Coffeehouse Thread

31 posts

Sun Warming!

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • webmonkey

    Those of you unconvinced, I think you are missing the point. That graph shows that when there is a lot of co2 in the atmosphere the temp is higher, this is a basic scientific fact, greenhouse gases such as co2 keep the sun's energy in and temperature rises, global warming. It is a fact that in the last 30-40 years we have been pumping massive amounts of co2 into the atmosphere, you can see the spike on the graph. Therefore that massive spike in co2 is likely to be closely followed by a rather large increase in temperature. I don't see how you can argue with that ????? It's basic primary school science. The only thing that is not fact is what is going to happen, but the possibilities are pretty obvious, but overall i don't think with a population this size we can survive in our current state.

  • DuNuNuBatman

    Dr Herbie wrote:
    
    ER is the only really good thing Crichton has done (write about what you know, Crichton was a doctor I believe).  Jurasic Park was a good film becuase Speilberg took Crichtons book and made a good story out of it.


    The first movie was good. Otherwise the books were way better than the movies he pumped out... Tricked on going to the island?!?! come on! Were they even trying with that one??? Smiley

    Forget about how much pollution humans are creating. What we need to do is get rid of all our damn cows!!!
    http://ecow.engr.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/get/che/555/root/1presentati/cows-n-cars4.swf

    And that's science fact!!! Smiley

  • raymond

    Friends of Science Videos:

    Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3


    Contrary to claims that the science of climate change has been settled, the causes of the past century’s modest warming is highly contested in the climate science community.

    The climate experts presenting in the video demonstrate that science is quickly diverging away from the hypothesis that the human release of greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide, is having a significant impact on global climate.


    “There is absolutely no convincing scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gases are driving global climate change”, stated climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. He added that the Canadian government’s plan to designate carbon dioxide as a “toxic” under CEPA is irresponsible and without scientific merit. “Carbon dioxide is a staff of life, plain and simple. It makes up less than 4% of greenhouse gases and it is not a toxic.”




    Very interesting site with many links to relevant articles and data:

    Still Waiting for Greenhouse
    http://www.john-daly.com/



    Cool


  • DigitalDud

    I was watching a show on deep underwater creatures and one of the interesting things it brought up was how the earth actually produces some heat on its own, the sun is not the absolute source of energy to the planet.  There are radioactive materials deep in the planet's core from a star whose decay still produces heat.  I doubt this is enough to affect the climate in any sort of way but given that its a fairly recent discovery, it shows how little we really know.

  • Tensor

    Or, you could try looking at the science from non-political sources, who dont have an agenda to keep industry going or to shut it down.

    http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278

    For every climatologist who says there is no climate change, there are a hundred who says there is.

    It would be great if there was no climate change. Wonderful. I wish it were the case. You just cant argue with the facts that it is going on, no matter how inconvenient, and we need to do something about it before it really runs out of control.

  • BlackTiger

    Thare is one more underestimated factor - strange "space rays". They are not well investigated, but there are some proofs of existance and posible effects. Basically, they are some sort of microwaves and they are warming up literally everything (stars and planets, entire space). There are made by exploding powerfull stars and collapsing galaxies and black holes.

    Our Universe is too uninvestigated to say "We know exactly!"

    If you stumbled and fell down, it doesn't mean yet, that you're going in the wrong direction.
    Last modified
  • Dr Herbie

    The problem with scientists is that they will qualify everything with 'possibly' and 'likely' and 'all else being equal'.  That's becuase scientists work in a world of statistical probabilities and nothing is ever 100% certain. 'Is the sky blue?' you ask, 'Probably' replies the scientist. I know this because I still do this even though I haven't worked in science for 7 years. This always leaves politicians with a chance to ignore 'inconvenient truths'.


    Analogy:

    You're sitting in your favourite cafe halfway through drinking a cup of your favourite coffee.  Suddenly the manager rushes up and tells you that there's a chance that rat poison was accidentally added to your coffee.  He's not completely sure whether it was or not, but there's a chance.  If rat poison was added, he's not sure how dangerous it would be because he doesn't know how much might have been added nor does he know how potent it is.

    Do you sit there and finish you coffee, or do you go see a doctor?



    We don't know for sure whether global warming is a real problem, but are you willing to take the risk purely for convenience?


    Herbie
     

  • cheong

    Talking about environment thing, I'd like to know if there's anyone doing research on "the effect of trading to our planet"?

    Here's a summary of my thought:

    Let's assume the theory of birth of the Earth is from the cooling as a droplet of boiling universe substance is true. When the Earth is cooled down to solid, we can assume the mass of substances on the surface is roughly evenly distributed.

    When people on Earth begin to trade, materials are moving to rich places as money flows. The more advanced transportation technologies are, the faster it moves.

    Let think the Earth as a giant "spinning toy"(I forgot what is the word in English), if there's balance weight on the circumference of the surface, it'll spin without problem. If it become slightly unbalanced, it'll become swingy. If we continue to move weight unbalancedly, it'll eventally become unable to spin up.

    So to what level of global trade will have impact to the degree of axis of the Earth?

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • Dr Herbie

    cheong wrote:
    Talking about environment thing, I'd like to know if there's anyone doing research on "the effect of trading to our planet"?

    Here's a summary of my thought:

    Let's assume the theory of birth of the Earth is from the cooling as a droplet of boiling universe substance is true. When the Earth is cooled down to solid, we can assume the mass of substances on the surface is roughly evenly distributed.

    When people on Earth begin to trade, materials are moving to rich places as money flows. The more advanced transportation technologies are, the faster it moves.

    Let think the Earth as a giant "spinning toy"(I forgot what is the word in English), if there's balance weight on the circumference of the surface, it'll spin without problem. If it become slightly unbalanced, it'll become swingy. If we continue to move weight unbalancedly, it'll eventally become unable to spin up.

    So to what level of global trade will have impact to the degree of axis of the Earth?


    I think that in comparison to the volume of the planet, the amount of materials we shift about is too small to matter.  Even if we started shifting entire mountain ranges it would be tiny in comparison to the Earth's volume.

    The issue with trade is the amount of fuel that's used to transport things.  It's a current topic of conversation in the UK -- which has least environmental impact, organically grown food that shipped in from abroad, or non-organically grown food that's grown locally.


    Herbie

  • Massif

    Dr Herbie wrote:

    The issue with trade is the amount of fuel that's used to transport things.  It's a current topic of conversation in the UK -- which has least environmental impact, organically grown food that shipped in from abroad, or non-organically grown food that's grown locally.


    According to my environmental sciences studying (and highly opinionated) cousin, choose local every time. Then you can try to persuade them to go organic afterwards.

  • Dr Herbie

    Massif wrote:
    
    Dr Herbie wrote:
    The issue with trade is the amount of fuel that's used to transport things.  It's a current topic of conversation in the UK -- which has least environmental impact, organically grown food that shipped in from abroad, or non-organically grown food that's grown locally.


    According to my environmental sciences studying (and highly opinionated) cousin, choose local every time. Then you can try to persuade them to go organic afterwards.


    The last argument I heard (earlier this week) was about tomato growing.  In Spain, they grow them outdoors and pay fuel to transport them to the UK.  In the UK they grow them in heated greenhouses, using fuel for heat instead of transport.  Which is least damaging to the environment?

    Of course, the real answer is to only eat tomatos when they are in season and you can grow them yourself in your garden. Smiley

    Herbie

  • ScanIAm

    I went to www.junkscience.com where you can find a large amount of information countering the global warming/greenhouse issue (as well as a rather disturbing pro-DDT stance?!?!?). 

    I read as much as I could and on it's face, it seems plausable that global warming is simply BS.  Some of the data from the 'hockey stick' graph is dubious and really, we don't know for sure about anything older than 150 years.

    But I'm not a climatologist and I was only marginal in chemistry, so I'm going to rely on the opinion of people who get paid to know. 

    And the people who get paid to know are telling us things we don't want to hear.  Our tax dollars are funding research that is giving us answers we don't like.  Simple greed would have them telling us things are peachy.

    So unless they have a collective pathological desire to scare the sh*t out of us, they have no reason to lie.  They gain nothing by lying about this.

  • raymond

    More to think about:

    Global warming:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

    Global warming controversy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy



    Solar Variation Theory:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation_theory




    Source: NASA
    http://sec.gsfc.nasa.gov/popscise.jpg

    Attribution of recent climate change:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change


    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
    ~Richard P. Feynman

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.