Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Sparkle said:
I also agree with YOUR doctor analogy.
as for the part in bold, that's been the stance of most scientists, they claimed Human impact IS a certainty, the extent or degree of it is what's debated.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's just the level that they don't know, but they always seem to make it sound like lack of knowledge is some kind of plague that must be avoided and never mentioned. It's just not convincing if a specialist tries to dodge or not acknowledge a point and devistating when they try to ridicule a different viewpoint. Scientists are supposed to be about the possibilities not an absolute line. It would be far more convincing just to say to the other side, "maybe you're right, but reducing polution still benefits us humans for simple health reasons, so if there's only positives that can happen why aren't we doing it?"
 
moraldeficiency said:
Not being a wise @ss, but do you believe humans can effect the envirnment at all?
Click to expand...
Sure, but only on the smallest scale. Back when they were developing the Atomic Bomb, they thought that Nuclear Fusion would start a chain reaction the would burn all the oxygen in the atmosphere. They were wrong. Even our most powerfull weopen can't do it. I don't believe that Man is as Significant as were are lead to believe.
 
SupermanBeyond said:
Sure, but only on the smallest scale. Back when they were developing the Atomic Bomb, they thought that Nuclear Fusion would start a chain reaction the would burn all the oxygen in the atmosphere. They were wrong. Even our most powerfull weopen can't do it. I don't believe that Man is as Significant as were are lead to believe.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the last part completely. But if man can affect small scale ecosystems and all ecosystems are related and influence the larger ecosystem that is the planet, then couldn't we extrapolate that humans do affect the planet at least on some scale?
 
SupermanBeyond said:
Sure, but only on the smallest scale. Back when they were developing the Atomic Bomb, they thought that Nuclear Fusion would start a chain reaction the would burn all the oxygen in the atmosphere. They were wrong. Even our most powerfull weopen can't do it. I don't believe that Man is as Significant as were are lead to believe.
Click to expand...

Google Chernobyl.
 
Mr Sparkle said:
Google Chernobyl.
Click to expand...
I don't have to Google Chernobyl. But that is a different scenerio than the bomb. The estimates for repopulation for Chernobyl is still a few decades, but the world is dead. Like a said a bit ago, the World will still be around and Habitable, Long after we are gone.
 
no, the world might still be around, as for habitable?
not really, there are several places were industry has contaminated subterranean water supplies to a degree were they are no longer drinkable and can't be used for agriculture.
yes, the world might endure, do we have to turn it into a ****hole because we don't want to bother with a few simple steps?
no, believe me, man's impact on the environment is very real, and very quantifiable.
 
Mr Sparkle said:
no, the world might still be around, as for habitable?
not really, there are several places were industry has contaminated subterranean water supplies to a degree were they are no longer drinkable and can't be used for agriculture.
yes, the world might endure, do we have to turn it into a ****hole because we don't want to bother with a few simple steps?
no, believe me, man's impact on the environment is very real, and very quantifiable.
Click to expand...
But, whether it is inhabitable is a different arguement. This debate is about Global Warming.
 
no, you were the one deviating a little from the topic, basically saying that you don't think the impact of man is that important.
but that's the thing, YOU don't believe that, lot's of scientists, far more than those who say we don't, think infact that we do.
all I was doing was putting the impact of man on the environment in perspective so that you would easily understand my point.
 
Ask me any global warming question you like and I will attempt to answer it with my bachelor's degree level of understanding in layman's terms (I was a high school teacher for a while). If I don't know I'll TELL you that I don't know and try to link you somewhere with people who have studied the subject way more than I have. :up: :)

Also...the average temperature on that map I posted was only the average of the given period (which IS known). The sun spot graph had no averages - it was a plot of actual data showing the cyclical nature of sun spots.
 
Anguissette1979 said:
Ask me any global warming question you like and I will attempt to answer it with my bachelor's degree level of understanding in layman's terms (I was a high school teacher for a while). If I don't know I'll TELL you that I don't know and try to link you somewhere with people who have studied the subject way more than I have. :up: :)

Also...the average temperature on that map I posted was only the average of the given period (which IS known). The sun spot graph had no averages - it was a plot of actual data showing the cyclical nature of sun spots.
Click to expand...
Why are all the Planets in our solar system getting warmer?
 
Anguissette1979 said:
I don't know. I actually hadn't heard this before... Link to an article?

My degree was in "Earth" Science, not necessarily all the planets in the solar system ;)
Click to expand...

How could we know the planets in our solar system are getting warmer? Is this some disinformation schtick?
 
Red Mask said:
How could we know the planets in our solar system are getting warmer? Is this some disinformation schtick?
Click to expand...

Not sure. We have estimated temperature ranges from the terrestrial planet but I didn't think they were firm enough to be able to measure fractional dregee changes :confused:.

Like I said, my astronomy background consists of mostly general knowledge on what is currently known about how the universe works. :(
 
Anguissette1979 said:
Not sure. We have estimated temperature ranges from the terrestrial planet but I didn't think they were firm enough to be able to measure fractional dregee changes :confused:.

Like I said, my astronomy background consists of mostly general knowledge on what is currently known about how the universe works. :(
Click to expand...

But how would observing the temperatures of the gas giants be significant, if even possible? We don't live on a gaseous planet.
 
Anguissette1979 said:
Bill... do you have a link on this? I haven't been able to find much other than that excess CO2 can limit transpiration. :)
Click to expand...


I may have heard it somewhere, possibly in a classroom. And the more I think about it, the more I think that I am either mistaking what I heard or that it was in error. I believe it was CO, not CO2. This study shows that excess carbon dioxide levels deplete the soil of nitrogen, a necessary nutrient for plant growth. But I've seen others that extoll the coming of more CO2. Who knows?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sinewave
ExxonMobil paid to mislead public on global warming
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Metamorpho1977
Metamorpho1977
sithgoblin
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
117K
Thread Manager
T
Hobgoblin
  • Poll Poll
The Return of the Global Warming and Environmental Issues Thread
Replies
0
Views
197
Hobgoblin
H
A
ExxonMobil paid to mislead public
Replies
13
Views
2K
USMC
USMC
E
Extreme weather
65 66 67
Replies
2K
Views
66K
blueharvest
blueharvest

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 4,826 (members: 22, guests: 4,804)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,374
Messages
22,093,868
Members
45,888
Latest member
amyfan32

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"