Climate Change..We have to...

[closet.cult]

Sorry if i may of offened you that wasn't the intention. Im open minded. Im not saying it gonna happen, its a possibility you cant deny it. The main worry i think is if we kill off the ocean, when they die, we do. In reponse to plants getting bigger, the main souce of Oxygen comes from the oceans and mostly from algae which produces 330 Billion tons of Oxygen per year. So i dont think anything on land could help if the oceans become stagnant. This i do believe has happened before and has been the cause of mass extinction. Could what we're doing by not keeping emmision down affect the oceans? Maybe? I dont know. Is it a risk we want to take? It probably will happen no matter what we do but that time frame might be reduced significantly. It could be 100 years, 1000, or 10000 who knows. All im saying, why not reduce emmision, what harm will it do? and it won't effect us that much if at all. All you have to do is vote with your feet, mind we are controlled by the nanny state.

wow. you need to recognize how many assumptions you are making here.

burning fossil fuels do NOTHING to the oceans. worse case scenerio, the frozen ice caps melt and raise water levels 20 centimeters. (that's from the I.P.C.C.) if that were the case, ocean life would be more plentiful. it is land mass that will have shrunk.

100 years? 1,000 or 10,000 years? this is quite a big margine of error. how can you seriously worry about what will happen hundreds or thousands of years in the future. ask yourself: could someone living in 1908 understand or be able to help us today? of course not. 100 years makes an enormous difference in technology and science.

once again, the ONLY thing of interest to us today is POLUTION. it is wrong to leave a planet to our children dirtier then we received it. so clean up polution and switch to cleaner energy solutions as they become economically sound.

no one argue this point. what most people fail to understand is: CO2 is not a polutant. it is a natural, NECESSARY gas on this planet. and there is NO EVIDENCE that raising CO2 levels on the planet is dangerous for life. the entire case against it as a catastrophic greenhouse gas is based on computer models. yes, it is a greenhouse gas. no, it alone cannot raise temperatures up to crisis levels.

 

[medicineman]

no, it alone cannot raise temperatures up to crisis levels. (CO2)

Can you prove this?

 

[fdd2blk]

what species is most abundant on earth? insects

what species cause the most destruction? insects

maybe we are evolving.

i feel itchy.

 

[DMGIX]

I know in the UK the Government are pretty much closing the doors on New Coal Burning Power Stations and are looking at Nuclear and Renewable energy source to replace them. What everyones opinion on Nuclear power? there seem to be alot of stigma and objections towards them but we're being told they are now safer than they once were and also there carbon emmision are pretty much zero. Also we now pay an atronomical road duty for vechieles that produce more CO2.

Average Electricity Fuel Mix UK

Coal - 35.8%
Gas - 38.8%
Nuclear - 18.6%
Renewable - 4.7%
Other? - 2.1%

UK Road Duty
BBC NEWS | Special Reports | 629 | 629 | New car tax rates for 2009

 

[closet.cult]

no, it alone cannot raise temperatures up to crisis levels. (CO2)

Can you prove this?

i have been looking for the study that shows this but i haven't found it yet.

the basic idea is that CO2 has a reported diminishing return value for heat trapping. meaning: if CO2 is at a concentration one year, it will absorb a certain amount of heat.

if you were to double the amount of CO in the next year (hard to do) it would not double the amount of heat abosorbtion because CO2 is can only absorb heat in certain frequencies. the extra heat from the extra CO2 would absorb as much in that frequency as it could, the rest of the extra heat would radiates into space as usuall.

this is one reason why the positive feedback loop fails. not all heat is absorbed by CO2. this is explained in the first few minutes of the film "What is Normal?" but i'm still looking for the study which supports it.

YouTube - What is Normal? Climate Video Part 1

 

[DMGIX]

wow. you need to recognize how many assumptions you are making here.

burning fossil fuels do NOTHING to the oceans. worse case scenerio, the frozen ice caps melt and raise water levels 20 centimeters. (that's from the I.P.C.C.) if that were the case, ocean life would be more plentiful. it is land mass that will have shrunk.

100 years? 1,000 or 10,000 years? this is quite a big margine of error. how can you seriously worry about what will happen hundreds or thousands of years in the future. ask yourself: could someone living in 1908 understand or be able to help us today? of course not. 100 years makes an enormous difference in technology and science.

once again, the ONLY thing of interest to us today is POLUTION. it is wrong to leave a planet to our children dirtier then we received it. so clean up polution and switch to cleaner energy solutions as they become economically sound.

no one argue this point. what most people fail to understand is: CO2 is not a polutant. it is a natural, NECESSARY gas on this planet. and there is NO EVIDENCE that raising CO2 levels on the planet is dangerous for life. the entire case against it as a catastrophic greenhouse gas is based on computer models. yes, it is a greenhouse gas. no, it alone cannot raise temperatures up to crisis levels.

Without the ice caps the earth will have lost its only natural cooling system causing the Ocean to warm up (resulting in air temps to?). But from what im told this could stop the Ocean conveabelt/flow(water rises in the tropics, sinks in the poles), if this "stopping" does happen the Ocean slowly becomes stagnant, it all about the Natural Cycle of the planet, we're still in and at the end of an ice age. Man has only been around during ice age this ice age. Its a possibility

I agree CO2 cant just raise temp to dangerous levels, but slightly higher temps could release other more danergous green-house gases like i originally said. Its all about balance, too much of something could affect others, be it making too low or too high

 

[closet.cult]

Without the ice caps the earth will have lost its only natural cooling system causing the Ocean to warm up (resulting in air temps to?). But from what im told this could stop the Ocean conveabelt/flow(water rises in the tropics, sinks in the poles), if this "stopping" does happen the Ocean slowly becomes stagnant, it all about the Natural Cycle of the planet, we're still in and at the end of an ice age. Man has only been around during ice age this ice age. Its a possibility

I agree CO2 cant just raise temp to dangerous levels, but slightly higher temps could release other more danergous green-house gases like i originally said. Its all about balance, too much of something could affect others, be it making too low or too high

wow. i dont know where you're getting this from but nothing you have said is real. the ice caps is the earth's natural cooling system? not exactly. although they do bounce back light & heat into the atmosphere so we dont want them to go away.

the ocean currents are quite important, as we understand it. but why wouldn't a new current wouldn't replace the old one when the fresh waters converge on the salt water stream? the ocean current (which is a result of different water temperatures mixing) is very similar to the air currents in the atmosphere. it will recover and change. the OCEAN will NOT become stagnant.

these are the worse, over-exaggerated dooms-day scenerios i've ever heard. one thing you are right about: man hasn't been around long enough to acurately understand science at GLOBAL scales. they are non-linear dynamic systems which require generations of study and accurate records of history with which to compare.

 

[DMGIX]

wow. i dont know where you're getting this from but nothing you have said is real. the ice caps is the earth's natural cooling system? not exactly. although they do bounce back light & heat into the atmosphere so we dont want them to go away.

the ocean currents are quite important, as we understand it. but why wouldn't a new current wouldn't replace the old one when the fresh waters converge on the salt water stream? the ocean current (which is a result of different water temperatures mixing) is very similar to the air currents in the atmosphere. it will recover and change. the OCEAN will NOT become stagnant.

these are the worse, over-exaggerated dooms-day scenerios i've ever heard. one thing you are right about: man hasn't been around long enough to acurately understand science at GLOBAL scales. they are non-linear dynamic systems which require generations of study and accurate records of history with which to compare.

I said "could" An Ocean current is not just "quite" important, i would say it is Pivitol. All what i say is a possibility at some point as too what your saying. What would happening if the Ocean do start to slow down? Or Stop? Im only chipping in to the debate. And these details i got from a Scientist called Dr Iain Stewart who is an expert in how the planet works. And before you say he's not a enviromentalist.

 

[DMGIX]

the OCEAN will NOT become stagnant.

It can happen and it was the cause of the greatest mass extintion FACT. Im not saying it will.

 

[DMGIX]

burning fossil fuels do NOTHING to the oceans. .

Burning fossil fuels affects the atmoshpere, so therefore affects the Oceans.

 

[ccodiane]

wow. i dont know where you're getting this from but nothing you have said is real. the ice caps is the earth's natural cooling system? not exactly. although they do bounce back light & heat into the atmosphere so we dont want them to go away.

the ocean currents are quite important, as we understand it. but why wouldn't a new current wouldn't replace the old one when the fresh waters converge on the salt water stream? the ocean current (which is a result of different water temperatures mixing) is very similar to the air currents in the atmosphere. it will recover and change. the OCEAN will NOT become stagnant.

these are the worse, over-exaggerated dooms-day scenerios i've ever heard. one thing you are right about: man hasn't been around long enough to acurately understand science at GLOBAL scales. they are non-linear dynamic systems which require generations of study and accurate records of history with which to compare.

Here's a good one. Scientific consensus is that less tropical forests equal hotter surface temperatures. In reality, it should be quite the opposite. Desserts reflect heat, much like the ice caps, back into outer space. Forests absorb heat. Deforestation would probably encourage global cooling.

 

[Garden Knowm]

wow. i dont know where you're getting this from but nothing you have said is real.

now you know where he is getting it from....

is your stance still "nothing you have said is real" ?

And if you don't know his source, how could you know that nothing he has said is real?

Are you a polar ice cap, earth cooling expert?


seriously.. How can you be so matter of fact?
iloveyou

 

[Garden Knowm]

John R. E. Bliese, Ph.D.


There is a greenhouse effect that warms the earth, and we should be very glad about it.

There are several trace gases in our atmosphere, present in only minute amounts, that trap heat. The most important ones of concern here are carbon dioxide and methane. Like the glass panes of a greenhouse, they let sunlight in to warm the earth but keep some of the heat from escaping back into space. If they were not there, the average temperature of the earth would be well below freezing, and none of us would be living on it.​

These greenhouse gases have natural sources that produce them, and natural “sinks” that remove them from the air. These natural processes have kept the greenhouse gases stable for the past 10,000 years—since the end of the last ice age. The problem now is that we are producing these gases much faster than the sinks can remove them. Our carbon dioxide comes mostly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars, trucks and factories, and so on, and from burning tropical forests. Methane comes from agriculture, landfills, leaking natural gas lines, and coal mines.​

 

[Garden Knowm]

There are four keys to reducing greenhouse gas emissions:​

1. Quit destroying forests, especially tropical forests.​

We need to help those countries increase agricultural productivity without having to clear more land.​

John R. E. Bliese, Ph.D.

 

[Garden Knowm]

New American Dream Home

learn how you can make a difference

iloveyou

 

[Garden Knowm]

diane..... I enjoy our time spent together... but please do not take this to any more threads than the 2 we have already hijacked....

feel free to have at me in these two threads.. BUT please keep here.. so that the other members don;t have to deal with our shit..

iloveyou

 

[closet.cult]

now you know where he is getting it from....

is your stance still "nothing you have said is real" ?

And if you don't know his source, how could you know that nothing he has said is real?

Are you a polar ice cap, earth cooling expert?


seriously.. How can you be so matter of fact?
iloveyou

well, that's true. i dont know who said it but it doesn't jive with much of what i've read. the scenerios he's describing are out of a bad sci-fi show, not any of the current thinking i'm aware of.

for instance: the polar ice caps are not keeping the world cool like ice cubes in a glass of ocean water. although they do reflect light back into space and so help cool. their size and thickness are a result of the climate of the planet, not the other way around. remember, if their were no sun to warm this planet it would be in the near absolute zero frozen vacume of space. why is the planet warming: IT'S THE SUN, PEOPLE.

 

[ccodiane]

well, that's true. i dont know who said it but it doesn't jive with much of what i've read. the scenerios he's describing are out of a bad sci-fi show, not any of the current thinking i'm aware of.

for instance: the polar ice caps are not keeping the world cool like ice cubes in a glass of ocean water. although they do relect light back into space and so help cool. their size and thickness are a result of the climate of the planet, not the other way around. remember, if their were no sun to warm this planet it would be in the near absolute zero frozen vacume of space. why is the planet warming: IT'S THE SUN, PEOPLE.

"An Inconvenient "Truth""?

PS-God bless Israel!

 

[DMGIX]

OMG, its a scenario of possibility not impossibility. A far fetched one i agree. But still i stick by my Original Statement(1st post)

 

[DMGIX]

if their were no sun to warm this planet it would be in the near absolute zero frozen vacume of space. why is the planet warming: IT'S THE SUN, PEOPLE.

True to a point, the sun has a part to play, but the Earths Atmosphere keeps us warm, without it the suns energy will be irrelevant. I would go into how lucky and and how we are near enough a freak ofthe solar system/universe but....i cba..lol

Sex and Peace