The Amazon Rainforest

[M.R Otter]

lets not forget that so many things in the amazon rain forest goes to medication. For example, the poison dart frog's poison is used for medication, and the fish that lives in the forest that we all love care for like Oscar, Arownas, Tetras and catfishes.... even Aqauriums are used to help people like for an example when you go to dentist or visit a doctors office you will usualy see a small aqaurium in the office. Aquarium watching is good for you aswell it corrects your Blood Pressure and make you overcome the stress problem, and also an aquarium that contains bright colored fishes will make chidren get smarter as they watch these colorful fish. Other animals in the rainforest are known to make good companions for humans, it was once that there was a young girl that was having a pet macaw, and that macaw had lived with the little girl for over 70 years!! and the girl had died and the macaw had stayed alive with her sons, but the macaw had died two years later, such stories make you feel as if animals are man best friend. Imagen that the amazon had disapeared and vanished what will happen to thies gorgous animals and plants and we wake up one day and no longer hear the Macaws calls or the water splashings coased by fishes eating thier prey. what will happen then?

 

[~T~]

and also an aquarium that contains bright colored fishes will make chidren get smarter as they watch these colorful fish.

Whaaa?

 

[Bignose]

and also an aquarium that contains bright colored fishes will make chidren get smarter as they watch these colorful fish.

Whaaa?

I'm going to translate "Whaaa" here: ~T~ means that here in the Scientific section, ~T~ is asking you to support this statement with some semblance of evidence, please. Thank You.

 

[M.R Otter]

Studies have shown that displaying Aquaria of brightly colored fishes actualy curtailed the often disruptive behaviors of alzhiemer patients and increased thier appetites as well. Other studies have proven that Aquariums can actually calm children diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

about children getting smarter I just have this book that says so, but it does not say how.

 

[Bignose]

M.R. Otter, in this section, you can't just say "studies", you have to provide reference to an actual study or at least a webpage that discusses the study. In this section, you don't just get away with knowledge that you have, when asked, you have to provide citations so that other people are allowed to look at the source material and make their determinations about the material.

Please provide citations (Author, location (book, article, website) where it can be found, and date of publication if possible. Thanks.

 

[pinkdolphin_113]

and also an aquarium that contains bright colored fishes will make chidren get smarter as they watch these colorful fish.

Whaaa?

I'm going to translate "Whaaa" here: ~T~ means that here in the Scientific section, ~T~ is asking you to support this statement with some semblance of evidence, please. Thank You.

Does this seem like the official way in which a MODERATOR (may I emphasise) should be communicating with a forum member??

M.R. Otter, in this section, you can't just say "studies", you have to provide reference to an actual study or at least a webpage that discusses the study. In this section, you don't just get away with knowledge that you have, when asked, you have to provide citations so that other people are allowed to look at the source material and make their determinations about the material.

Please provide citations (Author, location (book, article, website) where it can be found, and date of publication if possible. Thanks.

erm, this is a forum...not a dissertation for a masters degree. Wikipedia get away with none referenced knowledge and thousands of people believe false stories on there!
The fact that you want EVERYTHING to be cited, even the basic of knowledge, is beyond a joke.
I can assume you'll be asking us to write with proper grammer and punctuation shortly.


Pink.

 

[mike os]

lets get some things straight, as this is the "Scientific section"

there is no proof or evidence than man is in any way responsible for "global warming", there is plenty of theory, conjecture and argument but no proof in a scientific sense. ("consensus" does not equal proof) And there is an equal amount of theory, conjecture ans argument than man's influence is either negligible or insignificant or just not enough real science to support any conclusion at all.

computer models are not real world, until they can predict next month, next year and next 5 year forecasts would you trust them with 100-300 year forecasts? ( look at it in financial terms, would you trust an investment company that had a 300% variance in projected return?)

Rainforests are not a permanent feature of the planet, neither are the levels of glaciation, polar caps, sea levels, deserts or coastal regions.

Now to get back on topic, given that most O2/co2 interface is in algae & ocean life, why do people get so anal about rainforests?

 

[pinkdolphin_113]

Now to get back on topic, given that most O2/co2 interface is in algae & ocean life, why do people get so anal about rainforests?

I second that!


...but can it be cited??



Pink.

 

[Truck]

Now to get back on topic, given that most O2/co2 interface is in algae & ocean life, why do people get so anal about rainforests?

I second that!


...but can it be cited??



Pink.

+2

 

[Bignose]

and also an aquarium that contains bright colored fishes will make chidren get smarter as they watch these colorful fish.

Whaaa?

I'm going to translate "Whaaa" here: ~T~ means that here in the Scientific section, ~T~ is asking you to support this statement with some semblance of evidence, please. Thank You.

Does this seem like the official way in which a MODERATOR (may I emphasise) should be communicating with a forum member??

M.R. Otter, in this section, you can't just say "studies", you have to provide reference to an actual study or at least a webpage that discusses the study. In this section, you don't just get away with knowledge that you have, when asked, you have to provide citations so that other people are allowed to look at the source material and make their determinations about the material.

Please provide citations (Author, location (book, article, website) where it can be found, and date of publication if possible. Thanks.

erm, this is a forum...not a dissertation for a masters degree. Wikipedia get away with none referenced knowledge and thousands of people believe false stories on there!
The fact that you want EVERYTHING to be cited, even the basic of knowledge, is beyond a joke.
I can assume you'll be asking us to write with proper grammer and punctuation shortly.


Pink.

Pink,

The first thing you quote is just fine. All I did was make ~T~'s reply a little more easily understood and clear.

I am not asking for "a dissertation". I am asking for something more than "studies say". Did you ever think that maybe I would be interested in reading those studies? That I may want to look at the information for myself? Is that really too much to ask? I want to make sure that read the same studies that lead to M.R.Otter to have the opinion he got, it is just that simple.

Wikipedia is not a good example. Their moderators come by all the time and ask for citations. All I want is rather than take someone's post at face value, that the post be backed up by evidence. There is still plenty of room for disagreement, in almost every situation where it isn't clear, evidence can be found that supports both sides. All that needs to be done is to present something that is unbiased and objective as much as possible.

It is really that bad to ask for evidence rather than take someone at face value? When did it become wrong to ask for more evidence rather than just believe anything that is written?

 

[Bignose]

computer models are not real world, until they can predict next month, next year and next 5 year forecasts would you trust them with 100-300 year forecasts? ( look at it in financial terms, would you trust an investment company that had a 300% variance in projected return?)

This isn't fair to the computer models. You are comparing apples to orangutangs. It is still a difficult thing to predict the weather a few days out, and sometimes a few hours out. Definately 1 month out. But that is because the local weather conditions in any one place is a chaotic system. That is, a small change in the inputs can have a large change in the outputs. Unless we have a perfect set of inputs, which isn't possible because we don't measure the temperature, pressure, and humidity in every square meter of the planet, we won't have perfect short-term predictions. On top of the fact that we cannot model turbulent fluids, and the atmosphere certainly is turbulent, perfectly.

The models that are predictions years ahead of the time are significantly easier than doing local weather, because by taking large enough steps in time modeled (i.e. months or years instead of minutes or hours), you smear out all the chaotic influences that make accuracy of small time step modeling difficult.

Let me give you an analogy. If you tried to predict the height of water in your tank, it would strongly depend on how often you wanted the result. If you wanted to predict the height every second, then you would have to have very accurate models of your filter output and at the initial time of your simulation, you have to have a very accurate desription of the variation of the peaks and valleys. Because, if you make one peak too high or one trough not low enough, very quickly the simulation of the waves on the top of the tank won't be accurate. Hoever, if you wanted to know what the average height was every day, then you don't need to know the details of the surface at the initial time. You need to know things like the rate of evaporation. The specific of the splashing aren't important if you on;ly want the height every day. Weather prediction on your 10 o'clock news and climate prediction years and years out are similar. In the former, the details are important and often not known, and in the second, only the large-scale forcings are important.

Here's another similar more-science-y example. It is known that Newtonian mechanics isn't completely correct. Every object has some quantum-like behavior and every object also has some time-dilation effects due to relativity. However, depending on the level of detail needed, those effects may or may not be important. If you want to model a baseball flying through the air, the particle-like behavior of the baseball are oscialltions of less than a nanometer -- completely meaningless to a baseball several inches in diameter. However, if you are modelling an electron, then those effects are important. Again, it is all about whether you can ignore the some effects or not. In climate modelling, the temperature at 5:34 PM, 8 April 2050 in Havana, Illinois is unimportant, and not the goal of the model. What the average temperature for the month of April 2050 is however.

I have more to say, about the evidence that is out there for mankind's involvement in global warming, but I just don't have the time to address this tonight. I will post more this weekend.

 

[mr130gallon]

----------------

There is an incredible amount of evidence that the Earth is indeed warming.
There is a fair amount of evidence that mankind is the cause for a significant amount of it. As dave writes above, what isn't sure is exactly what that percentage is.

Nonetheless, I think that we (mankind) are foolish to just assume that our share of the warming is small and ignore it. I feel we should be doing everything we can to slow down our emissions of CO2 and methane (both of which are known to be greenhouse gases). It is simply the safe bet. If our portion of it is small and we stop polluting, then things will continue on the same. But, if our portion is large and we do nothing, then we are just destroying ourselves unnecessarily. And today, it is unnecessarily because there are alternates that are available.

----------------

Finally, truck, I think you should do some reading as to why a great deal of scientists are so sure mankind's emissions have a significant effect. We have computational models that can recreate the temperature profile of the history of mankind. These models have as inputs the amount of CO2 that was present as each time -- both natural and manmade. Obviously, the manmade CO2 was very small at the beginning and then continuously rises. Given that the models accurately recreate the past almost perfectly, their predictions into the future need to be considered seriously. And what those models predict is not good. These models aren't just something a few guys bang out in a weekend -- these scientists have spent their lives making sure the computational methods, the inputs, and the results are all as accurate as they can be. They hold conferences where other scientists can pick over and point out mistakes in the models in the attempt to make them better. The models we have a very good. Not perfect by any means, and there are certainly plenty of areas of improvement, but they are very good. If you don't believe the models, you can read in the scientific literature exactly what the models are doing, and why every choice along the development of the model was made. It is all out there.

during my climate section in geography at school we had to look at climate change. and we had to watch the movie "the great global warming swindle" and al gores movie "an inconvenient truth"

the first movie states that climate change is not due to co2 at all, in fact the co2 readings go up AFTER the temperature goes up, and if you look at al gores graphs closely it appears to follow this pattern as well, though he says the opposite. the great global warming swindle says that climate change is due to the amount of sun spots/storms at the time, and since scientists have been looking at the amount of sun spots that the temperature goes up at the same time, then the co2 follows a couple decades later.

so when we look at co2 readings going up lately then its still coming up from a couple decades ago.

the great global warming swindle also tells the story about how the idea of "global warming" started, though i forget exactly how it goes other than a swedish guy made it up so make people not notice or freak out about something else.

anyway, i recommend that you watch both movies and decide for yourself. (then research more and do tests to solidify your decision lol)


anyways, on topic, the only bad thing i see about clear cutting the rainforest is that we will lose many specimens of both plants of animals.

 

[Bignose]

during my climate section in geography at school we had to look at climate change. and we had to watch the movie "the great global warming swindle" and al gores movie "an inconvenient truth"

the first movie states that climate change is not due to co2 at all, in fact the co2 readings go up AFTER the temperature goes up,

Any chance of a peer-reviewed citation for this fact?

Because the science of why CO2 is a greenhouse gas is very well established. The infrared radiation that is emitted from the Earth's crust is well absorbed by carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases. That re-absorption of the emitted radiation is why the atmosphere warms.

That is why there are only a few gases on the "greenhouse gases" list, because different gases absorb radiation better at different frequencies. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation well, and IR radiation is what is emitted from the Earth's crust as the sun set and it begins cooling. If there was less CO2, more of that radiation would go out into space instead of being recaptured by the gases in the atmosphere.

There is some evidence that plants emit methane, another greenhouse gas, and they will emit more as the temperature rises, but I have never heard or read where CO2 rises just because the temperature went up. So, I'd really like to see a source for that (not just the movie, does the movie cite a specific study, or at least a researcher's name?)

The problem with both movies is that both are politically motivated. Al Gore is part of the doomsayers that have been telling us that we are out of time. You can dig up quotes that go back to the 80's where he and others have been telling us we are out of time. Obviously, we weren't out of time then, and I don't think that we are out of time now. As I said above, I think that the safe bet is to be reducing our emissions when and where we can, but this doomsaying just doesn't help.

The hypocrisy of the doomsayers doesn't help either. How many of the leaders going to Copenhagen these last two weeks flew on private planes? Enough that they were starting to have to park them in Norway because Denmark was out of tarmac space to park all the planes. Flying commercial isn't super-eco-friendly, but it is at least 10 and probably 50 or 100 times less carbon emitting than flying a private plane. And there were a ton of leaders who rode to the conference every day in gas-guzzling limousines, a lot of which were left running all day. It really shows that a great deal of these people don't actually believe what they are saying because they haven't changed their behavior in the least.

Being a total denialist doesn't help either, though. Because, as above, the science of why certain gases warm the atmosphere is completely sound. The first tests of what gases absorbed what frequencies of radiation have been done since we first discovered radiation -- these experiments are nearing 100 years old now. The fact that certain gases absorb and warm when exposed to infrared radiation is very repeated and accepted today. There are plenty of valid questions about global warming -- such as how much the climate really can and will change, and how much is just nature versus man-made -- but denying that man hasn't been emitting a significant amount of CO2 and that CO2 doesn't have the capabilities to warm the atmosphere is just intentionally putting blinders on to well-established facts.

Neither extreme of the debate does any real good at all -- it rarely does.

 

[mr130gallon]

during my climate section in geography at school we had to look at climate change. and we had to watch the movie "the great global warming swindle" and al gores movie "an inconvenient truth"

the first movie states that climate change is not due to co2 at all, in fact the co2 readings go up AFTER the temperature goes up,

Any chance of a peer-reviewed citation for this fact?
i could try, but im pretty sure a bunch of people were asleep during the movies.

Because the science of why CO2 is a greenhouse gas is very well established. The infrared radiation that is emitted from the Earth's crust is well absorbed by carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases. That re-absorption of the emitted radiation is why the atmosphere warms.
oh, i know that CO2 keeps heat in the atmosphere, thats why some planets couldnt support life, they have to much atmosphere or to little.

That is why there are only a few gases on the "greenhouse gases" list, because different gases absorb radiation better at different frequencies. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation well, and IR radiation is what is emitted from the Earth's crust as the sun set and it begins cooling. If there was less CO2, more of that radiation would go out into space instead of being recaptured by the gases in the atmosphere.
again, i know this, but this doesnt effect it as much as the solar storms, but maybe it does, id like to know exactly what is causing climate change, but right now i support the solar storm hypothesis.

There is some evidence that plants emit methane, another greenhouse gas, and they will emit more as the temperature rises, but I have never heard or read where CO2 rises just because the temperature went up. So, I'd really like to see a source for that (not just the movie, does the movie cite a specific study, or at least a researcher's name?)
i also would like it if i could cite a specific study, maybe if i watched it again i could watch for that, id like to read this study too

The hypocrisy of the doomsayers doesn't help either. How many of the leaders going to Copenhagen these last two weeks flew on private planes? Enough that they were starting to have to park them in Norway because Denmark was out of tarmac space to park all the planes. Flying commercial isn't super-eco-friendly, but it is at least 10 and probably 50 or 100 times less carbon emitting than flying a private plane. And there were a ton of leaders who rode to the conference every day in gas-guzzling limousines, a lot of which were left running all day. It really shows that a great deal of these people don't actually believe what they are saying because they haven't changed their behavior in the least.
wow, what a bunch of idiots lol, there should have been protesters or something at the airports to help them realize this lol.

 

[ALW]

Climate change is a natural occurring cycle that happens and will continues to happen. People forget that we can still be classed as still coming out of an Ice Age.