User Tag List

First 2101112131422 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 263

  1. #111
    Member Desert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    intj
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    Why do you insist on having an opinion about something you clearly don't understand? Which equilibrium are you referring to? Do you have any idea how many parameters are involved in the system we call planet earth? There is no exact number that will suffice for the entire planet at every instance. I think you need to really read up on dynamic systems etc before you could realistically understand any of the data I could give you and perhaps that would help you ascertain why your question is ridiculous as it is not my job to teach you basic science.

    Still in the hopes that you might actually want to learn something you can start with the links provided below and I would suggest following up with a related science textbook at your appropriate level prior to actually attempting to interpret data provided on global warming and climate change - which can be found in a great abundance at any university library by accessing their scifinder scholar and searching the topic to your heart's content.

    - Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance
    - Radiation Balance
    - Heat Transfer, Conduction, Convection and Radiation
    So you don't know

  2. #112
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    dude... do you expect for her to write you a textbook?

    the best advice that I could give you would be to wander into a university computer lab and play with some climate modeling software for a while... that stuff is FUN!
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  3. #113
    Member Desert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    intj
    Posts
    32

    Default

    No I got what I wanted

  4. #114
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    So the scientists will not share because everyone who is not a scientist shares in the guilt of humanity and should suffer.

    Okay, makes sense.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  5. #115
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    to prove that you're incurious enough to demand answers from someone as opposed to actually reading the links? how cool of you....

    and sometimes I just wish that the oceans would boil...

    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  6. #116
    I am Sofa King!!! kendoiwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    If you don't jump off of a bridge you wont die from jumping off of a bridge.. that says nothing about death by random hit and run in the intersection.

    your logic is flawed.. preventing death by one method doesn't guarantee that you won't die from something else.. Still I would chose to sky dive with my parachute even if it won't prevent me from getting cancer later on.
    *Wondering how you got from that to this?*


    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    So the scientists will not share because everyone who is not a scientist shares in the guilt of humanity and should suffer.

    Okay, makes sense.
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526

    "They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"

  7. #117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert View Post
    So you don't know
    That's not what I said. You asked for a specific value and I tried to explain to you that one does not exist because the system we call planet earth is not static... I have a question for you.. exactly how many breaths of air does a human need to take in one day to survive.. an exact number.. not a range and you cannot adjust this for individuals, thus an active human weighing 160lbs gets the same amount of air intake as an infant. Would this work? If you were given numbers for any individual on planet earth picked at random (for exact amount of food needed, water needed, sleep needed, etc) what would the odds be that that number would be sufficient or even applicable to all humans on the planet at every given time. If you can't give me an exact number does that negate the fact that humans need air, or food and water to survive? Your logic is flawed. You can't discount the dynamic nature of humans as in we are not all the same age and the size with the same level of activity thus our resource intake cannot be reduced to a list of exact numbers that apply for all humans.

    Are all values for all parameters on our planet the same at any give time? Is the temperature, population, fresh water supply, farmland, rainfall, etc always static? The ranges that are needed to sustain life are easily found and the most ideal ranges would be from pre industrial times - this is not rocket science... The best parameters for our planet would be those that provide us with the most abundant and least polluted natural resources with the safest uv index.. this number however will change dependent on our population size, the chemicals we use, and the amount of land we are farming, waste produced, beasts being domesticated, etc, etc, etc... This is a very simplistic view this is not one number but rather many many numbers that are all interdependent on each other.. what I've described for you here is just a slice of the entire pie.... the dumbed down 3rd grade version if you will...

    Is this really that difficult for you to understand? Did you graduate high school and if so were there math classes or science classes required?
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  8. #118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    So the scientists will not share because everyone who is not a scientist shares in the guilt of humanity and should suffer.

    Okay, makes sense.
    step away from the crack pipe.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  9. #119
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    135 so/sp
    Posts
    8,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert View Post
    Could you indicate to me what the current equilibrium numbers are for sustainable human life as well as at which numbers it will tilt?
    I know that you didn't ask me but I will unswer this none the less.
    Since I think that people don't actually understand the problem.


    In my opinion that number is lower than 10% of the current world popuation for sure if they live in modern like society powered by fossil fules.


    Which is because by burning fossil fuel you are pumping new carbon atoms into the system. Right now we can restore all forrests of the world by killing very large group of people who live around the world but we would still not solve the problem. Since for quite some time we are pumping new carbon into the system.

    So what majority of people does not understand is that this makes all the talk about how climate once was totally mute/pointless. Even all those debates about about climate on the scales of couple of hundereds of thousands years.

    Fossil fuels were created durring the last 600 million years. What means that we are the force that systematically searchs them and pumps it into the biosphere in a blink . What never before was the case in entire earths history.


    In natural state of the planet CO2 is slowly removed from the environment by

    1. mostly by being used by sea organisms for creations of their shells. Which fall to the bottom once organism dies and then plate tectinics makes sure that this ocean bottom is subducted /pushed beneath the continent where is melts.

    2. Through some complex and slow chemical and geological processes.


    So when are talk about this the answer two you qestion is : the balance will be broken as soon as we pump more that those processes can remove carbon from of the system.

    However more C in system causes acidification of seas what kills organisms that use it so it further reduces the removal rate.

    So to answer your question everything above 1% of the current planets popuatuion will probably destroy the balance eventually if they use fossil fuels as we use them today.

  10. #120
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I know that you didn't ask me but I will unswer this none the less.
    Since I think that people don't actually understand the problem.


    In my opinion that number is lower than 10% of the current world popuation for sure if they live in modern like society powered by fossil fules.


    Which is because by burning fossil fuel you are pumping new carbon atoms into the system. Right now we can restore all forrests of the world by killing very large group of people who live around the world but we would still not solve the problem. Since for quite some time we are pumping new carbon into the system.

    So what majority of people does not understand is that this makes all the talk about how climate once was totally mute/pointless. Even all those debates about about climate on the scales of couple of hundereds of thousands years.

    Fossil fuels were created durring the last 600 million years. What means that we are the force that systematically searchs them and pumps it into the biosphere in a blink . What never before was the case in entire earths history.


    In natural state of the planet CO2 is slowly removed from the environment by

    1. mostly by being used by sea organisms for creations of their shells. Which fall to the bottom once organism dies and then plate tectinics makes sure that this ocean bottom is subducted /pushed beneath the continent where is melts.

    2. Through some complex and slow chemical and geological processes.


    So when are talk about this the answer two you qestion is : the balance will be broken as soon as we pump more that those processes can remove carbon from of the system.

    However more C in system causes acidification of seas what kills organisms that use it so they further reduce the removal rate.

    So to answer your question everything above 1% of the current planets popuatuion will probably destroy the balance eventually if they use fossil fuels as we use them today.
    That's not really accurate.. it's vastly more complicated than that. Currently we don't even have a method to convert CO2 into something useful in any kind of meaningful way.. we can't really convert it all to oxygen even if we could find a way to do it efficiently and quickly since too much oxygen would also be bad. There have been suggestions to store it in the ground in deep wells or drop it deep into the ocean, but natural disasters could easily result in more CO2 getting released at one time than our atmosphere can realistically absorb. This problem is extremely complicated and there are no ideal numbers that will work for every situation at every time...

    What we need to do is return the earth to levels where it can monitor itself as was always intended... Thus the emissions etc that we might be able to live with right now will not be the same amount of emissions that could be dealt with in the very very distant future when the earth has actually returned to a more ideal equilibrium..

    At this stage we are far far far from anything like that... even if we get awesome technologies tomorrow we still have to deal with all of the CO2 and other shit that we already have on this planet...

    edit: so in short we'd have to know what the population etc will be at every point on the graph in order to give out exact numbers... this isn't possible... it's better to rely on the natural processes of the earth and work towards developing technology that can sequester CO2 safely and convert it into something useful like water (but we aren't even close to doing anything like that) we need more funding to be focused on this type of research and in the mean time we need to stop emitting the greenhouse gasses etc that we do so that we can at least maintain the levels we are at today until we can successfully reverse the damage we have done which could take anywhere from 50 to 100 years to develop the required technology.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

Similar Threads

  1. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  2. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  3. Heat Wave Blamed On Global Warming
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 04:57 PM
  4. Current update on Global Warming!
    By swordpath in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 12-21-2008, 02:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO