Read it and weep......
- Thread starter passthesalt
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris:
<STRONG>Come on Dan, your being a little over simplistic, the fact that we went to the moon isnt based on theory.
</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here are a couple of facts for Chris:
1) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" - ie more of it in the atmosphere causes an increase in the amount of solar energy trapped in the atmosphere. Don't bother denying this- even the Bush Admin has conceded this point.
2) Due to human activities, the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere is greater then the capacity of natural mechanisms present to remove CO2. So the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
Those are a couple of facts for you. I'd like to see your argument as to why the amount of solar energy trapped in the atmosphere will not increase.
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Cheese Sandwich ]
<STRONG>Come on Dan, your being a little over simplistic, the fact that we went to the moon isnt based on theory.
</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here are a couple of facts for Chris:
1) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" - ie more of it in the atmosphere causes an increase in the amount of solar energy trapped in the atmosphere. Don't bother denying this- even the Bush Admin has conceded this point.
2) Due to human activities, the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere is greater then the capacity of natural mechanisms present to remove CO2. So the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
Those are a couple of facts for you. I'd like to see your argument as to why the amount of solar energy trapped in the atmosphere will not increase.
[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Cheese Sandwich ]
hmmmm.... It seems I've read somewhere (probably an article written by those bizarre 'science people') that EVERYTHING changes over time. For example, that homo sapiens are getting taller each year, that girls hit puberty at younger ages than 30 years ago, etc, etc... Isn't this evolution? Even with regard to global warming/cooling/lack of either - doesn't change seem to be consistent? WHAT is all the hoopla about? So our kids/grandkids get to enjoy different looking/functioning corals than we do - so what??
Leonard,
Im trying to keep an open mind about all of this and possibly learn something.
You wrote:
"Global surface temperature averages were on a gradual downslope for the last millenium until it hit the early 1900's. Post 1900, earth temp has risen roughly 0.2 degrees celcius every 10 years (+2 degrees/100 years). In the more buffered environments (eg polar extremes), this increase is 2-3 times more evident."
So in the last 100 years my average teperatures have raised 2 degrees celcius which equals 35.6 degrees farenheit? My average summer temps in Ohio are somewhere around 90 degrees. Are you telling me that in 1900 my average summer temp was 54.4 degrees farenheit?? That is just not true. The average temps in the early 1900s were the same as they are now.
I know people keep saying that you cant use your little peice of the world as an example, you have to look at it on a global scale. Can you name ANYWHERE in the world where the average temperature has increased by 35.6 degrees in the last 100 years??? I have a hard time believing that has happened anywhere. I could be wrong. Educate me.
c
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: chris ]
Im trying to keep an open mind about all of this and possibly learn something.
You wrote:
"Global surface temperature averages were on a gradual downslope for the last millenium until it hit the early 1900's. Post 1900, earth temp has risen roughly 0.2 degrees celcius every 10 years (+2 degrees/100 years). In the more buffered environments (eg polar extremes), this increase is 2-3 times more evident."
So in the last 100 years my average teperatures have raised 2 degrees celcius which equals 35.6 degrees farenheit? My average summer temps in Ohio are somewhere around 90 degrees. Are you telling me that in 1900 my average summer temp was 54.4 degrees farenheit?? That is just not true. The average temps in the early 1900s were the same as they are now.
I know people keep saying that you cant use your little peice of the world as an example, you have to look at it on a global scale. Can you name ANYWHERE in the world where the average temperature has increased by 35.6 degrees in the last 100 years??? I have a hard time believing that has happened anywhere. I could be wrong. Educate me.
c
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: chris ]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>
So in the last 100 years my average teperatures have raised 2 degrees celcius which equals 35.6 degrees farenheit? My average summer temps in Ohio are somewhere around 90 degrees. Are you telling me that in 1900 my average summer temp was 54.4 degrees farenheit?? That is just not true. The average temps in the early 1900s were the same as they are now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's the education you've requested: A +2 degree Celcius variant = +3.6 degrees Farenheit. For example, the difference between 25 degrees C and 27 degrees C is +2 degrees Celcius = +3.6 degrees F.
Look at the following NASA plot chart and tell me if you still believe the temp has not risen since the early 1900's.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/surftemp/1999fig1.gif
So in the last 100 years my average teperatures have raised 2 degrees celcius which equals 35.6 degrees farenheit? My average summer temps in Ohio are somewhere around 90 degrees. Are you telling me that in 1900 my average summer temp was 54.4 degrees farenheit?? That is just not true. The average temps in the early 1900s were the same as they are now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's the education you've requested: A +2 degree Celcius variant = +3.6 degrees Farenheit. For example, the difference between 25 degrees C and 27 degrees C is +2 degrees Celcius = +3.6 degrees F.
Look at the following NASA plot chart and tell me if you still believe the temp has not risen since the early 1900's.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/surftemp/1999fig1.gif
Hows this for fact, the 1980s and 1970s produced record COLD temps {last hundred years} most places on the planet, with many in north America {remember the new Ice age predictions at the time?} Oh and by the way, this year is seeing lower world temps and Summer is almost over, so I guess the global warming issue is almost as well?
_________________
BMW M5
_________________
BMW M5
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel:
<STRONG>You folks don't get it. All of the CO2 was at one point or another in the atmosphere. We are burning fossil fuels last time I checked. So at some point or another all of this C02 was in the atmosphere. I think the flucuations in temp that everyone is talking about have occured because of this flucuation. More co2 higher temps. Higher temps more plant growth. More growth, less co2, lower temps, and so on.
</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're operating under the false supposition that our ecosystem is capable of managing any and all disturbance of balance, no matter the magnitude. Nature can and does correct itself, but this process takes time. The simple fact of the matter is we're altering the environment (and not only with respect to temperature) faster then nature can counteract. Equalibrium is a slow, progressive function that reflects millions of complex variables from hundreds of thousands of years. Industrialized man works a little faster then that ...
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
<STRONG>You folks don't get it. All of the CO2 was at one point or another in the atmosphere. We are burning fossil fuels last time I checked. So at some point or another all of this C02 was in the atmosphere. I think the flucuations in temp that everyone is talking about have occured because of this flucuation. More co2 higher temps. Higher temps more plant growth. More growth, less co2, lower temps, and so on.
</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're operating under the false supposition that our ecosystem is capable of managing any and all disturbance of balance, no matter the magnitude. Nature can and does correct itself, but this process takes time. The simple fact of the matter is we're altering the environment (and not only with respect to temperature) faster then nature can counteract. Equalibrium is a slow, progressive function that reflects millions of complex variables from hundreds of thousands of years. Industrialized man works a little faster then that ...
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kalkbreath:
<STRONG>Hows this for fact, the 1980s and 1970s produced record COLD temps {last hundred years} most places on the planet, with many in north America {remember the new Ice age predictions at the time?} Oh and by the way, this year is seeing lower world temps and Summer is almost over, so I guess the global warming issue is almost as well?</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Show me a data set that supports this. Because NOAA, NASA, NWS, etc. definately do not agree with your claims.
<STRONG>Hows this for fact, the 1980s and 1970s produced record COLD temps {last hundred years} most places on the planet, with many in north America {remember the new Ice age predictions at the time?} Oh and by the way, this year is seeing lower world temps and Summer is almost over, so I guess the global warming issue is almost as well?</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Show me a data set that supports this. Because NOAA, NASA, NWS, etc. definately do not agree with your claims.
Wow Leonard,
Major brain cramp! I knew something didnt look right about all of that! Gotta learn to read a conversion chart some day. Either that or the US needs to convert to the metric system like I was told would happen when I was in Elementary school.
So the fact remains that I cant figure out how a change of 1 degree in the oceans temps over 50 years will destroy all of the worlds reefs.
c
Major brain cramp! I knew something didnt look right about all of that! Gotta learn to read a conversion chart some day. Either that or the US needs to convert to the metric system like I was told would happen when I was in Elementary school.
So the fact remains that I cant figure out how a change of 1 degree in the oceans temps over 50 years will destroy all of the worlds reefs.
c
chris,
1-2 degree Celsius increase per 100 years is alarmingly fast, and will undeniably impact every living organism on earth.
Again, keep in mind that a 5 degree deviation during the Ice Age effectively killed off 2/3rds of all large mammal species (endothermic organisms). It's reasonable to speculate that a rapid 1-2 degree temp increase within such a short period of time could have catastrophic consequences for reef inverts (exothermic organisms accustomed to a strict and historically constant temperature range).
Here's something we can relate to: You have a reef tank @ 86 degrees. Drive the temp up to 90 degrees (only +2 degrees C), and see what happens.
Wholesale extinction isn't all that far-fetched. A seemingly small temperature digression of 1-2 degrees C can manifest devastating results. And remember: the collaspe of an entire ecosystem can result from the extinction of just one species.
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
1-2 degree Celsius increase per 100 years is alarmingly fast, and will undeniably impact every living organism on earth.
Again, keep in mind that a 5 degree deviation during the Ice Age effectively killed off 2/3rds of all large mammal species (endothermic organisms). It's reasonable to speculate that a rapid 1-2 degree temp increase within such a short period of time could have catastrophic consequences for reef inverts (exothermic organisms accustomed to a strict and historically constant temperature range).
Here's something we can relate to: You have a reef tank @ 86 degrees. Drive the temp up to 90 degrees (only +2 degrees C), and see what happens.
Wholesale extinction isn't all that far-fetched. A seemingly small temperature digression of 1-2 degrees C can manifest devastating results. And remember: the collaspe of an entire ecosystem can result from the extinction of just one species.
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Food for thought, scientists predicted that the world was in danger in the 19th century when we hit the 1 billion mark. India alone has more than 1 billion people today.
Besides, if it does become too much of a problem we'll just invent atomospheric generators....
Besides, if it does become too much of a problem we'll just invent atomospheric generators....
Disclaimer: I apologize if this post was suppose to be humorous.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob Klein:
<STRONG>Food for thought, scientists predicted that the world was in danger in the 19th century when we hit the 1 billion mark. India alone has more than 1 billion people today.
</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what this is suggesting is because scientist have been wrong in the past, we should seek to devalue and discredit any ideas they may introduce (irregardless of the evidence presented and the improvement in technology and methodology)?
Pardon me for saying, but this rationale is rather ignorant, and hinders scientific progress.
As for atmosphereic generators ... I'm not gonna touch that with a 10 foot pole.
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob Klein:
<STRONG>Food for thought, scientists predicted that the world was in danger in the 19th century when we hit the 1 billion mark. India alone has more than 1 billion people today.
</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what this is suggesting is because scientist have been wrong in the past, we should seek to devalue and discredit any ideas they may introduce (irregardless of the evidence presented and the improvement in technology and methodology)?
Pardon me for saying, but this rationale is rather ignorant, and hinders scientific progress.
As for atmosphereic generators ... I'm not gonna touch that with a 10 foot pole.
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
That does it; I'm going to design an atmospheric-scale air-conditioning unit. It should be really easy, the evaporator coils will sit in the worlds' oceans and a huge compressor station can drive the coolant to a series of condenser coils on the dark side of the moon, cooled solely by radiant heat transfer. NASA will have the full-time job of ensuring that the refrigerant lines don't get tangled up as the moon orbits the earth. Who's with me?
ok, here's an analogy, say (X) resembles the entire life span of the earth & (*) resembles human life on earth.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*
does anyone really believe that the little blip of time that we have spent on this earth is going to have any real overall effect?
I think what everyone should be concerned about is our own destruction, so we kill ourselves off, so what, the earth will still survive, think about what happened to the dinosaurs, some big asteroid hits the earth and just about every dinosaur was killed off, if life (in general) on earth couldn't survive something as catastrophic as an asteroid then we wouldn't even be having this argument.
if in-fact the atmosphere is destroyed, we will probably die, so if we die and we are the reason for it then the earth will have solved the problem by our demise and most likely regenerate a new atmosphere, then most likely a few trillion years later we will have Planet of the Apes and then they will burn "our" fossil fuels.
just a thought.
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: DEADFISH ]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*
does anyone really believe that the little blip of time that we have spent on this earth is going to have any real overall effect?
I think what everyone should be concerned about is our own destruction, so we kill ourselves off, so what, the earth will still survive, think about what happened to the dinosaurs, some big asteroid hits the earth and just about every dinosaur was killed off, if life (in general) on earth couldn't survive something as catastrophic as an asteroid then we wouldn't even be having this argument.
if in-fact the atmosphere is destroyed, we will probably die, so if we die and we are the reason for it then the earth will have solved the problem by our demise and most likely regenerate a new atmosphere, then most likely a few trillion years later we will have Planet of the Apes and then they will burn "our" fossil fuels.
just a thought.
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: DEADFISH ]
Not sure about you, Deadfish, but I'm not masochistic enough to wish a slow, painful extinction for my own species.
I'm sure if the dinosaurs were self-aware and capable of preventing their extinction, they'd have done something about it. Difference between them and us: Dinosaurs died because of some external, uncontrollable, catastrophic event. We seem perfectly content digging our own graves while killing everything else in the process.
What's a few thousand extinct species between friends
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
I'm sure if the dinosaurs were self-aware and capable of preventing their extinction, they'd have done something about it. Difference between them and us: Dinosaurs died because of some external, uncontrollable, catastrophic event. We seem perfectly content digging our own graves while killing everything else in the process.
What's a few thousand extinct species between friends
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Lighten up Leonard. The point is don't
predict doom and gloom when even their best
guess is just that, a guess.
I'm still in support of atmospheric
generators though. Fund them with the
lumber sold from clear cutting the rain
forests. It's all about balance.
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Rob Klein ]
predict doom and gloom when even their best
guess is just that, a guess.
I'm still in support of atmospheric
generators though. Fund them with the
lumber sold from clear cutting the rain
forests. It's all about balance.
[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Rob Klein ]
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
