices have gone up quite a bit in the last three years or so here, but so far people just b*tch about it and then fork over the extra cash. When gas jumped to $3.00/Gallon there were outcries about all of this kind of thing, but after about three weeks nothing happened because it hasn't reached the point that it is an economic hardship for most to continue to drive their huge Hummers around. (Or, maybe more accurately, the people who have the money to buy the Hummers have enough money that paying $3.00/Gallon for a vehicle that gets 10 miles/Gallon isn't a problem)
"The actual debate is the degree to which changes in temperature are affected by human action, and what human actions affect these changes to what degree. One must consider what gas emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect, and also their sources (what percent is natural vs. what percent is man-made). One must also consider what actions contribute to these specific emissions"
Well, yes but all this has been discussed for over 30 years now. Even if you don't "believe" in man-made global warming, there simply has to come a time when the USA joins the rest of the world in their efforts to save this planet for future generations. The USA is not only the biggest consumer of energy, they are also the most influential power in the world and as long as they do not support the CO2 reduction there is no hope.
Even if you don't believe in man-made global warming you have to admit that resources on this planet are limited and if you look at the growth of population and the economic development of huge countries like India and China you don't need to be Einstein to realise that there has to be a change if we want to preserve our industrialized civilisation. There are more cars in Germany than the whole African continent, how can we expect to survive if China and India and other countries move into the same direction? We cannot bomb half the planet back to Stone Age and we cannot attack more Middle East countries to get a hand on their oil. The only way is to develop clean industries and to do it fast and on a global scale.
Just look at the agonising US car industry, there is virtually nobody on the whole world who wants these hopelessly outdated, old fashioned cars because fuel is so much more expensive everywhere else. Look at modern alternative energy production like wind energy, solar energy, tidal power plants etc. These technologies are developed in Europe and Asia - not in the USA whose short sighted policy is very 19th century to be honest. It's not only about giving up some luxury habits, it's also about future technologies and huge markets for these technologies. Please don't think that European governments are made of green utopists (although they really leave much to desire), they are just not the puppets of the oil industry.
Well, yes but all this has been discussed for over 30 years now. Even if you don't "believe" in man-made global warming, there simply has to come a time when the USA joins the rest of the world in their efforts to save this planet for future generations. The USA is not only the biggest consumer of energy, they are also the most influential power in the world and as long as they do not support the CO2 reduction there is no hope.
Even if you don't believe in man-made global warming you have to admit that resources on this planet are limited and if you look at the growth of population and the economic development of huge countries like India and China you don't need to be Einstein to realise that there has to be a change if we want to preserve our industrialized civilisation. There are more cars in Germany than the whole African continent, how can we expect to survive if China and India and other countries move into the same direction? We cannot bomb half the planet back to Stone Age and we cannot attack more Middle East countries to get a hand on their oil. The only way is to develop clean industries and to do it fast and on a global scale.
Just look at the agonising US car industry, there is virtually nobody on the whole world who wants these hopelessly outdated, old fashioned cars because fuel is so much more expensive everywhere else. Look at modern alternative energy production like wind energy, solar energy, tidal power plants etc. These technologies are developed in Europe and Asia - not in the USA whose short sighted policy is very 19th century to be honest. It's not only about giving up some luxury habits, it's also about future technologies and huge markets for these technologies. Please don't think that European governments are made of green utopists (although they really leave much to desire), they are just not the puppets of the oil industry.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If Gravity is so easy and obvious, tell me the reason why Gravity is the only thing stopping quantum physics scientists from making a single theory explaning everything, as they simply can't "explain" Gravity like they did with the other forces.[/QUOTE]
I can't. I'm not a quantum physics scientist, but I know that the mass of the object has something to do with it. Maybe TQ (Caspar) can fill us in on that and explain the other forces.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pow wow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Also Bush could do with a word of advice form Schwarzenegger.[/QUOTE]
1. The President doesn't decide what steps we take in becoming environmentally friendlier. That's congress.
2. Can you imagine that conversation? I bet we would barely understand anything!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The actual debate is the degree to which changes in temperature are affected by human action, and what human actions affect these changes to what degree. [/QUOTE]
Exactly!!!! It is well known FACT that the Ice Age did more to affect this planet than anything we are doing right now. How come the Earth didn't implode then? Cavemen didn't have to stop using aerosol deoderant, Dinosaurs didn't have to change their diet, and Carbon emissions were just not the rage they are now.
I can't. I'm not a quantum physics scientist, but I know that the mass of the object has something to do with it. Maybe TQ (Caspar) can fill us in on that and explain the other forces.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pow wow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Also Bush could do with a word of advice form Schwarzenegger.[/QUOTE]
1. The President doesn't decide what steps we take in becoming environmentally friendlier. That's congress.
2. Can you imagine that conversation? I bet we would barely understand anything!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The actual debate is the degree to which changes in temperature are affected by human action, and what human actions affect these changes to what degree. [/QUOTE]
Exactly!!!! It is well known FACT that the Ice Age did more to affect this planet than anything we are doing right now. How come the Earth didn't implode then? Cavemen didn't have to stop using aerosol deoderant, Dinosaurs didn't have to change their diet, and Carbon emissions were just not the rage they are now.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]A lot of people are campaigning for green houses, green cars, all this kind of thing (the new Education Building on my university campus is a green building), but for the most part things like Hybrid cars and what not haven't really taken hold yet.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, a lot of alternate fuel companies are at the front of that campagning line. Plus, I bet that new Education Building was paid for by someone connected to those companies.
And how about the price of this alternate fuel we are now implementing? Has anybody seen any significant savings yet?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, a lot of alternate fuel companies are at the front of that campagning line. Plus, I bet that new Education Building was paid for by someone connected to those companies.
And how about the price of this alternate fuel we are now implementing? Has anybody seen any significant savings yet?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"The actual debate is the degree to which changes in temperature are affected by human action, and what human actions affect these changes to what degree. One must consider what gas emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect, and also their sources (what percent is natural vs. what percent is man-made). One must also consider what actions contribute to these specific emissions"
Well, yes but all this has been discussed for over 30 years now. Even if you don't "believe" in man-made global warming, there simply has to come a time when the USA joins the rest of the world in their efforts to save this planet for future generations. The USA is not only the biggest consumer of energy, they are also the most influential power in the world and as long as they do not support the CO2 reduction there is no hope.
Even if you don't believe in man-made global warming you have to admit that resources on this planet are limited and if you look at the growth of population and the economic development of huge countries like India and China you don't need to be Einstein to realise that there has to be a change if we want to preserve our industrialized civilisation. There are more cars in Germany than the whole African continent, how can we expect to survive if China and India and other countries move into the same direction? We cannot bomb half the planet back to Stone Age and we cannot attack more Middle East countries to get a hand on their oil. The only way is to develop clean industries and to do it fast and on a global scale.
Just look at the agonising US car industry, there is virtually nobody on the whole world who wants these hopelessly outdated, old fashioned cars because fuel is so much more expensive everywhere else. Look at modern alternative energy production like wind energy, solar energy, tidal power plants etc. These technologies are developed in Europe and Asia - not in the USA whose short sighted policy is very 19th century to be honest. It's not only about giving up some luxury habits, it's also about future technologies and huge markets for these technologies. Please don't think that European governments are made of green utopists (although they really leave much to desire), they are just not the puppets of the oil industry.[/QUOTE]
Is it really that necessary to curtail our energy consumption, though? When it comes the time that such conventional sources of energy become scarce, the market will quickly and efficiently provide a solution. Having the government pre-emptively seek out a solution is both wasteful and unneccesary (as usual).
Granted, an end to corporatism would help the markets more accurately make their decisions. Along with what you said, special interest groups hamper capitalism.
Well, yes but all this has been discussed for over 30 years now. Even if you don't "believe" in man-made global warming, there simply has to come a time when the USA joins the rest of the world in their efforts to save this planet for future generations. The USA is not only the biggest consumer of energy, they are also the most influential power in the world and as long as they do not support the CO2 reduction there is no hope.
Even if you don't believe in man-made global warming you have to admit that resources on this planet are limited and if you look at the growth of population and the economic development of huge countries like India and China you don't need to be Einstein to realise that there has to be a change if we want to preserve our industrialized civilisation. There are more cars in Germany than the whole African continent, how can we expect to survive if China and India and other countries move into the same direction? We cannot bomb half the planet back to Stone Age and we cannot attack more Middle East countries to get a hand on their oil. The only way is to develop clean industries and to do it fast and on a global scale.
Just look at the agonising US car industry, there is virtually nobody on the whole world who wants these hopelessly outdated, old fashioned cars because fuel is so much more expensive everywhere else. Look at modern alternative energy production like wind energy, solar energy, tidal power plants etc. These technologies are developed in Europe and Asia - not in the USA whose short sighted policy is very 19th century to be honest. It's not only about giving up some luxury habits, it's also about future technologies and huge markets for these technologies. Please don't think that European governments are made of green utopists (although they really leave much to desire), they are just not the puppets of the oil industry.[/QUOTE]
Is it really that necessary to curtail our energy consumption, though? When it comes the time that such conventional sources of energy become scarce, the market will quickly and efficiently provide a solution. Having the government pre-emptively seek out a solution is both wasteful and unneccesary (as usual).
Granted, an end to corporatism would help the markets more accurately make their decisions. Along with what you said, special interest groups hamper capitalism.
Its interesting to note that the people contributing here seem to have more of a grasp of things than the ones actually in charge of doing something about it!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If Gravity is so easy and obvious, tell me the reason why Gravity is the only thing stopping quantum physics scientists from making a single theory explaning everything, as they simply can't "explain" Gravity like they did with the other forces.[/QUOTE]
I can't. I'm not a quantum physics scientist, but I know that the mass of the object has something to do with it. Maybe TQ (Caspar) can fill us in on that and explain the other forces.
[/QUOTE]
So, if you accept Gravity without understanding it completely, how can you refuse to accept the theories about the future of our planet without understanding them?
If you read a bit about the so called "M" Theory, you'll figure out that it's much easier to accept and understand human-caused global warming than Gravity.
I can't. I'm not a quantum physics scientist, but I know that the mass of the object has something to do with it. Maybe TQ (Caspar) can fill us in on that and explain the other forces.
[/QUOTE]
So, if you accept Gravity without understanding it completely, how can you refuse to accept the theories about the future of our planet without understanding them?
If you read a bit about the so called "M" Theory, you'll figure out that it's much easier to accept and understand human-caused global warming than Gravity.
All this global warming chit chat is forcing me to watch 'An Inconvenient Truth.'
I've never seen it before so i hope it's worth watching.
I've never seen it before so i hope it's worth watching.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So, if you accept Gravity without understanding it completely, how can you refuse to accept the theories about the future of our planet without understanding them?
If you read a bit about the so called "M" Theory, you'll figure out that it's much easier to accept and understand human-caused global warming than Gravity.[/QUOTE]
Raf, are you telling me that you don't accept gravity either? (Or are you a quantum physics scientist?) Then how do you explain why we just don't simply float away?
I think it's a little easier to comprehend that than a "theory" that humans are warming the Earth. There's a study that methane gas released by cows is causing JUST AS MUCH DAMAGE!!! So we should stop eating beef and obliterate a species from the planet then, too!
I simply don't believe everything I read. So far, from what I've been able to research, I have found only theories. So how have you been able to dismiss all those theories as false and jump onto this one so easily?
I'm still waiting for someone to post a link with proof that it's the human's fault.
If you read a bit about the so called "M" Theory, you'll figure out that it's much easier to accept and understand human-caused global warming than Gravity.[/QUOTE]
Raf, are you telling me that you don't accept gravity either? (Or are you a quantum physics scientist?) Then how do you explain why we just don't simply float away?
I think it's a little easier to comprehend that than a "theory" that humans are warming the Earth. There's a study that methane gas released by cows is causing JUST AS MUCH DAMAGE!!! So we should stop eating beef and obliterate a species from the planet then, too!
I simply don't believe everything I read. So far, from what I've been able to research, I have found only theories. So how have you been able to dismiss all those theories as false and jump onto this one so easily?
I'm still waiting for someone to post a link with proof that it's the human's fault.
Look what happened the last time the species attemted to "adapt" to the declining environment:
[QUOTE]Research by marine scientists reveals that it was a time of mass destruction as whole communities of animals were wiped out by ice sheets scouring the sea floor.
In the past it has been thought that these ecosystems somehow dodged extinction by recolonising from nearby habitats that escaped obliteration. But researchers at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOC) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) reveal a bleaker scenario.
Dr Sven Thatje, an ecologist at NOC has been working with geoscientists, Dr Claus-Dieter Hillenbrand and Dr Rob Larter at BAS examining one of the harshest environments on Earth - the Antarctic seafloor.
Writing in the October issue of Trends in Ecology & Evolution the scientists provide new evidence that suggests that seafloor organisms were either erased by the advance of ice sheets across the Antarctic continental shelf or starved to death as links in the food chain were broken by the permanent ice cover. There would have been no refuge for shallower living animals further down the continental slope, as huge sediment slides would have buried them. Typically these ecosystems would have been made up of sponges, urchins, sea fan corals, and starfish.
Dr Thatje said: 'We show that during ice ages seafloor organisms emigrated to the deep sea - below the effects of the sediment slides and ice. From there, organisms may have invaded open marine shelters of the Antarctic shelf, which were not affected by the advance of ice masses. Or these animals may have recolonised the Antarctic shelf from the deep-sea during the warm period following each ice age.
'Either way it is an impressive feat against the odds as the extreme cold means that these animals respond much more slowly to the destruction of their habitat than elsewhere in the oceans. They have lower metabolic rates that lower their growth and reproductive rates. Elsewhere in the oceans, a brisingid starfish would reproduce annually and live for ten years. In the Antarctic these starfish can reach 100-years-old but reproduce only once every ten years. This means that full community recuperation takes up to hundreds of years.'[/QUOTE]
So, you don't think the human race, as a whole, can't adapt? These fish did.
[QUOTE]Research by marine scientists reveals that it was a time of mass destruction as whole communities of animals were wiped out by ice sheets scouring the sea floor.
In the past it has been thought that these ecosystems somehow dodged extinction by recolonising from nearby habitats that escaped obliteration. But researchers at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOC) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) reveal a bleaker scenario.
Dr Sven Thatje, an ecologist at NOC has been working with geoscientists, Dr Claus-Dieter Hillenbrand and Dr Rob Larter at BAS examining one of the harshest environments on Earth - the Antarctic seafloor.
Writing in the October issue of Trends in Ecology & Evolution the scientists provide new evidence that suggests that seafloor organisms were either erased by the advance of ice sheets across the Antarctic continental shelf or starved to death as links in the food chain were broken by the permanent ice cover. There would have been no refuge for shallower living animals further down the continental slope, as huge sediment slides would have buried them. Typically these ecosystems would have been made up of sponges, urchins, sea fan corals, and starfish.
Dr Thatje said: 'We show that during ice ages seafloor organisms emigrated to the deep sea - below the effects of the sediment slides and ice. From there, organisms may have invaded open marine shelters of the Antarctic shelf, which were not affected by the advance of ice masses. Or these animals may have recolonised the Antarctic shelf from the deep-sea during the warm period following each ice age.
'Either way it is an impressive feat against the odds as the extreme cold means that these animals respond much more slowly to the destruction of their habitat than elsewhere in the oceans. They have lower metabolic rates that lower their growth and reproductive rates. Elsewhere in the oceans, a brisingid starfish would reproduce annually and live for ten years. In the Antarctic these starfish can reach 100-years-old but reproduce only once every ten years. This means that full community recuperation takes up to hundreds of years.'[/QUOTE]
So, you don't think the human race, as a whole, can't adapt? These fish did.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I think it's a little easier to comprehend that than a "theory" that humans are warming the Earth. There's a study that methane gas released by cows is causing JUST AS MUCH DAMAGE!!! So we should stop eating beef and obliterate a species from the planet then, too!
[/QUOTE]
You see i don't understand that, isn't that contradictory to the statistic showing that the growing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in conjunction with the growing human population on earth?
Surely you don't believe cows are doing just as much damage as us?
I have nooo idea if you're being serious or not, as i find this stuff very confusing. This is why i stick with studying modern political history!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
So, you don't think the human race, as a whole, can't adapt? These fish did.
[/QUOTE]
Well the polar bears, the penguins etc are certainly not adapting to changing enviroments.
I think it's a little easier to comprehend that than a "theory" that humans are warming the Earth. There's a study that methane gas released by cows is causing JUST AS MUCH DAMAGE!!! So we should stop eating beef and obliterate a species from the planet then, too!
[/QUOTE]
You see i don't understand that, isn't that contradictory to the statistic showing that the growing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in conjunction with the growing human population on earth?
Surely you don't believe cows are doing just as much damage as us?
I have nooo idea if you're being serious or not, as i find this stuff very confusing. This is why i stick with studying modern political history!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
So, you don't think the human race, as a whole, can't adapt? These fish did.
[/QUOTE]
Well the polar bears, the penguins etc are certainly not adapting to changing enviroments.
Ok. I found it!!!! Proof that HUMANS AREN'T CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.
It's a nice 234 page study.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
Remember how your parents explained to you that the atmosphere keeps harmful radiation from harming us? Well guess what? They were right. This study shows that changes occur and those different "waves" aren't always blocked out. This sounds a lot more reasonable than humans using aerosol deoderant and hairspray.
But then maybe these guys are idiots too!
It's a nice 234 page study.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
Remember how your parents explained to you that the atmosphere keeps harmful radiation from harming us? Well guess what? They were right. This study shows that changes occur and those different "waves" aren't always blocked out. This sounds a lot more reasonable than humans using aerosol deoderant and hairspray.
But then maybe these guys are idiots too!