Customer Discussions > Science forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 6151-6175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 5:22:28 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 5:28:29 AM PDT
@J Russell
Read the book. It addresses that as well (as do other books on the subject). The Zoo Hypothesis borders on being anti-scientific because it can't be falsified (depending on how strong you make it).

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 5:43:32 AM PDT
Nat says:
"Imagine walking down a country road, and meeting an ant hill. Do we go down to the ants and say, 'I bring you trinkets. I bring you beads. I give you nuclear energy and biotechnology. Take me to your leader?' Or we have the urge to step on a few of them??"

---Dr Michio Kaku

I disagree Friscoe. It isn't a scientific theory. It's a scientific reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 6:19:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 18, 2012 8:10:17 AM PDT
@Nat
Perhaps. But if they (the aliens) are really, really clever, then the Zoo Hypothesis is non-falsifiable & therefore non-scientific. Shouldn't really be on this forum - maybe one of the religion fora instead.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 6:42:55 AM PDT
Nat says:
Okay. You go ahead and go up to an anthill and say 'I bring you trinkets. I bring you beads. I give you nuclear energy and biotechnology. Take me to your leader?'
Let us know what your results are.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 10:07:39 AM PDT
Frisco: ~900 meters is well below crush depth of ~700 meters for "regular" subs. Deep sea subs would be fine, but it'd be ~500 deg C outside.

BPL: I said 90 meters.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 10:09:35 AM PDT
One cubic meter of seawater has a mass of 1,025 kilograms. That means the force it exerts is m g = 1025 * 9.80665 = about 10,050 Newtons per square meter, which is 0.1 atmosphere...

Oops. You're right, I'm wrong. I was off by a factor of ten. Sorry about that.

Okay, one more reason to cancel that trip to Venus.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 1:21:00 PM PDT
The Weasel says:
JBF says:
"Done the spreadsheet yet?? Its NOT poison its plant food , and absolutely essential for life. "

You do realize that while oxygen is absolutely essential for life it is toxic in concentrated levels and will absolutely kill you right?

Oxygen is one of the most reactive chemicals around. But, in any case, what doe sbeing essential for life have to do with this argument? Carbon is essential to all life as we know it -- does that mean that we should eat more charcoal every day?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 4:47:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 7:42:23 PM PDT
W: Oxygen is one of the most reactive chemicals around. But, in any case, what doe sbeing essential for life have to do with this argument? Carbon is essential to all life as we know it -- does that mean that we should eat more charcoal every day?

TS: What's that got to do with global warming?.... Zero as I see it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 5:54:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 6:03:13 PM PDT
I've also thought of that as a reason for Fermi's paradox but an advvanced civilization might also shield their communications so they aren't broadcast indiscriminately. They could also know about other advanced life and perhaps it originated with predators like us and don't want to broadcast their presence. Also, we discovered radio waves and developed a way to generate and receive them a bit over 100 years ago. Why should we ever expect that a civilization much older than ours, not to mention a million years older, would still use radio waves, or in a form that wouldn't be deliberately disguised? Maybe they use tachyon communication which we would know nothing of.

Here's another completely on topic Fermi's paradox solution: As we have developed an industrial and then also a technological society we have unwittingly become enough of a presence on the planet that we simultaneously face the possibilities of 1) Nuclear destruction 2) Nuclear pollution 3) other forms of pollution 4) massively destructive wars on a global scale 5) resource depletion 6) global warming 7) pollution/depletion of water resources 8) species extinction rates that have probably not occurred since the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 9) ultraviolet and other radiation from a damaged ozone layer....etc. In all of these we are not only moving towards a cliff but are racing towards that cliff at an accelerating rate (as defined, the economy has to grow continuously). I imagine that many advanced species develop technologies and global influence before they evolve the wisdom and foresight to prevent unintended consequences. Most intelligent species probably reach this point and quite easily are not up to the task to continue in a sustainable way. Advanced civilizations could often end themselves by accident or stupidity. The way I see it, our cultural evolution has far outpaced our physical rate of evolution and we need to realize this and the need to change our ideas intelligently and creatively......instead of being blinded by belief systems of whatever kind that encourage you to deny, deny, deny.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 6:31:27 PM PDT
@Brett

Yes, all of those potential scenarios are covered in the book, plus a lot of others. You might like it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 8:19:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 8:26:57 PM PDT
barbW says:
Don't kid yourself. This is an extremely rare jewel of a planet, and they will acquire it if they come into the vicinity to be able to detect our
oxygen signature. Humans will be just another causality of the way things are. We won't know what hit us, anymore than Palin's wolves.

Posted on Jul 16, 2012 8:52:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012 5:55:56 PM PDT
It is a rare jewel of a planet. Look at the others in just our solar system. For this reason alone people must realize that it must be protected at all costs and that means all of the species, all of the habitats, etc. This is Eden and we still live in Eden but aren't even aware of it and take it completely for granted.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 8:02:46 AM PDT
Well-said Brett.

Posted on Jul 17, 2012 5:55:17 PM PDT
Thanks. People seem to forget entirely that everything we need is here, and it could last for maybe millions of years if respected. We evolved here along with everything else and this is the perfect place for us but we don't ask how we should change our ways to allow it to continue. Instead we put an unnatural and short sighted monetary value on everything. If we can't exploit it for profit it is without value. That is nonsense. We literally owe everything we are to this planet. Without it being healthy we wouldn't exist. We can't pollute the Earth and count on terraforming Mars or living anywhere else in this solar system. With Mars, the atmosphere would constantly be lost to space and the lack of a magnetic field it would always be bombarded with too much radiation. If we can't exist here without causing environmental imbalance why would we be able to tinker with another planet and live there?

I have to wonder, for what possible reason did someone think I didn't add anything to the conversation with the previous post?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:16:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012 6:16:26 PM PDT
TS: Reminds me of this ....

===================================================

Planet Earth a Fragile Oasis, Astronauts Say

Astronauts looking down on Earth from space have long said the view is tremendous, but it is also comes with the revelation that of all the planets in the cosmos, there is only one world that humanity calls home.

"Our planet is our spaceship," said NASA astronaut Sandra Magnus, who recently returned to Earth after spending about 4 1/2 months in space. "It looks very fragile from here, and it's very easy to take it for granted when we're living on it, when it seems so big and so massive. But it's not. It's very small and very fragile."

Magnus returned home in late March with a new perspective of her home planet, one that came just in time for Earth Day today.

"When you look out the window, you notice how incredibly thin our atmosphere is, how such a fragile shell of air we have that surrounds our planet and makes it habitable," she said before leaving the station. "And you can read that in a book, but until you see it it doesn't strike home."

This island Earth

Magnus is not the only astronaut to marvel at the sight of her home planet from afar.

The first astronauts ever to see the entire planet as a distant orb in a sea of black space were the three Apollo 8 astronauts, who took the iconic image of Earth rising over the limb of the moon in December 1968.

"The amazing public perception of that stunning photo gave everybody an awareness that the Earth was an oasis out there in a very barren, harsh cosmos," said former astronaut Thomas Jones, a planetary scientist and co-author of the book "Planetology." "I think those images became the icon of the environmental movement in its earliest phase."

Other missions and robotic probes have beamed home views of Earth from more distant realms, including the surface of the moon and Mars, through the rings of Saturn and from more than 4 billion miles away, which revealed the planet as a "pale blue dot" in space.

"That's what the space program gives us is the ability for everybody to share in the astronauts' vantage point," Jones, a four-time spaceflyer, told SPACE.com.

A station with a view

There are three astronauts aboard the International Space Station right now: Russian station commander Gennady Padalka and flight engineers Michael Barratt of NASA and Koichi Wakata of Japan. Their Expedition 19 mission began in late March.

While his nearly seven-month mission is just beginning, Barratt said the impact of seeing his native planet far below has already had an impact.

"There's no doubt, when you look down at the Earth from here, you're just overwhelmed by how beautiful it is," Barratt said this week, adding that two things immediately jump out. "One is how much you miss it, and two, is how much you really want to take care of it as best you can."

Magnus said that when a person gazes at the Earth, there is a sense that humanity and all life as we know it are completely dependent on a single planet and its thin atmosphere.

"It makes you think about our planet as a whole system," Magnus said. "We're all there together living together as human beings and other organisms and we have to take care of each other."

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090422-astronauts-earth-day.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 7:07:30 AM PDT
Someone doesn't like you. There are a lot of people who vote based on that rather than on the actual value of the contribution you are making.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 5:19:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 19, 2012 5:23:56 PM PDT
I thought it might have been because of content. You have to wonder sometimes what some extreme global warming deniers and people who don't see an intrinsic value in things just continuing to be able to exist, think when they hear or read something that is pro-environment regardless of, say, economic or other narrow practical value. Then again, most people probably wouldn't think of themselves as "anti-environment" even if what they say, do, and think ends up being very environmentally unfriendly.

I knew someone once who didn't think California condors should be protected because "They eat mammoths and so should just die out. They have no value or "purpose" anymore". I think he heard this deep wisdom on A.M. radio somewhere. Of course, he didn't even seem to realize that if that's what California condors really eat they would all have starved to death 10,000 years ago. He also thought it was no great shame when the mammoths died out. It doesn't so much "matter" now in any practical sense, but what an amazing thing to have been able to see and what an amazing thing that was lost. When lost, all of these things are literally lost F-O-R-E-V-E-R. We can try to imagine them but that is a feeble substitute. Miracles aren't supposed to literally exist but everything that is alive now is in some sense a profound, real and completely natural miracle, and almost as improbable. That is another reason living things must be protected when they are threatened.

It's a long shot and at the fringe of what people would think of as "scientifically reasonable" but I would count myself very lucky, and this life that much more amazing, if I were to live to see something as nearly impossible as a re-created mammoth. That would go along with the Apollo missions as pivotal moments in collective consciousness.

Posted on Jul 19, 2012 7:41:29 PM PDT
Mark Leberer says:
It looks like overzealous AGW-biased scientists have been caught lying again... Will this be New Zealand-gate..

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/7287585/Climate-change-readings-inaccurate

Posted on Jul 19, 2012 7:47:50 PM PDT
Mark Leberer says:
OMG another case of 'exaggeration'... how many of these constitute a trend? http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/boms-new-data-set-acorn-so-bad-it-should-be-withdrawn-954-min-temps-larger-than-the-max/

..and then someone forgot to tell the folks in the Artic that the planet is warming.. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/brutal-bering-sea-ice-blocking-arctic-supply-ships

Posted on Jul 19, 2012 8:32:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 17, 2012 3:56:54 PM PDT
barbW says:
We're still under this unusual pattern here in the SouthWest, but it should break up this week. There's some concentrated energy coming into the Pacific NW which should shatter our oppositional ridge here.

The drought in the lower midwest looks to be caused by the unusual and persistent northerly push of the midlevel flow upon the layers below the polar jet. This is something not taught in school. Planetary warming seems to have an enhanced effect upon the 10,000ft flow in the middle latitudes. I haven't seen any papers on this yet, but it caused an anomaly in the spring here and more importantly, it reinforced conditions for tornado outbreaks, back then.

This is all conjecture looking at only one season, but our two and a half week old oppositional ridge (against the prevailing westerly flow) seemed to have been sculpted more rapidly than in years past by the same stronger midlevel flow. And if this is an early consequence of AGW then helpful predictions will be possible.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 9:05:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 19, 2012 9:06:21 PM PDT
Mark Leberer says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2012 2:43:48 AM PDT
A customer says:
Talking of ice: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/greenlands-petermann-glacier-iceberg_n_1682463.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2012 4:28:50 AM PDT
ML: It looks like overzealous AGW-biased scientists have been caught lying again...

BPL: It looks like Mark has been caught uncritically repeating garbage charges from right-wing blogs again...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2012 4:30:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 20, 2012 4:32:27 AM PDT
ML: ..and then someone forgot to tell the folks in the Artic that the planet is warming.. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/brutal-bering-sea-ice-blocking-arctic-supply-ships

BPL: Got a copy of Microsoft Excel, Mark? If not, use the web-based free one.

Here's the University of Illinois sea ice data set. The annual figures are in millions of square km. Your homework: Plot the numbers against time. Discuss.

Year Sea Ice
1870 13.37
1871 13.44
1872 13.40
1873 13.56
1874 13.50
1875 13.46
1876 13.44
1877 13.57
1878 13.47
1879 13.44
1880 13.52
1881 13.79
1882 13.73
1883 13.53
1884 13.60
1885 13.47
1886 13.39
1887 13.25
1888 13.54
1889 13.48
1890 13.50
1891 13.62
1892 13.59
1893 13.48
1894 13.45
1895 13.58
1896 13.47
1897 13.35
1898 13.25
1899 13.42
1900 13.46
1901 13.39
1902 13.47
1903 13.24
1904 13.20
1905 13.21
1906 13.34
1907 13.23
1908 13.30
1909 13.35
1910 13.53
1911 13.62
1912 13.60
1913 13.62
1914 13.47
1915 13.39
1916 13.61
1917 13.82
1918 13.73
1919 13.49
1920 13.37
1921 13.42
1922 13.34
1923 13.20
1924 13.37
1925 13.12
1926 13.43
1927 13.49
1928 13.47
1929 13.49
1930 13.20
1931 13.17
1932 13.36
1933 13.12
1934 13.79
1935 13.67
1936 13.40
1937 13.51
1938 13.24
1939 13.45
1940 12.99
1941 13.60
1942 13.61
1943 13.56
1944 13.53
1945 13.48
1946 13.79
1947 13.60
1948 13.76
1949 13.94
1950 13.78
1951 13.85
1952 13.90
1953 13.30
1954 13.32
1955 13.33
1956 13.47
1957 13.20
1958 13.10
1959 13.46
1960 12.91
1961 13.08
1962 13.16
1963 13.50
1964 13.35
1965 13.39
1966 13.29
1967 13.03
1968 13.28
1969 13.51
1970 13.28
1971 13.17
1972 13.39
1973 12.93
1974 12.88
1975 12.95
1976 13.15
1977 13.00
1978 13.05
1979 12.45
1980 12.54
1981 12.42
1982 12.80
1983 12.61
1984 12.28
1985 12.44
1986 12.45
1987 12.65
1988 12.56
1989 12.45
1990 12.11
1991 12.20
1992 12.45
1993 12.26
1994 12.37
1995 11.89
1996 12.07
1997 12.07
1998 12.41
1999 12.40
2000 12.14
2001 12.34
2002 12.13
2003 12.14
2004 11.90
2005 11.65
2006 11.49
2007 10.33

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2012 4:31:39 AM PDT
ML: AGW theories have not proved the least bit helpful in predicting weather...

BPL: Yet another denier who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  130
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions