|
Post by colmusturd on Aug 10, 2007 6:31:37 GMT -5
many people are ignorant of global warming by just dismissing it as garbage. they dont understand it and do not want to understand because they simply do not care. what do the worlds scientists believe, afterall its them who should know better than any of us. what do most scientists believe caused Global Warming? The vast majority are convinced it is human emissions of carbon dioxide. It was established scientifically 180 years ago - and has never seriously been disputed - that natural levels of the gas given off by decaying vegetation and the oceans help to keep the Earth warm: without it, and other greenhouse gases, the planet would be some 20C colder and we would freeze. Adding even the so far relatively small amounts from human activities makes us warmer. Has the world warmed before? Yes, and big warmings over prehistoric times were not started by increasing CO2 levels: changes in solar activity are more likely. Levels of the gas started rising some 800 years into the warming, but then probably reinforced it, making it bigger and longer. Temperature and CO2 are interdependant: when one goes up the other follows. This time is different because vast amounts of the gas are being artificially put into the atmosphere by humans. So is the sun responsible now? Some sceptics say so and probably it played a major role until recently. But over the past three decades sloar activity has scarcely risen, while temperatures have shot up. please post your theories. Once in a while someone will have more sophisticated questions like 1) what's the magnitude of the anthropogenic forcing compared to natural forcings? 2) what's the lag time in the system response? 3) what is the magnitude of the most disruptive plausible scenarios? 4) what's the likelihood of the discontinuous shifts in system regime? etc., When I hear people asking the right questions it makes my day, but it's pretty rare.
|
|
|
Post by test on Aug 10, 2007 7:08:23 GMT -5
So is the sun responsible now? Some sceptics say so and probably it played a major role until recently. But over the past three decades sloar activity has scarcely risen, while temperatures have shot up. the days after 9/11 all planes were banned from flying in the US, a scientist noticed that due to this more sun reached the earths surface than for a long time. This lead him to do research and found that pollution, smog, water vapour etc. prevented sun from reaching us, thus global warming will happen even faster with clean air protocols. To clarify things i do believe sun reaching earths surface decreased over past 100 years whilst global warming increased thus we have to eliminate sun from equation.
|
|
|
Post by {NB}crAzyAce! on Aug 10, 2007 8:34:33 GMT -5
One thing we could look at is Co2 itself. It is one part carbon and two parts oxygen. I wonder what the outcome would be if you take the carbon out of the equation? If we could only find an efficient way to do that. Then again, if you look at dry ice, we can make dry ice at a rate of approximately 55 pounds a minute at any given commercial unit. That equals approximately 456.5 cubic ft of Co2 a minute to make a product that is -109.3 or -78.5 degrees. We could utilize this by placing the ice at the polar caps. In the right places the water is all frozen so there is no liquid H20 to make the ice dissipate. This is killing two birds with one stone. You would be taking a greenhouse gas that is creating this warming effect and making a product that is extremely cold. It would take a long time to build enough units to make a sufficient amount, but we have taken at least one hundred years to get where we are right now. It is better than nothing at all. We are also working to reduce current emissions. I think we could make a difference if we really try. Anyone think this is a good idea? This a site about dry ice, feel free to check it out. www.dryiceinfo.com/science.htmAce
|
|
|
Post by colmusturd on Aug 10, 2007 10:01:26 GMT -5
The issue is knowing the distinction between three concepts: Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change, and Global Warming. Many people do not understand the differences between these terms.
Global warming Theory is specifically the theory that anthropogenic sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing the Earth’s global temperature to increase. When the average non-scientist uses the term “Global Warming”, that is what they mean.
However, many non-scientists also get confused and think that the Greenhouse Effect is Global Warming or that any reference to Climate Change is referring to global warming.
In fact the job of climate researchers is to establish whether or not temperature records indicate warming. Then it has to be established how much of any warming is due to natural Climate Change and how much (if any) can be attributed to the effects expected from anthropogenic sources according to Global Warming Theory.
|
|
|
Post by {NB}crAzyAce! on Aug 10, 2007 10:52:09 GMT -5
Very good point col, If you look at any of these possibilities, greenhouse, climate change or global warming. There is hard evidence that shows there has been an ongoing increase in temperature globally over the years. Which, if any of these, is causing this to happen we truly don't know. The point at hand is that any changes that we make to directly effect this increase would have to be beneficial in the long run. Logically speaking it has to make some sort of difference, "action/reaction", you can't change the law of physics.
Ace
|
|
|
Post by DrRyan on Aug 10, 2007 11:01:15 GMT -5
I believe at this point a big thank you should go to James Watt, who improved the steam engine and to greedy mankind.
What has that to do with Global Warming? Of course everyone wants progress and improvement. Just imagine owning a company which produces, let's say, umbrellas. What do you need? Resources in form of fabric, some metals, plastic, workers who will assemble those umbrellas and of course energy... for heating, running the machines, your computers and so on and so forth...
Right across the street is another umbrella-factory. You get to know they just bought a new machine, enabling them to produce 1000 umbrellas more than you per day, thus enabling them to sell them cheaper. If you want to stay in business, you have to stay on the level, meaning you have to buy that machine, too. It needs more energy to run, but you produce more and can keep up with your "opponent's" prices.
Bottom line is, both companies will have to invest lots of money to stay in business, buying bigger machines, expanding, using vast amounts of resources. Now either both companies manage to survive or one takes over the other.
How many umbrellas do you have at home? Is it possible you have more than you actually need?
The majority of mankind has been taught that consuming is good. It makes you feel good to buy something for yourself, shoes, clothing, electronic gadges... doesn't it? The question is: Are those things really needed or in any way useful, compared to the vast amounts of energy used to produce them?
Competition is the thing that will bring us to quite a big bang at some point. We might not live to see it, but there will be big trouble when crude oil resources run out. China, with its more than one billion people, is a fast developing nation in the field of sales and production. They might be happy with their bicycles right now, but they will also want a car, a computer, everything we take for granted. Now you in a western country might be aware that something should be done. But I am curious how you want to convince another country - such as China - that they should cut back.
What is actually being done to reduce Global Warming? People are made aware of it - in whatever way - and are being told to preserve energy. On the other hand we still have companies competing all over the world to stay alive. Expanding, using more and more resources. Millions of people lose their jobs due to companies cutting back on expenses. No, not by trying to use less energy or producing less, but by dismissing employees, which in turn might leave you without a job. You would be happier by having a job, no question about it.
In school I learned there are about three billion people on Earth. Where are we today? Five and more? This "progress" will bring big problems to mankind. One factor influences the other to a point where progress is simply not possible anymore.
At that point, Global Warming will be the least of your problems. Well, not your's but your grand-grand-whatever children's. And no matter what you do, you will not be able to prevent this from happening.
Have a happy life! ;D
|
|
|
Post by test on Aug 10, 2007 13:07:42 GMT -5
The majority of mankind has been taught that consuming is good. It makes you feel good to buy something for yourself, shoes, clothing, electronic gadges... doesn't it? lol no when i was young i always felt bad about buying things or people buying things for me, i hated it but i never knew why, family thought i was weird, so did i but i never had control over these feelings. Of course only recently i understood why... Temet Nosce. I guess i just have a stronger connection to my self than others. I hate materialisation and dont understand why people get upset or angry over belongs, possessions end up owning u. I only care about stopping suffering of all living beings and love. I give no emotional energy to anything else i do. from what i hear WW3 is being planned for the next decade cough cough 2012 by certain peeps in power so global warming wont be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by AAA C. Acte on Aug 10, 2007 15:15:02 GMT -5
from what i hear WW3 is being planned for the next decade cough cough 2012 by certain peeps in power i think its very unlikely. something else overpopulation is a very big problem but not really related to global warming but to food shortage. it is weird that both overp. and food shortage occurs mostly in africa, and these 2 are against each other. why they hmm... how to call.. populate so fast when they dont have food? and why their goverments dont do something to reduce the number of births? while these countries have many problems and many of the solutions needs money, this is not such one, and could solve some things, even not everything. a big problem also the grow of the desert sahara southwards and this could be prevented but no money. even less food producting area, when what is the ppl needs there is food. and the extinction of forests. i think its (or it will be) a major part in the climate change. and about why ppl dont care bout it and why theyre confused... global warming and climate change is a fact. a well known facts since the 1960s among the scientists. and they did everything what they could to make this a well known fact among non-scientists. the problem is created by governments, companies, lobbies. they always tried to hide the facts, invent new and new debates and making chaos, intentionally to confuse the ppl. so economy could grow further undisturbed. (see the quite recent pro-co2 campaign. its a lol.) drryan is right, its the companies fault, the markets fault, and that western ppl are got used to consume. capitalism is a good system but needs to regulated. but this is against the will of the most powerful lobbies. this is against the pleasure and mentality of consuming ppls life. this is against the mental lazyness to dont use ur brain and dont care. this consuming stuff is what is un-upholdable. see usa didnt signed kyoto treaty, it is the only country with big economy who didnt do so. to maintain prosperity, coz it would hinder significantly its economy. and this pollution stuff its not only about co2 but many other more harmful stuff which are infecting air seriously, the annual emission is millions of tons of these stuff or something like that. dont say it would even worse with clean air, its a megalol.. it is a counter-propaganda to create confusion, and who orders this are have money so they can get scientists to make points like this but later they manipulate the obtained theory. the original scientists who are finding similar facts are never wanted to do this to encourage pollution, nor they would marketing it to ppl in such a manner to hide the known facts and defend industry. (btw ryan i love steam engines and also internal combustion piston engines and jet engines dont blame watt they re good and interesting stuff)
|
|
|
Post by kai on Aug 10, 2007 17:24:22 GMT -5
You know, it's been getting a little hotter than normal here in the desert, but the weird thing is, it snowed here, for the first time in 10 years in January. I think the Earth itself is trying to get rid of us ... Or it could be another one of those massive climate changes that happens every 10,000 years thats been happening since the beginning of the Earth. Either way, damn this heat! My ice cream melts in about 1 minute after I buy it and if I try to eat it fast I get a brain freeze .
|
|
|
Post by AAA C. Acte on Aug 10, 2007 17:44:51 GMT -5
Either way, damn this heat! Ja! Affirmitive! ;D
|
|
|
Post by floatingheaddoctor on Aug 12, 2007 8:21:39 GMT -5
WOW looks like everyone saw An Inconvienet truth. But I dont see anyone talking about the Kiyoto treaty..Many countries have not bought into this (USA) because its too expensive but then we cry about global warming, Well its not a new thing weve known aboout pollution and its neg effects since the 60's. Why did we not venture further into the electric car in the 80's (again no money in it) greed and power is a major player.Ever seen "WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR" rthe EV was awesome but would have halted the oil and car buisiness if persured.. The scope of Kiyoto is to reduce CO2, NOX, mercuery & SO2, by a certain percentage each year, after all we know co2 forms the blanket, and that Nox & water vapor magnify the UV & Heat radiation to the earths surfacce. So a weve increased our blaket thick ness but have also generated a magnifying glass to help burn the ants (People) here on earth.. I very much agree with Col Must its a compicated prob that we still have no good solution for, Ive heard the Dry Ice suggestions, I heard the oil removal and CO2 replacement theory along with other but still it does not solve the prob it delays it. America has responded with CFR 70 restrictions on emmisions but this focuses on major industry not the smaller producers such as cars & Busses in masstransit Like the family values tour the group "KORN" has converted all there equipment to biodiesiel bio has no sulfur to form SO2, it also has a reduced NOX ouput of approw 10% and it also reduces C02 by 50% there single comtribution will save over 500lbs of C02 on this tour alone
In short my belief is we must change
We know about Fuel Cells 5 years ago a colledge in USA was granted the money to form a self operating fuel cell that with drew hydro gen directley from the atmosphere and produced electrcity & hot water as bi products, it worked and the granting company never has released the product to the people.
In addition there is a guy in FLA whome has perfected the car that runsoff hydrogen you install water into the car and it converts the water to hydrogen the emiits water out the exhaust and it gets 400 mls to the gallon, ovcoarse the american govern ment has contracted him soley for the future production of Humvees..
In short we know of some solutions to help but the people in power will always shut the l;ittle guys up until we stick togehter and force the chage, As is written in our American Consttution "somes times thoses with the abilityr must rise up and challenge"
|
|
|
Post by {NB}crAzyAce! on Aug 12, 2007 10:23:30 GMT -5
Like the family values tour the group "KORN" has converted all there equipment to biodiesiel bio has no sulfur to form SO2, it also has a reduced NOX ouput of approw 10% and it also reduces C02 by 50% there single comtribution will save over 500lbs of C02 on this tour alone Good point man, I don't know how many people know, but if you look back at WWII, Hitlers army used absolutely no hydrocarbon fuel in his entire campaign. It was all synthetic fuels and biodeisel. If this massive amount could be made then, Why is it so hard to make it now? Think about it. That was in the 1940's. Here it is 65 years later and we can't do it? I to believe that we need to change FHD, And I also believe we could have done it years ago as well. Ace
|
|
|
Post by test on Aug 12, 2007 10:42:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AAA C. Acte on Aug 12, 2007 18:25:44 GMT -5
about floating head doctors "no solution yet, electric car, no money, and fuel cell". its not right. very easy. ALCOHOL (both ethyl or methyl) as fuel. its so obvious i dont want to explain it what it is and why good. (search) then why we dont have it? coz its too cheap, too simple and it would really make the car question solved. the industry needs new and expensive technologies to sell and to experiment as the fuel cell or hydrogene or hybrids or accumulators. it wouldnt make any new, would use the same old , now cheap, and well-developed-in-recent-100-year piston engines. no business in it. (ah, and it would push the balance from industry to agriculture(alcohol making) again industry will counter it.) about aces "hitlers army and synthetic fuel". well, a very good point i was happy when saw it; but not true in this form. they had the idea before the war. görings autarchy (=not to depend on imports)mania. u know it has strategic reasons. in germany oil, steel alloy metals were scarce. this was the situation through all the war and effected their weapons quality. (panzer armours. jet turbines' fire chambers and turbine blades. ammunition shell cores. turbo-superchargers.) this lead to enormous efforts to store as many as they can before they attack. mainly from soviets, they had ores, oil, and food, in exchange for technology. this intensive autharchist (to produce everything locally. oil in our case) policy led to near bankrupcy every time, (anyway valuta(foreign currency) reserves almost emptied in the 1930s) and almost ruined the reich's economy, every time they got to this point they "solved" it by occupying a country and bleeded them dry. but resources again got scarce and they moved for the next country. ok maybe not this was the reasons to attack but hitlers political dreams and hazarduous bets, but still it was a side effect without the reich would have been collapsed even bofore the war. i dont know what are u mean under biodiesel im not certain if they used it (its a modern term and a modern invented method btw i dont rly know it), but they had big synthetic petrol factory complexes (which were subjects of heavy bomber raids-->no massive amounts lol.). the reason its not a solution, only in war, that it is very ineffective and very costy. that is based on a method invented in the late 1800s or early 1900s (pre WW1) that can make carbon-hydrogens (including petrol) from COAL. (!), in the 1970s and 80s south african republic also used this coz of embargo, but as soon as they could import oil and its derivatives, they immediately closed their plants. maybe only for china will it be reliable coz they have lots of cheap coal. but the reich still needed desperately natural oil, and its not true they didnt used it at all, what is more, they fought hard for south-western hungary and eastern ostmark (austria) coz there were the last (and in fact very little) oil fields they had after the rumanian backstab. at that time the benelux and northern sea resources were not known. another fact that shows that synthetic oil wasnt enough that the whole "fall blau" (blue plan) in 1942, when they choosed to attack in the south side of the eastern front, again for oil, now in the caucasus area. in some trucks they used so-called lumber-gas, or wood-gas (idk how to translate it to english). but this again not biodiesel. and its not a good solution now when the wood is also scarce. (at that time it wasnt a problem, think to the huge german pine forests, RtCW single player )
|
|
|
Post by {NB}crAzyAce! on Aug 12, 2007 20:47:26 GMT -5
about aces "hitlers army and synthetic fuel". well, a very good point i was happy when saw it; but not true in this form. they had the idea before the war. görings autarchy (=not to depend on imports)mania. u know it has strategic reasons. in germany oil, steel alloy metals were scarce. this was the situation through all the war and effected their weapons quality. (panzer armours. jet turbines' fire chambers and turbine blades. ammunition shell cores. turbo-superchargers.) this lead to enormous efforts to store as many as they can before they attack. mainly from soviets, they had ores, oil, and food, in exchange for technology. this intensive autharchist (to produce everything locally. oil in our case) policy led to near bankrupcy every time, (anyway valuta(foreign currency) reserves almost emptied in the 1930s) and almost ruined the reich's economy, every time they got to this point they "solved" it by occupying a country and bleeded them dry. but resources again got scarce and they moved for the next country. ok maybe not this was the reasons to attack but hitlers political dreams and hazarduous bets, but still it was a side effect without the reich would have been collapsed even bofore the war. i dont know what are u mean under biodiesel im not certain if they used it (its a modern term and a modern invented method btw i dont rly know it), but they had big synthetic petrol factory complexes (which were subjects of heavy bomber raids-->no massive amounts lol.). the reason its not a solution, only in war, that it is very ineffective and very costy. that is based on a method invented in the late 1800s or early 1900s (pre WW1) that can make carbon-hydrogens (including petrol) from COAL. (!), in the 1970s and 80s south african republic also used this coz of embargo, but as soon as they could import oil and its derivatives, they immediately closed their plants. maybe only for china will it be reliable coz they have lots of cheap coal. but the reich still needed desperately natural oil, and its not true they didnt used it at all, what is more, they fought hard for south-western hungary and eastern ostmark (austria) coz there were the last (and in fact very little) oil fields they had after the rumanian backstab. at that time the benelux and northern sea resources were not known. another fact that shows that synthetic oil wasnt enough that the whole "fall blau" (blue plan) in 1942, when they choosed to attack in the south side of the eastern front, again for oil, now in the caucasus area. in some trucks they used so-called lumber-gas, or wood-gas (idk how to translate it to english). but this again not biodiesel. and its not a good solution now when the wood is also scarce. (at that time it wasnt a problem, think to the huge german pine forests, RtCW single player ) Good info buddy ;D I learned a lot from it Thanks Ace
|
|