The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed, scientists find
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-10-2012, 02:26 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
There's no denying the climate change. I don't care where the reports come from. One can see it with their own eyes, and feel it with their own skin. The planet's getting hotter. Honestly, I don't see Earth being habitable in about 100-200 years.

The oceans are becoming much more rife with tropical storm/hurricane activity. Hurricanes are essentially heat-engines, and the warmer the water gets, the more food for hurricanes is plentiful. This season's been pretty active, and thankfully we've only had one hurricane come through...and hopefully, our region's seen the worst of this season. Hurricane seasons are also becoming a bit more active before the official start and end of the season...not that the official dates set things in stone for Mother Nature; she'll do as she damn well pleases.
Pole shifting will take a thousand years maybe two. The effects are fare gradual than Co2 data shows. Infact there are two very obvious points to the C02 data that both the RIGHT and the LEFT sides of the issue fail to understand.

The Greenhouse effect is an INSTANT EFFECT.
You don't need to overload the Carbon Cycle in order to heat the Earth quickly. This is LIGHT we're talking about. It passes through the layer of Carbon hanging over our cities and the HEAT is trapped by the same smog.

If these smog layers were gone the planet would return to a more moderate temperature nearly over night. It wouldn't stop the caps from Melting, they were going to melt anyway now just a lot faster.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-10-2012, 03:00 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

Hmmmmm....

Isn't it funny how stuff that is described as clean power (nuclear energy) is so darned dangerous? But, if just about everything were nuclear powered, (from power grids to motorcycles) I bet we'd get rid of a lot of environmental woes, as long as we were responsible.

Cold fusion, anyone?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-11-2012, 01:02 PM
tannerwaterbury's Avatar
tannerwaterbury tannerwaterbury is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Sure, that's why you ranted in your last post about "horrendous regulations".
The tricky thing about lying is that you need a good memory in order to be consistent.

You might convince some stupid rednecks but here people are not so dumb as to fall for corporate-financed right-wing climate change denial propaganda.
I could say the same about convincing gullible hippy peace loving dimwits who'd do anything to make sure we revert back to pre industrial times that Global warming is the only thing thats true.
__________________
ALL PRAISE TO ZARDOZ!

GREAT SCOTT!!! ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ!

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-11-2012, 01:14 PM
tannerwaterbury's Avatar
tannerwaterbury tannerwaterbury is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 456
Default

If I may ask, it seems as though everyone here but me are absolutely CONVINCED that AGW is happening, and nothing can be done. Has anyone else done any objective studies from both Raw and Altered data, and compared the 2 side by side? It just seems like everyone here knows for fact, when in reality, no one knows what will happen the next 10 to 100 years. I don't know if the Earth will be a fireball or snowball, but I am certain that at the current trend, we've been in a decline over the past 14 years, and thats reading the RAW data. could someone here at least do some studies without any political motivation, just as a pure objective standpoint, and also do their studies? I mean, it IS quite frustrating that all of you blame me as being a denialist, when I've seem to be the ONLY objective one in this whole debate. Everyone else seems to assume that we are all burning up, and that we are doomed, without even considering studying the skeptical viewpoint of the "debate". I mean, I can be fine with not convincing, or lat least opening your minds to the skeptical viewpoint, but to flat out deny the other evidence is just messed up. I'll leave the debate with these last words, but I just want to ask you all to consider studying the viewpoints of the skeptics before coming in calling me a denier. That just starts a whole fight, and I don't even want to get into that. I am a SKEPTIC, which is far different from outright denying.
__________________
ALL PRAISE TO ZARDOZ!

GREAT SCOTT!!! ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ!

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-11-2012, 01:18 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
I could say the same about convincing gullible hippy peace loving dimwits who'd do anything to make sure we revert back to pre industrial times that Global warming is the only thing thats true.
Totally agree with you on this.
I am totally opposed to this form of Gaiaism, this pagan logic of "we have raped mother Earth and now we are getting punished for it".
I am an atheist but I also deeply care about the monotheistic revolution which got rid of this pagan balance thinking (there is a drought so we gotta sacrifice a goat/virgin to soothe the fertility goddess). Namely Job and Jesus illustrate that we are basically on our own.

So yeah, when people talk about the Judeo-Christian legacy they might wanna keep this in mind. There is no natural balance or any sh*t like that.
Furthermore getting out of modernity is of course neither feasible nor desirable.

But just because there are some people who think that this is the solution to the problem doesn't imply that the problem doesn't exist. As you wrote in several posts you do not believe in it so you are hardly better than these Gaiaists.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
If I may ask, it seems as though everyone here but me are absolutely CONVINCED that AGW is happening, and nothing can be done.
No. Average temperatures are rising which is a fact but whether it is indeed entirely caused by climate gas emissions is not totally clear. The likelihood is large but as anything in science it is not a 100%.
That nothing can be done is also wrong, of course reducing climate gas emissions and/or the ability of the ecosphere to transform CO2 into O2, i.e. trees, are measures that can alleviate the problem assuming that the greenhouse effect is the major cause of the rising temperatures.

As I explained in an earlier post the real issue is that once we take into account our reactions the problem is asymmetric. Not doing anything against really existing human-caused climate change will lead to a lot of damage whereas doing something against inexistant human-caused climate change will only lead, assuming that our only measure is to tax CO2 and subsidize forests and that you believe in the story told by Econ 101, to some mild misallocations. Too much trees, too few steel factories. Can be easily amended at very small costs whereas the destruction of entire ecosystems and the resulting migration and wars will lead to enormous costs and loss of human life.

Last edited by horatio : 09-11-2012 at 01:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-11-2012, 01:58 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
I could say the same about convincing gullible hippy peace loving dimwits who'd do anything to make sure we revert back to pre industrial times that Global warming is the only thing thats true.


Duuuuuude.....yer' like totally killin' my buzzzzzz maaaaaan. Heeeere....have a little smoke of Motha Naytcha, maaaaaaan.

__________________

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-11-2012, 02:55 PM
tannerwaterbury's Avatar
tannerwaterbury tannerwaterbury is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 456
Default

[/quote]No. Average temperatures are rising which is a fact but whether it is indeed entirely caused by climate gas emissions is not totally clear. The likelihood is large but as anything in science it is not a 100%.
That nothing can be done is also wrong, of course reducing climate gas emissions and/or the ability of the ecosphere to transform CO2 into O2, i.e. trees, are measures that can alleviate the problem assuming that the greenhouse effect is the major cause of the rising temperatures.

As I explained in an earlier post the real issue is that once we take into account our reactions the problem is asymmetric. Not doing anything against really existing human-caused climate change will lead to a lot of damage whereas doing something against inexistant human-caused climate change will only lead, assuming that our only measure is to tax CO2 and subsidize forests and that you believe in the story told by Econ 101, to some mild misallocations. Too much trees, too few steel factories. Can be easily amended at very small costs whereas the destruction of entire ecosystems and the resulting migration and wars will lead to enormous costs and loss of human life.[/quote]

But I mean, even IF we reduced our emissions, it would still take time, so really, it would still be a danger to the current generation. Also, I think that the eco system has had time to adapt to compensating any real danger of a fireball earth, so really, isn't more CO2 output a good thing? Wouldn't we see a more lush earth? The best times on this planet occurred during a warming, where life was abundant, and it was hotter THEN then it is now. When people keep asking ti reduce CO2 emissions, my thoughts are always to ask why? Without CO2, we'd have no plants feeding off of it and outputting oxygen into the atmosphere. Past data has shown that there were higher outputs of CO2 when Dinosaurs roamed the earth then there are NOW, and life was Abundant then.
__________________
ALL PRAISE TO ZARDOZ!

GREAT SCOTT!!! ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ!

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-11-2012, 03:11 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Fu*k the dinosaurs. I am not a conservationist, I care about human life. And as many studies have shown (I have only read the Stern Report) increasing average temperatures will overall not be benefical to us. As you said there is a large lag in the system so it is truly a long-run issue.
Of course the distribution isn't even, Greenland might very well become actually green and other cold places become more hospitable to humans (not that Scandinavia is a bad place to live, it's actually one of the best places in the world) but hot places becomes less hospitable or even totally unlivable. Shallow places like islands or Netherland/Belgium might vanish. And there's the extreme weather thingy which has impacted food prices this year. If you are a Westerner a 10% increase in food prices matters little if you only spend 10% of your income on food, that's just a drop of 1%, but if you are a poor fu*k in the third world food scarcity is a life and death issue.
The sad irony is that the First World which emits most per head (and has emitted most per head if you view not merely the flow of emissions but also the stock of CO2 etc in the atmosphere) can fairly easily hedge itself against these risks (Europe might even become colder first if the Gulf Stream stops).

So we are screwed no matter what. If you as well as the scientists who view CO2 emissions as minor cause of global warming are right then we cannot counteract it but it also might not skyrocket as much as mainstream science indicates.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-11-2012, 04:04 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
But I mean, even IF we reduced our emissions, it would still take time, so really, it would still be a danger to the current generation. Also, I think that the eco system has had time to adapt to compensating any real danger of a fireball earth, so really, isn't more CO2 output a good thing? Wouldn't we see a more lush earth? The best times on this planet occurred during a warming, where life was abundant, and it was hotter THEN then it is now. When people keep asking ti reduce CO2 emissions, my thoughts are always to ask why? Without CO2, we'd have no plants feeding off of it and outputting oxygen into the atmosphere. Past data has shown that there were higher outputs of CO2 when Dinosaurs roamed the earth then there are NOW, and life was Abundant then.
It would not take time to reduce the temperature rise. CO2 is a GREENHOUSE GAS. Not a radioactive isotope with a 100 year half life. Currently the planet isn't exactly blanketed in CO2 only industrialized area are. The effect in these areas is rising temperature which causes temperature and weather fluctuations moving normal flows of air like the jet stream by means of Hi Presure.

CO2 Smog is cleared away easily by storms and other air flow. It's our constant maintenance of these smog banks that is altering the climate. And eventually the CO2 gas will become prolific enough to trap more heat as the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases.

Stopping CO2 Emissions would have an immediate effect on planetary temperature because again it's light through a glass. Remove the Glass or the Light and the Temperature will drop considerably.

-----------

It's completely irrelevant when life flourished on the Earth in the past in comparisons to today. Life didn't have entrenched civilizations. Have you really done the research here? This is so simply and logical. You can't just listen to propaganda on both sides...Understand the physics involved.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.