General Discussions

**goheadtry** · 05-26-2007, 07:20 PM

Scientest say that the polar ice on the earth are melting due to CO2 in the atmosphere that is ruining are atmosphere and it keeps going on.

I have advice in biology class at my high school we learned that Nitrogen can help remove co2. So why don't we release Nitrogen to clean the co2.

or stop using co2 world wide there is one reason that will never happen they made it possible in the united states but the big company's just don't care what happens to the Earths air so they make a loop hole they use CO2 in the foreign country's and pay the workers less money so it will continue. I mean do they really think that money is greater than the only known habitat that humans live. I believe that they are criminals in a sense that they are putting peoples lives at risk for one thing money , but then I think the money is no good if there is no place to spend it and that makes no sense why can't we just use cleaner methods.

I would like your opinions

Thank You
JF

**Village Idiot** · 05-26-2007, 07:32 PM

the atmosphere is mostly composed of nitrogen already.

There is also significant evidence that global warming is caused by sunspots, which we cant do anything about.

**ForrestCroce** · 05-26-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan1088352

There is also significant evidence that global warming is caused by sunspots, which we cant do anything about.

Meaning that the law of cause and effect, or as Newton put it "for each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" applies to everything in the universe except humans burning gasoline?

I know when I have a camp fire, I can watch the smoke rising up as a byproduct of the flames. Same applies to exhaust from a car or a plane, it looks a little different, but that's what happens when you burn things. We can all see that just as well as we can all personally confirm the theory of gravity.

So maybe all these emissions are actually helpful in a secret way and everything we've been experiencing is from sun spots ... but after Katrina and then Rita, the way severe hurricanes are becoming more common and more powerful, droughts ... I don't think there are many people left who don't believe in scientific consensus.

**stOx** · 05-26-2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Meaning that the law of cause and effect, or as Newton put it "for each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" applies to everything in the universe except humans burning gasoline?

It will have an effect. But that effect isn't necessarily global warming.
Newton was talking about the forces of energy having equal and opposite reactions.

I believe we shouldn't burn oil. Not because i believe it makes the planet hotter but because i don't like breathing in fumes from it.

The way i see it, If the planet periodically has ice ages that occur naturally, Why wouldn't it have periods of heating? If the planet didn't naturally heat we would still be in the last ice age, And the last time it started heating there wasn't a car on the planet.

**Village Idiot** · 05-27-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Meaning that the law of cause and effect, or as Newton put it "for each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" applies to everything in the universe except humans burning gasoline?

I know when I have a camp fire, I can watch the smoke rising up as a byproduct of the flames. Same applies to exhaust from a car or a plane, it looks a little different, but that's what happens when you burn things. We can all see that just as well as we can all personally confirm the theory of gravity.

So maybe all these emissions are actually helpful in a secret way and everything we've been experiencing is from sun spots ... but after Katrina and then Rita, the way severe hurricanes are becoming more common and more powerful, droughts ... I don't think there are many people left who don't believe in scientific consensus.

I never said it was good, I am saying it isnt what is causing it all. Also, newtons law applies to energy, way to take it completely out of context.

**ForrestCroce** · 05-27-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stOx

The way i see it, If the planet periodically has ice ages that occur naturally, Why wouldn't it have periods of heating? If the planet didn't naturally heat we would still be in the last ice age, And the last time it started heating there wasn't a car on the planet.

According to more than a handful of anthropologists, we're in one of the recesses of an ice age right now. The "current" ice age started in the ballpark of 200,000 years ago, but there have been periods of 15 to 20 thousand years of thawing. Homo sapiens emerged onto the world stage at the beginning of the thaw we experience now, and probably outlasted Neanderthal man because he was better adapted to the cold. If we haven't completely disrupted the planet's weather system, the ice should return in about 15,000 years. So they tell us.

We both agree that burning gasoline puts fumes in the air, and they aren't pleasant to breathe. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. What effect do you suppose those fumes have as they're absorbed into the finely-tuned atmosphere the Earth has adapted to over the course of a few billion years?

What could be the effect of cutting down the planet's carbon-absorbing forests? As the arctic melts, as a result of all of this, more greenhouse gases that have been trapped under the ice are released on a large scale.

Right now polar bears are drowning because they can't find food. Birds you might recognize from California are pushing out the specialists that carve out a niche in the arctic. Over the past few billion years, extinctions tend to be prompted by something catastrophic.

As others have pointed out, there are two sides to the global warming debate: science, born out by careful observation compared against what we know about how the world operates, and political aka lethargic, born out of what we really want to be true. There are tens of millions of scientists around the world forming a consensus that this is real; there are two serious, bona fide scientists who say it's a crock.

Now, I don't have my PhD yet, but I've noticed a couple of things. If I sit in the car in the sun, the barely-visible windshield makes it HOT in the car. And in many parts of the US, the sky is brownish-blue from smog and pollution. That's actually a major problem as a landscape photographer. Now, people who know more than I do from almost every country in the world say the barely visible pollution has the same effect as the windshield, we've seen some of the things they're warning us about happen, like ice melting from both polar caps. I honestly can't understand how any thinking person could look at all of this, and then side with the magic beans?

**stOx** · 05-27-2007, 05:08 PM

I think the fumes we produce have little, If any, Effect on the climate of the planet. While it's true that the combustion of fossil fuels does produce what we call "greenhouse gases" the vast majority of these greenhouse gases are from rotting vegetation and the evaporation of water. I read somewhere in the region of 1% of greenhouse gases are produced by humans, the rest are naturally produced by the planet, And have been produced since the beginning of time.

Also, The way that "warming" has been measured doesn't prove to be scientifically sound. In essence science has observed that over 10 years the average temperature of the planet has risen by 1 degree, So they extrapolate that to come to the conclusion that over 100 years it would have risen by 10 degrees (i fabricated the actual numbers to explain how their conclusions are reached), Of course their data is selected from a portion of time that does show warming, And ignores the fact that since 1979 the atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13 degrees Celsius. We simply don't have enough data on global warming to prove that it is even happening, Let alone what is causing it. It's like saying "today is 20 degrees hotter than yesterday" then coming to the conclusion that tomorrow will become 40 degrees hotter than 2 days ago. That isn't how climate and weather works.

It's also worth noting that mars has been seen to be warming at the same rate as earth.

**seolman** · 05-27-2007, 07:01 PM

The debate about global warming will go on for quite a while and both sides have their points. As with all things moderation is the key: drink too much - get sick, eat too much, get fat etc.. If we all beleive this planet is our home - it doesn't make sense to me to destroy our system of air purification (i.e. the oceans and trees).

Over the past 150 years (primarily since the dawn of the industrial age) trees have been eaten up like candy. We can argue all day about whether this (and other factors) are what is behind global warming. I am convinced global warming is occurring for the following reason: scientists have measured a significant amount of methane escaping from what used to be permafrost areas in northern Canada. Under the permafrost are vast amounts of organic matter (frozen grass and shrubs). Ice melting results in these organics decaying and putting of gas - building an immense chamber of methane. Right now it is trapped below the surface, but if temperatures rise much more the gas could escape, resulting in 2 things:

a) The largest fart ever recorded by a non-human
b) An astronomical volume of greenhouse gas escaping into the atmosphere - thus accelerating global warming to the point where within 10 years you would begin to see significant sea level changes.

**ForrestCroce** · 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stOx

And ignores the fact that since 1979 the atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13 degrees Celsius. We simply don't have enough data on global warming to prove that it is even happening, Let alone what is causing it.

There was a lot of fear about the earth cooling and a possible return to icy conditions in the 1970s, which we managed to track down to particulate matter in the atmosphere. Too many tiny little flecks of dust reflecting sunlight away from the planet brought about the brief period of man-made cooling you speak of. We came to understand that through the same methods we debate today, but recognized and addressed the problem, lowered the overall amount of particulate matter in the air, and aren't blocking as much sunlight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stOx

Also, The way that "warming" has been measured doesn't prove to be scientifically sound. In essence science has observed that over 10 years the average temperature of the planet has risen by 1 degree, So they extrapolate that to come to the conclusion that over 100 years it would have risen by 10 degrees

We've been measuring weather and climate data real-time using computers for more than ten years, but it's misleading to think a couple decades of measurement is the only thing anybody bases their concerns on. If you believe the planet has been through ice ages or that dinosaurs existed, you have to admit we know about things that happened more than 10 years ago.

**DaveMo~** · 05-28-2007, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

If you believe the planet has been through ice ages or that dinosaurs existed, you have to admit we know about things that happened more than 10 years ago.

This may be a bad assumption about this point, but the last person that I heard say something similar thinks that scientists know what happened a million years ago. Sorry, but they don't.

IMO, I don't believe there was an ice age, but I'm sure there were dinosaurs. And I know that scientists have been measuring "stuff" for more than 10 years. But to take a couple of hundred years to extrapolate 10 billion years seem ridiculous. Wouldn't that be like reading a 2 word post and being able to psychoanalyze me? Or watching me for 2 seconds and telling me what I was like 30 years ago? That's just my humble opinion.

For those that have studied the Laws of Thermodynamics, maybe man's interference and poor usage of this earth's resources is not the only factor of it running down (regardless of getting hotter or colder). What do you think?

Dave

**ultra** · 05-28-2007, 05:05 AM

i love swimming ...

i think whole world should think about it not just one country it will not help ... and i have read it some where that only America releases 25 % of total world pollution is that true ....

**seolman** · 05-28-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMo~

This may be a bad assumption about this point, but the last person that I heard say something similar thinks that scientists know what happened a million years ago. Sorry, but they don't.

...to take a couple of hundred years to extrapolate 10 billion years seem ridiculous. Wouldn't that be like reading a 2 word post and being able to psychoanalyze me? Or watching me for 2 seconds and telling me what I was like 30 years ago? That's just my humble opinion.

I have to go along with you on this one Dave. I question even the accuracy of carbon dating methods, much less our ability to know what happened a squillion years ago. However... I do think it's possible to psychoanalyze someone from a two word post...

**ForrestCroce** · 05-28-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMo~

IMO, I don't believe there was an ice age, but I'm sure there were dinosaurs.

Out of curiosity, what makes you disbelieve in the idea that ice ages ever gripped our world, but sure that dinosaurs existed?

Without trying to strain the point, I think a better analogy than psychoanalyzing somebody from two words ( which any psychoanalyst will say is impossible ) is that I'm pretty certain I have a heart inside my chest, even though I've never seen it directly. After a long bike ride, I can feel it beating, and from biology I know other humans have one. There can be some doubt since nobody has ever directly measured my heart, maybe it's those sunspots somebody mentioned pumping blood through my body.

**Republikin** · 05-28-2007, 03:54 PM

Yeah Dave, I think you went a bit over the crazy line with your disbelief in an ice age. I am relatively sure that the area I am living in now was completely carved out by glaciers. Perhaps you had something else in mind, would you elaborate?

**2 FN LOW** · 05-28-2007, 05:45 PM

theres some pretty good info in here...I for one dont really follow the facts all that much but im gonna hold on to this thread for later reading

**DaveMo~** · 05-29-2007, 01:35 PM

Just for information purposes and food for thought... most derived from meeting several people with doctorates in geololgy and thermal dynamics and some private studies...

Quote:

Originally Posted by seolman

I question even the accuracy of carbon dating methods

Now doubted by many because of false readings given on bones that's age was know; man has collected and documented skulls/bones for alot of years, and now tested them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Out of curiosity, what makes you disbelieve in the idea that ice ages ever gripped our world, but sure that dinosaurs existed?

I walked inside the Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History and stood below the bones of a brontisaurus. I was awed at it and the bones of a T-Rex. Hard to deny that they existed. Though much debated, I've also seen the rocks with dinosaur's and man's footprints as they may have coexisted. However, this is not proof of an ice age, but enough proof for me that the dinosaurs lived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Republikin

Yeah Dave, I think you went a bit over the crazy line with your disbelief in an ice age. I am relatively sure that the area I am living in now was completely carved out by glaciers. Perhaps you had something else in mind, would you elaborate?

A relatively close area to where I live is also a large glacier valley. Those valleys are made by the movement of glaciers, which still exist today and still move today. They don't move at a vast rate, but still move and still carve. Since we are not in an Ice Age now, couldn't the valleys be cut without one? Just for thought and an easy question, why would a glacier move if everything were ice?

The Ice Age is when alot of people want to divide that man and pre-Ice Age "critters" lived. I don't believe their was a separation of man and these animals. I believe that we've all been here the entire time, so you may obviously assume that I'm also not an evolutionist though that isn't really part of the discussion, but could be.

There's lots more that I might say on those matters, but I dislike trying to deal out the whole load of hay, so to speak, when little chunks are enough for the occassion.

Good discussion!

Dave

**Learning Newbie** · 05-29-2007, 09:07 PM

Wow, the attack on science goes on. Where did this information about global warming on Mars going on at the same rate as on Earth come from? Wouldn't you think the increased difference and entirely different atmospheres would maybe change that a little? Republican was right about critical thinking.

Water evaporation has been going on since the dawn of time for this planet. The water evaporates from lakes, turns into clouds ( which block sunlight ), then rains back down and wells up in lakes. That's a wee bit different from taking things that have been laying dormant underground for millions of years, burning them, and putting them (new) into the atmosphere.

**forumer** · 05-29-2007, 09:29 PM

While Global Warming does exist, it isn't as big as Al Gore likes to make it seem. Global Warming is normal, as our sun matures things will get hotter. In fact, the world is cooler right now then it was 400 years ago!

Could the icecaps melt and turn the world all water? No, there isn't enough water up there.

**Republikin** · 05-29-2007, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forumer

Could the icecaps melt and turn the world all water? No, there isn't enough water up there.

I wish I could just type this into Google in order to prove my point but I am going to have to rely on good old fashion stubborn pigheadedness.

I believe your wrong. I think there is enough water up there to turn a significant portion of this world into water (if it ALL melted). Not as much as is exaggerated in the movie Water World (the one where Kevin Costner proves he has the most popular yet worst acting career in history) but enough to make a significant impact.

**forumer** · 05-30-2007, 04:15 PM

Ok, I did a quick search in google and found this quote from How Stuff Works:

Quote:

If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet).

200 feet of sea level rising would not affect most of the world, it would definatly flood the coastal areas, but it definatly would not make us a 'water world'. Of course that all depends on your definition of 'Water World', compared to most, if not all, of outer planets in the galaxy, we are a water world(around 70%!)