4

10/12/2007 10:33:11 PM

I rather enjoyed his picture contribution.

10/12/2007 10:33:32 PM

Quote :

"Since we are human we tend to see ourselves as something above "nature", when really, being another species on the planet, we are arguably just as much a part of nature as a moose or the Atlantic Ocean. For all we know, humanity's technological and industrial expansion might just be another aspect of this planetary "balance" that exists."

There is some truth to this point

However, there is a BIG difference between the "nature" that is humanity and the "nature" that is animals and plants

Namely, the "nature" that is humanity tends to make the planet a lot uglier, fouler-smelling, and in general a lot less pleasing from an aesthetic standpoint

no other form of nature has ever uglified the planet to anywhere near the extent that we have

so it's not really fair to say that technology is an aspect of nature; it's something quite different


[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 10:40 PM. Reason : /]

10/12/2007 10:33:39 PM

sorry, but just because it something isn't "aesthetically pleasing" doesn't make it "not natural." When see a lion tear a gazelle's throat out, it isn't very pleasing to me, but I certainly wouldn't call that "unnatural."

10/12/2007 10:44:39 PM

some aspects of technology are ugly but some are amazingly beautiful.

10/12/2007 11:10:00 PM

okay, I see your point

the works of man are not "natural," then, because they are inanimate objects created by creatures...most nature is just the creatures themselves, trees and squirrels

and yes, by strict application of this definition, a bird's nest is not "natural"...it's difficult to know where to draw the line, but I think we crossed it a few thousand years ago

10/12/2007 11:10:59 PM

Quote :

"and yes, by strict application of this definition, a bird's nest is not "natural"...it's difficult to know where to draw the line, but I think we crossed it a few thousand years ago"

To take the "strict application" to its most extreme conclusion, the line exists at the use of tools.

10/12/2007 11:13:06 PM

Quote :

" So I've heard it argued that the CO2 concentration actually follows the temperature change instead of the other way around, meaning that this increase in CO2 will not necessarily be followed by a proportional increase in temperature as it has up until this point. discuss? "

There are several feedbacks that happen as a result of increased temperature, that can cause an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, that further cause the temperature to change. That's the whole point of those CO2/Temperature graphs, to indicate that there is a correlation to CO2 and temperature, and that humans pumping out extra CO2 causes the temperature to rise.

It's obvious when you compare sunlight exposure, temperature, and CO2 levels together, than mere solar output can't directly account for all the CO2 increase (since the solar output/milankovitch cycles fluctuate at a much higher rate than the glacial/interglacial period). Basically, the sun triggers certain things that either release more Co2 or to not absorb as much CO2, which causes a positive feedback loop, causing an increase in temperature. So the idea that CO2 doesn't increase the temperature, but that it only indicates an increase in temperature, doesn't make sense, because there is no other mechanism that can account for the temperature rise, if you throw out Co2.

Not to mention the fundamental physical property of CO2's emissions spectra that shows it absorbs the particular frequencies that most of the thermal energy from the sun is transmitted by.

Quote :

"http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758 "

Why is your propaganda film better than any others? I hope that movie is not the sole source of your global climate change denialist beliefs.

10/13/2007 12:47:43 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7033498.stm

Move the slider. Currently, the summer extent of the northern ice cap is about 33% of what it used to be.

Give it another few years (or at least before most of us turn 30) and in the summer we won't have an ice cap. It'll be melted. gone. all of it. LOOK AT THE SLIDEY THING AND TELL ME YOU DON'T AGREE!


This probably won't have a drastic effect on the Earth or on our lives. It could, but it since that ice is floating, it won't flood any of our coastal cities, and since this stuff is melting and freezing on a seasonal basis, it won't cause any local salinity abnormality in the ocean and send Europe into an ice age like Gore mentioned in reference to Greenland (in the film).

So... you may say that this isn't a reason to change anything about our lifestyle. And you would be certainly justified. But think about Earth from space. It'll look very different in a short period of time. On top of that, we don't understand this shit well. On top of that, we know we're fucking things up. We don't know to what degree, but the rate that we're fucking things up increases every year.

You know, I think this probably is justification for us to work for a solution. The argument "things might not get fucked up much if we don't do anything" just doesn't convince me very well.

It is just probably a good idea to change something before that ice cap melts, before the CO2 level doubles, before temperatures right 5 deg F when we don't understand what the consequences are. I honestly don't understand how skeptics can use the we don't know very well argument against change.

[Edited on October 13, 2007 at 1:27 AM. Reason : dfas]

10/13/2007 1:25:43 AM

Quote :

" It's obvious when you compare sunlight exposure, temperature, and CO2 levels together, than mere solar output can't directly account for all the CO2 increase (since the solar output/milankovitch cycles fluctuate at a much higher rate than the glacial/interglacial period). Basically, the sun triggers certain things that either release more Co2 or to not absorb as much CO2, which causes a positive feedback loop, causing an increase in temperature. So the idea that CO2 doesn't increase the temperature, but that it only indicates an increase in temperature, doesn't make sense, because there is no other mechanism that can account for the temperature rise, if you throw out Co2. Not to mention the fundamental physical property of CO2's emissions spectra that shows it absorbs the particular frequencies that most of the thermal energy from the sun is transmitted by."

