Coffee Shop no. 15 - Just a Thought...

What if allergies were contagious?

That would not be that great..... Mass hysteria ~Environmentalist

They would have to quarantine people with allergies and because some people are born with allergies, more and more people will have to live a separate life because they could catch allergies from people with different allergies. ~ZobyBlueberry

If allergies were contagious, everyone would be required to have and know how to use an epinephrine injection thing (EPI pen). There would be allergy tests for paranoid people. Scientists might even develop an "allergy vaccine"...The worst case would be...where all the people born with allergies are put in concentration camps to die. Government officials would capture all those with allergies and the people with allergies would try to hide it. All the families of the allergic would be paranoid and they would probably put the allergic person in a full-body suit to prevent contamination...All the people would be happy when the allergic people were gone. Another friendlier strategy would be to try and get rid of all allergens...Either way it would cause global panic and everyone would be scared of getting allergies. The allergic would be paranoid of getting "discovered". Friends and families would be split all because of allergies. If allergies BECAME contagious (they weren't before) then the results would be catastrophic. ~Morangue Pine

I agree, mostly, with what you all say, given that allergies suddenly became contagious for no apparent reason. If this were to be true and allergies were as contagious as the common cold (that is simply being with someone who has means you could get it), then people trying to isolate those with allergies and hide from them would be useless. It would be impossible to completely separate those with allergies from those without. Also, getting rid of the allergens would be impossible. What about pollen in the air?

If allergies became something that was only contagious through, say, blood or something and could not be transmitted only by being near the person (in other words, it's "hard" to get infected), then "catching" an allergy could be prevented quite well. There would be no need to separate the population or anything. If all goes perfectly, then all those with allergies, after two centuries or so, would be gone and we'd have an allergy-free world.

Now, if allergies were contagious as a "given" thing, (meaning its been that way since the start) people would probably be immune to it by now or at least have ways to greatly reduce the severity of "catching" an allergy. For example, the common cold can now be treated quite well. ~Pomomarine

I agree with your views that even if they were contagious , we would develop immunity or would adapt to them over the course [of] evolution. ~Environmentalist

~Morangue Pine

Coffee Shop no. 15 - Just a Thought...

1. If we survived nuclear Armageddon how do you think we would change.

If we survived a nuclear Armageddon i think that we would concentrate on rebuilding our society first. If the scenario is really bad, then we would just care about surviving and getting enough food. Fear for future nuclear warfare will be a concern but we wouldn't take action to stop nuclear ware fare until we have reestablished a strong government.
Also enviroments would change, scientific data will be all anmollies. Almost every living thing will be altered. ~Project Z

Well a nucular armageddon would leave any survivors scarce and misplaced around the globe. Their first reaction would be to find food and shelter, but as well to find others. The survivors would need to team up, many might die from hunger or thirst, some from the shock and no exposure to their past luxurious liftimes would kill them. If they were caught in the nucleuar fall - out, they surley would not have made it. The nucular explosions would set off a nucular winter, and only those who could find a way to plant crops would survive. Society would not be able to re-build its self until the climate would stabilize. Nations would be a thing of the past, people would need to create a need government, America would have likley died before most people were killed if it had hit in this country, and the President would fly to a "top secret" facility and the country would be in panic. It would be complicated for the human race to survive, but like in all catastropies there is some who manage to survive, such as a volcanic eruption thousands of years ago that wiped man on earth to only 20 females that could give birth. ~Environmentalist

2. Do you think a blind person who has never been able to see thinks in shapes? To clarify, if he held a cube would he imagine a cube in his hand?

...If a blind man helded a cube, he would fell it. There would be no need to imagine a cube. ~Project Z

If a blind man held a cube in his hand, then he should be able to "visualize" the cube. We know that blind people still have a sense of space. For example, they can walk on streets with a sense of where the cars are, etc. Therefore, I believe that they would "see" the cube they feel quite accurately. ~Pomomarine

They would also have a "phantom" sense, by the slight air pressure differences and waves the movement makes. ~186000mps

Well he would be able to feel the cube, but he would not be able to visualize it if he had never seen one, he would probably try to make sense of it but it would be complicated. ~Environmentalist

I agree, somewhat, with the "Phantom sense" idea. People who are blind are known to have a stronger other sense to accommodate for their loss of sight. For example, there sense of hearing might be outstanding. Also, I think the blind person would be able to "see" a cube figure, enough to accurately describe its qualities (has six sides, etc.). However, I would think, if suddenly given sight, there would be a few revelations. Perhaps one thing he always thought would actually be different, but I think their visualization should be at least 85% accurate. ~Pomomarine

I agree with your hypothesis but if he was to suddenly be cured of his blindness his brain would not be able to process it so he would not be able to see... ~Bartumes

The hearing thing is only true because they have to rely on other senses to tell them about the world so the senses become more tuned... ~ZobyBlueberry

Yes. Blind people HAVE to rely on other senses as they don't have their sense of sight. ~Pomomarine

~Bartumes

Coffee Shop no. 14 - Just a Thought...

New World, Old World

As a solution to global warming and possible world devastation caused by global warming, [here] is a new idea on "New World, Old World". The idea is that there would be an isolated territory for those not yet exposed to the environment today. In this colony, "guides" would help those growing up there to live lives completely different from the rest of the world. They would be "greener", use more traditional ("old fashioned") methods, etc. to live and have minimal impact on the earth. This would be the "New World".

The rest of us, the "Old World", would concentrate almost all our efforts on slowly adapting to be like the "New World". We would decrease the number of cars (ex. 1 car per family) and decrease city size, close selected factories, reform to use solar energy as a main power source for making electricity, mass-decrease coal use, etc. all in efforts to be greener and more like the "New World". This would be the "Global Green Revolution".

Eventually, the entire globe will be reformed and revolutionized into the ways of the New World.

Coffee Shop no. 13 - Just a Thought...

1. Do you think extraterrestrial life exists?

I think that extraterestriel life may exist. We have found planets and galaxies that could be capable of keeping life forms alive. I think they might exist, but if they do, i don't think they would be as vicious as the kind that you see in the movie alien. ~Thoth

I think extraterrestrial life exists but probably not anything intelligent, probably bacteria, fungus and the sort. ~Morangue Pine

It is a defenate yes that extra terestrial life does exsit. Many planets all over the universe are in the "goldie locks zone" from their home star. Also planets such as mars or moons such as europa have been sceptticized to have life. Mars has evidence that methane is being produced around the atnosphere durring the summer, a biological made gas. Also Europa has thermal vents under neath a vast ice sheet and salty ocean of water, a probe will be sent in 2016 to investigate the waters for life. Also life has to exist, most star systems have planets and there are billions of stars in each glaxy and the are billions of these gallaxies. ~Environmentalist

~Bartumes

Coffee Shop no. 12 - Just a Thought...

What do you think?

1. Do you think telekinesis or telekinetics are possible?

Telekinesis is entirely possible. According to astrophysicist Michio Kaku, author of the New York Times Best Seller: Physics of the Impossible, telekinesis can be synthetically induced. There are no scientific explanations though, for abilities such as levitation, teleportation, telepathy, or telekinesis in raw uncontrolled form. There are reports that some people can bend metal with the sheer power of their mind (telekinesis and telepathy combined) or cause things to rise off the ground without touching them. Most of these stories are hoaxes and physicists rarely support the possibility of someone's brainwaves having an affect on surrounding environment. Kaku explained that in order to push something off the ground, a certain amount of electrical activity equal to several hundred hertz (I do not know the exact number because the book isn't with me at the moment, but its in the 90s to 200s or higher) which should be beyond human capability to produce. But possible for a machine to create, meaning if you implant electrodes in your brain and connect them to a super computer used to emit electromagnetic pulses into your surroundings, you may be able to make something a few feet away move wherever you think it should go. Of course, that may not be what you had in mind as natural telekinesis, but it's the only known parallel to telekinesis theorized by scientists today. If people can already hook themselves up to a super computer and use their mind to control the computer cursor (much in the manner of machine to human telepathy), then I think telekinesis is possible. But should we want telekinesis? ~Severus


~Thoth

2. What do you think would happen if humans had telepathic, telekinetic, pyrokinetic, hydrokinetic, and other such abilities? How would the world be different?


I think the world could go into utter chaos if we had those abilities. In competitions and game shows contestants could cheat by telepathically consulting other people. Wars and sports would be more fierce or have more rules, as you could telekinetically move a ball, or even a player. Water and fire are powerful. Terrorists could easily drown, choke, or burn people as well as buildings and so it would be easier to destroy the world and murder people, with no actual "weapons" involved. Also, it would be much more efficient to travel, and transportation businesses would disappear (along with a lot of jobs!). Although this would be really cool and convenient, it could also lead to serious damage and bad consequences.

Although I do believe there could be bad effects to these "powers" but in your scenario it is as if everyone would suddenly got them but in reality we would slowly evolve. I think it would be for the best. If we could pick up on the mined waves of others then we would be able to since the powerful energy wave used to manipulate matter. therefor we would be able to tell if other people used it. sports would probably be giant games were everything was controlled by their minds. I also predict the ref would be connected to a machine that amplifies the perception as to tell if people were cheating. crimes would be a pain but in your example you said you could burn people but then the victim could extinguish it and it would be more even the now because in the modern day one person has a gun and the other does not. this way each person would have a "gun" there also would be the problem of babies. They would be a problem because it has been proven that the younger the person the more advanced there brain is. For example already some babies have moved objects without touching them during tantrums. If everyone could do this then babies would be very advanced and have no control. We would probably give them some kind of shot or pill that makes it less powerful. And your statement about less jobs if people could teleport that would mean they could separate then re form molecules which means they would be able to create objects with there mined. in this case we would eliminate poverty and any need of personal possessions. this would probably eliminate money all the together. at this point with no money, resources, and land war would be eliminated. we have now gotten rid of war, poverty, money, and materiel possessions. with no war we will be united under one leader or government. also this makes no reason for mugging, theft or murder. also chances are if we have evolved so much we probably wont have psychopaths. this has also eliminated all form of murders. now we have eliminated all negative parts of life. then after thousands of years of evolution we then face the negative impacts of this. we have then eliminated all need of everything there for we can not develop anything so we will simply existed for millions of years. because we can now manipulate matter we will be able to keep ourselves in perfect health and finally stop reproducing so we don;t overpopulate. we have now also eliminated most positive things in life because we have no purpose because we cant develop anything. we have know have gotten rid of all good and bad things and will never die. as i already said we will simply exists for millions of year until we use all 100% of are mind at which point we become so interconnected with are endless amount of knowledge and power we will interconnect are minds and become one sentient bean. are bodies will then start to hold are still developing mined back so we will then leave are bodies behind. the huge sentient mass of energy will then grow and engulf the entire universe. this mind will then see there is no point in existing anymore so it will either destroy itself are alter itself into a world and time will be as if it is restarted. ~Bartumes

Sports would not give you much exercise if you just sat there in the bleachers telekinetically and telepathically moving things. ~Morangue Pine

If in the very unlikely event humans develop these powers simultaneously, and if human physcology persists, than the human race and possibly the world would be annihilated. ~186000mps

If we developed these powers than most people would be sitting around their houses, moving things with their mind. eventually, nobody would get exercise and we would turn into fat lifeless beings. we would all die after a year or two. ~Thoth

It would be very dangerous for humans to develoup these characteriscts, many people would find this as an excuse not to be physicaly fit. Also terrorists could use these methods do destroy. This would more likey cause us to kill our selves rather than to help us. ~Environmentalist

~Severus

Coffee Shop no. 11 - Just a Thought...

What do you think?

1. Do you think it is possible to run the planet only on environmentally friendly resources?

I think it is possible to run the planet on only environmentally friendly resources. First, we should define environmentally friendly. For my response here, let's define "environmentally friendly" as anything that either helps the Earth, or keeps it neutral, with as little harm as possible. In other words, anything that is good, or not affecting the planet with the least harm we can. With that definition, I believe we can. Civilization has accomplished that for many thousands of years! The question is, can we do it today with all that
we have now?

...Ever since the Industrial Revolution that happened throughout the 1800 - 1900s throughout the world, technology
and science have advanced rapidly. Within the last century, major world-changing technological advances have occurred including, the internet, the computer, email, cell phone and many others. Some may even say that the last century has been the most "techie" century in human history so far! Before this, everything was on a slow steady
course, but when we hit the 1900s, technology made a huge leap.

Unfortunately, this huge rise in technology has also led to a huge rise in pollution and waste and other "earth-saddening" events. We see that electricity is now a huge source of power for us. Lights, computers, stoves, phones, refrigerators... Without electricity these days, the world would be deprived of one of, if not the, most valued energy source. The problem is, most of our electricity comes from coal and natural gases.

...coal makes up for almost 50% of our electricity generation source. With electricity dominating our lives and almost 50% of it coming from coal, we have a huge issue. First off, the power plants where electricity is produced from coal (and a variety of other sources) are huge, major contributors to the pollution we release into the air. In fact, these are some of the most major factors to our global warming problem! Also, coal is a non-renewable source. This means that once it's gone, it's gone. It takes millions of years to make coal and other fossil fuels. In conjunction with how much we use of it now and the ever increasing demand for coal, it's no wonder why our earth is so subject pollution and why we are so conscious now of "going green"!

With all these saddening events going on, we have to pose questions like whether or not we can run the earth simply on environmentally friendly resources. The answer is yes, but realistically, it's not that simple. We know society has been living well with the planet for centuries, but that was in the days when people all lived humble lives in cottages, drove in horse-drawn carriages, lit small candles, and had no factories. The age however, has changed. So have the circumstances.

If we were to say, "the old ways were good, let us live like them", then yes, we may rid ourselves of the environmental issues we have now. But ask any person of today and they will utterly refuse such an idea. "Foolishness!" they will say. No one is willing to forfeit all we have now just to "go back" and live a dark life without any of the great technology of today. To forfeit what we've accomplished all these years would be infinitely torturous! How then, could we solve such a problem? Surely there is a way out of this maze, surely we can find a way to live in harmony with the earth again. Surely we can find a way to save our beautiful green and blue Earth from the darkness of
muddy brown pollution and environmental ignorance...Any ideas? ~Pomomarine

I have an idea on how to generate Eco Friendly electricity. That idea is to harvest the earths own gravity. We already do that today on rivers, but that generation is so minimal we would need to increase the efficiency of our machines over a million times for the demand to meet the production. But i was thinking one day; why cant we have micro-generators inside a body of water (Like a small pond or even a artificial body). They would work almost the same as those river generators but instead there is a tube, on the side of the tube there is a generator attached to it. The generators tribunes (the wheel things) would be have inside and half out. The outside part will be enclosed with a box so no water flow to effect the inside.There are several generators on the side of the tube. When water flows through them they will generate electricity. How this would work is the tube with the generators would be placed in the middle of a body of water (submerged) with both ends of the tube sealed. Then we unseal the first end (top). Gravity would pull the water downward but the air inside the tube would have nowhere to go. That's when the other end of the tube comes in, we unseal that end and then the water would spin the turbines in a cycle. Of course there might be some issues with the continuing cycle but that could be fixed with some micro heats and coolers. Now what if we made thousands of these and made them extremely small (having a mass of less than one micro gram)? We could generate tons of electricity. So what happens when we fill something like a bathtub of water with these inside? We could generate quite a bit of energy. This could be a solution to our energy crisis. ~Project Z

On the topic of energy, I don't believe we can harvest energy purely out of gravity. For example dams are generators spun by the movement of water, so kinetic energy is made into electric energy, not gravity into electricity. Using just gravity alone breaks conservation of energy. How can electricity be eco friendly? Reduce the waste matter. Nuclear power has very little waste (but dangerous waste.) I would say that wind turbines as well as solar panels are the best shot at the energy crisis. ~186000 mps

Possibly, energy would NOT be a problem. But we still need oil. We need it to run machines, as a lubricant between gears, and to make plastic. Of course if we use ecofriendly energy, the amount of oil used will be dramatically cut and we will have "more". At our current level of knowledge, it would be hard, the biggest challenge is to over come plastic. (Mining on other planets/asteroids can help save some of our natural resources)...[Adding on,] we have become so dependent on these that it would be hard with our level of technology. Also NOTHING can be COMPLETLY eco-friendly making the statement impossible. All eco-friendly objects have consequences. Wind turbines kill birds, solar panels need to to manufactured and take ground space, under water turbines kill fish, nuclear energy has deadly byproducts, cloud seeding can mess up weather patterns, and so on. We use these technologies because the benefits are GREATER that the risks, but wildlife and the global ecosystem is still disrupted.~Environmentalist

I don't think it is possible to run the planet only on environment friendly resources because if you make energy there are side effects so wouldn't the "most" eco-friendly thing to do is not to use energy? Of course I'm not sure that is entirely possible considering the wy we do things now. ~ZobyBlueberry

Well, I think that eco-friendly energy is perfectly possible, even at today's level of technology. Solar panels use the energy of the sun and converts it into electricity. Pretty soon electric cars will outsource gasoline and diesel cars. There wont be any emissions left. Solar panels are probably the best option, as they require little space and are effective at generating electricity. ~186000 mps

When I was talking about my underwater turbines i mean they are very very tiny and are not in a body of water that contain large animals (such as fish). I was thinking that we could put them in artificial bodies of water. ~ProjectZ

The whole point of underwater turbines is to produce mass amounts of energy. To do this they would need to be large and to make them spin they need to come into contact with ocean currents, artificial will just take more energy. Also at our level of technology and for convenience, they would be easier and better to build in shallow waters. I am a green freak, but all technology has a consequence in the environment, we have to face it. Even a bike has a consequence, it needs to be manufactured, needs a garage or shed, it drives over ants. all things can harm our environment, but it is still best to go green. But the olny way to be completly green is if we never even lived on planet Earth. -Environmentalist

My point isn't to harvest ocean current energy, my point is to harvest gravity. Bigger doesn't mean more energy, well it dose but not at a huge scale. Lets say we have one huge turbine that is the size of the earth. Now lets imagine earth filled up with turbines that have 1 cubic foot of capacity. Which one generates more electricity? The answer should be obvious. Now lets think one turbine the volume of one cubic foot. Now lets imagine millions of turbines that also fit into one cubic foot. Yet again the scenario with many small turbines generates more electricity. ~Project Z

~Bartumes

2. Do you think it is possible to create a video game so advanced you will be in it?

...my answer is "no", or [maybe] we are already in one...According to many astrophysicists, we may be living inside a high tech computer simulation and therefore the "being" at the controls of the computer or the "programmer" as you may call it, is actually controlling everything which happens on Earth and in the universe, which is actually part of one master computer simulation.The scientists say that subatomic particles and matter act almost as pixels in our three dimensional simulation and that we, like the computerized characters in a Sims viedo game are made up of millions of these sub-sub-atomic "pixels". The mere idea that we are in a computer simulation created by a seemingly omniscient being is mind blowing to say the least and many people dismiss the theory as soon as they learn of it because it defies most of the rules of physics and enters the realm of cybernetic intelligence. If we are truly living inside a simulation, that would mean that we are cybernetic beings that have come to be aware of our own existence.

Other scientists believe that the being at the 'controls" of the universe may be a future version of ourselves meaning a highly evolved human from the future trying to rebuild humanity before it collapses unto itself ( a tie in to an apocalypse in an alternate future, obviously). I find that far too improbable. Time travel is a nearly impossible feat because it defies the laws of physics, so there is no way an advanced human from the future can come to create a life like simulation of the past which is aware of itself. Therefore, I don't believe that it will ever be possible for humans to create a simulation which they can "be in" or permanently stamp themselves into as a cybernetic being. ~Severus

I believe that it is possible to create a video game so realistic that we are in it. If you were to have a device that can interpret the brain's electrical impulses of the 6 basic senses (touch, hearing, smell, sight, taste, and balance) then replace them with different brain frequencies but still give you the element of control, it would be possible. And in response to the theory that we already are in one, I looked it up and that is actually just a metaphor to show how everything is interconnected by a force like a video game. Although it is possible, it would take a tragic toll on us and the planet. It would be a drug in all senses of the word. Not something that you inject or eat a swallow but it would be highly addictive because you would be able to simply go into go into a perfect world. People would spend all there time in it and then soon enough it would be multi-player and everyone would share one huge simulation. This would be a perfect example of the matrix. Also this happened in one of the "Bobby Pendragon" series. The only way to counter act this addiction would be to add a negative factor such as a minor electric shock but then [some time] after the creator died the patent would wear off [from] power and [a] money hungry person would sell it without the negative influence and it would become like the movie "Surrogates". ~Bartumes

Bartumes, it wasn't only a metaphor. If you watch several episodes of " Into the Wormhole" they discuss with many astrophysicists about how the universe may actually be one giant simulation. Although I do not agree with the theory. ~Severus

True, the world may be a giant simulation. Maybe there are giant aliens up there who made us to observe our behavior, or maybe our world is truly like the matrix. But according to quantum theory anything is possible. Maybe we are all truly giant purple hippos with bat wings that spit rainbows and we cant see them. Because of this I do not think it is fair to just say it is possible because anything is really possible and if the world existed forever everything would happen at least once. ~Bartumes

I do believe its possible to create such a program. What we need to do is be able to directly send electric currents to the brain. We also need to block all natural electric currents to the brain.Now its easy, we can easily send signals to the brain indicating sight, feeling, smell, and hearing. Its easy to make it,but the next thing is how secure it is. If its a game like Halo then I'm fine. But when use the internet for connection i will want to play that less because what if the internet fails while your playing that is a huge problem. Normally if your using the internet on something like Xbox Live and it fails your character gets terminated. That means that you get terminated and you feel like you've just died. If your mind thinks that your dead then it will stop sending signals to your heart. Then you will really die in really life. No company would want their customers to die from their video game. But then comes what the game is becoming. Lets say you have an MMORPG and turn it into where you are in the game. Doesn't that virtual reality to you? Lets say we make a SIMS game into a MMORPG. Then lets say lets make that game so that you are in the game world. First off that would get "laggy" and second of all that would be a virtual reality. That would be a revolution.We could connect people from China to the US and have them talk face to face without moving them from their countries. But that could be VERY VERY dangerous. Lets say someone used this agansit the population by hooking everyone up to it. Then that person destroys the internet? He would of killed every person that was hooked up.~ProjectZ

It's possible, but a waste of our time. This would be great for entertainment purposes, but once again it could be dangerous. Also there are many hackers, this time they could hack into your brain! It would be more practical if NASA used this idea to train astronauts for space.~Environmentalist

I agree with your views, Environmentalist. The video game would be an utter waste of time. The bigger hazards being "brain hacking" and the control of other people as "mind slaves". ~Pomomarine

~Bartumes

Coffee Shop no. 10 - Just a Thought... (Part II)

3. Do you think the apocalypse is nearing? If yes or no, why?

What do you think?

...There is no way to be absolutely sure. According to the Bible, the antichrist will return and enslave humanity, and bring the human civilization to the point of collapse. The world during World War 2 thought for sure that Adolf Hitler was the antichrist (he certainly acted like one) and many predictions surfaced that the world was going to end when he took over Europe and eventually most of the globe. But Hitler didn't manage to do that, and all...the predictions were proven false. But concerning the 2012 apocalypse theory, the world will end in "fire". Many people relate this to another war, "World War Three" (spurred by a massive terrorist attack by the Taliban), which is a lot more likely than the second theory, which is that a super massive black hole (that scientists call ULX) will envelop our solar system and end all life on Earth. Another theory which is a little less likely than World War Three and a lot more probable than destruction by ULX is Yellowstone volcano erupting. Yellowstone is one of the largest volcanoes on the planet, and its underground magma chambers span across several states including North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Washington state. If it actually erupts...electrical lines will go out, electrical relay between cities may be permanently disabled, and many systems such down, including electricity. According to some...Mount Vesuvius on the other side of the world will erupt [as well] and destroy other surrounding cities...These eruptions will prove equally destructive as a terrorist attack if they happen to occur. Also, rising sea levels (the accumulating results of global warming) will prove incredibly devastating and possibly apocalyptic. Venice, New York, and Shanghai will be [some] of the first cities destoyed if there was a drastic increase in sea level during a tidal wave or flash flood caused by an earthquake. With the loss of major cities in flash floods and tsunamis the world will definitely be thrown into disarray. But there is no way to predict the exact year such events will happen. It may be thirty, forty, or even fifty years before the world will begin to have catastrophic weather events. The 2012 apocalypse, in my opinion, just doesn't have enough proof... ~Severus

...I am completely against the 2012 theory, but I do belive that the apocalypse is nearing. Yellowstone is a big threat to man kind, as it is over due to blow its top. A magnetar burst can also disrupt our lives as it would disable all electrical devices or any thing where electicity runs. But many believe that there [are/were three anti-christ]s, first Napolean, then Hitler, and lastly.. Obama? Well that is if Nostradamus was right...But there is nothing to worry about. All the Christians will resurrect into Heaven. [Then,] America, EU, China, and Russia will got to war in Israel, and all die and fill a valley with blood and at the very last second, Jesus will come down to Earth with a sword and a scroll with God's word. It will be so powerful evil will die...[Then there will be] no death, tears, and evil...Yellowstone [may also] affect the whole word, and lay inches of ash all the way to Maine, US. [It will then] put the world into a catostrofic deep freeze. -Environmentalist

Believe it or not I am not against the 2012 theory. Yes it seems ridiculous but there is scientific backup to this theory. Sunspot cycles occur every 11 years, the last one in 2001. The next is due in 2012. You all may be wondering who cares about sunspot cycles? Well scientists have noticed a "solar silence" in the sunspot occurrence. Since sunspot cycles have almost always occurred every 11 years scientist believe that a massive solar eruption is due in 2012. Yes it is true that sunspot cycles are very hard to predict, but that doesn't disprove a thing about the apocalypse. If its not in 2012 it'll come soon maybe 2011 or 2013. ~Project Z

Well, the 2012 theory is largely based simply on the fact that the Mayan Long Count Calendar ended in that year, and that the Mayan Long Count Calendar has proved to be largely accurate. The thinking is, "its been accurate all these centuries, perhaps it will accurately tell the end of the earth." However, the "evidence" put forth is mostly from theorists who try to conjure up relevant facts to support their theory. It is not because we see "evidence" that the 2012 theory has emerged. It is because the 2012 theory has come up, and people in support of it are conjuring "evidence" to support their views.

Also, I have an major objection to the 2012 theory. This theory would infer that we know when the world will end. Many conjecture it to be on December 21, 2012. This, however, is a huge mistake. It is clearly stated in many historical texts, for example in the Bible it states "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Matthew 24:36). Thus, I present forth my oppositions to the 2012 theory. ~Pomomarine

The Mayan apocalypse theory actually states that " There will be a new beginning.", that doesn't necessarily mean that the world will "end", it simply means that something else (whatever that something is) will begin. 2012 according to the Mayans, may just mean some sort of "big change", not the apocalypse. ~Severus

[The] Mayans had a cycle. [Changes?] occured at a certain pattern. Supposedly this will be the "last" [change?] to the end of the world. Of course i don't believe [in] Mayan predictions. But I do believe that something may devastate us, maybe not exactly 2012, maybe 2011 or 2013...[Also,] our magnetic poles are scheduled to switch, north goes to south and south to north. All will happen is our compases will point the wrong way. But for the poles to change, a lot of energy is needed and before this happens, the poles will be springing up all over the globe! I also believe that this may be causing the recent increased amount of earthquakes. For the poles to change, a large amount of energy needs to be created in the earth's core causing eventually for the convection currents to spin faster and the plates to "bump" into each other more often. It probably wont be the apocalypse in 2012, but something will happen -Environmentalist

I agree with you, the poles are switching. But is that really something we need to worry about? Yes magnetic north pole is shifting quite a bit every year. Although this is true it will take a long time (human terms) for them to switch. But in geologic time the switch is almost instant. This will prove a problem in the future but the switch is centuries into the future, we would of gotten colonized many other planets by then. ~Project Z

I think the pole switch will affect weather patterns, but also the ozone hole in the north pole will be more prone to solar storms during the "switch", and that could pose a real threat because radiation will flow past the weakening exosphere and ionosphere of the Earth, thus affecting the entire planet's climate. If the poles were to switch, it would be incredibly devastating. ~Severus

I agree with [Severus'] original statement--that the Mayan apocalypse theory actually states that "There will be a new beginning" and not actually an apocalyptic event. Perhaps some natural events will happen to initiate this "new beginning", but almost certainly is NOT the apocalypse. Many of you brought up the concept of a geomagnetic reversal, where the poles will switch places and cause a number of devastating and apocalyptic events. I do have some objections to these theories...The first and foremost is that how do we know the a geomagnetic reversal is "scheduled to happen"? First of all, geomagnetic reversals are not on a schedule. Some conspirators state that sudden geomagnetic reversals are natural events to Earth and occur with "clock-like regularity" and one is scheduled to come in 2012. This statement can be proved to be proved...false [with the below] chart showing geomagnetic polarity during the late Cenozoic area. The dark areas show when the polarity matched the current conditions, the white shows when the poles were reversed.



As we can clearly see from the visual, the periods of reversal are absolutely NOT regular or scheduled. They reveal no evidence of any pattern from which we can draw the conclusion that we are "due" for another reversal in 2012. The second point I have to object on is that the "doomsday reversal" will cause worldwide destruction, and is supported by paleo-magnetic evidence. First off, the "evidence" spoken of here is almost always tiny clues that are of almost no relation to the world's end. How do they become "evidence" for doomsday then? What happens is conspirators take the clues and put them all together along with other things they claim to have "deciphered" from ancient sources, then mix it all up with a bunch of speculations with no backing whatsoever, and present it and call it evidence. At first, all of it sounds VERY convincing. In fact, most people you tell this to on the street will probably nod their heads miserably and believe every single word you say...It would be a huge mistake to call this "evidence". It is simply many sources put together, "deciphered" and mixed with the author's bias. Clearly, this is not evidence.

Second, conspirators theorize that a geomagnetic reversal will cause the world to end and civilization and human life as we know it will be annihilated. Number one, who would believe that the entire human race will be roasted alive by solar winds, flares, and storms...[who says] that we'll be wiped out by galactical alignment or blackhole coincidences? Let's see why total planetary annhilation of the human race is a thought to be thrown out the window through scientific and historic terms...As seen in the previous visual, geomagnetic reversals have occured numerous times throughout the ages. Now, look at us today. Has the Earth disappeared and been destroyed after so many geomagnetic reversals? Absolutely not! We are all alive and well and the Earth has clearly survived through many many geomagnetic reversals already. Why would one speculated to occur in 2012 be anything to worry about?

Also, early species including the supposed "ancestor" of the human species...Homo erectus survived a geomagnetic reversal apparently at ease. Not to mention, other early species survived numerous ice ages, geomagnetic reversals and other large scale global events.

With all the above being said, I would have to conclude that 2012 geomagnetic reversal doomsday is definitely unlikely. [Even if it did,] a geomagnetic reversal will not cause the end of the world and the human race. ~Pomomarine

Sources:

http://survive2012.com/index.php/geryl-pole-shift.html
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/10/03/2012-no-geomagnetic-reversal/
http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Geomagnetic_polarity_late_Cenozoic.svg/285px-Geomagnetic_polarity_late_Cenozoic.svg.png

I think the 2012 "disaster" will not happen. People have based their ideas on the Mayan Long Count calender. Does it really say that a disaster will happen? No. Plus, just because it is usually a very "correct" calender doesn't mean that it is correct all the time. It was created by humans and we make mistakes. ~ZobyBlueberry

I disagree...This may seem strange to you, but many scientists today believe that a magnetic polar switch would be catastrophic. There is a direct relationship between water and magnetism. So when enormous changes occur in the magnetic fields, the water would move as well. I'm not talking about a few kilometers, I'm talking hundreds or possibly thousands of kilometers further inland or the opposite. This is a seriously major problem. The second major problem is that when magnetic poles switch the iron within the insides of the earth will change as well. This is not good at all. This means that hot spots would move. Tectonic plates would be disrupted. Let me ask you this: how would the modern world respond to that? The third point; today the magnetic fields of earth provide a shelter form solar radiation. If the poles where to all of a sudden switch that means for a while solar radiation would be more concentrated with ultra-violet light. This wouldn't be very bad, but still an increase of just 10% of the radiation levels in the sun's rays would do heavy damage. Also, many animals today have a magnetic sense so when a enormous switch occurred in the magnetic field the animals would face a problem too. The only reason Homo erectus survived the switch was because they didn't build electromagnetic generators. They didn't build big cities with ports. They didn't have compasses. They didn't do all those stuff that will be affected by the magnetic fields. ~Project Z

A new virus may be another very real factor which may lead to the fall of the human race. Many great civilizations which seemed infallible such as the Roman Empire and 16th Century England were devastated (and in the case of the Romans, completely annihilated) by plague. The Black Death ruined England's infrastructure and worsened political feuds, throwing the country into a century long "Dark Age". In conclusion, I'd like to state that the apocalypse in my opinion will not be the result of one major catastrophic change, but several catastrophes occurring at once (plague, climate change, and pole switch being a few of the inevitable doomsday factors). ~Severus

I am assuming that by apocalypse you mean end of world. Of course the world will end. 6 billion years until the sun expands to a red giant, then a supernova occurs even later than that. But on a more short term scale, the 2012 will probably not happen. If it does, than it is of coincidence. Anywho, natural disasters will most likely not destroy the human species. Anywho, Nuclear Holocaust.... I don't think will happen, as more countries are uniting. A plague would kill many but be easily countered. There will always be people living unless something such as a meteor impacts earth; even so such event is unlikely.

A magnetic pole reversal is a very interesting concept. As I read, animals that use magnetic field to direct their migration would die likely. But I believe that this is of no concern. A solar cycle has been known to wipe out sattelites and communications. I not do think that Dec 21 2012 is the day, though, as it is four days before Christmas. (This is an abstract religious fact that nothing to end human happens within Dec. I can use religion to defend my arguments, so I am going to make a religion up...... or I could stick with Dhruvism.) I am still open to have my brain changed on this subject. ~186000mps

NOTE: Dhruvism is a made-up religion. It was made as a joke by "Dhruv", a friend of 186000 mps.

~Environmentalist

Coffee Shop no. 10 - Just a thought... (Part I)

What do you think?

1. Can anything disappear, or vanish without a trace?

Can anything disappear entirely? No. especially not if it is supposed to rematerialize back into its visible form again. For example, in Star Trek, when an ensign or red coat (official in the high command) needs to transport from a location on a planet, the star ship " beams them up" (also known as disintegrating the person who's being transported to the molecular level in order to make transportation at the speed of light more manageable and safe. The person rematerializes onto the star ship, molecules back in place, as if nothing had happened. Even though the person appeared invisible during the "beaming up" process, he or she didn't entirely disappear, because his or her molecules were still existent during transportation. Therefore, I don't believe that something can completely disappear (and in the context of real science, if something is sucked into a black hole, that something will simply shrink to a subatomic level, but would never entirely disappear.) ~KW

[Well, the] Law of Conservation states that matter cannot be destroyed. However, matter may be turned into energy. In fact, as energy goes up, so does mass, as Einsteins equation states. ( e=mc^2) In recent string theory, there are sub-atomic particles that may pop in and out of existence but are not trackable. On the note of teleportation, the only way that I know it could work would be if both sets of atoms have identical information (velocity, axis spin) but at different positions. ~186000mps

(NOTE: Teleportation was discussed earlier in Coffee Shop no. 4)

I believe that an object can just disappear. The solution is quite easy just use anti-matter and blow it up. The matter would no longer exist, it would just turn into pure energy. You may think that this leaves a trace but if the entire universe were to all of a sudden turn into energy, would it cease to exist? I think so. You see, energy cannot be detected, only energy in heat form can. But when energy comes in contact with matter, it should turn into heat energy. But if we turn the entire universe into energy there will be no matter to absorb it up. ~Project Z

Though I highly support Project Z's views, I will have to go with the opinion that an object cannot simply "vanish without a trace". As Project Z stated, when antimatter collides with matter, they are both annihilated leaving only energy. Energy is considered a "trace". Though Project Z stated that energy cannot be detected and is thus not considered a "trace", it is undeniable that it is still there. When something isn't detectable, it means just that, not that it doesn't exist. What I must say is that an object can "vanish" as stated earlier using antimatter, but not without a trace. ~Pomomarine

If energy is a trace then my idea wouldn't work. ~Project Z

Yes...and if energy is not considered a trace because it is..."undetectable", my objections are no longer valid. :) ~Pomomarine

~ZobyBlueberry

2. How do you think languages came to be?

Well, where languages come from? [Check out this video] from BrainPop...[It is on etymology and the origins of words. http://www.brainpop.com/english/grammar/etymology/

~Pomomarine

I've found more! In the book of Genesis, it states "Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there." (Genesis 11:1-2). The story tells of how the people wanted to build a city with a tower reaching to the heavens and "make a name for [themselves]".

"But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.' So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:5-9) ~Pomomarine

~Morangue Pine

Coffee Shop no. 9 - Just a Thought...

What do you think?

1. Do you believe terraforming (turning into a landscape like Earth) other planets for human survival is possible?

Terraforming is the act of...making a planet more earth-like. If [we] were to terraform any planet of the Milky Way [Galaxy] with our technology, it would be a close neighbor, Mars. Mars has a history involving life. Water is buried as permafrost [in the] soil. Minerals and organic compounds are [also]present in the Martian atmosphere and soil. Even an asteroid that hit Earth in Antartica was a small chunk of Mars. In[side] the asteroid were pre- forms of bacteria that may have lived in Mars 3 billion years ago. Many scientists belive that Mars had life before we did, but all died when the super volcanoes did because there was nothing to warm the planet. Terraforming can possibly get Mars life again. Our first terraforming step is warming the planet. Easy, we're doing this right on our own planet. We can warm the planet by...using space mirrors to reflect more sunlight to the Martian landscape...once the ice caps melt, under ground water and CO2 reserves will burst out due to the rapid change of state causing an atmosphere to form with plentiful green house gases to warm the cold planet. Next we [would] need water. Permafrost will do the trick, all that will melt with the warmer atmosphere, filling up oceans and causing it to rain for years at a time until things settle. Now comes [the] hardest part, stopping UV rays. We need ozone or a magnetic field. We can possibly use two giant spinning magnets at the poles with an impressive energy source...or artificially make ozone using oxygen from water. Lastly we need oxygen, the easiest way is to plant trees, this may be a slow process but is will work. After releasing a simple ecosystem to the equator areas, we can establish a self-functioning colony, farming our own food and taking care of our selves with out help from Earth. All left is to let our bodies get used to the [low] gravity conditions. ~Environmentalist

Yes, I agree that these solutions could terraform Mars and allow it to become sustainable and be a friendly environment for humans. However, it is inevitable not to say how much money and work it would cost us. The entire world would have to put a lot of its effort into this hypothetical "Interational Terraforming Project". Also, transportation to and from Mars would be very hard. It takes around 260 days to get to Mars using the Hohmann Transfer Orbit, the most efficient way for interplanetary space travel (Astronomy Cafe). 260 days is about 1.6 years, which is quite a long time for transportation. Though some suggest it may take only 130 days with high-speed transfer orbits (Astronomy Cafe).

Below: Hohmann Transfer Orbit method for interplanetary travel from Earth to Mars (Astronomy Cafe). Click to enlarge.

Furthermore, Earth and Mars must coincide correctly in their orbit for this method to work, and the launch window only comes around once every 25 months (Universe Today). These conditions may really take a toll on those traveling to and from Mars while having heavy psychological effects. One solution, however, would be to employ machines and droids. But this would require a vast knowledge and control of interplanetary technology, something we probably will not have for a long time. ~Pomomarine

Sources:
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/marstravel.jpg
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2811.html
http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/mars/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars/

...At our fastest rates, we can reach mars in [about six] months. This [is still] heavy for astronomers. So Michio Kaku proposed an idea of Artificial Gravity in The History Channel's "The Universe". The method [is] that if you [spin] your space ship...at a fast speed, the center of the space ship will achieve gravity due to the great amount of [a central gravity-like] force. If this can be some how achieved, travel to Mars will be significantly less stressful. The only problem is that people living on Mars will have to be completely self sufficient [due] to the 6-month [lack] of radio signals (our only known way of communication today [through space]). -Environmentalist

I think [terraforming] might work, but wouldn't Mars eventually freeze again? Also you would need to find people willing to terraform Mars, people who know how to farm and people who are willing to spend years doing something that might fail. ~ZobyBlueberry

NASA, and one other Mars program are already building equipment to make colonies. Terraforming sounds too "science fiction" to NASA, which they avoid...for the Freezing, the atmosphere will be thicker, if it does get colder "we just pump CO2 into the air". -Environmentalist

Well, Mars doesn't have a magnetic field. What would that mean? That would mean all gases on Mars will be stripped away by the solar winds, so we would have to pump a lot greenhouse gases into its atmosphere. I think that making us more able to inhabit harsh conditions is easier than making harsh conditions inhabitable [to] us. ~Project Z

I think the Michio Kaku spinning space ship idea is a bit unrealistic. It would require a great deal of planning to produce a space travel ship like that and have it be realistically powered and operated...[However,] if more innovative technologies in this field arise in the future, they may give rise to solutions similar to that of Michio Kaku's to cope with [some of] the stress and time taken on the people participating in the project.

Also, I agree with ZobyBlueberry. To recruit people for this project would be very hard. First, few people would want to sacrifice so much time from their lives to work on such a large-scale project. People have a natural desire to stay at home where there lifestyle is stable and not subject to fate. Also, as I said earlier, the psychological effects of space travel and such labor as terraforming Mars have an immense impact on people. Another fact we cannot change is that humans were made to live on Earth.

This leads [me to Project Z's] argument that making us more able to inhabit harsh conditions is easier than making harsh conditions inhabitable for us. People cannot inhabit "harsh conditions" that are unrealistic to human life. For example, we could not decide that we wished to live in the ocean and simply begin "jumping in" and expect evolution. It would be required of us to set up underwater stations for living. (Please do not deviate from the topic and discuss underwater living...I'm just using an example.) Terraforming Mars is similar. We would have to make it Earth-like for us to inhabit it.

However, making harsh conditions inhabitable to us also has its problems as we can clearly see from our discussion. ~Pomomarine

I think that for the human race to prosper, we must terraform and prosper. If we want to survive, we must move beyond Earth. Lets say an asteroid strikes Earth and kills the majority if all humans, we will never have a chance to magically become what we once were and keep exploring to stars. To keep us alive, we must live some where else and so far Mars is the best candidate. ~Environmentalist

About my argument, we can genetically change humans physical appearance easily. This idea was mentioned in Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking. he stated that we would change our cells so that we can live in extreme harsh conditions. The only problem is the people that are mutated won't be going back to "normal" conditions anytime soon. The other problem is for non-mutated to mate with mutated, that would create problems for their descendants. ~Project Z

Interesting, [but] I do not actually agree with...Stephen Hawkings findings...Mutating us I am against because we are humans created by God and changing Gods creation...would not be a human thing to do. It may pose countless [psychological] problems and new bacteria and sicknesses can attack our cells that may have been immune before. Also it requires doing surgery that may possibly kill you , a person will have to risk it as well as the technology to do this being ahead of our time. ~Environmentalist

I believe that all these views may be controversial. To say that we must move beyond the Earth in order to survive may be an overly charged statement. Though having a "back-up" planet is a very good idea if efficiently accomplishable, I would not consider it an absolute necessity for preservation of the human race. In my opinion, I believe the statement "To keep us alive, we must live some where else [other than Earth]" would be a bit over-stretched.

More so, I agree with Environmentalist in disagreeing with Stephen Hawkings (via Sean). I think that first, it would considered immoral for us to alter our own bodies for uses stated by the aforementioned author either through surgery or molecular means. Also, this is impossible as humans are incapable of modifying physical appearance to the degree of altering form and function. It is strictly impossible for humans to grow wings or gills, for example.

On the correct subject of Terraforming Mars, however, I have no objection except for those I have already put forth. Those include the problems work force, resources, money, health, etc. along with a possible complete destruction of the global economy due to the vast amount of money and resources needed for an interplanetary terraforming project. ~Pomomarine

I believe that we can change our bodies but not in such a way that we grow things like wings. In fact even today we can extend life forms life span (Mentioned by Michio Kaku). This is believed [to be] the first step to changing bodies. The next step would be increasing the "strength" of our natural heat generating cells. This would help us deal with colder conditions. One day in the far future we may be able to increase the efficiency of all our cells so we may consume less but do more. Then even further into the future we may be able to make our cells do the same thing but use different fuel (instead of oxygen use other gases). Even if the temperature and toxic gas levels were way to extreme we could change what our bodies are made of. For example we are made of mostly carbon but carbon hardens easily in -100 degrees. But we don't have to be made of carbon, Stephen Hawking stated that carbon could be replaced by silicon. But changing what our bodies are made of is very unrealistic, the change form carbon to silicon is probably very dangerous, but one day after colonizing so many planets it is possible that we find another element or compound that could replace carbon in our bodies that would also be non toxic.

About Michio Kaku's theory. I think that his logic is correct. Lets put it in simpler terms. Imagine a top that is spinning. The faster it goes the more stable it is. When it is spinning everything around the middle will very slightly "fold" towards the center. Imagine a circular paper and you spin it at over 1000 RPM. Then you will see that everything but the center is slightly lifted off the ground. So now lets imagine the spaceship, is spinning at about 1,000,000,000 RPM. Shouldn't the same effect that occurred on the spinning top and paper occur here? But i think that the ship should be circular or it might be even more stressful for some...

Interesting views. I suppose what you say may be possible to a certain extent, but I doubt changing the human form from carbon-based to silicon (or any other element for that matter) would be plausible. For one thing, as you noted, it is extremely dangerous and we don't even have means close to accomplishing such a task right now. Also, the entire human form and function would be disrupted. Such a thing would be like 'reinventing the human'. The human body works as a whole, you can't change one thing and not have it affect all other aspects.

As for the Michio Kaku spinning space ship idea, I believe that it is theoretically possible as well as physically correct. However, the means for doing so are questionable. First, where would one get the motor to spin the ship at such a fast rate and for so long? Also, how would one power the motor and get enough fuel for it? Wouldn't this also mean that everything inside would be spinning too unless you put a stationary platform inside? All these questions challenge the idea. Though possible, plausibility is questionable. ~Pomomarine

Accepting harsh habitat will not be very easy. You cannot pluck a person up and expect them to live in a different place with harsh climate. Plus the green house gases could be very hard to balance. You would need enough so that it doesn't refreeze and little enough so that mars doesn't have so serious global warming that could potentially ruin plans. ~ZobyBlueberry

~Environmentalist

Coffee Shop no. 8 - Just a Thought...

1. Do you think it is possible to make an object travel close to, at, or above the speed of light? If so, how?

This is a very good question. To make an object travel at almost the speed of light is extremely hard, but not impossible. The first way is to attach a lot of fuel to the back of this object. Then all you would have to do is burn the fuel and the object would slowly accelerate to near light speeds. The second and more efficient way (...this idea came out of Pomomarine's mind, the credit is all his) is to have 2 super strong magnets one stronger than the other. You put both of them in space. Both of them are north and one of them has infinite strength. You attach one magnet to something stable, the other one goes on the object you're trying to move. Then you just power the magnets and the object would zip away constantly getting faster and faster until it reaches the speed of light. The question is then, what happens when it goes faster than the speed of light? ~Project Z

I think that you cannot reach complete speed of light, but close can be possible. Using hydrogen to fuel your rocket is a well discussed topic, but the amount of fuel you would need is extreme. Another reason, if we could travel at the speed of light, it will not be even useful for maned space missions because the greatest pressure in speed our bodies can handle is mach 9. No matter now much energy you have, you cannot break the laws of physics, a solid object cannot go the same speed as a beam of light can travel. Faster than the speed of light is not possible as well, there is no particle in the universe that is discovered that can move faster than the speed of light. ~Environmentalist

As all of you so far have mentioned, I do believe that making an object go at close-to-light speeds is possible. Nevertheless, a tremendous amount of energy [and fuel, etc.] would be necessary to do so. Environmentalist also makes a good point: traveling at close-to-light speeds. People cannot withstand the pressure that traveling close to the speed of light would bring. Also, any fast acceleration to that speed from a still position would be virtually impossible to survive as the inertia and acceleration would nearly crush the human body. ~Pomomarine

No, [I don't think it is possible to go at or above the speed of light] because the fabric of space time only allows movement below the speed of light. Trying to go faster will rupture space time and throw you far into the future (theoretically and according to famous astrophysicist Michio Kaku). There is nothing that's faster than the speed of light, other than probable dark matter which scientists still don't know much about. But you can travel at near the speed of light by rippling space time, which may cause some disturbances in time frames of other planets, but allows you to go at high speed without rupturing the fabric of space. ~KW

~Pomomarine

Coffee Shop No. 7 - Just a Thought...

1. Do you believe in global warming and that we're causing it, if so why? If the Earth is getting warmer, what effects do you think it might cause?

I believe in global warming, and I believe we are causing it! If you look at the data we've collected from ice cores, you can tell that rises in carbon dioxide levels are followed by rises in temperature. Right now, carbon dioxide levels are at an all-time high, and temperatures are starting to follow suit. With us burning coal, driving cars more and more, and burning up fossil fuels, it's no wonder our carbon dioxide levels are sky-high! I think it will cause a crazy rise in temperature, resulting in loss of life, rising of sea levels (which may swallow whole cities) and then, will plunge us into a frigid period of icy temperatures. ~ManhattanProjectGirl

I am not sure whether results would be as drastic as stated by some. For example, the rising of sea levels would strictly be a result of the melting ice in the polar regions...However, this probably will not swallow entire cities as one certain amount of melted ice must spread across the entire mass of water on Earth. This would result in a negligible amount of rising. If the polar ice caps were to melt completely, many of these extremes consequences could be true, but I doubt such a thing would happen.

Also, what we consider Global Warming may...be one of many global climate trends that have been cycling for thousands of years. (See diagram below.) As you can see, the cycle occurs naturally. As ManhattanProjectGirl stated, a plunge in temperature after the present warming may very well result. History of climate change can provide much insight and evidence to Global Warming.




However, as indicated in an article retrieved from a Standford University website (http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html), some challenge the relevance of past events. For example, David Rind, a climate modeler and NASA scientist said that, "...the swiftness in warming that would occur following increased levels of CO2 is unprecedented in history." Therefore stating that the conditions for the present global warming are different are perhaps more threatening than preceding ones.

However, the site also provides that,

"...during the Holocene, very rapid changes of climate occurred. According to dendroclimatology [tree ring analysis applied to climatology], they often lasted about 20 to 30 years, or...even as brief as 2 to 3 years...Other climate historians have found that a rapid cooling in the late glacial period...took about 100 to 150 years to complete and realized about 5°F variation in temperature within 100 years, more than is being forecast for the next century..."

With all this research and information it is hard to draw conclusions or valid opinions, but I believe it is good to aware of the current "Global Warming"--whether it is a threat or not. Practicing energy saving, recycling, and low carbon emissions is always a good idea.

Sources:

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

~Pomomarine

Well, in reality if all the ice melted sea levels would rise about 20 meters --more than enough to swallow whole cities. Look at the graph [presented earlier]. Look at the warm periods. The Slope of our current rising temperature is much much faster than the other warming periods. Also that the industrial revolution started [approximately] when this enormous rise of temperature occurred, so why would you look at some other cycles when we are warming the earth over 100 times faster than normal? Also take a look at this picture.



~Project Z

I see your point and I definitely agree that this global temperature rise is significantly greater and more prominent than ones in the past. As I said, to prevent the catastrophic events that may occur if such a trend of warming continued, it is always a good idea to use less energy when possible, recycle, and drive less with more fuel efficient or hybrid cars, etc. ~Pomomarine

...Recycling uses millions of gallons of water every day, [so reusing] is much better. Also if we all switch to hybrids the threat will not stop. We will still be pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. However I do not agree with the future plunge in the climate. First of all after we warm the earth...about 6 degrees Celsius, we would wipe out most life on earth. Then massive deserts will spread killing most plant life...even though it is extremely warm, volcanic activities would still continue that would result in further CO2. It is also proven that warm water absorbs CO2 at a slower rate than cold water, therefore, the rate that the oceans [absorb] CO2 will also decrease. The only place that can still have life are the poles (Antartica, Greenland, northern Canda and Russia), but that much life is nothing compared to what we have today...[also], according [to] a documentary by National Geographic, an average of 4 degrees of temperature increase would make northern Canada and Russia the world's most agricultural zones (those today are the great plains in the United States). So if the world warmed 6 degrees northern Canada and Russia [could become] like modern day Mexico and India. That would mean the rest of the world would be extremely warm.

Sources:

sciencedaily.com
National Geographic

~Project Z

~Project Z