Global Warming: The Greatest Hoax in the History of Science

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by madanthonywayne, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Our skin is not a space suit which is why we use an actual space suit to control our environment in space.

    Without a space suit your body would expand painfully to about twice its normal size and the side in the dark would slowly freeze and the side in the sun would quickly get burned from the solar radiation, and even though you provide O2 via a nasal canula, the low partial pressure that would be achivable in a vacuum would prevent your plasma from absorbing sufficient O2for you to stay alive.

    Within just a few minutes in the vacuum of space you would be dead.

    Joseph, this thread is about Global Warming. Please quit posting about other subjects in this thread.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Interesting. I revived this thread, and almost no one actually commented on the two posts I made. Somehow the conversation has ended up on space travel or something.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789

    I am convinced that the changes are not catastrophic, as it says.
    http://nationalgeographic-green sahara
    adoucette posted this link and I remember it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Emil,
    Maybe a better way to think of Climate Change, which currently is towards a slightly warmer world, is that its effects will vary depending on where you live.
    Its effects won't be negative for everyone, nor positive for everyone.

    So while those in and around the Sahara might benefit from increased rain, those in other places may suffer from too much rain, as indeed a warmer world is likely to be a wetter world, but that's an average, some places will also dry out.
    A warmer wetter world, with higher levels of CO2 looks to be a slightly more productive world from a plant perspective, indeed the Net Primary Productivity of the planet has increased at about 3% per decade for the last two decades, but we really can't extrapolate that out as something that will necessarily continue, as other limiting factors such as nitrogen levels are likely to eventually slow this increase.
    Warming of the higher latitudes, an effect predicted to be enhanced in a warming world, could provide benefits to transportation, mineral exploration, even growing significantly more crops in what is now marginal land, but at the same time it could have severe negative impacts on existing northern forests, affect ranges of permafrost that communites depend upon, even to the extent of releasing large quantities of methane.
    A warmer world will move the glacier line upward, which will alter the melt season, in the short run this will have little impact since there is so much ice stored in the existing glaciers and it is replenished each season, but eventually the communities downstream will be negatively affected.
    A warmer world will see the ongoing rise in the oceans continue till it causes problems in the very low lying areas of the world. This is a long term problem, but then about half the people of the world live within about 50 miles of the Ocean, so over time we will have to devote quite a bit of resources to keeping the ocean back or relocation.
    In any case, this isn't meant to be an exhaustive look at the issue of the possible outcomes of climatic change, just some examples to show that the effects are global in nature and can have significantly different effects depending on where you live.

    Arthur
     
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    More of your ignorant trolling, I see.

    The first living organisms were not oxygen breathers. Anaerobic bacteria, the early types of algae, fungus... none of those primitive lifeforms require oxygen. In fact, it was plants that seeded the atmosphere with oxygen, through photosynthesis, a word that you probably can't even spell or pronounce. Look it up. Plants extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (or dissolved in the water, in the case of aquatic plants), and separate it into carbon, which they use to build more tissue, and oxygen, which they respire back into the atmosphere (or water).

    After a few eons of plants ruling the planet, eventually the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere was high enough that organisms were able to evolve that could take advantage of it: the first animals.

    Please get your facts straight or stay off of this forum. We're all getting really sick of having to follow you around and clean up your lies.
     
  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    It's difficult to believe the planet wouldn't be warming from anthropogenic sources. We have tens of thousands of cities across the globe, each producing massive heat burdens like a ring of new volcanos. Why would we think our climate would be impervious to this?
     
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Scale.

    Our energy use is infinitesimal compared to our intake of daily solar radiation.

    We can't possibly heat the globe based on our energy output.

    We can affect it by dumping 8 gigatons per year of carbon into the atmosphere however.

    Arthur
     

Share This Page