When Will The World (properly) Wake Up?

Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:04 am

Interesting... Although I doubt I'll soon take a course in marine biology insofar as looking it up online, but I do have a friend who is an actual surveyor type dude with the little instruments he uses on the little rocks here in AZ, he's always sunburned, yeah, I don't know his job title, well, he told me about global trends, in which the climate changes, alters things like glacial conditions, melting, changing salinity or the ocean runoffs, and then the atmosphere is then affected and so on... but then it changes right back. But I say it isn't a real problem because we won't be here to see them play out, and neither will our children. The way the bigger problems seem to be getting out of control, secret weapons and... look at the news! though, not the kind you see on Fox, look at BBC and to those who report on scene in Arab countries. Do you think we'll have another 10 years?

NEW EDIT:Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier is one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures.
"We're not sure why this happens," said Andres Rivera, a glacialist with the Center for Scientific Studies in Valdivia, Chile. "But not all glaciers respond equally to climate change."

My freinds, ,this is called global trends, they change and change again. One person said Gore was using it as a way to gain publicity and wealth, a 'GREEN' promoter, yet he uses huge jets that definitely produce harsh emissions directly into the atmosphere at that altitude.
Another thing

Quote:

Scientists can tell the previous temperatures of our climate by locking at rocks, sediment layers, and the thickness of ice.

--Indeed scientist can study the times and climate events through layers of the earth, however, here in AZ, there are cliffs that have tree trunks that are laying in various directions through supposedly millions of years of rock, how is that? Carbon 14 methods aren't as accurate as we think, a test was done on a LIVE mollusk, the results said it was several thousands of years old... It wasn't dead! Certainly the mollusk could not live that long, the only answer is that the methods of testing aren't as accurate as we think them to be, besides, we are a people who believe almost anything that fed to them.

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:55 pm

I think it will take 15 years or even more than that.I hope it does not take for ever.

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:35 am

LionOfTheLost wrote:

Carbon 14 methods aren't as accurate as we think, a test was done on a LIVE mollusk, the results said it was several thousands of years old... It wasn't dead! Certainly the mollusk could not live that long, the only answer is that the methods of testing aren't as accurate as we think them to be, besides, we are a people who believe almost anything that fed to them.

Ok, carbon 14 datin' techniques are only possible on samples from the last 40,000 yrs or so as after 8 half-lives of 5,600 yrs each there is less than 0.3% of the original radioactive carbon left so reliable measurements become impossible.
Also, as it turned out, Willard Libby's (the man who pioneered the idea) got his sums wrong so every date you get is too young by around 3% altho this is taken into account. Apparently they have kept the inaccurate constant to this day.

About your mollusk thing, various things can affect the results. The principle one bein' that the whole idea works on the assumption that atmospheric carbon 14 has remained constant, it hasnt. It is affected by the the strength of the Earths magnetic field. One other thing that can affect it is whether the sample is aquatic or has eaten a lot of seafood. An ancient skeleton of a man who lived by the sea an ate prodigious amounts of fish will appear much older than what it actually is.

Nevertheless it is as accurate as it needs to be for the purposes of palaeontology. For more ancient ages of rocks an' of the earth itself more reliable methods such as the uranium/lead or the potassium40/argon40 have been used.

Sorry, geology an' palaeontology are interests of mine.

Back on topic, this song has all the answers.

Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 12:53 am

little dark one wrote:

Now we all know (at least i think we do) that global warming/climate change is an imminent threat. I'm just wondering when you think world leaders will take really drastic measures to prevent any more bad stuff from happening. (or for that matter, when will normal people take drastic measures)
I know they are already doing stuff to help but don't you think; compared to the scale of the threat; it's a little too little?

Please elaborate and prove me wrong if you need to. I think i'm not well educated in this area so tell me more, gimmie the facts. Whatever.

trollster wrote:

Quote:

Now we all know (at least i think we do) that global warming/climate change is an imminent threat

"When Will The World (properly) Wake Up?"

Your saying that on the fact that global warming is an happening thing and man is responsible for it, while I agree it may (emphisis on may) be hotter, I don't think man has anything what so ever to do with it

I clicked 'never' cos I don't believe the general public (you and me and rest of the world) have any significant contributing factors to climate change, yeah ok, maybe fuel fumes from millions of vehicles around the world may have made a pin sized hole in the ozone layer or aerosols intheir millions around the world may have dented it, but I believe the blame lies in the world's governments. They could fix it quite easily, may take a while, but they have the resources, it's just that there's no money in it for them! It's easier to blame us and put us on a guilt trip, cut down on this, buy more of these to help etc. It's the same with famine, we can't fix it by throwing money at the problem, especially when that money gets stopped before it gets to the people that really need it and they get a fraction of it while the rest goes into the silk-lined pockets of the leaders.

Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:23 am

Thanks to Soda's efforts in this direction, I no longer believe in Global Warming.

Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:37 am

Global warming is a push.
And as far as the question...
Humans will never properly wake up.
There are only rude awakenings to change someones ways unfortunately...

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:11 pm

Men nowadays only wish to lord it over material nature, & are only concerned with their immediate prosperity.

We should not expect milk from the fleshy bags on the neck of a goat, although they look like breastly nipples

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:48 pm

SoDaSeeD wrote:

LionOfTheLost wrote:

Carbon 14 methods aren't as accurate as we think, a test was done on a LIVE mollusk, the results said it was several thousands of years old... It wasn't dead! Certainly the mollusk could not live that long, the only answer is that the methods of testing aren't as accurate as we think them to be, besides, we are a people who believe almost anything that fed to them.

Ok, carbon 14 datin' techniques are only possible on samples from the last 40,000 yrs or so as after 8 half-lives of 5,600 yrs each there is less than 0.3% of the original radioactive carbon left so reliable measurements become impossible.
Also, as it turned out, Willard Libby's (the man who pioneered the idea) got his sums wrong so every date you get is too young by around 3% altho this is taken into account. Apparently they have kept the inaccurate constant to this day.

About your mollusk thing, various things can affect the results. The principle one bein' that the whole idea works on the assumption that atmospheric carbon 14 has remained constant, it hasnt. It is affected by the the strength of the Earths magnetic field. One other thing that can affect it is whether the sample is aquatic or has eaten a lot of seafood. An ancient skeleton of a man who lived by the sea an ate prodigious amounts of fish will appear much older than what it actually is.

Citation needed.

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:10 pm

I woke up at 7:30 today

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:14 pm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-6w9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=inaccuracies+of+carbon+14+dating+magnetic+field&source=bl&ots=f6UidwBEWu&sig=UCsyxAsEwRGLtMXC6YynsZ1qZlo&hl=en&ei=Ib4BS9KuFoO7jAeDosibCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

is one citation. Maybe not the best but it is late and i'm about to sign off. There are many more if you care to look. I realise what you are implying mate as young earth creationists have used these findings to try and justify their own religious views. Let me be clear that i am not. Only an unscientific fool would, however, suggest that radio carbon dating techniques arent without flaws. As i said tho, various other computations have to be applied to any date you get from this technique but on the whole they give a fairly accurate number. Accurate enough for the purposes of paleontological investigation of up to about 40,000 yrs.

If this isnt what you meant mate, i apologise.

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:05 pm

dont think anything can stop it really Confused

the weather is the weather and not a lot we can do about it Very Happy

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:14 pm

SoDaSeeD wrote:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-6w9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=inaccuracies+of+carbon+14+dating+magnetic+field&source=bl&ots=f6UidwBEWu&sig=UCsyxAsEwRGLtMXC6YynsZ1qZlo&hl=en&ei=Ib4BS9KuFoO7jAeDosibCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

is one citation. Maybe not the best but it is late and i'm about to sign off. There are many more if you care to look. I realise what you are implying mate as young earth creationists have used these findings to try and justify their own religious views. Let me be clear that i am not. Only an unscientific fool would, however, suggest that radio carbon dating techniques arent without flaws. As i said tho, various other computations have to be applied to any date you get from this technique but on the whole they give a fairly accurate number. Accurate enough for the purposes of paleontological investigation of up to about 40,000 yrs.

If this isnt what you meant mate, i apologise.

The link leads me to: Egypt before the pharaohs: the prehistoric foundations of Egyptian civilization

No I didn't mean the creationist mumbo jumbo. I was more interested in that magnetic field effect... (i do magnetic experiments on animals..)

Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:35 am

If you read down a bit you would have seen the effects of the earths magnetic field on radio-carbon dating, anyway....it was the first thing i could find mate, sorry.

Magnetic experiments eh? Hope you dont mean like in Tom and Jerry cartoons when Tom swallows a magnet an' Jerry makes him zoom about banging into shit and shit!! Laughing

j/k mate. What kind of experiments?

Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:54 am

SoDaSeeD wrote:

If you read down a bit you would have seen the effects of the earths magnetic field on radio-carbon dating, anyway....it was the first thing i could find mate, sorry.

Magnetic experiments eh? Hope you dont mean like in Tom and Jerry cartoons when Tom swallows a magnet an' Jerry makes him zoom about banging into shit and shit!! Laughing

j/k mate. What kind of experiments?

training for health field + works on brains + magnets = nMRI(nuclear magnetic resonance imaging)

if so - cool stuff

and global warming is a misnomer - they really should have a different tag for what's happening
climate change, earth rape, human stupidity
it's happening, but - i haven't kept up on it recently

Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:00 am

eldestFLeTcH wrote:

SoDaSeeD wrote:

What kind of experiments?

training for health field + works on brains + magnets = nMRI(nuclear magnetic resonance imaging)

Were you Sherlock Holmes in an earlier birth? Shocked