PDA

View Full Version : humans demise



liflessdreamer
2007-Aug-19, 11:55 PM
the problem with ppl not believing such as


global warming is that the tales on how where dominate species


of earth is making ppl think what we do is never gonna backfire on us

when its our fualt that burning fossil fuels is making green house gasses and worying on how to make lifle easier when at one point it will all become hard.To me it seems as though too much effort is being put upon lighter things such assearching for feul or such when their not thinking on how to make it so we dont need to use dangerous and risky options.Like fancy sport cars their nice but can ruin lives including yours.Ialso hear that in 100s of millions of years mars will be just like earth.Be able to live on it but thats in the future far away before even then we could be demolished by our own doings.



id be happy to try to answer all replies or questions.

novaderrik
2007-Aug-20, 05:50 AM
so, are you saying that our greed as a species is going to be our demise?
that's kind of the plot of every movie or tv series involving aliens or space, so it isn't really a thought that hasn't been explored.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-20, 05:52 AM
the problem with ppl not believing such as


global warming is that the tales on how where dominate species


of earth is making ppl think what we do is never gonna backfire on us

when its our fualt that burning fossil fuels is making green house gasses and worying on how to make lifle easier when at one point it will all become hard.To me it seems as though too much effort is being put upon lighter things such assearching for feul or such when their not thinking on how to make it so we dont need to use dangerous and risky options.Like fancy sport cars their nice but can ruin lives including yours.Ialso hear that in 100s of millions of years mars will be just like earth.Be able to live on it but thats in the future far away before even then we could be demolished by our own doings.



id be happy to try to answer all replies or questions.


It seems to be our nature to try to take the easy road now, regardless of the long term consequences.

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-20, 06:00 AM
Stated a slightly different way, I'd agree with the OP. Our careless assumption that, no matter what we do to destroy the environment, we are immune to the danger of extinction will be our undoing. This has been stated in many sci-fi scenarios AND by preeminent scientists working in climatology.

I have found the 'Star Trek future' thread on this forum to be most amusing and ironic. Perhaps a more relevant question would be: Is any future possible for humanity?

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-20, 12:09 PM
Stated a slightly different way, I'd agree with the OP. Our careless assumption that, no matter what we do to destroy the environment, we are immune to the danger of extinction will be our undoing. This has been stated in many sci-fi scenarios AND by preeminent scientists working in climatology.


Nicely put, but it is also a matter of economics too. We as a species really only push (good or bad) where there is a need or desire.

If a country finally starts cutting down the last of their forests it is pretty much an indicator that it is financially bankrupt. The funny thing is all that CO2 in the air could be looked at as a massive airbourne carbon bank.

It is there for any country with the desire and motivation to tap into.

mugaliens
2007-Aug-20, 06:20 PM
Not really sure it's worth tapping into. Not really sure why we consider ourselves separate from all the other methane and CO2-producing life forms out there, why we're somehow "responsible" despite the fact that we're in the minority, contribution-wise, et. al.

It's enough to make one go nuclear...

korjik
2007-Aug-20, 06:51 PM
Climate change isnt going to sneak up and go 'Boo! You're dead!'

It will take millenia to make the world significantly different than it is today, and even then, mans ability to engineer its environment means that man could survive even rather hostile conditions.

Not being a GW drone could just be actually being a scientist who has questions on the methodology put into the current science, and having an extreme skepticism on anything when it is pushed by people who dont actually understand the subject.

liflessdreamer
2007-Aug-20, 07:03 PM
hm you all make good points but our species of this time are still going through this as a first time.i say we should concentrate on the worst conditions and what might be a solution or how it can happen.To me it seems as though we dont pay enough attention to serious things.We dont necessarily know when thisll happen so say like mt.rainier it was do over 50 years ago or more meaning we dont completly know when it will hapen.To me their is no 100% sure theirs atleast .1% or less.

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-20, 07:21 PM
Not being a GW drone could just be actually being a scientist who has questions on the methodology put into the current science, and having an extreme skepticism on anything when it is pushed by people who dont actually understand the subject.


Please explain that statement. How are the scientists that made up IPCC "GW drones" or "people who don't actually understand the subject"?


It will take millenia to make the world significantly different than it is today

That is incorrect. The world has already become 'significantly different' than it was only 150 years ago--in less than a century.

No, I'm not an expert in climatology, atmospheric physics, or meteorology; but people at the Hadley Centre are.

Here is their forecast: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html

Here is the Hadley Centre website for those who want to explore more: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/

Here is the IPCC report: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ar4/index.html

These people are preeminent in the field of climate science. Please explain to me how they are 'drones' or why you think they 'don't know what they are talking about'.

liflessdreamer
2007-Aug-20, 07:27 PM
a lil confused on that science thing but i know what you mean id like you to explain to me more about that.

Dragon Star
2007-Aug-20, 07:34 PM
a lil confused on that science thing but i know what you mean id like you to explain to me more about that.

I'm a little confused about the science involved, could you explain it to me a little more?

Please, this isn't MSN.

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-20, 07:45 PM
I'm a little confused about the science involved, could you explain it to me a little more?

Please, this isn't MSN.


Was that directed at me or at the OP? :confused:

I have said repeatedly that I'm not an expert in climatology; I've never pretended to be. The BA isn't one either for that matter, although he is somewhat closer to being one than I am.

I will do my best with the Hadley Centre data (hopefully they have tutorials onsite), but it will take me awhile to get an explanation together.

korjik
2007-Aug-20, 08:08 PM
Please explain that statement. How are the scientists that made up IPCC "GW drones" or "people who don't actually understand the subject"?



That is incorrect. The world has already become 'significantly different' than it was only 150 years ago--in less than a century.

No, I'm not an expert in climatology, atmospheric physics, or meteorology; but people at the Hadley Centre are.

Here is their forecast: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html

Here is the Hadley Centre website for those who want to explore more: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/

Here is the IPCC report: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ar4/index.html

These people are preeminent in the field of climate science. Please explain to me how they are 'drones' or why you think they 'don't know what they are talking about'.

I am not actually calling them the drones, I am calling the people who link to their pages without having any understanding of the science the drones.

I do find their seeming dependence on the IPCC report to be questionable. I find the IPCC report itself to be politicised garbage, as redundant as that is.

Now that GW has become a fad for the masses, any science that goes against the view of the masses is immediately discounted and attacked by people who dont have the background to make a reasoned debate.

You, Paracelsus are a good example. You have made many threads here supporting GW and admitted that you have no expertise. The large numbers of people like you who basically are blindly following the GW line do nothing to make sure that any real problems are addressed, while spouting the nonsense that if we dont do something now, we are all going to die.

My point is, the OP of this thread, and certain others, have no expertise at all to be making statements about GW. All you are doing is parroting what you have read. If you want to have real discussions, go get yourself the expertise to do so.

korjik
2007-Aug-20, 08:09 PM
Was that directed at me or at the OP? :confused:

I have said repeatedly that I'm not an expert in climatology; I've never pretended to be. The BA isn't one either for that matter, although he is somewhat closer to being one than I am.

I will do my best with the Hadley Centre data (hopefully they have tutorials onsite), but it will take me awhile to get an explanation together.

He is complaining about the rather bad english of the OP.

Dragon Star
2007-Aug-20, 08:38 PM
korjik, I agree with your viewpoint. Well said.


He is complaining about the rather bad english of the OP.

Amongst multiple threads as well.

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-20, 09:45 PM
I am not actually calling them the drones, I am calling the people who link to their pages without having any understanding of the science the drones.

I do find their seeming dependence on the IPCC report to be questionable. I find the IPCC report itself to be politicised garbage, as redundant as that is.

Now that GW has become a fad for the masses, any science that goes against the view of the masses is immediately discounted and attacked by people who dont have the background to make a reasoned debate.

You, Paracelsus are a good example. You have made many threads here supporting GW and admitted that you have no expertise. The large numbers of people like you who basically are blindly following the GW line do nothing to make sure that any real problems are addressed, while spouting the nonsense that if we dont do something now, we are all going to die.

My point is, the OP of this thread, and certain others, have no expertise at all to be making statements about GW. All you are doing is parroting what you have read. If you want to have real discussions, go get yourself the expertise to do so.

I intend to do so.

In the meantime, I'm reporting your post as an ad hom.

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-20, 09:55 PM
Oh, and korjik, you clearly missed this post I made on the 'Water-cooled nuclear power plant' thread in the 'General Science' forum:


Ok, korjik, I'll turn the question around on you, since you are the designated 'expert' on this subject: please explain all of the following phenomena that have been noted in recent years (citing refs):

1) Melting of inland glaciers worldwide
2) Decreased sea ice coverage, both poles
3) Increased ocean temps
4) Migration of lower altitude species to higher altitudes
5) Bleaching of coral reefs

You say you are a scientist. So am I. So is the BA. The BA and I and many other have looked at the available data and the Hadley Centre models and concluded that 1) the earth is warming, and 2) man-made CO2 is responsible for it.

You clearly have data that suggest otherwise. Where are your data?

From your posts, you indicate you have superior knowledge of the subject and/or ability to analyze the available data.

Time to demonstrate it. Please answer the questions in my post citing your sources.

Put up or shut up. Just shrugging your shoulders and saying 'I dunno...and nobody else does either because I don't.' is not sufficient.

mike alexander
2007-Aug-20, 09:59 PM
Paracelsius, I agree with your viewpoint. Well said.

Jim
2007-Aug-20, 10:20 PM
I am not actually calling them the drones, I am calling the people who link to their pages without having any understanding of the science the drones.

(snip)

You, Paracelsus are a good example. ... The large numbers of people like you who basically are blindly following ... while spouting the nonsense ...

... All you are doing is parroting ... go get yourself the expertise to do so.

I realize that this is a very touchy topic, with strong beliefs on either side. I would expect to see a spirited debate. However, I would also expect that debate to be within the Rules for Posting, specifically #2.

Korjik, the post I quoted - and specifically the statements in the last two paragraphs - would seem to violate the spirit if not the letter of #2. Parts of those paragraphs could be considered ad hominems.

I'm sure you could think of much better wording to state your case if you tried. And I'm sure you will make that effort in future posts.

Lurker
2007-Aug-20, 10:53 PM
I realize that this is a very touchy topic, with strong beliefs on either side. I would expect to see a spirited debate. However, I would also expect that debate to be within the Rules for Posting, specifically #2.

Korjik, the post I quoted - and specifically the statements in the last two paragraphs - would seem to violate the spirit if not the letter of #2. Parts of those paragraphs could be considered ad hominems.

I'm sure you could think of much better wording to state your case if you tried. And I'm sure you will make that effort in future posts.
I think the issue was put most succinctly by ToSeek when he stated that those who present arguments stating doubts and concerns in the hypothesis of global warming are just like those who doubt the big bang. They may present their arguments, but why should they be believed when there is "scientific consensus" around the hypothesis.

I know that I for one have opted out... what good is it to bring up papers and ideas only to be dismissed as arguments that are ATM... For myself, Paracelsus posted a Prediction (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5839/746), I am prepared to see if the hypothesis fulfills the prediction.

ToSeek
2007-Aug-21, 01:28 AM
I think the issue was put most succinctly by ToSeek when he stated that those who present arguments stating doubts and concerns in the hypothesis of global warming are just like those who doubt the big bang. They may present their arguments, but why should they be believed when there is "scientific consensus" around the hypothesis.


I wouldn't say "just like", more that there is a family resemblance: there are credentialed, respectable experts in both cases who have doubts about the consensus and can present arguments with some foundation against the consensus, but in both cases they are in the minority. I think the probability that AGW is wrong is higher than the probability that the Big Bang is wrong (and in any case one good volcanic explosion could take care of the matter for five years or so).

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-21, 04:48 AM
Paracelsius, I agree with your viewpoint. Well said.

Seconded, I don't pretend to be expert on anything but have put a lot of time and effort into trying to learn. The opinions I post are purely in the hope that if there is anything helpful or funny it may be spotted.

Just being concerned encouraged me and I hope others to join 'BOINC'. I joined the Aussie team. So sorry BAUT you did point it out but it is, well we have to keep up with or pass the Kiwis, they've already got the rugby cup.

I wouldn't feel comfortable posting to any thread that Paracelsius wasn't invited to comment on, especially as this is the OTB area.

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-21, 08:19 AM
I wouldn't say "just like", more that there is a family resemblance: there are credentialed, respectable experts in both cases who have doubts about the consensus and can present arguments with some foundation against the consensus, but in both cases they are in the minority. I think the probability that AGW is wrong is higher than the probability that the Big Bang is wrong (and in any case one good volcanic explosion could take care of the matter for five years or so).

I agree, but the difference between the two lies in two factors:

1) The respective ages of each 'consensus'. There has been consensus on the Big Bang for far longer than consensus on AGW.

2) The relative ambiguities in the datasets. There are quite a few natural oscillations that affect climate and which much also be accounted for in climate models. I'm sure that there are still more natural drivers that we have not found yet. Moreover, there are some predictions that climate models make which don't quite square with the available satellite data (I was going to start a thread on this, but got caught up in this stupid flame war with korjik). On the other hand, there are ambiguities surrounding what happened in the first femtoseconds/picoseconds after the Big Bang, in the process of galaxy formation, in the role of dark energy, etc. There are ambiguities in every dataset.

However, none of these ambiguities disprove the central hypotheses in either AGW or the Big Bang Theories, respectively.

The earth is, without a doubt, warming. All of the available evidence (climate simulations with and without MMCO2-forcing, correlation of increasing atmospheric CO2 with increasing temps, knowledge of the carbon cycle and how the carbon cycle affects climate) points to man-made CO2 as the cause. The IPCC report states that scientists are 90% certain that MMCO2 is causing GW--that is a very strong statement, considering how politicized this issue is and how watered down the report's conclusions are. Certainly natural climate drivers play a huge role too, however; I have never, and will never, dispute that fact.

Maksutov
2007-Aug-21, 01:57 PM
hm you all make good points but our species of this time are still going through this as a first time.i say we should concentrate on the worst conditions and what might be a solution or how it can happen.To me it seems as though we dont pay enough attention to serious things.We dont necessarily know when thisll happen so say like mt.rainier it was do over 50 years ago or more meaning we dont completly know when it will hapen.To me their is no 100% sure theirs atleast .1% or less.liflessdreamer, is English a second language for you? No ad hom here, instead, just curious since your posts are very hard to read.

Way back when I last posted on this topic (will need to see if it was lost during the BABB to BAUT transfer), I stated that the signal to noise ratio was such that it was not possible to determine in a statistically significant manner whether or not global warming was real and was the result of human influences.

Since then the evidence has been quite significant that there's global warming going on. As a former mountain climber, the status of glaciers in the world's ranges and the average temperatures there are distinct markers.

But re the human influence, there's still a lot of noise.

What we need is a period of, e.g., solar decline which is offset by continued global warming. When natural causes are shown to be a secondary factor re Earth's average temperatures, then the case is ready to submitted to the court.

Of course the problem there is we may not have the luxury of waiting for such a circumstance. Hence the dilemma, which is resolvable only, it seems, by tons of data processed by Crays. Which results in scientists trying to convince businessmen and politicians.

Oy.

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-21, 02:11 PM
liflessdreamer, is English a second language for you? No ad hom here, instead, just curious since your posts are very hard to read.

Way back when I last posted on this topic (will need to see if it was lost during the BABB to BAUT transfer), I stated that the signal to noise ratio was such that it was not possible to determine in a statistically significant manner whether or not global warming was real and was the result of human influences.

Since then the evidence has been quite significant that there's global warming going on. As a former mountain climber, the status of glaciers in the world's ranges and the average temperatures there are distinct markers.

But re the human influence, there's still a lot of noise.

What we need is a period of, e.g., solar decline which is offset by continued global warming. When natural causes are shown to be a secondary factor re Earth's average temperatures, then the case is ready to submitted to the court.

Of course the problem there is we may not have the luxury of waiting for such a circumstance. Hence the dilemma, which is resolvable only, it seems, by tons of data processed by Crays. Which results in scientists trying to convince businessmen and politicians.

Oy.

:clap:

Although I'm a bit more towards the 'it's definitely due to human influence end', I agree that there is a ton of variability in the data, and there are some effects that are simply unexplained by standard climate models. There are definitely natural cycles that are adding into the mix (as I've described in several threads in the 'General Science' section), and how the effects of MMCO2 combined with those natural cycles will play out in the near future is anybody's guess. But, based on the effects seen so far, the forecast does not look good; and, as you said, we don't have the luxury of waiting to iron out all of the kinks in the theory before we take action.

Lurker
2007-Aug-21, 04:15 PM
The earth is, without a doubt, warming. All of the available evidence (climate simulations with and without MMCO2-forcing, correlation of increasing atmospheric CO2 with increasing temps, knowledge of the carbon cycle and how the carbon cycle affects climate) points to man-made CO2 as the cause. The IPCC report states that scientists are 90% certain that MMCO2 is causing GW--that is a very strong statement, considering how politicized this issue is and how watered down the report's conclusions are. Certainly natural climate drivers play a huge role too, however; I have never, and will never, dispute that fact.
And this is where you and I part company... there is just not enough information to make this statement now.

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-21, 05:08 PM
Then let's agree to disagree then, Lurker. :) I have a tremendous amount of respect for your intelligence and analytical ability, and, as I've said, this is not a clean, clearly unambiguous dataset. However, I think any ambiguity will be cleared up in the next several years, for good or ill.

I would much rather be proven wrong than proven right on this issue. Nobody wins if I'm proven right.