| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
   |
Posted - 2007.07.01 17:15:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Locus Bey
global warming is scientific fact. the naysayers are minimal, (you'll find this out if you read enough) and the arguments you can read trying to debunk global warming are all laughable.
This is why I can't take global warming people seriously. These ad hominem attacks do nothing to support their position.
The possibility of human-created global warming is too important to be reduced to petty name-calling.
|
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.07.01 18:02:00 -
[2]
Originally by: UPA Terf
Little known fact :
Human beings (including our industry) create less CO2 than the following:
Cattle (although it is our fault there is so many but i enjoy burgers so meh)
Dying Plants and Animals
Volcanoes
Plants and animals are generally carbon-neutral. In other words, they don't let off any more CO2 than they absorbed in the first place.
The exception being plants grown through petroleum-based fertilizers, and cattle who eat plants grown through petroleum-based fertilizers.
|
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.07.01 21:21:00 -
[3]
Originally by: UPA Terf
and according to the charts as temperature increases Co2 goes up not the other way around
It's likely a feedback cycle, where more CO2 gives a higher temperature, and higher temperature releases more CO2. There's almost certainly a limiting factor, or else the temperature/CO2 levels would have run away to Venus-like conditions millions of years ago.
|
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.07.01 23:50:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Dau Imperius
You NT's (Neurologically Typicals) are still animals unfortunetly.
 
Quote:
(Anyone notice the sheer amount record number of hurricans in the last few years hitting the US East Coast for instance?)
No. Last hurricane season, not a single hurricane made landfall in the US. After the unusually high 2005 numbers, forecasts predicted 2006 would be almost as bad, but it ended up being very quiet.
Statistics are funny. There are peaks and troughs appearing seemingly at random. The unusually strong 2005 season and the unusually weak 2006 season should both be put down as a statistical noise.
|
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 02:40:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Frezik on 02/07/2007 02:40:08
Originally by: UPA Terf
nope just as i said no more complicated than that simple sentence. According to the Ice core samples taken to show climate for millions of years the temperature has gone up causing CO2 to go up not the other way around in fact im surprised that they are blaming CO2 especially as its not the most prevalent nor the most effective greenhouse gas and plays an important part in their being life on this planet...its quite shocking what lengths people would go to, to either sell things to or scare people on this planet..yes it might be the wettest june on record but the record goes back to what 17-1800's? also when i was a kid it sometimes snowed in december..hasnt for years but it might again
From http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13:
Quote:
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
(Emphasis mine.)
|
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.07.02 04:45:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Plim
The greenhouse effect is a proven fact.
No doubt. The question is how much effect human-released greenhouse gasses have on the climate compared to other sources of climate change. I don't feel the science is settled on this point.
Quote:
This argument being put out that it is all to increase taxes, or some such nonsense is utterly idiotic. Do you really think that the energy industry would be happy about having to reduce carbon emmisions? The same people who are in bed with the most powerful potlitical systems the world has ever seen?
The oil industry is in an interesting situation. They know the oil will run out eventually, and when that happens, they won't have any viable assets anymore. The land they sit on will be depreciated, since the oil is gone. The refineries won't have any oil to refine and might as well be scrap metal. Shale oil might save them, but people have been working on extracting it economically for years and show little promise of doing so in the foreseeable future.
So their in the position where they want to keep people using oil for now, but also know they'll have to move their business to something else eventually. Therefore, it's in their interest to deny human-created climate change, but also develop alternative energy sources.
|
| |
|