A last chance for Civilization

2

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    i cant look at that page you put up but i have seen graphs of the CO2 increases over the years.. and you are talking about the decreases.. and i can only assume you mean the short spikes followed by rises and that you can notice by these graphas it is steadily rising...despite the short spikes down.. if im correct in assuming this is what you are talking about.. the short spike down.. descreases this all I can share with y ou is one word and its an awesome song by Chris Cornell.

    SEASONS

    The graph displays atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. The increases and decreases on the graph happen over eons, not over seasons. For instance, CO2 levels 120,000 years ago stood at around 270 ppm, whereas CO2 levels 10,000 years ago stood at around 180 ppm. Today they stand at 370 ppm. So, judging from this data, CO2 levels aren't necessarily cumulative. If CO2 levels can decrease (as they did from -120,000 years to -10,000 years), and we're currently of the opinion that CO2 levels are too high, wouldn't it then be imperative to understand that CO2 in fact does have "someplace to go" and that those levels could be actively reduced?
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The graph displays atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. The increases and decreases on the graph happen over eons, not over seasons. For instance, CO2 levels 120,000 years ago stood at around 270 ppm, whereas CO2 levels 10,000 years ago stood at around 180 ppm. Today they stand at 370 ppm. So, judging from this data, CO2 levels aren't necessarily cumulative. If CO2 levels can decrease (as they did from -120,000 years to -10,000 years), and we're currently of the opinion that CO2 levels are too high, wouldn't it then be imperative to understand that CO2 in fact does have "someplace to go" and that those levels could be actively reduced?


    so you are considering the more faith apporach... maybe thigs will work themselves out..

    I think you are right in the sense that things will work themselves out..

    but people should be aware that it doesnt have to happen abruptly and as disastourous..

    if we could find ways to lower our emissions.. should be ignore our own knowledge?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    i dont know of any research that shows carbon dioxide levels in the ice age..

    Much research surrounds atomspheric conditions in pre-civilized times.
    I think you are considering ''god'' or some supernatural or perhaps natural that we dont know about force that sucks CO2 away in large amounts.. some sort of vaccum? and if you want to steer away from the very manageable problem of cutting back on CO2 emissions to ask why in tha past?

    I'm having trouble understanding why you believe cutting CO2 emissions to be "manageable" when you're having difficulty even addressing some of the fundamentals of CO2. If CO2 levels do fluctuate both up and down, then certainly CO2 levels are not simply a cumulative effect of a gas that has "no place to go". Obviously that gas both comes from somewhere and has someplace to go. You seem to have a good grip on where it comes from. I'm surprised to not hear a discussion on where it should then be going.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    macgyver06 wrote:
    with all politics aside do you agree that with the more co2 in and near the earths surface.. it makes it harder for sun rays to hit earth and reflect back out of the earths atmosphere?

    Do you agree that the actual temperature of earth actualy decreased over a 20 year period while the metric tons of fossil fuel used doubled and then quadrupled?

    This decrease in temperature directly correlates to a decrease in solar irradiance.
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Well, you're right about that.
    But i'm still not worried:
    Graph Showing Average Temperature vs. Sun Activity -- Can you REFUTE THIS?

    Graph Showing Average Historic Temperature -- Note: We are BELOW Average Temperature for 3000 years.

    Sea Level Increase Starts Before Fuel Usage, Maintains Constant Slope

    source page, good stuff
    You tell ME what is going here.


    Do you dispute that the increase in sea level has been linear, begining BEFORE the era of fossil fuel usage, and maintaining a constant slope over 40 years, even in the face of doubling, tripling, and quadrupling human co2 output?

    Do you not agree that CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere, which at MOST has risen from .03-.04% of all atmospheric gas to maybe around .06% of all gas? Yet the graph clearly shows a direct correlation, again inspite of increasing human carbon dioxide output, between surface temperatures and solar activity? Again, the temperature went DOWN as carbon out put went UP.

    Do you not admit that the science behind "man made global warming" is, at BEST, speculative and inconclusive?

    If not, what is the basis for your dispute of this? Given the direct correlation of sun activity to surface temperature, specificaly.

    If fossil fuel is directly responsible for temperature increase, how could this "source of warming" double and quadruple all while temperatures DECREASED in direct correlation with solar activity?

    Do you think i am "on par with holocaust deniers"?

    ;)
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    so you are considering the more faith apporach... maybe thigs will work themselves out..

    I think you are right in the sense that things will work themselves out..

    but people should be aware that it doesnt have to happen abruptly and as disastourous..

    if we could find ways to lower our emissions.. should be ignore our own knowledge?

    I'm certainly not suggesting we ignore our own knowledge or assume that things will "work themselves out". In fact, I'd suggest we use our knowledge and attack our ignorance. It seems terribly important, given the premises and data behind our distaste for global warming, to understand how CO2 has been reduced in the past, given the knowledge we have that CO2 levels have increased and decreased greatly over time.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Do you agree that the actual temperature of earth actualy decreased over a 20 year period while the metric tons of fossil fuel used doubled and then quadrupled?

    This decrease in temperature directly correlates to a decrease in solar irradiance.




    Do you dispute that the increase in sea level has been linear, begining BEFORE the era of fossil fuel usage, and maintaining a constant slope over 40 years, even in the face of doubling, tripling, and quadrupling human co2 output?

    Do you not agree that CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere, which at MOST has risen from .03-.04% of all atmospheric gas to maybe around .06% of all gas? Yet the graph clearly shows a direct correlation, again inspite of increasing human carbon dioxide output, between surface temperatures and solar activity? Again, the temperature went DOWN as carbon out put went UP.

    Do you not admit that the science behind "man made global warming" is, at BEST, speculative and inconclusive?

    If not, what is the basis for your dispute of this? Given the direct correlation of sun activity to surface temperature, specificaly.

    If fossil fuel is directly responsible for temperature increase, how could this "source of warming" double and quadruple all while temperatures DECREASED in direct correlation with solar activity?

    Do you think i am "on par with holocaust deniers"?

    ;)



    I can answer one part of your post because the rest i am just not sure what you arguing and why are you arguing.. if you could make it more clear what you are trying to say than i could answer it... BUT I WILL ANSWER THIS

    the earths temperature going down while fossil fuel usage goes up.. using this information as a crutch to argue against global warming is really weak.. i will explain

    if the ocean conveyor belt were to shut down.. due to the ice caps melting (which is directly linked to the greenhouse effect) parts of Europe that experience seasons right now would FREEZE

    FREEZE

    FREEZE

    but it wouldnt stay frozen forever. IT COULDNT when the rest of the habitable earth is getting hotter and hotter and the oceans are rising to cool it off.



    i dont think you are going to grasp this until you study how the earth is.. what things mean and how it can heal itself.. and how it doesnt give a damn about you.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Do you agree that the actual temperature of earth actualy decreased over a 20 year period while the metric tons of fossil fuel used doubled and then quadrupled?

    This decrease in temperature directly correlates to a decrease in solar irradiance.




    Do you dispute that the increase in sea level has been linear, begining BEFORE the era of fossil fuel usage, and maintaining a constant slope over 40 years, even in the face of doubling, tripling, and quadrupling human co2 output?

    Do you not agree that CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere, which at MOST has risen from .03-.04% of all atmospheric gas to maybe around .06% of all gas? Yet the graph clearly shows a direct correlation, again inspite of increasing human carbon dioxide output, between surface temperatures and solar activity? Again, the temperature went DOWN as carbon out put went UP.

    Do you not admit that the science behind "man made global warming" is, at BEST, speculative and inconclusive?

    If not, what is the basis for your dispute of this? Given the direct correlation of sun activity to surface temperature, specificaly.

    If fossil fuel is directly responsible for temperature increase, how could this "source of warming" double and quadruple all while temperatures DECREASED in direct correlation with solar activity?

    Do you think i am "on par with holocaust deniers"?

    ;)


    pretty soon these nonsense writings wont matter hopefully you will go outside and see the changes earth is going through... until you do.. keep watching your crazy you tube videos.

    people are looking for answers to what they see could be a problem for all of civilization..

    its one thing to question theories.... but to post this bullshit about hoaxes and schemes when YOU CAN VISIT THE PLACES THAT ARE BEING HIT HARD by our irresponsibility already is BLIND AND FUCKING STUPID.


    good riddance.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    Seems like some fairly obvious questions to me and I apolgize if these issues have already been raised, but why would a group of unbiased scientists create a hoax or conspiracy and what is the aim of this hoax? What do they have to gain? Why would anyone believe the "evidence" brought forth by the nay-sayers, who are indeed biased (gov't and corporations)?

    IMO the goal of the nay-sayers is to simply plant the seed of doubt in the minds of the majority of people in western culture, not to win the argument. Because all it takes is a semblance of doubt for all of us to not drastically change our lives, stop the unnecessary production and consumption, and revolt against the traditional "comforts" of our capitalist economy that have caused the excess and waste that is destroying our planet.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    macgyver06 wrote:
    you could make it more clear what you are trying to say than i could answer it

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png

    thats what i'm saying.

    Got answers?
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    macgyver06 wrote:
    pretty soon these nonsense writings wont matter hopefully you will go outside and see the changes earth is going through... until you do.. keep watching your crazy you tube videos.

    people are looking for answers to what they see could be a problem for all of civilization..

    its one thing to question theories.... but to post this bullshit about hoaxes and schemes when YOU CAN VISIT THE PLACES THAT ARE BEING HIT HARD by our irresponsibility already is BLIND AND FUCKING STUPID.


    good riddance.

    you've got a big mouth, a small vocabulary, and an even smaller comprehension of our world. Thanks for demonstrating this so clearly.

    By the way,
    got any actual responses to the information i posted,
    or just more potty mouth antics?

    Let me know, if you manage to survive a time out.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    you've got a big mouth, a small vocabulary, and an even smaller comprehension of our world. Thanks for demonstrating this so clearly.

    By the way,
    got any actual responses to the information i posted,
    or just more potty mouth antics?

    Let me know, if you manage to survive a time out.


    your signature quote is incorrect.
  • LikeAnOcean
    LikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    I'm all about the environment, but global warming will not be the end of the world. It might be the end of us, but the world will be fine. Polar bears may go extinct, but they've only been around about 20,000 as they evolved from grizzly bears.

    I know we are responsible for many extintions, but things will even out as we reach our own destruction and the rest of the world bounces back..

    Global warming is more about our own destruction rather than the world around us.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    I'm all about the environment, but global warming will not be the end of the world. It might be the end of us, but the world will be fine. Polar bears may go extinct, but they've only been around about 20,000 as they evolved from grizzly bears.

    I know we are responsible for many extintions, but things will even out as we reach our own destruction and the rest of the world bounces back..

    Global warming is more about our own destruction rather than the world around us.

    ya, I wouldnt bet against Earth.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    I'm all about the environment, but global warming will not be the end of the world. It might be the end of us, but the world will be fine. Polar bears may go extinct, but they've only been around about 20,000 as they evolved from grizzly bears.

    I know we are responsible for many extintions, but things will even out as we reach our own destruction and the rest of the world bounces back..

    Global warming is more about our own destruction rather than the world around us.


    The big issue here is that some are destroying our life here on Earth as we know it at a much greater rate than others despite all the evidence that this kind of behavior will cause dire problems for the future generations of human life yet to come. To me that's pretty fucked up, reckless and selfish.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    The big issue here is that some are destroying our life here on Earth as we know it at a much greater rate than others despite all the evidence that this kind of behavior will cause dire problems for the future generations of human life yet to come. To me that's pretty fucked up, reckless and selfish.
    and very typical of capitalism-it breeds that behavior.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    The big issue here is that some are destroying our life here on Earth as we know it at a much greater rate than others despite all the evidence that this kind of behavior will cause dire problems for the future generations of human life yet to come. To me that's pretty fucked up, reckless and selfish.

    To me, the BIGGER problem is that the very same few ... the elite assholes ... the ones DOING the polluting ... are the same damn assholes pushing for this carbon tax.

    Why?

    Because WE pay that.

    So lets get this straight, THEY pollute, and WE pay?

    Thats a pretty devious fucking scam they got running huh?

    And then if I object, I am the one that gets demonized for not caring about the planet.

    When in reality, i've probably read more books on the environment than half the people here screaming down my throat.

    Let me repeat, i have no problem trying to rectify the imbalance between man and nature, but the way to do that is NOT to further line the pockets of the fat cats.

    :sigh:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • flywallyfly
    flywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    Commy wrote:
    and very typical of capitalism-it breeds that behavior.

    Not just capitalism. The environment under the Soviet Union and China (not today's China which is a Capitalism/Comminism hybrid) was horrible as well.
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    by 2050 or so there will be nearly 10 BILLION PEOPLE living on the planet, with a larger percentage of those people being elderly and not contributing to the workforce. Civilisation and this planet can't handle that many people. All these problems, like global warming, oil and food shortages, fresh water, livable land, are just symptoms of this one large problem: overpopulation. why does no one even discuss this? We are screwed.

    just shut up and enjoy the fireworks!
  • LikeAnOcean
    LikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    MrSmith wrote:
    by 2050 or so there will be nearly 10 BILLION PEOPLE living on the planet, with a larger percentage of those people being elderly and not contributing to the workforce. Civilisation and this planet can't handle that many people. All these problems, like global warming, oil and food shortages, fresh water, livable land, are just symptoms of this one large problem: overpopulation. why does no one even discuss this? We are screwed.

    just shut up and enjoy the fireworks!
    If we think things are fucked up now, give it 50 years.. I know a lot of people are against this, and its very anti-human rights, and I have plenty of friends who come from big families, but people who have more than 2 children are the biggest culprit towards just about every problem we will face in the coming years..

    Who am I to tell you how many children to have?.. I'm just looking at the big picture here and looking out for your children's children..

Categories