|
Quote:
What is trash made of? Paper, which comes from trees, metals, which come from the soil, and plastic, which is refined from petroleum, which also comes from the soil. Petroleum is called a "fossil fuel", meaning that it is formed from decayed plants and animals. Many of these chemicals which we "pollute" the earth with are harmful in the short term, but they eventually break down into their original state, and return to the soil from which they came. |
Quote:
The "Oregon Petition", which demanded that the UN reject the Kyoto protocol and re-investigate the IPCC's research was signed by 31,000 scientists. This letter was addressed to the UN last year, it was written by scientists who are demanding that the UN set the scientific record straight in regards to "global warming". http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Lett...an_Ki-moon.pdf |
my science teacher thinks that global warming would happen whether or not we do what we do
only thing we do is make it go faster :P I kind of agree with that |
Quote:
These islands disappeared because the islanders dynamited the reefs surrounding them to allow easier access for boats. Unfortunately, this also allowed natural tidal forces to inundate the islands. As for the decrease in rainfall in Africa, how can you blame global warming? If, in fact, the seas were getting warmer, evaporation would increase, causing increased cloud formation and rain. You are demonstrating a fact which refutes global warming, not one which supports it. Do you know why Africans are starving? Because their population has increased to a point beyond that which their form of agriculture can support. Add to that the political corruption which loots the people's wealth. Prior to the government of Zimbabwe's confiscation of white-owned farms, Zimbabwe was a food-exporting nation. Now the people are starving. They have the land, the tools, and the water, what they lack is the ability or desire to make use of them. The global warming hysteria has caused a dramatic increase in the demand for bio-fuels. But, the material most often used for bio-fuel is corn, which is also a food item. People are starving, but it is because the bio-fuel boom has caused food prices to increase beyond what the very poor can pay. Added to that fact is that land which was once being used to grow food products is now being used to grow bio-fuel material. And, yes, rain forests are also being cut down to increase bio-fuel production. Brazil uses nothing but bio-fuel to power its vehicles, how much rain forest did they have to cut down to produce it? Crops do not trap heat, they reflect it, so once again you are stating something which is contrary to fact. Rain forests trap heat, water vapor in the atmosphere traps heat, large cities trap heat, but crops do not. The most common poison appearing in salt water fish is not pesticide or fertilizer, but mercury, which is naturally occurring. Fertilizers are a problem, but they are not related to global warming in any way, since global warming is not happening, and has no effects on agriculture. If Co2 levels are increasing as stated by the IPPC, then agriculture should be thriving. Krill are not the bottom of the food chain. Zooplankton and phytoplankton are. Whales do not exist entirely on krill, they eat both types of plankton as well. Large amounts of fresh water river run off have been shown to kill plankton, so water run off is good and bad. Co2 accounts for less than 4% of the earth's greenhouse gases. And its classification as a greenhouse gas is iffy at best. There are times in earth's history when Co2 levels were 1000 times higher than they are now, and life existed just fine. The hockey stick chart used by the IPCC to chart increases in Co2 is false, and has been discredited. Contrary studies show that Co2 levels in the early 19th century are nearly identical to the levels which we are seeing now. You say you have been studying. What school do you go to? Are you in college now? As far as I can tell, you seem to have picked up your knowledge from the same place as anyone else, news headlines and popular fiction. |
Tenchu, me mentioning school was to show you that I DID NOT listen to what the teachers said, but that I went to study it myself...
Okay. Let me start by answering “What is Science?” The most basic definition of science only contains 3 words. Observation, Theory (creating a model being a branch of this) and prediction. Science also goes in that order. You observe, then you theorise (create a model if you can), then you predict things. After that, the cycle restarts. Once you’ve predicted, you observe again etc, if you find something new or different or wrong, you amend your theory. That is the basic principles of Science. So unfortunately, Science has nothing to do with faith, unless you’re talking about having faith in your theory while it goes round the cycle which ends up proving the theory correct or incorrect. But I wouldn’t call that faith. Hope would be a better choice of words for me! Anyway the language of Science is maths. Numbers! So I’m going to start talking about some numbers concerning Global warming! We humans produce around 8*10^9 tons (8 gigatons) of CO2 per year. We know that half of that stays in the atmosphere, where as the rest is... lets just say, food for plants and the oceans etc. Scientists also know that there is about 740*10^9 (740 gigatons) of CO2 in the atmosphere already. Basic maths shows that we only add 0.5% of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Now, let’s have a looks at the numbers for Mother Nature. The oceans themselves produce almost 100 gigatons of CO2 per year. Plants around 70 gigatons of CO2. No matter which scientists’ research and numbers are almost the same. Some will say 6 gigatons compared to 8. Others will say 60 compared to 70 etc. Anyway, the point is that Natures CO2 emissions are always over 30:1 So, WE humans can’t even create as much CO2 as Mother Nature even if we tried. I have yet to find the exact figures for the intake of CO2 by Mother Nature and how it’s affected by deforestation etc. As soon as I find them, I’ll post them up! But from what I remember, it hasn’t changed severely due to deforestation, however, personally, I still don’t think agree with abusing the planet. Tenchu, you also mentioned that something is off because the temp has suddenly risen. I understand the logic in saying that a sudden change is bad for the environment, but unfortunatley, nothing of the sort has happened. If you look at the temperatues of the earth for the past 150 years, you will see the following. Prior to 1910ish: there was a cooling. This was attributed to Nature 1910 – 1940ish: A QUICK rise in temperature similar to what we’ve experienced for the past 20 years or so. This is attributed to Nature also. 1940ish – 1980s: a decile in temp. Also attributed to Nature. (The so called next ice-age which was predicted by the same (political) scientists that are pushing this Global Warming thing. 1980s – Present : A rise in temperature similar to 1910 – 1940. Somehow, this is Human made. Unfortunately, logic now, says that sudden changes in temperature and sudden rises are not uncommon for nature. They have happened before and not more than 150 years ago. TO BE CONTINUED... Next time will be about Tidewater glacier cycle and other things concerning the life of an Ice cap!!! Oh and btw Zed, if you believe that 1500 scientists agreed on an EVOLVING theory, then you don't really know science or scientists! EDIT!!!! BTW, Tenchu, your talk about Africa has nothing to do with Global warming. People have been starving in Africa for the past 3 to 4 thousand years!!! It has nothing to do with Global warming but rather to do with foreign domination or Monarchy type civilisations (such as the Egyptians and Lybians) who thought that they were greater than the people! Give Africans an means to build themselves a life peacefuly and you'll see famine decrease at incredible rates within 2 generations! Toureg people live in the desert! Their conditions are worse than these unfortunate dying Africans! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
the fact that planet is warming is irrefutable, here is another site were you can inform yourself about it, it is true that natural warmht is ocurring as as it has happened every 100,000 years, this are some of the reasons why.Sunlight brings energy into the climate system; most of it is absorbed by the oceans and land. By natural warming The greenhouse effect is a natural warming process. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and certain other gases are always present in the atmosphere. These gases create a warming effect that has some similarity to the warming inside a greenhouse, hence the name “greenhouse effect.” but this is what is been happening over the lasts decades, amplified warming Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases intensifies the greenhouse effect. Higher concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap more infrared energy in the atmosphere than occurs naturally. The additional heat further warms the atmosphere and Earth’s surface. usually the planet itself would take care of it but we are putting more on the atmosfere than it can handle. this is the way nature deals whith it. Short-Term Cycles: Carbon is exchanged rapidly between plants and animals through respiration and photosynthesis, and through gas exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere. Long-Term Cycle: Over millions of years, carbon in the air is combined with water to form weak acids that very slowly dissolve rocks. This carbon is carried to the oceans where some forms coral reefs and shells. These sediments may be moved deep into the Earth by drifting continents and eventually released into the atmosphere by volcanoes. now this is how the gases we are puting in the atmosphere afect it. carbon dioxide (CO2)56%, methane (CH4)18%, nitrous oxide (N2O)6%, the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)13% used in air conditioners and many industrial processes, and ozone 7% if you want to learn about other reasons why the planet is warming up visit this site. Global Warming Facts and Our Future - Introduction |
:rolleyes: Zed, I think it's time you posted something that isn't learnt in Secondary school!
Here's a simple question for you... Why is it as we've measured the Earth getting warmer, we've also meaured the surface of the moon getting warmer at a similar rate? |
Quote:
now lets say I agree whit you, now tell me why do you think it is getting warmer? |
Quote:
And btw, before I answer your question, it'd be nice to hear a response to my question :) |
Quote:
well where should I start, maybe in history of the planet, as I said before there is a cicle that repits itself every 100,000 years (give or take) and is when the planet heats up, and there is al Ice Age in between, or viceversa, and it includes the position and orbit of the planet respect to the sun, maybe that answers your question, but this time the planet has been warming up more rapidly than it normaly does, so in my opinion humans have contribuited to it, I never said It was all because of humans and I think we have to take responsability for the fact that our polution has helped to increase the problem, go to the site: Global Warming Facts and Our Future - Introduction and you will find alot of natural and human causes. note: the site is kind of bias, but don't pay attention to it, it has good info. |
i believe that we shoudnt do anything.
the world has been rotting since sin first entered the world, and it will keep rotting until eventually its dies and then we all get saved. i feel taht it is too late and unless we rewind back to the beginnnign then there is nothing we can do. i just look forward to that day i can live forever. but thats my opinion. |
I saw this on yahoo today and it's their featured video. Climate Change or Global Warming is somewhat real.
Yahoo! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
but can't allways be like that, |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Do you know why the UN and IPCC keep pushing this nonsense? Because of money. The US alone is spending $29 billion dollars a year to fund "climate change" research. More than $1 trillion has been spent worldwide as a result of global warming nonsense. If people stop believing that it's happening the money will stop. I love the nonsense the UN spreads about how sea ice has reached historic lows, especially when records of sea ice have only been kept for 30 years . They fail to mention that the northwest passage through the arctic was navigable by ship more than 100 years ago, something which is not possible today because it is now frozen over with sea ice. And even with the the short record-keeping time span, sea ice has now returned to the 1979 to 2000 average. How about dying polar bears? How many have died as a "result of global warming"? The number so far is 4. But the UN fails to mention that there are about 25,000 polar bears living in the arctic. In 1940 there were only 5000 polar bears. Using the UN's flawed logic, global warming should actually be increasing the number of polar bears, as their numbers have increased 800% as the world has "become warmer". |
Quote:
In the 2007 IPCC report, the severity of global warming was reduced. Why? Because the world is no longer getting warmer. But, once again, in the worst case scenario presented in the 2007 report, it would take twice as long for the ice to melt, about 20,000 years. I don't think anyone here is going to be around when (and if) it happens. |
Quote:
Co2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary to life, as plants breathe it as we breathe oxygen. It does not cause respiratory problems, it does not cause sickness, and, it does not cause global warming. The current levels of Co2 in the air are as low as 1% of their levels at other times in history, and the world is still around, isn't it? You aren't even educated enough to spell "break" properly, come back in a few years when you've learned enough to speak coherently about the subject. As for cars producing Co2, the average car produces less than 1/3 the amount of Co2 that the average house does. If you really want to reduce Co2 you should be living in your car. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Fact, there use to be Viking farms on Greenland, meaning that at one time it was not covered in ice as it now is. That means that the world is now cooler than it was 700 years ago. Fact, 100 years ago ships were able to navigate the northwest passage. That is not possible now because the northwest passage is covered by sea ice year-round. Does this not mean that temperatures in the 19th century were warmer than the temperatures of today? Climate change does occur, it always has, and always will, but man's influence upon it is almost immeasurably small. As for polar bears, they have existed for 500,000 years. During several periods of that time, there was no arctic ice, yet they survived. What does that tell you? It tells you that, unlike what you are being told in the news by politically biased reporters and so-called scientists, polar bears can exist in an environment without sea ice. But, thankfully for the polar bears, the sea ice is not decreasing. Am I getting through? |
Quote:
Well, I get you. You have some nice facts there. Fact, the world has an ozone layer which is scientifically proven. It prevents too much heat from the sun to enter earth. I know that everybody knows this, but human pollutions from the last thousand years up to now have affected the so called ozone layer. That means that the heat temperature that enters the earth is much hotter than before, specially now that there's factories that directly dispose chemicals to the air. |
Quote:
Let's not even begin with the ozone layer, one argument is enough for now. But if you want know, research is now showing that the hole in the ozone layer is naturally occurring, and once again, is not affected by man made chemicals. And, if in fact what you say is true, and ozone depletion is allowing more heat into the atmosphere, why have temperatures declined during the last 10 years? The only logical explanation is that either A, ozone has nothing to do with heat entering the atmosphere, or B, there is nothing wrong with the ozone layer. Which is it? |
Quote:
As for financially or politically motivated, those words could be used to describe the UN. Since the global warming farce began, more than $1,000,000,000,000 has been spent by the world's governments to grapple with the problem. The US alone is spending $29 billion a year for climate change research. Who do you think is profiting from this money? Since you asked for facts, theory, and a base, I'll provide them. Please have the courtesy to read, if you are capable of it. First, a genuine record of earth's temperatures World Climate Report Second, a paper refuting the IPCC's claim that Co2 levels are climbing to historic levels, and that Co2 has any significant effect on the world's temperature http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...O2_Scandal.pdf Next, a real life chart of sea ice levels. The data only goes back as far as 1979, we do not know what the levels were in the 1930's, which was the period when world temperatures were recorded at their highest levels http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg This article has to do with sea level rise, or the lack thereof. It is authored by arguably the world's leading authority on the subject FAEC - Since many people here seemed to have learned much of what they know about global warming from Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", it should be noted that the British Supreme Court found and ruled on 9 inconsistencies in the movie. "An Inconvenient Truth" is no longer considered a documentary of fact by the United Kingdom, but a political/editorial film. Read excerpts here Global Warming Science and Public Policy - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore The UN and the IPCC have a vested interest in maintaining the global warming "myth". Prior to the publishing of the 1996 IPCC report, three important clauses were removed from the final draft, these were: # "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] chang es to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases." # "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man- made] causes." # "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." Here is a link the the article, written by S Fred Singer, who was the IPCC's lead author in the 1996 report Letter to IPCC Scientists I've posted my facts and my base, those who have contrary evidence, please feel free to present it. |
I don't see why people do not believe this.
If you had a box and inside that box you places 1 rat it would not make a different. If you places a few numbers of rats their body heat and emissions would effect the temperate, oxygen levels and all that. Seriously, you hear some bull**** fake research about the weather rising up in 1905? Come on, who believe that crap. It's 2009 and we can't even predict the weather properly. What's obvious is that emissions occur and there's a lot of mega cities. The world is a small place in comparison. Over time this would effect the climate. |
Quote:
Human contribution to Co2 levels adds up to approximately .12 percent annually. That is not a significant amount. Current levels are about 480 parts per million by volume, which is about 1% of their historical high. And, even when Co2 was at that historic high, there was still ice in the world, and life thrived on land and in the sea. As for other things like "mega cities", yes, they affect the environment, but only locally. Their effect is offset by other man-made things. Man is growing wheat, barley, and corn crops on vast amounts of farmland. These crops offset the temperature increases caused by city "hot-spot islands". Added to these farms are the vast lakes and reservoirs created by artificial dams. Natural occurrences still outweigh man's contributions to the weather. The eruption of a single volcano can surpass decades of man-made air pollution. Please try to come up with an intelligent question or statement, no more empty-headed comments. |
{I will not allow you to insult other users, if you have a personal grudge against someone take it to the PM's}
~KANJI |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
blame yourself before blaming others...
|
To all of those that complain that these discussions are cut off by the mods just when they are getting good, I would point out this thread is on the cusp of that point, as the discussion has been reduced to a lot of name calling.
If that can be remedied, then it will remain open. If not, it will be closed. |
Quote:
The 'debate' had been going fine, however in depth and heated it had been getting. I was actually learning a lot and was especially interested about the 'hole in the ozone layer' issue. Everyone has a right to speak their opinions and everyone has a right to refute those opinions. Sort out the people who can't do one or the other, or both, in a civil manner. |
Quote:
Aniki and Bureda: Consider this your warning. If you want to continue to post here, don't insult people. If you can't do that you will be going on vacation. |
Quote:
As for temperatures in your home area, how about looking at this year's record, and comparing it to records of past years. These records shouldn't be hard for you to find. Tell me what they say. 2008 is projected to be the coldest year this decade for London. |
I honestly believe it's meant to go this way. We all know that earth is going under in the future. When? We don't know exactly.
But the end of existence needs a reason - or at least a cause. What I'm trying to say is, that if global warming (and alike) didn't wipe us off the earth at some point - something else will. A major natural force if you may. This is gonna sound corny, but that's how it is meant to be. I can hardly take this reply seriously, as it's coming from my-very-self. But I really believe that this is how it's supposed to go. |
Global Warming is BS. The other is ALWAYS going through a time of heat, and a time of cool.
It's good to save energy and resources, but it is not contributing to Global Warming. |
Quote:
Basically agnotology is the study of culturally cultivated ignorance. The more information out there the less that is true. People believe what they want to believe but now have all the sources they want to back it up. The more information we have access to, the more ignorant we are. Therefore you have fewer people believing in evolution, that Obama is a Christian and in Global Warming. Food for thought. |
Quote:
I have the right to say what I think, and I think you are being rude towards my opinion. |
Quote:
You spoke with authority: "Global Warming is BS". That is interesting to me when professional and layperson's opinion tend to swing the other way. It's like saying "Gravity is BS" in my head. So what books have you read? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:00 PM. |