Close

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 313

Thread: Global Warming?

  1. #31
    Kodachrome Forever! Gegogi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lost
    Posts
    2,708
    Rep Power
    5987

    Default

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    Global warming may soon be a moot

    point. The earth's protective magnetic field is weaker than any point in it's distant past. Our magnetic field

    helps deflect solar and cosmic radiation, basically protecting us from the worse of it. Some researchers believe it

    may be fading fast due to the cooling of the earth's core (like what happened to Mars). It could be only a matter

    of a few decades before it becomes so weak solar flares and cosmic radiation begin stripping away our atmosphere.

    That would pretty much be it for global warming...
    "I'm just a dirty hornytoad" -Gegogi

  2. #32
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Default

    The magnetic poles have shifted

    and wavered quite a few times. The core hasn't cooled significantly in the past few million years, the mass is just

    too great and the crust provides too much insulation for rapid cooling. That's also not what holds the atmosphere

    in place. It would be interesting to know more about what was said. Do you have a reference on that?
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  3. #33
    Kodachrome Forever! Gegogi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lost
    Posts
    2,708
    Rep Power
    5987

    Default

    I saw it a program (Dangerous

    Science?) on the National Geo channel yesterday. They discussed the usual theories about pole reversal but also

    mentioned Mars had a strong magnetic field once that faded once its molten core cooled, allowing its atmosphere to

    largely be stripped away by solar radiation. This article covers most of it, save Mars and the newer theory about

    our fading magnetic field being more than a mere

    flip.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...hmagfield.html
    "I'm just a dirty hornytoad" -Gegogi

  4. #34
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Default

    Thanks. I'll look at it. There

    are always a few theories like that out there but most are pretty weak. One with more teeth I read recently is the

    chunk of rock that passed through earth orbit not long ago and will again in about 20 years. Tat one is serious

    enough that preperations are being made to deflect it if the odds of impact get any closer.

    Considering the

    number of times the magnetic field has switched I'm not overly concerned but will do some looking into it. I don't

    know the figures off hand for that type of thing so really don't have much to go on other than a semi-educated

    guess.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  5. #35
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Default

    Ok, I spent a couple hours last night looking this stuff up. Interesting stuff and learned a number of

    things. To begin, this is not a new theory only one revived recently in an attempt to prove a point. It originated

    back in 1973 with a theory that was based on the notion the earth is basically a ball of iron and nickel hanging in

    space with no other influences. Based on that idea, electromagnetic principles say that over time the field will

    decay until it finally collapses. Once it collapses the Van Allen belts would go away, they are what help protect us

    from electrically charged particles from the sun and other sources. There are a number of flaws

    here.




    The group that revived the theory are the creationists

    who want to prove the earth is only 6,000 years old. They claim the magnetic field’s decline helps to prove their

    point. Part of their evidence is a graph showing a logarithmic curve of declining magnetic field strength. First,

    they plotted this curve using a base point of 6,000 years ago and assumed a given field strength for that time. Then

    they used all of two data points to generate the curve. That is silly on the face of it. A straight line would be

    more logical if you don’t have a known starting or ending point. If you have a starting point and a curve really is

    implied you have to look at a greater model. After all, a segment of a parabola or a fragment of a sine wave can

    both be plotted that way yet both reverse at some point along the time axis.




    Reality is that the earth is not in a steady state just hanging in space. Rather, it is actually a

    dynamo. The earth’s core is a solid ball of super heated iron and nickel roughly the size of the moon. The intense

    pressure is what keeps it solid. Wrapped around that is the mantle which is in a liquid state, molten rock mostly

    made up of nickel and iron. Several forces keep the mantle in motion. Of the minor forces, the sun’s and moon’s

    gravity generate a constant flux. Of the major forces, planetary rotation and conduction currents cause constant

    motion within the mantle. The constant motion is what generates a large part of the earth’s magnetic field but also

    generates heat much like an electric motor. I’m not going to get into all of the details but for several reason

    certain things cause the magnetic fields generated to align in a given pattern. Over time these patterns are not

    stable resulting in the poles moving or even reversing. Evidence indicates that this has happened many times over

    the last couple billion years and has had little, if any effect on terrestrial plant and animal

    life.




    One of the points the creationists try to use is that

    the magnetic field will decay allowing the atmosphere to be stripped away by solar winds. They use mars as an

    example to prove the point. First, there is insufficient evidence to determine if mars’ core is molten though it is

    probably much cooler than the earth’s but mars does have a magnetic field. It is true that mars has a very thin

    atmosphere. That’s because mars is only 1/3 as massive as the earth therefore having a far weaker gravity field. The

    lighter gases simply escaped into space. Solar wind had nothing to do with it.




    An interesting point I ran across that actually makes this topic related to global warming. As I

    mentioned, one of the products of the interactions within the earth was heat which like in any engine is increased

    as the engine does more work. Various forces have combined to cause the earth to spin a little faster since the

    magnetic field last reversed. As a result, the earth has been getting warmer. The predicted consequences would be

    polar warming, glacial melting and strange changes in ocean currents. Not to beat the topic to death but that sounds

    strangely familiar.




    It’s actually a good thing the poles

    reverse because were they to not do so the globe would continue to warm until all life on it was destroyed. However,

    once the poles reverse the globe should see a cooling trend potentially resulting in ice ages. While none of this is

    proven yet, there is a lot of evidence and more is being added all the time to indicate this may be truly what is

    happening with our planetary climate or is at least one of the factors, and a major one. It is very interesting

    though not conclusive evidence of a relationship that the cycle of global warming and cooling coincide nicely with

    the cycle of magnetic field shifts.




    Please understand that I

    glossed over a lot here. This is not intended to be a rigid scientific handling of the matter but a general overview

    to respond to Gegogi’s statement. I read a lot of material last night but only included a small chunk of it. Below

    are some of the links I followed to a more rigid handling of the matter if anybody is interested.






    [url="http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm"]http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm[/

    url]

    http://earthsgeomotor.com/



    http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/amag.html



    http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/q279.html



    http://modelweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/models/igrf.html



    http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10851.html



    [size=3]http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/earth_poles_991027.html[/s

    ize]


    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html



    [url="http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/mars_mag/"]http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/mars_mag/[/

    url]

    [url="http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Lunar/"]http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Lunar/[/url

    ]
    Last edited by belgareth; 12-02-2005 at 01:12 PM.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  6. #36
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Default

    I was doing some studying

    recently and ran across some related information on climatology that seemed related to all the global warming talk.

    Seven hundred thousand years ago lions, elephants, zebra and other creatures roamed Europe and England. The climate

    there was warm enough for them to be comfortable. Since that time, the climate has cooled considerably forcing those

    creatures to migrate to the warmer equatoral regions. According to archeological climate data the average year round

    temperatures in England at that time were comparable to those commonly seen in the Serengeti plains of today. In

    other words, while the average year round temperature in London is now somewhere around fifty degrees, in the past

    it was at least seventy degrees.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  7. #37
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Thumbs up British biologist uses carbon trading to grow forests

    British biologist uses carbon trading to grow forests By

    Clarence Fernandez


    Tue Dec 20, 2005



    KUCHING, Malaysia (Reuters) - British biologist Ian

    Swingland took up the idea of trading commodities to fund afforestation programs after he witnessed the devastation

    caused by logging in the Malaysian rainforests of Borneo in 1998, two decades after his first visit there.



    Swingland lived alone for two years in the 1970s on the coral atoll

    of Aldabra in the Indian Ocean. There he studied the giant tortoises, numbering around 154,000, the island's only

    other inhabitants.


    Now his company has bought about 10,000 hectares

    (25,000 acres) of Kangaroo Island, Australia's third-largest island, to demonstrate that afforestation can offer a

    major investment opportunity through trading in carbon credits.


    "Conventional conservation is a disaster story," Swingland, the founder of Britain's Durrell Institute of

    Conservation and Ecology at the University of Kent, said in an interview.


    "What isn't a disaster is where you make a business of it, and everybody's lives are improved by it, and we

    give them ownership of their own future."


    Kangaroo Island, off the

    state of South Australia, is home to two nature reserves with koala populations, but about 34,000 hectares (85,000

    acres) of native bushland exists on privately held land.


    "We are

    going to reforest the area with pine and eucalyptus species that are indigenous to the island," said Eric

    Bettelheim, chairman of Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd, the company he and Swingland have set up with a third

    partner.


    Carbon trading is a key part of the European Union's

    strategy to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases under the Kyoto Protocol.


    The EU Emissions Trading Scheme, launched this year, covers 11,500 European manufacturing plants and power

    stations and lets companies that emit below their limits sell credits into the market where they trade as a

    commodity. Under the scheme, 230 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is blamed for global warming, have been

    traded. Industry groups forecast the value of business this year at $5.3

    billion.


    A major initiative in trading of emission credits is the

    clean development mechanism that gives companies credits for funding environmentally friendly projects in developing

    nations.


    "A WIN-WIN SITUATION"

    Other scientists welcomed Swingland's initiative at the meeting in Sarawak, one of the two Malaysian

    states on the island of Borneo, which teems with luxuriant plant and animal

    life.


    "I think it's a win-win situation," said Mick Poole, former

    chief of Australia's CSIRO Center for Environment and Life Sciences and an expert on how climate change affects

    farming.


    "Not only do you put in trees, it has other benefits, such

    as improving soil salinity, and the watershed, and so on."


    New South

    Wales is the only Australian state where carbon is traded, said Noel Ryan, a climate change analyst with the

    Wilderness Society. But other states and national territories are in talks to establish a national emissions trading

    system.


    "There's a lot of opposition from the federal government at

    the moment, but everybody expects that there will be carbon trading everywhere in the future," Ryan

    said.


    Analysts say Australia's federal government, which is not a

    signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, believes that putting caps on emissions of gases would hurt industry, and curb job

    growth.


    Sustainable Forestry Management, which has similar projects

    in 13 countries from Brazil to Morocco and Tanzania, chose Australia for its mature financial and forestry sectors

    and experienced local partners who could meet Western standards of accountability and transparency, Bettelheim said.



    Trees in tropical countries store far more carbon than those in more

    temperate zones, offering Asia an edge in the carbon storage business, said Bettelheim, a lawyer who worked on

    derivatives trading contracts in Chicago.


    "There's a lot of rain, a

    lot of sunshine, and it never freezes," he said. He estimated that a tropical tree could absorb up to 15 tons of

    carbon from the atmosphere each year, against just one ton for a tree in a temperate zone.



    Sir Peter Crane, director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew,

    agreed with Bettelheim. "I could believe that," he said. "It's quite likely that you have a lot more biomass locked

    up in lowland forests. I could believe certain types of forests in the tropics, not all forests, but certain types

    of forests."


    Bettelheim said his company had 24 investors, mostly

    individuals, who had poured in tens of millions of dollars. But he gave no names or sums.



    The firm hopes to start operations in Asian countries such as

    Malaysia or India once they begin to frame legal and financial rules to permit carbon trading, he added.



    Malaysian officials are examining carbon trading regimes across the

    world to understand how they could benefit.


    Sarawak forestry

    official Cheong Ek Choon said the state was studying different nations' schemes but had made no decision.



    "Some types of plantations qualify, some don't," he said. "At least

    now there is some monetary value being placed on trees."


    Chief

    Minister Mahmud Taib said it was a tough balancing act to weigh Sarawak's development needs against conservation

    aims, and only the prospect of concrete benefits would spur people to protect the environment.



    "As you know, this carbon sink scheme has never taken off the ground

    very much," he said. "If you don't even have incentives, how can you get people to look after the environment?"



    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  8. #38
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Default

    I'm sure everybody remembers

    last summer when France was experiencing record heat. The global warming crowd crowed about how it helped to prove

    their point.

    Let's note that ALL OF EUROPE is experiencing record cold right now. Has anybody besides me

    noticed the loud silence from the global warming crowd?
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  9. #39
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    5353

    Default

    Once again let me remind you

    that global warming was the reason behind "The Day After Tomorrow". Remember? They had a global warming protest in

    India and it was snowing? The supercell storms that froze people instantly??

    Global warming IMO will cause the

    weather to get out of control. HOT or COLD. In fact, as I sit here, January 1st, in my T-shirt, all the windows in

    the house open, while outside its a balmy 76 degrees, I'm confident in the fact the global warming is at work.



    And I'm not even going to mention California, as I wouldn't want to embarass you.

  10. #40
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Default

    The Day After Tomorrow didn't

    even have a vague relationship to scientific reality. If you are basing your understanding of the world climate on

    that, you've got a long way to go.

    What about California? Sometime you should go out there and see some of the

    high water marks from previous years. What relationship or embarrasment are you anticipating?

    Climate change is

    a reality!!! It's been changing for 4 billion years and will continue to change. It may even warm (normalize?) to

    the temperatures where lions and elephants wandered europe. Global warming is a joke or a fairy tale for the

    uninformed.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  11. #41
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    5353

    Default

    Global warming and climate

    change is the same thing, to me. One is just slower than the other.

  12. #42
    Phero Enthusiast Icehawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Where its warm
    Posts
    346
    Rep Power
    5568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    I'm sure

    everybody remembers last summer when France was experiencing record heat. The global warming crowd crowed about how

    it helped to prove their point.

    Let's note that ALL OF EUROPE is experiencing record cold right now. Has

    anybody besides me noticed the loud silence from the global warming crowd?
    My belief was that they were

    staying quiet, due to the fact that most of the population believes global warming is just that, warming. To be more

    correct, shouldnt we call this simply climate change? Climate change can be responsible for record highs and lows,

    but Global Warming can only do so much...

    On another note didnt the run out of names for this hurricane

    season. What was it tropical storm Zeta?

    "Earlier this month, Hurricane Epsilon became only the fifth hurricane

    to form in December in 154 years of record keeping — though Romano said some storms could have fallen through the

    cracks before technology such as satellites was available to help find and track tropical

    systems."
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051230/...opical_weather

  13. #43
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icehawk
    My belief was

    that they were staying quiet, due to the fact that most of the population believes global warming is just that,

    warming. To be more correct, shouldnt we call this simply climate change? Climate change can be responsible for

    record highs and lows, but Global Warming can only do so much...

    On another note didnt the run out of

    names for this hurricane season. What was it tropical storm Zeta?

    "Earlier this month, Hurricane Epsilon became

    only the fifth hurricane to form in December in 154 years of record keeping — though Romano said some storms could

    have fallen through the cracks before technology such as satellites was available to help find and track tropical

    systems."
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200512

    30/ap_on_re_us/tropical_weather
    They can believe whatever they want, I'm talking about science and

    facts. The global warming crowd is great at claiming any anomoly potentially related to increased heat is caused by

    global warming but completely ignore facts that dispute their claims or any other potential explanation of rthe

    phenomena, including ones that better cover the known and observable facts.

    Climate change is the dynamic

    process that has been going on for more than four billion years and includes ice ages, warm periods, even the

    introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere a couple billion years ago. Global warming, as understood by the mass

    media and much of humanity, is allegedly the result of build up of so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    That whole thing is predicated on one man's theory called the hockey stick, which has long since been debunked.

    Additionally, it has never been shown that the greenhouse theory of trapping energy withing the atmosphere actually

    works. There is not one shred of scientific proof.

    Unfortunately for everybody, the theory has taken on a life

    of it's own despite being built on sand. I say unfortunately because the belief in that debunked theory is wasting

    valuable resources that could better be used to determine what is really going on and deciding on a rational method

    of dealing with it.

    There certainly has been an increase in hurricane activity. Hurricane experts (Not within

    the global warming crowd but real hurricane experts) have repeatedly stated that it is no more than a return to a

    busier portion of the natural cycle.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  14. #44
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    5353

    Default

    I'm passionate about global

    warming because I can't see that all the smog, smoke, and chemicals we've thrown into the atmosphere for the past

    hundred years has HELPED.

    Global warming is a stepping stone to all the other bad things we've done to the

    planet. In order to create awareness of certain problems, there has to be a spark- a related issue that gets

    mainstream attention.

    If the idea of global warming is such that it motivates public opinion into being more

    concerned about the environment, is it still a bad idea simply because it's not correct?

  15. #45
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Default

    I'm shocked that you could

    even ask that question. If you want to get into the scientific and technical issues involved in working towards

    fixing a non-existant problem you should go back and review all the discussion on that topic first.

    You are

    asking if, in your opinion the end justifies the means, is it alright to lie to the people? When you lie to the

    people, no matter how noble you think your cause, it is still a lie. In this particular case prices will increase

    and resources needed for the very survival of millions of people will be used to pay for your programs. Potentially,

    thousands could starve and potentially immeasurable harm could be done both to the environment and the people. And

    you think it would be ok to lie to achieve those ends?

    There is never a justification for that, not under any

    circumstance or condition and when you start following that path it is a never ending series of additional lies to

    support your first set.

    Just out of curiosity, what gives you the right to use dishonesty to coerce people into

    doing what you decide is right? That action and attitude puts you into exactly the same ethical group as the

    government that lies to us. It's wrong for them and it's wrong for you and it's wrong for everybody else all the

    time and every time.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  16. #46
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    5353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Just out of

    curiosity, what gives you the right to use dishonesty to coerce people into doing what you decide is

    right?
    I resent the fact that you accuse me of lying when all I did was pose a question.

    As for lying,

    all I meant to say is if global warming wasn't entirely accurate. I still think its real. Very few things in this

    world are entirely accurate.

    In this particular case prices will increase and resources needed for the

    very survival of millions of people will be used to pay for your programs.
    And things are better now, how?

    What programs are you talking about??

    I'd be insane if I thought that we could change everything without

    hurting anyone. But there's an argument about a different issue that brings up the same rebuttal: Do we try to

    change and hopefully help everyone or just sit back and wait for oblivion? Just sitting around talking about it

    doesn't help either.

    That action and attitude puts you into exactly the same ethical group as the

    government that lies to us.
    We've tried to appeal to people by being honest and forthcoming. It hasn't

    helped. So logically the next course would be to play by their rules.

    I'm NOT saying I would do it. But if the

    time came, I would justify it. Or perhaps you have a better idea?

    rant

    I'm willing to say that we both are

    somewhat misguided in our approach to the problem. I have enough integrity to admit that. I don't claim to have all

    the facts, nor do I claim to have the Only, Right solution. Far from it. All I know for sure is that we have cause

    damage to the enviroment, and I want to change that. By any means possible.

    /rant

  17. #47
    Phero Enthusiast Icehawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Where its warm
    Posts
    346
    Rep Power
    5568

    Default

    At least could we agree that the

    ozone hole is a bad thing that people did? As far as I've researched, it was stable, people made it bad, now we

    have record amounts of skin cancer due to human impact.

    In the end we change nature, we adapt to nature, nature

    adapts to us.

    "According to National Geographic magazine, we dump about eight billion metric tons of

    carbon into the atmosphere every year but 4.8 billion metric tons disappears into the seas and land vegetation. If

    we consider this to be the limit some interesting figures emerge. Coal is mostly carbon, natural gas is mostly

    methane and oil is converted mostly to octane. Let's take a look at the chemical reactions:

    C+O2--->CO2

    CH4+ 2O2----> CO2+2H2O C8H18+17O2--->8CO2+18H2O
    12+32 = 44 16+64 = 44+36

    114+544 = 352+324

    Thus, 4.8 billion metric tons of coal adds an equal amount of carbon to the

    atmosphere. About 6.4 billion metric tons of methane puts 4.8 billion tons of carbon into the air and 5.7 billion

    tons of octane adds 4.8 billion tons of carbon, the apparent limit. This equates with 105 Quads for coal at 10,000

    BTU/lb., 280 Quads for methane at 20,000 BTU/lb. and 250 Quads for octane at 20,000 BTU/lb.

    In 1998, the

    world used 152 Quads of oil, 85.5 Quads of natural gas and 88.6 Quads of coal. It looks like we used 85.5/280=0.3

    or enough methane to add 1.46 billion tons of carbon to the air and 152/250=0.6 or enough octane to dump 2.92

    billion tons of carbon into the air. That's a total of 4.38 billion tons of carbon. Coal, on the other hand,

    added 88.6/105=0.843... 0.843*4.8 billion=4 billion tons of carbon to the air. The total, 8.38 billion tons agrees

    with National Geographic's claim that we dumped eight billion tons of carbon into the air each year in recent

    years. Oil and gas combined are below the 4.8 billion ton limit of the seas and land plants. Coal is the worst

    offender because it is entirely made of carbon whereas the other fuels contain hydrogen and we aren't worried about

    water vapor emissions yet..."
    That's got to do something

    destabalizing...
    http://www.moonminer.com/More_about_Quads.ht

    ml


  18. #48
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56
    I resent the

    fact that you accuse me of lying when all I did was pose a question.

    As for lying, all I meant to say is if

    global warming wasn't entirely accurate. I still think its real. Very few things in this world are entirely

    accurate.
    Go back and read it again. I didn't accuse you of lying. However, misrepresenting facts to

    coerce people into doing what you want is worse, which is what you said you'd do.

    You can think whatever you

    like, it's utterly irrelevent until you start telling people it's a fact so they'll fulfill your agenda. That

    puts you on the same ethical level as our dearly beloved leader, King George I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56
    And things

    are better now, how? What programs are you talking about??
    Any and every program designed to reduce

    global warming would take resources from the global economy forcing higher prices worldwide. People would starve for

    a fantasy ie: Global Warming. Whether you like it or not, there is no scientific proof that global warming is

    happening or that so called greenhouse gases are causing it. You might think that's alright, starving people

    because you choose to believe in global warming but I think it's dead wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56

    I'd be insane

    if I thought that we could change everything without hurting anyone. But there's an argument about a different

    issue that brings up the same rebuttal: Do we try to change and hopefully help everyone or just sit back and wait

    for oblivion? Just sitting around talking about it doesn't help either.


    We've tried to appeal to people by

    being honest and forthcoming. It hasn't helped. So logically the next course would be to play by their rules.



    I'm NOT saying I would do it. But if the time came, I would justify it. Or perhaps you have a better idea?

    Under no conditions would I be willing to lie or misrepresent facts to support my agenda. If honesty

    won't work then I don't have a solution but I will not use coercion nor support its

    use.
    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56
    rant

    I'm willing to say that we both are somewhat misguided in our approach to the

    problem. I have enough integrity to admit that. I don't claim to have all the facts, nor do I claim to have the

    Only, Right solution. Far from it. All I know for sure is that we have cause damage to the enviroment, and I want to

    change that. By any means possible.

    /rant
    I don't have a solution at all. I want the facts so honest,

    intelligent people can work out the realities of the issue. I don't care about being right or wrong, all I care

    about is finding the truth. Global Warming is not the truth, very few open minded and well educated people believe

    in itany longer.

    If you'll go back and read through this thread slowly and carefully you'll see that

    protecting the environment is my goal. The wild flailing at a puff of smoke that is the whole global warming scam is

    exactly that. Before you respond, read what the real expert have to say, not what the global warming crowd keep

    crowing.

    You may feel that any means possible is fine, from my point of view it makes you no different from any

    dictator in history. Lies and coercion are not going to solve the problems.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  19. #49
    & Double Naught Spy InternationalPlayboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sonoran Desert/Colorado River
    Posts
    864
    Rep Power
    5892

    Default

    I started this as a

    PM to belgareth to give him my support in this matter, but decided to grow the balls to post it publicly. I have

    been skeptical of the global warming issue since the 1990s, when freon products were outlawed. From what I

    understood at that time, there were one or more active volcanoes spewing out more florocarbons than man has created

    since his existance.

    The reason I'm coming out from under my rock though, is

    this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56
    All I know for sure is that we have cause damage to the enviroment, and I want to

    change that. By any means possible.
    That just floored me. "Any means possible" would include

    population control through manufactured "designer" diseases, forced sterilization, etc., which some of the more far

    out conspiracy theorists claim are on the agendas of those who are in control.

    Not that I believe the

    theorists. But when I hear a phrase like "any means possible," especially to affect the outcome of something that

    is debatable as a fact, it makes me think of totalitarian societies.

  20. #50
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    5353

    Default

    You've taken me way out of

    context. First off, we've done worse things to ourselves than what you've mentioned. Why is it people will justify

    going to war, and murdering, but they won't justify keeping the population from exploding? I'M NOT JUSTIFYING

    DISEASE OR FORCED STERILIZATION! = before you start trying to string me up.

    You can't just sit around and talk

    and think and hope for the best. You'll still be debating the cause long after the consequence has come and

    gone.

    Speaking of debating, in college I had to debate population control. I was on the proactive side. We used

    China and Japan's birth policies as a control. Who needs 10 kids? It's ridiculous. In the past, a large number of

    children were usually needed to help run a farm.

    But now with the majority of the population living in suburbs,

    is it still necessary? No. But you still have families with more than 3 children. And you have movies like "Cheaper

    by the Dozen" promoting the idea of large families. We're killing ourselves by allowing population to spiral out of

    control. .......But that's another argument.


    To get back on the subject- "by any means possible." Yes. BUT

    WITHIN THE REALM OF SANITY. I'm not talking about breaking laws! Why do you always assume the worst? That's my

    job!

    A few examples: "Force the automotive industry to stop production of gas-powered autos and develop

    alternatives." Even if it means a few companies go bankrupt. Now would be a good timefor a auto company to start up,

    with an inventory of only alternatively powered autos.

    Expensive? Sure! But compared to gas/oil prices and all

    those problems? To me, worth it. And besides, look how much the auto industry lost this year. Still too

    expensive?

    "Force the oil companies to move on to other sources of energy." Even if it means Mr. CEO has to sell

    all his private jets and the villa in Pago Pago. One could get alot done here. Yes, alternative energy is costly

    right now(read "RIGHT NOW"). And it's only costly because there isn't alot of attention or funding for it. Why?

    Because people need to be made aware of it.

    And it angers me greatly that these talking heads on TV sit around

    and say, "Well, it's expensive", or "It's not as good as oil", or "It's years from being perfected"> It's like

    they want to push it under the table, so that BIG OIL can reign eternal. But it CAN'T!

    Yes, I understand that

    millions of jobs could be lost. But more can be created. In the 1920s, the auto industry boomed. In the 40s, the oil

    industry boomed. In the 80s-90s, the computer industry boomed. Now we need something new. Something everyone cash in

    on.


    One recurring theme that I've noticed lately is that instead of trying to FIX the problem, people either

    sweep it under the rug or subsitute a solution that doesn't fix the problem, just makes it less of a problem for

    THEM. That's not helping anybody, regardless of what one may think. I don't believe in the philosophy of "Putting

    a band-aid on the problem" like our fearless leader. Solve the problem and move on! Let it fester and you'll pay

    the consequence. Normally I'm not a man of action, but in this case I'm not going to take the role of someone who

    just sits idly by.


    If you're still reading this with an unbiased mind, then you might wonder why I have this

    attitude. Well, I live in Arkansas. Arkansas is known for its forests. Indeed, in my town there are many pine

    plantations and lots of wooded areas. Well, there used to be. In the past year alone at least 8 different properties

    have been clearcutted. The common theme is people moving in front out of town. They buy a house with several acres

    of woods surrounding.

    Obviously they don't see trees as I do, but as financial value. They have the woods

    stripped, collect the money, then spend the money. Quick and easy cash, right? But at what cost? Used to I could

    drive to town and see the trees, and I'd imagine I was driving in Colorado or Washington state. Now, I drive to

    town and mostly what I see is West Texas. People just don't care about anything but themselves. It's

    sickening.


    Look, I have said this earlier in the thread:

    I would have a better conscience going

    bankrupt trying to protect/save the environment than going bankrupt trying to ensure capitalism never

    dies.
    Let's say for a moment that global warming is a normal trend. What if we haven't reached

    the peak yet? What if the peak is 100 years from now? 200 years? 1,000? What if when the peak occurs (or long before

    it) the earth is inhospitable for humans (or impossible for a rational civilization to function)? What then? Should

    we take steps to allow our continued existence?
    I would vote yes, in spite of my environmental leanings. I'm not

    so much of a fatalist that I would wish the end of humanity.
    if human activity has even the

    SLIGHTEST effect on global warming then we have a responsibility to correct our part in it.
    We

    can’t control the weather, we can’t control Mother Nature. We can, however, (or should) control our human affairs,

    or at least attempt to do an adequate job of it. Which is easier?
    I think that scientists should

    determine if there is a human factor in it; if not, then move on to the next phase. If there is, then figure out a

    way to correct whatever part the human factor plays, then move on to the next phase. What's the next phase?

    Ensuring that civilization doesn't crumble, anarchy doesn't break out, or some doomsday paranoid with a big
    red

    button or hypodermic needle doesn't wipe us out. And ensuring that we can maintain what we have or, if needs be,

    change to accommodate the new climate.
    And I stand by all of that. I don't think I've ever deviated from

    my position. I also want the truth. Maybe I'm hiding under the Global Warming umbrella with a slightly offset

    agenda. I can admit that. My agenda is removing all the toxins that we have put into the environment. If that means

    hardships placed on our economy, if that means we have to do without some things (luxuries), then so be it. I've

    learned to live without.

  21. #51
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Default

    Icehawk,



    Thanks, that’s a cool link. I did some

    exploring on that site. A bit of it is pretty far out in left field but there’s a lot of good stuff there too. They

    also overlook some significant things. Almost everything they say about fusion reaction is unsupported. The reactor

    designs are tentative, at best, because researchers have yet to generate a sustained fusion reaction. Until that

    happens, fusion reactors are a thing of theory and their designs are fantasy. Theory says it’s possible but we’ll

    see.




    When discussing space travel I saw nothing regarding the

    space elevator yet research is progressing nicely along that line. It’s possible I missed it and hope so. That’s an

    incredibly promising technology.


    Please excuse the following.

    Between chronic insomnia, never watching TV, being an avid reader and being around science all my life, I tend to

    get carried away when I read BS about science. That and I am a frustrated teacher, only being allowed a few hours

    each semester to expound on my vast knowledge.




    So, let’s talk about ozone. Sorry to disagree with you but nobody

    knows if man caused or worsened the ozone hole. It was not discovered until about thirty or so years ago that there

    was a hole and the causes are all theoretical. It easily could be a natural phenomena, all we are doing is guessing.

    First, the record increase in skin cancer cases is hardly related to the hole in the ozone. I say that because the

    hole is situated over the Antarctic. Unless you happen to be a penguin or walrus you are probably in no greater

    danger than you would have been a hundred years ago. Less danger really. The last in-depth study I saw on the

    subject of skin cancer was attributing it to more people getting tans and also all the former beach bunny baby

    boomers that are starting to show the effects of too much sun. The percentage of the population getting skin cancer

    has not really increased all that much, just more people are getting older so are showing the signs of a misspent

    youth. Beyond a doubt ultraviolet light can increase the incidence of skin cancer but that applies to the light

    produced by tanning booths as well. For the record, completely removing the ozone layer would only increase the

    amount of UV reaching the surface by a few percent. Since plants use UV in photosynthesis they would be quite happy

    about it, especially with increased carbon dioxide available.


    Thank

    you, International Playboy for making a very good point about volcanoes and CFCs. I was terribly amused when, after

    reading an article about that volcano in the Philippines blowing up and blasting tons of CFCs into the upper

    atmosphere, Greenpeace was claiming the hole was shrinking. Rather a non sequitor.


    Let’s start at the beginning. Ozone is a molecule comprised of three atoms of oxygen and it is

    inherently unstable. It’s also a very light, tiny molecule easily moved around on the breeze. Many tons of ozone are

    generated daily down here in the biosphere by all sorts of electrical equipment and even lightening and is a major

    component of smog. One wonders why such a small, light molecule isn’t blown into the upper atmosphere with the CFCs

    but I’ll get to that.


    Another source of ozone is, of all things,

    ultraviolet light impinging on the upper atmosphere. The light energy strikes the stable O2 molecule causing it to

    split. Some of these stray oxygen atoms end up colliding with other O2 molecules temporarily bonding with them. CFCs

    can also bond with the stray oxygen atoms depriving them of the opportunity to bond with O2

    molecules.


    Now, a couple stray thoughts. How do these big, heavy CFC

    molecules get clear up to the very fringes of outer space when the tiny, very light ozone molecule can’t manage it,

    instead being relegated to becoming a part of smog? Since the earth spins at an impressive rate, why do the CFC

    molecules attack the ozone over the South Pole instead of migrating to the equatorial regions that the laws of

    physics say they should do? If you add some rather vigorous volcanoes spewing millions of tons of CFCs upward it all

    begins to make sense. I could beat up on that subject all night but wanted to touch on one more thing and I imagine

    I’m boring the majority of you to tears by now.


    You posted that

    excellent article about carbon and I appreciate it. It opens all sorts of things to discussion but leaves a few

    gaping holes. First, that article assumes that is the limit of carbon absorption, why is that? No real good reason.

    First lets note that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. All those

    millions of tones of added carbon sound pretty impressive until you realize that it makes up an increase of

    something like 170 parts per million, a somewhat insignificant number which was only recorded in one part of the

    world and never duplicated elsewhere. A 28% increase sounds really impressive but think about it. If you have a

    penny and add another penny to it you have made a 100% increase but it is still insignificant in the grand scheme of

    things. The same applies to the increase in carbon dioxide. Just out of curiosity, why doesn’t carbon dioxide

    migrate to the upper atmosphere with the CFCs?


    I’d like to clear up

    something about carbon. Do you know why petroleum has so much carbon in it? Petroleum is from organic matter,

    decomposed dinosaurs to be specific. Do you have any idea how much carbon is absorbed daily by the world’s plants?

    Or how much is released by their decomposition? Hell, most of you eat quantities carbon daily in the form of sugar

    which is no more than carbon and water, two of the basics of life on this planet. The fact is that the carbon cycle

    is the true cycle of life on our planet. Every life form you know relies on it extensively to help create and

    sustain life itself. That’s why it’s all around us. Always has been and always will be. The earth and every plant

    and animal on it has been absorbing and re-releasing carbon since the first single celled organism moved in the

    primordorial slime pools. Carbon, in and of itself, is not only not a bad thing but is in reality a super important

    part of life on this earth. Increased available carbon is not going to harm plant life; rather, it is going to help

    it grow stronger, bigger and faster.


    Ok, lectures over. Wake up the

    person in the next chair and send them off to their next class.
    Last edited by belgareth; 01-03-2006 at 05:02 AM.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  22. #52
    & Double Naught Spy InternationalPlayboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sonoran Desert/Colorado River
    Posts
    864
    Rep Power
    5892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56
    A few examples: "Force the automotive industry to stop production of gas-powered autos

    and develop alternatives." Even if it means a few companies go bankrupt. Now would be a good timefor a auto company

    to start up, with an inventory of only alternatively powered autos.

    Expensive? Sure! But compared to gas/oil

    prices and all those problems? To me, worth it. And besides, look how much the auto industry lost this year. Still

    too expensive?

    "Force the oil companies to move on to other sources of energy." Even if it means Mr.

    CEO has to sell all his private jets and the villa in Pago Pago. One could get alot done here. Yes, alternative

    energy is costly right now(read "RIGHT NOW"). And it's only costly because there isn't alot of attention or

    funding for it. Why? Because people need to be made aware of it.

    And it angers me greatly that these talking

    heads on TV sit around and say, "Well, it's expensive", or "It's not as good as oil", or "It's years from being

    perfected"> It's like they want to push it under the table, so that BIG OIL can reign eternal. But it

    CAN'T!

    Yes, I understand that millions of jobs could be lost. But more can be created. In the 1920s, the

    auto industry boomed. In the 40s, the oil industry boomed. In the 80s-90s, the computer industry boomed. Now we need

    something new. Something everyone cash in on.


    One recurring theme that I've noticed lately is that

    instead of trying to FIX the problem, people either sweep it under the rug or subsitute a solution that doesn't fix

    the problem, just makes it less of a problem for THEM. That's not helping anybody, regardless of what one may

    think. I don't believe in the philosophy of "Putting a band-aid on the problem" like our fearless leader. Solve the

    problem and move on! Let it fester and you'll pay the consequence. Normally I'm not a man of action, but in this

    case I'm not going to take the role of someone who just sits idly by.


    If you're still reading this with

    an unbiased mind, then you might wonder why I have this attitude. Well, I live in Arkansas. Arkansas is known for

    its forests. Indeed, in my town there are many pine plantations and lots of wooded areas. Well, there used to be. In

    the past year alone at least 8 different properties have been clearcutted. The common theme is people moving in

    front out of town. They buy a house with several acres of woods surrounding.

    Obviously they don't see trees

    as I do, but as financial value. They have the woods stripped, collect the money, then spend the money. Quick and

    easy cash, right? But at what cost? Used to I could drive to town and see the trees, and I'd imagine I was driving

    in Colorado or Washington state. Now, I drive to town and mostly what I see is West Texas. People just don't care

    about anything but themselves. It's sickening.


    Look, I have said this earlier in the thread:








    And I stand by all of that. I don't think I've ever deviated from my position. I also want

    the truth. Maybe I'm hiding under the Global Warming umbrella with a slightly offset agenda. I can admit that. My

    agenda is removing all the toxins that we have put into the environment. If that means hardships placed on our

    economy, if that means we have to do without some things (luxuries), then so be it. I've learned to live

    without.
    Again, I think of totalitarian governments.

    I don't subscribe to the whole Neo-Tech

    philosophy, but I feel this "Advantage" is true:

    Neo-Tech Advantage #80
    INITIATORY FORCE

    -- THE PRIME EVIL

    Force, coercion, threat of force, or fraud[ 42 ] initiated against any individual

    for any reason by any individual, groups of individuals, societies, or governments is morally wrong. That is the

    only categorical moral statement possible. That statement must, by its nature, be the categorical, irreducible, and

    fundamental standard for all conscious beings, always, everywhere. That statement is the moral axiom upon which

    every Neo-Tech/Psychuous Concept rests. The initiation of force and fraud among conscious beings is not only the

    basic moral wrong and evil, but is the primary tool used by all professional mystics and neocheaters to survive

    through value destruction.

    No exceptions to the immorality of initiatory force exist. No matter how "noble"

    the ends, they never justify the means of initiating force, fraud, or coercion against any individual. Any

    government or activity that depends on or uses initiatory force, threat of force, or coercion is immoral and

    destructive. Therefore, all taxation backed by force, all conscription backed by force, and all laws that regulate

    or control by force or coercion are immoral.

    The only laws that are objectively just and moral are those

    that protect the life and property rights of individuals from initiatory force and fraud. All other laws that

    regulate people's lives or property are morally wrong, contrary to human nature, and harmful to everyone. Such

    immoral laws include those that restrict or prohibit drugs, alcohol, prostitution, abortion (of the fetus at any

    age), or any form of censorship or restriction of voluntary sexual activity. All such laws are morally wrong because

    they use threats or force against individuals.

    While all governments have the power, none ever have the

    moral right to initiate force or coercion against any individual. The only beneficial and moral laws are those

    designed to protect the life and property rights of individuals from initiatory force, the threat of force, and

    fraud. In turn, the only moral use of force is for self-defense: That is for protection of oneself, property, or

    country from force initiated by other individuals or governments. ...Self-defense by any means, including force, is

    not only a basic moral right, but a moral duty.

    No government has ever helped an individual produce more

    values or greater happiness than that individual could have produced without government. Governments differ only in

    the degree they harm people. In fact, except for protecting individual rights, no valid reason for government

    exists. Indeed, the entire concept of government is invalid and mystical. Government is nothing more than a

    mystical, big-lie hoax perpetuated through the centuries by neocheaters through force, non sequiturs, and the

    manipulation of mysticism.

    Government is not the equivalent of one's country. Governments are based on

    invalid mystical notions that have no basis in reality; countries are objectively real entities of defined

    territories. A person can love his or her country, but properly despise the government that with usurped power

    constantly harms and drains everyone within its realm.

    For it is those that oppose initiatory force who

    are the true patriots, and the true lovers of freedom for all conscious beings...
    You can argue

    that your body is your individual property and so that you have the right to protect it, and that would be a valid

    argument. But government intervention will not solve perceived problems such as pollution or global warming. Free

    enterprise might though. If you don't want a gas burning car, don't buy one. Speak through your wallet in these

    matters. But for the government to force a manufacturer to produce something there is little demand for at the

    present will result in shoddy and expensive goods. And as for the forest or wooded lands in your areas, it's too

    bad they're being cut back. But you don't own the property, so don't have much say in the

    matter.

    Yes, I understand that millions of jobs could be lost. But more can be created. In the 1920s,

    the auto industry boomed. In the 40s, the oil industry boomed. In the 80s-90s, the computer industry boomed. Now we

    need something new. Something everyone cash in on.
    And those industries were created by free

    enterprise, not forced by government mandate.

  23. #53
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    6891

    Default

    IP,

    Great stuff. It's nice

    to know that thee are others out there that live by those rules. Thanks for posting it.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  24. #54
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    5353

    Default

    Unbelievable. I'm talking

    about the environment, and you're talking about government.

  25. #55
    Phero Enthusiast Icehawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Where its warm
    Posts
    346
    Rep Power
    5568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Icehawk,



    Thanks, that’s a cool link. I did some

    exploring on that site. A bit of it is pretty far out in left field but there’s a lot of good stuff there too. They

    also overlook some significant things. Almost everything they say about fusion reaction is unsupported. The reactor

    designs are tentative, at best, because researchers have yet to generate a sustained fusion reaction. Until that

    happens, fusion reactors are a thing of theory and their designs are fantasy. Theory says it’s possible but we’ll

    see.
    Yeah they may be a little nutty, but at least some facts are right. At least I

    persume the carbon one. Also their ideas on liquid ammonia cars are rather promising.



    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    When discussing space travel I saw nothing regarding the space

    elevator yet research is progressing nicely along that line. It’s possible I missed it and hope so. That’s an

    incredibly promising technology.
    Yeah, actually the space elevator theory is rather

    obsolete. These guys are the cheap access to space pioneers

    currently.
    http://www.liftport.com/

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Please excuse the following. Between chronic insomnia, never watching TV, being an avid reader and

    being around science all my life, I tend to get carried away when I read BS about science. That and I am a

    frustrated teacher, only being allowed a few hours each semester to expound on my vast knowledge.



    So, let’s

    talk about ozone. Sorry to disagree with you but nobody knows if man caused or worsened the ozone hole. It was not

    discovered until about thirty or so years ago that there was a hole and the causes are all theoretical. It easily

    could be a natural phenomena, all we are doing is guessing. First, the record increase in skin cancer cases is

    hardly related to the hole in the ozone. I say that because the hole is situated over the Antarctic. Unless you

    happen to be a penguin or walrus you are probably in no greater danger than you would have been a hundred years ago.

    Less danger really. The last in-depth study I saw on the subject of skin cancer was attributing it to more people

    getting tans and also all the former beach bunny baby boomers that are starting to show the effects of too much sun.

    The percentage of the population getting skin cancer has not really increased all that much, just more people are

    getting older so are showing the signs of a misspent youth. Beyond a doubt ultraviolet light can increase the

    incidence of skin cancer but that applies to the light produced by tanning booths as well. For the record,

    completely removing the ozone layer would only increase the amount of UV reaching the surface by a few percent.

    Since plants use UV in photosynthesis they would be quite happy about it, especially with increased carbon dioxide

    available.
    Ok, shows that I know nothing of the envirenment.

    Also, I dont recall excatly but skin cancer rates in southern Chile and Argentina have skyrocketed. I dont think

    thats a myth.

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Thank you, International Playboy

    for making a very good point about volcanoes and CFCs. I was terribly amused when, after reading an article about

    that volcano in the Philippines blowing up and blasting tons of CFCs into the upper atmosphere, Greenpeace was

    claiming the hole was shrinking. Rather a non sequitor.


    Let’s start

    at the beginning. Ozone is a molecule comprised of three atoms of oxygen and it is inherently unstable. It’s also a

    very light, tiny molecule easily moved around on the breeze. Many tons of ozone are generated daily down here in the

    biosphere by all sorts of electrical equipment and even lightening and is a major component of smog. One wonders why

    such a small, light molecule isn’t blown into the upper atmosphere with the CFCs but I’ll get to that.



    Another source of ozone is, of all things, ultraviolet light

    impinging on the upper atmosphere. The light energy strikes the stable O2 molecule causing it to split. Some of

    these stray oxygen atoms end up colliding with other O2 molecules temporarily bonding with them. CFCs can also bond

    with the stray oxygen atoms depriving them of the opportunity to bond with O2 molecules.




    Now, a couple stray thoughts. How do these big, heavy CFC molecules get clear up to

    the very fringes of outer space when the tiny, very light ozone molecule can’t manage it, instead being relegated to

    becoming a part of smog? Since the earth spins at an impressive rate, why do the CFC molecules attack the ozone over

    the South Pole instead of migrating to the equatorial regions that the laws of physics say they should do? If you

    add some rather vigorous volcanoes spewing millions of tons of CFCs upward it all begins to make sense. I could beat

    up on that subject all night but wanted to touch on one more thing and I imagine I’m boring the majority of you to

    tears by now.
    Ok, shows that no one really knows anything

    about ozone, or CFCs for that matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    You posted

    that excellent article about carbon and I appreciate it. It opens all sorts of things to discussion but leaves a few

    gaping holes. First, that article assumes that is the limit of carbon absorption, why is that? No real good reason.

    First lets note that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. All those

    millions of tones of added carbon sound pretty impressive until you realize that it makes up an increase of

    something like 170 parts per million, a somewhat insignificant number which was only recorded in one part of the

    world and never duplicated elsewhere. A 28% increase sounds really impressive but think about it. If you have a

    penny and add another penny to it you have made a 100% increase but it is still insignificant in the grand scheme of

    things. The same applies to the increase in carbon dioxide. Just out of curiosity, why doesn’t carbon dioxide

    migrate to the upper atmosphere with the CFCs?

    One one

    side, we done know much about anything thats obvious. I can say that 30%
    carbon dioxide increase is huge, and you'll have to agree, on the other, its 170ppm which globaly so

    far has no noticable effect. Time will tell I guess.




    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    I’d like to clear up something about carbon. Do you know why

    petroleum has so much carbon in it? Petroleum is from organic matter, decomposed dinosaurs to be specific. Do you

    have any idea how much carbon is absorbed daily by the world’s plants? Or how much is released by their

    decomposition? Hell, most of you eat quantities carbon daily in the form of sugar which is no more than carbon and

    water, two of the basics of life on this planet. The fact is that the carbon cycle is the true cycle of life on our

    planet. Every life form you know relies on it extensively to help create and sustain life itself. That’s why it’s

    all around us. Always has been and always will be. The earth and every plant and animal on it has been absorbing and

    re-releasing carbon since the first single celled organism moved in the primordorial slime pools. Carbon, in and of

    itself, is not only not a bad thing but is in reality a super important part of life on this earth. Increased

    available carbon is not going to harm plant life; rather, it is going to help it grow stronger, bigger and

    faster.


    Ok, lectures over. Wake up the person in the next chair and

    send them off to their next class.
    I think thats, what it gets down to. Both sides might

    concede that there is not enough research/information on the subject. One side being envirenmentaly protectionist

    wants to slow down/halt envirenmentaly impacting progress, while the other believes that the earth and humans are

    resilient enough to weather whatever change might come, if any.
    The house might be on fire, it might be catching

    fire, or not on fire at all. No one really knows for sure.

  26. #56
    Phero Enthusiast Icehawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Where its warm
    Posts
    346
    Rep Power
    5568

    Default

    Im not sure if it has been

    posted, but some interesting points.

    "Britain faces big chill as ocean current slows


    Jonathan Leake, Science Editor




    CLIMATE change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream — the

    mighty ocean current that keeps Britain and Europe from freezing. They have found that one of the “engines” driving

    the Gulf Stream — the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea — has weakened to less than a quarter of its

    former strength.


    The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current

    over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Britain and northwestern and Europe undergoing a

    sharp drop in temperatures.

    Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research is among

    the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.

    Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at

    Cambridge University, hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used ships to take

    measurements across the Greenland Sea.

    “Until recently we would find giant ‘chimneys’ in the sea where columns

    of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost

    disappeared,” he said.

    “As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the south, which kept

    the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing, it will mean less heat reaching Europe.”

    Such a change

    could have a severe impact on Britain, which lies on the same latitude as Siberia and ought to be much colder. The

    Gulf Stream transports 27,000 times more heat to British shores than all the nation’s power supplies could provide,

    warming Britain by 5-8C.


    Wadhams and his colleagues believe, however, that just such changes could be well

    under way. They predict that the slowing of the Gulf Stream is likely to be accompanied by other effects, such as

    the complete summer melting of the Arctic ice cap by as early as 2020 and almost certainly by 2080. This would spell

    disaster for Arctic wildlife such as the polar bear, which could face extinction.


    Wadhams’s submarine

    journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap, using sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured

    how the ice has become 46% thinner over the past 20 years.
    The results from these surveys prompted him to focus

    on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in

    summer.

    The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the sinking water columns. As sea water

    freezes to form the shelf, the ice crystals expel their salt into the surrounding water, making it heavier than the

    water below.

    However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in full in 1997. “In the past we

    could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under the shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and

    they were so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed,” said Wadhams, who disclosed the findings at a

    meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna.

    The exact effect of such changes is hard to predict

    because currents and weather systems take years to respond and because there are two other areas around the north

    Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting

    these.


    However, Wadhams suggests the effect could be dramatic. “One of the frightening things in the film

    The Day After Tomorrow showed how the circulation in the Atlantic Ocean is upset because the sinking of cold water

    in the north Atlantic suddenly stops,” he said.

    “The sinking is stopping, albeit much more slowly than in

    the film — over years rather than a few days. If it continues, the effect will be to cool the climate of northern

    Europe.”

    One possibility is that Europe will freeze; another is that the slowing of the Gulf Stream may

    keep Europe cool as global warming heats the rest of the world — but with more extremes of weather.


    "

  27. #57
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    5353

    Default

    According to some people,

    that's all a bunch of hooey.

  28. #58
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    5353

    Default

    If you don't want a

    gas burning car, don't buy one. Speak through your wallet in these matters.
    Oh sure. Easy for you to say.

    You could probably afford several hybrids.

    You want to leave every thing up to popular opinion. The problem with

    that is people are lied to every day. People are given this false sense of euphoric optimism, that "Everythings OK",

    "Nothing's going to happen", and then Katrina happens. California storms happen. Oklahoma fires happen. But no,

    "Everything's Ok"...

    And as for the forest or wooded lands in your areas, it's too bad they're being

    cut back.
    Not being cut back, being STRIPPED. As in, nothing left but dirt.

    But you don't own the

    property, so don't have much say in the matter.
    You're right! You're absolutely right. I'm just being an

    immature, whining, punk that doesn't know what is like to get a paycheck. Ok! Let's cut all the trees down. "Hey,

    it's good money!" What about the birds and the wildlife? "Well, you see any, shoot'em!" Sure. What about the fish?

    "Well, I got an idea. Kill off half the fish, and the price will go up. We'll be rich!"

    You see where I'm

    going with this? I completely respect the right to property. I'm thankful for the right to protect mine. But

    what's the use if we're destroying everything?


    I'm not advocating using physical force. I'm talking about

    using intellect and pressure. Educate people about what's going on. People are going to do things for money,

    because they need it. Ask them, "If you didn't need the money, would you still do it?" Most would probably be

    unable to comprehend the idea of "not needing money". But still, (and here's where I'm an optimistic) I think that

    if money wasn't an issue, people would conserve and be more concerned about the environment. That's why you see

    celebrities donating large sums to groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Why do you think Hollywood is so

    liberal? If everyone was as comfortable as them, we wouldn't be having this argument.


    As far as pressure, if

    everybody stopped buying gas-powered cars, the auto industry would implode. They'd be forced to create a product

    that people would buy. In a sense, the rising cost of oil could do all this without an environmentalist ever having

    to raise a finger. But it'd be hard on everybody, and cause serious economic damage. Gradually weaning everybody

    over to hybrids or fuel-cells would do much less damage.

    And those industries were created by free

    enterprise, not forced by government mandate.
    They didn't need to be forced. That's the whole point. They

    were allowed to happen naturally because they were popular ideas. But with alternative energy, you've got opponents

    like auto and oil that want to keep it from ever becoming popular.

  29. #59
    & Double Naught Spy InternationalPlayboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sonoran Desert/Colorado River
    Posts
    864
    Rep Power
    5892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56
    Oh

    sure. Easy for you to say. You could probably afford several hybrids.
    I wish.

    You want

    to leave every thing up to popular opinion.
    Popular opinion is just that. The flavor of the day. I

    want the respect of individual property. Popular opinion does not respect that in most

    cases.




    I'm not advocating using physical force. I'm talking about using intellect and

    pressure.
    That's more on track with my point.

    That's why you see celebrities

    donating large sums to groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Why do you think Hollywood is so liberal? If

    everyone was as comfortable as them, we wouldn't be having this argument.
    In my opinion, they do it

    because of the guilt they have in earning huge sums of money without producing anything of real

    value.


    In the 1920s, the auto industry boomed. In the 40s, the oil industry boomed. In the

    80s-90s, the computer industry boomed. Now we need something new. Something everyone cash in on.
    Quote Originally Posted by International Playboy
    And those industries were created by free enterprise, not forced by

    government mandate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56
    They didn't need to be forced. That's the whole point.

    They were allowed to happen naturally because they were popular ideas. But with alternative energy, you've got

    opponents like auto and oil that want to keep it from ever becoming

    popular.
    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56
    "Force the automotive industry to stop production of gas-powered

    autos and develop alternatives." Even if it means a few companies go bankrupt. Now would be a good timefor a auto

    company to start up, with an inventory of only alternatively powered autos.
    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56
    "Force the oil companies to move on to other sources of energy." Even if it

    means Mr. CEO has to sell all his private jets and the villa in Pago Pago. One could get alot done here. Yes,

    alternative energy is costly right now(read "RIGHT NOW"). And it's only costly because there isn't alot of

    attention or funding for it. Why? Because people need to be made aware of it.
    A bit contradictory

    there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Netghost56
    Unbelievable. I'm talking about the environment, and you're talking about

    government.
    I brought up the government, because when I hear someone wanting change "forced" upon

    someone or something else, I think of more laws written to create that "force," backed up by the threat of guns,

    jail, and the seizure of property.

    Using education and economic pressure on the other hand is another

    story.

  30. #60
    Phero Enthusiast Netghost56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    359
    Rep Power
    5353

    Default

    And those industries

    were created by free enterprise, not forced by government mandate.
    They didn't need to be forced.

    That's the whole point. They were allowed to happen naturally because they were popular ideas. But with alternative

    energy, you've got opponents like auto and oil that want to keep it from ever becoming

    popular.
    "Force the automotive industry to stop production of gas-powered autos and develop

    alternatives." Even if it means a few companies go bankrupt. Now would be a good timefor a auto company to start up,

    with an inventory of only alternatively powered autos.
    "Force the oil companies to move on to other

    sources of energy." Even if it means Mr. CEO has to sell all his private jets and the villa in Pago Pago. One could

    get alot done here. Yes, alternative energy is costly right now(read "RIGHT NOW"). And it's only costly because

    there isn't alot of attention or funding for it. Why? Because people need to be made aware of it.
    A

    bit contradictory there.
    Not really. Just a lousy choice of words on my part.

    I apologize for being so

    aggressive with my point. I tend to get emotional about the subject.

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming?
    By belgareth in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-31-2005, 12:51 PM
  2. GLobal Warming...interesting!
    By belgareth in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2005, 03:44 PM
  3. Global warming news
    By DrSmellThis in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-04-2004, 07:58 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •