Should mankind survive?

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Fyyr » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:15 am

Tudamorf wrote: Well, the non-resistant humans may not have starved to death, but our ancestors simply out-competed them. It doesn't take a large advantage for one group to wipe out another, over time.
You have no problem accepting the hypothesis that prehistoric humans were cannibals, and survived especially because of it, and it shaped our evolution. Despite most humans having an innate revulsion for the practice.

But you have a problem with the hypothesis that maternal death during childbirth rates were so high that it shaped our evolution.


I don't know any cannibals.

But I know a LOT of women who would be dead without social or medical intervention during childbirth.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Fyyr » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:26 am

Tudamorf,

We have burned half of the world's petrochemicals already.
And there have been zero negative effects temperature wise, so far.

When the second half is burned it's going to be twice times zero.


Why is this Summer so much cooler than normal? I have only had my AC on like 3 days this Summer, it's already August?
We burned about a quarter of the total petrochemicals at about the 70s. And the second quarter since then.
It was much hotter back then than now. Why is that, if your Venus/CO2/Greenhouse model is correct?

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by AbyssalMage » Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:56 pm

Fyyr wrote:Tudamorf,

We have burned half of the world's petrochemicals already.
And there have been zero negative effects temperature wise, so far.

When the second half is burned it's going to be twice times zero.


Why is this Summer so much cooler than normal? I have only had my AC on like 3 days this Summer, it's already August?
We burned about a quarter of the total petrochemicals at about the 70s. And the second quarter since then.
It was much hotter back then than now. Why is that, if your Venus/CO2/Greenhouse model is correct?
Global weather has been warmer during the summer and Global weather has been colder during the winter. Every model that I have seen predicted this with GLOBAL WARMING! What your describing is LOCAL CLIMATE change. The Salt Beds there in California weren't always dry, they used to have a LARGE body of water covering them.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Tudamorf » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:34 pm

AbyssalMage wrote:Global weather has been warmer during the summer and Global weather has been colder during the winter. Every model that I have seen predicted this with GLOBAL WARMING! What your describing is LOCAL CLIMATE change. The Salt Beds there in California weren't always dry, they used to have a LARGE body of water covering them.
You forget, Fyyr understands climate change about as well as Pat Robertson does.

He thinks "global warming" means a hot day in his home town.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Tudamorf » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:37 pm

Fyyr wrote:We have burned half of the world's petrochemicals already.
And there have been zero negative effects temperature wise, so far.
Uh huh.

Image

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Tudamorf » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:47 pm

Fyyr wrote:You have no problem accepting the hypothesis that prehistoric humans were cannibals, and survived especially because of it, and it shaped our evolution. Despite most humans having an innate revulsion for the practice.
The fact that so many human cultures, in recorded history no less, have practiced cannibalism should tell you that the supposedly innate revulsion is either weak or non-existent.

Most of it is just learned behavior.

I'm revolted by black pudding and lutefisk too, but Scottish and Norwegians consider them delicacies.
Fyyr wrote:But you have a problem with the hypothesis that maternal death during childbirth rates were so high that it shaped our evolution.
What makes you think I do? Of course it shaped our evolution. Why, for example, do you think human women go through menopause?

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Fyyr » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:13 am

Tudamorf wrote: Uh huh.

Image
This graph shows a notable incline prior(pre 1940) to the vast bulk of human produced CO2 emissions.

It shows a decline about the time when automobile and energy(petro to electricity) use was increasing at a very large rate, 1960s through the 1980s.

The graph does not correlate CO2 production and global temperatures. Your Venus/Greenhouse model is obviously wrong. Earth is not like Venus or a glass box, that's what your graph shows.

And if it is like a greenhouse, I actually kinda wonder what's going to happen to plant life on the Earth when the CO2 emission levels drop, when the gas runs out. Atmospheric CO2 is a known limiting factor in plant growth, both terrestrial as well as aquatic. Greenhouse growers will typically increase plant production by using CO2 generators. Fresh water aquarists routinely add supplemental CO2 to their systems to increase and stimulate growth. You can set up your own experiment if you like. Take 2 10 gallon terrariums, one the control and the other with gaseous CO2 introduced. Your temperatures are going to be the same in both systems, and you will have notably increased growth in the CO2 terrarium. Put the greenhouse model to the test for yourself.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Tudamorf » Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:43 pm

Fyyr wrote:The graph does not correlate CO2 production and global temperatures.
The graph does not even show carbon dioxide. Or other greenhouse gases. Or address any of your other quasi-religious, unscientific claims, which I don't care to rehash because they're no longer entertaining.

It's simply there to refute your claim that "there have been zero negative effects temperature wise, so far."

There have been, and there's a concise statement of the proof.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Fyyr » Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:20 am

Tudamorf wrote:
Fyyr wrote:The graph does not correlate CO2 production and global temperatures.
The graph does not even show carbon dioxide. Or other greenhouse gases. Or address any of your other quasi-religious, unscientific claims, which I don't care to rehash because they're no longer entertaining.

It's simply there to refute your claim that "there have been zero negative effects temperature wise, so far."
I know that your graph does not correlate CO2 emissions and temperatures...

That's why I stated what I said, and how I stated it.

Because there is not correlation. Temperatures were increasing prior to increased CO2 emissions. Temperatures decreased when CO2 emissions were increasing.

You don't have to address(rehash) these facts, but they are there in your own graph that you posted(the NASA graph), if you don't want to.

Like A Mage already stated about the salt flats of California(which I don't don't know what he's specifically speaking). But even he acknowledges that the climate changes, the global climate changes irrespective of human intervention or activity. And is getting hotter enough to cause supposed salt flats in California.

The entire Sierras are still covered in SNOW. Right now. Some of you contest this as only some small local event. This is August, there is snow on the Sierras, right now. In the 35 years of my adult life, I don't remember anything like this. Dismiss it as some 'local' climate thing if you like; but if your Venus/Greenhouse model were correct, this should NOT be happening right now.

There have been, and there's a concise statement of the proof.
There is no correlation between CO2 emissions and temperatures.
You stated that yourself.
"The graph does not correlate CO2 production and global temperatures."

You know as well as I do, that CO2 emissions do not match that graph in any shape, manner, or form.

Post Reply