December 26: Earthquake day?

[Kfisher]

Okay, here are some facts:

December 26, 2003 - A strong magnitude 6.6 earthquake devastates southeast Iranian city of Bam, killing tens of thousands and destroying the citadel of Arg-é Bam.

December 26, 2004 - An earthquake measuring 9.3 on the Richter magnitude scale creates a tsunami causing devastation in Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, The Maldives and many other areas around the rim of the Indian Ocean, killing more than 200,000.

December 26, 2006 - A magnitude 7.1 earthquake near Taiwan generated a tsunami 3 feet high. This earthquake also disrupted telecommunications in various Southeast Asian countries, including my home country, the Philippines.

Now, it seems like a funny coincidence that three earthquakes occur at the exact same time of year, don't you all think?

[Mysticalmelody]

3 feet high?!?! woah......

In all seriousness though, blame global warming. We've been dumping CO2 into our atmosphere while turning a blind eye to the obvious effects and now we're paying for it.... or maybe Asia is...

[Cherub Rock]

3 feet high?!?! woah......

In all seriousness though, blame global warming. We've been dumping CO2 into our atmosphere while turning a blind eye to the obvious effects and now we're paying for it.... or maybe Asia is...

You think global warming effects plate tectonics?

[Mechs]

3 feet high?!?! woah......

In all seriousness though, blame global warming. We've been dumping CO2 into our atmosphere while turning a blind eye to the obvious effects and now we're paying for it.... or maybe Asia is...

http://forums.insmod.net/style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif

I'm sure it is just a coincidence.....

[Jetsetlemming]

You think global warming effects plate tectonics?
:rofl:
in fact, that's worth two.
:rofl: again!

[Mysticalmelody]

That's what I'm saying, yes.

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/earthquakes.htm

Also, there's another point that isn't mentioned in that article I found things about this mentioned in a few others. Do you really think that all the irregular temperatures (heating from the choked atmosphere, and cooling from melting ice) won't have any effect on the temperatures and activities of the molten rock beneath? Just a couple degrees of cooling or heating can screw things up. Our earth is much more fragile than we think and we've taken advantage of it without knowing the effects.

[Jetsetlemming]

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*
If that were true in any sense it would've had an enourmous effect by now: Way more tsunamis and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions than there are currently. These bullshit scientists are getting caught up in their own lies now. They'll say anything and everything, announce every kind of apocalyptic event possible, to get people to believe in man-made global warming to push their agendas through, and all of this is building up to one giant excaimation point of stupidity, the Kyoto Protocols. The global warming movement is one giant tumorous growth on the crowd that has the audacity to call itself intelligent.

[Cherub Rock]

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/faq.php?categoryID=6&faqID=110

Seismic activity has been consistent over the last century. If earthquakes really were more frequent we would have scientific data to back it up. You know, not the opinion of Mysticalmelody because she read something on the internet, but actual facts.

Not unless the earthquakes are all getting together plotting to spring on us at once.

Perhaps you are confusing an increase in media coverage and the increasing ability to monitor earthquakes with an actual increase in frequency. As it is, there is ZERO evidence that global warming affects plate tectonics, just some theories about how it might.

[japanat]

3 feet high?!?! woah......Funny? Sounds small, doesn't it? Like maybe you could jump over it, right?

Do you have any concept of the power of a 3-ft tsunami? Strong enough to knock down wooden houses, lift houses off their foundations, smash you into jelly against a tree. Do you remember the footage from 2 yrs ago, the wave pushing through a city, shoving trucks, trees, people out of the way? Then the debris is another matter entirely.

"Any tsunami runup over a meter is dangerous." http://www.tsunamifacts.net/

[Josh]

Snip.

Im all for believing in global warming and such, but plate tectonics being affected by it? Sorry, but I must call shenanigans on that.

It is a peculiar little coincidence with the fairly sizeable earthquakes on the same day 3 out of 4 years, but its more than likely happened many, many times before. No biggie, I says!

[RandomPasserby]

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*
If that were true in any sense it would've had an enourmous effect by now: Way more tsunamis and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions than there are currently. These bullshit scientists are getting caught up in their own lies now. They'll say anything and everything, announce every kind of apocalyptic event possible, to get people to believe in man-made global warming to push their agendas through, and all of this is building up to one giant excaimation point of stupidity, the Kyoto Protocols. The global warming movement is one giant tumorous growth on the crowd that has the audacity to call itself intelligent.
I wouldn't go calling scientists not against man made global warming a giant tumorous growth pushing their own agendas just because of one university guy in London.

Also the theory that polar caps melting would cause earth quakes has it's merits, the ice masses are insanely huge and when they are gone, the land will rise and when there is so much land rising, earth quakes seem pretty unavoidable. Btw. I'm not claiming (and I think the first scientist wasn't either) that the recent earthquakes have been caused by polar caps melting, just that if they do, there will be earth quakes.

[Jetsetlemming]

I'm just extremely disrespectful of all supporters of Global Warming. It's a giant idiot theory that the enviromental movement has retardedly bet all it's resources on.
So, instead of worrying about all the hormones put into cattle and thus fed to us when we eat meat, we worry about CFC's.
And instead of giving a fuck about how the banning of certain pesticides in Africa has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, we worry about carbon dioxide.

[Roxie]

What the hell Jet? No one said those issue weren't important! There's just more emphasis because it's highly visable and it effects the entire population of Earth.

[Jetsetlemming]

Which is why we have a Kyoto protocol pushed on the world's governments, and no legislation about those other issues?
The only other enviromental issues that ever get any major legislative attention are the rain forests being harvested, and oil spills.

[Cherub Rock]

I wouldn't go calling scientists not against man made global warming a giant tumorous growth pushing their own agendas just because of one university guy in London.

Also the theory that polar caps melting would cause earth quakes has it's merits, the ice masses are insanely huge and when they are gone, the land will rise and when there is so much land rising, earth quakes seem pretty unavoidable. Btw. I'm not claiming (and I think the first scientist wasn't either) that the recent earthquakes have been caused by polar caps melting, just that if they do, there will be earth quakes.

Land rises when the ice caps melt? I was under the impression that land was physically attached to the Earth, not giant floating barges of dirt.

[RandomPasserby]

Land rises when the ice caps melt? I was under the impression that land was physically attached to the Earth, not giant floating barges of dirt.
Heh, they didn't teach you about this in school? Simple, the polar ice caps are so heavy that they compress the land underneath them. When the ice melts the land starts to gain it's original volume/density and thus rises (dunno about widening). Happens still in Scandinavia and other places which were covered by ice in the last ice age, although very slowly.

So ice caps melting=biggest amount of land rising for a very long time.

Edit: found the "real" scintific term for it by trying different word combinations on wikipedia, it's post glacial rebound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound).

[Cherub Rock]

Heh, they didn't teach you about this in school? Simple, the polar ice caps are so heavy that they compress the land underneath them. When the ice melts the land starts to gain it's original volume/density and thus rises (dunno about widening). Happens still in Scandinavia and other places which were covered by ice in the last ice age, although very slowly.

So ice caps melting=biggest amount of land rising for a very long time.

Oh, you mean the land directly underneath them? I do recall that now that you mention it.

Even still, I do not believe that would affect plate tectonics in other parts of the world. The majority of the world's earthquakes occur in the Pacific rim, which has been pretty void of glaciers for quite some time.

Still, touche!

[RandomPasserby]

Yeah true, probably the effects will mainly affect areas like Canada, Australia, Argentina etc. that are close to the ice caps. But still, when plate tectonics's speed is from few mm to 15 cm a year and post glacial rebound is 7.6 cm/year at the start (both from wikipedia, can't be arsed to find non-wikipedia, but still trustworthy sources), you can get a picture of the effects.

[Wizdom]

snip


I think George Carlin said it best.


We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?

I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.

[Mysticalmelody]

Cherub Rock: I looked at the data there was on earthquakes from the link you gave (a US gov. link) and it only has information from 2000 to 2006. You can't see toooo much of a difference there but check out: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0197840.html
There's a pretty good difference in those numbers. I bet if there were data from even farther back there'd be a difference there too but I couldn't really find any data farther back online, even estimates.

Jetset: Global warming is an important issue, because the results are coming faster than most think. If something doesn't happen soon, we're definitely going to see much more obvious effects of our CO2 emissions in our lifetime. We'll regret we didn't do more sooner when it was easier to change things around. I personally think it's pretty darn obvious right now.
Do you seriously think that every scientist who finds any info to support global warming is doing it for their own agenda? What do you think they're trying to do? Do you really think all these glaringly obvious facts and figures clearly supporting global warming were made up? Rediculous.... It looks like your mindset is to ignore everything telling you that global warming will happen. Call it all lies until it's staring you in the face. You're going to wait till things get really bad before you believe anything.
It's cause of people like you that we're all going to get screwed over. It's not bad that you care more about other issues that are getting ignored, but by calling this huuuge issue all lies, you're just as bad as anyone ignoring those issues you find important.

japanat: My mistake, I thought 3 was a typo. When I read about the tsunami in taiwan it never said how high it was but it seemed like it destroyed a lot. I didn't know such a small tsunami could do so much. Anyhow, it was just a passing comment.

[Jetsetlemming]

I haven't ignored global warming. I've read up on it, , used to believe it, researched it , and found it was a giant crock of crap. The planet is in a constant flux. It NEVER, ever, sits still. It's constantly growing warmer, or colder, or the storms are waxing and waning. We have big weather years, and small ones, typically alternating. You know what, according to our observations of the past earth cycles, the earth should be doing right now, all on it's own, without the help of carbon dioxide?
Warming up.
Besides, the world will be better off warmer. More coastlines, extended warm climates mean better crops and wildlife support. All in all, a net plus to humanity.

[Cherub Rock]

Cherub Rock: I looked at the data there was on earthquakes from the link you gave (a US gov. link) and it only has information from 2000 to 2006. You can't see toooo much of a difference there but check out: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0197840.html
There's a pretty good difference in those numbers. I bet if there were data from even farther back there'd be a difference there too but I couldn't really find any data farther back online, even estimates.

As stated earlier, you might be confusing an increase in frequency with an increase in the ability to monitor earthquakes. We are able to record more minor earthquakes today than we were a decade ago, and likewise a decade before that. As technology advances so will the number of minor earthquakes detected until we begin to level off. Thus the only accurate way to measure whether earthquakes have been truly increasing is to look at larger quakes, and since those numbers are more prone to variability it is not an accurate picture either.

The further you try to go back the more inaccurate those numbers will be.

Again, the most accurate way is to look at larger quakes because we have been able to accurately measure those for a long time, and due to their wide scale they are always detected. You have the longest range in data for large quakes (>7.0 for example) and it is more accurate than data for smaller quakes since they might have slipped past us undetected in earlier years. When you look at those statistics you see no real movement. From 1990-2006 you have 18, 16, 13, 12, 13, 20, 15, 16, 12, 18, 15, 16, 13, 15, 16, 11 and 11 thusfar in 2006. That's just under 15 a year, which is below the estimate of 17 a year on average (a number that you see quoted a lot, though I cannot easily find statistics backing it). In other words major quakes are technically decreasing, though over a short time span such as 17 years you will see deviation. I think 2.3 probably falls within that, so let's just say that major earthquakes are not on the rise.

As for the slight upward trend in all other earthquakes, you do see spikes in 2003-2005 but when you start comparing data from the early 90's that starts getting inaccurate, just because of the fact that we're able to monitor those smaller quakes more accurately. I'd venture to say there really shouldn't be any surprise that the number of recorded earthquakes recently has jumped. Considering the majority of earthquakes happen in the Pacific rim, the number of recorded quakes would obviously rise as that part of the world begins to integrate into the net. It's one thing to be able to record data, but sharing it with the rest of the world easily is the most important part of creating an accurate analysis.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Reading this thread, I really do wish more people would take oceanography/geology/environmental science courses.

[RandomPasserby]

I haven't ignored global warming. I've read up on it, , used to believe it, researched it , and found it was a giant crock of crap. The planet is in a constant flux. It NEVER, ever, sits still. It's constantly growing warmer, or colder, or the storms are waxing and waning. We have big weather years, and small ones, typically alternating. You know what, according to our observations of the past earth cycles, the earth should be doing right now, all on it's own, without the help of carbon dioxide?
Warming up.
Besides, the world will be better off warmer. More coastlines, extended warm climates mean better crops and wildlife support. All in all, a net plus to humanity.
Wow, so you went from ignorant to little less ignorant? You realize that according to our observations, the earth is warming up faster than it should/could on it own? I really love it when amateurs claim that they understand science better than scientists (maybe the scientists have taken in account that there is going to be a warmer period in the future?).

Also,All in all, rising ocean levels mean that many major cities and even countries will be devastated (I think Holland was one of those countries that will become suitable for mermen if/when ocean level rises). Other effects include desertification (which means less crops and less wildlife support), acidification of oceans and maybe even North Europe freezing up because of warm sea currents changing. Tbh, sound more like the planet will be better off a little warmer as there would be far less humans after that :P

[Jetsetlemming]

I'd LOVE for you to point out where it was proven the excact abilities of the earth as far as heating itself up. When a limit was set for how quickly the earth's tempurature to rise naturally before it's tempurature gain becomes fishy. Really.
All the propositioned side-effects besides the ocean level rising are all guesses at best, btw. I'd recommend abandoning any and every factoid mentioned in "The Day After Tomorrow" right now.

[RandomPasserby]

Was "The Day After Tomorrow" a movie? If it was, I'm insulted by what you think are my sources. Also makes me think that you get your arguments from sites that trash movies to "prove" that humans don't affect global warming...

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Uh, nobody takes The Day After Tomorrow seriously. Using arguments against that to disprove global warming is retarded.

[Jetsetlemming]

I wasn't. However, saying things like "desertification" and "all of northern europe freezing over", and you sound awefully like that awful movie.
And yes, sadly, quite a few people took it seriously and got "serious" about global warming because of it. :(

[RandomPasserby]

Never considered that maybe those are real threats that were used in the movie because they are easy to understand? I have known about both from time before the movie. You sound awfully like a kid who has read 1 book and thinks that as no-one of his friends has even read 1 book, no-one in the rest of the world has either and thus he is the wisest of all people.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I wasn't. However, saying things like "desertification" and "all of northern europe freezing over", and you sound awefully like that awful movie.
And yes, sadly, quite a few people took it seriously and got "serious" about global warming because of it. :(
I'm not sure what you mean by mentioning the use of "desertification" as it's a very real thing that occurs for a multitude of reasons. Soil erosion, overgrazing by cattle, "slash and burn" tactics to clear land, new vegetation, etc.

[Wizdom]

Did anyone read my post?

Once again my voice falls upon deaf ears. :sigh:

I for one can see the big picture. Can anyone see the the correlation between global warming and Consumerism. Can anyone one see who really profits from global warming awarness?

I would go in details but i'm afraid no one will hear my cry. Before the old man stops his ramble, let me offer you this to chew on.

Anything that is sensationalize, has a consumer market. Go research any holiday, Tragedy, celebrated event or news worthy subject and you'll find someone profiting off of it. Many times the profiters are also the ones causing the issue. Hell even jewelers are making more money from the "recently publicize blood diamond atrocities" ( which have been going on for decades). Citing their diamonds are not from blood diamond mines.

So whats the point? Where do we draw the line from marketable causes and legitimate causes. Well my friend we are all screwed. All cause that we hear about are marketable ( If they wasn't, "THEY", wouldnt allow us to hear about them. And all causes are legitimate. They all affect us in some way.

So I for one fall back on one of the oldest axioms.

Charity starts at home.
If we all helped thoes closes to us, as best we could. Then we would be better off.

And the axiom of one of my favorite Hip hop groups Public Enemey.
"Don't Believe the Hype"

[Jetsetlemming]

Never considered that maybe those are real threats that were used in the movie because they are easy to understand? I have known about both from time before the movie. You sound awfully like a kid who has read 1 book and thinks that as no-one of his friends has even read 1 book, no-one in the rest of the world has either and thus he is the wisest of all people.
That was the most awkward analogie I've heard all day. Not that I've heard many analogies today, but that one still takes the cake.
And it's incorrect.

[Cherub Rock]

Any analogy that goes on for that long and is that roundabout ends up being awkward.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Did anyone read my post?

Once again my voice falls upon deaf ears. :sigh:
That wasn't your voice, that was George Carlin's. I didn't read it because I honestly don't give a crap what he has to say. He's a stand up comedian, nothing more.

[Wizdom]

That wasn't your voice, that was George Carlin's. I didn't read it because I honestly don't give a crap what he has to say. He's a stand up comedian, nothing more.

So is your voice is more important? Is a scientist voice more important? Are male's voices more important? Whites?..

Ignorance and bigotry in any fashion is ugly.

Truth is truth , no matter where it comes from.

Unconditionaly Respect for all, is one of the fundamental concepts for humanity.

I didnt ask you to agree or validate his opinon. Only to respect it and add your own voice to the discussion. Not dismiss it because of his occupation.

[Jetsetlemming]

What makes the rest of us more valid than George Carlin? We're forum posters, nothing more, after all.

[Cherub Rock]

What makes the rest of us more valid than George Carlin? We're forum posters, nothing more, after all.

Eh?

George Carlin is a comedian. His schtick is being over the top. He will say nigger, penis, gook, vagina or whatever else he thinks will get a reaction. He will vulger, racist, sexist and a bigot all in one routine. I agree with his idea that humans are not going to permanently fuck up the Earth, because quite frankly I don't think that we are capable of it. I don't think all the nukes in the world could actually physically destroy the Earth. Wipe us out of existence sure, but time does a good job of making things work out. That was Carlin's point. Fuck humans, they think they have the power to screw up the planet when in reality they are just a blip on the radar. Of course the whole idea of humans wiping themselves out before they manage to destroy Earth isn't really a nice one in my opinion, so using it in an arguement where you're trying to argue whether we are hurting our chances for survival is moot. I like the dialogue, but it doesn't belong here.

But I digress...

There's lots of things that makes our points more valid than Carlins, and aside from the fact that he said all this as part of a bit, I will answer that with this quote:


So is your voice is more important? Is a scientist voice more important? Are male's voices more important? Whites?..

Ignorance and bigotry in any fashion is ugly.

Truth is truth , no matter where it comes from.

Unconditionaly Respect for all, is one of the fundamental concepts for humanity.

I didnt ask you to agree or validate his opinon. Only to respect it and add your own voice to the discussion. Not dismiss it because of his occupation.

Um, yes, a scientists voice is more important. Why the fuck wouldn't it be? Do you go to a mechanic to get a physical? Do you take your car to a doctor? Why wouldn't a person who went to school to study a subject and then spent years using statistical analysis and studying the subject matter first hand not be a better source of knowledge than say... me, or you or any other poster in this thread?

"Truth is truth, no matter where it comes from." That's a pretty naive quote. How the hell do you know whose version is the truth? I'm sure in hindsight you do a pretty good job knowing the Earth is round and not, in fact, the center of the universe, but without sufficient evidence to back that up then how do you know that it is really true? There are people in this world whose opinion means a lot more than yours. When it comes to a scientific matter, a scientist's opinion tends to carry a bit more weight than say, a tree hugging hippy.

And while I'm at it, unconditional respect for all has never been a fundemental concept in any society.

[Jetsetlemming]

Trusting most scientists with global warming is like trusting the local mechanic at the jiffy lube with air force one.

[Wizdom]

Cherub Rock you make some valid points and i'm not going to dispute the fact that. "When it comes to a scientific matter, a scientist's opinion tends to carry a bit more weight than say, a tree hugging hippy."

however I think you missed the main point of my post.
What I was trying to get at is that no one is suprior to anyone else. And having a prestege job doesnt make your shit stink anyless.

We are all human, and equals. George carlin's opinion is just as valid as einstien. It doesnt mean his is right. It just means he has a right to be heard just like anyone else.

In reference to my " truth is truth" quote. You pretty much answered your self.

"How the hell do you know whose version is the truth"

It's up to all of us to not take anyone's word for absolute truth and seek out the truth for ourselves.

It wasnt long ago when doctors used to give the advice to drink 8 glasses of water a day. Now some doctors are saying that may not be healthy.

I'm not sayin everyone is wrong .. I'm just saying, not everyone is right.

[Mysticalmelody]

Cherub rock: I see what you're saying now, with the low ability to detect earthquakes in the nineties. It'd be interesting to find out to what degree there may have been inaccuracies in the recordings in the 90's, and maybe compare that to what were recorded, possibly estimating how many were missed. Too much work for mw though. I'll leave that to the scientists.

wisdom: I liked that quote from george carlin. He has some points. If you don't care if a tsunami hits the coast, or a hurricane destroys a major city and kills hundreds of people in your lifetime, possibly people you know. Keep doing what you're doing. But don't complain about it and make excuses when these things happen. We won't be on the planet forever... but I honestly don't wanna be part of the generation to experience part of the end of humanity. Not fun. I'd also like as many generations of people to be able to enjoy our earth as possible, myself included. If they estimated that all the effects of global warming wouldn't happen until 100+ years from now (so that there was no chance I'd still be alive,) I'd still want to try to change it now before it got too late. As it is though, we don't have all that time.

Jetset: You're very badly misinformed. If you haven't seen it already you really should rent the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Everyone should see it. It's got hard tough facts in it that you just cannot ignore. That's probably just why you won't rent it though.
Like most people, you don't want to find out that global warming and all it's effects are a reality. You're too afraid to be proven wrong, cause if you were wrong you might need to change your lifestyle. It'd be way too inconvenient to be wrong. It's much more convenient for you to not watch the movie, or to watch it with a blind eye while ignoring the facts. Call every scientist a liar and wait till they give you a whopping "We told you so!"

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I'm saying that to hold George Carlin's opinion on the world is fine for entertainment "heh, hear what he said?" purposes. It is NOT just as valid as the opinion of a scientist that has devoted most of his academic life to the study of what's in question: the planet. George Carlin's over-the-top monologue should not be taken just as seriously as the educated opinions of oceanographers, geologists, biologists, etc.

Trusting most scientists with global warming is like trusting the local mechanic at the jiffy lube with air force one.
No it isn't. That is a horrible comparison because it doesn't even make sense. Are you abandoning science? It sounds like to me that you're saying the opinions of most scientists in regards to global warming shouldn't be considered because they don't agree with yours, even though they are far more educated in their fields than you are.

Whose opinion are you going to consider more then? Some right-wing pundit off of Fox News?

I'll give you a much better comparison. Using the opinion of someone like George Carlin against that of scientists is like using Wikipedia as a cited source in a research paper. It's laughable.

[Wizdom]

mysticalmelody:

You also have good points. I agree helping our children's children be able to have a healthy life on earth is our responisbility. I just hate all the phoney people who act like they care, when all they really want is to make a buck.

"Save the whales, by buyin a save the whales t-shirt" 40% of the proceeds will go to the save the whales fund. 60% to the people selling the shirt.

You get my drift?

( btw the way i made up thoes figures to illustate my point, but you already knew that)

[Mysticalmelody]

Wizdom: Just cause people are making a buck by helping the environment doesn't make it bad. At least something is being done. They could just as easily sell a T-shirt with "Trust me, I'm a doctor" printed on it. If people are making money by doing anything to help the environment, the more the merrier, I say. It's way better than some of the alternatives. These days big corporations making money by polluting our environment, and getting tax breaks all the while, regardless.

You seem pretty critical.... There are very few people who will give all to help save our environment without getting anything in return. People have to make a living and that's quite reasonable. I don't care if the people helping the environment don't care about it so long as they're helping it. :P

[Kaji]

If I recall correctly, as I understand what I've been reading on the matter, it's as much a solar wind phenomenon as it is a natural part of the earth's cycle. We're about due for a new ice age anyway. Everything's trending towards being warmer, soon it'll level off and drop again, and then you'll be wanting to pump more into the air to keep what heat we can trapped. Really, if the bad side of global warming is that it traps heat and will trigger an ice age, then I'd think that when the ice age hits we'd want to accelerate the process. Either way, it's all going to resolve itself in the end.

That said, it's a great way for scientists to get grant funding. They may know more than many on the matter, but you have to look critically at what motivations they may have for what they're saying.

[Jetsetlemming]

Jetset: You're very badly misinformed. If you haven't seen it already you really should rent the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Everyone should see it. It's got hard tough facts in it that you just cannot ignore. That's probably just why you won't rent it though.
Like most people, you don't want to find out that global warming and all it's effects are a reality. You're too afraid to be proven wrong, cause if you were wrong you might need to change your lifestyle. It'd be way too inconvenient to be wrong. It's much more convenient for you to not watch the movie, or to watch it with a blind eye while ignoring the facts. Call every scientist a liar and wait till they give you a whopping "We told you so!"
I've seen it. I probably have a bias in that I don't like Al Gore or his pro-censorship cohorts, though, but I had a very low opinion of it.
I'm not badly misinformed at all. I used to believe in global warming. Hell, when I was a kid in elementary school, it was taught as FACT. All of us little kids were spoon fed a theory with little evidence to support it besides the vague support of enviromentalists as a truth.
But as soon as I looked into it, it all fell apart. The "evidence" doesn't add up. It's all of the same quality or worse as the claim that the melting ice caps are increasing earth quake activity- without actually increasing any earth quake activity recorded.
Did you know, for example, at the first Earth Day, in the 70's, it was called "Global Cooling?" They thought the greenhouse gasses were going to block out more solar radiation, not block them in the atmosphere like they do now. Al Gore was quoted as saying something along the lines of "Even if it isn't true, it'll be good for us to act like it is".
It all started as a political bluff to try and scare politicians into enacting enviromental regulations.
It's had an opposite effect. Everyone gets so caught up in this doomsday theory about continents freezing over and the world dying that down-to-earth things, real things, dangerous things effecting the public's health and food supply and disease resistance, are largely ignored.

No it isn't. That is a horrible comparison because it doesn't even make sense. Are you abandoning science? It sounds like to me that you're saying the opinions of most scientists in regards to global warming shouldn't be considered because they don't agree with yours, even though they are far more educated in their fields than you are.

Whose opinion are you going to consider more then? Some right-wing pundit off of Fox News?

I'll give you a much better comparison. Using the opinion of someone like George Carlin against that of scientists is like using Wikipedia as a cited source in a research paper. It's laughable.
Let me let you in on a little secret, Phate. This might come as a shock for you. I recommend you sit down if you aren't already.

Ready?
There are multiple fields of science! Chemistry, Geology, Biology, Radiology, Meteorology, etc etc etc. Every ology but astro- and scient- is a different branch of science. Furthermore, each field of science is further cut down into specializations that a scientist studies. There is no such thing as a generic "scientist". they're all marine biologists, Nuclear Chemists, things like this.
Global Warming falls distinctly under meteorology and chemistry, as it is a proposed weather phenomenon. Chemistry for the effects of the pollutants, and meteorology for their effect on the atmosphere and logging the statistics of the changes.
I don't think I'll trust a biologist's "scientific" opinion on meteorology, kthxbai.

Oh, here's another little secret for free: Fox News isn't right wing. It's bias is white collar- Pro business. Maybe if you'd look into things instead of instanting believing what somebody else tells you, you'd be a bit more informed.

[Angelyne]

If I recall correctly, as I understand what I've been reading on the matter, it's as much a solar wind phenomenon as it is a natural part of the earth's cycle

Indeed. It's quite annoying how most global warming alarmists completely neglect to figure changes in solar activity into their arguments. I've also never seen one mention the fact that Mars is also experiencing global warming; which suggests that something more than human consumption patterns is causing global warming, and that it is likely beyond our control.

That said, the earthquake thing in the original post is pretty weird. :innocent:

[Jetsetlemming]

I think it's Jesus throwing a tantrum cause he didn't get the birthday presents he wanted. :D

[RandomPasserby]

Indeed. It's quite annoying how most global warming alarmists completely neglect to figure changes in solar activity into their arguments. I've also never seen one mention the fact that Mars is also experiencing global warming; which suggests that something more than human consumption patterns is causing global warming, and that it is likely beyond our control.

That said, the earthquake thing in the original post is pretty weird. :innocent:
Again, your side fails to prove that scientists are the idiots you claim them to be. If you can see that solar activity has an effect, do you think the scientists haven't considered that? You better call IIPC about that mate, you could save us all a lot of money if you told them that it's just the sun's natural activity cycle...

ps. Jetsetlemming, again you sound like the kid in my too long analogy (so sue for not being a native English speaker), when people say "scientist", they usually mean "that scientists who expertise is this area". Also I'm pretty sure 99.9% of chemists don't know anything beyond university classes about global warming as it is quite far from normal industry processes. And most meteorologists most certainly aren't also astrophysicists and geologists, so they are probably more comfortable doing their 5 day forecasts instead of predicting sun activity cycles or being climatologists/paleoclimatologists.

[Wizdom]

jetsetlemming, I think we could get along. We may not see eye to eye on everything but we both agree that some things just dont add up and there is an increasing need to not take anyones word on any subject the instant they say it.

We all have opinions and agendas, its just thats some people have better funding and are able to have their agenda "seem" more important.

MysticMelody- "I don't care if the people helping the environment don't care about it so long as they're helping it. " your right on this one. I just hate it when the little guys get taken advantage on.

I know i'm coming off as critcal on this but in large, im a very open guy. I like to hear as many sides of a agruement, do some resaerch and then make a opinon. And if I discover that i'm wrong, I'm the first one to apologize and admit it.

I'm not critcial on every thing. It's just when things have contrasting aguements , (like global warming), have been shoved into our brains since birth, I like to question why. I was just like jetsetlemming, I was very into global warming. I went to rallies, I set up earthday activities and organized several community recycling events.

I'm not saying all thats for not, and im not saying that thoes things arent still needed. I'm just saying when people take adavntage of peoples good will and give them misinformation it pisses me off.

[Firefly]

If I recall correctly, as I understand what I've been reading on the matter, it's as much a solar wind phenomenon as it is a natural part of the earth's cycle. We're about due for a new ice age anyway. Everything's trending towards being warmer, soon it'll level off and drop again, and then you'll be wanting to pump more into the air to keep what heat we can trapped. Really, if the bad side of global warming is that it traps heat and will trigger an ice age, then I'd think that when the ice age hits we'd want to accelerate the process. Either way, it's all going to resolve itself in the end.

That said, it's a great way for scientists to get grant funding. They may know more than many on the matter, but you have to look critically at what motivations they may have for what they're saying.


Finally, a point I can sorta agree with. I took a Environmental Science and Geography this semester, so I feel much more informed on the earth and global warming and such, and especially after seeing Al Gore's movie, I agree about what you said with the ice age. Considering levels of CO2 and such are higher than they have been, I wonder if the next Ice Age will be longer, or shorter. Hmmm. :watson:

In all honesty, I believe you'd have to be a fool to say that our world isn't being effected by natural OR human causes. It obviously is being effected, although, throughout the whole semester, my teachers never listed plate tectonics being an effect or affect of global warming....:gwitch:

[Angelyne]

Again, your side fails to prove that scientists are the idiots you claim them to be. If you can see that solar activity has an effect, do you think the scientists haven't considered that? You better call IIPC about that mate, you could save us all a lot of money if you told them that it's just the sun's natural activity cycle...



I never said that they didn't study solar activity; most just conveniently neglect to mention the possibility at all in press releases, news conferences, etc. And why should they? Creating alarm brings them more funding and publicity--they have no reason to present other possibilities that may challenge their argument. Especially when dealing with an apathetic public that doesn't care enough to be bothered to question their research or even look into the issue further.

[Mysticalmelody]

You think nobody is questioning global warming? Heck, everyone is. Nobody wants it to be true. It would be lovely if burning all the oil on the earth did not have this effect on our atmosphere. That's why the people that don't believe in global warming are far less than the people who do. They go into it saying "No way am I giving up my SUV" and go out saying "What a crock, they made up all those figures" or, "Well I only took a few science classes but I know that a little heat can't really effect the earth all that much."

I'm not sure how much I trust the "Global warming on Mars" thing. The findings came from NASA. And you know how much the Bush administration supports he idea of global warming.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Let me let you in on a little secret, Phate. This might come as a shock for you. I recommend you sit down if you aren't already.

Ready?
There are multiple fields of science! Chemistry, Geology, Biology, Radiology, Meteorology, etc etc etc. Every ology but astro- and scient- is a different branch of science. Furthermore, each field of science is further cut down into specializations that a scientist studies. There is no such thing as a generic "scientist". they're all marine biologists, Nuclear Chemists, things like this.
Global Warming falls distinctly under meteorology and chemistry, as it is a proposed weather phenomenon. Chemistry for the effects of the pollutants, and meteorology for their effect on the atmosphere and logging the statistics of the changes.
I don't think I'll trust a biologist's "scientific" opinion on meteorology, kthxbai.
Wow, this is startling revelation, for I did not know this! It's not like I already showed that I was well aware that there are multiple fields of science in my very post you quoted:
George Carlin's over-the-top monologue should not be taken just as seriously as the educated opinions of oceanographers, geologists, biologists, etc.
So why are you telling me all this? So you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that you've done a job well done? You're telling me stuff that I already know about.

Also, I will have you know that global warming does not fall under just "meteorology and chemistry"; it also involves biology (especially ecology which itself is comprised of many of its own disciplines because it's so broad), climatology, glaciology, hydrology, geology in general, and many others. I'm not saying that you're supposed to trust a biologist's views on global warming 100%, but many of them are still going to be far more educated in topics concerning global warming than you are; for example, the aforementioned broad discipline of "ecology"--which is generally considered a part of biology like I said-- is very important to global warming, as it would concern its effects on living organisms, etc.

But, even with all that, I still know what you're trying to get across to me even though I'm aware of it, so I'll clarify one of my previous statements for you (changes in bold):
It sounds like to me that you're saying the opinions of most scientists in regards to global warming shouldn't be considered because they don't agree with yours, even though they are far more educated in their fields that deal with global warming (climatologists, glaciologists, for example) than you are.
This way you'll realize that I distinctly meant those scientists that work in fields that somehow involve global warming, and not some random microbiologist studying the digestive system of fruit flies.
Oh, here's another little secret for free: Fox News isn't right wing.
Yes it is; it panders to the right-wing viewers of the political spectrum, but this part is too subjective. I won't bother debating this.

[Cherub Rock]

Again, your side fails to prove that scientists are the idiots you claim them to be. If you can see that solar activity has an effect, do you think the scientists haven't considered that? You better call IIPC about that mate, you could save us all a lot of money if you told them that it's just the sun's natural activity cycle...

I'll paraphrase something one of my professors said.

Good scientists come up with a theory based on scientific observations, and then they try to disprove it. For instance, if a paleontologist finds a dinosaur bone that he cannot identify, he does not automatically proclaim that he has discovered a new species. Instead he takes all the possibilities into consideration, even down to the possibility that the unusual bone may be a minor mutation that is not indicative of a new species. In other words he tries to prove himself wrong, and if all else fails then he proposes his theory.

However this does not always happen. There are many motives for not taking all measures into consideration. Funding is a good one. So is glory. If you discover a new species then your name goes down in the history books, whereas if it is something that has already been discovered then you get... nothing. There is a good motive for scientists to prove global warming exists, because it means more funding for their research. If you want proof that scientists are not taking solar radiation into account then I will give it to you in a very simple statement. If their theory does not state that they have calculated the effects of solar radiation then they did not take it into account. It's that simple. Now find some documentation that says this.

I don't expect you to, because that might take a bit more work than any of us are willing to put in, but the fact is if they did take it into account then they have to document it, because a real theory is tested countless times before it goes to the press.

[RandomPasserby]

I'll paraphrase something one of my professors said.
*snip*
Well, my professors can beat 7 kinds of crap out of your professors!

Seriously, unhonest scientists can get far more funding by taking a big check from those industries that are the major pollutants and saying there is no global warming (or at least one that's man made or at least it won't be that bad etc.) than by claiming that global warming is real and then getting few dimes from Greenpeace.

You can google global warming and sun cycles and first/second entries are already this (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html) which links to this (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/). Now place give a link to a research paper that proves that your professor is a climatologist who doesn't own a suv and isn't funded by industry. It's only fair that you give the link to prove that your professor isn't a corrupt suv-driving corporate dog after I gave a link that proved that climatologists etc. aren't unhonest swindlers who are only after easy funding ;)

[Jetsetlemming]

Why would he have to prove his professor isn't funded by industry and doesn't drive an SUV for making a common sense statement on why scientists act a certain way? He's not proclaiming research or scientific facts.
Also, the first link is wishy washy bullshit that basically says "We don't have enough info on the sun's patterns and stuff, but it's only been changing by a few tenths of a percentage over the last 11 years, and that SOUNDS like a very small number, so it must be ok even though the tempurature change on earth can be described in the same way, nothing to see here folks, move along".
The second? "The sun causes an effect, but we say it's effect doesn't matter, so nyah!"

[Cherub Rock]

My geology professor's main course of study was paleontology, so he wouldn't have much sway in any discussion over global warming. My weather and climate professor on the other hand was... well, my lasting impression was that he was the most boring person I'd ever met. You can read about him HERE (http://www.unc.edu/depts/geog/people/faculty/konrad/). He does not seem to have any previous work dealing with the whole global warming fiasco, which is why most of the stuff I remember hearing about was actually from my geology class.

For example, the idea that fossil fuels account for only a small percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the idea that increased greenhouse gases may be the result result of natural global warming and not the cause (such as stored carbon evaporating from oceans) or the point that average global temperatures have only increased by 1 degree over the last 100 years with most of that increase coming before the industrial revolution.

My whole problem with global warming isn't the idea, but the people. They do not take all factors into account. Instead they see a propoganda flick such as An Inconvenient Truth and become armchair scientists. Maybe it's our fault, but at least bring all arguements to the table and don't carelessly dismiss ones that oppose you.

[Cherub Rock]

Anyway, I will end my discussion here with a quote from my Canadian friend. I think she sums it up best:

"Global warming makes my property value go up."


Crazy cannucks.

[Mysticalmelody]

For example, the idea that fossil fuels account for only a small percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the idea that increased greenhouse gases may be the result result of natural global warming and not the cause (such as stored carbon evaporating from oceans) or the point that average global temperatures have only increased by 1 degree over the last 100 years with most of that increase coming before the industrial revolution.


Did you even see An inconvenient truth? .... If you haven't, you really should. See the "propaganda" before you knock it. :P

[Cherub Rock]

Did you even see An inconvenient truth? .... If you haven't, you really should. See the "propaganda" before you knock it. :P

Ick, one more reply.

The term propagranda does not infer truth. Rather it is just the act of spreading information to further one's cause. In most cases it is the deliberate telling of only one side. That's what An Inconvenient Truth is. If it was a documentary it would not have an agenda.

Not to be confused with something like Bush administration propaganda. You know, the kind that sent us after non-existent WMDs. But nevertheless, it is propoganda and considering its sponser it is one of the biggest propaganda campaigns in recent memory.

[Angelyne]

You think nobody is questioning global warming? Heck, everyone is. Nobody wants it to be true.

There is far, far more coverage in the media of scientists purporting that humans are causing global warming than there is coverage of other global warming theories. This is because of two reasons: 1) headlines claiming that we're dooming ourselves sell more newspapers and 2) the scientists who say it's our fault get far more publicity. Thus we rarely hear the other side of the issue.

This shouldn't come as a shock, though; it's not the only issue that the media tends to give a one-sided account of.


I'm not sure how much I trust the "Global warming on Mars" thing. The findings came from NASA. And you know how much the Bush administration supports he idea of global warming.

The initial findings were made before Bush was even in office.

You can google global warming and sun cycles and first/second entries are already this which links to this.

The author in the first link doesn't even cite his sources. Unprofessional and laughable.

The second link is more reputable; at least it cites where the information came from. However, at the conclusion of the article:

The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role.

In other words, all this study purports is that solar radiation, while it does have an effect on the climate to some extent, is not the dominant reason for global warming. There's nothing here to discount the fact that we're in a natural warming cycle. This also does nothing to prove that humans are the cause of global warming.

[RandomPasserby]

Angelyne, the first link had the second link as it's sources, did you really read it (okay you read enough to be an armchair scientist and dismiss it as it doesn't match your "truth")?

Btw. you never considered that maybe the reason huge majority of climate scientists on media are supporting man made global warming might be that there aren't many of those who's research shows anything against that because man made global warming is the truth.

Also, the GISS model actually did say were aren't on a huge natural warming cycle, sorry, but "The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role." doesn't sound like "yeah, sun is doing all the warming, not greenhouse gasses".

[Jetsetlemming]

You missed the point. Just because their computer model, which is designed based on speculation and lots and lots of guesses and approximations, btw, shows that solar activity plays a minor role in global warming, the major role must be pollution according to Shindell.
Because A isn't B, it must be C? That doesn't hold water. Making a statement like that is a clear sign of bias, him WANTING to believe in manmade global warming.

[RandomPasserby]

You missed the point. Just because their computer model, which is designed based on speculation and lots and lots of guesses and approximations, btw, shows that solar activity plays a minor role in global warming, the major role must be pollution according to Shindell.
Because A isn't B, it must be C? That doesn't hold water. Making a statement like that is a clear sign of bias, him WANTING to believe in manmade global warming.
you are twisting the point, there is evidence supporting C and evidence saying it isn't B, why should B still be an option? also I would like to see your proof that this particular model is just groundless speculation and guessing. Usually things like these have few decades of records of activity as a base.

[Jetsetlemming]

Decades of records isn't near enough data for a planet-wide process that takes thousands of years.
And I was commenting just on that single claim. There is circumstantial evidence of C, but none involved in this exact experiment.
"The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role."
Because solar increases don't account for large tempurature increases, it must be greenhouse gasses. That's EXACTLY what that says.

[RandomPasserby]

Decades of records isn't near enough data for a planet-wide process that takes thousands of years.
And I was commenting just on that single claim. There is circumstantial evidence of C, but none involved in this exact experiment.
"The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role."
Because solar increases don't account for large tempurature increases, it must be greenhouse gasses. That's EXACTLY what that says.
Tsk tsk, rather lame of you to focus on that one like it was the only research on global warming ever. I'm sad that I didn't see it early enough that you were just trying to steer the argument about global warming to that single research.

You never considered that if there is already proof of the effect of greenhouse gases , it doesn't need to be proven in every single research? Want me to google that for you too?

[aargon]

man, when the big one pops in Tokyo all hell is so going to break lose..... :frypan:
________
Toyota Corona T190 specifications (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Corona_T190)