Post by: KoRo on February 9, 2007 11:14 pm CST
LONDON - British tycoon Sir Richard Branson on Friday announced a $25
million prize for a way to extract a billion tons or more of carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere each year.
The Virgin Group chairman was joined by former Vice President Al Gore
and other leading environmentalists as he announced the Virgin Earth
Challenge prize.
Branson compared it to the competition launched in 1675 to devise a
method of estimating longitude accurately. It was 60 years before
English clock maker John Harrison discovered an accurate method and
received his prize from King George III.
"The Earth cannot wait 60 years. We need everybody capable of
discovering an answer to put their minds to it today," Branson said.
Gore said the planet had a "fever" that had to be taken seriously.
"Up until now, what has not been asked seriously on a systematic basis
is, is there some way that some of that extra carbon dioxide may be
scavenged effectively out of the atmosphere? And no one knows the answer
to that," Gore said.
A landmark report last week </id> by the world’s leading
climate scientists and government officials warned that global warming
will continue for centuries, creating a far different planet in 100
years, and that it is "very likely" that manmade emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse cases are the reason.
**How the contest works**
Entries will be evaluated by Branson and Gore, as well as NASA climate
scientist James Hansen; James Lovelock, who devised the Gaia theory of
Earth's ecosystems; British environmentalist Sir Crispin Tickell; and
Australian paleontologist Tim Flannery.
The winner will have to come up with a way of removing one billion tons
of carbon gases a year from the atmosphere for 10 years — with $5
million of the prize being paid at the start and the remaining $20
million at the end.
If no winner is identified after five years the judges can decide to
extend the contest.
"This is the world’s first deliberate attempt at planetary engineering,"
Flannery said via videolink from Sydney. "We are at the last moment.
Once we reach the tipping point it will have been taken out of our hands."
Post by: bungle on February 10, 2007 12:34 pm CST
Good article, thanks.
Post by: Xenos on February 10, 2007 03:54 pm CST
Post by: Paradox666 on February 10, 2007 04:58 pm CST
Post by: Particle on February 11, 2007 09:16 am CST
Post by: Paradox666 on February 11, 2007 09:28 am CST
Post by: JayJay on February 12, 2007 07:42 pm CST
Post by: Sako on February 12, 2007 07:47 pm CST
Post by: Paradox666 on February 12, 2007 08:52 pm CST
Post by: Particle on February 12, 2007 09:37 pm CST
Post by: Kyrie on February 13, 2007 12:23 am CST
Post by: villman420 on February 13, 2007 11:33 am CST
read that then tell me what you hippy earth lovers have to say
Post by: Artorius on February 13, 2007 12:14 pm CST
Post by: 12Stones on February 13, 2007 09:09 pm CST
But seriously though.. global warming is some serious malarkey.
NOT! I'll be dead way before any of it affects me even if it IS a serious thread.
Post by: RedneckNoob on February 13, 2007 09:29 pm CST
Post by: Bovidi on February 14, 2007 11:51 am CST
Quote from: "villman420"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
read that then tell me what you hippy earth lovers have to say
Does anyone actually believe that article? Some of the things said in there were pretty reasonable to the eye but the fact is they still "disproved" some of the facts in the report by using unreasonable logic.
Fact is prior reports have proven that the world is warming, most likely because of humans.
Post by: Kyrie on February 14, 2007 01:23 pm CST
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourt ... ent_Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report)
Quote
It concludes that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that it is very likely (probability is more than 90%) that most of the warming observed since the mid-20th century is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
Post by: KoRo on February 14, 2007 10:05 pm CST
When there's too little carbon and the Earth is cold, volcanism and slower plant metabolism raises the caron level.
When there's too much carbon, rain and plants/algae would suck up that carbon.
Back in the prehistoric age, the excess carbon that was present after the K-T event (due to decomposing dinosaurs) was sealed underground until humans tapped it for fuel. Since then, all the excess carbon that was naturally kept underground has been released into the air, thus upsetting the natural balance. There's no denying that much, no matter how you look at it.
Post by: RedneckNoob on February 14, 2007 10:26 pm CST
Post by: Kyrie on February 15, 2007 12:37 am CST
Quote
Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM-2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 – 2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3}
While it's true that volcanoes release large amounts of carbon dioxide, how would you use that to argue the increasing levels? Are there increasingly more and more volcanic eruptions releasing these gases? I haven't heard of increased volcanic activity.
Would you please post some links to back up your statements that can't be denied? I've never once heard that water is 91.37% of all "greenhouse gas." I have read, though, that up to 70% of the Green House effect is caused by water. That's not really what's in debate. What's in debate is whether or not the increase of green house gases that we have control over, have increased beyond what would be considered normal levels and does that increase contribute to the overall rise in temperatures. The largest of these gases that we have control over is carbon dioxide which accounts for up to 26% of the green house effect.
Quote
Also the fact that every UN report leaves out the Midevil Warming Period.I think you need to recheck your sources (and/or post what they are). The 2001 IPCC (that's the UN group) did study that period as well as the "Little Ice Age" and concluded that it was a local change, not a global change. (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm))
Quote
Not to mention the fact that statistics say that in the past 20 years, the average temperature of the Earth has decreased by 0.1 degrees centigrade.Again...source? I don't see a decrease in temperature over the last 20 years here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomal ... 00mean.dat (http://ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat)
Quote
ou also can't tell me that somehow that Carbon from Earth is causing the ice caps on Mars to melt as well. If global warming is happening, why is Mars getting warmer?
I'd like to see some...well, you know.
Here: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003 ... thpole.htm (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm)
The title of that article is "Mars is Melting." Too bad they're just using it for shock appeal, or something. The polar ice cap may be shrinking, but if you'd take a look at the other ice cap, I think you'd find that it's growing. Mars has seasons, too, you know. Summer in the Northern hemisphere generally leads to winter in the Southern hemisphere.
Here's a link that kind of supports your 'Sun is getting hotter' reasoning. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html)
Unfortunatly, it also kind of shoots down your 'average temperature of the Earth has decreased by 0.1 degrees centigrade' proof. Right near the top, too.
And here's another which concludes that the sun's effect on global warming is minimal:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Chang ... g_999.html (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html)
Post by: Bovidi on February 15, 2007 03:36 pm CST
Quote from: "KoRo"
Articles/studies notwithstanding, the fact is that over the eons, the Earth's ecosystem has balanced out the carbon-oxygen ratio via natural processes...
When there's too little carbon and the Earth is cold, volcanism and slower plant metabolism raises the caron level.
When there's too much carbon, rain and plants/algae would suck up that carbon.
Only problem about the natural process is that when the Earth got cold, yea some volcanoes did help to create the Earth warm again but the fact is if there is too much carbon there isn't enough plantlife that can suck up the amount of carbon humans produce. Also don't forget that we are destroying all of our rainforests. Finally I would like to point out most of the time that there has been this global cooling or heating there were extinctions.
Post by: KoRo on February 15, 2007 09:33 pm CST
Quote from: "Bovidi"
Only problem about the natural process is that when the Earth got cold, yea some volcanoes did help to create the Earth warm again but the fact is if there is too much carbon there isn't enough plantlife that can suck up the amount of carbon humans produce. Also don't forget that we are destroying all of our rainforests. Finally I would like to point out most of the time that there has been this global cooling or heating there were extinctions.That only adds to my point. We are indeed actively helping to destroy our environment. I was trying to say that before humans came along, there was a balance, but we've disrupted that balance.
Post by: Vorter_X_ on February 15, 2007 09:42 pm CST
Post by: KoRo on February 15, 2007 09:57 pm CST
Change on this grand of a scale surpasses the timespan of one generation. If we're going to do anything epic to fix our problems, we've got to see past our own lives.
Post by: Artorius on February 15, 2007 11:27 pm CST
This has nothing to do with pollution, It's obviously god preparing the earth for the rapture.
Post by: Kyrie on February 15, 2007 11:46 pm CST
Quote from: "Artorius"
This has nothing to do with pollution, It's obviously god preparing the earth for the rapture.
I agree because I like your avatar.
Post by: Vorter_X_ on February 16, 2007 09:54 am CST
Post by: RedneckNoob on February 16, 2007 06:48 pm CST
http://http://boortz.com/nuze/200702/02022007.html
One major thing I'd like to point your attention to from that link is:
Quote
What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
Any rebuttle on that? Even more:
Quote
Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"
Wow, now that's interesting. Severly interesting. Now I wonder what other type of liberal propaganda we're going to see next.
Quote
There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.
Hmm. I wonder. Now, using pure analytics, I've got a question for you. If the ice caps are "melting" then how can these ice cores display layers that show the effects of CO2 levels?
Quote
Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?
Now, let's move on to a statement made by Neal Boortz on February 06, 2007:
Quote
Chicago is going through its coldest stretch of weather in 11 years. That's "coldest." Must be the global warming, right?
That's awesome. Chicago is at its coldest in 11 years. I guess Global Warming must exist. Maybe next we should start believing the world is flat again.
Quote
Al Gore says that the Bush Administration is paying scientists to dispute the party line on man-made global warming. Now isn't it odd that Gore doesn't mention that many of the scientists who are preaching the party line are being paid to do so! These scientists know that as soon as they get off the man-made global warming bandwagon their funding dries up. I guess this just slipped Gore's mind.
Now that's interesting. Most scientists, if not all, currently dispise the Bush Administration. Evidence is shown by a recent article in Popular Science magazine (I believe this month's issue).
From another news report, this one on February 9th:
Code: [Select]
Parts of the Northeast United States have been nailed by six to seven feet of snow. No ... that's not six to seven inches, we're talking six to seven feet! For those of you educated in government schools, that would be from 72 to 84 inches. They're expecting another two feet perhaps by the end of the day. Why? Well ... global warming, of course! What else would cause record snowfalls other than global warming?Oh, and if that wasn't enough for you, then here's some more:
Quote
One city in upstate New York, Redfield, has accumulated 146 inches of snow in the latest winter storm to roar through. Another major winter storm is on the way .... more snow, more cold weather ... and this one is headed to Chicago. Chicago will pick up a foot or more of snow in the next day or two. . Below Chicago into the Mississippi Valley they're looking at another ice storm on the way. I don't know about you ... but a few more weeks of these cold temperatures and 100-inch snows and I'm going to really be fed up with this global warming.
Considering America is supposed to have the highest CO2 emmissions, doesn't that mean we're supposed to be the hottest?
Not to mention the fact that recently, decisions were made in Canada that are rejecting the goals put forth to them by the Kyoto accords. I can not remember exactly where I read this, but I know it was published by The Associated Press. CO2 emissions in Canada have risen by 26% since 1997, and they were supposed to have fallen by like 5% or something by 2010 or 2012, can't remember which.
News report from February 14th:
Quote
A congressional committee was scheduled to hold a hearing today entitled "Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?" That hearing has now been cancelled. A new date will be announced later. Seems that it's too cold in Washington today. There's almost an inch of ice on the roads and sleet is falling. Don't you just hate it when an global warming alarmist hearing is cancelled because its too cold? Poor babies.
Oh, and I guess the "inventor of the internet" doesn't make enough money and doesn't use his liberal (really, it's socialistic) propaganda enough. He's now having a concert as a new way to spread "global warming" Interesting. Using a scientific matter through political means. That's very interesting. More at http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401629.html
Now, when Kyrie mentions those statistics about "650,000 years". What about before then? Tell me that. I can tell you right now that Dinosaurs weren't around that short of a time ago, were they? I can probably bet that, most dinosaurs being reptiles (cold blooded), the global temperature was MUCH higher back then.
Global warming is a bunch of propaganda. Now, I'm not saying I don't support things like Hybrids or emissions control, because I love the semi-clean air I breath here in Colorado, but global warming is just a bunch of bullmalarkey. They only show you the negative things, which as far as I'm concerned is information manipulation.
Oh, and does anyone want to mention rising sea levels? Because I know Gore does. What he fails to mention is that the sea levels have been rising for 12,000 years and reports indicate that they have risen about 300ft in that time.
Now, even IF global warming did exist, how is things like closing down factories and getting rid of cars going to fix it? The real problem would be that humans are breathing and are causing carbon dioxide levels to rise. Only way to fix that is to leave the planet or kill all humans. Good job!
Post by: plasma on February 16, 2007 07:09 pm CST
Why is marijuana illegal when there is no longevity of our race in the first place?
Post by: RedneckNoob on February 16, 2007 07:50 pm CST
Post by: Bovidi on February 17, 2007 12:37 am CST
If you say that humans don't track all glaciers and they don't know it is melting then how do they get the fact that the majority is growing.
As for Chicago going through the coldest stretch. Well yea, when you have a mass warming you get different airflows which can cause the cold temperatures in certain area....when looking at GW you shouldn't look at just one area you need to look at the average overall.
Even though America creates the most CO2 emmissions it would be silly to believe that the emmissions would hover only over America. It is blow through the air currents.
Finally the link you posted was to an opinion based article. The article never really(or at least I dont think) any viable proof behind their accusations. Like I could just say the same thing about how America messed with some of the numbers. After all there was a person who came out saying they were one of the people who edited a previous GW report to make it sound less of a threat.
On a percapita basis yes Canada is one of the more bad emmiters of CO2 but honestly our PM when he signed Kyoto really didnt have much to loose. Yes we increased emmissions though.
Post by: sin on February 17, 2007 01:16 am CST
http://www.zpenergy.com/ (http://www.zpenergy.com/)
Post by: Kyrie on February 17, 2007 02:44 am CST
Quote from: "RedneckNoob"
Since Kyrie wants citations, I'll start showing my citations. http://http://boortz.com/nuze/200702/02022007.htmlThat's not a source. Well, not a good one anyway. That's the equivalent of me linking to a Rush Limbaugh (or however you spell his name) site and saying HERE IS THE TRUTH.
Quote
Neal Boortz is a U.S. talk radio host based in Atlanta, Georgia and nationally syndicated by Cox Radio and the Jones Radio Networks. He is also a lawyer and best-selling author.You're trying to make this into politics to battle my presentation of scientific research and opinion. Would you please post something a little stronger than opinion or political propaganda?
A prime example of the idiocy of his website:
Quote
Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"I'd like to see the article containing that quote. And I'd like to add that if I'm ever abducted by aliens, I will promote the cause of peace between humanity and other races by being quoted as saying to them "we have to destroy all aliens to be truly at peace."
Quote
One major thing I'd like to point your attention to from that link is:
Quote:
What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
Any rebuttle on that?
Did you even look at the link I posted concerning that? I'd like to see said graph...except your source doesn't actually link to it. We're just supposed to take his word that it exists.
I simply find it interesting that he's suggesting that IPCC 2001 ignored the "Midieval Warming Period" when the link I posted was from their 2001 report and covered exactly that topic.
Edit: I think I found the graph he's referring to, and to what he's specifically referring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy)
The hockey stick controversy is basically a dispute over the validity of Mann's graphs/data and their use in IPCC reports. He supressed the two notable temperature variation periods, most specifically the MWP. However, the MWP is still being debated. They're still trying to figure out if it was as warm as has been previously suggested, and if it was actually a global event, or only a local one.
Here is the history of MWP and LIA in the IPCC reports: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and_LI ... CC_reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and_LIA_in_IPCC_reports)
Quote
If the ice caps are "melting" then how can these ice cores display layers that show the effects of CO2 levels?I think what you're asking is, how can ice core samples be accurately dated if the glaciers are melting. If so, then here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html)
Quote
Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?I can't even read what that's trying to say between all the names and qualifiers. Here's a trimmed and more readable version:
Quote
Why did a reporter refuse to interview David Deming after his testimony unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?I don't know. How does that have anything to do with this? This appears to be another example of using one person to represent all people/opinions/etc.
Quote
Global warming is a bunch of propaganda.I've posted links to scientific articles, studies, research. You've posted links to radically political opinions. Who's pushing propaganda?
Could you back up any of what you're saying (at least on the scientific end) with actual data? Leave the politics out of it. I'm not trying to push any politician's agenda, I'm simply presenting facts that I've found. I'd really love to see something legitimate from the opposing view point to better educate myself. I believe that global warming is occuring because all scientific evidence that I've seen suggests that. If someone could bring in convincing evidence of the opposite, I'd be all for it.
Quote
Code:
Parts of the Northeast United States have been nailed by six to seven feet of snow. No ... that's not six to seven inches, we're talking six to seven feet! For those of you educated in government schools, that would be from 72 to 84 inches. They're expecting another two feet perhaps by the end of the day. Why? Well ... global warming, of course! What else would cause record snowfalls other than global warming?
Oh, and if that wasn't enough for you, then here's some more:
Quote:
One city in upstate New York, Redfield, has accumulated 146 inches of snow in the latest winter storm to roar through. Another major winter storm is on the way .... more snow, more cold weather ... and this one is headed to Chicago. Chicago will pick up a foot or more of snow in the next day or two. . Below Chicago into the Mississippi Valley they're looking at another ice storm on the way. I don't know about you ... but a few more weeks of these cold temperatures and 100-inch snows and I'm going to really be fed up with this global warming.
This is very interesting. I'd like to look at a map, specifically, "North East United States" (which is where Redfield, NY is, so we'll group them into one map).
(http://http://www.freemap.com/images/wallmaps/US854_6.jpg)
There are, of course, different opinions on what exactly 'North East United States" actually means, but all opinions agree in this one regard: it includes the Great Lakes areas. This is extremely important (and was conveniently left out of your source's notes).
Breakdown: your "source" suggests that because these areas are receiving record levels of snow that this means global warming must surely be B.S.
However, if your source were a scientist (which he isn't), he'd most likely know about this: The Lake Effect. (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_effect_snow) When cold dry air moves across large bodies of warm water, the cold air picks up water vapor from the lake and freezes it, depositing it in areas around the lake. So it would appear that the lakes being warmed (perhaps from global warming, perhaps not) actually leads to increased snow levels.
Interesting article comparing snow fall in lake effect areas and non lake effect areas: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 052121.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031106052121.htm)
Now let's look at one of the places that you called specific attention to: Redfield, NY. Redfield is in an area of New York called the Tug Hill Plateau. This is significant because the Tug Hill Plateau is famous for record level snow falls.
Quote
The location of the region in relation to Lake Ontario often creates ideal conditions for accumulation of lake effect snow.
Now, your source has made a true statement but he presented in a way so as to lead to false conclusions. Actually, and I'll give him this much, it's quite funny. You read his statements as proof against global warming when by his own admission the increased snow is caused by global warming.
Quote
They're expecting another two feet perhaps by the end of the day. Why? Well ... global warming, of course! What else would cause record snowfalls other than global warming?Yes, it's quite possible that global warming lead to increased snow falls through higher than average lake temperatures, but I don't have any data on current and past lake temperatures, so I can't say with confidence that it's true.
RedneckNoob, you really really really need to find someone with actual data to quote and not propagandized opinions. For someone who's concerned with "information manipulation", you need to become better informed. I'm not trying to insult you with any of this, or anything stupid like that, but I think you might be a little confused on what you're really fighting against.
[/epic post]
Post by: Paradox666 on February 17, 2007 07:59 am CST
Post by: Particle on February 17, 2007 10:30 am CST
I'd just like to point out that without the sun we'd be a cold, dead rock. It provides all the energy. The atmosphere's composition just keeps some of it in. So, as much as a change of atmospheric composition can change the amount of energy retained, so could solar output.
It's kind of funny really how someone would argue for one half of the story but deny the other.
Anyway, yeah, we've contributed carbon dioxide to our atmosphere. No, it isn't enough to really make a difference. No, if the ice caps melt entirely I won't care. I'm not that close to the coast. Yes, we're having a cold winter. Yes, I find it funny. No, I don't believe it'll stop this "global warming" nonsense--I just predict it's only a matter of time until this period is either ignored or blamed on global warming destabilizing the climate.
Funny how returning all the carbon the dinosaurs were composed of to the surface where it was millions of years ago already is a bad thing. The dinosaurs didn't just appear. They had to gain their carbon by consuming other carbon based things on the planet to begin with. It was always all here and out in the open. We're just bringing some old deposits out to play.
Global warming happens naturally and artificially, that much is certain. However, global warming as the concept commonly being used to denote that human activity is causing severe and rapid climate shift is retarded. I'm also sick of bogus scares leading to needless legislation. So, let me put it this way: for every gallon of gasoline you don't burn, I'm going to burn three.
Post by: Bovidi on February 17, 2007 03:18 pm CST
Quote from: "Particle"
"the sun's effect on global warming is minimal"In previous years(ie thousands of years ago) the sun has made a huge change in the temperature. I will admit that but with computer models they actually managed to predict accurately the temperature spikes with the carbon levels as well. The sun goes on cycles of warming and cooling but the warming never caused a temperature spike like this. I will see if I can find the temperature graph again, it was been a couple years since I researched this.
I'd just like to point out that without the sun we'd be a cold, dead rock. It provides all the energy. The atmosphere's composition just keeps some of it in. So, as much as a change of atmospheric composition can change the amount of energy retained, so could solar output.
