 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| Jomb Posts: 237/448 |
when the world is a wasteland its a little late to act. I'm frustrated myself with the large portion of my country who put profits first, then shut their eyes tight, cover their ears and hum, trying to pretend that nothing is going on with the enviroment. We only got 1 earth and we cant leave it anytime soon, so we ought to be taking good care of it. |
| optomon Posts: 34/84 |
Originally posted by Arwon I think that many people in the US are not concerned with doing something with intangible results, like cutting back greenhouse emissions such as Co2 to reduce global termperatures and stabilise climates. They are much more interested in very tangible progress, such as their paychecks. But I think in other western countries, people believe in the cause that they are willing to make decent sacrifices for it. When the world clearly starts burning up into an uninhabitable 140 F degree wasteland as a result of too much anthropogenic Co2 floating around in the atmosphere, only then can the rest of the west laugh at the States for being so foolish. |
| Arwon Posts: 244/631 |
It's funny how in the developed world it's mainly the US where there's substantial numbers of environmnetal skeptics who bleat about the politicising of science and the lack of evidence. It's mainstream bipartisan policy in most other places that emissions that lead to global warming need to be stabilisied and then reduced... and yet we have an administration in the US which doesn't even believe it exists.
Do you people just think the rest of us are dumb and brainwashed, or what? |
| Vyper Posts: 279/575 |
Originally posted by optomonShort, and to the point. I like it  |
| optomon Posts: 33/84 |
Evidence of global warming being anthropogenic is very unsubstantial, and the topic is much more political than scientific. Its a process that many people spend years getting nowhere with. |
| Jomb Posts: 236/448 |
I just watched a portion of a show on Discovery and it said the ocean has risen about 1.5 feet since the 1920s, with that increase weighted more towards recent times. Meaning the rate its rising is rising. Sounds like global warming to me. Is there another reasonable explanation for this? I'm open to an alternative theory. Whether or not we are causing the global warming really does'nt matter in the face of the fact that it IS happening and maybe instead of bickering about whether we are to blame or not we should be seeing if there is anything we can do to halt it. |
| Arwon Posts: 241/631 |
The vast majority of water on the planet isn't in a usable form though. That and an ever-increasing population needing a finite and fixed water-supply makes water scarcity a massive issue. Doubly so in a place like Australia.
Ooops, just missed this bit of nonsense:
Amazing how people forget 7th grade geography. Antarctica is a landmass with massive sheets of ice sitting on top of it. Same deal with Greenland, and there's any number of glaciers and so forth with water locked up in them. The melting of floating ice shelves isn't necesarily the main danger, but a precursor to something bigger. Also, if we're talking about science here... what happens to something as it heats up? That's right - thermal expansion. The water temperature increasing will lead to rising sea levels. This is actually the main likely cause of sea-level rising, the melting of ice shelves and glaciers is just a nice added bonus. |
| Skreename Posts: 560/1427 |
If you want to get overly specific, technically the amount of water remaining on earth decreases with each and every space flight, as a small amount likely gets lost into space.
Assuming of course that you don't count that as "outer atmosphere". In which case it's constricted to whatever gets caught with the probes that go other places. Still a miniscule quantity, but... umm... yeah. I don't think I had any real good point to make with this. |
| Vyper Posts: 276/575 |
For those of you telling me to grow the fuck up, etc., good for you. I like it when people try to insult me. It doesn't work 
Another thing we should all consider. Did you know the amount of water on earth never changes? Whether it's in our bodies, in animals, in the plants, in the ground, in the ocean, or in the atmosphere, it's always the same. Pretty cool, huh? |
| Skreename Posts: 541/1427 |
I'm not disregarding what you said. Just pointing that out first in a rather coarse way. If you didn't notice, I AGREED with most of what you said.
Moreover, a lot of people don't have qualifications to speak on what they do. Does it stop them? |
| Tanooki Hero Posts: 15/21 |
I've edited my post, just because I miss spoke doesn't not mean you should disregard the entire post, if your going to close your eyes and ears to a scientist then you really should not have anything to say about this subject. What are your qualifications to have anything to say about the subject. Also, if you'd like to learn more about global cooling you could just wiki it. |
| Skreename Posts: 540/1427 |
I'm going to ignore your whole post in order to complain that water is in fact MORE dense than ice, since otherwise ice wouldn't float.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way... Actually, a lot of things ARE inconclusive on the subject in general, from what I've heard. However, the dependence on "dirty" fuels can still cause issues ranging from smog to acid rain. Forest fires have indeed been villified far too much over time; this is unfortunate, since stopping all of the minor ones will cause more significant ones to sweep through destroying far more worthwhile things, including potentially the forest as a whole and anyone living anywhere in the vicinity. And I actually hadn't heard that thing about global cooling in the 70s. |
| Tanooki Hero Posts: 14/21 |
I came to this board for the hacking forums, but this thread caught my interest. Many of you are talking about the validity of various scientific models and making statements like "I say that like every real* scientist under the sun sees the evidence and has concluded that there is a definite link. " I'd like to ask how many of you are actually involved in the scientific community.
I am not an environmental scientist, I am a physicist. I am one semester from recieveing my bachelors, and I plan on going to grad school. I am currently doing my part to find alternative energy sources, probably a larger part then anyone here. I work in a nano power research laboratory. My particular research is in characterizing matierals for use in photo- and alpha- voltaics(solar cells and radio batteries). Also, my minor is in philosophy and I have taken several courses specifically on epistemology, the study of what we can know. My focus in my minor has been the philosophy of science, and in studying it I've learned that politicalization of science is a HUGE issue. The corruption is usually not on the part of the scientists(usually), but the way it works is that research groups need funding, usually alot of it, science is expensive. These groups appeal to various goverment organiztions for MOST of this money. My current research is funded by SOCOM, DARPA and NRO(This should appease liberals that think military spending is only good for death and destruction, in this case war is the largest motive for developing these new energy sources). Research that sounds appealing to beaurocrat's is much more easily funded. If the subject of research can be politicized, then certain groups will be funded rather then others. Global warming is not unique in this respect, (don't flame me for this) but cancer research recieves WAY to much money in the united states, because everyone can identify it as a noble cause. The same money could be applied to other types of medical research with greater benefit to mankind. Based on my own knowledge of the subject and from talking to many proffesors in physics, chemistry and enviromental science, I would agree that at BEST global warming research is non-conclusive, we may be in a warming trend, if so how much, if its that much how much is our fault. What many people don't realize is that climate science is in its infancy, we have tried to predict the weather since the dawn of man, but much of climate science is very VERY new. In the 1970's there was a political panic about global cooling, funny how no one seems to remember that. Also, the largest producer of green house gases is not mankind, its forests, especially evergreens. Aside from developing alternative energy(I'm doing my part), one large way man can reduce green house gases is to STOP interfering with forest fires, they are naturally occuring and the presence of mankind has reduced there effect globably on forest control . Almost forgot, ever watch a ice cube melt in a glass of water? Did you see the water level raise? No? That's because solids floating in fluid displace a volume of fluid proportional to there mass and water is more dense then ice. Amazing how people forget 7th grade science class. I am very intrested in hearing which of you fellow posters are involved in the scientific community. |
| Billiards Koopa Posts: 10/174 |
Originally posted by Skydude You're talking about a guy who "invented the internet" |
| Arwon Posts: 218/631 |
One of the big problems with carbon trading schemes in this country, there's too much of that. On the other hand, we do need more damn forests in this country so I guess it does need to be encouraged.
The problem of credits being given for carbon sinks undermining efforts to reduce emissions could be solved with a much harsher baseline numver of credits, but there isn't really the political will for that. Because politicans are idiots and environmental economics is really non-intuitive. |
| Skydude Posts: 2432/2607 |
Well, it depends how they work. In some cases, from some of the models I've seen, it would make things worse, such as various afforestation proposals which get far more credit than they do benefit. |
| Arwon Posts: 217/631 |
WE NEED FUCKING CARBON TRADING SCHEMES |
| Jomb Posts: 215/448 |
ROM - some things about the Earth do change over vast periods of time. The magnetic poles have shifted, the continents themselves change shape and position on the earth as the tectonic plates slide around. Antartica was not always at the South pole. The real question to your theory is whether or not it was at the South pole for all times in which man has existed to put a culture there.
Vyper- i'm not suggesting that we give up our lives or change radically, only that we put serious and not half-assed effort into getting off of fossil fuels and onto something better. It would not only help the environment, but would also made us more independant. |
| Deleted User Posts: 71/-7750 |
Vyper, what are you gonna do about it? I bet you have the SAME thoughts as us, unless YOU'RE the one blowing the Semi-Truck...  |
| Skreename Posts: 192/1427 |
The equator is the arbitrary line that happens to be halfway between the poles. For it to be on the pole and still retain its warmth, it would mean the planet's axis was tilted WAY out of its ordinary position, and that's very unhealthy. Especially since that part of the planet would be baked by constant warmth.
Of course, having it vary in position would fit with the possibility of a slightly tilting axis, but anything too far would have massive ramifications. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
