Study: Oceans have cooled in recent years - Page 2

ballz2wallz · 09-22-2006, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The vast majority of scientists disagree with that statement. We have already had this discussion and I have already given you evidance to that effect.

To say the vast majority disagree is inaccurate. I would be willing to be my life that teh vast majority don't know, and there are a few who are confident that it is human caused, and a few who are confident it's not. That's how science goes. I've shown you plenty of scientists that do not agree with it as well.

WickedLou9 · 09-22-2006, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

To say the vast majority disagree is inaccurate. I would be willing to be my life that teh vast majority don't know, and there are a few who are confident that it is human caused, and a few who are confident it's not. That's how science goes. I've shown you plenty of scientists that do not agree with it as well.

no, it is entirely accurate. Read the article that you posted beyond the title to see yet more proof.

ballz2wallz · 09-22-2006, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The vast majority of scientists disagree with that statement. We have already had this discussion and I have already given you evidance to that effect.

From the same article you posted

Ok? That's hardly the 'vast majority of scientists'.

That's one guy that says many of his colleagues disagree with him. Again, that's how science goes.

WickedLou9 · 09-22-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Ok? That's hardly the 'vast majority of scientists'.

Well we can argue sematics if you want but what is the point? I don't know the percentage of those who agree vs those who do not agree. But those who do not agree that it is atleast in part caused by humans are in the small minority.

You can use whatever words you feel comfortable with to talk about proportions but the fact is that there are many more scientists who agree with me than there are that agree with you.

ballz2wallz · 09-22-2006, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

the fact is that there are many more scientists who agree with me than there are that agree with you.

Is it really, or are they just the loudest, and the ones you hear about the most?

Diesel66 · 09-22-2006, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Isn't it also arrogant to say that the billions of tons of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere each day have no affect?

yes when it is 7 bil compared to 200 bil from natural sources .

6SpeedTA95 · 09-22-2006, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

yes when it is 7 bil compared to 200 bil from natural sources .

But still, people say we have no affect? There's a difference between NO affect and a LITTLE affect. I dont think we're responsible for the vast majority of warming. But at this point I can't rule out the possibility that we may have an affect even if its 10% or 5% or 1%.

Diesel66 · 09-22-2006, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

But still, people say we have no affect? There's a difference between NO affect and a LITTLE affect. I dont think we're responsible for the vast majority of warming. But at this point I can't rule out the possibility that we may have an affect even if its 10% or 5% or 1%.

Well when you look at the past warming trends they show the warming started before the co2 jumped. CO2 rise helped push the warming higher, but was not the cause of the warming.

WickedLou9 · 09-22-2006, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Is it really, or are they just the loudest, and the ones you hear about the most?

No. It is really.

WickedLou9 · 09-22-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Well when you look at the past warming trends they show the warming started before the co2 jumped. CO2 rise helped push the warming higher, but was not the cause of the warming.

The earth can naturally processes only so much CO2. The rain forrests, the algae in the ocean, etc. There sctualy does reach a tipping point where we continue to pump in more and more but the earth can't process it any faster. That is a reason why CO2 is building up in the atmosphere.

Diesel66 · 09-22-2006, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The earth can naturally processes only so much CO2. The rain forrests, the algae in the ocean, etc. There sctualy does reach a tipping point where we continue to pump in more and more but the earth can't process it any faster. That is a reason why CO2 is building up in the atmosphere.

CO2 levels have been much higher then today's levels, so dont bring out that argument. The earth will survive, we will adapt/evolve. We have thrived during ice ages and warming periods.

ballz2wallz · 09-22-2006, 10:41 AM

At the breakfast, Gray said Earth was warmer in some medieval periods than it is today. Current weather models are good at predicting weather as far as 10 days in advance, but predicting up to 100 years into the future is “a great act of faith, and I don’t believe any of it,” he said.

WickedLou9 · 09-22-2006, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

CO2 levels have been much higher then today's levels, so dont bring out that argument. The earth will survive, we will adapt/evolve. We have thrived during ice ages and warming periods.

Of course we will survive. We just want to minimize the pain. We have sort of adapted our society just as the entire earth has, to the current state of affairs so to speak. Our infrastructure is arraged in such a way as to deal with the environment as it currently is. Everything from the mundane things like tourism to the essential like food production will be thrown into upheaval. Change can be painful. Why make it worse than it has to be?

ballz2wallz · 09-22-2006, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

We just want to minimize the pain.

What pain?

We have sort of adapted our society just as the entire earth has, to the current state of affairs so to speak. Our infrastructure is arraged in such a way as to deal with the environment as it currently is. Everything from the mundane things like tourism to the essential like food production will be thrown into upheaval. Change can be painful. Why make it worse than it has to be?

Thrown into upheaval? The only way things are 'thrown into upheaval' is if they are done quickly and drastically. You think this change is gonna happen quickly and drastically? It hasn't yet, what makes you think it suddenly will kick it into high gear? As the oceans rise their inches over the decades, we'll build farther inland. Nothing will be changed about our way of life.

Diesel66 · 09-22-2006, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Of course we will survive. We just want to minimize the pain. We have sort of adapted our society just as the entire earth has, to the current state of affairs so to speak. Our infrastructure is arraged in such a way as to deal with the environment as it currently is. Everything from the mundane things like tourism to the essential like food production will be thrown into upheaval. Change can be painful. Why make it worse than it has to be?

Well since the Kyoto treaty would cost half of the world's gdp and only possibly lower the temp 1/4 of a degree over 100 years, it is clear we have no choice in changing the climate for the better.

But we can change the climate for the worse so easily ?

WickedLou9 · 09-22-2006, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

What pain?

Thrown into upheaval? The only way things are 'thrown into upheaval' is if they are done quickly and drastically. You think this change is gonna happen quickly and drastically? It hasn't yet, what makes you think it suddenly will kick it into high gear? As the oceans rise their inches over the decades, we'll build farther inland. Nothing will be changed about our way of life.

It won't be something that happens over night but it will change eco systems. It will effect poor people from 3rd world countries the most. People without the resources to really pick up operations and move. Areas that once may have supported food production will no longer. Coastlines will be changed. You think we can just pick up NYC and move it further inland? Money and resources have been invested there. I don't know how you can say that nothing will be changed.

Scrum · 09-22-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

yes when it is 7 bil compared to 200 bil from natural sources .

Lets increase the amount of iodine in your body by 3.5% and you tell us how it doesn't affect you.

Diesel66 · 09-22-2006, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Lets increase the amount of iodine in your body by 3.5% and you tell us how it doesn't affect you.

ballz2wallz · 09-22-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It will effect poor people from 3rd world countries the most. People without the resources to really pick up operations and move.

Poor people with no resources have operations? People in third world countries are able to move than you or I in a first world country. Their shacks, cabins, or whatever they live in are more manageable.

Areas that once may have supported food production will no longer.

And new areas that support food production will appear. It makes no difference.

Coastlines will be changed.

And new coastlines will be formed.

You think we can just pick up NYC and move it further inland?

Just as people in every city tear down old buildings and build new ones...they'll tear down the uninhabitable and build newer ones elsewhere. That's part of life. This will happen over centuries. The life of a building will be well-served. I don't know why you're so emotional about this.

motivez · 09-23-2006, 01:35 PM

Isn't oceans cooling in other parts of the world as a result of polar ice melting, thus changing the direction a