By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - "Global Warming" theory

XD



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

Around the Network

There was me thkning it was God burning the planet. I think ive been reading the bible to much LOL. Global warming is happening, there is evidence to suggest this. Its just exaggerated to the extreame so scientists scare the rich people to donate to research.



FootballFan said:
There was me thkning it was God burning the planet. I think ive been reading the bible to much LOL. Global warming is happening, there is evidence to suggest this. Its just exaggerated to the extreame so scientists scare the rich people to donate to research.

Actually, there WAS evidence to support it. But the earth has been cooling since 1998. I do agree with your last statement though.



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

ironman said:
FootballFan said:
There was me thkning it was God burning the planet. I think ive been reading the bible to much LOL. Global warming is happening, there is evidence to suggest this. Its just exaggerated to the extreame so scientists scare the rich people to donate to research.

Actually, there WAS evidence to support it. But the earth has been cooling since 1998. I do agree with your last statement though.

Actually, 1998 was an anomalously warm year because of El Nino. The decade since hasn't been as warm on average, but it has been warmer than the deacde that preceded 1998.



I think your understanding of global warming is flawed, as we have found much evidence proving that anti-ozone pollutants such as methane are the cause of global warming. But I admire your acknowledgment of the problem and your enthusiasm.



Around the Network

0.03% of the earth's atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide, of that 14% of it is man made in the form of the burning of fossil fuels (for a grand total of 0.00042% of the earth's atmospher is made up of fossil fuel related carbon dioxide). If you assume that the earth is a system which preserves homeostasis (a fair assumption) in order to increase the temperature on the earth 1 degree celcius you have to double the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, which would work out to us producing 6 times as much CO2 as we currently are to double natural levels of CO2.

 



HappySqurriel said:

0.03% of the earth's atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide, of that 14% of it is man made in the form of the burning of fossil fuels (for a grand total of 0.00042% of the earth's atmospher is made up of fossil fuel related carbon dioxide). If you assume that the earth is a system which preserves homeostasis (a fair assumption) in order to increase the temperature on the earth 1 degree celcius you have to double the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, which would work out to us producing 6 times as much CO2 as we currently are to double natural levels of CO2.

 

I don't think homeostasis in the Earth's climate is a fair assumption at all. There are all kinds of feedback loops, both positive and negative, which come into effect when the temperature shifts. Which is why climatologists refer to CO2 levels as a 'forcing' agent which can trigger those feedback loops and have a disproportionate effect on the planet's climate.

Possible feedback mechanisms include water vapour in the atmosphere, changing albedo of the planet's surface, growth and decay of vegetable matter, release of methane trapped in permafrost, acidification of oceans, and probably a lot more I'm not aware of. Of course, the interaction of all these systems is incredibly complex and poorly understood, but I don't think we can just shrug our shoulders and assume it will all balance out.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

famousringo said:
HappySqurriel said:

0.03% of the earth's atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide, of that 14% of it is man made in the form of the burning of fossil fuels (for a grand total of 0.00042% of the earth's atmospher is made up of fossil fuel related carbon dioxide). If you assume that the earth is a system which preserves homeostasis (a fair assumption) in order to increase the temperature on the earth 1 degree celcius you have to double the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, which would work out to us producing 6 times as much CO2 as we currently are to double natural levels of CO2.

 

I don't think homeostasis in the Earth's climate is a fair assumption at all. There are all kinds of feedback loops, both positive and negative, which come into effect when the temperature shifts. Which is why climatologists refer to CO2 levels as a 'forcing' agent which can trigger those feedback loops and have a disproportionate effect on the planet's climate.

Possible feedback mechanisms include water vapour in the atmosphere, changing albedo of the planet's surface, growth and decay of vegetable matter, release of methane trapped in permafrost, acidification of oceans, and probably a lot more I'm not aware of. Of course, the interaction of all these systems is incredibly complex and poorly understood, but I don't think we can just shrug our shoulders and assume it will all balance out.

If the earth was not a system that preserved homeostasis than an imbalance in the system would create a feedback loop that would destroy all life on this earth; and (being that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past) if the earth did not preserve homeostasis life would not exist on this planet today.

You're right that we don't have a full understanding of the system, and things we are just learning about today will drastically change our understanding in the future. One example of this is clouds (which are entirely ignored in all climate-change models) have shown an ability to regulate temperature very effectively and the electromagnetic radiation from sunspot activity impacts cloud formation; and the temperature changes associated with "Climate Change" has a direct corelation to sunspot activity.

Of course you can continue to believe that our impact of 0.0042% to the earth's atmosphere has a greater impact on worldwide temperature than the sun, but I think that is a foolish choice.



Mass production of cows with their damn farts. We know it to be true.

I blame the meat eaters.



johnathonmerritt said:

You make a good point with the smog warnings. It seems to me that the pollutants in the atmosphere should be making it thicker, blocking the sun. That should create a cooling effect. Our ice ages have been created by natural pollutants blocking the sun, so why wouldn't our current pollutants have the same effect?

Many of those pollutants are too heavy to float all the way up to the ozone layer.  Many of them stay in the trophosphere.  Not to mention you are completely missing the distinction between the initial solar energy that enters the atmosphere and the resultant heat produced because of that energy.

The hottest spots on the earth are closest to sea level.  The sun's rays strike the earth, and are absorbed by the earth, which raises the temperature of the earth. The earth re-radiates the energy at a wavelength dependent on the temperature of the earth. The air is able to absorb the infrared radiation, and becomes warmer.  Heat is simply the movement of molecules.  And not all molecules absorb energy in the same way.

So what you are saying may hold some truth, but infrared radiation being re-radiated (or trapped) in the atmosphere has a major effect as well.  Not to mention there is a high concentration of water on the surface of the earth that absorbs and keeps that heat near the surface of the earth.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson