you dont have any contact to the scientific community whatsoever do you ?
When you're a 22lb. sledge hammer, you don't need to. 
Shot: You're starting to sound a tad like that "bug discoverer 1337 programmer" - being a bit patronizing IMO 
That's not meant as a personal dig, just a casual observation (I know you're nothing like that obviously).
What does contact with the scientific community have to do with the crooked humans that run governments and "allocate" funding - or the truth/fallacy of primarily human driven global warming?
Well, if you're want a more accurate crap metaphor, whenever you let off some steam at the said location, there are fecal particles spewed into the atmopshere of your friends domicile... He's still alive! (or is he?)
Once again, I'm all for cleaning up our act, I just don't agree with the reason being propagated.
That's not meant as a personal dig, just a casual observation (I know you're nothing like that obviously). What does contact with the scientific community have to do with the crooked humans that run governments and "allocate" funding - or the truth/fallacy of primarily human driven global warming?
Well, if you're want a more accurate crap metaphor, whenever you let off some steam at the said location, there are fecal particles spewed into the atmopshere of your friends domicile... He's still alive! (or is he?)
Once again, I'm all for cleaning up our act, I just don't agree with the reason being propagated.
if he had any contact to it or knew anthing about it he would most likely know that research jobs are generally paid worse, often occupied by people who have spent years working for corporations and want something else and job security is rather high with having more vaccant jobs than graduates in most fields
also the simple fact that he appears to think the money they get directly benefits their paycheck is just plain wrong
scientific funding is used to fund the materials and equipment needed for the research ... the scientist himself most usually gets a fixed salary from the uni hes working for ie non profit ... theres nothing to gain other than recognition in the sci community
Ok... if you really want to think that go ahead.
Sure there are dedicated professionals, but get real. Just because some dude wears a lab coat that isn't sponsored by somebody doesn't mean squat. ...Gets a fixed salary... you just said it yourself...wants something else besides "job security" You mean like I dunno... Tenure???
Again, I realize that that's not the case with every thing, but it's still happens and just because some scientist comes up with whatever data about something, people shouldn't just blindly accept it. There are just too many people with too many agendas overseeing researches and studies to ever take that stuff at face value. I don't see where the scientific fields are any more immune to that than anything else. They're not ALL God-like beings are they?
Do I know any scientists? LOL I knew a guy that had a meth lab, he's in jail.
I knew a girl that worked at NASA...in the cafeteria. Is that close enough?
Don't belive everything you see on TV. I am a journalist, so I ought to know :P
Having done a news story about the "record breaking summer" here in austria in 2003, I heard some interesting things from a meteorologist:
Firstly, we collect scinetific climate data for about 150 years. So basically, we started measuring the climate in a phase of warming. Thus, the timeframe we use to judge our climate by is insignificant, therefore not allowing us to see a "norm" temperature. Scientific evidence suggests that we are still in an exceptionally cold age.
Secondly, allthough the global warming is well recorded and can be regarded as a fact, human induced global warming is a hypothesis that is not proven true. In fact, a multitude of scientists, including the professor I interviewed, regard this hypothesis sceptically and oppose it. Due to the very biased media coverage though, these scientists have hardly any plattform to pblish their views publically. As it is, the "we cause global warming"-theory has become such a dogmatic belief that people who oppose it openly are instantly regarded as "evil".
And concerning the quite esoterical view on "balance of the nature". Nature is not in balance. If it was, it would be stagnating. Nature is about imbalance and trying to counter it, otherwise there wouldn't be any progress or evolution.
Now even if the extinction of a species would have huge effects, it wouldn't mean the end of life as we know it. Of course it would unsettle the "balance", but only temporarily. After all, our nature is a wonderful self regulatory system, and, as I often admire: life always finds a way to go on.
On a sidenote: I vote green by heart. I oppose any kind of pollution and I definately want our nature to be preserved. Or rather "not be negatively influenced", as preservation too is a huge manipulation in the cycles of nature.
But the debate of global warming has reached an almost religious level. Just look at this thread. Anyone to oppose the very idea which is far from scientific fact, that we cause the warming is yelled at.
Having done a news story about the "record breaking summer" here in austria in 2003, I heard some interesting things from a meteorologist:
Firstly, we collect scinetific climate data for about 150 years. So basically, we started measuring the climate in a phase of warming. Thus, the timeframe we use to judge our climate by is insignificant, therefore not allowing us to see a "norm" temperature. Scientific evidence suggests that we are still in an exceptionally cold age.
Secondly, allthough the global warming is well recorded and can be regarded as a fact, human induced global warming is a hypothesis that is not proven true. In fact, a multitude of scientists, including the professor I interviewed, regard this hypothesis sceptically and oppose it. Due to the very biased media coverage though, these scientists have hardly any plattform to pblish their views publically. As it is, the "we cause global warming"-theory has become such a dogmatic belief that people who oppose it openly are instantly regarded as "evil".
And concerning the quite esoterical view on "balance of the nature". Nature is not in balance. If it was, it would be stagnating. Nature is about imbalance and trying to counter it, otherwise there wouldn't be any progress or evolution.
Now even if the extinction of a species would have huge effects, it wouldn't mean the end of life as we know it. Of course it would unsettle the "balance", but only temporarily. After all, our nature is a wonderful self regulatory system, and, as I often admire: life always finds a way to go on.
On a sidenote: I vote green by heart. I oppose any kind of pollution and I definately want our nature to be preserved. Or rather "not be negatively influenced", as preservation too is a huge manipulation in the cycles of nature.
But the debate of global warming has reached an almost religious level. Just look at this thread. Anyone to oppose the very idea which is far from scientific fact, that we cause the warming is yelled at.
Yes, I too often think the discussion of global warming is very religious. But not in the same way that you do.
The way I see it the essential question we should be discussing is "Can the human race improve it's chance of survival, improve future standards of living and reduce suffering by actively controlling the amount of global greenhouse gas output?"
Instead the question is usually raised in a "are humans harming mother nature?" manner. This implies that there is a greater rule, a way of nature, a way of god that mankind must be careful not to interfere with. For example the whole argument about whether the earth has been hotter/colder in the past. Why does it matter? We all know that there have been ice ages and we all know that an ice age is absolute disaster for most species of the earth. But because the ice ages came about without human influence they were "normal" and "nothing to worry about"?
We know the earth is getting warmer and we know that this is bad for the species that are currently living on it. Why do we even need to discuss if it's mankind's fault or not? We should discuss how we can improve the situation i.e how to reduce global greenhouse gas output.
IMO on the issue of global warming many people are being religious instead of rational without even realizing it.
peer review
Exactly!
Anyway, what many people here seem to miss is the effects this warming can have on us.
It is proven that ice from the poles and glaciers is regularly melting (for example the current estimations are that 75 per cent of Alpine glaciers will have melted by 2050). Since most of polar ice is made of freshwater, this should lead sea levels to raise enough to make the lowest parts of the world uninhabitable. Bangladesh comes to mind but this is far from being the only place that would be affected. So this can lead to massive populations displacements, which as we know can very easily lead to famines, outbreaks, and wars.
Freak weather conditions, such as floods, hurricanes, snow storms (yes, global warming can cause that too) and heatwaves are also set to become more frequent and severe. As a reminder, the heatwave that affected Europe in 2003 caused more than 20 000 deaths. Droughts are also expected to increase in already dry places, causing more potable water shortages but also more giant forest fires (which of course release tons of CO2 in the atmosphere). And deforestation is also known to affect phreatic stocks, as it causes rain water to stream towards rivers instead of penetrating the ground and rejoining water tables.
Finally, tropical deceases like Paludism (or Malaria), Dengue, Nile Virus, etc are moving northward as their vectors (like the infected Anopheles mosquitoes that spread Paludism) are finding new favorable habitats. Anopheles have already been found in South of France for a few years, which wasn't the case before.
These effects are not something to expect in the far future! Most of them are already measurable, and according to some studies they could reach levels we find intolerable in no more than 50 years.
You saying something there.
But the problem is that people will not belive it before they face these problems, and when they do they will just say : "Thats how the nature is, it`s natural for it going bananas every now and then".
I hate this topic, because there are so many people here that belives that global warming is just something that people make up, and that it`s natural. Of course is it natural for the globe to be warm, and cold at some times, but it is scinetistic proved that it`s kind of out of control now, the weather is going to extreme and the climate aswell.
Do you need any proff?
But now there will come a lot of answers that tells me that I`m just beliving in something that ain`t happening, and that I`m paranoid.
I don`t care, I will die soon anyway, and you too for that matter aswell, but think of the coming generation that will be completely screwe because YOU ****ed up the globe!
*Golfclap* for some people on this forum and the world leaders.
I do know it happening, still I ignore it quite lot, it is just something that will happen no matter what we do, well, maybe we could change things for next generations, but none of my problem, I do my part and won't get more people to this planet as there is already too much people.
I don't support anything that destroys nature, but then again I'm not willing to change how I live or how much I pay from gas etc. just because some people still like to have kids and get planet suffer more...
I don't support anything that destroys nature, but then again I'm not willing to change how I live or how much I pay from gas etc. just because some people still like to have kids and get planet suffer more...
Sums up my feelings
Yes, the only thing we can do at this point is to slow it down, because the inertia of the climatic system and the positive feedback loop it has entered are such that we can't stop it. All we can do is to try to make it easier for future generations. But of course, who cares?
I wonder what you'd think of your ancestors if you lived in some post nuclear world à la Mad Max because of their stupidity.
Update: on second thought, with such a lack of capacity to project yourself into the future, you'd probably have been eaten already.
Update 2: I don't mean you specifically, JTbo, but everyone with that kind of reasoning.
Global warming is like playing in the mud; it's fun to polute but one day we'll have to clean the shits we did
Heres my answer to global warming.
"Climate change: Adapt to survive or die stupid"
"Climate change: Adapt to survive or die stupid"
I guess, problem is that generation before mine caused it, generation after me might get better place, so I can't justify for me to be living like monk in monastery so that someday things would be better.
Biggest problem is too much people, then trashes etc. use once society, if those could be fixed it would affect greatly to future world, but if I need to pay 4000€ more for driving car to get to work, I fail to see what use this green bandwagon does serve and thus I decline to act along with it.
There is nothing anyone could do to change what climate is 60 years from now and before that we face problems with energy, waste and water which are far more priority for me.
Biggest problem is too much people, then trashes etc. use once society, if those could be fixed it would affect greatly to future world, but if I need to pay 4000€ more for driving car to get to work, I fail to see what use this green bandwagon does serve and thus I decline to act along with it.
There is nothing anyone could do to change what climate is 60 years from now and before that we face problems with energy, waste and water which are far more priority for me.
oh how much would i love to respond to that but bob or sam would slap me hard for any response that comes to mind
btw i thought you were leaving ?
He is since the first day I saw him on track several months ago. He's just leaving very slowly.
Yes. When you live a thousand lightyears away from someone it takes awhile for the posts to matter.
That..and puberty sucks.
Dude give it up
Peer review.... ever hear of "office politics"? maybe professional rivalry?
How about "the good 'ol boy" syndrome? These people are not beyond reproach. Dammit you're making me look like some sort of neo luddite nutcase or something. When actually I'm just skeptical of a few things.
Well enough debating about nonsense neither one of us seems to have a clue about. LOL I'm going to go off topic an post about something that's more on topic with the original thread
Global warming... What about cities? Concrete acts like a big reflector as far as heat goes. I've seen TV stations and radio stations fry eggs on the sidewalk in the summer around here. Then factor in the increased irrigation to get water to all the people, you're bound to get an increase in humidity - right? And wouldn't that cause even more heat? and doesn't heat expand? and since cities are pretty much 24-7, wouldn't that alone be an additional effect on the global warming trend? I mean maybe not by much, but I wasn't counting co2 emissions from cars or gases from industrial and chemical plants or cow farts or whatever, just the concrete and the irrigation ditches.
speak for yourself
Recently came a cross a good, unbiased article on global warming in the New scientist. My gut instinct tells me there are many ignorant people scaremongering but I like to see what a proper rational scientific argument puts forward.
"The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere now stands at around 375 parts per million. A doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million, which could happen as early as 2050, will add only about 1 °C to average global temperatures, other things being equal. But if there's one thing we can count on, it is that other things will not be equal; some important things will change."
"Water vapour is responsible for a bigger slice of today's greenhouse effect than any other gas, including CO2, any change in the amount of moisture in the atmosphere is critical. A warmer world will evaporate more water from the oceans, giving an extra push to warming. But there is a complication. Some of the water vapour will turn to cloud, and the net effect of cloudier skies on heat coming in and going out is far from clear. Clouds reflect energy from the sun back into space, but they also trap heat radiated from the surface, especially at night. Whether warming or cooling predominates depends on the type and height of clouds. The IPCC calculates that the combined effect of extra water vapour and clouds will increase warming, but accepts that clouds are the biggest source of uncertainty in the models."
"The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere now stands at around 375 parts per million. A doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million, which could happen as early as 2050, will add only about 1 °C to average global temperatures, other things being equal. But if there's one thing we can count on, it is that other things will not be equal; some important things will change."
"Water vapour is responsible for a bigger slice of today's greenhouse effect than any other gas, including CO2, any change in the amount of moisture in the atmosphere is critical. A warmer world will evaporate more water from the oceans, giving an extra push to warming. But there is a complication. Some of the water vapour will turn to cloud, and the net effect of cloudier skies on heat coming in and going out is far from clear. Clouds reflect energy from the sun back into space, but they also trap heat radiated from the surface, especially at night. Whether warming or cooling predominates depends on the type and height of clouds. The IPCC calculates that the combined effect of extra water vapour and clouds will increase warming, but accepts that clouds are the biggest source of uncertainty in the models."
Al, that sounds like an interesting article. Is that in the most recent issue?
No it goes back to the time of the Kyoto protocol agreement in 2005 i think. However, data presented is still relevant and some historical figures go back to 1850, so it's not just the statistical twisting of looking at the past 5 or 10 years in isolation, that is sometimes presented as a 'balanced picture'.
Methane is also bigger problem than CO2, also one big issue is if temp rises so that frozen areas melt, huge amount of methane is released -> more warming up results...
Must hope that other areas freezes as much as other areas warm up.
Methane was something like 400 times more powerful than CO2.
Time than CO2 stays on athmosphere is very different from methane and that is again very different from H2O...
Must hope that other areas freezes as much as other areas warm up.
Methane was something like 400 times more powerful than CO2.
Time than CO2 stays on athmosphere is very different from methane and that is again very different from H2O...
This thread is closed
Global Warming: Human's Fault?
(269 posts, closed, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG