Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → ExxonMobil buys some science
12
ExxonMobil buys some science
2007-01-06, 11:59 AM #1
Says the liberal media

I don't get that stuff they're referring to about cigarettes being unhealthful though :S
2007-01-06, 12:41 PM #2
Funny that an oil company wants to cast doubt on global warming.
Pissed Off?
2007-01-06, 12:44 PM #3
The only thing that will really prove global warming is centuries of temperature records. :rolleyes:
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2007-01-06, 12:45 PM #4
Yeah, but I would like to finally see some research in the other direction. I always find global warming research suspicious, because it seems to be primarily done by people that are just trying to find data to support global warming vs. trying to find out weather it's really a problem or not.

Originally posted by Freelancer:
The only thing that will really prove global warming is centuries of temperature records. :rolleyes:



Yeah but if the earth is 6 billion or even 10 thousand years old, a few centuries worth of data isn't very useful.
2007-01-06, 12:48 PM #5
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Yeah, but I would like to finally see some research in the other direction. I always find global warming research suspicious, because it seems to be primarily done by people that are just trying to find data to support global warming vs. trying to find out weather it's really a problem or not.


Yes, it's about time we had oil companies doing the research on global warming so we can finally get some accurate answers.
2007-01-06, 1:00 PM #6
Originally posted by Freelancer:
The only thing that will really prove global warming is centuries of temperature records. :rolleyes:



There's no doubt that there is warming. The cause it what's debated. Historically, there have been periods where the Earth has been warmer and had higher concentraions of CO2 in the air.
Pissed Off?
2007-01-06, 1:03 PM #7
We're a little big-headed if we seriously think that we can **** up the earth. We are a microsecond of the earth's lifespan. We will be here and then won't, and the earth will have never even noticed.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2007-01-06, 1:08 PM #8
You're a little bigheaded for making assumptions without any knowledge of the facts.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2007-01-06, 1:23 PM #9
I could **** up the earth with a couple thousand nukes, and so could any crazy man that gets a hold of them. So kirby, you are wrong in that sense. However, I believe you are correct that by going about or normal lives not intentionally trying to ruin it, it will not happen.
America, home of the free gift with purchase.
2007-01-06, 1:26 PM #10
Originally posted by JediKirby:
We're a little big-headed if we seriously think that we can **** up the earth. We are a microsecond of the earth's lifespan. We will be here and then won't, and the earth will have never even noticed.


But when we say something is bad for the earth it's just a shorter way of saying bad for the environment that we need to live comfortably. It's not about protecting the earth, it's about keeping the earth the way we need it. :0
2007-01-06, 2:07 PM #11
Originally posted by JediKirby:
We're a little big-headed if we seriously think that we can **** up the earth. We are a microsecond of the earth's lifespan. We will be here and then won't, and the earth will have never even noticed.


I think that is one of the most rational statements I have ever read on this message board.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2007-01-06, 2:13 PM #12
Look at the weather around here and it's clear that something is going on... it's like 10 degrees out; haven't had any snow all winter.
Stuff
2007-01-06, 2:14 PM #13
Originally posted by kyle90:
Look at the weather around here and it's clear that something is going on... it's like 10 degrees out; haven't had any snow all winter.


However, here in washington its been way colder then it normally. And we -have- had snow, which is highly unusual.

o.0
2007-01-06, 2:15 PM #14
Give us back our snow :argh: :saddowns:
Stuff
2007-01-06, 2:29 PM #15
You can have it, snow sucks.

o.0
2007-01-06, 2:46 PM #16
Originally posted by Emon:
You're a little bigheaded for making assumptions without any knowledge of the facts.


yes, but remember, for all we know there could have been a dinosaur civilisation. Think about it, we have actusly got very few fossils, most of the bones you see on display in places are copies, and artifacts of human civilisation from the earliest ones are very rare.

So it is quite possible that even if we are causing this warming, that we wont mess up the earth. After all, during the end of the permian period 251 million years ago about 96% of marine species and 70% of land species became extinct, and yet what followed was one of the most successful types of creatures that we know. (the dinosaurs).

Anyway, there is not anything we can do to reverse global warming (if indeed it is mostly our fault and not something that happens every few thousand years) but we can try to minimalise our impact on the environment.
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)------@%
2007-01-06, 2:49 PM #17
Has anyone see An Inconvenient Truth? I enjoyed it.

The most fascinating aspect of the debate on global warming is just how complex the issue is and just how incapable the average person is of understanding it. How exciting it is that by the time what needs to be done is done, it may be a bit late.
2007-01-06, 2:51 PM #18
I don't understand what the lost dinosaur cultute has to do with global warming. :psyduck:
COUCHMAN IS BACK BABY
2007-01-06, 2:54 PM #19
In any case I'm combatting global warming in my own little way. I keep my refrigerator door open all the time so it cools everything off.

You know what; why don't we just build a HUGE refrigerator and use that to cool the planet?
Stuff
2007-01-06, 2:57 PM #20
Or just bring huge chunks of ice from comets and drop them in our ocean!

o.0
2007-01-06, 3:21 PM #21
Having your refridgerator door open warms the outside.
2007-01-06, 4:41 PM #22
Originally posted by 'Thrawn[numbarz:
']Yes, it's about time we had oil companies doing the research on global warming so we can finally get some accurate answers.



They're just funding it. And besides, it'll still be biased, it'll just force the guys biased in the other direction to stop spewing so many poor, misleading articles. I keep seeing Global Warming articles ripped to shreds but relative amatures, because their authors had to go and dramatize it by exaggerate and misconstruing facts. Weather they have a point or no, crap like that makes me not want to believe anything they say.
2007-01-06, 4:48 PM #23
Have every single human not use any sort of fossil-fuel powered device for a year and see if the temperatures still rise. Then we'll know it's wholly anthropogenic.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2007-01-06, 4:57 PM #24
We'd have to kill all the cows on the planet too. They contribute a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Pissed Off?
2007-01-06, 5:01 PM #25
I thought Carbon Monoxide was the issue...
2007-01-06, 5:29 PM #26
No, that's a poison, and bad, but only if you breath a lot of it. It comes from incomplete combustion and I would think that it would eventually turn into CO2.
2007-01-06, 5:31 PM #27
[QUOTE=Cool Matty]I thought Carbon Monoxide was the issue...[/QUOTE]

That's what makes smog. CO2 is what absorbs and retains energy from the sun, raising the temperature.
Pissed Off?
2007-01-06, 5:58 PM #28
Originally posted by Avenger:
We'd have to kill all the cows on the planet too. They contribute a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Not necessarily. Sure we might have dramatically increased the bovine population to satisfy our needs. But cows producing carbon dioxide is just a result of their metabolism. Our contributions to CO[sub]2[/sub] is burning fossil-fuels, not through natural biological means. The claim is that humans are the largest (or sole cause) to global warming through fossil-fuel burning.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2007-01-08, 8:11 AM #29
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Yeah but if the earth is 6 billion or even 10 thousand years old, a few centuries worth of data isn't very useful.


How about 800,000 years worth of data?

Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.

Quotes from the article:
Quote:
The picture is the same: carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall in step.

"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change..." explained Dr. Wolff.


Quote:
In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.

"The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have an analogue in our records," he said.


I don't understand why this is perceived as a partisan issue since it has the potential to affect us all. What is wrong with erring on the side of caution? More efficient technologies and less pollutants in the air would still be a good thing even if global climate change were someday disproved.
2007-01-08, 8:25 AM #30
The issue is whether the environment works on positive or negative feedback. If it's positive feedback it means that any change we make will end up with significant consequences. If it's negative feedback it means that unless we do something really really stupid (nuking everything) the environment will still be able to bounce back to the natural cycle.

In the long run we're screwed either way, but personally I think it's better to be cautious than to be stupid.
Detty. Professional Expert.
Flickr Twitter
2007-01-08, 10:33 AM #31
Originally posted by Wuss:
How about 800,000 years worth of data?

Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.

Quotes from the article:




I don't understand why this is perceived as a partisan issue since it has the potential to affect us all. What is wrong with erring on the side of caution? More efficient technologies and less pollutants in the air would still be a good thing even if global climate change were someday disproved.


If my life depended on it, I might trust the BBC on this issue. :P

Anyways, I think I read somewhere that it would cost at least 2 trillion to actually "fix" the problem. However, I didn't actually see the details of the "solution."
2007-01-08, 2:25 PM #32
I know that you are just kidding about the BBC, but here is the same information straight from the British Antarctic Survey's website (link).

Also, I think the two trillion dollar cost is way off the mark. I'd like to see where you got that number. In fact, articles that I've read have suggested that more efficient technologies would actually save us money in the long run.
2007-01-08, 3:27 PM #33
Actually, I've had past experiences with a few BBC articles either being extremely biased or simply false. That was a while ago and haven't trusted them since....but I appreciate the 2nd article.

The article about 2 trillion was on CNN or some site like that a couple months ago...I'll see if I can locate it.
2007-01-08, 4:25 PM #34
The problem is people make all these assinine assumptions based on a decade or two of memories. "Oh, there's definitely something going on! It hasn't snowed this year!"

Yeah, the temperature may have increased by 1 degree or something since we started keeping records, but who gives a frack? We've only kept records for a century and a half. The weather naturally gets warmer and cooler.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2007-01-08, 4:29 PM #35
Freelancer, if you read the article that I linked to, you'll see that scientsts have temperature data going back 800,000 years.
2007-01-08, 4:31 PM #36
One volcanic eruption causes more problems than all the problems that humanity gathers in a year. It throws more CO2 in the air, more debris, and eats away at more of the ozone. And, if I remember correctly, there's multiple eruptions per year.

We don't do ****.
D E A T H
2007-01-08, 4:32 PM #37
Originally posted by Wuss:
Freelancer, if you read the article that I linked to, you'll see that scientsts have temperature data going back 800,000 years.

May I see them?

...that's what I thought. :rolleyes:

You really think that CO2 levels in a single ice core on a single place on the earth is going to give you accurate temperature data for the past 800,000 years? You're pretty damn naive and the scientists who published this article are pretty damn optimistic.

Tell you what.

How about you measure the CO2 level in the atmosphere in your home town and, without looking at the actual temperature, tell me what temperature it is. Then I'll laugh at you.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2007-01-08, 4:45 PM #38
Originally posted by Freelancer:
You really think that CO2 levels in a single ice core on a single place on the earth is going to give you accurate temperature data for the past 800,000 years? You're pretty damn naive and the scientists who published this article are pretty damn optimistic.

Haha, Freelancer vs teams of geologists. I wonder who is more well informed?
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2007-01-08, 4:46 PM #39
Remember kids, when it comes to random internet denizen versus scores of scientists, random internet denizen always wins. That's the lesson we learned from Friend14!
D E A T H
2007-01-08, 4:55 PM #40
Originally posted by Freelancer:
May I see them?

...that's what I thought. :rolleyes:

You really think that CO2 levels in a single ice core on a single place on the earth is going to give you accurate temperature data for the past 800,000 years? You're pretty damn naive and the scientists who published this article are pretty damn optimistic.

Tell you what.

How about you measure the CO2 level in the atmosphere in your home town and, without looking at the actual temperature, tell me what temperature it is. Then I'll laugh at you.


Well, they can find the CO2 levels and the actual temperatures by studying the isotopes found in the ice cores (link explaining the science). Through isotopic analysis, they can determine the atmospheric temperature when the ice froze. They're not extrapolating the temperatures from the CO2 levels, they are looking at the CO2 levels and the temperatures independently and then noticed a correlation between the two. So yes, it is an accurate record of temperatures. Antarctic is also relatively unspoiled by outside pollutants that might effect the results as well. I think they drilled in several locations too, but I cannot determine that for sure.

Furthermore, their data has been published in reputable journals, scrutinized by the scientific community, and found to be sound. You can laugh at me all you want, but I trust the work of numerous experts working through the scientific method.
12

↑ Up to the top!