- #176
Mk
- 2,043
- 4
Uhhh! Talking to physicists about Gaia is kind of risky. 
Is the Public Perception of Global Warming Reaching a Tipping Point?
- Thread starter Ivan Seeking
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Global Global warming Hot
In summary: I have all the answers, but we have a pretty good understanding of what is happening and why, and it's not anthropogenic in the sense that we're causing it.In summary, the public awareness of global warming in the US is at a critical mass. TV programming is a good measure of this, as more and more references are being made to global warming in relation to various events. Al Gore is a good politician in that he has a passionate approach to the issue, but he still falls short of having a truly scientific approach.
- #177
cshum00
- 215
- 0
I know that Gaia hypothesis is too theoretical. That is why i said only using the part that Earth regulates the composition of matter. But matter and energy are two different things right? So, maybe Earth doesn't regulate energy as good as matter?
Well, anyway, it seems too theoretical rather than showing any evidences at all. But can converting heat energy to matter be a solution for global warming?
Well, anyway, it seems too theoretical rather than showing any evidences at all. But can converting heat energy to matter be a solution for global warming?
- #178
Andre
- 4,311
- 74
No the Gaia hypothesis is related to intelligent design, assuming that things have a purpose. Who defined that purpose? Moreover the Gaia hypothesis is not following the scientific method, ie is not falsiable as you can go any way you like, for instance:
"Gaia needed mankind to start recycling lost carbon in the lithosphere for the purpose of both increasing the available carbon to create more biomass and mitigate the next ice age with more greenhouse effect". So. you can have it any way you want. That's not science.
"Gaia needed mankind to start recycling lost carbon in the lithosphere for the purpose of both increasing the available carbon to create more biomass and mitigate the next ice age with more greenhouse effect". So. you can have it any way you want. That's not science.
- #179
cshum00
- 215
- 0
I thought that the base of Gaia theory was that it sees Earth as one living organism. Before global warming was identified, it puzzled scientists why there are always the same composition in matter, same acidity in the oceanic water on Earth, etc. Right, Gaia theory is nothing more than a hypothesis that has not been proved.
Most of the scientists and so do i, don't accept Gaia as a organism but rather see the Earth as a system. But still, what is considered acceptable, why not use it for an advantage. Some parts of the Gaia theory were said to be useful for some living environment and Earth science applications.
Or is it that i got the wrong info?
Most of the scientists and so do i, don't accept Gaia as a organism but rather see the Earth as a system. But still, what is considered acceptable, why not use it for an advantage. Some parts of the Gaia theory were said to be useful for some living environment and Earth science applications.
Or is it that i got the wrong info?
- #180
Mk
- 2,043
- 4
What do you mean same composition in matter?
The acidity of ocean water is not that stable or equal around the world I don't think.
- #181
cshum00
- 215
- 0
Yeah, i know it is not but that is what i read (maybe in the past?). Maybe i got the wrong info?Mk said: