User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 73

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    The technology to protect their people from possible radiation. But I'm beginning to doubt that it will be a big deal, like I said before, there have been countless pole changes in the past and life has survived it without technology, so now I'm thinking that it isn't that big of an issue.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    The technology to protect their people from possible radiation. But I'm beginning to doubt that it will be a big deal, like I said before, there have been countless pole changes in the past and life has survived it without technology, so now I'm thinking that it isn't that big of an issue.
    Yeah, I'm not really seeing how that would be an issue. The primary function of the magnetic field is to slow solar wind erosion of the atmosphere. It doesn't really block that much radiation. The atmosphere does most of that on it's own.
    "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."

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Woah, just realized how this thread is starting to de-rail abit lol, which is probably my fault for bringing up the poles.

  4. #24
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    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.
    Of course my analogy of water dropping out of a bucket is necessarily less complex than the composition of the earth's atmosphere. But the rate of water leaving the bucket only has to *average* X for the analogy to hold in principle. The system doesn't have to be at an exact equilibrium at all points in time, just over a long enough period of time, relative to the volume of the bucket. I think that my analogy as it is, is still valid (if admittedly simplistic). Small, consistent changes in input CAN affect a system that would otherwise be in equilibrium over long periods of time.

    Trees, the carbon cycle, etc. are all part of the equilibrium that I mentioned. Just because a counter-action *exists* doesn't mean that it's adequate to counteract any additional inputs (treating long-sequestered CO2 as an input) into the system. Didums' mention of fires and deforestation being a double-whammy, etc. is of course valid too. But I think it's reasonable to consider most lightning-strike driven wildfires as part of the equilibrium that's existed for millions of years. Artificial extraction and burning of fossil fuels? I don't think so.

    Here's a graph of CO2 levels:


    As you say, there are cycles of CO2 levels that are, by definition, independent of human activity (much earlier than human civilization). But, as the graph shows (note that the scale makes it look more dramatic than it actually is, but the point remains), there is a significant upturn in CO2 levels that coincides with the start of the industrial revolution that is above and beyond that of "recent" cycling levels.

    I don't pretend an exhaustive knowledge on the topic - I certainly don't have all of the answers. But I do think that it's extremely likely that the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it's altogether reasonable to consider it a significant contributor to "global warming." Anyway, I've said my bit.

  5. #25
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    The world is getting warmer, and it is, most likely, a combination of natural and man-made factors. Will it be catastrophic for life on Earth? That remains to be seen, but I support a move from fossil fuels into renewable energy, for both environmental and geopolitical reasons.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #26
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    The world is getting warmer, and it is, most likely, a combination of natural and man-made factors. Will it be catastrophic for life on Earth? That remains to be seen, but I support a move from fossil fuels into renewable energy, for both environmental and geopolitical reasons.
    Based on current knowledge, the "elimination of life" idea seems to be unlikely (The earth has gone through warmer periods before), although there are a lot of unintended effects, and climate changes have a way of causing a lot of pain for people. (See little ice age, various large volcanic eruptions like Tambora for examples.)


    Magnetic poles getting weak might also cause some more electronics problems and space equipment problems (Thanks to solar wind getting in), but anything beyond that is iffy to prodict, and based on current knowledge, it seems unlikely that it would have much of an effgect beyond that.

    Woah, just realized how this thread is starting to de-rail abit lol, which is probably my fault for bringing up the poles.
    Easily fixed with a title change.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Do you guys think this has something to do with all this:
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #28
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Do you guys think this has something to do with all this:
    Not necessarily, because decaying plant material gives off CO2.

    I know I've said this before, but one of my biggest problems with the global warming theory is that it's so focused on CO2, almost to the exclusion of everything else. Just because CO2 levels have risen does not mean they're responsible for the most recent warming trend.
    "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. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Not necessarily, because decaying plant material gives off CO2.

    I know I've said this before, but one of my biggest problems with the global warming theory is that it's so focused on CO2, almost to the exclusion of everything else. Just because CO2 levels have risen does not mean they're responsible for the most recent warming trend.
    Wait, by that chart I meant that because we are losing the rainforests we may potentially be making the atmosphere worse (for us). Rainforests have such a high concentration of trees that they might act like a "Co2 sponge" and from what I understand rainforests have a very large effect on the rest of the world. I'm just thinking that the destruction of the rainforests is likely very much worse than car emissions throughout the past few decades. And yes its not necessarily always Co2, there are other greenhouse gases as well (can't remember any on the spot though).

    I'm trying to still look at both sides of the equation even though the evidence for Naturally caused Global Warming is more convincing to me.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Wait, by that chart I meant that because we are losing the rainforests we may potentially be making the atmosphere worse (for us). Rainforests have such a high concentration of trees that they might act like a "Co2 sponge" and from what I understand rainforests have a very large effect on the rest of the world. I'm just thinking that the destruction of the rainforests is likely very much worse than car emissions throughout the past few decades. And yes its not necessarily always Co2, there are other greenhouse gases as well (can't remember any on the spot though).

    I'm trying to still look at both sides of the equation even though the evidence for Naturally caused Global Warming is more convincing to me.
    Yeah, I know what you meant. I was just saying that rain forests aren't necessarily a CO2 sink.

    The cause of the most recent warming trend may not even have anything to do with any greenhouse gas. It could just be a fluctuation in solar output.

    P.S. Water vapor and methane are far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.
    "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