It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

global warming.....not our fault not a problem

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
i was watching the news and all i hear is global warming this global warming that and im sick of it. yes the climate is warming BUT its because we have just came from a ice age! most of these peoples facts are based on data from as far back as 90 years....the earth is about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years old. so there baseing there facts on 0.000000027 of the earths total weather. now dont get me wrong there is a problem with CFC's and polution and they have impacted the enviroment. but they arnt responcable for the earths alredy warming climate. so if anyone would like to argue this fact i would realy like to hear it b/c i am no expert.




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by engenerQ
...not our fault not a problem


Global Warming is a huge problem.
GW causes the ice caps to melt causing the ocean level to rise. Island and ocean front homes and habitats will be destroyed.
NEWS: Global Warming Claims Pacific Village

GW heats up the ocean causing the Hurricane season to last longer with more powerful storms. People can debate if the last hurricane season was a result of GW but the fact is GW will cause this to happen. Hurricane 2005

GW will cause more of the ocean water to evaporate and then dump rain onto the land causing floods. I don't know if there were any flood records broken in 2005 but I sure remember a lot of flooding. 2005- Northern Hemispheres warmest year ever recorded

Global Warming is one of the many major threats we face in our age.






i was watching the news and all i hear is global warming this global warming that and im sick of it. yes the climate is warming BUT its because we have just came from a ice age!

The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.
www.enchantedlearning.com
I don't know where you live but I hardly ever hear about GW in the news unless Kyoto is the subject. I wish GW is brought up more regardless of what people think the cause is.



most of these peoples facts are based on data from as far back as 90 years


We have only been recording our weather for a short time and even a shorter time with the accuracy of today. However there are methods we use to look into our climate's past.



vathena.arc.nasa.gov

# The geological record of carved mountain valleys, scratched bedrock, and glacial debris and moraines gives evidence of the past several million years.
# Recently, cores have been removed from the ice at Vostok Station in Antarctica. The longest cores are about 2000 meters, sampling layers of ice deposited as early as 160,000 years ago. The ice trapped bubbles of air when it froze. The ratio of oxygen isotopes in this air indicates the average air temperature at the time the bubble was trapped in ice. The bubbles also trap atmospheric greenhouse gases that can be measured.
# Fossil plants and the distribution of pollen show that vegetation has changed, consistent with changing climate.




now dont get me wrong there is a problem with CFC's and polution and they have impacted the enviroment. but they arnt responcable for the earths alredy warming climate. so if anyone would like to argue this fact i would realy like to hear it b/c i am no expert.


CFCs have nothing to do with Global Warming they effect our o-zone layer.
The major cause of GW is debatable right now but there are few groups left that deny that we have nothing to do with it.
Our part in GW is what is known as the green house effect. Green house gasses such as CO2 and methane go into our atmosphere and create a Green house effect. Like you say, these issues are damaging our environment regardless on your position on GW.
I am no expert either but I am good with Google
.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
actualy the very end of the last ice age was the tail of the 1700's witch among other things actualy had a hand with the french revalution (just watched it on the history chanel and talked to it with the biologest/ metrologist at my college) check this out en.wikipedia.org...:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
acording to this graph weve had global warming for 10,000 years! last time i checked cars and chemicales didnt have a role back then.

btw in the last 400,000 years acording to your ice samples there has been 3 other "GW" incadents.

the earth is natraly heating up you have seen the graphs from the ice your selfe.

ok lets look at the ozone it blocks gama, micro and ultaviolet waves. ok what hapens in the microwave when microwaves hit water they heat up correct same with the rest i just couldent find a good exaple for it. so heating up water (70% of the world) dosent contribute to GLOBAL WARMING sorry bro i think you should look at that agian.

i would like to hear some examples of green house gases harming things other than industreal apps and GW i saw on the tv where they blamed global warming for 2 species of frogs in the amazon becoming extict. incase you didnt know species in the amazon dont last long ther are parts where evry tree you see in the deep jungle is a difrent speces... one dies a whole speces is gone....but it was bound to anyways and i bet if they had fully tracked these species years ago i bet they where just a dead end inevalution.

yes storms seem to b more powerfull but show me some huracane data 200 years ago ...who says the last 90 years was just a slump there is NOT ENOUGH current data for that kind of asumption we need to think not in human time(years) but earth time( thosands of years).

being human we are insignafacant in the grand scheme of things and some people need to feel like there protecting the earth and want to make a difrence. ya i want to protect the planet but you cant point fingers at things you cant make an objective posision.

just to let you know google is not a scientific sorce i could put on ther blue is red and some one could quote it as fact

sorry if i misspell things

[edit on 11-1-2006 by engenerQ]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I don't know if 'problem' is the best word to describe GW. It is a natural phenomenom we must adapt to regardless of kyoto or other such treaty silliness. There will be 'winners' and 'losers', of course. New arable and habitable lands will be created as others are lost. New deserts will be created as well as new rain forests. This pattern has been repeating for eons. Somehow, politically correct science in its infinite wisdom has only just now realized the Earth changes over time and is blaming the current change on evil humankind.

I am not worried. We have a century or more to adapt but the urgency will increase over time.

The melting Arctic will not cause ocean levels to rise. The Arctic is sea ice now. Fill a glass with ice cubes and fill with water to the brim. Observe what happens to the water level as the cubes melt. It does not overflow.

The rise in water level will be from thermal expansion of the water as oceanic temperatures rise.

The recent hurricanes are not due to GW. There is a somewhat irregular 5-10 year cycle for hurricane numbers and intensity. We are in the middle of an up cycle. The same for droughts and wet years -- a ~70 year cycle in the western U.S. Tree rings and other climate records indicate the western U.S. and had even greater droughts and floods in previous centuries. The twentieth century has been rather mild and even compared to previous periods. Unfortunately, people tend to use the most recent experience as their basis for comparison.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Yes, I agree GW is a natural phenomenon. Cutting back on the consumption of fossil fuels, will only slow the process, if do anything at all.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by engenerQ
i was watching the news and all i hear is global warming this global warming that and im sick of it. yes the climate is warming BUT its because we have just came from a ice age! most of these peoples facts are based on data from as far back as 90 years....the earth is about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years old. so there baseing there facts on 0.000000027 of the earths total weather. now dont get me wrong there is a problem with CFC's and polution and they have impacted the enviroment. but they arnt responcable for the earths alredy warming climate. so if anyone would like to argue this fact i would realy like to hear it b/c i am no expert.


GW is a huge problem....pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is not normal and the effects are starting to become more significant here on earth.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
porky show me your facts other than what we put in the air. show me its bad, where are your facts supporting this theroy. when you bring me some evadence i will b objective at looking at it, but let me hit you with some facts

1. if you read the posts above you would have given somethign else than your opinion.

2. there are how many people on this earth(~6 billion), and how many anamals o say (12 billion), and aerobic microbes equivalent to a anamal o lets go very very small (~.5 Bill)

time for some science and math r u ready?

ppl produce 724.2 lbs of CO2 a year. lets say 1/4 of anamals use 50% more and 75% use 50%less, well groop the microbes with the smaller anamals

so 724.2 lb * 6 billion = ~ 4,345 billion tons per year

1086.3lb *3 billion = ~ 3,259 " "

362.1 lb * 9.5 billion = ~ 3,440 " "

letss add them up shal we..... the total is over 11 TRILLION tons of CO2 a year

and how many years have anamals been on the earth ooo sevral thousand




GW is a huge problem....pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is not normal

your correct breathing TRILLIONS is


btw thos bad industrial companies that produce lots of CO2 take a look down wind i bet youll find lots of very very health trees b/c trees love CO2

so if you want to cut down CO2 dont breath and plant a tree.






refrence on CO2 usage en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by engenerQ
so if you want to cut down CO2 dont breath and plant a tree.


