BF2S Forums A Question Of Mine No One Has Answered

This is almost identical to Pascal's Wager, only instead of God, it's the environment.

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

That is not Global Climate: specifically unnatural Global Warming trend (due to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and its affect on the world's oceans: disturbing the PH in the top 200m). Re-introducing carbon (CO2) back into the environment at a very rapid rate (burning fossil fuels, carbon removed from the environment, trapped beneath the Earth's surface for a rather long time) is not Local Weather patterns.

Some people are saying nasty weather is the cause of humans right?

Sort of, sure some people, while warmer Weather in the tropics can increase a hurricanes strength (they intensify when moving over warming water), the hurricane's path cannot be predicted accurately (or how many storms a season will have exactly in a given year). Global Climate = some increase in strength for (any or all) hurricanes (that form). Weather = the actual movement and # of storms, on a daily basis, and/or # of storms per year (that cannot be predicted: "..that's the Weather for ya").

So how do we predict temperature and winds for example?

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

I wonder if anyone knows that we are nearing the end of the life cycle of planet earth. I have read a ton about global warming and its possible outcomes. On a the level of space and time, our earth is very old in terms of age of planets. Some scientists predict that the earth will be a rock floating in space in a few hundred thousand years. This is universally accepted among most scientists. Nothing is going to stop this from happening and humans are not capable of stopping the life cycle of a planet. Maybe in few hundred thousand years, people will be so far ahead of us in intelligence that they can prolong the dying planet, im sure our current intelligence level compared to the future will make us look like cavemen.

Where did you get this information?  There seems to be some sort of inherent fallible statement in what you say...

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Sort of, sure some people, while warmer Weather in the tropics can increase a hurricanes strength (they intensify when moving over warming water), the hurricane's path cannot be predicted accurately (or how many storms a season will have exactly in a given year). Global Climate = some increase in strength for (any or all) hurricanes (that form). Weather = the actual movement and # of storms, on a daily basis, and/or # of storms per year (that cannot be predicted: "..that's the Weather for ya").

So how do we predict temperature and winds for example?

They measure them first: pressure areas, wind, temperature, etc. They first need to measure what's going on. Weather forecasting - in terms of local areas, are based upon models that do not predict average trends. They attempt to model specific forecasting. The model-dynamics are not based upon a resolution (in terms on finite-modeling) that is a close enough to a representation of the real world.

Doesn't the jetstream affect temperature?  If it doesn't sink as low in the US for example, you will have a hotter summer than normal right?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

I wonder if anyone knows that we are nearing the end of the life cycle of planet earth. I have read a ton about global warming and its possible outcomes. On a the level of space and time, our earth is very old in terms of age of planets. Some scientists predict that the earth will be a rock floating in space in a few hundred thousand years. This is universally accepted among most scientists. Nothing is going to stop this from happening and humans are not capable of stopping the life cycle of a planet. Maybe in few hundred thousand years, people will be so far ahead of us in intelligence that they can prolong the dying planet, im sure our current intelligence level compared to the future will make us look like cavemen.

Where did you get this information?  There seems to be some sort of inherent fallible statement in what you say...

I should clarify. Life as we know it and human life will cease to exist anywhere between 250,000 to 1,000,000 years on this planet. I have read this on quite a few science websites and on the Slate website but i havent kept the links. I just did a search and found a few sites stating this in about 5 minutes. Sorry, but if i can find this info....so can you. The Earth itself will exist but either as an ice ball floating in space(some scientists believe that Earth will lose its orbit around the sun and be left floating into outer space) or the earth will be absorbed into the sun when it becomes a Red Giant and the earth becomes dust. My point was that even a million years from now is a blink of an eye in terms of space and time. The Earth has existed for billions of years...if I remember right, 4.5 billion and as you can see we are in the end times for human life and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent this from happening. Its just part of how planets are born and die and life as we know it will either be forced from this planet or it ends on this planet somewhere in the time stated above.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Where did you get this information?  There seems to be some sort of inherent fallible statement in what you say...

I should clarify. Life as we know it and human life will cease to exist anywhere between 250,000 to 1,000,000 years on this planet. I have read this on quite a few science websites and on the Slate website but i havent kept the links. I just did a search and found a few sites stating this in about 5 minutes. Sorry, but if i can find this info....so can you. The Earth itself will exist but either as an ice ball floating in space(some scientists believe that Earth will lose its orbit around the sun and be left floating into outer space) or the earth will be absorbed into the sun when it becomes a Red Giant and the earth becomes dust. My point was that even a million years from now is a blink of an eye in terms of space and time. The Earth has existed for billions of years...if I remember right, 4.5 billion and as you can see we are in the end times for human life and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent this from happening. Its just part of how planets are born and die and life as we know it will either be forced from this planet or it ends on this planet somewhere in the time stated above.

I can find links in 5 minutes to alien abduction websites too.  I am sure information like this is on the 'net, I just wanted to know if it was credible.

I have read scientific journals explaining the destruction of habitat, interruption of global cycles, etc, but it seems to me you are just sensationalizing this "end of days" idea.

LOL...no...sensationalizing? Its just the natural order of things. Im not saying its going to be flooding, nuclear fall out, alien invasion. All I am saying is that the environment on Earth will change so much NATURALLY that human life will not be able to exist on this planet. Humans will have to either find another place to go, prolong life here as long as possible or not exist at all. Earth will simply not be habitable. This is not strange or sensational at all. The Earth has existed for about 4.5 billion years and almost all scientists agree that the earth will no longer exist at all in the next few billion years at the most. Now, im talking about the Earth itself not existing in the next few billion years, but actual life on Earth will vanish well before that. How is that sensational? I have read a ton on this, im not a scientist, but its pretty common knowledge.

Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2007-06-11 11:41:53)

The real answer.........we will kill ourselves first.

Risk of nuclear warfare rising
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_ … rms_report

General: Iran aids Karzai, maybe Taliban
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_ … fghan_iran

Al-Qaida targets Iraqi infrastructure
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Cougar wrote:

If in fact, global warming is false, why not go through the environmental protection guidelines that were proposed to reverse or prevent global warming anyways?  Through all of the debate, arguing and bickering, what difference does it make?  If we do these things we prevent global warming, if global warming in fact, turns out to be false, we are still improving the quality of our environment and making the earth a cleaner place to live.  So what is the major malfunction here?

I think there are two different issues on which we need to take a stance:

1) Is global warming caused by CO2 emissions? In my opinion there is not sufficient evidence to say that it is.  I've read through the scientific data (for both sides of the arguement) and there are too many things that don't add up for me to be able to say that I believe that global warming is caused by CO2.  I think CO2 does play a role but probably less than is currently accepted by the IPCC.

2) Should we take measures in case it is the cause? We absolutely should take measures in case CO2 is the main factor.  First off, we have nothing to lose except dependence on foreign oil and gass resources.  Second, if it turns out that I'm wrong then we'll not have made a catastrophic mistake.  Third, pollution is not a good thing...period.

Conclusion: My biggest problem with the green house theory to global warming is that it is reported as being a fact when I don't think there is remotely enough evidence for this to be the case.  I think its a theory around which there is real scientific debate at the moment.  Having said this, measures to curb pollution and to develop alternative energy sources are definitely the way to go.

Kmarion wrote:

There is a reason Al Gore titled his movie "An Inconvenient Truth". It really comes down to paying for the changes. The cost just getting the products from point A to point B will most likely increase significantly. It's a high price to pay if it would not have an impact. That's the argument at least.

That's what whats-their-name (the company that was producing the CFCs... gah. It starts with T, I think) said prior to Montreal. And then they got a big surprise - it was actually CHEAPER to implement the environmental protections than to continue fucking up the earth.

geNius wrote:

Cougar wrote:

If in fact, global warming is false, why not go through the environmental protection guidelines that were proposed to reverse or prevent global warming anyways?  Through all of the debate, arguing and bickering, what difference does it make?  If we do these things we prevent global warming, if global warming in fact, turns out to be false, we are still improving the quality of our environment and making the earth a cleaner place to live.  So what is the major malfunction here?

I still think humans are pretty f'n arrogant to think that they can have a significant effect on the Earth's environment.  That being said, it will take DECADES for our current technology to be upgraded/disposed of.  We're talking about vast financial impacts on nearly everyone for this to come to fruition in the near future.  The old has to be phased out, and the new needs to be implemented, both in a fashion that won't render us financially impotent.

I think you should tell that to the thousands upon thousands of people in Australia and South America who die of skin cancer every year because of CFCs that were churned out decades ago.