User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 73

  1. #11
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Yes, I know about the earth's periodic Ice Ages, wasn't the last one during the Pleistocene?

    Um, switching of Poles, is that like something to do with "true" magnetic north or something.

    I hate talking about this stuff, it scares me.

    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainChick View Post
    Yes, I know about the earth's periodic Ice Ages, wasn't the last one during the Pleistocene?

    Um, switching of Poles, is that like something to do with "true" magnetic north or something.

    I hate talking about this stuff, it scares me.

    Yes, another thing to take into account for the global rise in temperature would be the fact that we have been coming out of a 'little ice age' for the past 300 years, the 'little ice age' was driven by volcanic activity (ash getting high up in the atmosphere and blocking the sun's heat).

    The switching of the poles is literally the North becoming the South, our compasses will go wacky, and for a little while we'll be without protection from the sun's radiation. I think it has to do something with the way the iron in the core of the earth moves.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Yes, another thing to take into account for the global rise in temperature would be the fact that we have been coming out of a 'little ice age' for the past 300 years, the 'little ice age' was driven by volcanic activity (ash getting high up in the atmosphere and blocking the sun's heat).

    The switching of the poles is literally the North becoming the South, our compasses will go wacky. I think it has to do something with the way the iron in the core of the earth moves.
    The switching of the poles isn't an immediate effect, it's not like flipping a switch, at least that's the current assumption. The Earth's magnetic field is very complex. We don't really know enough about it to predict when it'll happen. Scientists assume that there will be a weakening of the magnetic field before the switch, but that, too, is an assumption. Much like our knowledge of climate, all we really know is that it's a incredibly complex system and we're just at the beginning of learning how the system works. Alarmists jump to conclusions when they see data that could signal an undesirable outcome, but those conclusions are based on such limited knowledge that they're more harmful than helpful.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    The switching of the poles isn't an immediate effect, it's not like flipping a switch, at least that's the current assumption. The Earth's magnetic field is very complex. We don't really know enough about it to predict when it'll happen. Scientists assume that there will be a weakening of the magnetic field before the switch, but that, too, is an assumption. Much like our knowledge of climate, all we really know is that it's a incredibly complex system and we're just at the beginning of learning how the system works. Alarmists jump to conclusions when they see data that could signal an undesirable outcome, but those conclusions are based on such limited knowledge that they're more harmful than helpful.
    I completely agree, I hold the same position. Life over the millenniums seems to have not been very effected from the supposed pole changes so we shouldn't be That worried. However, third world countries may be effected more severely than us and we also have to take into account what could possibly happen to plants/food sources, there is no harm in preparation once we understand pole change more accurately.

  5. #15
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    You mean the 3% of all Co2 emissions that we make? The rest of the 97% comes from decaying plants, volcanic eruptions, and wildfires. We're not really doing that much to the atmosphere, we've been suckered into believing that we are guilty for climate change which is just a natural part of what happens on Earth.
    This argument's flawed, I think. Imagine a bucket. Fill it halfway up with water. Then, drill a hole in the bottom, so that water flows out at a rate of X. Then, pour water back into the bucket at a rate of X. The level in the bucket reaches an equilibrium, right? Now increase the rate at which you pour water into the bucket to X + .03X. Eventually, the bucket's water level will reach a critical level (it will overflow). Right?

    I know that's a pretty simple analogy to a complex system, but that's the basis of the "human caused global warming" argument. You don't have to discount even overwhelmingly larger "natural" emissions of Co2 to believe that human actions can cause an effect on a system at (or near) equilibrium.

    Do we *know*, with 100% certainty, that "global warming" is primarily due to the effects of burning previously sequestered CO2 (fossil fuels) since the start of the industrial revolution? No. But it seems likely, from what I've seen, and the "we can't *PROVE* it's not our actions, hence putting effort (read, money) into developing other energy sources is unwise" argument seems pretty self-serving in a lot of cases (as are some of the doom and gloom "we're all gonna die if you don't stop driving" proponents). In any case (and for multiple reasons), it seems wise to get away from fossil fuels as a (the) major component of our energy infrastructure.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    I completely agree, I hold the same position. Life over the millenniums seems to have not been very effected from the supposed pole changes so we shouldn't be That worried. However, third world countries may be effected more severely than us and we also have to take into account what could possibly happen to plants/food sources.
    Humans like to think that we can intuit anything, especially (MBTI) intuitives. Even sensors learn lots of things in life intuitively. But some things can only be learned through observation. Why bother building super colliders? Scientists have made all kinds of predictions. But until we actually observe the act, we don't know if our predictions are correct. That's why we have the scientific method.

    We have never observed a switching of the magnetic poles before. We can make all kinds of assumptions, but until we actually observe one, we have absolutely no idea what effects it will have on this planet. We'll probably need to observe several before we have a strong understanding of the phenomenon.

    I guess my point is, what do you mean by "taken into account"? How can we take anything into account when we have no idea what's going to happen?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    This argument's flawed, I think. Imagine a bucket. Fill it halfway up with water. Then, drill a hole in the bottom, so that water flows out at a rate of X. Then, pour water back into the bucket at a rate of X. The level in the bucket reaches an equilibrium, right? Now increase the rate at which you pour water into the bucket to X + .03X. Eventually, the bucket's water level will reach a critical level (it will overflow). Right?

    I know that's a pretty simple analogy to a complex system, but that's the basis of the "human caused global warming" argument. You don't have to discount even overwhelmingly larger "natural" emissions of Co2 to believe that human actions can cause an effect on a system at (or near) equilibrium.
    That is assuming that the system has no way of repairing itself, which it does, Trees for the win! Also you are assuming that there is consistency in the amount of Co2 that is emitted naturally, when there isn't. The fact is that a dozen more wild fires over the year (which is very bad because Trees reduce Co2, this is a double-whammy), or an extra volcanic eruption or two, will cause more Co2 to be emitted than we ever could during that year. The former statement is not statistically proven but should be taken as a logical hypothetical to show that we really have a very minor effect on the Earth.

    Do we *know*, with 100% certainty, that "global warming" is primarily due to the effects of burning previously sequestered CO2 (fossil fuels) since the start of the industrial revolution? No. But it seems likely, from what I've seen, and the "we can't *PROVE* it's not our actions, hence putting effort (read, money) into developing other energy sources is unwise" argument seems pretty self-serving in a lot of cases (as are some of the doom and gloom "we're all gonna die if you don't stop driving" proponents). In any case (and for multiple reasons), it seems wise to get away from fossil fuels as a (the) major component of our energy infrastructure.
    "But it seems likely from what I've seen", I posted strong evidence for the contrary a few posts above. I agree with you that we need to make efficient vehicles that run on something other than fossil fuels, but that is just smart by economic logic, not because of Global Warming. I've always been a supporter of Nuclear, Wind, Water, and Sun power, fossil fuels are only temporary so we need use more consistent and efficient energy source.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    This argument's flawed, I think. Imagine a bucket. Fill it halfway up with water. Then, drill a hole in the bottom, so that water flows out at a rate of X. Then, pour water back into the bucket at a rate of X. The level in the bucket reaches an equilibrium, right? Now increase the rate at which you pour water into the bucket to X + .03X. Eventually, the bucket's water level will reach a critical level (it will overflow). Right?
    There's a flaw with your argument, as well. You assume that the size of the hole is constant. It's certainly variable, how variable is a topic for debate. Besides trees, which Didums mentioned, there's also the carbon cycle.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Humans like to think that we can intuit anything, especially (MBTI) intuitives. Even sensors learn lots of things in life intuitively. But some things can only be learned through observation. Why bother building super colliders? Scientists have made all kinds of predictions. But until we actually observe the act, we don't know if our predictions are correct. That's why we have the scientific method.

    We have never observed a switching of the magnetic poles before. We can make all kinds of assumptions, but until we actually observe one, we have absolutely no idea what effects it will have on this planet. We'll probably need to observe several before we have a strong understanding of the phenomenon.

    I guess my point is, what do you mean by "taken into account"? How can we take anything into account when we have no idea what's going to happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    once we understand pole change more accurately.
    I need to get those edits in there faster lol.

    I guess my point is, what do you mean by "taken into account"? How can we take anything into account when we have no idea what's going to happen?
    Through the understanding of electro-magnetism we aren't exactly "clueless" as you put it. What I meant by "take into account" is that we need to think of hypotheticals of what could happen from the understanding of electro-magnetism that we do have, we can make Educated Guesses. The Poles are caused by the flow of Iron in the core of our planet, correct? Now, it would be stupid to assume that the iron would just suddenly shift, it would seem more likely for it to slowly change, and at one point, if it is changing from one flow to another, it would be correct to assume that for a short period of time it wouldn't be moving so the protection that we get from our electro-magnetic field would be diminished to a minimum value. Assuming does make an "Ass out of U and Me" but we're not completely clueless about these sorts of things.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Through the understanding of electro-magnetism we aren't exactly "clueless" as you put it. What I meant by "take into account" is that we need to think of hypotheticals of what could happen from the understanding of electro-magnetism that we do have, we can make Educated Guesses. The Poles are caused by the flow of Iron in the core of our planet, correct? Now, it would be stupid to assume that the iron would just suddenly shift, it would seem more likely for it to slowly change, and at one point, if it is changing from one flow to another, it would be correct to assume that for a short period of time it wouldn't be moving so the protection that we get from our electro-magnetic field would be diminished to a minimum value. Assuming does make an "Ass out of U and Me" but we're not completely clueless about these sorts of things.
    I'm not really sure what effects a magnetic pole reversal could have on third world countries that it wouldn't have on others.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. Is there a True Good? And other such questions.
    By Legion in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-16-2014, 01:49 AM
  2. Conservative Christians and Global Warming
    By Thalassa in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 07-08-2009, 09:45 AM
  3. Global Warming: Myths or Facts?
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 191
    Last Post: 05-15-2009, 06:29 PM
  4. Fatties cause global warming
    By matmos in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 04-25-2009, 03:18 AM
  5. Hypothetical and vague solution to global warming/energy crisis
    By Evan in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 09:32 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