Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
What are you talking about whirly??? what I have heard... Came from school... and What I have read... came from scientific books....I asked you if GW was a good thing several times now.... You really don't wana answer this question do you!
Well when it's happened in the past according to tree ring evidence and plant species present etc. We had wild grapes growing in the south of England, this was the middle ages, it appears to have been warmer than it is now.
School Books reallly don't tell you much compared to post grad level evidence. Thats what people are using here.
So wouldn't it be better if we did everything to try to prevent GW from happening??? I'm sure putting chems into the atmoshpere isn't helping... Its my understanding that if GW continues we don't have a very "bright" future....
it was a good thing that we could grow graphs... 😆.... oh whirly... you know how to tell them!
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
So wouldn't it be better if we did everything to try to prevent GW from happening?
As Ush said you can't base an economy change on maybes
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I'm sure putting chems into the atmoshpere isn't helping... Its my understanding that if GW continues we don't have a very "bright" future....
Well noone really knows 🙂 thats the point
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
it was a good thing that we could grow graphs... 😆.... oh whirly... you know how to tell them!
grow graphs 😂 grapes
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
woops!well while science doesn't know I'll feel good as the world continues to pollute...
I mean its not like its happened before... science coming to late to the scene of a disaster and saying..
"well we know better now.."
A breif history of pollution plagurised from elsewhere 😂
Learn 🙂
As everyone knows, the toxic molecule DHMO is all around us. Also, the very air we breathe is toxic. However, the link between the two is relatively simple - the deadly process known as photosynthesis.
Way back when, before the dinosaurs, life happily munched on safe hydrogen sulphide or even hydrogen itself. At some point, the evil technology was invented by some cunning algae out to destroy the world. Instead of splitting safe fuel, the potentially destructive 'water' was used to provide protons. This inevitably produced oxygen as a toxic byproduct.
Although tolerable for a while (couple of million years?), the inevitable result was mass extinction of the peaceful anoxic species and the domination of the photosynthetic organisms. A record of this time is written in the rocks, where iron oxide is deposited in bands from around this time. Salvation came in the form of bacteria that could detoxify this terrible gas, reducing it back again into DHMO. Soon everyone started carrying around these purification factories and a balance between the destructive plants and the benign animals was restored.
Evolution needs new challenges.
However the threads about global warming, Water Vapour causes more of this natural effect at present than anything.
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
can I get a link to the site thats from...
can't remember but heres something similar.
http://www.science501.com/PTProteroz.html
The first "pollution crisis" hit the Earth about 2.2 billion years ago. Several pieces of evidence -- the presence of iron oxides in paleosols (fossil soils), the appearance of "red beds" containing metal oxides, and others -- point to a fairly rapid increase in levels of oxygen in the atmosphere at about this time. Oxygen levels in the Archaean had been less that 1% of present levels in the atmosphere, but by about 1.8 billion years ago, oxygen levels were greater than 15% of present levels and rising. It may seem strange to call this a "pollution crisis," since most of the organisms that we are familiar with not only tolerate but require oxygen to live. However, oxygen is a powerful degrader of organic compounds. Even today, many bacteria and protists are killed by oxygen. Organisms had to evolve biochemical methods for rendering oxygen harmless; one of these methods, oxidative respiration, had the advantage of producing large amounts of energy for the cell, and is now found in most eukaryotes.
It's pretty common stuff, I believe it's even taught in school these days.
From where does the Los Angeles Gazette, derive the 45 billion ton figure? The article Joughin, I.; Tulaczyk, S. Positive Mass Balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica. Published in Science vol. 295 pp 476-480. Only provides a net positive figure of 26.8 gigatons.
Originally posted by jaden101The Science article on which the New Scientist article is based states that net positive mass balance is due primarily to Ice Stream C, of the Ross Ice Stream. It states that this trend is not continent wide, and states nothing of the arctic Ice. Their finding would only account for a negligible sea level drop, leaving net sea level rise.
the new scientist article does show that the ice cap has had a net gain of mass...given that there is a fixed volume of water in all its states on the planet then global warming = increase in sea level isnt really the massive problem that some scientists predict
From Joughin & Tulaczyk, 2002 referring to the Ross Ice Shelf:
"Additional impetus for retreat/break-up may come from future climatic warming that appears to have helped to destabilize some smaller ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula (27). Over time scales on the order of decades to centuries, ice shelves may represent the most vulnerable element of the West Antarctic ice sheet/shelf system. Break-up of the Ross Ice Shelf alone would expose ~400,000 km2 of new shallow sea surface area and could have important implications for exchange of energy and water between the ocean and the atmosphere/ice-sheet system in the region. Moreover, brine exclusion during sea-ice formation could turn this newly exposed polar continental shelf into a key source of bottom ocean water. This strengthened Antarctic bottom-water formation could outcompete the North Atlantic source of bottom water and switch the global ocean into a new mode of thermohaline circulation, with global climatic implications (28)."
"Additional impetus for retreat/break-up may come from future climatic warming that appears to have helped to destabilize some smaller ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula (27). Over time scales on the order of decades to centuries, ice shelves may represent the most vulnerable element of the West Antarctic ice sheet/shelf system. Break-up of the Ross Ice Shelf alone would expose ~400,000 km2 of new shallow sea surface area and could have important implications for exchange of energy and water between the ocean and the atmosphere/ice-sheet system in the region. Moreover, brine exclusion during sea-ice formation could turn this newly exposed polar continental shelf into a key source of bottom ocean water. This strengthened Antarctic bottom-water formation could outcompete the North Atlantic source of bottom water and switch the global ocean into a new mode of thermohaline circulation, with global climatic implications (28)."
in short...it could **** up the gulf stream...which has been measured as being reduced by 30% already...but this in itself wouldn't cause a perpetuation of global warming and if fact may do the exact opposite to massive areas across the north Atlantic region as its the gulf stream that keeps the relatively moderate climate of great Britain and the rest of the west of Europe given that they are on the same latitude as Canada and northern Russia which has far lower temperatures
so what would happen then?
massive and longer lasting snowfall over larger areas would reflect more sunlight lower the temperature of the Eart as a whole and counteract the warming of other areas
From where does the Los Angeles Gazette, derive the 45 billion ton figure?
European space agency (i know...contradiction in terms...dont laugh)
Originally posted by jaden101
in short...it could **** up the gulf stream...which has been measured as being reduced by 30% already...but this in itself wouldn't cause a perpetuation of global warming and if fact may do the exact opposite to massive areas across the north Atlantic region as its the gulf stream that keeps the relatively moderate climate of great Britain and the rest of the west of Europe given that they are on the same latitude as Canada and northern Russia which has far lower temperaturesso what would happen then?
massive and longer lasting snowfall over larger areas would reflect more sunlight lower the temperature of the Eart as a whole and counteract the warming of other areas
European space agency (i know...contradiction in terms...dont laugh)
🙂 Basically the truth is guys almost everything is supposition at this stage, in my opinion! I enjoyed reading both X and Jadens posts on this topic!
Just to respond to your point, H&M... I shall repeat what I have said before to those saying we should do it anyway...
1. Remember, the economic costs involved in such things would ruin the lives of many ordinary people. This would be a crime. You need firm evidence to justify such a thing; we have none.
2. It would be pointless anyway because without firm evidence you will NEVER convince developing nations to cut back on emissions, and before long they will become the major users- for example, I am including China and India here.
3. The money would be better spent on preparation for change rather than trying to resist something that is not man-made and hence cannot be stopped. There are millions- mostly living in poverty- who face ruin if global warming occurs who are completely unprepared, whilst pointless amounts of money are spent on an idea that is not yet reasonably proven- that man is causing global warming- and is having no discernable effect.
So absolutely no, we should not proceed without that reasonable standard of proof.
Originally posted by UshgarakUnderlined is an assumption on your part stated rather adamantly. Are you a climatologist, and/or are you privy to the knowledge of a climatologist?
3. The money would be better spent on preparation for change rather than trying to resist something that is not man-made and hence cannot be stopped. There are millions- mostly living in poverty- who face ruin if global warming occurs who are completely unprepared, whilst pointless amounts of money are spent on an idea that is not yet reasonably proven- that man is causing global warming- and is having no discernable effect.
A direct causal relationship between cigarette smoking and incidence of lung cancer has to my knowledge not been completely established. There is undeniable evidence of a correlative relationship. Health warnings and measures to reduce cigarette smoking are commonplace due to this correlative evidence. These more than likely hurt the tobacco industry causing them to incur "economic costs". What a crime.
Reducing the use of fossil fuels and the development of sustainable/renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels to try and reduce and prevent further impact on the environment is a waste of money? That money should be spent on what exactly?
Smoke up and screw Tuvalu.
Edit: Oh and BTW China is not expected to exceed US greenhouse emissions for another two decades. Although currently exempt from the Kyoto Protocol, China has signed the agreement. Even when China as a nation equals the emissions output of the US, per capita they will still be producing 4 times less than the US.
time to stoke up those coal fires people...because cleaning up air pollution is causing global warming
Originally posted by jaden101
time to stoke up those coal fires people...because cleaning up air pollution is causing global warming
Yes I read about this in relation to Aeroplane Vapour trails after 9/11, Because all the planes were grounded and the vapour trails served a similar role to the smog in this article. As ever with anything to do with this debate I have read rebuttle evidence on both sides it's very interesting though. Should give Ecos something to worry about though. 😆 That they will doom us faster than big business.