Worlds Oceans In Dire Trouble

[mdram]

But does it make sense? I mean for example, the principles of say, CO2 being an acid is basic stuff that everyone knows.
A lot of science is common sense. You look for relations between things, do predictions, analyze the data, etc.

you also make you test sample as large an varied as possible


the problem is compared to the age of the earth our ability to sample this is nothing.

anything we do is just a guess of whats taking place in a microscopic cross section of time

 

[ElasticNinja]

you also make you test sample as large an varied as possible


the problem is compared to the age of the earth our ability to sample this is nothing.

anything we do is just a guess of whats taking place in a microscopic cross section of time

Scientists can go back billions of years. They have exact models of the last like 100 thousand years climate, air content, etc. Ice Cores FTW

 

[Bob Maxey]

But does it make sense? I mean for example, the principles of say, CO2 being an acid is basic stuff that everyone knows.
A lot of science is common sense. You look for relations between things, do predictions, analyze the data, etc.

Some science is common sense and some is not.

Not to start a Kennedy assassination thread, but it has been prove time and time again that a bullet striking a skull from behind can force the head to move backwards. This destroys the idea that there must have been a shooter in the front because the Zipruder film shows the head moving backward.

So one man's common sense is sometimes wrong.

Sometimes, we ban things because we are told they are harmful and we replace them with things that can be worse. Like mercury lamps that will replace incandescent lamps yet they contain a material few manufacturers are allowed to use and is banned for the most part.

Faux science often says there is a problem and legitimate science that disagrees with the popular beliefs is lost or cited as being wrong. Consider global warming as a good example

We just do not know if what we are doing is serious as we are told it is.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Faux science often says there is a problem and legitimate science that disagrees with the popular beliefs is lost or cited as being wrong. Consider global warming as a good example

We just do not know if what we are doing is serious as we are told it is.

I would like some evidence that the scientists are wrong on climate change. I mean its one of the most researched topics out there.
Whats happening is logical, and even if the warming was a minor effect of the pollution, we should still act very quickly.
Its really not that hard.
Its like procrastinating before an exam. Maybe something on the paper will be leaked. Sure it will be grand. But it never works out does it.

 

[mdram]

Scientists can go back billions of years. They have exact models of the last like 100 thousand years climate, air content, etc. Ice Cores FTW

earths surface area is 510 million km2.
land 149 million km2
water 361 million km2

ice cores dont cover enough

heck 1mill sample locations would be about right
its not been done.

 

[ElasticNinja]

earths surface area is 510 million km2.
land 149 million km2
water 361 million km2

ice cores dont cover enough

heck 1mill sample locations would be about right
its not been done.

Ice Cores is all we got md, and they are brilliant indicators. Its amazing what scientists do really, the models they create from data. And they get such shit pay.

 

[mdram]

Ice Cores is all we got md, and they are brilliant indicators. Its amazing what scientists do really, the models they create from data. And they get such shit pay.

and that is why there is a flaw, there is not enough data to make a proper informed decission, too much guess work

even the data taken from tree rings for the global warming hoax was no where near large enough, and that they can do for 100 years or so

you can tailor your sample from something as large and old as the earth to fit what you want to show. what is needed is a sample size so large and varied, it cant be tailored

 

[ElasticNinja]

and that is why there is a flaw, there is not enough data to make a proper informed decission, too much guess work

even the data taken from tree rings for the global warming hoax was no where near large enough, and that they can do for 100 years or so

you can tailor your sample from something as large and old as the earth to fit what you want to show. what is needed is a sample size so large and varied, it cant be tailored

Look, there is no conspiracy. The models have proved correct. The medium predictions proved correct. Worryingly so. Its common when people know things are going to shit for people to bury their heads int sand. To say the experts are wrong. To want to believe those in the pockets of the special interests over the good people. It happens at the end of every construction bubble. It happened with the ozone. With cigarettes. And now with the continued burning of dead compressed stuff for energy.

I sympathise with you to an extent but not to the extent that I think you are trying to do right. You are doing what is convenient for yourself. Being selfish.

 

[mdram]

Look, there is no conspiracy. The models have proved correct. The medium predictions proved correct. Worryingly so. Its common when people know things are going to shit for people to bury their heads int sand. To say the experts are wrong. To want to believe those in the pockets of the special interests over the good people. It happens at the end of every construction bubble. It happened with the ozone. With cigarettes. And now with the continued burning of dead compressed stuff for energy.

I sympathise with you to an extent but not the extent that I think you are trying to do right. You are doing what is convenient for yourself. Being selfish.

its not proven, there are as many doubters in the science world as believers.
the leaked documents even created more doubters

 

[ElasticNinja]

its not proven, there are as many doubters in the science world as believers.

I want to ask you this, since I don't want to waste time.
Should we severely reduce pollution?


Your claim is bs BTW, not entirely your fault, but you at least couldve done some research

 

[mdram]

I want to ask you this, since I don't want to waste time.
Should we severely reduce pollution?


Your claim is bs BTW, not entirely your fault, but you at least couldve done some research

should we reduce pollution? yes.
but define pollution.
from my research, C02 is not considered pollution by all scientific sources

oil spills are not a good thing and do harm. but on the whole put less oil in the water then mother nature.

 

[ElasticNinja]

should we reduce pollution? yes.
but define pollution.
from my research, C02 is not considered pollution by all scientific sources

All? Excess CO2 is definitely pollution. Do you know that CO2 is an acid? Do you know what that means?
Do you know sulphur dioxide is a pollutant?
Do you know the way of life of the West is awful for the planet?

Of course not.

oil spills are not a good thing and do harm. but on the whole put less oil in the water then mother nature.

An oil spill is awful for the environment. You seem to think that because oil naturally leaks into the sea that it's ok for thousands of litera of oil to wash up on a beach. That's just dumb.

 

[mdram]

All? Excess CO2 is definitely pollution. Do you know that CO2 is an acid? Do you know what that means?
Do you know sulphur dioxide is a pollutant?
Do you know the way of life of the West is awful for the planet?

Of course not.



An oil spill is awful for the environment. You seem to think that because oil naturally leaks into the sea that it's ok for thousands of litera of oil to wash up on a beach. That's just dumb.

define excess carbon dioxide. it can be an acid, when dissolved in water. in its gaseous form its also known as plant food. get rid of c02, get rid of plants.

sulphur dioxide - yes i know thats a pollutant, but its the first time you mentioned it.

i did agree that oil spills were terrible, just pointed out they are a drop in the bucket. you can stop all oil spills and you still wont stop all oil into the oceans. just an fyi.

actually the western world is workin on getting rid of pollution. its developing and 3rd world countries that are the bigger problem. by competing for money from other parts of the world. they allow things that no developed country would.

 

[ElasticNinja]

define excess carbon dioxide. it can be an acid, when dissolved in water. in its gaseous form its also known as plant food. get rid of c02, get rid of plants.

More CO2 than the world can handle. CO2 is at its highest concentration in history.
Don't plant bullshit me, what with forests being cut down.

sulphur dioxide - yes i know thats a pollutant, but its the first time you mentioned it.

Do you know what it does?

i did agree that oil spills were terrible, just pointed out they are a drop in the bucket. you can stop all oil spills and you still wont stop all oil into the oceans. just an fyi.

Good. That's that out of the way.

actually the western world is workin on getting rid of pollution. its developing and 3rd world countries that are the bigger problem. by competing for money from other parts of the world. they allow things that no developed country would.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Isthmus]

earths surface area is 510 million km2.
land 149 million km2
water 361 million km2

ice cores dont cover enough

heck 1mill sample locations would be about right
its not been done.

will air samples trapped in amber work for you? These are regularly found going back millions of years.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Look, there is no conspiracy. The models have proved correct. The medium predictions proved correct. Worryingly so. Its common when people know things are going to shit for people to bury their heads int sand. To say the experts are wrong. To want to believe those in the pockets of the special interests over the good people. It happens at the end of every construction bubble. It happened with the ozone. With cigarettes. And now with the continued burning of dead compressed stuff for energy.

I sympathise with you to an extent but not to the extent that I think you are trying to do right. You are doing what is convenient for yourself. Being selfish.

Cite two examples of clear, unambiguous, unchallenged science that proves man made global warming is killing the planet.

Some cite increasing temperatures as proof. I cite the cold snaps here in Utah and elsewhere as proof that the accepted proof is not proof. Some say we are getting too hot while I shovel three or four inches of snow off my driveway and learn that global warming is why we are having more snow.

"We are ruining the planet with global warming." Well, why are winters so harsh, then?" "Well, it is because of global warming." By now, I often start looking for my gun and my extra bullet and spread poly on the floor so my family has an easier cleanup, because you cannot win this argument.

Some say the temperature has gone up X number of degrees, and I cite measurements in my backyard in the dead of winter being different depending on where I stand.

A local TV station cites measurements made by one of their staff climatologists as proof the temperatures are going up and I cite a local newspaper's reports about how the TV station's measurements were made; the thermometers were cheap glass ones and placed near vents on the roof.

Both say a few degrees globally is a problem; ten degrees over the next hundred years is a problem; I say when you are in Alaska and taking measurements in a snow field and they differ by a perhaps more than ten degrees, I worry about the people that swallow foolish un-scientific science as proof and how much the excess heat is causing damage in the logic region of the brain.

And then there is Al Gore that sells carbon offset credits that make it possible for companies that do not pollute to sell their credits to manufacturers that do, and those manufacturers can therefore "reduce" their carbon footprint on paper and either maintain business as usual or add more carbon and show reductions on paper.

It is all BS and not yet solved. We do not know much, we cannot know much because modeling climate is likely impossible. Many climatologists have an agenda driven recklessly forward by a clueless public and if it comes down to being green or loosing profits green this and that is no longer important.

People need to read and learn critical thinking skills.

 

[Bob Maxey]

will air samples trapped in amber work for you? These are regularly found going back millions of years.

And what would that prove? That there was perhaps less pollution back then than there is now? That is a crystal clear, self-evident given.

 

[ElasticNinja]

The winters - Parts of the world had their worst recorded droughts last year - Russia, Australia, Northern Kenya
Just because we had two cold winters in a row in one small bit of the world means f all..Unless we broke the North Atlantic Drift.
Its the long term averages that count.

 

[BiggestManEver]

Some cite increasing temperatures as proof. I cite the cold snaps here in Utah and elsewhere as proof that the accepted proof is not proof. Some say we are getting too hot while I shovel three or four inches of snow off my driveway and learn that global warming is why we are having more snow.

"We are ruining the planet with global warming." Well, why are winters so harsh, then?" "Well, it is because of global warming." By now, I often start looking for my gun and my extra bullet and spread poly on the floor so my family has an easier cleanup, because you cannot win this argument.

Some say the temperature has gone up X number of degrees, and I cite measurements in my backyard in the dead of winter being different depending on where I stand.

A local TV station cites measurements made by one of their staff climatologists as proof the temperatures are going up and I cite a local newspaper's reports about how the TV station's measurements were made; the thermometers were cheap glass ones and placed near vents on the roof.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Get back to me when the "measurements in your back yard" are global studies that are peer reviewed.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The climate is changing. I think that much is a given. The real question is whether it's manmade or natural. The fact is we don't know. The other fact is we can't know. We have a sample size of a hundred years or so tops. Even if we determine that the planet has warmed in that time period and it coincides with industrialization, it proves nothing. For all we know the climate was warming for the previous 100 years as well and we just didn't/couldn't measure it.

 

[ElasticNinja]

The thing is that it makes sense that gases have certain properties. As we saw with Ozone (a type of Oxygen atom).
Temperatures have been rising in corallation with The increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Its been documented for decades like

 

[lordofthereef]

The thing is that it makes sense that gases have certain properties. As we saw with Ozone (a type of Oxygen atom).
Temperatures have been rising in correlation with The increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Its been documented for decades like

Let's look at just about anything humans have done, ever. We keep doing it, telling ourselves it's ok, and years/decades down the road when it is proven that we are to blame and that we are doing bad we just say "whoops, there is no way we could have known".

I argue that we don't HAVE to prove anything. Look at how much pollution and waste humans pump into the planet that we have only started to do recently (in the grand scheme of things). IMO it is silly to assume the earth can keep up forever. Naysayers argue where is the proof? I argue, where is the proof that we are NOT damaging our planet potentially irreparably?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Oh as i said even if Climate Change was a minor issue id still be freaked like. You cant expect to shit everywhere and expect nothing bad to happen.

 

[Isthmus]

And what would that prove? That there was perhaps less pollution back then than there is now? That is a crystal clear, self-evident given.

Far from it. It give us a far deeper picture into atmospheric conditions, weather and the chemical composition of the atmoshpere at the time. from that information we can infer other things, such as mean temperatures temperature relationships relative toe the position of the earth at its time, etc. You'd be surprised at the amount of detailed information that could be obtained and how that information can be related to what is observable in other time periods (including today).

 

[Bob Maxey]

far from it. It give us a far deeper picture into atmospheric conditions, weather and the chemical composition of the atmoshpere at the time. From that information we can infer other things, such as mean temperatures temperature relationships relative toe the position of the earth at its time, etc. You'd be surprised at the amount of detailed information that could be obtained and how that information can be related to what is observable in other time periods (including today).

lol