Global Warming - Real Science?

[mfo]

You are correct. I do study many things, but they dont always stick. :tinfoil:



Ever notice how you can get a sun burn in under 20 minutes now? By the time you have grand kids you will have to coat them is sun screen every time they leave the house.

We are all truly screwed. :undecided:

I'm only 26 years old (in about four hours) and I've noticed a lot of changes in the short amount of time I've been on this planet. Somethings definitely not right, what ever it is.

 

[denton808]

i'm tanned so i can stay in the sun for hours with out sun screen and not get any burns or redness. plus i live hawaii LOL. just saying >.<

 

[mfo]

i'm tanned so i can stay in the sun for hours with out sun screen and not get any burns or redness. plus i live hawaii LOL. just saying >.<

Lucky, what island? I had a feeling you were from there because of the 808 in your name.

 

[Cyparagon]

One huge thing...end up killing more than just the human race.... pH levels are getting so low, and rapidly decreasing, that soon all sea creatures with shells will not be able to regenerate shell before it is eroded... the end of all sea life, which then again would starve many birds, humans and other predators, starving other lifeforms, etc....goodbye to a whole lot of the intelligent life...

THERE!!... RIGHT there. It's this "end of the world!!" mentality that makes me skeptical. The end of the world has been predicted hundreds of times before and it obviously hasn't happened yet. "Fool me once-" sort of thing I guess.

 

[Jaseth]

The end of the World has been predicted many times, but it was usually due to religious omens or small unconfirmed scientific findings.
Firstly I didn't even say it was "the end of the World" but rather the potential end of a huge amount of life in the ocean.
Secondly, this is backed up by the vast majority of scientists who have studied the phenomena. Many shellfish have already gone extinct because of this and of the remaining ones, a lot fewer are surviving past the first week of their existence.
I think it goes without saying that you cannot lose one of the main lifeforms in the entire ocean without a chain reaction occuring.

Seb

 

[photonaholic]

 

[daguin]

One huge thing which none of you have mentioned, unless I somehow skipped a post, is the acidification of the ocean which may very well end up killing more than just the human race.
The pH levels are getting so low, and rapidly decreasing, that soon all sea creatures with shells will not be able to regenerate shell before it is eroded. This could potentially mean the end of all sea life, which then again would starve many birds, humans and other predators, starving other lifeforms, etc. We could be looking at a goodbye to a whole lot of the intelligent life on this planet.

Seb

I think I said it above, but just to be sure. We (the planet's biosphere) are already in the middle of another major extinction event. Human action is NOT the only reason that species go extinct. Human action is NOT even the main player here. Species have been disappearing at fast pace ever since the beginning of the last ice age. Many species did NOT make it through the last ice age. Species that survived and thrived in the environment as it was during and just after the last "ice age" cannot survive in today's temperate climate.

These cycles and extinction events have been happening throughout the planet's history. To think that human kind are responsible for, can delay, arrest, or reverse these cyclical events is the ultimate in arrogance.

Even the acidification of the ocean will not destroy all sea life. There are many species that can live and thrive in a more acidic enviornment. As species disappear, others will move in to fill the niche. Look back through the fossil record. Betwen the age of the trilobites and the dominance of jawed fishes there was a period where the oceans were "relatively" devoid of life before.

I think it goes without saying that you cannot lose one of the main lifeforms in the entire ocean without a chain reaction occuring.

Since we have already lost MANY life forms from the ocean, the assertion that the loss of one will precipitate a collapse of the bioshere is a bit over kill. However, eventually it will collapse and a new one will rise in its place.

Peace,
dave

 

[Jaseth]

@Dave
I never said that humans were mainly responsible for it, just that it is happening and will most likely get worse. However I don't think that you can just completely dismiss that humans have something to do with all this. You say that it has happened again and again and that it can therefore not be because of humans, yet many of the times it has happened, it has been largely due to the key species dominating the Earth at that time.
I think it's odd to believe that we can dig and pump up the majority of the Earth's fossil fuels, burn them and then it will have no impact on the climate at all.

When I said "all" it was a mistake on my part. I meant "a lot of the larger sea life". Deep sea coral reefs are the birthplace of a huge part of all marine life, and these reefs gradually disappearing over the next 100 years cannot go without major consequences.

Seb

 

[daguin]

@Dave
I never said that humans were mainly responsible for it, just that it is happening and will most likely get worse. However I don't think that you can just completely dismiss that humans have something to do with all this. You say that it has happened again and again and that it can therefore not be because of humans, yet many of the times it has happened, it has been largely due to the key species dominating the Earth at that time.
I think it's odd to believe that we can dig and pump up the majority of the Earth's fossil fuels, burn them and then it will have no impact on the climate at all.

When I said "all" it was a mistake on my part. I meant "a lot of the larger sea life". Deep sea coral reefs are the birthplace of a huge part of all marine life, and these reefs gradually disappearing over the next 100 years cannot go without major consequences.

Seb

The main difference between your and my position is simply that you believe that we can do something about it. I have also freely admitted that we have probably "sped up the process." We didn't start it. We didn't cause it. It has happened before without us. It will happen again without us. However, our striking, very rapid, success at overrunning the planet has sped up the accumulation of toxins and the depletion of resources.

I believe I have been perfectly clear that there will be MAJOR consequences. This biosphere will basically collapse and a new, different one will emerge. I, personally, don't even think that our societies as we have them will survive until the biosphere collapses.

We are already operating on the ragged edge of our infra-structure's ability to be maintained. There are a couple of potential actions or occurrences that would precipitate the collapse of our culture/societies. These could occur long before the collapse of the biosphere. However, even the collapse of our civilization will NOT stop the global warming cycle nor reverse the major extinction event we are experiencing.

We are NOT the pinnacle of development for life on this planet. We are simply the most recent, overly-successful species.

Peace,
dave

 

[photonaholic]

I, personally, don't even think that our societies as we have them will survive until the biosphere collapses.

This I agree fully on, Society is falling apart in many ways.

Values are plummeting, companies are closing, crime is up, wages down.

We are using up a finite quantity of resources including but not limited to the water, But the gold, coal, oil, etc.. is of zero benefit or interest to any other life form but man. (The mold on the oil or algae in the coal, or some other silly organism that lives in mines, well I'm sorry that is of little consequence just interesting, not much more)

So I also believe we will be gone before the conditions on the planet change enough that humans could no longer survive it.

Tunnel retreats are pure fantasy, since as already mentioned it will take more time than a race of beings trapped in a cave could ever survive, In terms of the planets evolution, they would be down there for a few thousand years.

 

[pullbangdead]

Yes, this is often true. Hydrogen can be extracted from methane though.

Hydrogen produced from methane, producing.......TADA! carbon dioxide!

That's why we have our infrastructure which supplies our needs. Without our water distribution facilities, highway network, GM crops, the earth would almost certainly be unable to sustain our population. Sure, there is a point at which even infrastructure may not be able to support us, but as long as we continue to better our infrastructure, the limit to our population grows.

Yes, we are WAY beyond the "hunter/gatherer carrying capacity" already, no question about that. But there is research out there that says we are already beyond the "best technology available to produce food/water/energy" carrying capacity as well. The earth is finite, it is a closed system with exactly one energy input, the sun. Therefore even with the best technology known to man, there is still a finite carrying capacity, and research suggests we are still over that carrying capacity at current population levels.

Then add to that the fact the a minority of the world consumes most the majority of the resources and that the rest of the people on earth want to consume the same amount as the richest ones. Then add to that the fact that the population is still growing.

It's not a rosy picture. Even with the best technology we have, much research suggests we're still over capacity now, and it'll only get worse.

 

[pullbangdead]

Nature is NEVER kind when it resets a population density.

If y'all hate the idea of "oil wars", just wait for the resultant "water wars" as we continue pollute and salinate an ever decreasing ratio of "drinkable water vs. population." The amount of available, drinkable water decreases every year while we continue to consume more every year. The earth is doing its part to recycle the water in a fresh form. However, we are using and poisoning it faster than it can be recycled by the earth

This is just one of the aspects of our having already exceeded the capacity of the earth to support our population density.

Drought, famine, and the resultant diseases that can run rampant in a weakened and overcrowded population are nature's main tools to reset a population density. For the earth to be able to sustain us in perpetuity, our population would have to be reduced to >2 billion! That equates to <5 billion dead from drought, famine, disease, and war. . . . . and that would be the "good" outcome.

If the remaining population was too thinly disbursed to breed at replacement levels or inhereted a genetic weakness, we may just go the way of the saber-tooth.

Peace,
dave

Yeah, I definitely don't want to be around for anything like that.

I do take some solace in the fact that I'm lucky enough to live in a rich, industrialized nation. It would still be painful, but not nearly on the same level as it would be for those people living in north Africa, or in the middle east, or in other developing nations around the world.

 

[daguin]

Adapted from the biblical -- Eat, drink, and make merry. For tomorrow we die


Adapted from Bladerunner -- The light that burns twice as bright, burns for half as long - and <human kind> has burned so very, very brightly

Peace,
dave

 

[jaycey]

Compulsory euthanasia is the answer I believe....Dave:gun::eg:

 

[Hemlock_Mike]

I see this statement all the time:
"Then add to that the fact the a minority of the world consumes most the majority of the resources and that the rest of the people on earth want to consume the same amount as the richest ones."

There is never mention that while we, America, consume sooo much energy, WE also feed people all over the earth with our food production and delivery plus all the disaster assistance.

HMike

 

[pullbangdead]

I see this statement all the time:
"Then add to that the fact the a minority of the world consumes most the majority of the resources and that the rest of the people on earth want to consume the same amount as the richest ones."

There is never mention that while we, America, consume sooo much energy, WE also feed people all over the earth with our food production and delivery plus all the disaster assistance.

HMike

Sure, the US does feed people and provide disaster relief, both of which are good things.

But that doesn't change the fact that the industrialized world consumes (per capita) WAY more commodities, and food, and energy, and water, than the non-industrialized world. And it also doesn't change the fact that the non-industrialized world wants to industrialize and consume resources just the same way that the industrialized world does now.

I'm just saying we already don't have enough resources for everyone at current consumption rates, when the majority of the world is quickly increasing their consumption rates to the same as the richest countries.

If we don't have enough of things now, when the minority of people is consuming the majority of resources, then what the heck are we going to do when the majority of people catch up in consumption levels? The US, <5% of the world's population, accounts for 33% of world consumption (by dollar). What happens when the other 95% of the world wants to consume as much "stuff" as the US does? Global consumption goes up over 6 times if that happens.

Of course there are falacies with this line of reasoning/analogy, but the general trend is the same.