Ok. That last point is the one that I'm most familar with and seems the most obvious argument.

yees...

10/13/2007 1:31:55 AM

^^Somehow, I have trouble trusting that slider. Seriously, it fluctuates between growth in some areas and recession in others until the year 2000, at which point it begins to sharply recede. Does it mean to tell me that arctic recession didn't begin until 2000? That somehow, the ice cap did not begin to really recede until activist warnings about global warming became mainstream? That, for whatever reason, all the shitty things we put into the environment from the Industrial Revolution until the 1960s did less to the environment than whatever the fuck we were doing in the late 90s?

Again, it doesn't seem like an accurate portrayal. I'm not saying it can't be true, but it looks like it's distorting the facts at the very least.


[Edited on October 13, 2007 at 1:37 AM. Reason : ..]

10/13/2007 1:36:13 AM

^ from what a layman understands, the extent of the ice cap should be linear-ish (mostly, as far as it matters for this discussion) to the increase in carbon concentration from the natural state. If you accept more assumptions, the carbon concentration should be proportional to the total carbon emissions up to that time, which would mean looking at



In an integral sense. Which is to say that if Earth balanced it's CO2 imbalance right now, the ice cap would remain around 2007 levels forever. I don't have the above graph through 2007, but take:



and look at the upper left graph, which is the CO2 concentration, which reflects temperature change. I guess i'll post another graph...

(this is our "delta T" graph)

this is what melts the ice caps (heat, heat melts ice). NOW, Gore's claim (doesn't mean I'm agreeing with him) is that uncovering of ocean area near the polar ice caps traps more thermal energy. This is because ice/snow is white and water is blue-ish. Ice reflects. Water absorbs more heat than ice (not rocket science). This would mean that actual recession of the ice caps would be some exaggerated function of the temperature of the earth. So imagine taking the delta T graph above and squaring it or cubing it. This is the behavior the ice cap recession would follow according to Gore in a nutshell.

So according to this logic, a drastic decrease in the ice cap area at some time should be exactly what we predict. Looking at the slidey thing, the onset of that drastic and sudden recession would appear to be about now.


*huff*

Now, all the steps taken above are subject to attack, certainly. And a bigger picture is still missing. How often does the ice cap melt? Is this a common thing for the Earth, or would this be the first time in a billion years? Perhaps someone else can add such information to this discussion because I don't know right now.

[Edited on October 13, 2007 at 2:00 AM. Reason : dsf]

10/13/2007 1:54:12 AM

^Excellent job of backing up your previous post with additional data. I just skimmed it (for now) since it's 2 AM and I'm nearly asleep, but I applaud you for making that effort. Will read eventually.

10/13/2007 1:59:51 AM

lol

I only feel strongly about that because this year the Northwest passage "opened" and all that crapton of ice melted, so I was like "HOLY SHIT THAT'S WHAT GORE SAID WHAT HAPPEN!"

And I couldn't hardly even believe it.

10/13/2007 2:01:57 AM

I do not base my beliefs on propaganda films, no.

I just don't jump to conclusions until I see conclusive evidence. Much like my view on religion. I am atheist. When I see undeniable undisputable proof of a god, i'll believe. I also tend to go against alarmists/extremists because 99% of the time they're more concerned with political agenda than the truth.

10/13/2007 2:08:24 AM

How? how? how? how?

did someone manage to squeeze religion into this discussion?

10/13/2007 2:15:38 AM

^Just ignore it and move on, then maybe it won't escalate into active discussion.

10/13/2007 2:16:48 AM

seriously though:

I'm trying to imagine a case where religion would affect the outcome, ie

"these models show that this industrial activity will destroy the Earth and we should stop"
"actually, that only applies to Christians, our Buddhist values dictate we continue"

10/13/2007 2:21:13 AM

^Here's one for you:

"It won't matter, Jesus is coming back before the world melts anyway."

10/13/2007 2:24:38 AM

First miracle of the second coming!!1

[Edited on October 13, 2007 at 3:16 AM. Reason : I know Killface already did it...]

10/13/2007 3:09:23 AM

not trying to bring religion into the discussion, i'm just saying I feel the same way about religion as I do about global warming. When I see undeniable proof of a god i'll believe. When I see undeniable proof that we are causing global warming, i'll believe.

10/13/2007 11:50:25 AM

^ Maybe i'm misunderstanding you, but it seems moronic to compare god to global warming.

What kind of proof would satisfy you to believe humans affect the climate? The only way to empirically prove it would be to ramp up CO2 emissions, then completely cut off CO2 emissions, and then wait for the corresponding change in temperatures.

Since an experiment like this would obviously be extremely unethical, and impossible to execute, the next best thing is to look at existing sources of CO2 emissions, and see if there is a correlation with temperature, which there is.

10/13/2007 11:26:16 PM

next up
















Spike tv takes a closer look at the feminist movement of the 1960's.

10/13/2007 11:31:50 PM

i like npr as well and im pretty liberal

but i also watch fox news from time to time.

i dont care, i watch and make my OWN opinion. try that sometime, kiddos

10/13/2007 11:36:07 PM

pffff. thinking for yourself is so passe

10/13/2007 11:41:55 PM

your mom's passe

10/13/2007 11:44:08 PM

what about my moms passe

it cant be too bad if thats where i came from!!!1

10/13/2007 11:45:07 PM

i actually saw the double entendre after the posting

10/13/2007 11:46:14 PM

how about that one?

10/13/2007 11:47:09 PM

You can have coorelation without causation. See my pirate graph.

*edit*

And as far as proof of god/human caused global warming. They aren't that difficult. I don't know what evidence it would require for me to believe either but I can rest assured that when sufficient evidence does come, it will be obvious.

[Edited on October 14, 2007 at 1:25 AM. Reason : m]

10/14/2007 1:25:04 AM

you think global warming is caused by either humans....or god

man, what a dick

10/14/2007 1:43:53 AM

Maybe not god but certainly kangaroos before humans. CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere. Anthropogenic CO2 makes up about 14% of that, which means anthropogenic CO2 makes up .0042% of the atmosphere. The other .0258% of the atmosphere that is CO2 is contributed by kangaroo farts, leaves decaying, and the ocean (among other things).

10/14/2007 2:11:31 AM

I think that no matter how you turn it, God is directly or indirectly responsible for global warming.

10/15/2007 1:00:13 AM

/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755&page=34

10/15/2007 1:02:24 AM

if polar bears can survive at asheboro zoo they can live with out all dat ice

10/15/2007 1:03:59 AM

But are they happy there?

10/15/2007 1:15:33 AM

i wish we had more regular bears in raleigh...like it would be the shit to be able to potentially see a bear in your day

10/15/2007 1:17:46 AM

^ Yeah, it'd be great.

10/15/2007 1:30:18 AM

at least he's smiling

10/15/2007 1:37:10 AM

^ I think that's a result of the scar tissue--and half his cheek missing.

10/15/2007 1:40:38 AM

i tell you what, i see a bear and i am doing every single thing possible to live i bet i would find somewhere like a building or a roof or some shit where i would get away safely

10/15/2007 1:43:12 AM

i hope we dont freeze to death

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 1:48 AM. Reason : haha wrong thread but i'll keep it]

10/15/2007 1:48:16 AM

^^ Dummy.

Q. How fast can a bear run?

A. 30 mph for short bursts

Q. What is the recommended course of action if a sudden daytime encounter with a bear results in an attack?

A. Play dead

http://www.mountainnature.com/wildlife/Bears/BearKnowledgeTestResults.asp

It's a good thing you don't live in the wild, dnl--you'd quickly be dead.

10/15/2007 2:06:31 AM

^ following the references in your source:

Quote :

"3. Handling an ATTACK Most encounters with bears end without injury. If a bear actually makes contact, you may increase your chances of survival by following these guidelines. In general, there are 2 kinds of attack: DEFENSIVE * What is the bear's behaviour? The bear is feeding, protecting its young and/or unaware of your presence. It attacks because it sees you as a threat. This is the most COMMON type of attack. * Use bear spray. * If the bear makes contact with you: PLAY DEAD! PLAY DEAD. Lie on your stomach with legs apart and position your arms so that your hands are crossed behind your neck. This position makes you less vulnerable to being flipped over and protects your face, the back of your head and neck. Remain still until you are sure the bear has left the area. These defensive attacks are generally less than two minutes in duration. If the attack continues, it may mean the attack has shifted from defensive to predatory - FIGHT BACK! PREDATORY * Try to escape into a building, car or up a tree. * If you cant escape, DONT PLAY DEAD. * Use bear spray and fight back! FIGHT BACK! Intimidate that bear: shout; hit it with a branch or rock, do whatever it takes to let the bear know you are not easy prey. This kind of attack is very rare but it is serious because it usually means the bear is looking for food and preying on you."

10/15/2007 2:22:40 AM

trust me i've watched enough movies and tv to know i wouldnt die...i swear to god i would be gone

he wouldnt even have a chance to even chase me

10/15/2007 2:22:55 AM

you only have to outrun your friend

10/15/2007 2:24:29 AM

^^^ If, if, if. It doesn't matter either way--there's no large constituency advocating that dnl would do well in the wild, and bears eat mrfrogs.

10/15/2007 2:42:00 AM

Frogs on boobs infected with maggots

10/15/2007 2:43:38 AM

boob!

10/15/2007 12:11:50 PM

Paul Cousins has the power to stop global warming.

But he doesn't in order to punish unruly college students.

10/26/2007 10:46:15 AM