this is my view on it aswell… if it’s gonna happen anyway, we’d be better off preparing for it opposed to trying to stop it. Not that reducing pollution is a bad thing, but to me it seems like a moot point. Is slowing it down (in the US) going to somehow buy us that much more time?
.
Back on topic here.
The thing that gets me about global warming is that people really have this perception that the man made emissions are far worse than any natural emissions that may occur. Like I’ve stated before, when a volcano blows, it sends a massive cloud of sulphur and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that sends more pollutants into the air than a major city can produce in a decade. I’m sure that the emissions from factories and cars are not helping any, but by the same token, we are not the sole cause or even the largest cause of the CO2 in the atmosphere. I have a question…as far as plants go, can they not aid in cleaning the CO2 from the air? After all, they use it in photosynthesis, so you would think they would be able to aid in filtering it out would they not?
YAY!! no more bitching… I’m actually pretty curious about this subject, and really have only based my decision on what i’ve been told by the media… So. I’m gonna search through some research databases and see what i can find
We are ADDing (lol, sorry, I had to) to co2 amounts in the atmosphere. We aren’t replacing volcano eruptions with the burning of fossil fuels. Now it’s volcano eruptions + whatever we are burning.
Vegetation, like I said, is the only thing that will absorb co2 for us. I don’t know how much you’ve watched tv or read the paper, but THEY ARE BEING CUT DOWN IN MASS QUANTITIES DAILY.
That is not true. plants arent the only Co2 sinks on the planet. I am not saying they arent an important part of removing CO2 from the air, but they also arent the only one.
Hydropower contributes to global warming, according to a study conducted across Southeast Asia by Taiwan’s National Sun Yat-sen University and National Central University.
Hydropower is usually considered the cleanest form of power generation, but the new study indicates hydropower causes more global warming than coal or oil-fired power stations.
“As dams prevent organic matter from flowing downstream, organic matter trapped at the bottom of reservoirs is deprived of the oxygen they need to decompose, thus producing methane and nitrous oxide,” Professor Chen Chen-tong of the National Sun Yat-sen University said.
Current projections show that natural background atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are expected to double around mid-century due to fossil fuel combustion.
.
yeah I know that deforestation is a major problem. Look at Europe. I was taking Political Geography last semester and one of the points of study was how they have advanced economically. When Europe really started to wipe out their forests it royally fucked up their ecosystems. I agree with you there, we really have to work harder to protect the environment because it is cruicial to everyone and everything.
thats pretty intresting
:word:
Aparently having to work with Title V permiting and dealing with this is nothing compared to, wait what is it you do again JayS?
I mean right now I am sitting next to Title V permitting for two covanta plants and a WPI plant, but I know nothing about emissions or how it effects the enviroment :bloated:
Major climatic shifts happen on (IIRC) 22,000 year, 40,000 year, and 100,000 year cycles. Well, that’s one theory anyways. It’s based on eccentricities in the Earth’s rotation and orbit. Anyhow, as Pass McGrass was kind enough to demonstrate, a major part of global warming theory is trying to draw long-term conclusions based on short-term observations. Yes, 1* in 10 years is a relatively large change, but it’s not abnormal. As JEG mentioned, naturally occurring phenomena can have the same effect. If that 1* shift really was caused by burning fossil fuels, then yeah I agree that’s effing scary. How do we know though?
Here’s an analogy to demonstrate my point: You cannot be sure of who’s dominating a football game by watching 5 seconds of play. You might see the shitty team’s best 5 seconds and draw the totally wrong conclusion. You might see the good teams best 5 seconds and overshoot the right conclusion. You just can’t be sure.
Sure, the theory of global warming seems to make sense. There is a lot of data that supports it. But there is also a lot of data that contradicts it.
Of course on top of it all, global warming is one of the most politically charged scientific theories. As JayS pointed out, the report that started this thread was modified extensively by politics, to the point that it really cannot be trusted.
We’ll never know for sure until it’s too late.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that we should not act as if it were false. I don’t think anyone would argue that. What would be the down side? Cleaner air in big cities? Energy independence from the middle east? Rainforest restoration? Oh no!
I will always be skeptical of the theory of global warming. (Not against it politically mind you, just skeptic of the science.) My main reason is that it is too politically charged for me to accept as “science.” Also, too many people try to draw conclusions in support of it that require assumptions that cannot be taken for granted. A 1* shift in 10 years COULD be supporting evidence, or there could be a whole slew of other explanations for it.
:word: Interesting indeed.
I’m a software engineer, but since no one has tapped you on the shoulder to help write this recently released paper, I guess you’re not that much of an expert in the field either. So we both get to postulate on some car forum all we want.
Someone buy this man a beer. A good beer… something better than the Genny Light he’s always taking pictures of.
So maybe you’re an environmental scientist. Maybe you’re a secretary that knows nothing. Just making a point about supporting evidence vs conclusive evidence…
First you say a good beer, then you say not Genny Light. Make up your mind!
I was talking about Global warming with a professor at school the other day. We were both in agreement on some topics but not in others. The way I see it, trying to blame global warming on human caused emissions is like trying to heat a room with a lighter. Yes you are going to have some effect, but not enough to even really notice a difference. Then when the sun comes out and warms the room naturally, you think your lighter did the trick.
Case in point, The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991. The amount of crap it spit into the atmosphere reduced the global temp by like 3* for 3 or 4 years.
If you just looked at that time frame, it looks like the earth is cooling down, not warming up, but if you look at the larger time frame you can see it was just a small decline in the general incline of the global temps.
So looking at just the past 10 years doesnt do anything. You need to look at the big picture.
Fuck that it’s cold out. I’m going to buy a old caddy with a 454 preferably with animal skin interior. And then proceed to drive it around in hopes spring comes earlier.
caddy’s had 500’s
wait, so let me get this straight, YOu have no belief that global warmign is being caused by man, or is a natural occurance that is being sped up by man. YOu believe the millions of tons of C02 dumped into the air have no effect, you dont beleive the ambient heat given off by industry, and any advanced culture is speeding things up. You in fact just beleive that its a 100% natural occurance?
I believe in global warming. I also believe in Jesus. Ask me to offer conclusive proof of either and all I’ll be able to give you is supporting evidence.