Global Warming

chreyzee

-sama
Sempai
Huh?!!
ohmy.gif
Why has this turned into a "debate"?
dry.gif
Everyone try to loosen up a bit!
smile.gif
I don't think this will be beneficial to anyone (or to the environment for that matter).
wink.gif


Anyway, instead of debating about CO2, I think we should be worrying about other green house gases.
wink.gif
There are green house gases that are much more harmful than CO2. An example of this would be HCFC (someone correct me if I am wrong).
rolleyes.gif
This was "created" as a replacement refrigerant for CFC in air conditioners. Ironically, it was created to help alleviate the ozone depletion problem but HCFC, in itself, is also harmful.
dry.gif


It is a lot more worse than CO2 as a green house gas (several times I think). Of course, there are other refrigerants but HCFC, at the present, is the most commonly used and will continue to be used for some time longer.
dry.gif
Just imagine how many car and home air conditioners use it. Then, imagine how many more car and home air conditioners that will be manufactured and then bought by consumers.
blink.gif


I think another point of concern is the melting of the permafrost in Siberia (or the northern regions of the earth in general).
rolleyes.gif
The soil a few meters down in these regions should be "permanently" frozen (hence it is called permafrost). This might seem to have no relation to global warming but, actually, it does. Aside from being an engineering nightmare in towns/cities, the melting permafrost actually release a lot of green houses (not just CO2).

Let's not argue about the global warming/cooling cycle of the earth (yes, it's supposed to be a natural process). This already an accepted fact. Whether mankind is accelerating this process or not is still open to debate. Let's not debate about it... let the scientists debate about it, ok...
tongue.gif


P.S. I don't care for debates... so please try not to involve me in one.
dry.gif
 

Headswabby

-chan
Kouhai
QUOTE Let's not argue about the global warming/cooling cycle of the earth (yes, it's supposed to be a natural process). This already an accepted fact. Whether mankind is accelerating this process or not is still open to debate. Let's not debate about it... let the scientists debate about it, ok...
tongue.gif


aww... then what are we supposed to talk about?


QUOTE There are green house gases that are much more harmful than CO2.

This is extremely true, when taken in comparison to likewise amounts of the individual gas. There is a system that compares the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of individual gases with that of a kilogram of CO2.

A kilogram of HCFC-22, which is the most commonly used replacement for CFCs, has a GWP of 1780. Which means upon release into the atmosphere, one kilogram of HCFC-22 is just like introducing 1780 kilograms of CO2 into the air. Also HCFCs destroy the ozone surrounding the Earth, so it's like a double edged sword... a sword jabbing into your thigh whenever you swing it.

The only problem with the statement would be the amount of the greenhouse gas being released. CO2 emissions are ... well quite hefty. I don't believe the amount of HCFCs are quite as abundant in digits. But I've been wrong before.


QUOTE P.S. I don't care for debates... so please try not to involve me in one.

/pulls chreyzee into the global warming mosh pit.
 

ellell

-chan
Kouhai
let me geuss CO2 is heating up the planet,
humans are not the cause of global warming, undeniable fact we contribute by adding CO2, also a fact CO2 isn't an execptional greenhouse gas infact its a poor one.

heres a question in ther post war econmic boom between 1945 and 1975 the average temperature dropped even though CO2 output from humans was massive, sure ly if CO2 is the cause of global warming, the globe would have got warmer when we produced more.

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/9/4841

go on there, if you want to actually hear about it from the people who deny it.
 

Hiroyuki

-sama
Retired
QUOTE (ellell @ Jul 15 2007, 07:04 PM)http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/9/4841
go on there, if you want to actually hear about it from the people who deny it.
That programme was already discussed earlier in the thread, the problem with it is that it has been completely discredited. They used innaccurate data which has since been revised, and graphs whose data stops more than 25 years ago. Why? Because more recent data would completely blow away their hypotheses! When one expert asked the guy who made the programme to explain some of the oddities in the data he'd used, the guy simply swore at him! Not exactly a scientific response. There's an recent article on the BBC website, 'No Sun link' to climate change which explodes one of the myths put out by the global warming swindle programme.
 

chreyzee

-sama
Sempai
QUOTE (ellell @ Jul 15 2007, 01:04 PM)let me geuss CO2 is heating up the planet,
humans are not the cause of global warming, undeniable fact we contribute by adding CO2, also a fact CO2 isn't an execptional greenhouse gas infact its a poor one.

Yeah... you are right. Humans are not the cause of global warming.
smile.gif
But, that's because global warming (and it's opposite "global cooling") is a natural process or cycle for the earth.
tongue.gif
Humanity is accelerating the global warming process, though.
rolleyes.gif
What effect this has on the cycle is unknown.

Carbon dioxide is not the only "greenhouse gas" that humans produce. We produce Carbon Monoxide (from internal combustion engines), methane (by-product of our waste/trash or sewage), and refrigerant gases (ie. HCFC-22). Headswabby was saying that the amount of HCFC-22 produced was not that significant. That maybe true for now. But, thanks to industrialization and commercialism, there will be a lot more of this gas in the near future. Just imagine how many cars with A/C and houses with A/C use this refrigerant (HCFC-22 is now standard or commonly used). And, then imagine how many more cars and houses will use this refrigerant in the near future. The use of this refrigerant is expanding exponentially.


QUOTE (ellell @ Jul 15 2007, 01:04 PM)heres a question in ther post war econmic boom between 1945 and 1975 the average temperature dropped even though CO2 output from humans was massive, sure ly if CO2 is the cause of global warming, the globe would have got warmer when we produced more.
I have an interesting theory about that.
smile.gif
I think you already know that this is part of the period known as the "Cold War".
rolleyes.gif
A lot of nuclear testing was conducted on the surface.
blink.gif
Later on, nuclear tests were conducted "underground".
unsure.gif
So, where do you think does the nuclear "debris" go?!!
dry.gif
Dust and other fine particles tend to stay in the atmosphere for a long time. These things are really good at blocking-out the sun.
ohmy.gif
 

purepitaph

-chan
Kouhai
QUOTE (chreyzee @ Jul 21 2007, 09:30 AM)
Yeah... you are right. Humans are not the cause of global warming.
smile.gif
But, that's because global warming (and it's opposite "global cooling") is a natural process or cycle for the earth.
tongue.gif
Humanity is accelerating the global warming process, though.
rolleyes.gif
What effect this has on the cycle is unknown.


In my belief, I do believe that the cause of global warming is due to humans. If not humans, then what? Simply the cars do not drive themselves. That is rediculous! Anyways, due to the cause of multiple pollution sources, our ozone is being, in a way, mutated. Due to the greenhouse effect, the radiation, as we know it, is being withheld within our environment causing a rise in temperature. As proof of this "rising temperature," a lot of Greenland's massive ice sheet is beginning to melt may disappear completely within the next thousand years if global warming continues at its present rate. According to a new climate change study, the melting of Greenland's ice sheet would raise the oceans by seven meters (23 feet), threatening to submerge cities located at sea level, from London to Los Angeles. Too bad I have been less informed on this topic. Otherwise, I would continue to discuss the occurrence between the form of molecules within the ozone layer that is causing the uphold of heat within our environment. Also, due to my laziness in order to seek such information has caused the downfall of my very ideas that would have soon grown on such topics. O well. ::sigh::
 

chreyzee

-sama
Sempai
Oooops... purepitaph, you seem to have misunderstood my statement.
dry.gif
I am not a "global warming critic". I do believe that the global temperature is rising ( and rapidly too).
cool.gif
I'm simply pointing out that it is a process/cycle that the Earth goes through. The Earth has gone through "warming" and "cooling" or even "freezing" phases in the distant past.
rolleyes.gif
Don't ask me for data... I have none. It's just another statement of fact. What humans are doing through their activities is abnormally accelerating the warming process! So... Yeah, it is Humanity's "fault!
ohmy.gif


Aside from the polar ice sheets, I think we should also be considering the melting "permafrost" in the northern tundra regions of the Earth.
rolleyes.gif
The melting of the permafrost isn't the big problem but the Greenhouse gases (ie. methane, CO2, etc.) that are being released by this occurrence.
blink.gif
So, in essence, it is a global warming "chain reaction".
ohmy.gif
 

ellell

-chan
Kouhai
yeah I think you misread me too chreyzee, i do like picking holes but in more of a proof reading fashion, I think its best that some do this, that way you don't get quite so many C02 junkies out there that think carbon dioxide is after our blood, anyway yeah remains to be seen just how bad the permafrost thing is that could really devistate a whole bunch of ecosystems. personally though i dont give much of a thought to global warming because humans have a nack for surviving harsh conditions so it'll all be fine in the end...or we'll die out either or.
 

chreyzee

-sama
Sempai
QUOTE (ellell @ Jul 22 2007, 03:11 PM)yeah I think you misread me too chreyzee, i do like picking holes but in more of a proof reading fashion, I think its best that some do this, that way you don't get quite so many C02 junkies out there that think carbon dioxide is after our blood, anyway yeah remains to be seen just how bad the permafrost thing is that could really devistate a whole bunch of ecosystems. personally though i dont give much of a thought to global warming because humans have a nack for surviving harsh conditions so it'll all be fine in the end...or we'll die out either or.

Hahahahahaaa... *evil grin* ellell, I was actually being "sarcastic" on purpose!
laugh.gif
Heheheheee... I was trying to provoke a "violent reaction" from you!
wink.gif
just kidding!!!
tongue.gif


Anyway, seriously though... While I don't agree with you completely, I did understand your point. I agree that CO2 is not the only harmful greenhouse gas. You did mention that CO2 was a "poor" greenhouse gas". I think people are concentrating too much on CO2. Although too much CO2 in the atmosphere is not good, CO2 is an essential gas in our air. After all, plants need it for their photosynthesis. And of course, humans need plants for oxygen, right?
wink.gif


About the permafrost, people are actually already feeling its "effects".
wink.gif
For example, people in Siberia are already having problems with the foundations of their buildings. When the permafrost in the ground melts, the soil above it, in turn, sinks.
ohmy.gif
So, you can already imagine the problems this would cause for buildings.
wink.gif
Then, there's the global warming acceleration "chain-reaction" effect that I mentioned earlier.
rolleyes.gif


Yeah... you are right... humans can take a lot of "punishment".
rolleyes.gif
I do hope that humanity isn't stupid enough to actually wait for a "worst-case scenario".
dry.gif
 

ubermensch

-san
Kouhai
hmm actually instead of wondering about 'do humans cause global warming' its a more valid point to consider whether global warming will seriously affect our world as badly as is predicted-will the world really become messed up just cause the temp increases a bit?...i dont really think so cuz if you care to open up a map most of the world falls in the temperate zone(both north and south of the equator) like USA,Europe,Russia,China,Australia,Argentina etc...now these places dont have population concentration like india,south east asia and south china solely cuz they are predominantly cool places thus inhibiting growth of life and livelihood..also an important point is too much of the world is inland based ie large continents instead of archipelagos which doesnt help the region much-with global warming sea levels will increase,rains will increase and thus more of the land will be cultivable etc..so basically by global warming temperate zones will become warmer thus more inhabitable-which is imp cuz then people can spread out more evenly..imagine if siberia becomes grasslands and greenland and antarctica is more habitable-is that really a bad thing?..so global warming may not be something to be soo tremendously worried about anyway...and if global warming does cause such a problem there are very easy ways to stop it-i remember reading somewhere that global warming can be easily contained by building shields and such in outer space to reduce the intensity of sun's rays and ionising rays which can reduce the problem quite easily..so if there really is a problem im sure humanity can solve it-and we must remember that solvin is MUCH more important than tryin to delay the happening-so even if we plant some more trees its still gonna affect us sometime soon enough-cuz you cant really plant trees everywhere when you have 6billion(and growing) population stuffed into 1 planet..so its nothing to be so worried about-and after all only adversity leads to invention!..so no need to get so worked up-lets just enjoy our lives!
 

NobleEagle

-chan
Kouhai
From what I learn at high school, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide, right ?) is not very dangerous because a tree or any vegetation need it and will convert it with O2 (Oxygen) which is very important for human life.

I think the most dangerous (for global warming) is CO (Carbon Monoxide)and freon. but somehow, I believe somebody will find a way to take care of this. human race is known for its perseverance isn't it
laugh.gif
until somebody does, let's just conserve what we have
cool.gif
 

raigainousa

-chi
Kouhai
QUOTE I have an interesting theory about that. I think you already know that this is part of the period known as the "Cold War". A lot of nuclear testing was conducted on the surface. Later on, nuclear tests were conducted "underground". So, where do you think does the nuclear "debris" go?!! Dust and other fine particles tend to stay in the atmosphere for a long time. These things are really good at blocking-out the sun.

You forgot to mention where did all heat from explosions go!!!


QUOTE (ubermensch @ Jul 23 2007, 02:33 PM)will the world really become messed up just cause the temp increases a bit?
Yes it is. Even now, it causes some panic and disorder especially in Sahel. It also occurs in Pacific Islands, because it forces people to flee from their homes standing in an island underwater!!


QUOTE ...i dont really think so cuz if you care to open up a map most of the world falls in the temperate zone(both north and south of the equator) like USA,Europe,Russia,China,Australia,Argentina etc...now these places dont have population concentration like india,south east asia and south china solely cuz they are predominantly cool places thus inhibiting growth of life and livelihood..also an important point is too much of the world is inland based ie large continents instead of archipelagos which doesnt help the region much-with global warming sea levels will increase,rains will increase and thus more of the land will be cultivable etc..so basically by global warming temperate zones will become warmer thus more inhabitable-which is imp cuz then people can spread out more evenly
Even though it is optimistic for us, you forgot to mention the environment. Even though I am not an environmentalist, I am concerned about the environment. And we even does not know how does environment completely works... so what is expected to come to Great Plains may fall on mountains... another loss of money...if we care about the environment, we will be benefited someday...And temerate zones is already inhabitable...
dry.gif


Oh yes, a related dream of trades is that they want to discover a Northwest passage to not to pay prices in canals and make it easier to reach the Orient. Well, it is impossible for today.


QUOTE imagine if siberia becomes grasslands and greenland and antarctica is more habitable-is that really a bad thing?..so global warming may not be something to be soo tremendously worried about anyway...and if global warming does cause such a problem there are very easy ways to stop it-i remember reading somewhere that global warming can be easily contained by building shields and such in outer space to reduce the intensity of sun's rays and ionising rays which can reduce the problem quite easily..so if there really is a problem im sure humanity can solve it-and we must remember that solvin is MUCH more important than tryin to delay the happening-so even if we plant some more trees its still gonna affect us sometime soon enough-cuz you cant really plant trees everywhere when you have 6billion(and growing) population stuffed into 1 planet..so its nothing to be so worried about-and after all only adversity leads to invention!..so no need to get so worked up-lets just enjoy our lives!

What a philosopher. Not Agree. XD.
Remember the qutation "an ounce of prevention is better that a pound of cure", or lets stretch it - "a ton of prevention is better that a megaton of cure" - got the logic? So stop it before its too late. I think you got it.

I also imagine if we can live in Antarctica, but it is too cold to live there.

Hey, hey, you said "VERY EASY WAYS TO STOP IT", huh!!! But there are sacrifices. the only thing is that there are too much sacrifices to make. First, we must let much animals and plants to become extinct since they have no adapted to the changing conditions. Second, we must stop inhabiting some places because it will be not fit for human inhabitance.

Building shields... First of all, it is hard to do it because WE DO NOT YET COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE ENVIRONMENT. Got it? Okay
 

dave69812

-chi
Kouhai
The problem is that people today equate now as the worst in history and everything preceding them don't count.

The record high temperatures here on parts the East Coast are still from the 1930's.

The U.S. does have the Environmental protection agency and so we have special blends of gasoline to keep the air cleaner, we have tree huggers who would allow for clearing out undergrowth thus major forest fires which to them are ok but lumber companies cutting down trees and replacing them with saplings is blasphemous while places like China, Russia and India are very poor with maintaining the environment.


If you use google you will see that scientists in the 1970's til the 1980's were screaming that global cooling would cause the extinction of man there is a Time magazine cover.


If there was and ice Age did it take Fred and Barney to warm up the planet with a prehistoric SUV??

Greenland over a mile under the ice shows remains of a forest.

Volcanoes like the one in the Phillipines spewed such a cloud a decade ago that it did damage the ozone and polluted the air yet the ozone did fix itself.

College professors are not infallible and they do have an agenda that sometimes means spreading propoganda such as a movie with half facts by former Vice President Gore.
 

Headswabby

-chan
Kouhai
oy. A few mentionables:

First: did you hear that the Northwest Passage is now clear and able to be sailed through. Scary for what it shows, yet good for marine traders.

Second: One thing I don't see you thought about Ubermensch: If the Earth becomes warm enough that the temperate band increases significantly, then the equator's temperature will obviously increase as well, therefore possibly creating more desert like conditions. We'd open up land up top, lose land around the middle, and lose land all around due to the millions of gallons of water now thrown back into the oceans. I like things the way they are...
 

fourier

-chan
Kouhai
QUOTE (ubermensch @ Jul 23 2007, 01:33 PM) hmm actually instead of wondering about 'do humans cause global warming' its a more valid point to consider whether global warming will seriously affect our world as badly as is predicted-will the world really become messed up just cause the temp increases a bit?...i dont really think so cuz if you care to open up a map most of the world falls in the temperate zone(both north and south of the equator) like USA,Europe,Russia,China,Australia,Argentina etc...now these places dont have population concentration like india,south east asia and south china solely cuz they are predominantly cool places thus inhibiting growth of life and livelihood..also an important point is too much of the world is inland based ie large continents instead of archipelagos which doesnt help the region much-with global warming sea levels will increase,rains will increase and thus more of the land will be cultivable etc..so basically by global warming temperate zones will become warmer thus more inhabitable-which is imp cuz then people can spread out more evenly..imagine if siberia becomes grasslands and greenland and antarctica is more habitable-is that really a bad thing?..so global warming may not be something to be soo tremendously worried about anyway...and if global warming does cause such a problem there are very easy ways to stop it-i remember reading somewhere that global warming can be easily contained by building shields and such in outer space to reduce the intensity of sun's rays and ionising rays which can reduce the problem quite easily..so if there really is a problem im sure humanity can solve it-and we must remember that solvin is MUCH more important than tryin to delay the happening-so even if we plant some more trees its still gonna affect us sometime soon enough-cuz you cant really plant trees everywhere when you have 6billion(and growing) population stuffed into 1 planet..so its nothing to be so worried about-and after all only adversity leads to invention!..so no need to get so worked up-lets just enjoy our lives!
Yes, actually global warming is a bad thing. Almost all life on earth has adapted to a specific temperature range, plants and animals that are used to living in a temperate zone would not like it if the area became tropical. Birds migrate because it gets too cold where the live, but they also migrate back when it gets too warm at their destination. I also think you need to see a picture of the earth at night. You'll notice a line of light along much of the worlds coastlines. While yes, most of the land is well inland, human populations aren't evenly distributed over earth's landmasses. Basically New York, Boston, LA, Tokyo, and many other large cities will become new New Orleans. Increased rain doesn't necessarily mean more food, unless you're already suffering from drought. Floods can easily become a problem in many places, erosion can remove fertile topsoil, and many crops can rot if exposed to too much rainfall. While yes, Siberia may have the right climate to be inhabitable, the soil there hasn't seen much vegetation in a long, long time and is probably not all that great for growing food, and people generally don't like to move. Ever since people stopped following the herds and built themselves small agricultural villages, they have been unwilling to move unless their survival was threatened, and even then some people either preferred to stay or couldn't afford to move. As for building large shields in space, lets look at the numbers of that:

Say we wanted to block out just 10% of the sun's rays. I guess we'll be putting our shields into low earth orbit, say at 150 miles up. The surface area of that sphere would be (3950mi + 150mi)^2 * pi * 4, which is 211240690 square miles, 10% of which is 21124069. We'll round that to 20 million square miles. I've heard there are some very light (albeit translucent) fabrics that weigh 0.001 lbs per square foot, but with a support structure we'll probably average at least 0.005 lb per square foot, if not more. That gives us about 100 thousand pounds, or 50 tons. Sources vary, but it seems to cost over $1000/lb to launch things into space, bring the total to a measly $100 million, something that's very affordable, but not exactly aesthetically pleasing. There are also the costs of assembly, which even if automated can increase the cost directly or by increasing the total weight.

While I may have underestimated, a lot, the whole "shield" idea I guess if feasible, but I feel that planting a whole bunch of trees would actually be better, and it really would solve the problem. If we can have great enough forests we can completely balance out the CO2 emissions that come from human activity. Unfortunately I don't think that'll be possible, as the earth was already at a pretty stable equilibrium before we came along, a that was when a much greater portion of Europe and the United States were completely forested. As for your last comment, I'd rather do the invention from the comfort of my own home and then enjoy my life, rather than enjoy it now and do the inventing after being displaced after my house gets flooded and a lot of general unhappiness.

EDIT: whoa, thats a long post
 

Headswabby

-chan
Kouhai
shield idea = bad idea. You need sunlight to grow things.

CO2 sequestration should be looked at WAY before a shield. We have the technology to capture output processes of power plants. We just need to find places to store that stuff out of the way for now. and there lies the problem we face. Heres some ideas floating around:

We can throw it in old coal and oil reserves (so its underground, surrounded by rock, and can't go anywhere or react with anything). However theres only so much room in these places, and we would fill them rather fast with the amount of CO2 we release. Or we could possibly try oceanic sequestration.

If pumped below 3500m, the low temperature and high pressure in the ocean turns CO2 into a liquid; A liquid denser than water (that means it sinks). In theory, we would pump the CO2 gas below this level, let it sink to the bottom of the ocean, and we could forget about it for thousands of years. However we don't know what any side effects would be. It could kill any marine population most likely living on the bottom, but the CO2 liquid mixed with H2O liquid forms bicarbonate ions, and that could be a bigger problem when unleashed upon the oceanic environment (bicarbonate ion = acidity)

Once we figure out where to put it, we can stop it from entering our atmosphere for now...
 

Shinobu's_Lover

-sama
Kouhai
QUOTE (Headswabby @ Sep 19 2007, 07:11 AM) shield idea = bad idea. You need sunlight to grow things.
Actually this is what has been saving the Earth thus far from warming up too much. A recent NOVA episode explored the notion of Solor Shielding.

Along with green house gasses given off by facorities, cars and such there is also small particals sent up into the air. (dust, coal particals, unbured carbon particals from cars and such "smog in other words") These particals float up into the air and water vaopr forms around them. This already accurs naturaly with pollen and natural dust. This evenatually forms water droplets, into clouds, and then eventually the droplets cling to each other and eventually get heavy enough to fall as rain. However with polutiants the particals are so small that not enough water vapor can form on the to make rain and thus the clouds that do form just end up "mirroring" the sunlight back out into space thus lowering the tempurature down at the same time.

Scientist have estimated that all the greenhouse gasses given off since the industial age began that the average temputatre on the Earth should have risen about 2.5*F. However they were shocked to find out that the average temp. had only risen 1.2*F world wide. Solor Shielding is the only this that explins why the temp. hasn't gone up any further.

Now does this mean we should keep polluting the air to keep the temp from rising even further? hell no. We should do everything we can to reduce geenhouse gasses AND particals put up into the air.
 

Headswabby

-chan
Kouhai
You're right, and yet wrong at the same time.

What you're right about:

Cloud cover does reflect a lot of energy from the sun back into space. The important part of the energy reflected is the infrared energy, which translates best into the heat portion. Few visible light waves, and most UV go right through, since these are more energy intensive.

What you're wrong about:

Chlorophyll, the molecule that uses the sunlight to photosynthesize, uses mainly the heat from infrared and the light spectrum. The UV light is reflected from these molecules, which is clearly seen when taking UV photographs of plants. When the cloud cover stays for too long, no infrared and visible light are hitting the plant, so the chlorophyll cannot complete it's photosynthetic reaction, therefore ending in the plant dying, which means no food for us.

Cloud cover, or any type of covering that does not allow visible and infrared light to penetrate it are damaging the growing/photosynthetic reactions of the plant. Clouds are much better than a solar shield, since some (not much, but a little) visible light does come through. I would be interested in hearing what this NOVA program had to say about solar shielding though.

However when clouds form around debris particles from, say coal combustion, when it rains, that debris comes down with it, and any chemical change the debris has undergone. When bituminous coal is combusted, some debris is sulfur containing, which leads to acid rain... a bad thing for anything it lands on.

So I'd also agree with the 'no particles in my environment, please' mentality.

EDIT: Other reasons the temp hasn't gone up:
- Natural sequestration by water and ice of greenhouse gases, especially CO2
- Biomass conversion of CO2 into sugar (photosynthesis)
- Reflections of the sun's rays beyond clouds (Ozone layer, oceans, etc.)
- Possible low solar activity (won't explain everything, but still a factor)
 
Hmm... while i do believe we are in a period of warming, i don't believe we are the cause, nor is CO2 the cause, or any of the "greenhouse gasses" for that matter.

has anyone heard of a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? it just came out this year, and had some very interesting points, one of the most important of which, is that the basis of all global warming "study" has been conducted with the notion that CO2 is the cause of global warming... but CO2 can only have an effect on heat, not generate heat. so where does all the heat come from?

A: the sun.

we can all agree that the sun is the basis for all life on earth, right? well, that's because the sun is so intensly powerful- so whenever the sun is very active (solar flares, solar winds), we feel its effects on earth via a warming of the entire globe. when the sun becomes fairly inactive (decrease in the prementioned solar activity), again, the earth feels its effects, and begins to cool down.

as for why the CO2 levels and temperature levels correlate? that's because temperature has an effect on CO2 levels! why? because the ocean absorbs CO2. so, when the temperature goes up, CO2 evaproates from the ocean. when the earth cools down, the CO2 is absobed back by the ocean. (and the raiseing and cooling of temperatures is referencing the paragraph above).

Basically, the CO2 scare is the IPCC's way of keeping its job and bringing in money. after all, they have the support of a big fat government pay check and steady jobs- it's easy, reliable money for them. CO2 global warming is a political issue, not a scientific one. well, i take that back- it is a scientific issue, it's just a very flawed and influeced scientific issue.
wink.gif
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE (The "Dott" @ Oct 21 2007, 03:44 AM) has anyone heard of a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? it just came out this year, and had some very interesting points, one of the most important of which, is that the basis of all global warming "study" has been conducted with the notion that CO2 is the cause of global warming... but CO2 can only have an effect on heat, not generate heat. so where does all the heat come from?

A: the sun.

Sadly, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is more a piece of propaganda than a scientific film: just look at the reaction of Carl Wunsch, whose views were completly distorted ( http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...2031455,00.html ).

Human causes of the global warming is controversial the same way the theory of evolution is.
 
Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more
Top