ai_Droid Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 At the same time it is likely that we could have a bird flu pandemic that could wipe out tens of millions of lives, with no vaccine and little to stop it. Personally, I am more bothered about that at the moment. Because you face multiple life threatening threats, you should ignore them all and only deal with one? You still die eh? Besides, bird flu is a potential threat, climate change is very real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkah Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 No! The science pretty much all points to carbon adding to the problem, and I believe that is undeniable. However, where is the scientific proof that once the additional carbon is gone, that the natural global warming trend of the last 1600+ years is going to go away? I think you mean since 1600 rather than 1600 years. The sun only started brightening in the last 100-150 years. Which is unfortunate because this makes it all the harder to explain global warming because part of what we're seeing is an increase in solar radiation and part of it is man made. The question was how much is man made. Now we know basically how much the earth heats up based on CO2 in atmosphere and we know the CO2 output of mankind so we're able to make a decent estimate of how much of it is man made. But it's important to understand the comparitive level. The consensus on how much of the warming is down to the Sun ranges from about 10 to 30%. The idea that the sun comprises of up to 30% of the rise is really quite a fringe extreme too. But back to your question, if mankind stopped bashing out CO2 tomorrow somehow. Would the Earth get cooler. I'm not sure that's been something anyone specifically looked at, since it's impossible, but basically since mankind makes up 70-90% of the contribution towards current warming - yes. The world would get cooler because atmospheric CO2 would tend to go down because increased CO2 promotes plant life which tends to reverse the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and O2. And because, well, if mankind was putting out zero CO2 we'd all be dead and so presumably not still chopping down the Amazon (and elsewhere) which would probably start to grow back. And I suspect my front yard hedge would get truly massive if I wasn't alive to keep cutting the bastard back too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Tell me though, if you don't believe it's man made, why do you make all the effort you referred to just now? Where did I say it was not man made? Originally to conserve energy and cut down on greenhouse gases, but that was before the current euphoria. Show me? when I have time to find it again 'Un Demi' is about half a pint. In the UK, a pint of beer is legally 568.26125 ml. Same in ireland. Europe has given up trying to metric beer in this country, they don't impose anything on beer measures. You're actually wrong about everything you've posted in the last two weeks I think? Un Demi in brussels is un demi litre - 500ml. 504ml=18oz. As I said, next time you go to the pub..... You will see that I am not wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Where did I say it was not man made? Originally to conserve energy and cut down on greenhouse gases, but that was before the current euphoria. You said you didn't believe man could influence nature. That's the same as saying warming isn't man made isn't it? Un Demi in brussels is un demi litre - 500ml. 504ml=18oz. As I said, next time you go to the pub.....You will see that I am not wrong. No, that's a demi-litre. If you go into any bar and ask for un demi, you'll get roughly a half pint glass. Next time I go to the pub, I'll get a 560ml pint glass filed with a mixture of head and liquid. As someone said above, that's got fuck all to do with brussels, demi's or anything else your rattling on about. You're full of shit basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkah Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 At the same time it is likely that we could have a bird flu pandemic that could wipe out tens of millions of lives, with no vaccine and little to stop it. Personally, I am more bothered about that at the moment. You shouldn't be. In 1918 when people were dramatically less fit, the highest levels of lethality in Spanish Flu was between 2 and 5%. Now people are far more fit, we can treat people through the most life threatening of symptoms (respiratory failure etc) and we possess general anti-viral drugs. The idea of some Black Death type scenario is really quite far fetched. But you know, you're classifying things to worry about. Global warming isn't going to kill any of US any time soon. That doesn't mean it's not worth acting on. I'm not saying you should sit there worrying wringing your hands. Just try do your bit, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 The idea of some Black Death type scenario is really quite far fetched. That's very unrealistic. There is a high probability that man will be one day hit by a mutated virus that he can't kill off - or which takes a long time to develop drugs etc. to manage. whilst globalisation will only increase the probability of it spreading faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 No! The science pretty much all points to carbon adding to the problem, and I believe that is undeniable. However, where is the scientific proof that once the additional carbon is gone, that the natural global warming trend of the last 1600+ years is going to go away? Here is as good as we can get for "scientific proof" - as has been pointed out multiple times - yes there are natural cycles, but the anthromorphic changes are swamping these by orders of magnitude. If we stopped totally and just got natural cycles AND the earth getting into equilibrium with what we've already done you get the constant CO2 line on this graph. Believe it or not scientists are actually doing some work on this topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkah Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 The idea of some Black Death type scenario is really quite far fetched. That's very unrealistic. There is a high probability that man will be one day hit by a mutated virus that he can't kill off - or which takes a long time to develop drugs etc. to manage. whilst globalisation will only increase the probability of it spreading faster. I'm not much of an expert in this but I happen to have, oh don't we all, a mate who is a proper expert. He's a field MD with the health protection agency. Had dinner with him last night by sheer coincidence, he had a fun weekend with a couple of potential rabid bat bites. Anyway... after reading something interesting on these forums I asked him some questions about this stuff. Put the answers in a kind of dead thread a good while back: http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20067 Bottom line is that the real threat is oversold. The ways diseases spread, incubation times, the mechanics of infection and so on - basically any realistic model of a pandemic is nowhere near what people imagine it could be. It's a threat, and the professionals need to be vigilant certainly but we needn't all stock up on tamiflu. That killer virus which is highly contageous and highly lethal is very very unlikely indeed. However a pandemic which is quite serious and ends up killing the young, old, infirm etc is more or less garanteed just as flu outbreaks are right now really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 The idea of some Black Death type scenario is really quite far fetched. That's very unrealistic. There is a high probability that man will be one day hit by a mutated virus that he can't kill off - or which takes a long time to develop drugs etc. to manage. whilst globalisation will only increase the probability of it spreading faster. I gather the thing about deadly killer viruses is that they don't tend to spread very well because the people they infect are dead. Look at summit like Ebola. Utterly deadly, but shit at spreading. A virus doesn't actually want to kill the host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkah Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 There's viruses with very long incubation times, some of which are more or less 100% fatal (like Rabies). But they're quite hard to infect, needs blood. It's possible that a virus could appear which had a long incubation time and which attacked the central nervous system in the same way as rabies and was ultimately pretty much 100% fatal AND is highly communicable. However it's not likely to spontaneously evolve due to the way that viruses mutate in the first place. Of course some nasty bioweapons lab might be able to cook something up one day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 You don't even appear to understand the fundamental difference between dB when used as a start-0 scale for sound pressure level and as a negative mean point in relation to a maximum recording volume in the electronic domain. You don't, in short, appear to understand much of anything at all. Jesus, nor do I on that basis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karellen Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 There's viruses with very long incubation times, some of which are more or less 100% fatal (like Rabies). But they're quite hard to infect, needs blood. It's possible that a virus could appear which had a long incubation time and which attacked the central nervous system in the same way as rabies and was ultimately pretty much 100% fatal AND is highly communicable. However it's not likely to spontaneously evolve due to the way that viruses mutate in the first place. Of course some nasty bioweapons lab might be able to cook something up one day... Just like on Spooks last night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 There's viruses with very long incubation times, some of which are more or less 100% fatal (like Rabies). But they're quite hard to infect, needs blood. It's possible that a virus could appear which had a long incubation time and which attacked the central nervous system in the same way as rabies and was ultimately pretty much 100% fatal AND is highly communicable. However it's not likely to spontaneously evolve due to the way that viruses mutate in the first place. Of course some nasty bioweapons lab might be able to cook something up one day... Just like on Spooks last night Bring back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 what we're seeing is an increase in solar radiation and part of it is man made. Sorry to nitpick, but I wish Saw an article in Nature about how the effect on the ozone can't possibly be attributed to the known mechanisms (chlorine photolysis etc.), with potentially a 60% gap in what our current models can account for. Does this mean we shouldn't stop spraying CFCs and ozone depleting gases? Always find it strange how people are so quick to point out that man-influenced climatic change models can not account for all the changes in such a complex system.. It's pretty definitive that greenhouse emissions are accelerating this process, just not to what extent and whether any other man-influenced processes counter-act it. It's game theory.. Greenhouse gases have major effect and we ignore = large catastrophe. Greenhouse gases have very minor affect and we cut down = perhaps less economic growth, but less pollution also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Great vid for skepticts to watch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.