We are causing global warming??

[Ray]

Yes it is self correcting but the question is how severe that self correction is, basically is it survivable or not.

To assume that the earth has a "correct state" just because life has existed her for a relatively brief moment of the universe's existance doesn't seem logical to me.

Someday all life will be destroyed by the heat of our sun's nova; the atmosphere will be burned off and all water will be gone.

Since during the vast majority of eternity (or the life of the universe should it have an "end") the earth will be lifeless, it only seems natural to deem a lifeless rock as the "correct" state.

 

[Xue Sheng]

To assume that the earth has a "correct state" just because life has existed her for a relatively brief moment of the universe's existance doesn't seem logical to me.

Someday all life will be destroyed by the heat of our sun's nova; the atmosphere will be burned off and all water will be gone.

Since during the vast majority of eternity (or the life of the universe should it have an "end") the earth will be lifeless, it only seems natural to deem a lifeless rock as the "correct" state.

OK let’s put it this way nature wants balance and if it does not have it then it tries to get it. I am talking within the biosphere of the planet earth and you are talking from a galactic POV. If you do not wish to believe that then that is fine I am not going to argue that facts here.

There is an oceanic conveyor belt system, this is scientific fact. It has shut down before due to disruption and it has started again due to planet rotation and water temperature differences. However if the sun went nova (and it is highly doubtful that it will, it simply is not big enough in terms of energy) it would most certainly stop since all the water of the planet would be burned off and it most certainly cannot correct itself in that event becuae I believe a nova wiould pull us in (more on this later). But I am not talking about novas, galactic collisions or meteors the size of the moon hitting the planet earth or meteors the size of the one the allegedly killed off the dinosaurs passing close enough to rip away the earth’s atmosphere. I am talking specifically of the planet earth and its systems. They are, whether you wish to believe it or not self correcting and this is because nature seeks balance, not in the hocus pocus metaphysical spiritual way but in a scientific, chemical, pressure, atmospheric way.

Life on the planet earth hangs precariously in that balance but I highly doubt the planet cares about that one way or the other, it just is. And planetaty balance has little to do with life being on it or not.

And yes eventually the earth will be lifeless but I fail to see how that applies to global warming and planetary tendancies. It is most certainly not a valid justification, IMO, to sit back and say the planet is getting hotter, who cares it will all be a lifeless rock one day anyway.

Sun going Nova - likely no. It is not big enough and it does not have enough energy. It will eventually become a red giant and expand however but it will also loose some gravitational influence on the planet Earth as well so it is possible that the Earth will move further away form the red giant and have a larger orbit. This however does not mean business as usual it means catastrophe since I don't think the move will do Earth much good and reduced gravitational pull could cause some pretty serious issues on good ole mother earth as well and the red giant will actually make us much hotter and likely dry up all water and destroy all life on earth and earth will then likely be much mire like Venus is today. And no the planet cannot fix that. But heat the place up by a few degrees (not thousands of degrees) and you get more water in the atmosphere and that will eventually start reflecting the "yellow" suns radiation back and thereby start a cooling trend which left unchecked would likely result in an ice age. But then depending on the tilt of the access (which will be effected by greater amounts of ice) and the planetary orbit which changes between oval and circular as well it is also possible that that balance could be reached as a ice covered ball in space which is just fine for the planet but not so fine for its inhabitants. An ice ball is also incredibly good at reflecting radiation (aka heat) back into space and staying an ice ball. Actually we have come close to that before, but I have to apologize I can't remember which ice age that was off the top of my head.

 

[Andrew Green]

it is arrogance and conciet of the highest order to think they we and we alone are responsible

I don't think that anyone will make that claim.

But nature is about balance, and it doesn't take much to disrupt that balance and we are more then capable of disrupting that balance.

We've done it quite a few times, the Ozone layer is a global issue, and one that had we not changed gears would be a lot worse right now.

We've over hunted and over fished species to extinction. At one time people would have said the same things about it being to massive for us to have an effect on when it came to the idea of polluting lakes and rivers, they where proved wrong. We introduce a species to a new animal and it can have catastrophic effects, look at what rabbits have done to Australia, and they are just a furry little rodent in a very big country.

We are not the only cause, but when the other causes are balanced and we toss a new source of problems in the balance is offset, things accumulate, and we get problems. It's like if you had a funnel, dn you are pouring water into it and it is draining. Someone else comes along and starts pooring water in as well, even if at a much slower rate, now it can't drain fast enough and goes over. Yes, that person was not the only person pouring water, but the addition they made pushed it over the top.

And you are right, the earth has warmed and cooled before, and it is something that it can do without any help from us. But, we also know the effects of those warming and cooling cycles from studying geology and archeology, and the fact that it is looking like it might be entering another should be worrysome, as those effects would be very bad for us.

BUt just because we can't put out the fire, doesn't mean we should keep throwing gas on it.

 

[Ray]

OK let’s put it this way nature wants balance and if it does not have it then it tries to get it. I am talking within the biosphere of the planet earth and you are talking from a galactic POV. If you do not wish to believe that then that is fine I am not going to argue that facts here.

"Nature" doesn't want anything, unless you're talking about living things. The earth is not living nor are the mechanical processes that make life possible.

There is an oceanic conveyor belt system, this is scientific fact. It has shut down before due to disruption and it has started again due to planet rotation and water temperature differences. However if the sun went nova (and it is highly doubtful that it will, it simply is not big enough in terms of energy) it would most certainly stop since all the water of the planet would be burned off...

I agree with you there. Again, you're talking about mechanical processes governed by physical laws.

and it most certainly cannot correct itself in that event becuae I believe a nova wiould pull us in (more on this later).

There is no "correct" state of the earth. Since "correctness" is a judgement call, it is only intelligent life that can conceive of it.

But I am not talking about novas, galactic collisions or meteors the size of the moon hitting the planet earth or meteors the size of the one the allegedly killed off the dinosaurs passing close enough to rip away the earth’s atmosphere. I am talking specifically of the planet earth and its systems. They are, whether you wish to believe it or not self correcting and this is because nature seeks balance, not in the hocus pocus metaphysical spiritual way but in a scientific, chemical, pressure, atmospheric way.

They do not "correct" they change according to the mechanical processes governed by physical law. Rocks fall down mountains because of gravity..not because the valley floor is the "correct" place for them to be.

Life on the planet earth hangs precariously in that balance but I highly doubt the planet cares about that one way or the other, it just is. And planetaty balance has little to do with life being on it or not.

the fate of all life on earth is sealed...it will all perish. And the earth will perish.

And yes eventually the earth will be lifeless but I fail to see how that applies to global warming and planetary tendancies. It is most certainly not a valid justification, IMO, to sit back and say the planet is getting hotter, who cares it will all be a lifeless rock one day anyway.

Now, I never said we shouldn't find the truth and do what we can to lengthen the time of our species. We are programmed to "survive." Of course we should follow our tendancies to do so. I'm all for doing something while I live...it keeps me from being bored while I wait for the eventual demise of life. when the sun explodes, it will also wipe out any trace that we ever existed.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Ray

Balance is a fact, don't believe me study river systems and what happens when dredged or straightened. Study climatology or Physical Geography, fluvial geomorphology; look at the Little Ice Age. I am not making this up man this is from science and study. It is obviously not conscious and it is obviously not by choice it is just how it works.

But you believe what you will I'm done trying to convince you of otherwise

 

[CoryKS]

Y'know, I'm starting to think that the Pastafarians are on to something. 2008 is going to end up being the coldest year of the decade, whereas 2007 was like the fourth warmest.

You know what else happened in 2008?

Pirate attacks. Lots and lots of pirate attacks.

Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Y'know, I'm starting to think that the Pastafarians are on to something. 2008 is going to end up being the coldest year of the decade, whereas 2007 was like the fourth warmest.

You know what else happened in 2008?

Pirate attacks. Lots and lots of pirate attacks.

Coincidence? I think not.

:anic: uh oh :uhohh: ummm... aaaa... ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER

:bow::bow::bow:

 

[Ray]

Balance is a fact, don't believe me study river systems and what happens when dredged or straightened. Study climatology or Physical Geography, fluvial geomorphology; look at the Little Ice Age. I am not making this up man this is from science and study. It is obviously not conscious and it is obviously not by choice it is just how it works.

But you believe what you will I'm done trying to convince you of otherwise

Look at the "big" picture. For example, you can't judge the life of a person by a single day...just as you can't judge the life of the earth by the stage that favors our existence.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Look at the "big" picture. For example, you can't judge the life of a person by a single day...just as you can't judge the life of the earth by the stage that favors our existence.

Look at the "scientific" research and the situation as it applies directly to the biosphere of the planet earth. Not as it applies to or solar system or the Milky way Galaxy.

I'm done and out, beleive what you will and look at it as you please. I'll stick with the science
Later

 

[Cryozombie]

I watched the Video by the Internet Skeptic and he raises some good questions about some of the Science involved in the topic.

I'm not saying his conclusions are right or wrong, just some of his questions seem like the correct ones to ask.

 

[Big Don]

Heh. Even a CNN meteorologist says man-made global warming is arrogant.

Seriously, if the weather report was 100% accurate for one week, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe what the weather guessers say about what is coming decades down the road. Weather guessers are the only people, outside of politics, that can be wrong 100% of the time and still stay employed.

 

[Big Don]

Ten DUD predictions of Global warming gloom and doom

 

[Andrew Green]

Heh. Even a CNN meteorologist says man-made global warming is arrogant.

Seriously, if the weather report was 100% accurate for one week, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe what the weather guessers say about what is coming decades down the road. Weather guessers are the only people, outside of politics, that can be wrong 100% of the time and still stay employed.

and the "weather guy" has nothing at all to do with this.

Long term global climate patterns and short term local weather forecasts are very different things.

A Chemist can't tell you weather or not a specific molecule will decay in a given time period, but he can give you the odds of it doing so, and he can tell you with a very high level of accuracy how many will have decayed at after any length of time.

 

[Big Don]

and the "weather guy" has nothing at all to do with this.

Yeah, tell that to Heidi Cullen. She wanted to withhold or revoke certifications for meteorologists who fail to toe the line on global warming.

Long term global climate patterns and short term local weather forecasts are very different things.

Except, if they cannot accurately make short term predictions, why on Earth would you accept their long term predictions?

A Chemist can't tell you weather or not a specific molecule will decay in a given time period, but he can give you the odds of it doing so, and he can tell you with a very high level of accuracy how many will have decayed at after any length of time.

That is nice, but, has absolutely nothing to do with the facts that of the millions of years of weather patterns the Earth has endured, we have accurate record keeping for less than 200 years. Not to mention the total lack of accurate predictions.

 

[Andrew Green]

Ten DUD predictions of Global warming gloom and doom

concluded that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.

It (2008) was the fourth busiest Atlantic hurricane year since 1944. The National Climatic Data Center said 2008 is "the only year on record in which a major hurricane existed in every month from July through November in the north Atlantic."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/30/hurricane.season.ends/index.html

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time," claimed Dr David Barber, of Manitoba University, ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free.

There is no "Manitoba University", it is "The University of Manitoba"

In fact, the Arctic's ice cover this year was almost 10 per cent above last year's great low, and has refrozen rapidly since. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing. Been told either cool fact?

Making it the second lowest level on record, and 34% below the long term average. Remember, long term patterns, not short term. The last major El Niño effect ran into early 2007.

http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure2.png

That makes 1998 still the hottest year on record since the Medieval Warm Period some 1000 years ago. Indeed, temperatures have slowly fallen since around 2002.

again, long term is what matters, not taking short term stuff going back only as far as is convenient, lets put that in context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

 

[Andrew Green]

Yeah, tell that to Heidi Cullen. She wanted to withhold or revoke certifications for meteorologists who fail to toe the line on global warming.

People are wrong on all sides of all issues.

Except, if they cannot accurately make short term predictions, why on Earth would you accept their long term predictions?

Because long term predictions are more reliable.

That is nice, but, has absolutely nothing to do with the facts that of the millions of years of weather patterns the Earth has endured, we have accurate record keeping for less than 200 years. Not to mention the total lack of accurate predictions.

And fairly accurate records going back a lot longer due to being able to study the effects of weather. Ice samples, tree rings, sediment patterns, etc

 

[Big Don]

People are wrong on all sides of all issues.

Gee, but, you said the trained professional meteorologist had nothing to do with this. Yeah, politicians like Gore are so much more knowledgeable about the science than trained scientists...

Because long term predictions are more reliable.

How do you figure? Thirty years ago the "scientific consensus" was we were headed towards a new Ice Age. 30 years isn't long term?

And fairly accurate records going back a lot longer due to being able to study the effects of weather. Ice samples, tree rings, sediment patterns, etc

Yeah, and fairly accurate records said the city of Troy was a myth, until it was found...

 

[Ray]

Because long term predictions are more reliable.

Here's a short-term type of prediction: Tomorrows high temp will be 92F to 96F. That's based on what they see "right now." And it's usually accurate to some degree of precision. It's the precision that's the kicker.

Here's a long-term type of prediction: It will be warmer in July than in December in Iowa. That's based on the normal pattern. It is very accuracte and not precise at all. Of course, it is "usually" correct.

The reason they can't make accurate short-term predictions is the same reason they cannot make accurate long-term predictions to any precision. Just ask one to give you forecasts for the weather of each day of 2010, then see how precise they were. They'll be all over the map (probably within the standard bell-shaped curve; unless there's a volcano, or some other unpredicatable event).