7 minutes without energy

[Edcognito]

Originally Posted by Tye

espire, I agree about it being myth. My teacher was telling me in class one day was about how air conditioning effected people's tolerance for heat. When he was a boy his family car had no air conditioning. Every summer his family drove to Alabama. He was from North Carolina. Even though Alabama is warmer than North Carolina in the summer it never really bothered him. One year his family got their first car with air conditioning, and they went to Alabama that summer like always. He said that summer and the following summers were miserable because of the heat. It wasn't that it got hotter in Alabama it is that his tolerance for heat dropped because he became use to being in air conditioning. People today are so used to being cooled by air conditioning that they have forgotten how to tolerate the heat. Another thing that effects yonger genrations is that they didn't have to work outside in the heat like older generations. Young people today work in air conditioned restaraunts or in offices. They don't work out in the heat on farms. old people don't complain about being hot near as much as young people. Why? Because they deal with it like they did when they were young, before there was air conditioning and office jobs.

I am not saying that we are not releasing chemicals into the air, but I don't think global warming is anything more than a scientific trend that will be forgotten. The same way the peace movement was forgotten.

What does our "perception" of whether our summers are comfortable or not, have to do with melting icecaps and dissapearing glaciers? So what if we percieve summers as "more comfortable or not"? Glaciers are disappearing, caps are melting. Those are known facts. Our opinion of them is irrelevant....



Ed

[Edcognito]

Originally Posted by espire

I know I may look evil or something for saying this, but global warming is pretty much a myth. Why do I say this? I have two reasons.

1) The main reason it supposedly exists? The fact that as temperature has "risen" the usage of energy has also risen? Moot. Just because two things follow the same general line does NOT mean that they are related. Here's one of my favourite examples:

Now wait a second, ice cream does not make you more likely to be victim of a shark. So how is there such a relation? Because when it's hot outside, people buy ice cream. When it's hot outside, people also go swimming, many of them in waters that have sharks. So obviously, there is not a direct relation between the two. The same thing goes for global warming. Just because the temperatures have gone up at the same time that we have increased our energy consumption does not mean that our energy consumption is the cause.

2) We as humans have not had the technology to accurately record average yearly temperatures since something like the 1950s. And guess what? There were days just as hot, if not hotter, than today's hot days in the 1950s as well! The huge increase in temperature we can "clearly" see is only about a degree at the most, and we can't be sure that it is even that much.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that we're all going to die because the earth will heat up so much that the ice caps will melt and we'll all drown. Sure, we'll eventually die from the pollution we've created (I'm sure our Mexican members can tell us how clean the air is in a place like Mexico City), but we will NOT die because of global warming.

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

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (and i bet THEIR really objective . . . ) is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions.[4][5] A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.[6]

I agree that WE won't die from Global Warming - but to call it a myth . . . Thats really disingenuous!

Another Quote from Wiki:

Greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect, without which mean temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower so that Earth would be uninhabitable.[12] Thus scientists do not "believe in" or "oppose" the greenhouse effect as such; rather, the debate concerns the net effect of the addition of greenhouse gases, while allowing for associated positive and negative feedback mechanisms.

The Greenhouse effect is observed and observable - How much and whether or not to do anything about it is the debate

Ed

Also - down at the bottom are a couple linkys on average mean temperature and temps for the last 1K years - Gotta love ice cores!

Ed

[lefty12357]

Check out this info on the Vostok ice cores.

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/apr/learn.html

This is just one of many pieces to the puzzle.

Humankind may survive global warming, but millions may suffer and/or die. All it may take is a modest course correction now to alleviate the worst of it in the future.

[Tye]

Originally Posted by Edcognito

What does our "perception" of whether our summers are comfortable or not, have to do with melting icecaps and dissapearing glaciers? So what if we percieve summers as "more comfortable or not"? Glaciers are disappearing, caps are melting. Those are known facts. Our opinion of them is irrelevant....



Ed

So what the ice caps are melting this has happened all through the earth's history. Did you know that North America and South America used to not be connected by the Panama area? The Panama Area did not even exist. The Pacific current flowed directly into the Atlantic current and curved up North. This kept the North caps warm and kept the water from freezing. Then when the Panama section was formed by the North and South American plates colliding it cut the Pacific current off from the Atlantic current. This diverted the Atlantic current towards Europe. This warmed Europe. Because the Atlantic current was no longer flowing towards the North, it was cooling at the North caps. This caused a thin layer of ice to form. Then the sun the sun began to melt this thin layer of ice. The ice melted and with all the fresh water in the salt water it created an imbalance in the ocean. This created storms, because nature was attempting to fix this imbalance and return the level of fresh water versus salt water back to normal. Because the atmosphere was being cooled by the Atalantic current which was now flowing up there, the only form of perciptation that could be formed by the storms was snow. The snow began to fall, and over years and years of constant snowing you get the North Ice Caps.

Now we are trying to stop them from melting. If North and South America ever break back apart, which could happen because the plates are still shifting, and the Pacific and Atlantic currents ever reconnect it will divert the currents flowing to europe (freezing Europe again) and the North caps will thaw out again.

When earth began there was no ice caps so why all the fuss over them? Once again this goes back to humans and their survival not earth's. Humans don't want them to melt, because it measns the North floods and they are inconvenienced into moving south. I don't care about how convientienced humans feel. If you have to move becuase the North floods well so what? You are still alive aren't you? Yes. It isn't always about how comfortable you are.

As long as the earth is still here I am happy. I don't care what is going on up North. So what if it floods up there? Move, it isn't that hard. Humans don't want to adapt anymore. They want there way and that is it. Well guess what, when you fight nature (that has been around for 4.5 billion years) you are fighting a losing battle. You might as well be digging your way to China for all the good it is going to do.

[Deepwaters]

Tye, there is no point in bringing past geological epochs into a discussion on global warming (although it's often done). Yes, there have indeed been times in the earth's history when there were no ice caps. However, in those times there were also no humans, and none of most other species currently alive. The current species mix is adapted to the current climatic (and other) norms, and to change those norms is to produce a mass extinction.

The importance of the glaciers melting is that it provides evidence for global warming other than what you stated was the ONLY evidence for global warming, thus proving that you were wrong. There are probably bad consequences of glacial melting, too -- certainly there are bad consequences of the warming that causes it -- but that's not the main point.

[Tye]

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

Tye, there is no point in bringing past geological epochs into a discussion on global warming (although it's often done). Yes, there have indeed been times in the earth's history when there were no ice caps. However, in those times there were also no humans, and none of most other species currently alive. The current species mix is adapted to the current climatic (and other) norms, and to change those norms is to produce a mass extinction.

The importance of the glaciers melting is that it provides evidence for global warming other than what you stated was the ONLY evidence for global warming, thus proving that you were wrong. There are probably bad consequences of glacial melting, too -- certainly there are bad consequences of the warming that causes it -- but that's not the main point.

Once again stop worrying about humans. Global Warming isn't about humans. It is about "saving the earth". Humans one way or another are going to be replaced eventually. That is the way of nature.

I am not worried about the state of humans in 300 years, because it isn't going to effect me. Whether humans are here or not in 300 years doesn't matterto me, because the people of today will not be.

I do, however, like to think about the earth's state in 300 or more years from now, it is much more interesting to think about, because whether humans are still here or not isn't going to effect me because that will be past all of our lifetimes. But the earth will still be here and whatever else comes along.

[Edcognito]

Originally Posted by Tye

Once again stop worrying about humans. Global Warming isn't about humans. It is about "saving the earth". Humans one way or another are going to be replaced eventually. That is the way of nature.

I am not worried about the state of humans in 300 years, because it isn't going to effect me. Whether humans are here or not in 300 years doesn't matterto me, because the people of today will not be.

I do, however, like to think about the earth's state in 300 or more years from now, it is much more interesting to think about, because whether humans are still here or not isn't going to effect me because that will be past all of our lifetimes. But the earth will still be here and whatever else comes along.

Global Warming (in as much as what % of what is happening now) IS about humans - and whether or not our actions will F**K future generations. We do have a responsibility to take care of our planet.

Bye your representation here - you wouldn't have done anything to change land/water use patterns in the 60's and 70's, so that our availiable supply of (cheap) fresh water would be even less than it is now. . . Animals that were threatened in the 60's (Northern Lynx, Grizzly, Wolf, Perigrin Falcons, Eagles) would all have been (most likely) wiped out. Air pollution would be worse if we hadn't installed scrubbers in our industrial smokestacks (even though alot of the people in their 60's and 70's who were in charge back then, weren't going to live long enough to see the benifits) leaving large parts of Upstate New York possibly denuded of plant life because of acid rain.

The future IS our responsiblity, because what happens then, will have been built on what IS happening now . . . .

Ed

[Tye]

Originally Posted by Edcognito

Global Warming (in as much as what % of what is happening now) IS about humans - and whether or not our actions will F**K future generations. We do have a responsibility to take care of our planet.

Bye your representation here - you wouldn't have done anything to change land/water use patterns in the 60's and 70's, so that our availiable supply of (cheap) fresh water would be even less than it is now. . . Animals that were threatened in the 60's (Northern Lynx, Grizzly, Wolf, Perigrin Falcons, Eagles) would all have been (most likely) wiped out. Air pollution would be worse if we hadn't installed scrubbers in our industrial smokestacks (even though alot of the people in their 60's and 70's who were in charge back then, weren't going to live long enough to see the benifits) leaving large parts of Upstate New York possibly denuded of plant life because of acid rain.

The future IS our responsiblity, because what happens then, will have been built on what IS happening now . . . .

Ed

Everyone I care about is older than me, or not much younger. It is hard for me to care what happens to humans in 200 years, because I will never know them. It is not my responsibility to take care of the F*ck-ups that the human race has been making since the 1800's, and what consequences it has for humans 200 years from now. People should have thought about the consequences then, not come whinning to me now wondering why the human race is screwed.

[Deepwaters]

Originally Posted by Tye

Everyone I care about is older than me, or not much younger. It is hard for me to care what happens to humans in 200 years, because I will never know them.

And that, perhaps, is the chief difference between you and me here, Tye. I have two children. I may someday have grandchildren. It changes your attitude. It is hard for me NOT to care.

As for responsibility, it is everyone's responsibility. That has nothing to do with who caused the problem -- responsibility not being the same thing as blame -- but it has everything to do with who is able to do something to fix it. Those who started the process of causing it can't, being dead. The ones responsible for doing something are those of us who are alive, whether we caused it or not.

[Killian]

Originally Posted by Tye

People should have thought about the consequences then, not come whinning to me now wondering why the human race is screwed.

Why should they suffer as a consequence of our mistakes? They would have every right to complain, if they were born into a destroyed world. Think about it from your own perspective. If you had been born to a country which had been destroyed by war and famine many years previously, so as all those involved had died, but your country was still a place where quality of life was near zero, how would you feel? Would you want to accept the consequences of your ancestors actions? Would you ignore the historical reasons? Of course not, they would be who you would blame and curse.

Your attitude is very selfish, as the people 200 years from now may be your children's children or their children, so they would be connected to your grandchildren or your great grandchildren. So they would be deeply connected to you. They would be your flesh and blood. And they would be born into a destroyed world, because of our generation's ignorance and selfishness.