Global Dimming

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Did anybody watch Horizon on BBC2?
www.bbc.co.uk...
That gives the jist of it anyway.


This is a serious problem that will affect future generations, and in 100 years or so, make the earth almost uninhabitable!
Something has to be done NOW.

Any suggestions on major ways to stop emmitting large amounts of Carbon Dioxide?

I am deeply troubled by this.

[edit on 13/1/2005 by Nectaris]




posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nectaris

Any suggestions on major ways to stop emmitting large amounts of Carbon Dioxide?

I am deeply troubled by this.

[edit on 13/1/2005 by Nectaris]



Simple, stop breather, stop reproducing and start killing off other mammals. Or make birth control free to all. "Mamnade" CO2 pollution accounts for less than 15% of the C02 released in the world, it would make much more sense to target the 85% cause by living things than the 15% we produce.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Here's this thread regarding the program

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Maybe you all should read this one.

www.abc.net.au...



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   


Simple, stop breather, stop reproducing and start killing off other mammals. Or make birth control free to all. "Mamnade" CO2 pollution accounts for less than 15% of the C02 released in the world, it would make much more sense to target the 85% cause by living things than the 15% we produce.


Umm care to back that up with facts, figures and better yet and LINK!



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
After reading through the Aussie Bloke archives countless times I remember that a member of ATS used the 'Global dimming' phenomenon to suggest that Aussie Bloke was correct about a 'swarm' of meteors impacting earth.

And that was your AboveTopSecret.com history lesson of the day.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51

"Mamnade" CO2 pollution accounts for less than 15% of the C02 released in the world, it would make much more sense to target the 85% cause by living things than the 15% we produce.


and where did u pull that info from?
i think u are talking about the co2 we exhale or something


i think every manmade powered system should be solar powered!

[edit on 13/1/2005 by Nectaris]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nectaris

Originally posted by Starwars51

"Mamnade" CO2 pollution accounts for less than 15% of the C02 released in the world, it would make much more sense to target the 85% cause by living things than the 15% we produce.


and where did u pull that info from?
i think u are talking about the co2 we exhale or something


i think every manmade powered system should be solar powered!

[edit on 13/1/2005 by Nectaris]


Yep, I pulled that out of my behind. That's what happens when you post from memory. The actual number is closer to 4%. In highly industrialized countries (US, UK) it is much higher, but the worldwide average is very low.

What is really interesting is that CO2 is really a lousy greenhouse gas, it reflects a far smaller IR range than water or methane - both are virtually unaffected by industrializtion (agriculture on the other hand can have signifigant effects on these gasses)...

Source:

www.ace.mmu.ac.uk...



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Want to cut down on CO2? Quit listening to the moronic ecofreaks who have screwed up by the numbers and have been wrong every step of the way.
Stop planting trees. Create grasslands. Grass is much more efficient than trees.

Are you aware that we have many more acres of trees now than before the country was formed?

Grow grass!!
*Er, you know what I mean!*



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
I saw the program , I found it truely frightning. It seems we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, witrh global warming on one side and global dimming on the other. As we try to cut down pollution to try and lower the green house gases in the atmosphere, we will reduce the amount of global dimming which is having a cooling effect on the earth. It's a catch 22 situation.
It's frightning because we have only got just over a decade to get things in order before the effects are irreversible.
This was the third program I've seen this week on the major problems that we are facing in our environment. I watched one of the christmas lectures from the royal institution this week, and that was about the effects of global warming on antarctica. I think we are basically being told to wake up and smell the roses. We are running out of time and if we don't act now then civilisation as we know it will come to an end.
in two of the programs I watched it was suggested that the only chance we have of turning things around is to use nuclear power in place of fossil fuel, as the benefits far outway the risks. Another suggestion was to produce more wind turbines for us to get our energy from. The problem with those is that they are ok as long as there is the wind to operate them with. Also a lot of people object as they say they are spoiling the countryside . I think that people need to realise that if we don't act soon , their countryside may end up a barren wasteland.
Personally , if it took a wind turbine in my back yard to help save the planet for my children then I would be all for it.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
exactly pantha, every house should have solar panel roofs and a wind turbine in the back garden.

i like the idea of growing more grass, i remember hearing somewhere that even though trees intake co2 and output oxygen (and small amounts of co2), large old forests(rainforests etc.) actually output more co2 than oxygen!

im not saying 'nuke the rainforest', but felling some forests to be replaced with grassland is a viable option.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Little food for thought...Scientific Consensus on Climate Change



Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.


Agree or disagree when scientists all agree on pretty much the same thing it could be really good or really bad. I am fearing the latter much more now... I fear adaptation may be our only hope...

Another link pertitent to this discussion
www.spacedaily.com...


E_T

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nectaris
i like the idea of growing more grass, i remember hearing somewhere that even though trees intake co2 and output oxygen (and small amounts of co2), large old forests(rainforests etc.) actually output more co2 than oxygen!

im not saying 'nuke the rainforest', but felling some forests to be replaced with grassland is a viable option.
Try to remember that when tree rottens it releases back that same amount of CO2 it absorbed.
And that applies to grass also!
It's just that in trees that carbon is stored for longer time than in grass which rottens faster.

The real problem is that we are adding excessive stuff to "equation" from outside it, carbon in fossil fuels has been out of circulation/equation millions of years.


E_T

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
Simple, stop breather, stop reproducing and start killing off other mammals. Or make birth control free to all. "Mamnade" CO2 pollution accounts for less than 15% of the C02 released in the world, it would make much more sense to target the 85% cause by living things than the 15% we produce.
Maybe we should then terminate our own specie because its that which is unnatural...

In nature production of CO2 and absorption of it would be in pretty good balance, trees/plants/other processes would absorbs same amount of it what is released by others.

And now we are introducing lot of it from outside that circulation/equation.
Even in mathematics you can't just add more stuff to one side of equation.

And if mankinds CO2 emissions doesn't affect to total how do you explain the fact that amount of CO2 in atmosphere has been skyrocketing ever since the industrial revolution?



What is really interesting is that CO2 is really a lousy greenhouse gas, it reflects a far smaller IR range than water or methane - both are virtually unaffected by industrializtion (agriculture on the other hand can have signifigant effects on these gasses)...

But amount of CO2 is huge compared to methane... and quantity can compensate for lower quality.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by E_T
Try to remember that when tree rottens it releases back that same amount of CO2 it absorbed.
And that applies to grass also!
It's just that in trees that carbon is stored for longer time than in grass which rottens faster.

The real problem is that we are adding excessive stuff to "equation" from outside it, carbon in fossil fuels has been out of circulation/equation millions of years.


i see, so we really shouldn't be looking towards change of plant life, but change of our own.
does anybody think nuclear energy would be a better way to combat this problem (besides the obvious danger)?



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nectaris

Originally posted by E_T
Try to remember that when tree rottens it releases back that same amount of CO2 it absorbed.
And that applies to grass also!
It's just that in trees that carbon is stored for longer time than in grass which rottens faster.

The real problem is that we are adding excessive stuff to "equation" from outside it, carbon in fossil fuels has been out of circulation/equation millions of years.


i see, so we really shouldn't be looking towards change of plant life, but change of our own.
does anybody think nuclear energy would be a better way to combat this problem (besides the obvious danger)?


Well I'm sure I'll get flamed no end for this statement, but I really like nuclear fission as an energy source until such time as fusion become viable.

As for Co2 in the atmospehere, if someone really focused on building huge, efficient Co2 scrubbers, we could probably manage it ourselves. Technology exists to scrub Co2 from air in small environments, we just need to upsize and fund it. Then you lock the Co2 up some material to which it binds well, and sink it back, or even better separate the C from the O and store big old bricks of pure carbon.... or even better build stuff using it..

The technology exists to do all this on a small scale, we just have to figure out how to do it on a big scale, without causing other problems (imagine a **HUGE** Co2 scrubbing plant sucking in air all the time, and mucking up wind currents.. )

Anything is possible with a little imagination and a lot of money


Osiris



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I missed then show so correct me if I am wrong.

Gobal Dimming has been protecting us from the full scale of gobal warming? If so...why is it that bad?



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Never mind, I switched over to BBC 2 just now and it was on... Lucky hu...Well I wish I didnt... This is just makes me want to cry. What have we done. What will we do.... I can only hope that our "leaders" get the idea that this isnt just a thought or a thoery...we know for 110% this is fact. If nothing is done we might as well start world war three now and be done with it.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Want to cut down on CO2? Quit listening to the moronic ecofreaks who have screwed up by the numbers and have been wrong every step of the way.
Stop planting trees. Create grasslands. Grass is much more efficient than trees.

Are you aware that we have many more acres of trees now than before the country was formed?

Grow grass!!
*Er, you know what I mean!*


It's not the moronic ecofreaks, it's people like you. Earth does not need to be altered to live. It's altering it that destroys it. If you cut down ancient rainforests, disturb the ecosystems, and plant grass, then I can guarrantee you that another problem will arise, and we'll keep burying ourselves deeper and deeper.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pantha
I saw the program , I found it truely frightning. It seems we are stuck between a rock and a hard place,


Yep, it looks like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. What is most frightening to me is that it could all happen a lot sooner then they say, and given the unpredictability of the weather it might only take one maybe two freak heat waves affecting the poles and off we go. What i did find interesting was the reference to contrails being one of the culprits in the cause of global dimming. Wonder if that could be the fact behind chemtrails?





top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join