|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bjonothan wrote: |
I can't believe you people jump to such conclusions about what is happening when there is no real evidence to suggest that we caused this. You know how you all (actually me as well  ) complain about Koreans jumping on the bandwagon when something goes wrong without actually knowing the full story? That is what everyone else is doing right now. If the sea level used to be low and now it is much higher, wouldn't it be safe to say that this is not a new thing? I always thought that scientists were some of the smartest people on the planet. However, I learnt as a child that if you don't know the full story about something you should shut up. Generating this kind of fear before really knowing what is happening is one of the most stupid things I have seen in my life. There used to be a land bridge between Tasmania and Australia. The Bass straight is now one of the roughest seas in the world. Who caused that? The Aborigines? Not enough is known to be shooting their mouths off about it. |
Since you have cited zero evidence for you position, where did you come by it? Have you read anything on the subject? I mean, besides something in a newspaper planted by Exxon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bjonothan
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Location: All over the place
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't think that I would have to show any evidence on something that I thought most people with an education of almost any form would know. Didn't you learn at school that the sea used to be a lot more shallow than it is today? Also I don't know anything about exxon. I thought that posting something so simple would be ok without posting links. Anyway, I guess I was wrong.  Check out the "Before European Settlement" part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bjonothan wrote: |
I didn't think that I would have to show any evidence on something that I thought most people with an education of almost any form would know. Didn't you learn at school that the sea used to be a lot more shallow than it is today? Also I don't know anything about exxon. I thought that posting something so simple would be ok without posting links. Anyway, I guess I was wrong. Check out the "Before European Settlement" part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines |
The problem is, since you haven't educated yourself, it's kind of like discussing trigonometry with someone who has only studied long division.
The point that the Earth changes is both obvious and meaningless in the context of the current debate. Don't have my links handy. If you are interested, I'll supply them later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bjonothan
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Location: All over the place
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, I would be real interested in why you say that I haven't educated myself. Your answer shoots my theory down with a kind of "because I said so" theory. Please post some links. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Real life impact, folks, and we're just getting started. Let me be repetetive for the Oil folk and the Exxon-blinded: It's not about the fact that things change, it's about the fact that WE didn't have billions of people on the planet, cities of millions to be flooded, etc. And, and I can't figure out why people cannot get their heads around this SIMPLE, SIMPLE little nugget, given that the PATTERN of increase in GH gases is DIFFERENT due to our influence, we cannot be certain what the impact will be. When you apply Chaos theory/uncertainty to that little bit of info, it can get downright scary.
As you know, I DO consider chaotic cycles with this issue. That is why I was able to state emphatically things are changing significantly faster than even the IPCC report stated. It's only three months later and the evidence is already piling up to support this.
Anyway...
Damage from climate change may cost Alaska $10 bln
| Quote: |
Collapsing bridges, bursting sewer pipes and crumbling roads caused by global warming could cost Alaska up to $10 billion over the next few decades, researchers said.
Atmospheric temperatures in the northernmost U.S. state have risen by more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit (around 2 degrees Celsius) over the past five decades, Peter Larsen, a resource economist at the University of Alaska Anchorage, told a climate change conference in the Central American country of Belize.
...Some coastal areas like the Inupiat village of Shishmaref on a narrow Chukchi Sea barrier island are disappearing as sea levels rise, forcing a $100 million relocation plan. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bjonothan wrote: |
| Yeah, I would be real interested in why you say that I haven't educated myself. Your answer shoots my theory down with a kind of "because I said so" theory. Please post some links. |
Dude, the stuff you are saying is all straight out of the Exxon-paid global warming deniers handbook. You need to understand where the info you believe comes from. Search on Exxon and global warming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zulu
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| postfundie wrote: |
| Listen...In case you haven't figured it out yet the earth has changed quite a bit over time...maybe you've heard of peopel finding sea creature fossils on top of mountains in Asia...If only some one had been there to stop that horrid event...Now the world is changing again...this time people will move from flooded coastal lands to Greenland... |
Well, maybe, but I can't think of another period in (pre-)history when there were 6.5 billion human beings to move. By the way, Greenland by that time won't really exist as we know it either - it's a mass of islands covered by an ice sheet. On the other hand - unlike George W and Hu Jintao - these may be very green by that time. The sky may not exactly be falling but global desertification rates and methane release from permafrost should give all concerned something to not be in denial about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsyfish
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Real life impact, folks, and we're just getting started. Let me be repetetive for the Oil folk and the Exxon-blinded: It's not about the fact that things change, it's about the fact that WE didn't have billions of people on the planet, cities of millions to be flooded, etc. And, and I can't figure out why people cannot get their heads around this SIMPLE, SIMPLE little nugget, given that the PATTERN of increase in GH gases is DIFFERENT due to our influence, we cannot be certain what the impact will be. When you apply Chaos theory/uncertainty to that little bit of info, it can get downright scary.
As you know, I DO consider chaotic cycles with this issue. That is why I was able to state emphatically things are changing significantly faster than even the IPCC report stated. It's only three months later and the evidence is already piling up to support this.
Anyway...
Damage from climate change may cost Alaska $10 bln
| Quote: |
Collapsing bridges, bursting sewer pipes and crumbling roads caused by global warming could cost Alaska up to $10 billion over the next few decades, researchers said.
Atmospheric temperatures in the northernmost U.S. state have risen by more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit (around 2 degrees Celsius) over the past five decades, Peter Larsen, a resource economist at the University of Alaska Anchorage, told a climate change conference in the Central American country of Belize.
...Some coastal areas like the Inupiat village of Shishmaref on a narrow Chukchi Sea barrier island are disappearing as sea levels rise, forcing a $100 million relocation plan. |
|
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations equal to the present level were in evidence 9,600 years ago, when temperatures were around the same as today's. *
There weren't 'billions of people on the planet, cities of millions to be flooded, etc.' There weren't factories pumping out carbon dioxide. EXXON and the IPCC weren't around to brainwash us. So what is the effect of greenhouse gasses? Negligible, I'd say.
I don't dispute that global warming is happening, and man (and woman) can (and in some areas are) screw(ing) up the planet. But there's a lot of hubris to think that man can change the climate.
We can, and will have to, adjust to global warming. Some people will benefit from the warming - it's rare that we hear about them - and some won't and need to adjust.
I don't know why this has become like the abortion debate in the USA. I understand that people take it seriously, but it seems like many people in the 'debate' can only sling arrows at their 'opposition.' It's turn or burn. You're either with us, or against us. I don't like that kind of dogma as far as religion, abortion, or climate change. But I'm not stupid enough to think it will go away.
*And, Dude, the stuff I'm saying is straight out of Science 284, June 18, 1999 p 1971. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gypsyfish wrote: |
| *And, Dude, the stuff I'm saying is straight out of Science 284, June 18, 1999 p 1971. |
Thanks for the info and, dude, no need to be snarky. You're actually arguing with info, not just rhetoric. I'll check your CO2 level info, but I think it's incorrect: it hasn't been this high at any time in the last 600,000 years. Now, there was a warm period with temps the same as now sometime back in the last 1000 years or so... maybe you're confusing some info? Your mag is 8 years old. I'm guessing the info has improved a lot since then. The ice core data wasn't completed till after that, I believe.
EDIT: Ah, here you go:
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html
The Antarctic Ice Cores are THE standard in CO2 measurements. I'll take that over whatever the source was in 1999. You may be referring to the one of the two Dryas periods...
EDIT 2: Ah, found your abstract: stomatal frequency signal?? Over ice cores? C'mon, man... The information from such sources, as compared to ice cores, has been shown to be downright unreliable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bjonothan
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Location: All over the place
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I am from Australia and know nothing about this company called exxon. I am just saying what common sense tells me. I don't believe that anyone really knows what is really happening, and I think it is stupid to give that opinion as a professional unless you really know. I live in Melbourne and I think it is getting colder here actually. I think in the not too distant future there will be red faces and apologies for giving out false information. The main fact is that the world has changed before, and there were no factories and cars to cause the kind of stuff they are saying will happen. I do think that we should be taking more care of the earth though. If it does turn out to be correct, we will have taken all the right steps and done our duty as the inhabitants of our planet that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
bj, man, it's nearly impossible to discuss this with someone who has zero background. Common sense answers do not always bear out in the real world, and especially in science.
This is THE best site I've come across for getting started with Global Warming/Climate Change.
Enjoy.
Wow!!
EDIT:
From that site:
| Quote: |
After 1988
During the 1990s, further ice core measurements indicated that during past glacial periods, temperature changes had preceded CO2 changes by a few centuries. Was it necessary to give up the simple hypothesis that had attracted scientists ever since Tyndall in the 19th century � that changes in CO2 were a simple and direct cause of ice ages? ...most of the evidence pointed to a slight lag. It seemed that rises or falls in carbon dioxide levels had not initiated the glacial cycles.
...In the 1960s, painstaking studies had shown that subtle shifts in our planet's orbit around the Sun (called "Milankovitch cycles") set the timing of ice ages. The amount of sunlight that fell in a given latitude and season varied predictably over millenia, altering how long snow lingered in the spring, which crucially affected how much sunlight was absorbed.The fact that carbon dioxide levels lagged behind the orbital effect should have been no surprise. But now this could be seen as the first step in a powerful feedback cycle. For even a small change in the gas level would bring further changes in the global heat balance, which would in turn alter the gas level, which... and so forth. This suggested how tiny shifts in the Earth's orbit could be amplified into the enormous swings of glacial cycles. |
It's simple: Sun energy = warmer = more CO2 = hotter = more CO2 = hotter = more CO2 = hotter = more CO2 = hotter = more CO2 = hotter = more CO2...
| Quote: |
There were many ways temperature or other climate features could influence the carbon dioxide level one way or another. Perhaps variations of temperature and of weather patterns caused land vegetation to release extra CO2,...
A key point stood out. In the network of feedbacks that made up the climate system, CO2 was a potent amplifier. This did not prove by itself that the greenhouse effect was responsible for the warming seen in the 20th century. And it did not say how much warming the rise of CO2 might bring in the future. What was now beyond doubt was that the greenhouse effect had to be taken very seriously indeed. Joining the chorus were analyses of ancient climates, using geological data entirely independent of the computer models. They found a "climate sensitivity"� the response of temperature to a rise in the CO2 level � in the same range as computer models were predicting for future greenhouse warming...
...By 2005, scientists could compare sophisticated computer estimates of the greenhouse effect with measurements that showed warming in most of the world's ocean basins (it was the oceans that absorbed most of any additional heat energy). The calculations pinned down an imbalance � the Earth was now taking in from sunlight nearly a watt per square meter more than it was radiating back into space, averaged over the planet's entire surface. That was enough energy to cause truly serious effects if it continued. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies, called it the final "smoking gun" proof of greenhouse effect warming. |
The CO2 level is approaching 400... never seen in the time of man... at least, nothing resembling modern man... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
The cruelties of global warming
| Quote: |
Those who cause the fewest greenhouse gas emissions suffer the most as the climate changes. But those responsible for the most damage refuse to pay up
By Daniel Howden
Published: 29 May 2007
Peru's glaciers are melting. High in the Andes, freak hailstorms and cold snaps are freezing llamas to death. In the north of Kenya, unprecedented droughts have driven herdsmen into deadly battles for the few water holes. In the mountains of Tajikistan, near the border with Afghan-istan, flooding and landslides are washing away the crops.
Across the developing world, man-made climate change is an indisputable reality and it is already hitting hardest against the poorest nations.
Kenya
Already on the fringes of inhabitable environments, the Turkana people of northern Kenya have found themselves among 11 million people in east Africa affected by biblical-scale droughts. Many people have been displaced and huge numbers of cattle and camels, vital for survival, have died.
Anna Nangolol says: "My name means 'Born at a river', but the river has been dry since April four years ago. Past droughts in Turkana have been short. The rains would return. But this drought never seems to finish."
The Turkana give names to the increasingly frequent droughts they are facing. They called the 2005-06 drought Atiaktiak ng'awiyei, or "the one that divided homes" because so many families split up to survive, migrating in all directions to the borders, towns and relief camps.
Turkana people herd animals for a living. They move cattle, sheep and goats to follow meagre grazing fed by scarce rains. But droughts seem to be becoming far longer. A way of life that has survived for hundreds of years is under serious threat. Communities fear for their future.
Peru
Nature can be extreme and threatening to established order in the Sandia river basin of southern Peru, but many of the threats have been increased by climate change, including an intensifying El Ni�o cycle and ongoing Andean glacier melt.
During the rainy season, between November and February, people are vulnerable to flash floods. The surrounding mountains pose further dangers of rock falls and landslides. Sabina Soncco lives in the town of Sandia. She says: "When the water is high you can't even sleep. It's very frightening, especially when there's a lot of rain, like in February. I just want to run away. I just think, 'Where can I go?' But I don't, because my children and all my things are here.
"The last time it happened was last year. All the water came down with papaya trees and other things. After about an hour, the water went down; it always goes down, but it's very frightening when it's so high.
"Every year it varies. It depends on the amount of rain. Sometimes there's a lot and sometimes there's not so much. We just have to see what happens. I stay here because ... well, where else can I go? If I could, I would go somewhere else."
Bangladesh
Laila Begum lives on a silt bank in Bangladesh's giant Jamuna river. The massive river delta is home to millions of people caught between the melting glaciers of the Himalayas and the warming, rising seas. She moved here in 1998 when she lost her first home in a flood. The silt bank keeps eroding so her family is forced to move their home around.
"Twenty or 30 years ago we could understand from the water temperature and the wind direction if the flood was going to come," says Ms Begum. "Before, it was mostly monsoon flooding in July or August, but now the rains continue into October. That causes problems because it's when we should be planting our crops. Oxfam gave us mobile phones so we can call for help."
Nicaragua
Howard Fern�ndez, is a Miskito, farming in San Andr�s de Bocay community, Nicaragua. The Miskitos, indigenous people of central America, have been living and farming to natural rhythms for centuries.
But now something is going wrong. In the past few years, they say they have no longer been able to predict the seasons so they don't know when to plant. Their traditional signals of rain, such as eagles and lightning, have disappeared. "The summer now is winter. April used to be summer, but it rained all month. Now, in May [winter] it doesn't rain. We listen to the thunder, we see the lightning that should let us know the rain is coming, but it is not. Because of this climate change, we are suffering the decrease of our farm's production."
Tajikistan
Tajikistan is a mountainous country which experienced significant retreat in its glaciers over the 20th century. Global warming is forecast to speed this, initially increasing the volume of water coming off the mountains in some places, but over the longer term causing a catastrophic decrease in water availability.
Mirzokhonova Munavara is an agronomist in the drought-hit region of Khatlon, near the border with Afghanistan. He says: "There has been a change in climate in the past 15 years. It gets extremely hot, then extremely cold. People are struggling here because we do not have the rain at times to water our land. We cannot leave this village because we have nowhere to go and no money. We need to learn how to adapt to grow food." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| bj, man, it's nearly impossible to discuss this with someone who has zero background. Common sense answers do not always bear out in the real world, and especially in science. |
Oh, and please do tell us where your extensive background comes from. Why is it that you feel you can condescend to anyone on this topic? You've read some politicized websites on the topic that agrees with your warped philosophy? That's what I thought...And then you come here to this forum and pretend you're some sort of expert.
Tell you what...you show us where you've been published so that we know you have more than a "zero background" and I'll be suitably impressed and read all the condescending posts you want to make. Until then, STFU and let other people express their views...even if (gasp) they don't agree with your "zero background" background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations equal to the present level were in evidence 9,600 years ago, when temperatures were around the same as today's. *
There weren't 'billions of people on the planet, cities of millions to be flooded, etc.' There weren't factories pumping out carbon dioxide. EXXON and the IPCC weren't around to brainwash us. So what is the effect of greenhouse gasses? Negligible, I'd say.
|
Whoa whoa.
CO2 concentrations were the same and temperature were the same. Okay
1) Which direction did they go?
2) When looking at a graph, where are we on the natural CO2 emission cycle? a peak/valley? Is the peak of the appropriate gradient?
All those questions aside, it's difficult to dismiss the idea that GG emissions are negligible without a study of where we are at on the natural cycles of these gasses.
| Quote: |
I don't dispute that global warming is happening, and man (and woman) can (and in some areas are) screw(ing) up the planet. But there's a lot of hubris to think that man can change the climate. |
That doesn't make it implausible, nor false.
| Quote: |
| If the sea level used to be low and now it is much higher, wouldn't it be safe to say that this is not a new thing? |
| Quote: |
| I always thought that scientists were some of the smartest people on the planet. However, I learnt as a child that if you don't know the full story about something you should shut up. |
By this logic, nobody on this board would be saying word one about anything EVER. The simple fact is that nobody can know the WHOLE story on the GW debate. The problem is that one has to weed through crappy misinformation that other people take as misinformation. The global warming supporters, as questionable as some of their antics have been, have seen their science stand the tests. Global warming detractors see their science being ripped apart with very little exception. SOME scientists provide evidence for OTHER possible explanations that manage to withstand scrutiny but for the most part, their theories tend to drift alone.
| Quote: |
| Generating this kind of fear before really knowing what is happening is one of the most stupid things I have seen in my life. |
I agree to an extent. But to disregards what the scientific community on the whole accepts as true is wishful thinking and ignorant to an extreme: It wreaks of a need to politicize the debate.
And that is just juvenile.
I jumped into this debate late and I don't mean to imply that this is what you are doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bjonothan wrote: |
| I am from Australia and know nothing about this company called exxon. |
Um, if that's true ... how did you know it was a company?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
