|
 Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal 
|
 Re: Isn't extinction a good thing?  [Re: niteowl]
#358020 - 02/05/10 12:40 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
Spency said:
It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.
At humans causing global warming.
The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene.
If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct 
If you had done even the slightest bit of research on the topic you would know that the current warming trend is 100% NOT natural. sure in the past there have been wide range temperature fluctuations, but the speed of the current trend is thousands of times faster than anything experienced in the past. additionally, we can say with 100% certainty that CO2, methane and water vapor are extremely potent greenhouse gases so it's a rather logical conclusion that dumping thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is going to have a discernible impact.
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: THEBats]
#358106 - 02/05/10 02:54 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
#1) wrong. 2001 was not the stop of the warming. wtf is that even supposed to mean? 6 out of the 10 warmest years EVER RECORDED have been since 2001. I don't have any idea where you're getting that stat from, you could not be further from the truth
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
#2) Look at this graph. a recovery from the "little ice age" (known by smart people as the maunder minimum, a 75 year period in the late 1600s which attributes its low temperatures to a lack of sunspots) was temporary and completely unrelated to current warming. the graphs relevant to this discussion display the hockey stick shape, you'll see right around the turn of the century global mean temperatures take a dramatic turn upwards. coincidentally this perfectly coincides with the Industrial Revolution, which is when anthropogenic CO2 emissions really began
And niteowl- there aren't enough days in a year to address all the erroneous and illiterate science you're attempting to spew at us
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: THEBats]
#358255 - 02/05/10 11:18 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm pretty sure what you stated was wrong
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: THEBats]
#358294 - 02/06/10 12:26 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THEBats said:
Quote:
THEBats said:
Extinction can be a good thing in the long term, but in the short term an extinction, at least in the manner we are accelerating it, can cause the collapse of an ecosystem and cause not just one species to become extinct but many.
Life will continue though so really are only concern for extinction lies in our own selfish needs and desires. People are constantly concerned for polar bears but they serve but one small part in the big picture.
What did I state wrong?
well I clearly wasn't responding to that post now was I?
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: THEBats]
#358420 - 02/06/10 12:15 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Of course, by the very nature of global climate change then the extremes on both ends of the spectrum will increase. the warm will be warmer and the cold will be colder. 
It's actually extremely accurate to extrapolate past temperature patterns through ice cores because the heavier molecular weight of water composed with delta18-O oxygen affects the rate of evaporation. by measuring the concentration of water made with d18-O atoms versus standard atomic oxygen we can very accurately calculate what the temperature was at that point. further, when the majority of the 16-O has been evaporated and stored on land in snow pack then the concentration of d18-O in the ocean is significantly higher. Foraminifera and diatoms within the ocean use oxygen, silicon and carbon (all three of which have temperature sensitive isotopes) to form their shells, so combining the ratios of isotopic oxygen within their shells on the ocean floor combined with isotopic concentration in ice cores is an extremely accurate and entirely errorless way of calculating past temperatures. the 1700's is just the start of it, we've accurately mapped temperatures for the last couple hundred thousand years, and at this point we're only limited by our extraction technology. the only reason we haven't mapped farther is because we haven't drilled deep enough.
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: THEBats]
#358461 - 02/06/10 12:52 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Ice from the poles comes from water evaporated from every ocean on the globe. by using ice in greenland, nova scotia and Antarctica as well as chile, tibet etc... we can get some pretty accurate numbers. plus like I said, the shells of foraminifera are all over the planet on the sea floor so that can give us a spot-location reading as well.
if you do some searching you can find MILLIONS of examples of this being used to extrapolate data. it's hardly breaking technology, they've been doing it for years and the math is very sound and accurate. google it out if you're curious
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: niteowl]
#358473 - 02/06/10 01:35 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
THEBats said:
I'd also like to pose the question on how we are getting reliable global temperature data as far back as 1700.
Cause they make up numbers
to fit their theories ...
not the other way around
Here is a list from NASA on yearly temps
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880 -.36 *
1881 .18 *
1882 .10 -.27
1883 -.75 -.32
1884 -.50 -.45
1885 -.60 -.52
1886 -.50 -.48
1887 -.27 -.35
1888 -.54 -.22
1889 .16 -.19
1890 .05 -.25
1891 -.33 -.27
1892 -.59 -.27
1893 -.64 -.41
1894 .18 -.30
1895 -.66 -.19
1896 .22 -.09
1897 -.06 -.20
1898 -.12 .06
1899 -.36 .04
1900 .61 .05
1901 .12 -.04
1902 -.01 -.04
1903 -.55 -.24
1904 -.34 -.26
1905 -.40 -.28
1906 .02 -.14
1907 -.14 -.11
1908 .17 .05
1909 -.19 .08
1910 .37 -.06
1911 .16 -.12
1912 -.84 -.07
1913 -.10 -.18
1914 .05 -.31
1915 -.15 -.33
1916 -.50 -.31
1917 -.97 -.34
1918 .05 -.39
1919 -.12 -.07
1920 -.41 .16
1921 1.12 .13
1922 .15 .02
1923 -.08 .18
1924 -.68 -.04
1925 .38 -.03
1926 .05 .00
1927 .18 .03
1928 .06 -.03
1929 -.54 .16
1930 .11 .12
1931 1.00 .24
1932 -.03 .59
1933 .65 .58
1934 1.22 .41
1935 .03 .39
1936 .16 .41
1937 -.14 .32
1938 .77 .32
1939 .80 .39
1940 .02 .43
1941 .51 .30
1942 .03 .15
1943 .13 .13
1944 .04 .16
1945 -.05 .16
1946 .64 .12
1947 .06 .15
1948 -.09 .11
1949 .17 -.10
1950 -.23 -.05
1951 -.39 .14
1952 .28 .27
1953 .87 .30
1954 .82 .43
1955 -.06 .40
1956 .26 .24
1957 .13 .11
1958 .05 .07
1959 .15 .02
1960 -.23 -.01
1961 -.01 .02
1962 -.01 -.03
1963 .18 -.01
1964 -.11 -.06
1965 -.13 -.07
1966 -.23 -.17
1967 -.09 -.19
1968 -.30 -.19
1969 -.20 -.17
1970 -.14 -.21
1971 -.11 -.10
1972 -.31 -.03
1973 .24 -.04
1974 .19 -.07
1975 -.20 .07
1976 -.25 -.07
1977 .37 -.22
1978 -.48 -.13
1979 -.56 .05
1980 .25 -.09
1981 .67 .01
1982 -.32 .13
1983 .00 .00
1984 .04 .02
1985 -.37 .24
1986 .75 .32
1987 .80 .29
1988 .38 .55
1989 -.09 .54
1990 .91 .45
1991 .70 .30
1992 .36 .43
1993 -.36 .33
1994 .55 .18
1995 .43 .14
1996 -.06 .47
1997 .14 .58
1998 1.31 .63
1999 1.07 .83
2000 .69 .93
2001 .92 .81
2002 .68 .72
2003 .69 .76
2004 .61 .84
2005 .92 .88
2006 1.31 .77
2007 .88 .70
2008 .12 *
2009 .25 *
link
Looks like things are cooling off to me
First off read my posts to see how the numbers are NOT made up.
secondly, if you had actually looked at the numbers you posted you would see that it actually displays an increase as well. import those numbers into excel and graph it and tell me what you find
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: Yrat]
#359929 - 02/08/10 11:54 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm sorry I don't have time to watch those videos right now but I promise I will later. I saw the first 3 minutes and it looked promising at least.
I do however want to present a couple quick facts for you to ponder.
- CO2 absolutely does reflect and re-radiate infrared heat. This is a function of Rayleigh and Mie scattering of different electromagnetic wavelengths based on the size of the molecule they're impacting. it's not a debate, it's been proven over and over again in laboratory tests.
- We are dumping thousands of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
What's the logical conclusion here? it's not that the current warming trend is 100% caused by humans, but it is an absolute fact that we are affecting it. the only debate is how much
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: THEBats]
#359997 - 02/08/10 02:08 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
oh you were talking about the media? well yeah, fuck them The media is almost never correct on anything in my experience.
however, the science is always sound. sure, those two guys got caught falsifying data, but those were two dudes out of the hundreds of thousands of respectable and honorable scientists in the field. there are bad apples in every bunch but that doesn't mean the entire demographic is untrustworthy
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: THEBats]
#360003 - 02/08/10 02:19 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
yep. and carbon credits are retarded. How does purchasing the right to pollute extra actually accomplish anything "green"?
I would never argue that we're the sole cause because the planet's climatic system is far too intricate for us to ever pinpoint a single cause.
Example; July 2008 was the first month in around 74 years (I think, I'm going from memory here) to be completely devoid of a single sunspot. Sunspots increase the total energy coming towards our planet so this could account for 2008 being an uncharacteristically cold year. However, it was also the start of the El Nino Southern Oscillation where the pacific thermocline alters angle of inclination (and thus energy transfer from the equator poleward). Who's to say which one is more to blame for the lowest temperatures of the decade that year?
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: THEBats]
#360010 - 02/08/10 02:31 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I guess I should have reorganized that first statement to read "not 100% natural" to clarify. my bad
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: FurrowedBrow]
#360253 - 02/08/10 07:34 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
FurrowedBrow said:
Quote:
THEBats said:
Quote:
Harry_Ba11sach said:
I would never argue that we're the sole cause because the planet's climatic system is far too intricate for us to ever pinpoint a single cause.
Quote:
Harry_Ba11sach said:
If you had done even the slightest bit of research on the topic you would know that the current warming trend is 100% NOT natural.
I guess that's where the confusion came from.
Quote:
Harry_Ba11sach said:
I guess I should have reorganized that first statement to read "not 100% natural" to clarify. my bad
Quote:
niteowl said:
Spency, Harry I saw this and thought of y'all
yeah for most people, not me though
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: niteowl]
#360274 - 02/08/10 07:50 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Do I seem like the kind that ignores science? It's all I've ever dedicated my life to, it's pretty clear that you don't spend much time around here. I'll watch it right now but I'm a bit busy doing some research for class, I'll go back and forth.
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
#360300 - 02/08/10 08:09 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"I'm a scientist, all scientists are skeptics.... Let the facts fall where they may... Science is NOT about consensus."
Great opening lines
Ok so I'm at the end of the first video now and I have to say
I mean really... I've seen all those graphs 1000 times in class and I've heard people say exactly that 1000 times over while explaining those graphs. There is a significant warming trend in the last 150 years, but over a data set of 15,000 years it's not a significant correlation. The part that's important there, is that he's still not denying that we've experienced a phenomenally rapid rate of warming in the past 100 years.
I just basically see him doing exactly what every single person on both side of the issue (nay, every issue) does; selectively interpret the available data to make a point. he's clearly presenting a very persuasive and sided argument to a room full of people and he's obviously trying to make a stolid point of it.
I guess I'll keep watching
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
#360321 - 02/08/10 08:28 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
video 2;
first thought, when he's showing the graph of 6 million years ago and pointing out how global temps are 2-3 degrees higher during the miocene than today, he's neglecting to mention that atmospheric CO2 concentrations at the time were around 1000-1500ppm. Additionally, he's mentioning that during the pliocene era there was a slow but steady decrease in global temperatures. now why might that be? well, because a rise of C4 photosynthetic grasslands was occurring thanks to our lovely friend evolution (which niteowl probably doesn't subscribe to either  ) and through their more effective carbon fixation methods they were consuming much more of the atmospheric carbon dioxide than any organisms had done previously. A logical conclusion here IMO is that a decrease in atm CO2 lead to a decrease in global temperatures. or at the very least they happened at the same time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/5429/876
I can't help but feel this omission slightly invalidates his entire argument
I will admit that I was wrong on the rate of current warming and I'm not sure where I got that from... I must have misinterpreted a graph in class or misheard a teachers explanation but I have no problems admitting that was incorrect (assuming the graphs he's using are factual).
Would someone mind telling me if there's anything worth watching in the last two parts? I'm going to get back to my homework now but this guy is incredibly biased in his presentation. His consistent use of the word "alarmists" when referring to anyone not like-minded with him discredits his own interpretation of the data. He started the speech by saying that he has no opinion one way or another and now he's so pissed off and worked up that I can barely take him seriously.
(and for the record, I feel exactly the same way trying to watch Al Gore lecture the exact opposite side of the issue)
--------------------
Edited by Harry_Ba11sach (02/08/10 08:29 PM)
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: niteowl]
#360354 - 02/08/10 09:44 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
that's really not true man. we can count back every single individual year and tell within a degree or two what the average global temperature was. The resolution on those graphs is down to not more than 4-5 months at this point and the method for determining past temperature is extremely accurate too.
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: niteowl]
#360625 - 02/09/10 07:39 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
No evidence that it has or will HARM the planet, but guaranteed scientific fact that it will AFFECT the planet. CO2 reflects IR radiation that has been emitted by our planet, cold hard fact
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: TomCollins]
#360703 - 02/09/10 12:13 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Spency said:
Quote:
DoPeYsMuRf said:
The planet naturally goes through Iceages.
Didn't the ice age occur because of the giant meteorite?
Ice ages occur for many reasons. Most notable Milankovitch cycles which are variations in earth's trajectory around the sun. most notable axial tilt variations (obliquity), eccentricity of our eliptical orbit, axial precession, Apsidal precession, and orbital inclination.
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: DoPeYsMuRf]
#360704 - 02/09/10 12:13 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DoPeYsMuRf said:
ehhh.
Ill recap. White reflects, blue absorbs.
A whaaaa? blue is the reflection of light in the blue spectrum. every color reflects except black.
--------------------
|
Harry_Ba11sach
cannoisseur
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal
|
Re: Isn't extinction a good thing? [Re: DoPeYsMuRf]
#360718 - 02/09/10 12:35 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I know. heat is a color
--------------------
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
