The great discussion about global warming
Re: The great discussion about global warming
The sun has cycles of activity as does just about anything found in nature, from the smallest sub-atomic particle to the universe itself. For instance, the shortest time period of solar activity cycles every 11 years like clockwork. However, there are longer solar cycles too. Cyclic events can either combine to enhance or depress each other. This is what happens with the solar cycles and the orbital cycles of the Earth. This results in both short and long-term peaks and troughs in the effect solar radiation has on the Earth.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... tioned.png
Note how the cycles combine to affect temperature, which then affects life. Benthic means dwelling in deep sea and forams are single-celled amoeba-like creatures that produce carbonate shells and thus sequester carbon. Much of the limestone and marble we see today began as the layers of foraminiferal ooze on the ocean floor.
http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/8_image/foram.gif
The forams are the larger fossils here (although "large" is relative, as many forams are so tiny as to be nearly microscopic). The smaller fossils are radiolarians, which produce siliceous "skeletons," called tests. You can see the remains of these in the flint nodules that are found in many limestone deposits. Flint was an important resource for human tool production for most of our history and still has many uses today.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... tioned.png
Note how the cycles combine to affect temperature, which then affects life. Benthic means dwelling in deep sea and forams are single-celled amoeba-like creatures that produce carbonate shells and thus sequester carbon. Much of the limestone and marble we see today began as the layers of foraminiferal ooze on the ocean floor.
http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/8_image/foram.gif
The forams are the larger fossils here (although "large" is relative, as many forams are so tiny as to be nearly microscopic). The smaller fossils are radiolarians, which produce siliceous "skeletons," called tests. You can see the remains of these in the flint nodules that are found in many limestone deposits. Flint was an important resource for human tool production for most of our history and still has many uses today.
Re: The great discussion about global warming
http://static.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/?u ... esentation
there uve someone feeling the need to go trough a presentation of christopher monckton. u can find the original talk on youtube aswell, but since he is a bit of a clown im kinda unwilling to link such presentations sponsored by mining and oil companies.
there uve someone feeling the need to go trough a presentation of christopher monckton. u can find the original talk on youtube aswell, but since he is a bit of a clown im kinda unwilling to link such presentations sponsored by mining and oil companies.
- Laurence Drake
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2687
- Joined: Dec 25, 2015
Re: The great discussion about global warming
isis doesnt exist. the government made it up to get more taxes. source: me
Top quality poster.
Re: The great discussion about global warming
-- deleted post --
Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
- Laurence Drake
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2687
- Joined: Dec 25, 2015
Re: The great discussion about global warming
iNcog wrote:And the general ignoration, patronization, and ridiculing of anyone who questions the alleged consensus (including me, but thankfully it is less effective on a forum) makes it impossible for them to bring the matter up for discussion, and are thusly silenced.
Completely agree, this has nothing to do with any scientific debate. It's anti-scientific even. That's why I can't stand most talk shows when they debate this topic because they just roast the skeptic without any actual science. You even see it in this thread.
It's anti-scientific to discourage bad science?
Top quality poster.
Re: The great discussion about global warming
Laurence Drake wrote:It's anti-scientific to discourage bad science?
In order to rationally disprove someone's thesis, you must either show that his logic is invalid or that one or more of his premises are incorrect. There are several places in the scientific process that you can and should criticize someone's science. Such attacks are not just being pedantic either but are a necessary part of the scientific method.
To be accepted as scientific fact, a conclusion must stand up to repeated attempts to disprove it. The researcher himself initially does this when he attempts to disprove his hypothesis. If he can't disprove his hypothesis, he then submits his conclusions and the methods he used to come to them to a peer review board in the form of a scientific paper. If the board can't find fault then they recommend publication. A scientific publication is where the research is submitted to the scientific community in general for review and discussion.
Just because a scientist gets his paper published doesn't mean that his conclusions are immediately accepted as scientific fact. Conclusions found in peer-reviewed scientific articles can still be wrong, though they are vastly much more likely to be right than mere opinion pieces not based on science. You need to examine the entire relevant body of research before you accept a scientific report as probable fact. Remember too that the consensus of even a large number of scientists can be incorrect. However, scientists are more likely to be correct in their opinion that your "average joe," at least within their area of expertise
Re: The great discussion about global warming
iNcog wrote: It's a difficult topic to discuss since most people are willing to hide behind "97% science approved" or "you abort kittens if you don't believe in global warming" approaches, instead of presenting actual solid data.
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=6561&p=145266t#p145266
iNcog wrote:pecelot wrote:lol of course if theres access to guns criminals won't bother buying them on the black market, but if there are rigorous weapon restrictions, it doesn't prevent people from possessing it, as the most recent Paris case shows.
Well this isn't quite true, at least it deserves to be nuanced. If you're going to become a professional criminal, you aren't going to be using firearms you legally purchased, since in most cases you can trace the gun back to the buyer. This is not the case Florida though, it's illegal to maintain a list of gun owners in Florida... I imagine there are other states where this also applies, unfortunately.pecelot wrote:Police didnt do anything to stop them, they managed to kill over 100 ppl before actions were undertaken, so let's at least give a chance for civilians to defend themselves and to actually shoot such a murderer before they start playing settler massacre.
Are you aborting a kitten? Because when you post this it sounds like you abort kittens.
- Laurence Drake
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2687
- Joined: Dec 25, 2015
Re: The great discussion about global warming
Metis wrote:Laurence Drake wrote:It's anti-scientific to discourage bad science?
In order to rationally disprove someone's thesis, you must either show that his logic is invalid or that one or more of his premises are incorrect. There are several places in the scientific process that you can and should criticize someone's science. Such attacks are not just being pedantic either but are a necessary part of the scientific method.
To be accepted as scientific fact, a conclusion must stand up to repeated attempts to disprove it. The researcher himself initially does this when he attempts to disprove his hypothesis. If he can't disprove his hypothesis, he then submits his conclusions and the methods he used to come to them to a peer review board in the form of a scientific paper. If the board can't find fault then they recommend publication. A scientific publication is where the research is submitted to the scientific community in general for review and discussion.
Just because a scientist gets his paper published doesn't mean that his conclusions are immediately accepted as scientific fact. Conclusions found in peer-reviewed scientific articles can still be wrong, though they are vastly much more likely to be right than mere opinion pieces not based on science. You need to examine the entire relevant body of research before you accept a scientific report as probable fact. Remember too that the consensus of even a large number of scientists can be incorrect. However, scientists are more likely to be correct in their opinion that your "average joe," at least within their area of expertise
But bad science doesn't deserve to be given this kind of treatment over and over again. It's a waste of energy and just holds us back.
Top quality poster.
Re: The great discussion about global warming
-- deleted post --
Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
Re: The great discussion about global warming
Not glad you don't get your hypocrisy
- spanky4ever
- Gendarme
- Posts: 8390
- Joined: Apr 13, 2015
Re: The great discussion about global warming
I will post 2 videoes, one explaining how climate change are affecting us right now!
and one with the talk of Joe Lassiter https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... ZzlxJTvM3A Giving a speach where he is advocating for more nuclear power to solve future and present needs for energy Tbo, I think he is right, and we need more nuclear power AND more hydro, solar and wind power. But the renweable souses of power may not be sufficient. As this Lassiter say, 1 billion ppl do not have electric power supply today!
[video]https://youtu.be/9he_yIbji08[/video]
[video]https://youtu.be/d-8n24ZwZcQ[/video][/quote]
and one with the talk of Joe Lassiter https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... ZzlxJTvM3A Giving a speach where he is advocating for more nuclear power to solve future and present needs for energy Tbo, I think he is right, and we need more nuclear power AND more hydro, solar and wind power. But the renweable souses of power may not be sufficient. As this Lassiter say, 1 billion ppl do not have electric power supply today!
[video]https://youtu.be/9he_yIbji08[/video]
[video]https://youtu.be/d-8n24ZwZcQ[/video][/quote]
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
Re: The great discussion about global warming
Nuclear power is fine and dandy until you have to find a place for the waste or if the pressure vessel fails.
- JakeyBoyTH
- Howdah
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Oct 15, 2016
- ESO: Ex-Contributor
- Location: New Zealand
Re: The great discussion about global warming
Metis wrote:Nuclear power is fine and dandy until you have to find a place for the waste or if the pressure vessel fails.
Here in NZ we don't need nuclear power. We have a geothermal station over our parliament so all the hot air gets put to good use.
Advanced Wonders suck
- Aizamk
Ugh Advanced Wonders suck
- Aizamk
- Aizamk
Ugh Advanced Wonders suck
- Aizamk
- Laurence Drake
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2687
- Joined: Dec 25, 2015
Re: The great discussion about global warming
浓JakeyBoyTH wrote:Metis wrote:Nuclear power is fine and dandy until you have to find a place for the waste or if the pressure vessel fails.
Here in NZ we don't need nuclear power. We have a geothermal station over our parliament so all the hot air gets put to good use.
Top quality poster.
Re: The great discussion about global warming
Laurence Drake wrote:isis doesnt exist. the government made it up to get more taxes. source: me
Re: The great discussion about global warming
Laurence Drake wrote:isis doesnt exist. the government made it up to get more taxes. source: me
nice try jerom
- dietschlander
- Lancer
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Oct 8, 2015
- Location: Dietschland
Re: The great discussion about global warming
#freethebashment ?
Theres going to be a dam, the great dam and we'll let the beavers pay for it - Edeholland 2016
Anyway, nuancing isn't your forte, so I'll agree with you like I would with a 8 year old: violence is bad, don't do hard drugs and stay in school Benj98
Anyway, nuancing isn't your forte, so I'll agree with you like I would with a 8 year old: violence is bad, don't do hard drugs and stay in school Benj98
Re: The great discussion about global warming
JakeyBoyTH wrote:Metis wrote:Nuclear power is fine and dandy until you have to find a place for the waste or if the pressure vessel fails.
Here in NZ we don't need nuclear power. We have a geothermal station over our parliament so all the hot air gets put to good use.
What a douche who would say this
Re: The great discussion about global warming
97% is basically equal to the truth in the science world. I don't think there is much to debate about this topic. There are always some scientists who try to prove the rule wrong, and that's good, that's how science work. However, here there is simply too much imbalance between the two opinions to raise a debate. And frankly this is trying to be open minded about the subject. What's not so obvious that the earth simply can't support 7+ billion people.
Re: The great discussion about global warming
Tl dr i will read but.humble opinion of a teenager.
Disaster has a referance to certain species, since life begun world had 7 big disaster which swept %90 of.life each time. Ice ages or global warmings.ocurred many time mildy or harshly. So it is kinda obvious this global warming wont destroy human life but destroy quality of it or amount of livings. We manipulate the nature now and while.we should avoid negative outcomes of nature it is ok to have them if it happens. Major risks are what human does, super intelligence( god mod ai),or world wars can wipe out human life in planet.now i will read these long posts
Disaster has a referance to certain species, since life begun world had 7 big disaster which swept %90 of.life each time. Ice ages or global warmings.ocurred many time mildy or harshly. So it is kinda obvious this global warming wont destroy human life but destroy quality of it or amount of livings. We manipulate the nature now and while.we should avoid negative outcomes of nature it is ok to have them if it happens. Major risks are what human does, super intelligence( god mod ai),or world wars can wipe out human life in planet.now i will read these long posts
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: The great discussion about global warming
No one is saying global warming is going to wipe out all humans, or should i say hummans. What it will do is increase the severity of certain natural disasters and weather patterns that will be very costly to our species' quality of life. The current rate of CO2 emission and thus warming effects is not sustainable for the amount of people living on this Earth, but it can be. Unless we want natural disaster to wipe out human life to levels that Earth can naturally regulate (hint: bad) then ass-hats in power should realize this issue transcends all current issues and must be addressed with respect to the long term (hint: it won't).
Bernie won points in my book when he was the only politician during the campaign trail to call Global Warming our greatest threat moving forward. Hopefully the market can reflect kindly on renewable energy sources or else it ain't gonna happen.
Bernie won points in my book when he was the only politician during the campaign trail to call Global Warming our greatest threat moving forward. Hopefully the market can reflect kindly on renewable energy sources or else it ain't gonna happen.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: The great discussion about global warming
dang, @devs users can't edit posts created in archive.
sad :(
sad :(
Re: The great discussion about global warming
:) sircallen yeah i agree, we should avoid this disasters if possible but sometimes they are rather cycles of echology. People i have encountered imagine nature is stable, oh lets save pandas the plant of x is endemic so important! Human life is the greatest disaster to nature in recent 50.000 years. When homo sapiens invade australia they wiped out more than half of the mammals, same for america. Which is impactful as a great valcano disaster to ecology. Ecology is already fucked up but due to tech people live better. One third of the food is wasted and if everybody would eat quarter less can live without health problems, even more healthy. Tech always boosted food production; even if we just stop eating animals world can feed many people more. So about global warming, at worst it would be like world war economy. I wanted to share my relax dudes mood with you.
Re: The great discussion about global warming
It's fake. Global warming is fake. The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. It’ll Get Warmer, It’ll Get Cooler; It’s Called Weather. Believe me. It's ture. Look at New York. It's freezing and snowing in New York. It's freezing outside, where the hell is global warming? I don't believe in climate change. It's fake. Believe me.
Re: The great discussion about global warming
j_t_kirk wrote:It's fake. Global warming is fake. The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. It’ll Get Warmer, It’ll Get Cooler; It’s Called Weather. Believe me. It's ture. Look at New York. It's freezing and snowing in New York. It's freezing outside, where the hell is global warming? I don't believe in climate change. It's fake. Believe me.
"nobody knows more about global warming than i do"
mad cuz bad
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests