Online Now 3336

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1913
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3381
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

OT: Scientists say global warming close to becoming irreversible

  • Alonzo Harris said...

    You actually don't think that isn't taken into account? With all of the education and research done on this subject, you actually believe that cyclical temperature isn't the base of every projection done. No sh**. Nobel prize work right here.

    Forget graduate level, did anyone in here actually take an University chemistry, biology, or geology lab?

    Elementary? Does anyone know the scientific method?

    Oceanography and chemistry at undergrad level. Coastal ecology and oceanography at one of the better private high schools in Atlanta. Ocean sciences are really an application of all of the primary sciences to one environment; physics, biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

    We actually know and spend way more on space than the ocean. It's practically a another planet to us within our own.

    Thanks for schooling me though, Denzel. I anxiously await your financial instrument based solution to the world's problems. Draw it up for me on your petroleum based tools. Feel free to take a break if you get tired and go grab a bite to eat, preferably non-local foods and a plastic bottle of water.

    Disclaimer: my limited education in science does not mean I proclaim myself an expert or even more knowledgeable than another person in this thread. Don't be an idiot. It was an answer to a question, which is routinely posed under the presumption that anthropogenic climate change skepticism equates to intellectual inferiority.

    This post was edited by PTCcock195 on 3/26/2012 at 5:33 PM

    PTCcock195 ●

  • Dr.Stache said...

    Millions of years of climate change and scientist says it irreversible. Oh well class of 4579. Deal with it.

    The waves at the beach today are getting bigger and bigger. Eventually the lunar pull moves as it circles the earth, and the tide wanes. Meanwhile, an earthquake in the Atlantic sends a tsunami toward the eastern seaboard. As the tsunami approaches the waning tide receeds to unusual levels unusually quickly.

    Of course, the only reason this happens is because the tides naturally recede.

    This post was edited by Alonzo Harris on 3/26/2012 at 5:32 PM

    Alonzo Harris

  • I'm pretty stoked about tropical climates in December tbh.

    signature image
    signature image
     signature image

    DrStach_

  • Alonzo Harris said...

    The waves at the beach today are getting bigger and bigger. Eventually the lunar pull moves as it circles the earth, and the tide wanes. Meanwhile, an earthquake in the Atlantic sends a tsunami toward the eastern seaboard. As the tsunami approaches the waning tide receeds to unusual levels unusually quickly.

    Of course, the only reason this happens is because the tides naturally recede.

    Ah, fantasy land. Takes me back.

    signature image
    signature image
     signature image

    DrStach_

  • PTCcock195 said...

    Oceanography and chemistry at undergrad level. Coastal ecology and oceanography at one of the better private high schools in Atlanta. Ocean sciences are really an application of all of the primary sciences to one environment; physics, biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

    We actually know and spend way more on space than the ocean. It's practically a another planet to us within our own.

    Thanks for schooling me though, Denzel. I anxiously await your financial instrument based solution to the world's problems. Draw it up for me on your petroleum based tools. Feel free to take a break if you get tired and go grab a bite to eat, preferably non-local foods and a plastic bottle of water.

    Disclaimer: my limited education in science does not mean I proclaim myself an expert or even more knowledgeable than another person in this thread. Don't be an idiot. It was an answer to a question, which is routinely posed under the presumption that anthropogenic climate change skepticism equates to intellectual inferiority.

    Not once did I say I had the answers. Being a man of science as you say, I don't understand how you can refute the evidence at hand that atmospheric CO2 is a huge problem for the continuation of the species. The studies are there, and you can replicate them if you debate the science.

    Ignoring or denying the problem is resistance to the development of an answer.

    Alonzo Harris

  • panic

    World is gonna end in December anyway.

    jimtom27486

  • Dr.Stache said...

    I'm pretty stoked about tropical climates in December tbh.

    I can't argue with this. Nothing like 77 degree weather in March.

    signature image signature image signature image

    mriderblue16

  • jimtom27486 said...

    panic

    World is gonna end in December anyway.

    February 29th wasn't on the Mayan calendar. Technically the end of their calendar has already passed.

    PTCcock195 ●

  • So what do we do? I'm cool with this if our liberal friends are. We can force caps on pollution, we can force companies to invest in better stacks, etc. We can pretty much revamp the whole industrial complex but it's going to come at a MAJOR cost to the consumer. I mean major. So I propose our Government pass a law staring that no individuals cost will go up and the companies must absorb all cost in this overhaul. What the government would then do is collect 0 taxes in these companies for 10-15 years. Let them operate tax free so they can absorb these costs and not have to pass those costs to us. That would be a giant headstart.

    signature image
    signature image
     signature image

    DrStach_

  • Dr.Stache said...

    So what do we do? I'm cool with this if our liberal friends are. We can force caps on pollution, we can force companies to invest in better stacks, etc. We can pretty much revamp the whole industrial complex but it's going to come at a MAJOR cost to the consumer. I mean major. So I propose our Government pass a law staring that no individuals cost will go up and the companies must absorb all cost in this overhaul. What the government would then do is collect 0 taxes in these companies for 10-15 years. Let them operate tax free so they can absorb these costs and not have to pass those costs to us. That would be a giant headstart.

    Id be all for it

    Alonzo Harris

  • Alonzo Harris said...

    Id be all for it

    You see, you tried to call me out and now you're agreeing with me. I all about helping the environment. I'm also about my costs not going up, and the companies not eating costs from Government regulation.

    This post was edited by DrStach_ on 3/26/2012 at 6:11 PM

    signature image
    signature image
     signature image

    DrStach_

  • Alonzo Harris said...

    Not once did I say I had the answers. Being a man of science as you say, I don't understand how you can refute the evidence at hand that atmospheric CO2 is a huge problem for the continuation of the species. The studies are there, and you can replicate them if you debate the science.

    Ignoring or denying the problem is resistance to the development of an answer.

    I'm of the opinion that much more powerful forces we have a much more limited understanding of and which are much less in our control are too easily written off or discredited. I'm sorry if lifelong scientists disagree but I can't make myself believe an increase in a naturally occurring gas, marginally caused by human action, has a much more adverse effect on global climate than all of the interactive forces within our ecosystem and universe.

    I'm also kind of a naturalist thanks to my grandfather. A part native American, WWII drill sergeant who knew more about nature than anyone I've ever met, formal education or not. The Earth "fixes" itself as it has for billions of years, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

    PTCcock195 ●

  • TalHawkins112 said...

    Sad day.

    Get ready for this thread to go nuclear, it happens every time haha.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "I ponder the endlessness of the stars" - The Tragically Hip, Fully Completely

    OCanada

  • PTCcock195 said...

    I'm of the opinion that much more powerful forces we have a much more limited understanding of and which are much less in our control are too easily written off or discredited. I'm sorry if lifelong scientists disagree but I can't make myself believe an increase in a naturally occurring gas, marginally caused by human action, has a much more adverse effect on global climate than all of the interactive forces within our ecosystem and universe.

    I'm also kind of a naturalist thanks to my grandfather. A part native American, WWII drill sergeant who knew more about nature than anyone I've ever met, formal education or not. The Earth "fixes" itself as it has for billions of years, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

    I mostly agree with you, but I think the way the earth fixes itself wouldn't be conducive to human life.

    Alonzo Harris

  • I don't know about the rest of you but I for one enjoy a warmer climate. Living here in Michigan you get some hella cold winters and this one was great. I've been in shorts in a T-shirt for the better part of 2 weeks. My only complaint is that this didn't happen sooner. More warmth sooner!

    Jack Passion

  • Dr.Stache said...

    You see, you tried to call me out and now you're agreeing with me. I all about helping the environment. I'm also about my costs not going up, and the companies not eating costs from Government regulation.

    I apologize. I just can't stand people that don't give a damn about the planet they live on. I'm all for sacrifice to get it done. Hell I think environmentally first but im pretty economically conservative, so if the government has to foot the bill without raising taxes on anyone I'm all for it. There are plenty of black holes to fill that will pay for it. I also believe that it will boost our economy in the future. The environment is the only place I want government regulation.

    Alonzo Harris

  • Alonzo Harris said...

    I mostly agree with you, but I think the way the earth fixes itself wouldn't be conducive to human life.

    Bingo! The earth tends to fix itself in abrupt shifts from one equilibrium point to another that may not be anything alike. Peter Ward a paleontologist at the University of Washington had done a lot of work on some of the past mass extinctions, K-T, Permian, etc and hypothesizes that abrupt shifts in climate or other earth systems was the major case fueled by methane beds in the arctic and on the seafloor releasing a lot of their gas. Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 but is way more dangerous on a degree per ppm level. Methane roughly 40 years in the atmosphere, CO2 about 100, but Methane is multiple times more intense (can't remember the exact number).

    signature image signature image signature image

    "I ponder the endlessness of the stars" - The Tragically Hip, Fully Completely

    OCanada

  • Alonzo Harris said...

    I apologize. I just can't stand people that don't give a damn about the planet they live on. I'm all for sacrifice to get it done. Hell I think environmentally first but im pretty economically conservative, so if the government has to foot the bill without raising taxes on anyone I'm all for it. There are plenty of black holes to fill that will pay for it. I also believe that it will boost our economy in the future. The environment is the only place I want government regulation.

    Then you and I agree more than you know.

    signature image
    signature image
     signature image

    DrStach_

  • OCanada said...

    Bingo! The earth tends to fix itself in abrupt shifts from one equilibrium point to another that may not be anything alike. Peter Ward a paleontologist at the University of Washington had done a lot of work on some of the past mass extinctions, K-T, Permian, etc and hypothesizes that abrupt shifts in climate or other earth systems was the major case fueled by methane beds in the arctic and on the seafloor releasing a lot of their gas. Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 but is way more dangerous on a degree per ppm level. Methane roughly 40 years in the atmosphere, CO2 about 100, but Methane is multiple times more intense (can't remember the exact number).

    The problem compounds when trapped CO2 heats up that methane. Crazy stuff.

    Alonzo Harris

  • Alonzo Harris said...

    The problem compounds when trapped CO2 heats up that methane. Crazy stuff.

    Ya, acceleration in complex systems, tipping points and all that jazz. That's what worries scientists the most.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "I ponder the endlessness of the stars" - The Tragically Hip, Fully Completely

    OCanada

  • bhiley77 said...

    Listen, I don't have any ideology that commands me to support/oppose the theory of global warming, I'm just among those who is going to need to see something a tad more concrete before we blow up the economy to "fix" everything.

    I've said numerous times it's not worth fixing, and advances in technology will eventually solve the issue.

    I just think it's extremely ignorant to think that global warming isn't affected by humans.

    signature image signature image signature image

    mriderblue16

  • bhiley77 said...

    It's more where the money isn't: You can't get the grants that scientists need to pay the bills unless you toe the company line.

    It's funny that the scientific method was mentioned earlier in this thread, as global warming science completely ignores it. They get to the point where you test the hypothesis and prove it, and instead we're just told "its a consensus". Then we have the scientists and others who have been caught shamelessly manipulating data that didn't support their conclusions. And the people who claim every single example of extreme weather is the result of climate change, some even including earthquakes.

    Listen, I don't have any ideology that commands me to support/oppose the theory of global warming, I'm just among those who is going to need to see something a tad more concrete before we blow up the economy to "fix" everything.

    Scientific certainty is impossible when dealing with open, complex systems. The reason scientists can be very accurate in experiments is because of their ability to control all the parameters of the experiment. Can't do that with "Earth's" systems, which are open and can not be "closed". Hence accuracy and certainty in the absolute senses of the words are more scientific ideals then anything else in this case.

    But I agree with you that claims about climatic earthquakes and using single events to extrapolate to average global warming as causation are counterproductive no matter what side of the argument you are on.

    This post was edited by OCanada on 3/26/2012 at 7:36 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    "I ponder the endlessness of the stars" - The Tragically Hip, Fully Completely

    OCanada

  • mriderblue16 said...

    I've said numerous times it's not worth fixing, and advances in technology will eventually solve the issue.

    I just think it's extremely ignorant to think that global warming isn't affected by humans.

    I don't think you're ignorant for having an opposing viewpoint.

    I would think you were slightly less intelligent if you believe you're intellectually superior to skeptics while using the same consumer items, but it's okay because you recycle cans and get paper bags at the grocery store instead of plastic when you buy food from all over the country/world.

    PTCcock195 ●

  • bhiley77 said...

    I agree at least partially with what you're saying in regards to applying the scientific method in regards to global warming, but by that same token people need to be careful when they refer to skeptics of the theory as flat-earthers. There are studies that run contrary to the accepted global warming dogma that contain just as applicable science, but these folks are invariably accused of having an agenda, etc (and note that I don't care where their funding comes from, just because an oil company paid for the study doesn't automatically invalidate it).

    It was different when the theory was simple: Man-made carbon is trapped by the greenhouse effect, therefore the earth gets steadily (and unnaturally) hotter. But then we started seeing record cold temperatures when we were told we'd see record hot temperatures, and floods where we were told there would be draughts, and everything manages to get explained away.

    Also, I've yet to see the "full context" that makes the East Anglia e-mails a move-along-nothing-to-see. People talking about how the temperatures recorded by monitoring stations didn't fit the graphs so they had to change the numbers to make them fit seem pretty cut and dry to me.

    I see what your saying and agree just because they are on the "consensus" side doesn't make them infallible as scientists and human beings. Secondly, that's the problem with the mix up between global warming and climate change. As far as I know "average global" temperatures have been steadily increasing, even controlling for natural climate variability. Localized effects are context-specific, reducing down to the regional level areas could get hotter/drier, hotter/wetter, colder/drier, colder/wetter. It really comes down to our ability to adapt fast enough to what the rising average will do to earth's systems i.e. water/oceans, agricultural, etc. with a population containing roughly 9 billion people in 40 years. I'm not a climate scientist so I'm just going off the best of my own knowledge so far.

    Obviously be careful of extremes when give probable ranges to begin with. The talk of a rise of 5-6 degrees by 2100 is statistically possible, but has a low probability. Moderate estimates of say 3 degrees as a mean are much more statistically probable based on current development paths are projections. But 3 degrees to us is different than 3 degrees as a global average on the way in which the earth's systems function. Does that mean its time for catastrophic alarmism, of course not but the warming of the poles and permafrost areas are worrisome, again because of what can happen when it gets warm enough to start releasing significant amounts of methane gas, from the permafrost/undersea vents.

    At the end of the day is the idea of "uncertainty". In scientific modelling and projections, in how the complex systems of earth will react to certain conditions, we just "can't" know in some ways and that's what's frustrating to a society who was raised on the concept of the certainty of science. Part of the paradox is in a society increasing reliant on the trust of experts to make sure things function properly (expert systems), people are losing trust in government officials, scientists, etc. as reliable sources of truth. Corruption doesn't help. And I was doing 5 straight hours of paper writing at school so I am finished writing, and hopefully its all coherent...I'm just trying to figure it out as much as the next guy, and make no claims to what I see being the certain truth haha.

    This post was edited by OCanada on 3/26/2012 at 8:43 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    "I ponder the endlessness of the stars" - The Tragically Hip, Fully Completely

    OCanada

  • Okay, so how many of you have appeared on Doomsday Preppers? Be honest

    signature image signature image signature image

    your mother's favorite poster.

    downlowdawg ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports