Fortress Forever

Go Back   Fortress Forever > Off Topic > Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-14-2007, 05:06 PM   #41
halo
 
halo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Barnsley, UK
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
I remember seeing a BBC program on global cooling but the term itself is misleading. The theory was that it does happen to a degree but is more than negated by global warming. It comes from the discovery of global dimming, the theory that states the clouds of pollutants, and in particular airplane discharged gases, have the effect of reflecting an increased percentage of the Sun's rays back out into space. Supposedly the World is a small percentage darker because of this, and slightly cooler than it would be without it. After the World Trade Centre was destroyed, and all flights were grounded for a day or two, a marked increase in average temperature across the United States was recorded.

The wikipedia article on global dimming is quite an interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Apparently the trend is reversing again now though and the world is getting a bit brighter. The time when the world began to get brighter corrolates directly with when most developed nations passed laws to reduce aerosol emissions. The trend is particularly marked above Europe, where the firmest action was taken. So aerosols had a significant impact on the climate which adds credibility to the notion that human caused emissions of CO2 also do.
halo is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 05:09 PM   #42
uBeR
Not ****** Yet
D&A Member
 
uBeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Yes, Innoc, I understand the press went crazy over the idea of global cooling during the 70s. Climate scientists, however, discussing the issue knew full well the ice age predictions based on the cooling trends during the 70s and two decades past were not scientifically sound, e.g. [1]. Very few scientists actually ever predicted global cooling. In fact, there were scientists during the 70s actually discussing the possibility of a global warming as a result of human activity. We can safely say there was a scare in the press about global cooling, sure. Like I said though, examine the scientific literature, not the news stories, will give us a better understanding of what the scientific knowledge was at the time.

I also understand the debate of global warming has entered the political arena, which may very well be an unfortunate thing. I'm aware the policies of action or inaction are those of a political nature, but the science has to be seen in an objective way not obstructed by politics. The integrity of the science behind global warming is based on the scientific method, and no other.

Edit:
To reply to halo, the 70s scare of a "global cooling" was based on a actual cooling trend. Aerosols were large cause of this cooling. Global dimming is also based on aerosols, which act as reflectors, bouncing the Sun's rays back into space. It's been suggested that global dimming may very well be keeping Earth from getting as warm as it could be. Overall though, I believe the impact of aerosol forcings (i.e. global dimming) is small, but not negligible.
__________________
OCCUPATION 101.

One would think a simple task would be, well, simple. Maybe not for simpletons.

Last edited by uBeR; 06-14-2007 at 05:16 PM.
uBeR is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 05:34 PM   #43
halo
 
halo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Barnsley, UK
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Isn't that what I just typed and what the link I posted says, except the link has much more detail?
halo is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 05:45 PM   #44
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
Scuzzy, you say, "I'm not saying that Global Warming doesn't exist." But people who don't deny the scientific backing of thousands of scientist are not generally people who use terms such as "the religion of climate change and the chuch of global warming."[sic]
You're taking two of my statements and relating them, but they aren't related. "The religion" comment was a point in that if people do not subscribe to a scientific method analysis then they are subscribing to hype, not basing their opinion on science. As I said, I do not deny that earth may be in a warming period, but there are many other factors that can not be accounted for or measured in an open system that could be the cause. I have yet to hear "thousands" of scientists state that man is the cause of global warming, there are many climatologists (many even from American Association of State Climatologists) that are very skeptical of "Global Warming" being caused by man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
In reality, both extremes are very unlikely. In reality, each negative factor in 1,1 is probably also in 2,2 and then some. In reality, however, the economic consequences of 1,2 (Yes, true) can be held to a minimum. The consequences of acting and not acting are not the same.
I agree that both extremes are unlikely. I still hold that acting without more information is not wise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
Now, if we want to look at the length of how long climate has been measured, reliable temperature records began in 1850. Measurements of CO2 began in 1896, and very reliable measurements of atmospheric gas, such as CO2, began in 1950. The correlation between them is strong. Also, the "theory not fact" argument has been abused so many times by skeptics, and falls apart each time.
That exact inverse correlation also exists between CO2 and the number of Pirates. My point here isn't to make fun of your argument, but to show that there are plenty of other factors that are being ignored by many global warming advocates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
I'm willing to discuss individual points made in the article you posted, but lets just say for the time being that it is wrong on many levels.
Ok, let's pull a few and discuss them. Why are these points wrong and ignored as variables in the global warming equation?
  • Changes in volcanic emissions (CO2 and other substances)
  • Changes in CO2 absorption and emission due to changes in plant coverage.
  • Changes in methane emission by plants (genetic evolutionary).
  • Changes in plant coverage (defoerstation etc)
  • Changes in solar output in the IR and visible spectrum space_weather

Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
As for the Prius and Hummer article you posted, they were compared on 100,000 miles to 300,000 miles. It's like comparing apples to oranges; not very helpful.
The Hummer has an expected use of 300k miles, the prius of 100k. It isn't compariing apples to oranges, it's making it clear that even if a hummer will be used 3 times a long as a Prius and STILL be less of an environmental impact. Nasa uses the area around nickle plant as test grounds for space landings because it's lifeless... that's a serious environmental impact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
Global cooling, as discussed in the scientific literature, comes nowhere close to global warming.
I disagree.
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 05:47 PM   #45
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo
I don't bother with debating things with you ....
No problem Halo, please don't respond to my posts then. I have no problem not engaging you in this debate and will try to keep you happy in that respect.

Thanks,
Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 06:02 PM   #46
halo
 
halo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Barnsley, UK
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Request denied. But thanks for being patronising. It was really nice.
halo is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 06:41 PM   #47
Etzell
D&A Member
 
Etzell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
You're welcome to laugh at that Etzell. Your comment above indicates you don't believe a Christian can use science as an argument without looking like a hypocrite. That's a very narrow and simplistic view, I'd ask that you broaden it a bit and lay off the personal attacks. If you want a debate on facts and logic without retoric, let's have one, alright?
You saying that I indicated that I don't believe a Christian can use science as an argument without looking like a hypocrite was a very narrow and simplistic view in itself. I simply don't think that a Christian should bring up their faith and then advocate the use of science and logic directly afterwards. You paint the picture of me sitting there calling all Christians hypocrites, which seems like a personal attack to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
This is a complete myth. Climate change has not been looked over a long period of time, "models" have been created that are complete theories but not fact.
The USA started keeping track of their weather on a national scale for 100 years. So, we do have that much. Like I said, we don't have enough data to prove whether or not it's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
An excellent article on global warming, not from a "it doesn't exists" point of view, but from a strictly scientific (which is what many of you subscribe to) point of view: http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm Anything less then this constitutes joining the religion of climate change and the chuch of global warming.
For every article out that scientificially states that these things don't exist, there's one that scientifically states that they do. The whole point is that we don't know for sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
Besides, many of the things people are doing to "save the environment" are actually doing much more harm to it then good. Look at the facts on the Toyota Prius: http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/edito...asp?NewsID=188 It would actually be SAFER for the environment as a whole to purchase and drive a Hummer for 3 years then it would be to by a hybrid Prius for *1* year.
Where am I saying to drive a Prius? I simply think that something should be done before it's too late. Yeah, people trying to "save the environment" might misstep, but when people start trying to do something instead of thinking the status quo is peachy, something decent will eventually get done.
Etzell is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 07:01 PM   #48
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo
Request denied. But thanks for being patronising. It was really nice.
Ok, just so I have a little clarity, you've decided not to engage in a honest debate, but just attack me personally when you feel like it right? Is that pretty much the weight of your word at this point?

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 07:07 PM   #49
halo
 
halo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Barnsley, UK
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Well not specifically. It's more a case of 'I'll do what I want and not take orders from a condescending idiot.'
halo is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 07:11 PM   #50
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Etzell
I simply don't think that a Christian should bring up their faith and then advocate the use of science and logic directly afterwards.
Why not? God gave us logic and the gifts to create science.

QUOTE=Etzell]You paint the picture of me sitting there calling all Christians hypocrites, which seems like a personal attack to me.[/quote]

I didn't say all Christians, I said "a Christian", as in myself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Etzell
Like I said, we don't have enough data to prove whether or not it's true.
Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Etzell
For every article out that scientificially states that these things don't exist, there's one that scientifically states that they do. The whole point is that we don't know for sure.
Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Etzell
Where am I saying to drive a Prius? I simply think that something should be done before it's too late.
I didn't say you drove a Prius, but it is an example that people who are "doing something before it is too late" are destroying the environment in horrific ways when they don't need to. They are acting without facts, and the end result (in this case the manufacturing of the Prius) is damaging the environment in far worse ways then if they had left well enough alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etzell
eah, people trying to "save the environment" might misstep, but when people start trying to do something instead of thinking the status quo is peachy, something decent will eventually get done.
I disagree, actions and good intentions do not guarantee a decent result.
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 07:17 PM   #51
Imbrifer
Religious Stamp Machine
Retired FF Staff
 
Imbrifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mad City, WI
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Send a message via AIM to Imbrifer
Quote:
I still hold that acting without more information is not wise.
WHaT?! Why the fuck is that the case?
Holy shiat scuzzy, if we put a cap on emissions and plant more trees, the.. uh... air might be clearer! oh no! there would be more forests and parks! Shit, were all gonna die!!

We've put plenty of 'harsher' regulation on business and there haven't been dramatic impacts you claim will come. (Hitler? Nuclear war? lol...)

I'll tell you what a BAD idea is: Lets wait till we have to put incredibly strict restrictions on business because we've waited too long because of people like you. THEN we'll see economic collapse.

Reasonable regulation now is a much better economic idea than strict regulation later.

Even the fundamentalist christian nutjobs I know believe in taking action to prevent/reduce global warming. Every single mentally stable human I know believes in acting to reduce/avoid global warming. Why do you oppose it?
__________________
Community Mapper
2morforever, 4play, attrition, gap, fragger
and ff_training.
Imbrifer is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 07:25 PM   #52
puppychow
Arf!
D&A Member
 
puppychow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times
Send a message via MSN to puppychow Send a message via Yahoo to puppychow
Doesnt matter anyways. Were doomed.

puppychow is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 07:29 PM   #53
squeek.
Stuff Do-er
Lua Team
Wiki Team
Fortress Forever Staff
 
squeek.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern California
Class/Position: Rallygun Shooter
Gametype: Conc tag (you just wait)
Affiliations: Mustache Brigade
Posts Rated Helpful 352 Times
Send a message via AIM to squeek.
Aside: Why is conservatism seemingly bundled with avid skepticism of global warming?

Anyway, this thread is a pretty terrible representation of people not reading others' posts. Global dimming was discussed by me in post #3. Etzell reiterated my point about the box (1,1) and box (2,2) association 2 posts later. Scuzzy seems to ignore all the posts about global dimming. Seriously, if you are going to reply to one post, reply with the context of all the rest.
squeek. is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 07:55 PM   #54
YomMamasHouse
 
YomMamasHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Your Mom's House
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
I think a few other people have said this before but... Why is acting as though humans affect warming, whether or not we know, a bad thing? We have other things to gain, we wouldn't just be taking wild swings hoping to accomplish one single goal. Their are other problems that could be fixed by trying to negate the possible human factor in warming, one of them being air pollution, or for that matter ground and water as well.
YomMamasHouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 07:55 PM   #55
Etzell
D&A Member
 
Etzell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
Why not? God gave us logic and the gifts to create science.
Says you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
I didn't say all Christians, I said "a Christian", as in myself.
Either way, my point stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
I didn't say you drove a Prius, but it is an example that people who are "doing something before it is too late" are destroying the environment in horrific ways when they don't need to. They are acting without facts, and the end result (in this case the manufacturing of the Prius) is damaging the environment in far worse ways then if they had left well enough alone.
Yeah, but while the Prius is ravaging the environment right now, who's to say that that won't change as things get refined? The point is, the average automobile isn't too environmentally friendly, but the Prius is made with that intent. It's not like all of a sudden cars are going to be environmentally friendly, there's going to have to be a period where things are a bit worse before they get better. That's how economic progress is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy
I disagree, actions and good intentions do not guarantee a decent result.
Nor does inaction.
Etzell is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 08:08 PM   #56
Dragonjojo
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Send a message via AIM to Dragonjojo
Didn't someone post a link a few months back talking about how the media has talking about global warming and new ice ages in cycles for the past like 200 years? Like every 30-50 years evidence pops up and they start talking about how everything is either going to freeze or melt?

I live in Florida and summer is hot and winter is not as hot. Been like that all my life.
Dragonjojo is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 08:21 PM   #57
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imbrifer
Every single mentally stable human I know believes in acting to reduce/avoid global warming. Why do you oppose it?
I never said I oppose putting caps on emissions or on polution, or said that planting trees is a horrible idea, so you can calm down a bit.

All I have stated is that no one has proven that man has had any siginificant impact to the global warming that is occuring. No one can measure what warming is natural, therefore what contribution man may or may not have had made is not measurable.

Scuzzy
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 08:27 PM   #58
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeek.
Scuzzy seems to ignore all the posts about global dimming. Seriously, if you are going to reply to one post, reply with the context of all the rest.
What part of global dimming did you want to discuss?, I thought you were speaking with someone else on that subject. Aside from that I reply to what I feel are relevant items and those of interest to me. I don't have the time or inclination to respond to everyone's threads... if you want to ask me specifically a question put my name in the question, I usually see and respond to those.
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 08:39 PM   #59
Scuzzy
D&A Member
Retired FF Staff
 
Scuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Server: 206.217.134.170:27016
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse
I think a few other people have said this before but... Why is acting as though humans affect warming, whether or not we know, a bad thing? We have other things to gain, we wouldn't just be taking wild swings hoping to accomplish one single goal. Their are other problems that could be fixed by trying to negate the possible human factor in warming, one of them being air pollution, or for that matter ground and water as well.
Well, I think people who are skeptics in global warming a lot like some atheists. (notice that I said *some*, not clumping you all together) There are many atheists that do not believe government should be spending any money on religious organizations, prayer, etc, because they believe it is all just "not true". Christians could ask, "What does it hurt?" They would say it takes money away from them and their causes, there are other more important things that things should be spent on, or that it's senseless to spend money on something so foolish and impossible to be true."
__________________
"Player Quality, not Quantity, is what we strive for." - The LLama Wrangler
"A clan is defined by the nature of it's enemies. - The Llama Wrangler
Scuzzy is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 06-14-2007, 08:49 PM   #60
YomMamasHouse
 
YomMamasHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Your Mom's House
Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times
I don't think that is a very good example seeing as what I was trying to say was - if we try to stop global warming, human or not, we are also guaranteed to be reducing pollution, something which only a select few would say is pointless. Comparing it to people saying the government shouldn't spend money on the church doesn't address the point of what I was saying.
YomMamasHouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.