 |
 |
Man's polluting is far worse than anyone imagined…
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
"Altruism is killing America. We who want to save America must repudiate this killer, root and branch. We must understand and explain to others that the acceptance of altruism necessitates the violation of individual rights... and that the arguments for altruism are baseless..."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Damn those crazy Martians and their gas-guzzling SUVs!
|
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
OK, geek question. Is Globe a generic reference to any planetary representation - so you could have a globe of Earth, a globe of Mars, etc. etc. or is it specific to Earth.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Globe is a geometric term for a three dimensional sphere, therefore generic when used to describe a planet.
|
 "That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Perhaps the SUN has something to do with BOTH Earth and Mars getting warmer?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
"Altruism is killing America. We who want to save America must repudiate this killer, root and branch. We must understand and explain to others that the acceptance of altruism necessitates the violation of individual rights... and that the arguments for altruism are baseless..."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Can't be. Hundreds of thousands of tons of human detritus have been scattered about the moon and it's not changed one whit.
|
This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Randman
Can't be. Hundreds of thousands of tons of human detritus have been scattered about the moon and it's not changed one whit.
Well do the little roving mars robots they use have internal combustion engines? That must be it.
|
|
"Altruism is killing America. We who want to save America must repudiate this killer, root and branch. We must understand and explain to others that the acceptance of altruism necessitates the violation of individual rights... and that the arguments for altruism are baseless..."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
…OMG I got it! GWB has a secret project that pipes pollution from Earth to Mars via some sort of worm hole thing!
THAT'S why he was so interested in Mars!
|
|
"Altruism is killing America. We who want to save America must repudiate this killer, root and branch. We must understand and explain to others that the acceptance of altruism necessitates the violation of individual rights... and that the arguments for altruism are baseless..."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
Well do the little roving mars robots they use have internal combustion engines? That must be it.
Ahh, don't forget the lunar rovers and the lunar golf carts. Much larger.
Now, we just need the headline: Uranus is also getting hot and dirty.
|
This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
This is obviously a conspiracy by the liberal scientists to get more funding, and has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. Besides, as a strong Bush supporter, I don't believe in any science unless it comes with large campaign contributions.
— Wait! What? Is that not the party line? Are Republicans supposed to believe in science today? I thought we were still arguing about the 19th century theory of evolution. Selectively picking and choosing — rejecting all modern biology and climate science, but accepting this one Mars study — is a bit ridiculous. But I guess to find scientific results that both heavily polluting industries and far-right religious groups can accept requires you to look to Mars (or other celestial bodies which orbit the earth).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Appalachia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by tie
This is obviously a conspiracy by the liberal scientists to get more funding, and has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. Besides, as a strong Bush supporter, I don't believe in any science unless it comes with large campaign contributions.
— Wait! What? Is that not the party line? Are Republicans supposed to believe in science today? I thought we were still arguing about the 19th century theory of evolution. Selectively picking and choosing — rejecting all modern biology and climate science, but accepting this one Mars study — is a bit ridiculous. But I guess to find scientific results that both heavily polluting industries and far-right religious groups can accept requires you to look to Mars (or other celestial bodies which orbit the earth).
I noticed you didn't dispute this, you simply made a smart-assed reply and hid back under your grant-sponsered rock.
|
Retired
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Didn't dispute what? I just read the quoted article, which was very short on specifics. I haven't looked any further into it. But the article does say,
Malin said. "Sometime in the distant past, Mars was colder. Subsequent to that, it has warmed, and we are seeing the earlier deposits erode away."
The scientists said the causes and time frame of the Martian climate change are not clear.
Time frame of climate change is all important. There is natural climate change on earth, but from what I know it is slower than the current human-caused climate change. If the Mars climate change is of similar magnitude and speed as the current earth climate change, then that might be a cause to rethink this. But there's no information as yet, according to the article. It seems unlikely that in the near future (next fifty years) we'll be able to get this kind of information for Mars (at the very minimum we would have to return many ice core samples from Mars to Earth). Of course, the Earth and Mars are also very different, so one has to be careful drawing conclusions about the Earth (a well-studied climate) from the very different and poorly studied climate of Mars.
Additionally, nowhere in the quoted article did it say anything like, the researchers claim (and experts agree) that this casts doubts on theories of human-caused global warming on earth. The only people making this claim are nonexperts here in this thread.
What's my grant-sponsored rock? I pay for my own Scientific American magazine subscription.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
…OMG I got it! GWB has a secret project that pipes pollution from Earth to Mars via some sort of worm hole thing!
THAT'S why he was so interested in Mars!
George Bush doesn't care for Martians!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Not to mention that Mars doesn't orbit the Earth, speaking of science.
I've never seen Bush dispute the Theory of Evolution. There are holes in the theory that need to be filled, how can life suddenly spring from nothing in order to evolve in the first place being the largest one I can think of.
Global Warming is a theory, as well. Historical and empirical evidence point to warming as being a natural cycle of the planet, and that is why a reference to Mars (and Venus, as a matter of fact) is valid, since those planets have no manmade pollution to blame for their warming, yet they are both doing it.
BTW, you realize that it's well-documented that Scientific American routinely refuses submissions by scientists who dispute Global Warming, aren't you? You just admitted to using a heavy-handedly biased publication as your reference, congratulations.
|
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by tie
Additionally, nowhere in the quoted article did it say anything like, the researchers claim (and experts agree) that this casts doubts on theories of human-caused global warming on earth.
The scientists that support man-caused global warming NEVER question it.
When data was gathered that showed that the sun's output was increasing they shrug it off.
When data suggested that in the past CO2 levels raised AFTER the climate temperature rose naturally (which seems to be the case now) they ignore it dispute it outright. (the same data shows that the global temperature has risen before, they ignore that too)
When they realized that the rising CO2 levels and the rising temperature are NOT rising at a similar rate they justify it by saying that the it could be the effect like a "stuck thermostat" (yes they actually said this) in which the temperature catastrophically shifts after the build up of greenhouse gases.
When they are shown data which shows that the air temperature is not rising like the surface temperature (the air SHOULD warm first, then the surface) they cast it aside.
They only believe one thing: it's all man's fault. Those that dissent are laughed at or out right disparaged.
So yeah, they aren't going to admit that this may be linked to the sun's temperature increase, I don't think they ever will. Sad thing is, even if the earth started to cool off over the next several decades they STILL wouldn't admit anything, they will just try to figure out why the models failed and search for an explanation that doesn't dispute global warming .
I'm not saying they are wrong or that the dissenters are right, but I have to be suspicious of any "scientist" that can't even take opposing evidence seriously. They consider this to be settled and it just isn't, not yet, not by a long shot.
|
|
"Altruism is killing America. We who want to save America must repudiate this killer, root and branch. We must understand and explain to others that the acceptance of altruism necessitates the violation of individual rights... and that the arguments for altruism are baseless..."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
Uhhh.. No, thats pretty good proof of global warming considering Mars has no atmosphere. If we continue destroying Earth's atmosphere we will have no climate regulation and we'll be just like Mars.
|
|
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Macrobat
I've never seen Bush dispute the Theory of Evolution. There are holes in the theory that need to be filled, how can life suddenly spring from nothing in order to evolve in the first place being the largest one I can think of.
That is not a hole as the TOE does not deal with where the origin of life. Back to Biology class.
Historical and empirical evidence point to warming as being a natural cycle of the planet, and that is why a reference to Mars (and Venus, as a matter of fact) is valid, since those planets have no manmade pollution to blame for their warming, yet they are both doing it.
No one is saying Global Warming is 100% man-made, the fact that Mars, and potentially Venus, have warming cooling cycles bears little significance to wether or not our warming is being speed up by the 'human' factor. Until enough data can be collected that shows the same rate or cycles on both Earth and Mars we can draw absolutely zero conclusions, to do so either way would reveal our biased hand so-to-speak.
BTW, you realize that it's well-documented that Scientific American routinely refuses submissions by scientists who dispute Global Warming, aren't you?
You do realize that they have to REVIEW the paper first don't you? Any they do reject plenty of papers on both sides of the issues, you only stated a truism, enough said.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Macrobat
Not to mention that Mars doesn't orbit the Earth, speaking of science.
I've never seen Bush dispute the Theory of Evolution. There are holes in the theory that need to be filled, how can life suddenly spring from nothing in order to evolve in the first place being the largest one I can think of.
Oh GAWD, not again.
That is NOT a hole in Evolution. Evolution doesn't even ATTEMPT to explain that.
Guess what? - Evolution doesn't explain the Big Bang, either, nor the movement of the continents.
And again, insisting on italicizing "Theory" just indicates your complete ignorance of scientific process.
In science, "Theory"=="Fact", for all practical purposes.
You're thinking of a "hypothesis", which is what is colloquially called a "theory".
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
