For the third time I am challenging the environmentalists here to explain to me how the hydrocarbons emmited from our automobiles caused the Earths environment to go from Ice Age to what it is now. Did Barney Rubble drive a Chevy Surban that emitted pollutants that caused massive changes in the Earth's environment?
_____________________
Quote from the NOVA article linked above:
Through a million year period, the average amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is affected by four fluxes: flux of carbon due to (1) metamorphic degassing, (2) weathering of organic carbon, (3) weathering of silicates, (4) burial of organic carbon. Degassing reactions associated with volcanic activity and the combining of organic carbon with oxygen release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Conversely, the burial of organic matter removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
____________________________
Number four is "burial of organic carbon. This is the "fossil fuels" that we are burning now. Automobile induced global warming is caused when the CO2 that the earth had stored is released; resulting in an increased Greenhouse Effect.
Next time, do your own research. I am educated on the matter, you naysayers are not. Please educate yourselves.
Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere.
IOW, this is ALL speculation and theory, not fact. Moreover, its speculation and theory which is based on further layers of speculation and theory. Wow, that's compelling stuff!
Normal is like the opposite end of the temperature ranges from that of Ice Age, its where the climate has been for about the last 20,000 years.
Yes, you are correct. But alas, that is how science works. May I ask, do you believe in Plate Tectonics? even, do you believe in the scientific method?
BTW, I am currently enrolled in a course called "Global Environmental Change" that looks at climate change on the fourth dimension, time. B- oh no!
Too bad Tex isn't here to learn that one.
And why do you refuse to even acknowledge that this may be a problem, when you obviously know nothing about it.
I really fail to see how you can be so stuck on the fact that pouring billions of tons of pollution into the air is having no effect on the environment whatsoever.
NOAA website
How can you honestly think that there is absolutely nothing going on? Could you even consider for a minute that we may be having a severe impact on the environment?
the irony is that they named it the greenhouse effect, a greenhouse is good for plants and allows them to grow where otherwise they cannot. our high school has a greenhouse but ppl kept breaking the windows till they replaced it with plexiglass and now they only graffitti it. i dont see that the greenhouse effect can destroy the world, at best it'll make opcean levels rise, flooding many places and so more ppl are cramped into smaller places inland, and maybe even move into the sahara desert
The greenhouse effect isn't simply something that is of convenience to us and plants. Earth would be at least 33degrees Celsius colder without it.
You seem to be debating whether or not global warming will be negative. That of course we don't know for sure. I would think that much of life has evolved to live in the current conditions and a change in temp. could mean a lot.
Earth has gone through massive climate change. This undoubtably causes mass extinction. But as we can see from the geologic record. The protozoaic "snowball earth" (nearly covered in ice)could have actually led to the current biodiversity.
You seem to be debating whether or not global warming will be negative. That of course we don't know for sure. I would think that much of life has evolved to live in the current conditions and a change in temp. could mean a lot.
Earth has gone through massive climate change. This undoubtably causes mass extinction. But as we can see from the geologic record. The protozoaic "snowball earth" (nearly covered in ice)could have actually led to the current biodiversity.
To me, that sounds like an excuse. People who think like that are usually the same people who think "I refuse to sacrifice my short-term gain for the long-term benefit of all!". You honestly believe that all the pollution and emissions we pour in to the atmosphere have no effect on our environment?
Ah yes, the ideologically charged Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who was caught doctoring its reports and failing to include among its findings the comments of dissenting members of its panels and working groups, and when confronted with gaping flaws in its conclusions or methodologies, has been forced to REVISE its predictions for the rate of global climate change now three times. Hint: it didn't raise the predicted rate, it lowered the predicted rate each time.
Let's hope the IPCC is not still using its widely discredited "business as usual" models!
But let's look at the "dire consequences" the IPCC report actually predicts:
OMFG! The earth is going to explode....RUUUNNNNNNNNN!
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,974
- 140
- 106
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, SALLIE L. BALIUNAS, WILLIE SOON, AND ZACHARY W. ROBINSON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org
George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998
ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Summary
World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.
To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org
George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998
ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Summary
World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.
To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms
Most environmental debates - this one included - TOTALLY miss the f-cking point. There is NO FREAKING WAY that 6 billion people are NOT going to adversely impact the planet. The dichotomy here is not between "positive impact" and "negative impact". There is only one possible outcome here: a negative and adverse result for the environment and planet.
Most environmentalists argue as though we have the choice of another outcome. There is not. The choices are: "do you want your cheesburger with one, two, or three beef patties?" There is no choice between chicken or beef.
There is only one choice on the menu - cheeseburger! Figuratively speaking, of course.
So, the ONLY TRUE issue is how long we can postpone the inevitable, but we can NOT turn back the hands of time nor can we stop an inevitable outcome. Unless we figure-out a way to 'eliminate' three or four billion people really quick...and are you so confident that you and your loved ones won't be one of them?
In a million or so years, mother nature will have virtually eliminated all trace of our existance and converted all our 'stuff' back into something 'natural' and 'biocompatible' anyhoo.
Most environmentalists argue as though we have the choice of another outcome. There is not. The choices are: "do you want your cheesburger with one, two, or three beef patties?" There is no choice between chicken or beef.
There is only one choice on the menu - cheeseburger! Figuratively speaking, of course.
So, the ONLY TRUE issue is how long we can postpone the inevitable, but we can NOT turn back the hands of time nor can we stop an inevitable outcome. Unless we figure-out a way to 'eliminate' three or four billion people really quick...and are you so confident that you and your loved ones won't be one of them?
In a million or so years, mother nature will have virtually eliminated all trace of our existance and converted all our 'stuff' back into something 'natural' and 'biocompatible' anyhoo.
the main reason we should stop using all those fossil fuels and pollutin' is incase we run out, we may have 50 years, 200 years worth of oil below us, but remember china and other 3rd world nations become industrialized they'll guzzle it up as bad as we and then their will be no more and we're skrewd
in perspective, we're 6% of the world population using 33% of all the energy
in perspective, we're 6% of the world population using 33% of all the energy
I agree, but for slightly different reasons. We make a WHOLE LOT of other valuable 'stuff' out of oil besides fuel to power internal combustion engines, and the earth's oil reserves belong to future generations every bit as much as they do to us.
So when you think about the consequences of running out of oil, think on a scale considerably larger than 'damn, my car won't go without that stuff.'
To my knowledge, the natural production of CO2 is at a balance with capabilities of plant-life to consume CO2. But when you add the man-made CO2 in there, things will go off-balance and we will have problems. Nature propably creates more CO2 tham mankind does. But what nature produces, it can also handle. What it can't handle is the extra CO2 we produce.
yeah, back to the stone age, unless they finally release the water powered car or we the government finally acknowledges that they reverse engineered the ufo's quantum engine back in the 50's
if push comes to shove, we'll
and of course nuke plants are what the enviromentalists hate the most even though they are the cleanest type, cept the green stuff that glows thousands of years. but that can be all buried in the deserts of new mexico
if push comes to shove, we'll
and of course nuke plants are what the enviromentalists hate the most even though they are the cleanest type, cept the green stuff that glows thousands of years. but that can be all buried in the deserts of new mexico
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,974
- 140
- 106
Typical national socialist enviroWACO out look. All they want is command authority to control your lives and tell you how to live. And they back it up with pseudo science and goofy computer models. They pulled the same fraud crap with their global cooling grift. Don't be fooled by their goose stepping dogma hate speak.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter