penguinfaery | (no subject)

So this is like super serious business, but it's been nagging me a lot. I've realized that Global warming denial is one of my big pet peeves. One I think I never noticed because I was never AROUND people who denied it.

If you don';t know much about the subject this is a nice basic summary. It's not the most indepth thing ever, but it's informative.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The debate at large doesn't consist of whether or not a global temperature shift is occurring but whether or not it is largely at the hands of human beings. Now, we know for a fact the rising CO2 levels can be attributed to us, but not all of it. Also, the data we have access to is only recent, something a little under or over a century, which is a blink of an eye in Earth time. We do have data on the large trends over Earth's "recent" history, but not anything on the level of saying that these kinds of changes can or can't happen this fast.

Basically what I'm saying is that scientists as a whole can't definitively say anything one way or another. Usually it has to happen for us to know, which in this case, could lead to millions dying.

Anyways, I think that the issue that this should highlight for people is that the Earth is an ever-changing landscape on which we must constantly evolve to survive, and eventually we should look towards the stars for our continued survival as a race. Because even if we do curb our current attitudes towards the environment and our natural resources, a few of the many ticking time bombs (natural disasters) will eventually happen, and in Earth's near future (thousands to hundreds of thousands of years) so it's best to spread as far as we can.

PS - Correlation is not causation. Big mistake laymen make in their scientific "proof". Best thing for any scientific theory is lots and lots of peer review until everyone is blue in the face...and even then you should question your findings.

Actually any scientist that says he can prove anything is full of it. Science never proves anything, they can only limit possibilities. The fact remains that earth has not seen a temperature shift this bad in the thousands of years we have of recorded temperature (so you're wrong in saying that we only have recordings over the last century). Over production is also the cause for many green house gases that are attributing to rising temperature. While they occur in nature, human industries and agriculture are adding a greater influx.

There really can't be any denying that humans effect the earth. And when we are creating a great influx on things that have been shown to trap heat and warm the atmosphere, well then. I know common sense isn't really that common but it seems pretty clear to me.

I'm not wrong in saying we only have recordings over the last century. The precision with which we measure things is a recent occurrence, and any recordings before the last century are done through ice cores, layers of the Earth, etc etc which show trends over periods of time. They do not show data for every single day, for every single area of the planet.

Also, you shouldn't bring the words "common sense" into a broad assumption argument like global warming. As I mentioned earlier, correlation is not causation. Nothing is ever as simple as human industry causing global warming. It my in fact be, and more than likely is, a series of events, several of which we are the source of, some not, that are triggering a climate shift in the planet.

And even if we curb our part, the other sun-related, or changes in the earth's core parts may "doom" us anyway. So it is never as simple as "common sense" dictates that this or this is the answer.

I didn't say that human industry is the only cause for the earth getting warmer. I stated that it was a cause. If you leave water sitting in the sun it get warm. If you have gasses that are rapidly being produced that trap heat it's going to heat up the atmosphere and that is common sense, hence why I used it.

No you can not record temperature to a tee day to day. I'm not going to know that in 1632 that it was snowing 3 inches and it was 19.5 degrees, but we can know a good and pretty damn accurate estimate from writings, eye witness accounts, tree rings, soil samples and things like that that give a reading that would correlate with those. No they're not a day to day account, but they are helpful in seasons changing.

I'm not arguing that humans and industrialization is the sole cause of it, but it can't be denied that creating an abundance of gases that warm the earth aren't going to warm the earth. humans are contributing to it whether it is a natural process (which it is in my opinion) or it's some strange phenomena that is occurring.

I just wanted to highlight something that may have been overlook in the midst of my argument, which is that I actually agree with you that human industry is a cause for the Earth getting warmer. My only real argument on your statements was placing blame as to how much, and what science does or doesn't agree at currently.

But like I said earlier, the scariest part of this is that if we are the primary cause 1.) we may have already reached the point of no return, or 2.)it'll take the death of tens of millions before any real, hard hitting discussions take place.

But I have faith in humanity and our knack for adaptation. Sure we have to fall to learn how to get back up, but it's the getting back up part that matters in the survival of a species.

1.) we may have already reached the point of no return, or 2.)it'll take the death of tens of millions before any real, hard hitting discussions take place.

Terrifies the shit outta me. Which is sorta what started this thing.

Oh, and it WAS started by someone, originally, who thought global warming was "BS"

like BS as in it's not happening like at all?! (cause that is flat out dumb)

The good thing about the no return type thing is that if science is right even a little bit it will be many years after we're dead. Or the Aztecs are right and we'll all die in two years anyways (I really have a feeling that it's going to be Y2K again with that.)

yeah, no I was just saying that we are a cause it may not be entirely our fault, but some of the blame is with us at least. I don't think it's "too late" persay because there have been massive advancements in countries that are developed that would actually keep the rate of warming down and possibly reverse that effect to a point, or (worst possible outcome) the earth will fix it for us and yes it would be a massive population decline that would do it IMO at least

On a lighter note, does anyone know whether or not there is any actual talk as to what to do with places like New York city which are huge to the financial safety of this country? Like any talk about putting up levees or anything?

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Generally enjoying watching you two debate

Re: Generally enjoying watching you two debate

no subject

no subject