backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by ereavis.. on Sep 28 at 6:58 PM


  (Source: Chemically Green)
Researchers believe fresh water from the Arctic coincided with a sudden world temperature drop

Researchers reported Wednesday that global warming was interrupted in 1970 when a cold snap in northern oceans caused world temperatures to temporarily decrease. 

Between 1968 and 1972, temperature records show that sea surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere dropped 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.5 F) rapidly. This occurred mainly in the North Atlantic, and scientists used to think it was just a side effect of the slow build up of air pollution from cars and power plants, which blocked sunlight. 

But now, American and British scientists, who examined the above mentioned temperature records, are saying that the sudden temperature drop in 1970 occurred during the same time as a "sudden inflow of cold water from the Arctic." This flow of cold, fresh water into the North Atlantic is known as the "Great Salinity Anomaly," and the scientists believe a cold spell in these oceans led to a decrease in world temperatures, resulting in a momentary pause in the global warming trend

These scientists, led by David Thompson, lead author of the study at Colorado State University, found the temperature drop after eliminating other factors that can block sunlight, such as volcanic ash blocking sunlight and long-term shifts in ocean temperatures and currents. 

"We knew that the Northern Hemisphere oceans cooled during the mid 20th century, but the sudden nature of that cooling surprised us," said Thompson.

The findings of Thompson and his co-author of the study, Phil Jones, of Britain's University of East Anglia, sharply contrast all previous predictions surrounding this temperature decrease from 1968 to 1972 because this new study notes that this "pulse" of cooler temperatures seemed to occur due to natural variations rather than human activity. 

"No one is postulating that the 'Great Salinity Anomaly' has any relationship to warming or the greenhouse effect from humans," said Jones. 

In contrast, the U.N. panel of climate scientists mentioned that average world temperatures have increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution. Sea ice is made of fresh water, and with fossil fuels emitting carbon dioxide and supposedly warming world temperatures since the Industrial Revolution, sea ice in the Arctic could have melted and flowed into the North Atlantic due to man-made activity. 

Jones was involved with the hacked e-mails at the University of East Anglia in 2009, and was accused of exaggerating evidence that supports global warming. After a review, he was reinstated and all accusations were cleared. Now, when asked how he thinks climate skeptics will react when he releases this study "highlighting the cause of cooling rather than warming," Jones said, "Maybe it will get them thinking."

This study was published in Nature this month.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'm so sick of global warming/cooling crap
By imaheadcase on 9/24/2010 6:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
Unless scientists have some caveman keeping track for them from the start, give it a rest. You can't make accurate studies unless you been around the planet long enough to know the changes that occur.

Ever notice how most these things "In theory" or some other bs wording. Its because its a guess.

One thing that really miffs me is ocean temps to conclude one way or the other. Its not accurate at all, the ice melts change temperature all the time. Hence goes back to my original thought..unless you are around long enough, thousands of years, you can't get accurate number out of it.




RE: I'm so sick of global warming/cooling crap
By raumkrieger on 9/24/2010 8:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
unless you are around long enough, thousands of years,


millions*


By Sazar on 9/27/2010 9:42:02 AM , Rating: 1
Everyone knows that the Earth is only 6000 years old...

:)


RE: I'm so sick of global warming/cooling crap
By zixin on 9/24/2010 11:17:25 PM , Rating: 1
We don't need cavemen. We got ice at the Artic that haven't melted in a long long time. CO2 concentration can be inferred from the air pockets trapped in the ice. do some research before you speak.


By CowKing on 9/25/2010 6:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad someone said that.


By theapparition on 9/27/2010 8:30:09 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly. The last time the Artic ice cap melted was when the dinosaur owned factories put out too much CO2. That coupled with dinosaur obesity and lack of dino-government healthcare caused socio-economic collapse.

If only all dinosaurs ebraced the vegan lifestyle and cared about thier enviroment, they'd be here today. Alas, we should act now otherwise the increase of CO2 will attract another comet.


RE: I'm so sick of global warming/cooling crap
By mkrech on 9/27/2010 12:04:39 PM , Rating: 3
Now we must continue to push the climate change agenda so that people will agree to pass policies that will lead to the collapse of modern society so that no one survives to tell any potential future intelligent life that climate change is all BS.

*Tiffany, you can thank me later for the traffic.


RE: I'm so sick of global warming/cooling crap
By roadhog1974 on 9/27/2010 2:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
what the climate doesn't change?

Our friend wikipedia disagrees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth


By ninjaquick on 9/28/2010 1:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
Hypothesis. C'mon, seriously, it isn't even a proper theory and you flail it around dumbly as if it were a fact.


By Chernobyl68 on 9/27/2010 12:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
I believe you mean, "Antarctic Ice Cap"
That's there the oldest ice cores have been recovered.


By ians55 on 9/27/2010 3:12:21 PM , Rating: 3
Doesn't vegan lifestyle is major cause of "emitting" global warming gases as methane?


RE: I'm so sick of global warming/cooling crap
By ninjaquick on 9/28/2010 1:19:11 PM , Rating: 3
The usefulness of that is questionable since the formation of ice is in no way uniform and the scope of observation is limited, resulting in a low level of accuracy which in turn results in reasonable doubt of validity, not to mention the fact that CO2 can be found in many places other than the atmosphere (read underwater gas vents/water borne gas).
So, given the non linearity of ice formation over time and variability of influential sources, Ice Core data sourcing is flawed.


By kattanna on 9/28/2010 3:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
another thing is the very limited number. its really hard to take literally a handful of these ice cores and state how the entire world is with any degree of accuracy.

just like if any space probe happened to land in yellowstone, they would get a very skewed view of the gasses present in the atmosphere.

resolution is also an issue. the farther back you go, the less accurate you can be.


By AnnihilatorX on 9/27/2010 4:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
Incidentally we aren't in the universe long enough to understand many branches of physics, particle physics, astrophysics, quantum physics. Yet we were able to derive practical applications out of the few theory that are not proven. For example, the standard particle model is not proven, and many doubt its the full picture, yet it's sufficient enough to provide predictions. And heavy particles of mesons for example, was predicted before they were discovered.

Also, myself works in the area of control engineering. There are dynamical systems that you cannot absolutely predicts with certainty what happens, because of randomless. No matter how long, hours, months, years, billion of years, you study them, you can't say for certain it'd do this or that. But you can usually create a model that predicts in near future what happens, say in an hour or so it would do that, but beyond that prediction is no longer accurate. This is also the basis of weather forecast. And tell you what, over half of the time it works pretty well, that's why people spend money on weather forecast. If it works only half the time, might as well throw a dice to say it'd rain tomorrow or not.

I'd believe scientists knows more than you and us do. What's your authority to say otherwise?


RE: I'm so sick of global warming/cooling crap
By stimudent on 9/27/2010 8:34:15 AM , Rating: 2
Come on! Lets get on with it!!
I want to see Miami under water in my lifetime!


By roadhog1974 on 9/27/2010 2:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
you are going to neeed a bigger bucket.


Face Palm
By just4U on 9/25/2010 1:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
That's my first reaction to this..

I mean no disrespect to Tiffany or DailyTech, this sort of stuff is her "segment" of the site. But I can't help but roll my eyes and think that common sense has to prevail at some point or another. Does the Scientific comunity have a clue about what's all going on? I am begining to think that .. they don't. That's going to make it really hard on the media to try and sell us these sorts of articles.




RE: Face Palm
By san1s on 9/26/2010 11:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
Common sense has no place in science. Hindsight bias and judgmental overconfidence are the reasons why intuition and common sense fail.
Whether you like it or not anthropogenic global warming is a reality and is universally agreed upon by climate researchers worldwide.


RE: Face Palm
By theapparition on 9/27/2010 8:36:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Whether you like it or not anthropogenic global warming is a reality and is universally agreed upon by climate researchers worldwide.

WRONG. Science is the study for fact, and is self correcting. Every scientific notion is constantly under scrutiny, as it should be.

When you break the law, you go on trial. When you break a scientific law, the law goes on trial.

There is quite a bit of doubt in the scientific community about antropogenic global warming, and previous historical record contradicts many of the AGW theories being put forward now. The scientific concensus you mention is far from complete.

My problem comes from political modivated "scientists" who paint "doom and gloom" scenerios, all that can be avioded with trillions of dollars funneled towards thier research.


RE: Face Palm
By san1s on 9/27/2010 11:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
No, it is not wrong. When was the last time you saw an article questioning say the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Because currently it is being agreed upon to be consistent with research findings. People like you only seem to support science that brings results that follow your personal beliefs. The only doubt you're going to find in the scientific community is falsely made up by the media and parroted by people similar to those in Dailytech or by scientists whose field has nothing to do with climate research.


RE: Face Palm
By ninjaquick on 9/28/2010 2:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
The reason the 2nd Law is pretty much impossible to break is because of its robust simplicity.
The evolution of the 2nd law to its current state is the product of trials and retrials until it is capable of remaining constant between all matter. And honestly, look at the wikipedia article, people HAVE questioned it, silly. Heck your Biologist buddies swear it doesn't apply to them.


RE: Face Palm
By ereavis on 9/28/2010 6:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
you'll note the naming "Second LAW of thermodynamics" against "Global warming THEORY" Against theories and hypothesis, you'll find very few things that scientists will call a law. I also like the line "universally agreed upon by .. world wide" Again with scientific terms, the PROOF for this requires not one single exception, which I doubt would take long to find.

It really goes back up the chain, we've got a very small data sample and conjecture from unpredictable materials, making a PROOF or LAW nearly impossible. That doesn't make the concept of "stop dumping bad stuff everywhere" a bad idea.


30 years?
By ShaolinSoccer on 9/25/2010 11:56:29 AM , Rating: 2
It takes 30 years to analyze 3 years of data? You've got to be kidding me!




RE: 30 years?
By VultureTX on 9/25/2010 1:24:40 PM , Rating: 3
Well this is Phil Jones of East Anglia. He deleted the emails, he lost the data a couple of times, and in the end he had to retype all the numbers and overwrite the original data files. You can't do that in a hurry!


RE: 30 years?
By CowKing on 9/25/2010 6:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
If it makes you feel better about it. That's 1095 days of data.


RE: 30 years?
By Chernobyl68 on 9/27/2010 12:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
and hundreds if not thousands of data collection sites. and then compare them to the rest of the years to see the differences.
remember what computers were like in the 70s?
In any event, you have to know what you're looking for in order to see if its there. the data may not have been collected with that in mind.


The rest of the story....
By ppardee on 9/24/2010 5:35:34 PM , Rating: 5
And, yet again, the global warming crowd refuses to tell the whole story. The rest of the story is that the oceans in the Southern Hemisphere warmed by about the same amount at about the same time.

So the influx of cold water could explain why the Northern Hemisphere cooled, but why did he Southern Hemisphere warm up?

More importantly, the fact that the Southern Hemisphere's oceans warmed means that you can't use this event to explain any supposed interruption of global warming. The fact is global climate is far too complex to be modeled accurately for any length of time and a period of 100 or even 1000 years isn't enough to be statistically relevant in an environment that changes over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. So a 4 year change in tempurature of the SURFACE WATER (the other missing half of the story) is nothing more than trivia. It is an interesting mystery to solve, but should not be looked at as an event that will have any relevant impact on the future of the global climate, or as a predictor. It would be like having a cloud pass above you and you thinking that this is a 'darkening trend' and if it continues, the Earth will freeze within 3 hours (since it will continue to get darker and eventually all light will be gone).

Stop trying to skew the facts, Tiff. If you're sources are bad, change sources. If you're doing it deliberately, you need to leave the Fourth Estate and start working for a tabloid rag. And DT, if your site continues to publish work like this, you're going to start being seen as a tabloid e-rag rather than a reputable tech/science site. Based on comments I have read, it looks like you're well on your way already.




RE: The rest of the story....
By Kurz on 9/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: The rest of the story....
By Kurz on 9/25/2010 9:52:35 AM , Rating: 1
Just saying anyone can be a blog poster.


RE: The rest of the story....
By AnnihilatorX on 9/27/2010 4:26:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand your logic. They are saying in 1970 global warming was interrupted, due to cold fresh water from the north pole. It is logical to think that this would not affect the Southern hemisphere, because global ocean current conveyor from the north does not directly affect ocean from the south, the current meets at the equator and by the time the temperature would have equalized.

Therefore it's logical to think the South would have warmed, as normal trend to the warming without a pause. I.e., the pause only occurred in the Northern hemisphere, and that has enough effect to cause a global average that is lower than the trend predicts


Another Ice Age? Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
By xxsk8er101xx on 9/26/2010 10:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAg...

Interesting ... Funny how people forget.




By roadhog1974 on 9/26/2010 7:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
Steady State had a reasonable backing then, forgotten now.

Or are you refering to the media treatment of scientific
theories?

There are prevailing theories that are not necessarily
correct, and counter theories that are not necessarily
incorrect.

I iamgine you could do a better job of reporting
theories and how they may or may not impact on us?


By foolsgambit11 on 9/26/2010 10:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
We don't forget. We just know better than to place any weight on this. Would you say relativity is wrong just because the dominant theory 30 years before it came out was the effects of the aether? Scientists having an incorrect theory in the past does not mean that any current scientific theory is right or wrong - it only means the old one was wrong (assuming the coming ice age theory is wrong; not being a climatologist, I wouldn't call myself fully qualified to answer that one way or another, save with an appeal to authority).


sudden world temperature drop
By gemsurf on 9/24/2010 7:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't 1970 about the time Arthur Fonzerelli reached puberty? Splains it!




RE: sudden world temperature drop
By Camikazi on 9/25/2010 12:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
*gives 2 thumbs up and says* Aaaay!


RE: sudden world temperature drop
By ereavis on 9/28/2010 6:50:11 PM , Rating: 1
1972, Chuck Noris' last competitive fight. The Earth was no longer cold from fear of being next. Sounds about as provable as the 1974 or 2010 theories, so I'm sticking with the "Chuck Noris interrupted global warming" theory.


Was I the only one...
By FaceMaster on 9/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Was I the only one...
By DKantUno on 9/25/2010 1:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yes.


RE: Was I the only one...
By FaceMaster on 9/26/2010 7:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I don't even remember typing that comment, I must have been pretty drunk. But I thought about it today and made a link.

Northern Oceans
Northern Islands
Future AMD GPU technology

Not to mention how they're going to be running so much cooler than Nvidia's equivilent.

That's it, no more dailytech comments whilst drunk. And if you think that's bad, you should have seen the state of facebook this morning.


Slight problems
By knutjb on 9/24/2010 7:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jones was involved with the hacked e-mails at the University of East Anglia in 2009, and was accused of exaggerating evidence that supports global warming. After a review, he was reinstated and all accusations were cleared. Now, when asked how he thinks climate skeptics will react when he releases this study "highlighting the cause of cooling rather than warming," Jones said, "Maybe it will get them thinking."
When one exaggerates and is then cleared by educational/institutional insiders one should expect a not so exaggerated negative response to further work. When will he, if ever, grasp that his credibility is gone for all but the most pious in his beliefs.
quote:
In contrast, the U.N. panel of climate scientists mentioned that average world temperatures have increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution.
Yes the Railway engineer climate scientist who didn't do anymore than read others flawed, i.e. chain fallacy, research.

And to add to others: we don't have enough info from a long enough time frame to propose anything more than a huge WAG. For me, a WAG of this magnitude isn't enough to join the band wagon. And to respond in advance for those who are on the band wagon; I limit my use of oil because of cost reasons not misguided guilt trips. The guilt trip is nothing more than a crisis to grab power through control of others behaviors by hypocrites, i.e. Al Gore and his wasteful use of oil while preaching the opposite. Meanwhile he laughs at all the money he has made from his fear mongering.

Mr. Jones can keep his crocodile tears.




Snow and rain happen.
By drycrust3 on 9/25/2010 1:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
Soon the headlines will read "Snow fall stops Global Warming" or "Planet saved by falling rain".




Time for a rename please...
By integr8d on 9/25/2010 6:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
No more DailyTech. It's time for 'Progressive Environmentalism with a Smattering of Tech to Lure Mouthbreathers into our Agenda'...

The fact that you guys can't lay off of it is the reason The Inq is #1 every day.




By sapiens74 on 9/26/2010 2:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
Where's Mick today?

Please tell me he's not in the local Apple store showing how his Droid can take micro SD cards, to the befuddlement of store.




Ofcourse!
By Spind on 9/27/2010 2:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
...the cold water started coming into the North Atlantic due to global warming! Yknow, warming melts ice...




Really?
By Spivonious on 9/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Really?
By solarrocker on 9/24/2010 4:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sea ice is mostly made up from fallen snow in the arctic and an-arctic. Because of this it is mostly fresh water. Also when it forms from ocean water it does not form instantly but slowly, this pushes the salt out the ice creating fresh water, of course there could be some salt still in it because it forms layers, but mostly it is fresh water then.


RE: Really?
By diggernash on 9/24/2010 5:57:13 PM , Rating: 5
Mix up some salt water solution, allow it to freeze and taste the ice that is at the very top. It won't be salty. A similar process has been used for small-scale desalination in cold climates. It happens mostly due to the impact that salt has on the freezing temperature of water.

My on topic tidbit is to point out that the earth continues to self regulate no matter what us insignificant humans throw at her.


RE: Really?
By raumkrieger on 9/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/24/2010 11:28:36 PM , Rating: 5
We certainly could mess up the Earth's balance if we wanted to - a massive barrage of nuclear weapons, for instance, could effect a real and immediate change on the ecosystem. And on the other end of the spectrum, it took cyanobacteria millions of years to change the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere from near nil to its current 21%. Human activity, while relatively brief in geological time, is partially responsible for the current state of the atmosphere. Whether the changes that we have wrought and will continue to work on the environment are sufficient and of a nature to eventually make the world unamenable to human life I leave an open question. Here, I only challenge your assertion that we are not capable of affecting the balance of nature.


RE: Really?
By B3an on 9/24/2010 11:28:57 PM , Rating: 3
Cant beleive the stupidity of you posters.

Yes the earth has been around for million of years, but incase you didn't realise (and i honestly think you might not from how plain stupid that comment is!)... it's never had almost 7 billion humans on it.

The amount of people alive today is more than all the people combined that have ever existed on this planet, fact.

You can easily see all the cities and things humans have created from space, or just go view google maps, and look at all the land covered by urban areas and other human architecture.. go into any large city and see all the pollution often above it blocking out the sun, something i see almost every day driving into London. Even on TV you have things about this and countless documentaries about the rain forests disappearing... again something you can actually see from space or for yourself on a map.

Not saying i totally agree with all the global warming stuff, but some of these things literally stare you in face and idiots like you still say this bull.


RE: Really?
By TSS on 9/25/2010 7:12:21 AM , Rating: 5
Seeing stuff from space isn't that big of a deal. I'd be more interested in looking further down, in the oceans, of which we know even less then outer space!

Miles down in the crushing depths, there is life, next to volcanic vents. No human could've even IMAGINED life existing there. But it does, and in quite the number too. We didn't know this untill we saw it with our own eyes (well, ROV cameras, but still).

How is it, that if our imagination can't even comprehend life, that our technology is capable of wiping it out?

Nature is much more vast then you think it to be. In fact, the earth is billions of years old, not millions. You want documentairies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4HL_-VT2Y here's part of one. The most interesting thing about this? @6:30:

"It is thought that a violent impact like this happened 6 times in the earths history. If there was life, it's assumed it was also wiped out, only to begin again".

I seriously doubt we could wipe out life, and even if we could, we couldn't prevent it from starting again. So can we affect nature? In the extremely, extremely short term, yes. In the long term, never. The whole global warming debate is just wether us humans will survive it.

And not even that, it's which humans will be rich enough to build themselves shelters to "survive" our effects. Yknow, untill they die of old age. Nature itself will survive anything we throw at it.


RE: Really?
By Schrag4 on 9/25/2010 9:33:37 AM , Rating: 3
Your argument is very logical. HOWEVER, extremist environmentalists don't consider humans or anything they do to be "nature." Therefore, they won't listen to a word you say. They believe we should live to minimize our impact on OTHER nature, and if we can't, we shouldn't be allowed to live. Please note that I said extremests, so don't take offense (unless you're an extremest, in which case, feel free to take offense).


RE: Really?
By TSS on 9/26/2010 8:25:34 AM , Rating: 1
Actually yes i'm an extremist :p I tend to disregard alot of stuff that simply isn't logical. And always try to find the logic in stuff that doesn't appear logical.

So i'd be an Extremist Logicalist :p Funnely enough that makes me pretty anti-social, too....


RE: Really?
By B3an on 9/26/2010 12:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
I never said anything about wiping out all life on earth...

And why would humans have to fully comprehend life in order to wipe it out? We've already wiped out whole species.

I doubt we could wipe out all life too. But my point was about what effects we are having on life and the planet right now, and also to our own living conditions which are affected by this, when we have the ability to improve this. Just because life and the earth will exist long after we're all dead does not mean we should not care about what we're doing to it now. That's extremely selfish.


RE: Really?
By TSS on 9/26/2010 8:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying don't care, but i'm saying be realistic.

The tiger is going to be wiped out soon, even though their very protected and everything is beeing done to keep them alive. Yet a few simple poachers are going to succeed. If we can't protect an icon of many children's hearts, how can we possible affect the enviroment on a global scale, both positively or negatively?

You want to improve air quality? Tell the Chinese to stop bringing a coal plant online once a week. Which they need to power the factories to make all the crap americans use. So how the hell are you even remotely going to be successfull in that area?

You could, yknow, just *give* them clean coal technology. But noooo there's money to be made there, so unless they pay the green, they can't go green.

We don't have the ability to do squat because of our own selfishness. How much electricity did we both waste, debating something on an internet site that will be forgotten within days? Couldn't we have used that electricity to power a gigantic fence around tiger territory so our children would still be able to witness this magnificent beast?

No. Simply, No.

BTW, wiping out species isn't a good arguement either. My example is the Panda. Their numbers are dwindling simply because they refuse to mate, while humans are making everything possible for that to happen. With everything going on in the world we can't even get 2 animals to screw eachother even though their right nexto eachother?

Powerfull bunch we are....

So what can we do? Just be aware of what you're actually doing to the enviroment. That's it. If enough people are aware, as soon as the technology arrives, we will do something about it.

But as long as i'm aware that, while me and my dad live really really sober yet we produce a garbage bag a day filled with garbage, 90% of which is *just* packaging of what we use.... Alot of things need to change before i can even start contributing to an better enviroment.


RE: Really?
By roadhog1974 on 9/26/2010 11:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
Pandas refuse to mate because a fundamental part of the
mating ritual is two male pandas fighting over the female,
the zoos were keeping all the males seperate, so in the
end they were not doing everything they could to make sure
the pandas mated, they were in fact preventing the pandas
from mating.


RE: Really?
By Zoomer on 9/26/2010 11:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
IVF?


RE: Really?
By JKflipflop98 on 9/27/2010 12:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
I'd just like to point out that "I'd be more interested in looking further down, in the oceans, of which we know even less then outer space !" is a total crock.

We may not know all about every little sea crusty down there, but we have been down to the bottom of the oceans. There are literally numberless other planets out there with oceans that we've never even seen before. We don't have the first clue as to whats at the bottom of those.