Quote from: "Particle"
No, if the ice caps melt entirely I won't care. I'm not that close to the coast.I happen to live by the coast. Actually technically I think the bit that I live is considered under sea levels so please forgive me if I take things like this seriously.
Quote from: "Particle"
Yes, we're having a cold winter. Yes, I find it funny.I find it funny too. I happen to live in a place where we got a lot of extra snow. The thing with that is with different places becomming warmer it is drawing the air from different places which makes it cold, which in other areas it makes it warmer.
Quote from: "Particle"
Funny how returning all the carbon the dinosaurs were composed of to the surface where it was millions of years ago already is a bad thing. The dinosaurs didn't just appear. They had to gain their carbon by consuming other carbon based things on the planet to begin with. It was always all here and out in the open. We're just bringing some old deposits out to play.
I agree to a certain extent. The only slight problem about that is dinosaurs were the vessels for the carbon so it never got into the atmosphere and a lot of the carbon was will stored in the ground with or without lifeforms. It is just that they were attached to different molecules.
I am really to lazy to find the stuff I research so I just did this from what I remember so some of it might be wrong
Post by: Artorius on February 17, 2007 04:27 pm CST
Pollution still affects our health, it's killing all sorts of animals, including humans, why the fork do you think the amount of people who suffer from athsma is increasing?
Do you enjoy walking down the street sucking on the tale pipes of cars? I sure as hell don't, I always laugh at people who complain about smokers and the smell. Hey asshole, go sit behind a SUV for 20 seconds while it's running and then come complain to me.
It's a sad day when we have to drink water out of bottles, now each and everyone of you should go kill yourselves and stop wasting my precious oxygen.
Post by: Particle on February 17, 2007 04:44 pm CST
Post by: RedneckNoob on February 17, 2007 06:32 pm CST
Quote from: "Artorius"
It doesn't matter if pollution is heating up the world or not you idiots.
Pollution still affects our health, it's killing all sorts of animals, including humans, why the fork do you think the amount of people who suffer from athsma is increasing?
That's also partially because of smoking.
Quote from: "Particle"
Real men drink tap.
Chlorine gives me heart burn so I try to stay away from it. I normally go up into the mountains myself and bottle my own water.
Which isn't hard since I live at the base of Pikes Peak.
Post by: KoRo on February 18, 2007 03:06 am CST
Quote from: "RedneckNoob"
Chlorine gives me heart burn so I try to stay away from it. I normally go up into the mountains myself and bottle my own water. :P
Post by: Particle on February 18, 2007 11:12 am CST
Post by: Vorter_X_ on February 18, 2007 03:42 pm CST
Post by: RedneckNoob on February 18, 2007 04:45 pm CST
Post by: Lidge Farkley on February 20, 2007 11:47 pm CST
Go right ahead and remove that carbon.. toolbags!
Post by: plasma on February 21, 2007 07:31 pm CST
Post by: Vorter_X_ on February 21, 2007 11:22 pm CST
Post by: Lidge Farkley on March 2, 2007 02:13 am CST
Anyway.
Hmm.
The thing about our planet is that is is on the backside of a "Milankovitch Cycle" in which the planet goes through a cooling phase.
The other thing about our planet is that we are artificially warming it in many areas through thermal pollution. (that is, heat generation and expulsion.)
Thus, I decide to skirt "global warming" as it is traditionally spake about (greenhouse gasses) and speak with a different angle:
-Winters are getting colder. (with Milankovitch Cycle, this make sense.)
-Summers are staying unbearably hotter. (with thermal pollution, this makes sense.)
The difficulty is not so much the alleged "greenhouse gasses" as it is the obvious nature of our unnatural warming of the planet by the use of our heat-genertating means.
The average temperature of any area should be effected by these things and from my experience I think that it does and has just that.
Thinking about this more, I don't see the next ice age happening on the terms the Milankovitch Cycle should be taking it, rather I see the Milankovitch Cycle still guiding us to a cooler period while we thermally pollute enough to keep things melting anyway.
I theorise that the future will be very cold, very wet and very annoying to live in.
Peace!
Post by: KoRo on March 2, 2007 06:40 pm CST
Post by: RedneckNoob on March 4, 2007 07:24 pm CST
A hilarious quote I found:
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill
Post by: KoRo on March 4, 2007 07:29 pm CST