zmanzzzz Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 discuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 will not matter in 3 years anyhooo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmanzzzz Posted July 10, 2006 Author Share Posted July 10, 2006 we must stop burning coal. im sitting here in a building with the air conditioner on and the windows open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 im sitting here in a building with the air conditioner on and the windows open. doh.gif it looks to me like there is one of 2 things you can do........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmanzzzz Posted July 10, 2006 Author Share Posted July 10, 2006 it looks to me like there is one of 2 things you can do........... it is a public building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Nuclear baby! That is the way to go at least for now. Well that and drilling off the shores of the gulf coast like Castro is doing, but that our govenment won't allow us to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Washington is too cold during most of the year. I'd like it more if it was a bit warmer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 I watched that special on 60 minutes a few months ago with the top expert in the nation. This dude is supposed to be the guru of global warming, and he says we have 10 years to make drastic changes or the scale will tip and will not be able to be reversed. He also quit working for the government after the Bush cronies rejected his findings and ordered him to keep his mouth shut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 I watched that special on 60 minutes a few months ago with the top expert in the nation. This dude is supposed to be the guru of global warming, and he says we have 10 years to make drastic changes or the scale will tip and will not be able to be reversed. He also quit working for the government after the Bush cronies rejected his findings and ordered him to keep his mouth shut. Maybe he is a out there? Right now the planet is not as warm as it was 4000 years ago. There have been several ice ages and subsequent warming periods. Maybe thinking that we can stop mother nature from warming the planet is kind of like thinking a levvy will prevent a hurricane from flooding a city that is below sea level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 (edited) 1. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution. (view full-size image) Figure 1 2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases. As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect. Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward. view full-size image Figure 2 3. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% . Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change. view full-size image Figure 3 4. If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too? Very interesting link regarding global warming. Edited July 10, 2006 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Maybe he is a out there? Right now the planet is not as warm as it was 4000 years ago. There have been several ice ages and subsequent warming periods. Maybe thinking that we can stop mother nature from warming the planet is kind of like thinking a levvy will prevent a hurricane from flooding a city that is below sea level. mother nature is not causing global warming- wtph u talking bout? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Nuclear baby! That is the way to go at least for now. Well that and drilling off the shores of the gulf coast like Castro is doing, but that our govenment won't allow us to do. More drilling will make it worse. We need to reduce atmospheric CO2. That is, fuel cell and electric cars. And more power from biomass (which in turn absorbs CO2 when it regrows), and more cogeneration, and conservation, and... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 More drilling will make it worse. We need to reduce atmospheric CO2. That is, fuel cell and electric cars. And more power from biomass (which in turn absorbs CO2 when it regrows), and more cogeneration, and conservation, and... Man made CO2 makes up only 0.117% of the CO2 in greenhouse gases, unlesss everyone eats chili dogs that day and then it is 0.118%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmanzzzz Posted July 10, 2006 Author Share Posted July 10, 2006 Man made CO2 makes up only 0.117% of the CO2 in greenhouse gases, unlesss everyone eats chili dogs that day and then it is 0.118%. i was impressed by one of your posts earlier, these one have changed my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Man made CO2 makes up only 0.117% of the CO2 in greenhouse gases, unlesss everyone eats chili dogs that day and then it is 0.118%. You could be right. But we know that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, we emit tons of it every year, and it's getting warmer. Clearly our activities don't help, not to mention all the other crap in car and diesel exhaust. Could all be coincedental, or not... BTW, I had bean soup for lunch (we're up to 0.119). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 i was impressed by one of your posts earlier, these one have changed my mind. That doesn't change his earlier post. You could be right. But we know that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, we emit tons of it every year, and it's getting warmer. Clearly our activities don't help, not to mention all the other crap in car and diesel exhaust. Could all be coincedental, or not... BTW, I had bean soup for lunch (we're up to 0.119). I think the point so far is yes, we contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, but it is relatively insignificant. And think, cars are how much cleaner than they were 30 years ago? Cars will continue to get cleaner and cleaner, as will, hopefully, manufacturing facilities, etc. I'm going to be checking out that Tom Brokaw show on global warming that supposedly only concentrates on the science of global warming and no politics. Should be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Maybe he is a out there? Right now the planet is not as warm as it was 4000 years ago. How did that affect city life? Can you link to some news from back then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 How did that affect city life? Can you link to some news from back then? The Daily Slab doesnt have links..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcd480 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Global Warming isn't half as bad as MANBEARPIG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 The Daily Slab doesnt have links..... My point was that minor climate changes in the past 400 years have contributed to droughts, famines, wars, and social upheavals. Saying that the climate 4000 years ago wasn't that bad is ridiculous, because we have no idea what life was like 4000 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 My point was that minor climate changes in the past 400 years have contributed to droughts, famines, wars, and social upheavals. Saying that the climate 4000 years ago wasn't that bad is ridiculous, because we have no idea what life was like 4000 years ago. This is true, but what I linked is stating is that the earth has natural warming and cooling cycles, and we are currently in a warming cycle, and there is very little if anything that man can do to prevent it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 This is true, but what I linked is stating is that the earth has natural warming and cooling cycles, and we are currently in a warming cycle, and there is very little if anything that man can do to prevent it. That article doesn't hold much water. Its full of speculation, theory, some errors, and is outdated by about 10 years. Besides, global warming or not, we know there are better ways to fuel our economy than oil, especially arab oil. And the benefits would be hugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigalf03 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 I think we should take the advice of Steven Colbert, via his "word" Burn off every ounce of fossil fuels that we have, leave our SUVs running 24 hours a day, so that out of necesity we will develope alternative fuels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 (edited) This is true, but what I linked is stating is that the earth has natural warming and cooling cycles, and we are currently in a warming cycle, and there is very little if anything that man can do to prevent it. Right... but what you linked to is a user page on a local cable internet provider... not a scientific study. The guy doesn't even have a proper website for his little "study". Monte Heib doesn't list his science credentials or list that he's an expert... so I'll just assume that he has none. I did a search on his name and didn't come up with anything other than This debunking of his article... which I didn't read, so don't hold me accountable for it. And, I'm not sure I can trust it's math since the part that you quoted is contradicted by completely different numbers a little further down the page: Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants. That would mean that man is producing 3.2% of the CO2 each year... not 0.117% as you quoted from him earlier in his article. So, this guy is obviously picking and choosing his numbers as it fits. I'm not sure I'd trust that 3.2% number either... but it's hard to say that even that kind of percentage can't have an impact. I think it's retarded to try to differentiate between "natural", and "man-made" causes of greenhouse gasses or climate change. Are we affecting is positively or negatively? If there's something we can do, shouldn't we? Your car is headed for a wall... "Well, car crashes have happened for a hundred years for all kinds of reasons. Most of them can't be avoided. I guess there's nothing we can do about it." Hey dumbass... use the brakes and turn the wheel. Edited July 11, 2006 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.