Global Warming... Bullshite!?!?!?!

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Exotic_D, May 29, 2003.

  1. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    Andre, as I said earlier - I am in your courner here. I do not believe that Global Warming is a phenomenon linked to human emissions. You don't have to push me around or throw around insults, particularly in a civilized intelligent discussion. However, what I want is for you to put this observation into a CONTEXT for the discussion, and explain why you disagree with what I said earlier.

    What bearing does this data have on the discussion of Global Warming? What conclusion does it bring you to? Please clear up your point. I think you are going somewhere, have a well thought-out idea, but the problem is I think you have explained it poorly.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    That's OK Andre - I have lots of respect for a concession and apology. It is rare particularly here on Sciforums, where humility seems particularly rare. We all let our emotions get in the way - no matter what you believe. We are all human. The point is you have learned the lesson: Be very careful how you let your emotions interfear with the subject. We are all guilty of this time to time, but if you do this too much your observations will be less likely to be accepted or even considered by others. It's a less I have learned the hard way.

    Back on subject:

    If Global Warming is a Solar System wide phenomenon, then how do we go about setting standards of proof for this idea? What are the effects of a more active sun, and how will we look for these effects? How will the other major and minor planets be effects?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NileQueen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    170
    Hi Xevious

    I think the reason Andre brought in Venus was that it supposedly has a runaway greenhouse effect, and therefore is a parallel to the greenhouse hype on planet earth. It's on topic in that respect. Venusian greenhouse hype B.S. No I don't think we are globally warming. KT is a big political money chute & power play. But humans should consider their impact on the environment, pollution and overfishing and so on.

    NQ

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    I can appriciate that. Yes, the "runaway greenhouse" effect we see on Venus is what happens when you have nothing but CO2 to play with. Yes, the Venus example is taken highly out of context to support the propaganda that we're all going to die by the year 2050. I guess after Global Cooling's prediction of a freezing Earth by the end of the 1970's fell on it's face, it was realized that a much longer deadline had to be set so the phenomenon could be less testable.
     
  8. Exotic_D Don't bother-Don't care Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    i am thrilled to see such active minds having a "real" discussion about this... however... you have lost me on the whole solar system discussion.. out of my realm of expertise... but on that note... i believe i have learned a few things... and am grateful for that... thanks for contributing but i have a question...

    do you think it's possible that we may be "speeding" up an already existing process? with all the toxic compounds we have carelessly introduced (and continue to do so) into our atmosphere, is this a totally unacceptable, totally unprovable or totally impossible hypothesis based on your understanding of our planet? or do you just not have a clue?

    D
     
  9. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    That's classic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    Perhaps so, but that's just my opinion... but it's a healthy one based on real events. As a second example, remember how much hype came with the supposed Y2K bug.... which actually caused no real issues. Supporters claim that this was because people took notice and adverted the distaster by upgrading their computers. Proponets state that nothing happened because their was nothing to happen - that Y2K was nothing more than a hype which brought tons of money into the computer industry.

    When in the last few years their has been a cooling trend, I've known several friends of mine who are global warming activists stand up and say that banning CFC's, regulating emissions car and factory emissions, ect. were the main causes of this cooling trend... yet the data at hand is very sketchy. Banning the production of CFC's has not taken out air conditioners which still use CFC's either. Yet despite this apparent short-term cooling effect, we still live in an Earth which does show signs of increased CO2 - our greeing and expanding forests being a very apparent example.

    In the end, Global Warming's predictions of doom and gloom are not entirely a scientifically testable hypothesis. If the predictions come true, then proponents of the idea will say that it was a correct assumption, while opponents may still be asking for the data which directly link human emissions with our changing climate. If the predictions do not come true, then the proponets will applaude themselves for stopping a world catastrophy and saving us all from a horrible end, while the opponets will still be waiting for proof that the phenomenon was ever of our doing.

    It is ironic that the prophecy of doom and gloom predicts events which would already may have been predicted, be it based on human phenomenon or not. At the time the idea of Global Warming was first concieved in the late 1800's, global temperatures were already increasing. The ice caps were already melting. From the end of the last Ice Age to present, global temperatures have risen 16 degrees F. Areas which humans once walked on like the land bridge between Russia and Alaska are now underwater, and have been long before we started burning coal and gasoline. The sea level has risen 300 feet from the end of the last Ice Age to present.

    Long before factories showed up, the sea levels were rising, and the ice caps have been melting. Global Warming as caused by human emissions furthermore does not make any predictions for the future which cannot be placed in any other context.
     
  11. Exotic_D Don't bother-Don't care Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    peace... outty...
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2003
  12. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    I am not convinced we can put a time-frame on the natural development of Global Warming. Their are too many factors involved. Firstly, I don't think we really have a complete idea of how much CO2 nature is already putting out, between the trees, the volcanic activity, underground coal fires, dried lakes turning over, ect.

    If you can't get an exact figure on how much CO2 the world is putting out, you don't have the first variable in the two part equasion. Next, you would have to figure out how much we humans are putting out, and add two and two. You can't add a variable with an integer and get a real whole number.
     
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,200
    Dam I did not know CO2 was combustible? So how much CO2 would the world need tell it “burst into flames”? Answer: what kind of stupid ass question is that!, CO2 does not burn it inhibits combustion in fact.

    CO2 is being produced and reabsorbed we want to know if more is being produce then absorded.
     
  14. and2000x Guest

    Well, you have to throw in some other factors. It is true that nature is mostly responsible for any form of global warming by quantity, but certain human conditions may speed up the process:

    1.) The cattle industry=high methane emissions.

    2.) Ozone hole- Despite the fact that the Ozone hole is almost healed, it has allowed more heat onto the planet than usual, which gets trapped by the gases.

    3.) The oil on water theory- brought up in another thread.
     
  15. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    I was thinking about Global Warming the other day and I realized that this whole time, the mechanism which really causes Global Warming has been staring us in the face this whole time. We have all treated the melting ice caps as a symptom of global warming. I think it is the single most significant cause of Global Warming. You might laugh at that, but I have a real argument to make:

    It is undesputed that WATER VAPOR is the single most influential Greenhouse Gas. Secondly, the polar ice caps have been melting since the end of the last Ice Age. As the ice caps melt, they put more free water into our biosphere. The more water that is available, the more water vapor we have. More water vapor in turns means more heat retention. This of course, will cause the ice caps to melt more, freeing up even more water to vaporize. I speculate the process is runaway and indeed, geologic history would seem to line up with this argument. It is RARE for our planet to have Ice Caps in the first place. So what happens? In the end, all of the water on this planet is made into free, liquid, running water. Once the ice caps are gone, the process stops because there is no longer any more free liquid water being introduced into our biosphere. Basically, the atmosphere reaches an equilibrium.

    This hypothesis would not only fit all of the same evidence presented for CO2 caused global warming, but it would make the same predictions, and yield the same results.

    Do I have an example of this as a workable idea? Yes.
    It is called Mars.
     
  16. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    On a more local scale, yes. However, this does not change the fact that more liquid water is now in play in our Biosphere overall. Eventually, that water will end up in a warmer area and get evaporated. Besides, when the ice caps finally do melt off there will not be a source of ice to keep the cooling mechanism you are discussing active. Same result. In addition, you cannot say with certanty that the enhanced greenhouse effect is termintated by colder oceans, but it seems far more likely that it would only be slowed.
     
  17. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    There is another problem however: Satilite data has shown that the temperatures in our atmosphere have not changed in well over 20 years... the atmosphere isn't warming, but only surface temperatures seem to be IF you accept the surface temperature data isn't faulty. (And it probably is).

    However, the underlying premice that melting ice caps means there is more liquid water in our biosphere and thus more water available to be vaporized has not been changed and can easily be confirmed or denied between determining how much the ice caps have melted in recent times, and checking out global rainfall totals. It is no secret that weather patterns are getting more extreme, but if the amount of rainfall reported globally has increased over the past few year then there is a stronger case to be made.
     
  18. Exotic_D Don't bother-Don't care Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    haha... you're a prick dude... just by me saying that, do i sound like a freakin scientist? of course not, so i don't know that CO2 is NOT combustible.. you could have just told me dickhead.. you could have attempted to edify me rather than ridicule me... i hope it happens to you someday, in a large circle of your "oh so intelligent" friends and you look like a total ass, the exact assness you attempted to project onto me...

    you know, when you laugh at people who are learning or who would LIKE to learn something, you stifle not only their ability to trust people (you're such a bloody typical human being wellcookednothingness) and to continue trying to better themselves and our human family...your intolerance of those who know less than you is a perfect indicator of what type of human being you are... your holier-than-thou attitude doesn't produce any other effect on this planet other than continuing to inflate your already massive ego...

    you could have perhaps enlightened me and shown me something where a bond of trust and respect could have been built... this is what i believed coming into this section of sciforums would help me do... but you've just proven my previous theory... scientists are devoid of real human emotional bonding capabilities... and are intolerant of those who do not think like them... you don't know me, but i love to learn, i loathe being laughed at unless it's in good fun (what makes you any better than me, you're human and therefore will be maggot food someday, just as i and the rest of us here will) and i abhor you're flippant attitude...

    leave it to an ostentatious sexually repressed scientist to take all the fun and joy out of sharing with my fellow human beings... no wonder i gave up hope on our species, with such camaraderie, how could i not... i'm out of here... good riddance...

    thanks for nothing jerk...

    peace

    D
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,200
    Jess man relax, I was just busting your balls.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    Woah, be lucky. She blessed you to touch them.
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,200
    Xevious,

    you mean I screwed up again?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I should have said instead: "Jess dudette relax, I was just busting your ovaries."?

    I'm sorry I just assume everyone know CO2 was the product of combustion and could not burn anymore. All the orbitals are full on the carbon, the only way you could get it to burn more is if you had a atmosphere of halogens like Cl or F, in such a case CO2+2Cl2 = CCl4 + O2 would (I guessing) be exothermic and spontaneous. huuuh you could also try extreme ionization such as CO3-2 but such a ion would not last long as it would be horrible unstable and react with N2 or O2 in the air forming O3 and NOx, it would also require huge amounts of energy. H2CO3 is stable though (in water) as it is what happens when H20+CO2. This is a common acid (very common biochemical acid) slight increase in H2CO2 in water would not produce noticeable increase in corrosion nor would it hurt bio-systems.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2003
  22. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    Relax, Wellcooked

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I was just pulling on your leg!
     
  23. ramirez Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Unlikely Saviours

    A decade ago I graduated with a degree in Environmental Science, ready to save the world. Since then, I've spent a reasonable amount of time being a corporate slut, studying marketing and what-not. 'Marketing' has come to mean significantly more than it used to, its about how a company continues to grow through staying on top of their product/s 'life cycles' (how purchasing of any item will initially grow, and then diminish over time). To look at it from the human perspective: how confident of your investment in a major oil company would you be right now? and how confident of delivering returns and continued growth would you be if you were on the board, or the Chief Executive Officer of one of these companies - bearing in mind you'll have a 40-year plan, and forecast of sales based on real information (not the info supplied to governments in order to gain subsidies) right in front of you. I think you'd be bricking it. Only, you wouldn't...
    Back in the '90s it was no secret that BP was buying up independent research projects into alternative fuel sources like kids picking out candies. It caused an amount of outcry among my peers, but you can be 100% assured that BP weren't binning them. Using their 'cash cows' of oil and its derivatives, such companies are continuing to fund research into their next major market moves. The life cycle of oil will have a pretty turbulent ending when it becomes scarce enough to massively inflate the market value. At which point, (most likely a few years before it) a big enough player, who has done their research and has plans to tackle the logistics, will roll out their ace card and do their damndest to sell it to us. And there will be a choice - not one alternative product, but many (mainly because of the incredible amount of differnet uses oil gets). The major oil companies have a lot to lose if they don't do something to maintain the cash flow, but I'm sure there will be others - a new market will open up to an increasingly desperate commercial and industrial world. Would Richard Branson pass up an opportunity like that? Would you? If you had the financial resource to launch and deliver such a thing? Nope. Couple that with the modern high-profile of environmentally conscious purchasing, of the regular column inches that environmental issues now get in the media, of increasing global and local awareness among populations of industrialised countries, and you're looking at the changes you seek. It wouldn't be the same if those concerned about the environment had kept quiet these last few decades. But given the rising tide of scientific evidence, and increasing stories of degredation and environemntal disaster, those voices were inevitable. So what else needs to be sorted out?
     

Share This Page