Stephen Hawking on human extinction

Discussion in 'Politics' started by futurecurrents, Jan 8, 2012.

  1. #21     Jan 9, 2012
  2. The real wildcard is methyl hydrates contained in large quantities in the deep sea and permafrost. These are much more powerful greenhouse gasses and are starting to sublimate out into the atmosphere with the rising temperatures. They were not included in the IPCC report and are a real worry. There is certainly already a positive feedback loop between temps and emissions of these. Large areas of upwellings have recently been found in a Arctic seas they and are releasing much more than previously thought.

    That study you reference is really just a piece put out by a denier and has next to no credibility,that much is obvious. It is true however that earth would never be like Venus for some of the reasons mentioned within the piece.
     
    #22     Jan 9, 2012
  3. pspr

    pspr

    It's not just an article, dumb ass. There is a whole host of research showing glacial cycles, etc. You need to broaden the data that you draw conclusions from beyond what the proponets of GW show you.

    A good example is the hocky stick chart GW proponent scientests were using to claim "proof" of man made GW. Add a another 200 years of data to that chart and you draw a different conclusion. Overlay other long term charts like sun spots and and the real picture starts to appear.

    This PDF provides some of the information to enlighten you.

    http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM300.pdf
     
    #23     Jan 9, 2012
  4. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    MSNBC?

    I can see that.
     
    #24     Jan 9, 2012
  5. 377OHMS

    377OHMS

    Physics degree from USC (ranked #11).

    You are an idiot.

    Next.
     
    #25     Jan 9, 2012
  6. Ricter

    Ricter

    Based on what I'm reading lately, we really don't need a major increase in surface temps, and it does not have to be "forever", in the sense that Man has ended the heating/cooling cycle. The crop killing heating only has to be a few years long to spell disaster. The population is far higher than before, and the food reserves, the pipeline inventory, is very low. Not to mention our present degree of urbanization.
     
    #26     Jan 9, 2012
  7. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    What does one do for a career with a degree in environmental science anyway?

    Waste disposal maybe?

    :D
     
    #27     Jan 9, 2012
  8. pspr

    pspr

    Or work for the Obama administration spreading pseudoscience lies.
     
    #28     Jan 9, 2012
  9. The hockey stick graph is valid, no matter how many years you add on. This was just recently proven with a re-examination of the data, ironically funded by the Koch bros. Of course we won't hear this on Fox. Temps and CO2 have skyrocketed over the last two hundred years. The CO2 is man-made, proven through isotope analysis. Malkovitch cycles or will eventually lead to a new ice age but that is hundreds of thousands of years in the future. Usually, rational people want to look at closer time frames.

    Changes in ocean currents may occur that may lead to cooling of certain areas of the globe. These ocean current changes would be caused by global warming. This is one minor theory that has some credibility but changes nothing for the world as a whole.

    Sunspots, while being a favorite fall-back for the deniers are simply not powerful enough or lengthy enough in duration to have a long term effect. Since they occur in 11 year cycles their influence is easily determined.




     
    #29     Jan 9, 2012
  10. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Sounds like we should just let nature run it course.
     
    #30     Jan 9, 2012