Bzzt wrong answer: Trees give off lots of methane and foliage is not a good carbon sink.

Don't breath is getting close...depopulation thru mass sterilization to establish a sustainable ecosystem.

Plants Exhale Methane, Contribute to Warming, Study Says
National Geographic, D.C.

Forests will not help: study urges rethink on global warming
Earthtimes.org



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=
/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html


If anyone wants an extensive source list of what is happening to the rest of the planets in the solar system you may check out the list at the bottem of the page.


A few environmental facts from the book:

Ø Nature contributes 30 times more CO2 to the atmosphere than mankind does.

Ø Living plants emit four times more hydrocarbons than man does.

Ø A Swedish study showed that acid rain improved crop yields and protein content.

Ø Malaria has increased tenfold since the passage of Wetlands Preservation legislation in the 1970s.

www.oism.org...



"It is thus quite remarkable that advocates of global energy rationing should choose to point out and attempt to ridicule this statement: ``Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we are now blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift of the Industrial Revolution'' (Robinson AB, Baliunas SL, Soon W, Robinson ZW: ``Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,'' Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 1998)."

"A summary provided by Dr. Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Michigan, emphasizes these points:

Ø ``Hundreds of experiments have confirmed that plant growth, total output, and yields of all the major food crops..., the major forest trees, both grass and legume species on ranges and in wetlands, aquatic plants and tank-
culture algae are enhanced over a range of 20-70 percent by elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 approaching a doubling of the current level of 360 ppm.''

Ø ``Plant water-use efficiency is enhanced and the water requirements of the major food crops are significantly reduced.''

Ø ``The rising level of atmospheric CO2 has increased the global agricultural output by an estimated 8-12 percent during the last 50 years.''

Ø ``There will very likely be some redistribution among forest, range, and aquatic species. Most will be positive.''

www.oism.org...



A teacher at one of the better high schools in Tucson, Arizona, administered the long version of the quiz given by

``Fossil Bill'' Kramer at the 1996 DDP meeting. Although DDP attendees got most of the answers right (see the Sept. 1996 issue), a majority of the high-school students disagreed with them on every point.Environmental ``education'' has been mandated by state law in Arizona (on its unscientific, politically loaded content-see Nov. 1994 issue-controversy continues, but the agenda is set and is unlikely to change).

www.oism.org...


Good reading and certainly makes one ask what the motive of "environmental protection" is when it does nothing of the sort while holding back human progress.

Stellar

[edit on 14-1-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
who is pretending to be asleep.
Where I live, in the last 25 years, it has clearly gotten warmer, no question.
It is now the opinion of the vast majority of scientists studying it, that global warming is a reality. The only point of debate is whether humans are to blame, and if so, how much.
I think it is our fault, but I don't know for sure. If it is or not, there is little doubt that it is our problem. We will deal with the fallout no matter what is causing it.
I don't see us doing anything that will have any significant effect on it by choice. If we change the things that we are doing that may be worsening it, it won't be by choice.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Perhaps some of you here would like to review an in house debate on Global Warming presented by The "Vagabond" and "thelibra"
Round 1. The Vagabond V thelibra: Global Warming



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by engenerQ
just to let you know google is not a scientific sorce i could put on ther blue is red and some one could quote it as fact


Actually that wasn't just a link to Google that was a link to the Google results of Hurricane + 2005 on ATS. I wasn't about to write up links for dozens of ATS threads.
Since we are criticizing links, the only links you have provided are to Wikipedia. For all I know you have written those Wiki pages yourself.
If you Deny Ignorance...then don't Wiki



actualy the very end of the last ice age was the tail of the 1700's witch among other things actualy had a hand with the french revalution (just watched it on the history chanel and talked to it with the biologest/ metrologist at my college) check this out en.wikipedia.org...:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
acording to this graph weve had global warming for 10,000 years! last time i checked cars and chemicales didnt have a role back then.


You watching the History channel is not a source we can verify. Is there anything on the internet that can back up your claim? The chart you are showing doesn't support it either. It shows that the last Ice age was 10,000 ago (just like every other web resource I can find.) Going by that chart the temperatures for the last 8,000 years have been close to around 0°C While 10,000 years ago the temperature was around -8°C.




btw in the last 400,000 years acording to your ice samples there has been 3 other "GW" incadents.

Yes, the Earth was recovering from Ice ages.



ok lets look at the ozone it blocks gama, micro and ultaviolet waves. ok what hapens in the microwave when microwaves hit water they heat up correct same with the rest i just couldent find a good exaple for it. so heating up water (70% of the world) dosent contribute to GLOBAL WARMING sorry bro i think you should look at that agian.

So your postition is that the weakening ozone layer is causing global warming? I thought you said GW is not our fault? It has already been established that the CFCs we produce are depleting the ozone layer.
Man made global warming is a result of the green house we live in that is Earth. Naturaly Methane CO2 and water vapor trap heat on the Earth so that we don't freeze. Since the industrial age started the carbon dioxide levels have increased 32%.
www.davidsuzuki.org



i would like to hear some examples of green house gases harming things other than industreal apps and GW i saw on the tv where they blamed global warming for 2 species of frogs in the amazon becoming extict. incase you didnt know species in the amazon dont last long ther are parts where evry tree you see in the deep jungle is a difrent speces... one dies a whole speces is gone....but it was bound to anyways and i bet if they had fully tracked these species years ago i bet they where just a dead end inevalution.

You are deflecting on what we are discussing by bringing up something you claim to have watched on TV. The subject you have given is that GW is not our fault or our problem. In your first post you say that there is a problem with pollution and now you are trying to claim that green house gasses (pollution) is only effecting industry and GW?
Green House gasses include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride.
3 of these gasses are being dumped into the environment by people. We make CO2 by burning fossil fuels. It is your opinion that this isn't a problem? I take it that where you live there is no smog problem.




yes storms seem to b more powerfull but show me some huracane data 200 years ago ...who says the last 90 years was just a slump there is NOT ENOUGH current data for that kind of asumption we need to think not in human time(years) but earth time( thosands of years).

I never made the assumption that the 2005 hurricane season is the result of GW. In fact 2005 tied 1969 as the record holder for the most hurricanes in a season.

I said that GW will cause stronger and more hurricanes. Hurricane’s fuel comes from heat. More heat more severe hurricane season.



Originally posted by engenerQ


letss add them up shal we..... the total is over 11 TRILLION tons of CO2 a year

and how many years have anamals been on the earth ooo sevral thousand




GW is a huge problem....pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is not normal

your correct breathing TRILLIONS is

Then you can add another 6 trillion to your 11 thanks to cars.
One car that burns 551 gallons of gasoline per year, will produce more than 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide.

10,000 lbs of CO2 x the 600 million cars in the world = 6,000,000,000,000

That is 6,000 billion just from cars never mind all the CO2 that comes from industry .I don't know how many gas-fired power plants there are world wide but one plant will produce 197,000,000 lbs of CO2 per year.
itest.slu.edu...
www.powerworks.com



btw thos bad industrial companies that produce lots of CO2 take a look down wind i bet youll find lots of very very health trees b/c trees love CO2

And people love Oxygen. Ask how the people are that are living down wind from "thos bad industrial companies."
How many trees have we lost since humanity became industrialized? The fact is that today there is 32% more CO2 in our air and way less forests compared to the start of the industrial era. How can the cycle keep up?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
sweet i love a good debate alright lets go ill adress these issues one at a time ill try to quote as acuratly as posable. and im sorry i did not know wiki could be forged so bad call on my part.

here is the full data from the NOAA you can make your own graph if you know how ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...





You watching the History channel is not a source we can verify. Is there anything on the internet that can back up your claim? The chart you are showing doesn't support it either. It shows that the last Ice age was 10,000 ago (just like every other web resource I can find.) Going by that chart the temperatures for the last 8,000 years have been close to around 0°C While 10,000 years ago the temperature was around -8°C.


you realy need to reade more carefully if you care to look agian there is a triangle on the side its called delta it means the totalk change as 0 being the total avrage.......so there goes that one.






Yes, the Earth was recovering from Ice ages.


so if its recovering that means the tempature is increasing...regardless of human activaty






CFCs have nothing to do with Global Warming they effect our o-zone layer.

i pointed out that they would if we had no ozone b/c of CFC's

i have been looking at that davidsuzki.org its very intresting though its funny its the only sorse that clams to know the ppm's before 2000 years ago, b/c the data from the noaa ice site says nothing about it so where did he get this data from th 1800's? make me think he just is full of it and filled in the line .. a intresting side not CO2 rises and falls proportanatly to the earths tempature and if you look at the data on CO2 i am providing ther ehas been sevral times that CO2 has been more than it is now......with out cars and such
ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...



frogs >>> www.msnbc.msn.com...
there is the story now shut your piehole about my sorces i dont need to make thigns up to prove my point.

your jumping to conclusions i said there is a probloem with polution just to let you know there is more then just CO2 O3 and methane out there . i was refering to mercury in the lakes, radation posioning, and any heavy metal put in to the air by factorys.


ok did you know that anamals put more CO2 and methane than any factory
pssst cows are by far the most abundent sorce of methane thats not our fault.




GW heats up the ocean causing the Hurricane season to last longer with more powerful storms.

you did asume this was from your fist post as part of your proof to me that GW is harmfull.


if you want to play the numbers game of co2 i will win as for your cars there are ~1.3 trillion fish in the 7seas each produces over 5 lbs of co2 a year........thats over 5trillion thats just as much as cars do you actuaoly think ther eare only 12 billion anamals on this earth...come on , do i need to add all the birds, incests, whales, and all the fresh water fish. all the industry does produce CO2 but it also produces water O2 and countless other things but you didnt mention them how about O3 yes factorys produce some ozone actualy mending some of what CFC's have done

and from the history channel site here we go !!!!!!!




Not so long ago, civilization learned that it was no match for just a few degrees drop in temperature. Scientists call it the Little Ice Age--but its impact was anything but small. From 1300 to 1850, a period of cataclysmic cold caused havoc. It froze Viking colonists in Greenland, accelerated the Black Death in Europe, decimated the Spanish Armada, and helped trigger the French Revolution. The Little Ice Age reshaped the world in ways that now seem the stuff of fantasy--New York Harbor froze and people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island, Eskimos sailed kayaks as far south as Scotland, and two feet of snow fell on New England in June and July during "the Year Without a Summer". Could another catastrophic cold snap strike in the 21st century? Leading climatologists offer the latest theories, and scholars and historians recreate the history that could be a glimpse of things to come. Face the cold, hard truth of the past--an era that may be a window to our future.

so unless your gona call the history channel a fraud then just beleve me when i say things and dont waste your time with reading it and wate my time for finding it






And people love Oxygen
.....so true




How many trees have we lost since humanity became industrialized?
the hell if i know that a big number....but one corn plant is 3-4 times more eficent at absorbing CO2 per lb compared to trees and how many acres of corn is there ........how many corn plants are there per acre





The fact is that today there is 32% more CO2 in our air


your correct and this trend has been going on for 10,000 years at this rate if you look at the graphs and data its normal.





How can the cycle keep up?

well if you did your recearch this "cycle" has been going on for thousands of years infact in the last 50,000 years this rise in temp rise in CO2 has hapend 4 other times!!! it has increaced at the same rate and we havent even gotten to the avrage high tempature and avrage CO2 creast yet so guess what they are expected to increse regardless if we add some CO2 to the mix



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
All of your "debate" adds up to one fundamental argument that can best be analogized as "You're going to die anyway, so what harm does it do if I poison you?"

You can point at natural sources of hydrocarbons and such all day, but that will never alter the fact that human activities that are NOT necessary to our continued survival emit pollutants that pose a threat to our continued survival.

You can debate the severity of the threat and you can argue that the threat would exist anyway, but that doesn't in any way deny the simple and obvious fact that we DO have a negative impact on climate, and we DON'T have to.

Unless of course you honestly believe that, since you're going to die anyway, it'd be okay if I poisoned you.




[edit on 14-1-2006 by Bob LaoTse]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
'ok did you know that anamals put more CO2 and methane than any factory. pssst cows are by far the most abundent sorce of methane thats not our fault.' engenerQ
I agree that the methane is coming out of the cows, but to say that is not our fault is like me stabbing someone and saying the bloodstains on the carpet are not my fault, it was his blood.
Ozone requires electrical energy to exist. Every night the ozone layer over your head slowly dissipates as it breaks down into regular oxygen. Then, every morning the sun's energy rebuilds the ozone layer again. In the winter the poles are bound to have holes since there is no solar energy to maintain the ozones stability.
I read that in the past 50 years we have cut more forest down than in the previous 150. As for pollution, we could learn from birds. They don't dirty their own nest.
Deserts don't contribute any oxygen to our air, and the plants and sea life that do need nutrients to exist. Even the ocean's phytoplankton, said to be the largest contributor of oxygen to our air are dependent on a healthy environment to survive.
Biomass is a limited quantity, once we have consumed enough to reach a critical mass, there will be a crash. Of course we might reverse our current pattern and avoid this. And I might win the lottery three times in a row too.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I'm a little ticked right now because a computer problem just killed my first attempt at this post before I could finish it. Forgive me if I take it out on you.


I've had the honor of getting the snot knocked out of me by one of ATS's best fighters on this subject, but he and I agree that global warming is definately a human creation, and the data to prove it is easy to see.

Our observations are not limited to the past 90 years. The fossil record and ice cores contain information on climate and atmospheric composition for an incredible span of the Earth's history.



Please note the green line first. It graphs CO2 in our atmosphere for the past 120,000 years. It's hard to see so you may also want to look at this. We've set an unprecedented record for CO2 levels. Concentrations reported in the Inventory of US Greenhouse Gasses and Sinks, 1990-2000 were stated at 367ppm, as opposed to 280pm at previous highpoints. The third report of the Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change stated that this record -MAY- although it cannot be conslusively proven, actually be unprecedented for the last 20 Million Years


This is the reason for the most obvious oddity in the graph. Look at the previous temperature spikes on the graph (in blue). They go straight to the top, then start to diminish.
The most recent spike is far more sustained. Human activity has arrested a decline in temperature and begun to raise it again. 3 record breaking years in the last half of the 1990s shifted the mean temperature increase for the 20th century to rise by 25%. Got that? 1/4 of the increase in the past 100 years happened in a 5 year period.

The EPA inventory of greenhouse gasses clearly states that natural cycles simply are not rapid enough to account for the dramatic increases we have seen.


There is a natural cycle, but we have altered this cycle, threatening to make the highs much more extreme, and in the worst case scenario, possibly BREAK the cycle.
It is our fault, and it is our problem.

It is our problem because in the 1990s we saw El Nino show up in several consecutive years, we broke temperature records 3 times between 1995 and 1999. Four of the top 10 Atlantic Hurricanes in terms of atmospheric pressure occurred in 2004-2005.

So how can that data be correct if the cows did it?

The problem with artificial sources of CO2, Methane, etc is that they are not balanced by other biological processes. The dependence of the food chain on vegitation assures a roughly zero-sum equation- only so much can be produced, and it can be taken up. Urbanization, harvesting of resources, pollution, etc are destroying the natural processes that will reduce the gasses, not only producing more gas, but preventing the Earth from absorbing as much. The "cows did it" excuse ignores the destruction of CO2 sinks and other processes that assure the balance of our planet. This planet has worked fine until we started cutting, mining, and burning everything we can get our hands on, now all of a sudden the natural cycle is doing unprecendented things.

Suppose your town hasn't had a murder in 50 years, then OJ Simpson moves in, goes right to the knife store, and three people show up dead. Do the math. Would you blame the cows for that too?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Not much to add, but there is one thing I'll adress here.


there are how many people on this earth(~6 billion),

Firslty, there are actualy closer to 7billion people.

Secondly, you can not really use that number for calculating for more than a century and a half. There were only around 2billion people in the world in the early 20th century, and even less than that as you go back in time.
The global poulation has more than tripled in the last 70 or so years.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
very excelent points all of them lets look at them

first stop with the cows i never blamed them i just pointed out that they are not our creation yet they are the leading cause of methane.

ok that done

first order of buisness is ozone honestly i am to lazy to go get the chem book to look up the specifics...but if what you say is true then when the factorys produce the ozone brakes down in to O2 and a O- ion so when the sun rises it ataches to somethign like CO or O2 making ozone agian if you want to talk about this some more i can look in to it but its realy irelavent to this b/c the ozone expellrd is strictly controoled by the EPA




Deserts don't contribute any oxygen to our air, and the plants and sea life that do need nutrients to exist blackg

i dont know if you ment it like that but youd b suprised by the amount of life you can find in a desert......and i just want to ask if you think there are a lot of living things that dont need nutrents to exist...b/c i know of one bacteria the can create its own food but it still needs raw materials to survive......if thats what you ment then your completly and utterly incorrect.


as for The Vagabond i would love to talk to the guy who beat you up lol

ok #1 yes the recent spike is extended but you must look at the trend. look after the first spike its one like not to buched up. then the second its starting to "bunch up" then after the third...looking more and more extended...and fianly after the forth its realy bunching up there is no definate line anymore its very cramped and this starts 100 thousand years so it makes sence and it fits the trend that there will b an extended piek this time... all you told me was just like any graph showing the interactions betwene things trys to balence out and this is exactly the kind of graph you get in the lab and in the real world if there are difrent things balencing out.

#2 that "this" link is so full of crap if you look it uses 5 difrent sorces to manipulate data to make it look just like they want it to look. same way if you want world wide rain fall if you go from o say the rainforest 5 years ago then go to wasington 4 years ago then go to ohio 3 years ago then go to arazon last year ...all of a sudden you have a graph showing a drought....it needs to b one sorce only you cant mix and match.

#3 weve alredy pointed out that wikipeda is not a good sorce

#4 take a look at this graph zooming out a bit more in history

upload.wikimedia.org...


(ya i know a wiki)

we must look at all of history not just in human times and all of a sudden when you look at this its like BAM 500ppm is nothing not to long ago it was 1000ppm and that was low for the avrage CO2. so this brings that cycle back just to show you when the earlyer dinosars lived in a 2000ppm world and they had plants and mamals and lizards(freaking big ones) and it stabalised. this actualy amazed me and it uses 6 creadable seprate resorces.

dont worry i dont mind if you ry to take it out on me ..i love the OJ refrence lol

iori:

yes i know its close to 7 i rounded down to 6 to make shure it wouldent b argured that it isnt 7 and yes i know #2 thats why i only used it for one year's estamation and that means that it will only b going up from here.

thx for checking on the validaty of my statments!





sy for the edit but half the page turned out to b a link ...arghhh

dang third times a charm
[edit on 15-1-2006 by engenerQ]

[edit on 15-1-2006 by engenerQ]

(mod edit to correct format of link)





[edit on 22-2-2006 by pantha]

[edit on 22-2-2006 by pantha]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
omg im a retard idk why its all a frakin link SORRY PPL



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by engenerQ
as for The Vagabond i would love to talk to the guy who beat you up lol


It was TheLibra- he's sharp. He took second in that tournament. Not to talk smack when I lost, but it was my first debate, so he got me on tactics, even when the facts were on my side (by his own admission afterwards).


ok #1 yes the recent spike is extended but you must look at the trend. look after the first spike its one like not to buched up.


Although previous spikes have not been straight, this is by far the broadest plateau we've ever hit. Also, if you'll look carefully (i know the resolution is bad) you'll notice that we actually hit a first spike, a slight dip, then a much higher spike- unprecedented. It always goes right to the peak in previous cases.


all you told me was just like any graph showing the interactions betwene things trys to balence out and this is exactly the kind of graph you get in the lab and in the real world if there are difrent things balencing out.


I'm not completely sure I understand your contention. Are you disputing that the EPA has seen measured CO2 levels (not just the representation thereof on a graph) hit a level that they have not hit in 420,000 years on the grounds that the graph is too heavily scaled to show adequate detail?


#2 that "this" link is so full of crap if you look it uses 5 difrent sorces to manipulate data to make it look just like they want it to look.


That's a shrewd answer, but unfortunately it doesn't hold water.

The rainfall example is flawed in that it refers to temporary localized phenomenon, whereas CO2 content in the atmosphere would be more evenly distributed and is accumulated in ice cores over a much longer period of time.

Heterosphere/Homosphere

Below an altitude of about 100 km, the Earth's atmosphere has a more-or-less uniform composition (apart from water vapor) as described above; this constitutes the homosphere.[2] However, above about 100 km, the Earth's atmosphere begins to have a composition which varies with altitude. This is essentially because, in the absence of mixing, the density of a gas falls off exponentially with increasing altitude, but at a rate which depends on the molecular mass.


Furthermore, even if one were to argue for significant differences considering geography, one would have to recognize that 3 of the 4 cores on that graph were taken within less than 1000 miles of eachother in Antarctica, a 4th also on Antarctica.


#3 weve alredy pointed out that wikipeda is not a good sorce


I beg to differ. A wikipedia entry, like any scholarly effort, is as good as the data behind it. Because wikipedia draws from many writers who have a relatively free hand, the entire resource cannot be painted with the same brush.
If we take a look at this graph on its own merits, we see that the US Department of Energy and EPICA provided much of the data, we find published sources with names attributed- in short, this particular wikipedia article is as reliable as anything we could assemble in a visit to the "good sources" found within the walls of a library (you know those ones are good because it's a pain in the butt to go access them, right?)

Furthermore my data is supported by the EPA.
I've been getting some really interesting error messages at every source where I have tried to access the report, but I'm hoping that the problem is with my computer- here goes nothin'. (I know what's in this without seeing it because I used it in my debate with TheLibra)

yosemite.epa.gov...$File/ghg_gwp.pdf



we must look at all of history not just in human times

I'm so comforted to know that the Earth can still exist (with relatively little mammalian life) if CO2 levels keep going up. On the bright side, it makes me feel better about my decision not to have kids. And things sure are looking up for my neighbor's iguana.


and all of a sudden when you look at this its like BAM 500ppm is nothing not to long ago it was 1000ppm


Not that long ago? What are you, the Highlander? Human activity has brought atmospheric CO2 levels to a place that has not been attainable by the ecosystems which have existed for the past half-million years.

The only reassurance that you seem able to offer is that a vastly different ecosystem dominated by cold blooded animals which had to either evolve or go extinct to carry forward into todays world was able to survive in the environment which existed 10s and hundreds of millions of years ago. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for any unusually large reptiles that would like to be able to live comfortably in Canada, but I'd like some consideration in this deal too.

Also, during the relevant timeframe on your graph, there was no ice at the poles. Now, I'm not saying FOR SURE that getting into 1000-2000 ppm range would be a bad thing, I'm just saying that the good people of New York City (and many others) might not like it.


this actualy amazed me and it uses 6 creadable seprate resorces.

Just another hodge-podge of unrelated data to prove droughts. Good for the goose, good for the gander my friend.


i love the OJ refrence lol

Yeah, i'm a fan too. I think decapitating ex-lovers is severely under-rated both as an art-form and a therapeutic resource.


Edit to add: Will my softdrinks stop going flat if we keep it up? Just curious.

[edit on 15-1-2006 by The Vagabond]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join