Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2011 19:31:04 GMT -6
Per the request of the moderator of this forum, I have started a new thread about Global Warming in hopes that it will spark intelligent (and civil) discussion. This is something that has been debated a lot lately. Here is my stance on the subject: ~*~*~*~*~*~*~ I did some research into the "Global Warming" theory. I posted a letter to the editor in my local newspaper a couple of years ago and created quite an "uprising" with it locally... lol. Around 10 hundred AD, an empire began to rise in the North due to a well-documented episode of "Global Warming" which is strikingly similar to what we are now experiencing. Despite what Al Gore says, this has, in fact, happened before in documented history. It was well documented all across Europe. It was catastrophic. Crops failed. Villages resorted to cannibalism. Bad things ensued everywhere it seems during this time period. Unless the Vikings had power plants or automobiles... I don't think that was the cause of this. I took an Environmental Science class in high school (because I failed chemistry lol) and our teacher told us that humanity makes up less than 3% of the "Greenhouse Gasses" in Earth's atmosphere. Most of these "Greenhouse Gasses" present in Earth's atmosphere come from volcanic activity (Carbon monoxide) and rotting foliage in the rainforests (methane). These are natural sources of Greenhouse Gasses, and they produce far more than we do... Volcanoes and Geysers alone produce 70% of Greenhouse Gasses in Earth's atmosphere. I stand firm in my belief that Al Gore is an Idiot, and that Global Warming is a natural phenomenon... however, pollution is a big problem for us in this day and age. I do however believe that research into "clean" or "green" Energy and not wasting resources is a good thing to pursue. No harm can come of it. As a cashier... I see much waste in regard to plastic bags... which are made from a non-biodegradable material. Paper baggies and reusable tote bags are a VERY good idea... that is if EVERYONE participated in this... and very few people do... at least here in my neck of the woods. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Full article, and complete list of sources: www.suite101.com/content/new-stud....warming-a220106
"Top Climate Scientist Finds Volcanic Effect to be “Enormous”It has been found that a vast quantity of volcanogenic CO2 is mostly submarine i.e. buried within the depths of the world’s oceans that cover over 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface. This new Australian study cites respected sceptic climate professor and best-selling author, Professor Ian Plimer who found that the amount of CO2 from volcanoes is enormous, and without calculating the precise amount, suggests that it dwarfs anthropogenic contributions. Oceanographers have identified a distinct submarine volcanic signal, as indicated by the isolation of water acidification, to only those oceans and reservoirs with direct volcanic input. Undersea Volcanoes Responsible for Polar Ice Melt Furthermore, volcanic activity beneath both ice caps and localised to the regions of most intense melting has demonstrated an obvious cause of stronger spring melts at the poles. The study shows considerable evidence that the Northwest Passage was evidently opened up by powerful volcanic activity under the Arctic Ice along the Gakkel Ridge as per two important surveys (Sohn et al., 2008; Reves-Sohn et al., 2008). This research counters the claims of alarmists who seek to blame the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet on human greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. It is more credible that such melting is better explained by recent volcanic activity beneath the ice (Corr & Vaughan, 2008). This would explain why there has been no melt throughout the rest of Antarctica, which has seen a thickening of ice."
|
|
|
Post by Morgan Sierra on Jan 1, 2011 19:36:15 GMT -6
Thank you Lorelei. The moderator is very apreciative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2011 4:54:25 GMT -6
You're welcome Morgan. Also, skywalker commented to me yesterday privately that he is interested in this subject... mostly because many abductees or contactees have expressed that the extra-terrestrials they communicated with told them that environmental pollutants are going to destroy our planet if something is not done about it immediately. Jim Sparks is one of these famous abductees who has also stressed that this is the main thing the ETs are focused on. I can understand that they would be concerned with pollutants from our factories, power plants, and automobiles, but I don't think Global Warming is one of the issues with which they are concerned. I think the Global Warming theory is a scare-tactic to frighten the citizens of the civilized world (ie countries which do the most polluting) into reducing, reusing and recycling. In a sense, I guess I could say that they have "sensationalized" everything about the environment in an effort to convince everyone to stop their bad and wasteful habits. Mass Panic is always a good way to force the behavior of citizens to change. Leaders throughout history have used this method to get the common people to do their bidding. It works too. But... these are just my thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Nov 25, 2011 18:36:11 GMT -6
ScienceDaily
Climate Sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide More Limited Than Extreme Projections, Research ShowsScienceDaily (Nov. 24, 2011) — A new study suggests that the rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates of some previous studies -- and, in fact, may be less severe than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007. Authors of the study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation's Paleoclimate Program and published online this week in the journal Science, say that global warming is real and that increases in atmospheric CO2 will have multiple serious impacts. However, the most Draconian projections of temperature increases from the doubling of CO2 are unlikely. "Many previous climate sensitivity studies have looked at the past only from 1850 through today, and not fully integrated paleoclimate date, especially on a global scale," said Andreas Schmittner, an Oregon State University researcher and lead author on the Science article. "When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago -- which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum -- and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture. Read more: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111124150827.htm
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Dec 3, 2011 22:36:43 GMT -6
Just found a new documentary about global warming. I haven't finished watching it yet but it starts out interesting.
|
|
|
Post by ufo4peace on Dec 25, 2011 11:02:48 GMT -6
Disagree on the global warming denial. That's like backward conservative talk radio type material that favor the energy lobby. Look at the smog in LA or try going to China.
|
|
|
Post by paulette on Dec 25, 2011 14:32:19 GMT -6
Donno about the overall weighting of extra CO2 in the atmosphere but it doesn't do a bit of good in the oceans. This is a long article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidificationSuffice to say that is it harder for any being that draws calcium out of the ocean to do so when the sea water has a lower ph value (is more acidic). In some cases they begin to dissolve. In addition to the rich variety of shells no longer on the beach or on one's plate as clams and oysters, one might ponder what vanishing coral reefs and wiping out a considerable portion of the phytoplankton would do to our and the oceans dwellers' food supply.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Dec 25, 2011 22:35:03 GMT -6
I'm not disagreeing that there is a lot of pollution out there because there is. There is way too much crap being dumped into the air, the oceans, on land and even in outer space. People definitely are ruining the environment and the planet and they need to stop. Air pollution is not the same as man-made global warming though. We can see air pollution...we can feel it and smell it and test it with scientific instruments. We can't do any of those things with global warming. I still haven't seen a single piece of evidence to support it.
I always try to restrain myself when responding to sensitive topics like this because I know there are a lot of emotions invested in it and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. I know that most people who believe in global warming are only advocating it because they care about the planet. There is nothing wrong with people caring. That's why I'm not going to go ranting and raving about it like I sometimes do about the government. I would someday like to have a nice, polite discussion about this topic though.
For all of the people who believe that man-made "greenhouse" gasses are causing global warming I would like to ask...what evidence is it that you have seen that convinces you that global warming is really taking place and that it is caused by people? Can you tell me anything specific that convinces you it is real?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2011 22:38:09 GMT -6
One thing that I've often seen presented as "truth" is that air bubbles in the arctic ice (they call it ice cores) show that our atmosphere has supposedly never had the amounts of greenhouse gasses ever before.
The problem I have with this theory is that when the planet warms up... ice melts... so... yea... it's kind of silly to point to that as "evidence" in my opinion, but a lot of people seem to go along with it.
Many many scientists now are jumping off the global warming band wagon and saying there is not enough proof to prove it. It's not just crazy conservative talk show hosts on TV... actual scientists are actually saying now that it's probably not as bad as Al Gore says it is.
I also agree with you Sky. I know the planet is polluted. But that doesn't mean it's going to warm things up IMO. Yea, it's bad for people and the animals and the water... but that doesn't mean it's going to turn the whole world into a greenhouse.
I'm all for saving fuel and pursuing clean energy research... but I don't think we'll be able to "come clean" anytime soon the way things are going... mostly because "clean" energy is either extremely dangerous (nuclear energy) or extremely expensive (solar power, hydrogen power and wind farms).
I mean... seriously... do you want Joe Schmoe filling up his car with the most explosive element in the earth's atmosphere... hydrogen?
And yes... hydrogen IS the most explosive element in our atmosphere... I mean... that's a big catastrophe waiting to happen right there... seriously. Not a good idea in my opinion... remember the Hindenberg?
Wind is unpredictable. Solar power is out of the question up here in the Arctic when we only get 4 hours of daylight in the winter. Hybrid cars don't work up here either... I was actually discussing that with my co-worker the other day. He has one. He said in the summer time (only three months out of every year up here) he gets 30 miles to the gallon. In the winter time... nope. Not even close.
But you have to remember... hybrid cars are a great idea... but they run on electricity, right? They save gas, that's great... but where does most of our electricity in the US come from?
Seventy percent of our electricity comes from coal. How do you get energy out of coal? You burn it in power plants. What happens when you burn it? It makes carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide... I don't understand how this is "better" than burning gasoline... but some people seem to think so... I do admit it is cheaper... but is it really better for the air?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2011 3:13:52 GMT -6
I remember back in the 1980's when predictions were made concerning global warming. If my memory serves correct many scientists claimed that by the year 2000 Sea levels would rise to epic proportions and move mass populations inland, and it has to a degree, but not like they had claimed.
There was also predictions made that annual avg. temperatures would rise several degrees by now and I just haven't seen it , correct me if Im wrong.
In just the last few centuries mankind has finally made their way around this planet and just in the last 100 years or so weve finally explored both poles. We now have the technology like never before to view this planet from air and space, poles included to gather data as to whats happening . So my question is,,, what are they comparing their data to in order to make these claims ?
I too am adamently against pollution. I use to be for drilling in the gulf and nuclear power. Not anymore since the latest disasters with the oil spill in the gulf and the ongoing nuclear crisis at Fukushima.
I have currently done alot of research with alternative solutions like solar and wind power and "how to " build my own which Ive not been able to do yet, though Im starting to get ideas which Im hoping to do within the near future including motors that solely use magnets to generate electricity- I havent got it down yet and may never. Just a novice at this time.
There is no doubt or question that mankind has and is tearing up this planet in so many ways and depleting it's natural resources including causing mass extinctions of animals and deforestation. I believe if everyone contributed even just a little bit in various ways, we could all make a difference, but to say that we are causing glaciers to melt I cant say were the main cause.
I can to a certain degree see how pollution can trap greenhouse gasses and cause temperatures to rise through the process but the question remains,,,how much ?Is the majority of melting caused by humans, volcanoes, or something else we dont know of yet ? It is for certain that more changes need to be made,,, here at home and 3rd world countries who do not care as much as they should or have enough restrictions set in place. I feel everyone is partially to blame though , especially because of modern advancement, myself included.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2011 3:52:23 GMT -6
One thing that I've often seen presented as "truth" is that air bubbles in the arctic ice (they call it ice cores) show that our atmosphere has supposedly never had the amounts of greenhouse gasses ever before. The problem I have with this theory is that when the planet warms up... ice melts... so... yea... it's kind of silly to point to that as "evidence" in my opinion, but a lot of people seem to go along with it. This method has been proven to an extent to be effective when dating past volcanic activity and even showing the timeline of events such as when a comet or meteor impacted the earth and raised dust throughout the globe leaving traces of samples in the ice. Each inch of ice taken out is basically a historic timeline and there has been dramatic changes taking place within the last 2 centuries according to experts. Just in the last 20 years there has been a major decline in ice shelves and many have vanished. But who is to say that the earth isn't going through some natural cycle that we are unaware of ? The sun goes through various"solar cycles" that have highs and lows of electromagnetic activity. What about the earth ? Of course it's not the same, but it could be going through something were not aware of yet. More observation and data is needed, but it wouldn't hurt if changes were made also to try and reverse the obvious damage done in the meantime,,,IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2011 4:10:29 GMT -6
But you have to remember... hybrid cars are a great idea... but they run on electricity, right? They save gas, that's great... but where does most of our electricity in the US come from? Seventy percent of our electricity comes from coal. How do you get energy out of coal? You burn it in power plants. What happens when you burn it? It makes carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide... I don't understand how this is "better" than burning gasoline... but some people seem to think so... I do admit it is cheaper... but is it really better for the air? Just a few days ago I was looking into solar cells (photovoltaics) and this article showed 2 hybrid cars (refueling) charging under a structure that had solar cells at the top. It was good to see and I thought about how great of an idea all the way around. But you're right Lorelei, at your latitude it wouldn't be as efficient. It would work at other places though and I hope to see more of it. I would like to see Tesla's idea's modified with today's technology and put to use. I personally think that guy was amazing and if he would've been backed financially I think things today would've been much different. IMO he was way ahead of his time and an absolute genius ! O.K. I'm done blabbing for now,,,lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2011 15:10:09 GMT -6
LOL Cliff. Thanks for your input.
|
|