Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#17069 12/08/04 12:29 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
It appears, that available data show that CO2 level is rising.

The nitwits claim that reason for that is industrial and car-produced poluton.

Assumingly, atmospheric CO2 rise is the main cause of observed warming.

But it is known, that influx of CO2 is almost precisely balanced by plant photosythesis.

It is much more likely that decline in forestation is the reason of CO2 rise, not the fossil fuels.

So, the right way to prevent global warming is to have more forestation and more other plants.

But the proponents have anti-capitalist agenda.

They want to stick it to US, that it is guilty of global warming.

The reality is that the poor countries that destroy their forestation are the most likely culprits.

ES

.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 37
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 37
ES, I'm not sure to get your point here.

Are you trying to convince us that it's because of the reduction of the forest atmospheric CO2 is not sequestrate enought ?

If poor countries are charged to the global climatic change this means that rich countries will ask them to pay the bill. They won't be able.
Nothing miraculous appears in your plan.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by kit_kat:
If poor countries are charged to the global climatic change this means that rich countries will ask them to pay the bill. They won't be able.
First of all, one must to correctly identify the cause, in order to fix the effect. wink

If we all stop driving, heating our houses, cooking, etc., the global warming will not be affected, if I am right.

es

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 37
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 37
I quite agree with the first part of you speech, concerning the importance of identifying the base of the problem. I don't think it's that easy because the gentle warm-up (the natural part) is a step in an oncoming global event.

Most peoples think that human will increase the rate of this event but it's after all a natural event.

As far as I know, human can't do anything against a natural force. This warm-up will lead to a snowball Earth. Knowing that's there is nothing to do, the best is to anticipate the progression of the glaciers and manage the low latitude regions to recieve the amount of living things.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by kit_kat:
a step in an oncoming global event.
What global event?
Next to where I live, a huge forest patch was just exterminated to give place to new houses.

Did anyone bother to grow comparable forest elsewhere? A rethoric question, obviously.

es

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
ES, your level of stupidity has always amazed me, but you have reached all-new lows of moronic antiscientific idiocy. Get off your throne of "I am sooo sm@rt!!!!!111" and face the real world sometime. You might be surprised at the amount of real cold hard facts you see, and the lack of a "supreme deity" who "will fix everything so you're right". Go talk to a psychiatrist. Save your yammering for someone who can help you with the cause.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by asittler:
you have reached all-new lows of moronic antiscientific idiocy...
Wake up, I am championing your beloved warming! Halleluia!

e smile s

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 8
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 8
Quote:
Wake up, I am championing your beloved warming! Halleluia!
mad
Too bad there isn't IDIOT blocking software!!


All things are relative....including and especially your family
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by superman:
Too bad there isn't IDIOT blocking software!!
I agree laugh

es

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
superman: There is. They're called prophylactics. Unfortunately, in ES's and Thorlord's cases, it's a little too late for them to be effective. Right now, for those two, I'd recommend an elementary lesson in pocket ballistics. Between the eyes.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by asittler:
...
Get planting a tree, baby.

We are warming 0.02 Celcius grades a year.

ES

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Planting trees isn't a solution. On the long term you get a new equilibrium. Trees die, rot and release the stored carbon in the form of CO2.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
ES:

Is not much more likely that the cause is one thing or another ... it is much more likely that what is happening is a complex interaction between numerous causes and effects: Some positive some negative.

As Einstein said:
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

Simplicity is for sound-bites.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis:
Planting trees isn't a solution. On the long term you get a new equilibrium. Trees die, rot and release the stored carbon in the form of CO2.
It depends, what kind of tree and what happen to it after it has died.
We must be smart in what trees and how we are planting, but vegetation is THE consumer of CO2.

With 0.02 C grade a year temp rise, we should not be too wimpy cool

The good news is, that greenhouse effect can increase temperature not more than 33 C grades.
I mean, if we do nothing.

ES

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Is not much more likely that the cause is one thing or another
A bit of philosophy helps when your house is on fire.

I would rather prefer we planted trees instead.

es

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
sorry to burst your bubble, the the real effect of global warming, is the sun itself. the earth receives more heat that it releases, and will gradually warm up until it ballances. as it does the ice melts.

the cause of the ice age we have enjoyed for the entirity of the human evelution was the yellowstone eruptions over the last 2.1 million years. untill the next eruption occurs the tempature will gradually increase. all humans are doing is accelerating the process.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"the the real effect of global warming, is the sun itself."

Did you perhaps mean cause rather than effect?

And if you did please explain why that should have a greater and greater affect that just coincidentally coincides with the industrial revolution and the increased emission of green house gases by the so-called intelligent residents of this planet.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
extrasense,
"It depends, what kind of tree and what happen to it after it has died."

If it turned into coal during the cretaceous period, most of will be back in the atmoshere by 2050.
And there goes your origional premise.
Fossil fuel that was sequestered, (mostly by forests), over geological ages is being released in a period of centuries.
It is evident that that makes a lot more immediate difference in CO2 levels than a change in forestation.

Pragmatist

Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. - Ambrose Bierce - 'Devils Dictonary`

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
And for those that still don't get it try this:

The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame!

Not my words ... those of Time Magazine. So read on:

Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us.

The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated -- is that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. That's just what's happening now.

It's at the north and south poles -- where ice cover is crumbling to slush -- that the crisis is being felt the most acutely.

Late last year, for example, researchers analyzed data from Canadian and European satellites and found that the Greenland ice sheet is not only melting, but doing so faster and faster, with 53 cubic miles draining away into the sea last year alone, compared to 23 cubic miles in 1996.

One of the reasons the loss of the planet's ice cover is accelerating is that as the poles' bright white surface disappears it changes the relationship of the Earth and the sun. Polar ice is so reflective that 90 percent of the sunlight that strikes it simply bounces back into space, taking its energy with it. Ocean water does just the opposite, absorbing 90 percent of the light and heat it receives, meaning that each mile of ice that melts vanishes faster than the mile that preceded it.

This is what scientists call a feedback loop, and a similar one is also melting the frozen land called permafrost, much of which has been frozen -- since the end of last ice age in fact, or at least 8,000 years ago.

Sealed inside that cryonic time capsule are layers of decaying organic matter, thick with carbon, which itself can transform into CO2. In places like the southern boundary of Alaska the soil is now melting and softening.

As fast as global warming is changing the oceans and ice caps, it's having an even more immediate effect on land. Droughts are increasingly common as higher temperatures also bake moisture out of soil faster, causing dry regions that live at the margins to tip into full-blown crisis.

Wildfires in such sensitive regions as Indonesia, the western U.S. and even inland Alaska have been occurring with increased frequency as timberlands grow more parched. Those forests that don't succumb to fire can simply die from thirst.

With habitats crashing, the animals that call them home are succumbing too. In Alaska, salmon populations are faltering as melting permafrost pours mud into rivers, burying the gravel the fish need for spawning. Small animals such as bushy tailed rats, chipmunks and pinion mice are being chased upslope by rising temperatures, until they at last have no place to run.

And with sea ice vanishing, polar bears are starting to turn up drowned. "There will be no polar ice by 2060," says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "Somewhere along that path, the polar bear drops out."

So much environmental collapse has at last awakened much of the world, particularly the 141 nations that have ratified the Kyoto treaty to reduce emissions. The Bush administration, however, has shown no willingness to address the warming crisis in a serious way and Congress has not been much more encouraging.

Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman have twice been unable to get even mild measures to limit carbon emissions through a recalcitrant Senate.

A 10-member House delegation did recently travel to Antarctica, Australia and New Zealand to meet with scientists studying climate change. "Of the 10 of us, only three were believers to begin with," says Rep. Sherman Boehlert of New York. "Every one of the others said this opened their eyes."

It is time to take off the blinders. It is time to realize that the world you thought you were born into will no longer exist soon. Either start digging a cave and stocking it with food or become part of the solution. There will be no ringside seats for observers.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
""This is what scientists call a feedback loop, and a similar one is also melting the frozen land called permafrost, much of which has been frozen -- since the end of last ice age in fact, or at least 8,000 years ago.""
Now you are coming around.
The feedback loop is a self-accelerating thing, it does not care wheather you emit CO2 ore not!!!

ES

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5