[quote]Professor X wrote:
The people who used to live on the rock? The be dead. Long fucking dead. They BE dead because dumbasses kept shitting where they sleep all while bragging to the skies above, “there is no way we can screw up the planet”.[/quote]
I thought that ancestors came before me and decendants come after me.
But what the hell do I know?
The earth will not become uninhabitable because you shit where you sleep. Unless you have new proof that supports that silly notion - you are just as full of shit as you accuse me of being.
In fact - my ancestors lived in a pretty shitty place. They had no clue about soil conservation practices, or proper grazing management. Along came the worst drought the midwest had ever seen. BAM - you have a dust bowl. They “shit where they slept” for a hundred years prior to that as well.
The earth righted itself and is now as productive as ever.
There are examples all over the place of man “shitting where he sleeps”, and the earth, instead of shutting down and crying because of the evil human rapists, adapts. It doesn’t kick the humans off, or reject them like it ate some bad shrimp - it adapts.
How hard is that for the tree-huggers to undersatand?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The people who used to live on the rock? The be dead. Long fucking dead. They BE dead because dumbasses kept shitting where they sleep all while bragging to the skies above, “there is no way we can screw up the planet”.
I thought that ancestors came before me and decendants come after me.
But what the hell do I know?
The earth will not become uninhabitable because you shit where you sleep. Unless you have new proof that supports that silly notion - you are just as full of shit as you accuse me of being.
In fact - my ancestors lived in a pretty shitty place. They had no clue about soil conservation practices, or proper grazing management. Along came the worst drought the midwest had ever seen. BAM - you have a dust bowl. They “shit where they slept” for a hundred years prior to that as well.
The earth righted itself and is now as productive as ever.
There are examples all over the place of man “shitting where he sleeps”, and the earth, instead of shutting down and crying because of the evil human rapists, adapts. It doesn’t kick the humans off, or reject them like it ate some bad shrimp - it adapts.
How hard is that for the tree-huggers to undersatand? [/quote]
And again you are asked, since when in history have humans populated the planet to this degree? Since when has our own technology allowed us to basically create or allow to flourish viruses and diseases that become more and more resistant? Life or death for us could be as simple as the Ebola virus becoming airborne. This isn’t about whether the planet can adapt. It is about whether what it adapts into is in favor or against US.
And again you are asked, since when in history have humans populated the planet to this degree? Since when has our own technology allowed us to basically create or allow to flourish viruses and diseases that become more and more resistant? Life or death for us could be as simple as the Ebola virus becoming airborne. This isn’t about whether the planet can adapt. It is about whether what it adapts into is in favor or against US.[/quote]
I don’t know. I am not an anthropologist.
You have now taken it from being an environmental issue - which I assumed was the intent of the thread - to being a population issue. I already told you that there are too many old people wasting the air. I think if you were born between the years of 1945 and 1963, you should be killed. There - I just saved the world’s population problem, and saved social security in one simple step.
As far as i know, mankind’s continued existence is at least partially down to our not ‘shitting where we sleep’, since animals would smell that stink, then eat you all up while you’re lying there all passed out after a fat bison feast. May be wrong. But who really wants to live in shit?
It may be that the fear of global warming, if indeed there is such a thing, might be rooted in humanity’s general fear of change. We tend to dislike risk. If the ocean rises 3" and the earth becomes 2 degrees warmer, we panic as if the sky is falling.
But humans are also very adaptable. Put a person in a new and strange environment and his decendents are soon building skyscrapers and transcontinental highways. Put 'em in ‘5 Points’ New York and their grandaughter is a professor at a midwestern university (Mrs. HH).
So, I don’t really care if global warming is happening or not. I know that my grandchildren will adapt and prosper. If they don’t, then that’s their weakness and they’re done — simply nature’s way.
all i know is that when i lived in oakland i couldn’t sleep with the windows open without waking up hacking mucus like i’d smoked 3 packs of camels the night before.
You continue to prove yourself a completely biased and unthinking dope.
Did you know that oxygen was a byproduct of life? That it was toxic to earlier organisms? That forms of life that use oxygen later developed, such as us?
Gaaah! You are such a retard it’s embarrassing.[/quote]
I think I’m a realist. Whether change is caused by man or occurs naturally, IT DOESN’T MATTER. Change WILL occur and its up to succeeding generations to adapt. This is why I laugh at the paranoia over global warming. We’re all freaking out because the polar ice cap is melting and the polar bears are hungry, blah, blah, blah. But what is life but ADAPTING TO CHANGE? If a living thing can’t adapt, it dies. We are not exempt from reality.
Using this stuff as a policy to manipulate people is downright evil. It might even be the result of a powerful elite not wanting Third World countries to develop and compete with us First Worlders. They don’t want dozens of South Koreas, Japans, Chinas, popping up to take their markets.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
It may be that the fear of global warming, if indeed there is such a thing, might be rooted in humanity’s general fear of change. We tend to dislike risk. If the ocean rises 3" and the earth becomes 2 degrees warmer, we panic as if the sky is falling.
But humans are also very adaptable. Put a person in a new and strange environment and his decendents are soon building skyscrapers and transcontinental highways. Put 'em in ‘5 Points’ New York and their grandaughter is a professor at a midwestern university (Mrs. HH).
So, I don’t really care if global warming is happening or not. I know that my grandchildren will adapt and prosper. If they don’t, then that’s their weakness and they’re done — simply nature’s way.
HH[/quote]
Well then, I am glad you aren’t in charge of such things. Bacteria are becoming extremely resistant to antibiotics because WE overuse them. The course of action is for the medical community to restrict the use of antibiotics unless there is an absolute need. You are basically holding the position that we shouldn’t worry about such things and if they become resistant and eventually kill many of us off, that is simply nature’s way. Which is it? Should we see a potential problem and take actions against it…or simply allow the situation to get worse all in the name of “nature’s way”?
The same concept applies to the potential destruction of the environment to the degree that it no longer supports us. Do we wait for it to happen, or take steps now to prevent it if we can?
Why act as if there absolutely can not be a problem when the truth is, you don’t have any proof that we are causing no damage at all?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
As we can see, making the surface measurements themselves are particularly difficult, as the readings are greatly affected by cloud cover and other such stuff. Common sense would tell us that a reliable measurement of solar radiation would have to take place away from interference such as clouds – hence, the satellite measurements being more accurate and reliable.[/quote]
… and? Again, how does that go against what I said?
The fact that you cannot get a precise point-in-time measurement from one specific spot, doesn’t mean we don’t have this wonderful tool called Statistical Analysis (I guess you never heard of that…) that allows us to make extremely accurate estimates after you gather enough point-in-time measurements from enough different spots.
Secondly, you still haven’t provided a number contradicting my 0.1% increase in solar output claim.
Thirdly, you haven’t provided any number contradicting my 5% claim of decrease in the amount of solar output that actually reaches the surface.
You’re just grasping at straws.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I hope I have explained why surface measurements = bad. If not, have some more linkage:
Satellite = Good. :)[/quote]
Yeah, let’s completely ignore the Earth’s atomosphere, shall we? It’s not like it has any discernible effect on how much solar radiation gets to the surface, right?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So, I don’t really care if global warming is happening or not. I know that my grandchildren will adapt and prosper. If they don’t, then that’s their weakness and they’re done — simply nature’s way.[/quote]
So why do you keep feeding your kids and allowing them to live with you? Surely they can live by themselves without your support… If they can’t, it’s their weakness and they’re done – simply nature’s way.
Why don’t you kick them out and cut them off… right now?
Well then, I am glad you aren’t in charge of such things. Bacteria are becoming extremely resistant to antibiotics because WE overuse them. The course of action is for the medical community to restrict the use of antibiotics unless there is an absolute need. You are basically holding the position that we shouldn’t worry about such things and if they become resistant and eventually kill many of us off, that is simply nature’s way. Which is it? Should we see a potential problem and take actions against it…or simply allow the situation to get worse all in the name of “nature’s way”?
[/quote]
The bacteria have adapted, which is perfectly natural. Why expect something else? Now, its up to us to adapt to THAT and develop a counterattack.
Why do you think human beings will now ‘simply allow the situation to get worse’? All of life is a struggle. If we stand by and don’t try, we deserve to be exterminated.
Nietszche nailed it here — “Build your homes on the slopes of Vesuvius!” That man, despite his flaws, knew what it meant to be a man.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
So, I don’t really care if global warming is happening or not. I know that my grandchildren will adapt and prosper. If they don’t, then that’s their weakness and they’re done — simply nature’s way.
So why do you keep feeding your kids and allowing them to live with you? Surely they can live by themselves without your support… If they can’t, it’s their weakness and they’re done – simply nature’s way.
Why don’t you kick them out and cut them off… right now?[/quote]
If I did that, Doc, and they survived, they probably be so hard-core that they’d hunt you down for suggesting it. To prevent you from becoming ‘extinct’, I’ll keep 'em with me for a while.
“That which does not break my back makes me stronger!!”
— Nietzsche
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why do you think human beings will now ‘simply allow the situation to get worse’? All of life is a struggle. If we stand by and don’t try, we deserve to be exterminated.
[/quote]
Astounding logic…since your entire point before was that we should NOT struggle but rather let it happen as we continue to be “arrogant” enough to scream that we can do no harm.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Most reports dicussing global warming ignore that parts of Antarctica are cooling so this looks like spin to the third degree.
I don’t think it qualifies as spin when a researcher says to stop making unsupported claims based on his research… ;)[/quote]
[quote]hspder wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Logic question: Where does our heat come from? The sun, right? Shouldn’t we be looking there first as a cause for any possible warming to our planet? I mean, call me silly for thinking this, but it’s just how I am I guess.
Not silly, just ignorant.
First of all, you own quote (which is, in my opinion, wild speculation, as you’ll understand in a moment) says that only 10-30% of warming might be explained by the increase in solar activity.
Second, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
The “increased solar activity” has mostly produced sunspots and other radiation bursts. There was only a measly 0.1% increase in solar output since 1950, that has been FAR outweighed by the decrease in transparency of the Earth’s atmosphere (due to pollutants) in the same past 56 years. In fact, there has been 5% reduction in the amount of global hemispherical irradiance (or total solar irradiance) at the Earth’s surface, observed since the beginning of systematic measurements in 1950s.
That means the Sun is 5% dimmer today (from the perspective of an observer at the Earth’s surface) than it was 56 years ago.
[/quote]
Mars is currently experiencing global warming due to the suns increased output.
[quote]hspder wrote:
… and? Again, how does that go against what I said? [/quote]
Okay.
Smaller words.
My original proposition was to ask if the sun’s radiation has any effect in possible global warming. Has the sun gotten any brighter?
With me still?
Then:
You said: (paraphrasing with smaller words) “There’s no changes in solar radiation worth noting, as we see from these surface measurements here going back to 1956.”
Then:
I said: Surface measurements bad. See? It’s tricky, messy and imprecise. Satellite readings will tell us WITH ACCURACY what the hell is really going on with regards to solar radiation changes and it’s involvement with our climate.
All the statistical analysis in the world will tell you squat if most or possibly all of your data points are bunk. Collecting irradiance measurements of wrong data just shows that we can be consistently and patently wrong. Let’s change methods… you want to see some data concerning the historical solar irradiance at the surface of the earth? Okay, let’s use cosmogenic proxies:
These proxies ignore stuff like clouds, and instead focus on solar phenomenon. As you can see, both of the trends show an upward sweep in recent times.
Not gonna. According to the data, the 0.1% is close enough when we are talking about recent times. Conveniently, this corroborates my idea. In fact, have you heard of the Maunder Minimum?
Here we see that a lack of sunspots gives rise to very cold seasons. Or is this not just common sense?
If we use the Maunder minimum as a baseline, we see that solar activity has increased not by 0.1%, but by six times that… 0.6%. Sunlight changes = climate changes.
OK:
relevant quote:
[i]In 2005 Wild et al. and Pinker et al. found that the “dimming” trend had reversed since about 1990 [5]. It is likely that at least some of this change, particularly over Europe, is due to decreases in pollution. Most governments of developed nations have done more to reduce aerosols released into the atmosphere which help global dimming instead of reducing CO2 emissions.
The Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) has been collecting surface measurements. BSRN was started in the early 1990s and updated the archives in this time. Analysis of recent data reveals that the surface of the planet has brightened by about 4% in the past decade. The brightening trend is corroborated by other data, including satellite analyses.[/i]
Uh oh.
Now we have recent and accurate data which supports the idea that a “cleaner” atmosphere, coupled with the slow and steady increase in solar radiation, gives rise to the current trend of warming. Ironically, the aerosols which we thought would make us burn up and turn the world into a desert, were actually shielding us to some degree. A 4% of the total degree.
I don’t know about you guys, but if this continues, I gonna want my CFC’s back.
Nowhere in this article is there even a suggestion that humans have anything to do with Martian climate changes. Obviously, this is a conspiracy by Bush to get Martian oil. DUH!!!
Nowhere in this article is there even a suggestion that humans have anything to do with Martian climate changes. Obviously, this is a conspiracy by Bush to get Martian oil. DUH!!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Whether change is caused by man or occurs naturally, IT DOESN’T MATTER. Change WILL occur and its up to succeeding generations to adapt. This is why I laugh at the paranoia over global warming. We’re all freaking out because the polar ice cap is melting and the polar bears are hungry, blah, blah, blah. But what is life but ADAPTING TO CHANGE? If a living thing can’t adapt, it dies. We are not exempt from reality.[/quote]
I don’t know where your “manipulate people” spin comes from, but your comment above is pretty silly. However, you’d also have to apply your “manipulate people” theory to those that misused the work of the author in the original post to manipulate people, wouldn’t you?
Anyway, there is a concept known as “rate of change”. Generally, changes to environments take thousands of years, or at least many generations, so that adaptations can be made.
When things happen too quickly, such as the alleged meteor that killed off most of the life on the planet, or presumably the polar bears suffering a quickly shortening hunting season, there is no adaptation. Things die and a new order was formed. Not all that huge of a deal, unless those changes affect us, from your point of view.
So, if global warming ends up fucking with things fast enough and we suddently find that certain species of plants and animals no longer thrive, and it happens too quickly, then we might find large catastrophes that we can’t react to fast enough. Consider the growing requirements for various crops around the world, for example.
Remember, combatting global warming is NOT about fighting the natural variations that occur. It is about combatting the effects that we are having which appear to be happening many many times faster than natural changes would occur… preventing the normal process of adaptation.
Anyhow, I’m really surprised (yeah, right) to see this thread degenerate into a debate on global warming instead of looking at a particularly clear instance of the anti global warming group getting kicked in the nuts by exposing a particular unit of spin.
vroom: To be honest, I was equally surprised at the fact that the researcher came out and busted some of our guys on misusing research data. So far, that has been strictly in the purview of the “We’re all Gonna DIE” group.
So what do you think of my take on this? Sorry 'bout the threadjacking, but it wasn’t that far off topic, was it? Solar radiation, “cleaning up” our atmosphere ironically contributing to further warming? Waddaya think?