RE: Really?
By NullSubroutine on 9/25/2010 11:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
Humans were naturally created by this planet, we are not alien to it (at least with current evidence). Hence, whatever humans do is natural to the planet Earth as Earth created us. Whatever we do, whatever moral designation we give our actions, will not delude the fact are actions are natural to the Earth.

We must also consider that the Earth, who has been ever changing, does not desire, or is not meant to stay the "same". Changes in the status quo on Earth however at times as catastrophic as they may has lead to quicker advancement in Earths biosphere.

In my opinion "Global Warming" or even "Climate Change" hijacked a very good philosophy of environmentalism conservation, to not use resources too quickly and to attempt to find ways to recycle and reuse said resources. Not because it will destroy the planet, but will allow us (the human species) expand without overt need of war and destruction when those resources become so thin we must compete over them.

Finally, climate change is also a joke predicated on the premise that Earth temperatures do not vary +/- within short periods of time. There certainly is not enough evidence to say that variation in temperature requires long periods of time and cannot occur quickly and drastically. It also goes without saying given a short enough time period, and manipulating how a graph looks can make any change in temperature to be catastrophic.

/end just woke up ramble


RE: Really?
By Peter898 on 9/26/2010 11:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The amount of people alive today is more than all the people combined that have ever existed on this planet, fact.

That is not a fact, it's bad math and poor logic .
http://www.prb.org/articles/2002/howmanypeoplehave...

quote:
World population in mid-2002 6,215,000,000

quote:
Number who have ever been born 106,456,367,669

quote:
Percent of those ever born who are living in 2002 5.8


RE: Really?
By Shatbot on 9/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By phantom505 on 9/25/2010 9:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
You and your "evidence". I don't live in NZ and I don't get sunburned. So that's *your* problem right?


RE: Really?
By Denigrate on 9/25/2010 12:36:17 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong. Your ozone "hole" has been shown to be a naturally occuring phenomenon that opens and closes throughout the year. Just another knee jerk reaction to something the "scientific community" didn't properly understand.

No matter what we do, the earth is going to continue to change, and our efforts to "make things better" by manipulating things that are only partially understood, will likely end up making things worse.


RE: Really?
By Alexvrb on 9/24/2010 9:01:01 PM , Rating: 3
Liar! Al Gore told me that only he had the power to regulate the Earth's temperature!

Excelsior!


RE: Really?
By ekv on 9/25/2010 3:05:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. You watch, next thing for Al Gore is to claim that AGW caused the ice to melt ... and given the salinity levels it must have been an even more massive amount of ice that melted than previously thought.

More proof that everything proves AGW. Where does it stop?


RE: Really?
By phantom505 on 9/25/2010 9:25:06 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah just like all the civilizations that went became extinct, lost their civilization, or simply died off.

The risk is too high to ignore something we might be able to modify. Read some Jared Diamond.

If you were a gambling, would you put your life on the line if the the chances were that you would die were 10%? How about 5%? 2%? I wouldn't do it if there was a chance at all greater than the risk of daily life.

And the other interesting point is, even if global warming is a complete hoax, is pollution? Do you want to live in Los Angeles or New York when the air quality was more or less deadly in the summer? Did you know that US supply of potable water is becoming more and more strapped? Not because of lack of water, lack of CLEAN water.

Another upside you *might* be able to wrap your brain around is that we're inventing a new economy. Now I'm sure the Libertarian, "nothing's ever gone wrong in my life and I have a great easy IT job I can play WoW at and the government will take care of me, oh wait I hate that RAWR" crowd will show up and scream about it, BUT, I much prefer science and engineering exploration into energy sources much over the Republican, let's go make a war somewhere method of creating economy.

See, what you "doubters" don't get is that it almost doesn't even matter if it real. But on the off chance it is, it is worth risking the planet?

Get some perspective aside from your nonsense that really doesn't bear out.


RE: Really?
By talonvor on 9/25/2010 1:15:50 AM , Rating: 2
No, because the salt doesnt freeze. What you end up with is pure water ice.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki