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

Coffee Shop No. 6 - Just a Thought...

1. Do you think that we can change one substance into another entirely? If so how would we do it?

I believe we can turn one substance into another because energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change. There are several ways to do this, first is just burn or melt something. If I take a chair and light it on fire, it is no longer wood--it ash and smoke. If I take water and freeze it then incinerate it, I have smoke which can be turned into a number of things if introduced properly. ~Bartumes

I think you can turn one substance entirely into another. The first way Bartumes has already stated. The second way is using physics not chemistry...We could separate the substance and shoot electrons and protons into the atom to make it another atom, but that would require a tremendous amount of energy. ~Project Z

~Project Z

2. Is artificial life possible? Can we make artificial animals?

I doubt artificial life is possible. Artificial means man-made, and people cannot create life. Life is not merely a functioning and operating "machine"--it has more. It has a spirit and soul. ~Pomomarine

In my opinion, artificial life is possible. In fact, people are already trying to create artificial life (robots, reasoning and self-relying mechanical units ect.). I consider robots artificial life because they are functioning self-relying units. But humans are incapable of creating completely different biological organisms. In other words, humans can't create a completely new biological life-form from scratch.

But artificial (mechanical) life is absolutely possible, cybernetics proves that. ~KW

I totally agree with you, KW. [My interpretation was] that "life", as what humans and animals have, cannot be recreated. However, logically functioning and "thinking" robots should be entirely possible. For example, there's even an artificial intelligence site called cleverbot.com. I agree, that in your definition of artificial life [(being more artificial intelligence)], such life is possible. ~Pomomarine

...I think that artificial life is possible. First we need to understand how a cell works then we can create a bacteria-like thing with one cell. Then we understand how cells react with each other and...try to recreate that in a [small] multi-cell creature. Then after that we can observe how other cells work and then we can build up to things that have all kinds of cells. Even though we might never create life with intelligence (not robots or androids) It is possible to recreate some natural processes... ~Project Z

I think much of this has to do with your definition of artificial life. The question was on artificial life, not creating life. Artificial life, then, is...artificial. That means it is not really life. Artificial wood [seems] like wood, but isn't. So artificial life would seem like life, but actually isn't.
[Thus], one could say artificial life is possible. This view says artificial life is not actually life, but only a replication and simulation. Thus, "artificial life" would be possible.

To the end of seeing artificial life as man-made life, however, is impossible. Humans cannot create biological organisms, simply [because] it is not natural. Biological organisms are of nature, whereas [humans] making life would be...of technology. ~Pomomarine

I think we can create life...and they have created life with animals. They cloned a sheep so where did that soul come from? All in all i think creating life is possible by taking sperm and growing it. ~Bartumes

I disagree [because] cloning a sheep is not the same as making one from scratch. The cloning of something is simply remaking a natural process. ~Pomomarine

I still believe that creating life is possible but I see now that this was not the question. I think we can make A.I. or artificial intelligence. Also by taking a robot we could make artificial life by having a brain and using a complex circuitry of wires [and] stimulate the brain to act...freely. We could then give it human tissue and have artificial life that seems much like Mary Shelley's Frankenstine. ~Bartumes

I agree. In a sense of artificially intelligent robots that look like humans, this should be quite possible. Computer programming and some mechanical coordination would do much of the work. However, I'm not sure how we would use a live brain...perhaps a computer could more easily do the job. ~Pomomarine

The thing about Mary Shelley's " Frankenstein" though, is that the monster was brought to life with an electrical shock which has already been proven impossible...but, back to the talk on artificial intelligence and robots which look like humans...An android will need emotions to truly act like a human, and emotions aren't programmable... ~KW

~Morangue Pine