Global Warming...the Movie

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 19:58
VIEWED: 9891
PAGE 6 of 12

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

ANTIMASON

Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:20 PM

Quote:
Citizen- I'm not a Global Dictator, nor do I wish to be,

then whats your solution??? please, enlighten me.. the market does not have alternatives that are viable. do you want to cause a global economic recession? tell me how you enforce your CO2 standards without completely stifling industry, and compromising the western economies?

Quote:
I'm not you, I'm not the one aiming to subjugate all people under an evil and violent theocratic dictatorship.

do you know what a true christian theocracy would be? the Lord is our king, and by his laws alone we would govern ourselves. we have government because people rejected God. what i propose is idealistic and probably impractical, in this age, but its no tyranny. the US constitution and bill of rights was based on the concepts of divine liberty, granted by our Creator, and assured through contract of government.

what you propose, a scientifically dictated, secular government, with the authority to tax and regulate, and micromanage the lives of everyone on the planet, thats tyrannous. besides that there is no higher authority then 'man', and that mob rule and popular opinion decide the law

Quote:
I'm not the one who wishes to end all those who aren't just like me.

thats your own insecurity and prejudice that you are projecting on me. its that same mentality that thinks we ought to give reperations in this country to the ancestors of slaves. i didnt act immorally, individuals in the past chose to act immorally. that has nothing to do with me, or my religion

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:48 PM

Well, I've sent you a PM. You want to show you're not a Troll, do it there. At the moment all I see is a poster who spouts anti-science pseudo Christian Zealotry, on a the forum of a fan site for a Science-Fiction show they've never watched. Which sure as hell sounds like trolling to me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Monday, April 28, 2008 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The solubility of gases is inversely proportional to temperature, meaning if the temperature of the oceans is doubled, the amount of CO2 gas dissolved in them will be halved. So obviously as Ocean temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 will increase. This is well understood.

It seems that although what you say is generally true in a lab, it seems to work in opposite in the oceans.
"Around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans since the industrial revolution has dissolved into the world's oceans—with adverse effects for marine life—according to two new studies". http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbo
n.html
This absorption has taken place during the time period in which the increase in average temperature should have been causing the oceans to lose CO2. There are many chemical feedback mechanisms that could account for rising CO2, many have latched onto CO2 because it is easy to see a direct relationship between CO2 and temperature on a graph. The direct relationship does not guarantee a cause and effect relationship.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, April 28, 2008 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
At the moment all I see is a poster who spouts anti-science pseudo Christian Zealotry, on a the forum of a fan site for a Science-Fiction show they've never watched.

Antimason, dude! Is that true? You've never watched Firefly??!! Tell me Citizen is making things up.

Some of your ideas are far out for me, Antimason. But as a scientist, I don't see you as particularly anti-science. At least not anymore than all these other folks who exploit the word "science" to justify their own ideologies. That's anti-science zealotry as well.

--------------------------
Science is the opposite of zealotry, of any kind.

CITIZEN

Monday, April 28, 2008 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Antimason, dude! Is that true? You've never watched Firefly??!! Tell me Citizen is making things up.

I'm not making it up at all, he admitted as much himself sometime back, I'll try to find the thread.

Quote:
But as a scientist, I don't see you as particularly anti-science.

He has, before now, blamed science for everything from wars to eugenics (funny how that changes to individuals when it's turned back on him). Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science, AM is a constant proponent of ID (he tries to shoehorn it in everywhere...), how much more anti-science do you need?

He even tries to portray the very heart of science, inclusion of new evidence and ideas, as a very bad, even evil thing, Q.E.D.

CITIZEN

Monday, April 28, 2008 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It seems that although what you say is generally true in a lab, it seems to work in opposite in the oceans.
"Around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans since the industrial revolution has dissolved into the world's oceans—with adverse effects for marine life—according to two new studies". http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbo
n.html

So you're suggesting the laws of physics are different in the lab than in the rest of the world?

The solubility of gases is still inversely proportional to temperature, the laws of physics in the lab are not different to the laws of physics in nature.

Quote:
This absorption has taken place during the time period in which the increase in average temperature should have been causing the oceans to lose CO2.

Why are you assuming the Ocean has reached saturation? It's not that simple, Henry's Law tells us that pressure (or more specifically the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in this case) also affects gas solubility. That is both ocean temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentration effect how much CO2 is in solution in the oceans, whether there's a net gain or a net loss would depend on which factor is dominant, which at the moment is atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Now, there's also evidence to suggest that the Carbon Dioxide sinks aren't taking up as much CO2 as once they did. This, in the case of the Oceans, indicates temperature is moving toward dominance, and also lends credence to the idea of a CO2 positive feedback, because that is exactly what we'd expect to see as one began.

Quote:
There are many chemical feedback mechanisms that could account for rising CO2, many have latched onto CO2 because it is easy to see a direct relationship between CO2 and temperature on a graph.

I've found that CO2 is focused on, because both sides want to focus on it. CO2 also lends it self more readily to emotive (rather than scientific) refutation, such as "it's natural, so how can it be bad?"

Quote:
The direct relationship does not guarantee a cause and effect relationship.

Between heating and CO2? No, what indicates a causal relationship between the two is that we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know the greenhouse effect causes warming.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It seems that although what you say is generally true in a lab, it seems to work in opposite in the oceans.
"Around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans since the industrial revolution has dissolved into the world's oceans—with adverse effects for marine life—according to two new studies". http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbo
n.html
So you're suggesting the laws of physics are different in the lab than in the rest of the world?

The solubility of gases is still inversely proportional to temperature, the laws of physics in the lab are not different to the laws of physics in nature.

Yes, the laws of physics remain intact outside the laboratory, but the "partial pressure" of CO2 is variable. In a closed system in a lab the "partial pressure" of CO2 in gas above a solution can only change if the solution emits CO2 due to a temperature change. In the "real world" there are many potential sources for CO2 that could cause a increase in the "partial pressure" of CO2 in the atmosphere. But this isn't the point I was making. The oceans ability to absorb CO2 goes up with the "partial pressure" of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means that the ocean has remained a net absorber of CO2 throughout the industrial era. The ocean cannot therefore be out-gassing CO2 into the atmosphere as a feedback mechanism. If this was true then the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere would always continue until the oceans were saturated with CO2. Obviously there's more at work here than just CO2. Possibly methane from methalhydrate frozen on the ocean floor, or maybe increased volcanic activity?

I obviously don't have a complete understanding of all the issues involved with atmospheric change over time. I do know enough to remain sceptical when people like Al Gore tell me it's "decided science". The debate is far from over, and even if I become convinced that the increase in average temperatures is due to man, I still would question the dramatic actions proposed by Gore and others. It might make a lot more sense to spend the money Gore wants to spend on CO2 mitigation on preparations for the coming climate change should it happen. When the science is "decided", then we need to talk about what makes the most economic sense considering our very limited ability to effect atmospheric change over the short term.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science,

Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science. So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."

Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.

I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.

--------------------------
Just sayin'.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I do know enough to remain sceptical when people like Al Gore tell me it's "decided science".

If the science is so "decided," I'd like someone to answer these questions for me.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=27459&m=475215#475215

KIRKULES

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science,
Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science. So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."

Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.

I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.

--------------------------
Just sayin'.

I agree with Citizen on "Intelligent Design". This is a religious belief not based in science. In fact, this "theory" was developed specifically to undermine the teaching of Evolution in US science classrooms. A bunch of religious nuts got together and thought up this scheme as a way of sneaking creationism into the science classroom were it doesn't belong. I don't even have a problem with teaching the existence of this "theory" in school, but it should be taught in social studies or mythology classes, not in science class.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE