I watched 'an inconvienient truth' a few weeks ago, nd it showed how if you look at scientific jurnals, not one opposition paper to any of the currently held therories on global warning has been submitted
If you look at the media, it's liek a 50/50 split (if not in favour of opposed) in opinion and you'd think the issue is wide open
Quite scary really
Environmental debate
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
The whole "inconvinent truth" movie is pure unrefined bull***. There are at least a dozen of global warming theories - from the "natural cycles" theory to the ones pointing out that the 'global warming' might be a global freezing.
NONE of those are discussed publicaly though, cause it's easier to raise "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA GET FLOODED" scare, than to have a CLEAR scientific research. I don't know why the 'eco-craze' is always raised by men that know nothing about ecology, but are willing to "make the world a better place" by enforcing stupid policies on us.
NONE of those are discussed publicaly though, cause it's easier to raise "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA GET FLOODED" scare, than to have a CLEAR scientific research. I don't know why the 'eco-craze' is always raised by men that know nothing about ecology, but are willing to "make the world a better place" by enforcing stupid policies on us.
???
Wow, a bit harsh - you do realise that all the scares are raised by one side of the media or the other who then shoot themsevles down.
Anyway, if it's based on a theory it can't be bullshit, because it is equally likely as anything els,e and quite frankly some of the things said were pretty impressive and strike me as much better thought out arguments than the 'lalalalalllalalalla head in the sand it's all going to be fine' stuff I hear from other places
Wow, a bit harsh - you do realise that all the scares are raised by one side of the media or the other who then shoot themsevles down.
Anyway, if it's based on a theory it can't be bullshit, because it is equally likely as anything els,e and quite frankly some of the things said were pretty impressive and strike me as much better thought out arguments than the 'lalalalalllalalalla head in the sand it's all going to be fine' stuff I hear from other places
There are a lot of eco-lies floating about and global warming is probably one of the biggest lies that there are. Clearly it's based on "GLOBAL WARMING IS OUR FAULT" when it is not. Every time you fart, you spill out greenhouse gases. Active volcanos, spill out greenhouse gasses, animals also fart - greenhouse gasses, nature-caused forest fires - greenhouse gasses. On top of that. Why the hell after nearly 4500 years of polluting the enviroment (since the bronze age - the ammount of greenhouse gasses released due to smelting over those years could (or even exceed!) be comparable to the greenhouse gasses that were spewed into atmosphere since the industrial age), all the world got was a mini-ice age?
So do we really know what's going on with the climate?
Or we're just trying to raise a scare when it changes all by itself?
So do we really know what's going on with the climate?
Or we're just trying to raise a scare when it changes all by itself?
The two points from the Al Gore film were the ice pole sample readings, which showed the cycle nature of carbon for millenia, and the terrifying spike of the last few years on comparison
The second was the well known fact that when the aeroplanes were grounded during the whole world trade centre incident, then scientists took the liberaty of measuring carbon emissions witho
To compare what we as countries produce now to anythign we have produced since life crawled out of the slime is not comparable. Especialyl sicne the world needs CO2 and the greenhouse effect for life, heck, trees produce the damn stuff during the cold months and evenings as a regulation device of course
The fact that we are growing as a population of the world all increasing our footprint and with all the other developing countries joining in just like the worst examples of the west is scary.
I really dont see the problem in
Even if all this 'eco lies' turns out to be stupid, I see no reason why the human race as a whole shoulnd't learn some self restraint and actually regulate itself for fifty years as a great experiement and as a means of bloody well growing up to see if it does make a difference and to see if we can actually come up with sustainable energy and products. If we could easy do the technology and thigns warm up anyway, great, then we can burn off the limited fuels like oil and gas and go back to varbon emisssons as it does no good anyway.
Instead we seem to want o go 'hey, global warming is probably not an issue, not one i care about, i'm sure we will have all our pretty toys in a few generatiosn cause we'll work that stuff out on how to make it with alternate resources and energies, weeeeeeeeee', That seems an idiotic experiiment with no alternative if it's wrong. Oh, wait, global warming wasn't just lies. Ooops, ah well, too late now. Oh, we can't actually sustain our growing population and techonology dependant culture anymore> Oops, ah well.
Really, unless you have hard and fast proof that these things aren't possible, thenit is lunacy to not take theroies at face value and change our ways until they are disproven REally, if our cultures were doing truely worthwhile with the resources it is burning I could see a reason, but you know, not seen anything that inspires me and every two seconds I see or hear somethign that depresses the crap out of me.
The second was the well known fact that when the aeroplanes were grounded during the whole world trade centre incident, then scientists took the liberaty of measuring carbon emissions witho
To compare what we as countries produce now to anythign we have produced since life crawled out of the slime is not comparable. Especialyl sicne the world needs CO2 and the greenhouse effect for life, heck, trees produce the damn stuff during the cold months and evenings as a regulation device of course
The fact that we are growing as a population of the world all increasing our footprint and with all the other developing countries joining in just like the worst examples of the west is scary.
I really dont see the problem in
Even if all this 'eco lies' turns out to be stupid, I see no reason why the human race as a whole shoulnd't learn some self restraint and actually regulate itself for fifty years as a great experiement and as a means of bloody well growing up to see if it does make a difference and to see if we can actually come up with sustainable energy and products. If we could easy do the technology and thigns warm up anyway, great, then we can burn off the limited fuels like oil and gas and go back to varbon emisssons as it does no good anyway.
Instead we seem to want o go 'hey, global warming is probably not an issue, not one i care about, i'm sure we will have all our pretty toys in a few generatiosn cause we'll work that stuff out on how to make it with alternate resources and energies, weeeeeeeeee', That seems an idiotic experiiment with no alternative if it's wrong. Oh, wait, global warming wasn't just lies. Ooops, ah well, too late now. Oh, we can't actually sustain our growing population and techonology dependant culture anymore> Oops, ah well.
Really, unless you have hard and fast proof that these things aren't possible, thenit is lunacy to not take theroies at face value and change our ways until they are disproven REally, if our cultures were doing truely worthwhile with the resources it is burning I could see a reason, but you know, not seen anything that inspires me and every two seconds I see or hear somethign that depresses the crap out of me.
I don't consider Al Gore credible enough since he yaps about ecology while driving his gas-guzzler around.
Yes regulations should be in order, but, christ... MODERATION. It's easy to say "Ban all this, ban all that" rather than reviewing what's good and what's bad. You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs. Even with better and more efficent filters are being used in factories in the developed countries, ecologists on rampages over new factories being built. Why can't take a trip to China or India and protest there at the scandalous pollution regulations ( Dump stuff in the river, noone will notice ).
But I guess that's the western society disease - getting upitty about ourselves why we can't see that across our borders, there are worse things happening.
Recently EU banned mercury thermometers. Out of nowhere. So basic lab equipment was to be banned along with medical thermometers (that were considered obsolete anyway) and such. Instead of writting a suitable "make mercury-based thermometers available to the laboratories only", they banned them outright. I ask: why? We're trained technicans that know the dangers of mercury usage. We even use some in synthesis. So why the hell hinder our capablities with stupid laws? They all want progress but aren't willing to pay any cost of it. And yes. The cost of progress is a cold caluclation and we get to learn that in the middle of our studies on the chemistry department.
As for the global warming stuff again: From what I know there are two theories how it will affect us - either, it's gonna be hotter, desertfication, then nothing but more and more barren land. The second is: new (mini) ice-age, temperatures dropping rapidly etc.
I'm kind of lost myself on who to believe, but surely I don't believe caviar-socialists when they obviously don't know shit about ecology.
And don't worry Gambit. I'll give you the book names, when I visit my Uni's library soon (next week prolly). Sadly most of the knowledge, except the books came from my professors, but still I can ask them about more books like that.
Yes regulations should be in order, but, christ... MODERATION. It's easy to say "Ban all this, ban all that" rather than reviewing what's good and what's bad. You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs. Even with better and more efficent filters are being used in factories in the developed countries, ecologists on rampages over new factories being built. Why can't take a trip to China or India and protest there at the scandalous pollution regulations ( Dump stuff in the river, noone will notice ).
But I guess that's the western society disease - getting upitty about ourselves why we can't see that across our borders, there are worse things happening.
Recently EU banned mercury thermometers. Out of nowhere. So basic lab equipment was to be banned along with medical thermometers (that were considered obsolete anyway) and such. Instead of writting a suitable "make mercury-based thermometers available to the laboratories only", they banned them outright. I ask: why? We're trained technicans that know the dangers of mercury usage. We even use some in synthesis. So why the hell hinder our capablities with stupid laws? They all want progress but aren't willing to pay any cost of it. And yes. The cost of progress is a cold caluclation and we get to learn that in the middle of our studies on the chemistry department.
As for the global warming stuff again: From what I know there are two theories how it will affect us - either, it's gonna be hotter, desertfication, then nothing but more and more barren land. The second is: new (mini) ice-age, temperatures dropping rapidly etc.
I'm kind of lost myself on who to believe, but surely I don't believe caviar-socialists when they obviously don't know shit about ecology.
And don't worry Gambit. I'll give you the book names, when I visit my Uni's library soon (next week prolly). Sadly most of the knowledge, except the books came from my professors, but still I can ask them about more books like that.
Disposal. You polute the land with toxins or poison workers dealing with the landfill.We're trained technicans that know the dangers of mercury usage. We even use some in synthesis. So why the hell hinder our capablities with stupid laws?
Well, I hardly think we can point fingers and get anyone to stop anything if we aren't doing it ourselves. And basically every developing country is pushing for the model set by the west, which is stupid, losing culture and resources and adding to problems for no good reason.But I guess that's the western society disease - getting upitty about ourselves why we can't see that across our borders, there are worse things happening.
No. Mercury gets recycled and re-used after refination. Disposal is stricly forbidden by the current law. Every waste now is either re-processed or erradicated.Disposal. You polute the land with toxins or poison workers dealing with the landfill.
Fact of life is: Everyone's a hypocrite. I don't know why we have to criticize our way of living by day, only to eat at McDs by night. I think it's far worse than pointing out the problems other than us.Well, I hardly think we can point fingers and get anyone to stop anything if we aren't doing it ourselves. And basically every developing country is pushing for the model set by the west, which is stupid, losing culture and resources and adding to problems for no good reason.
-
Parallax
/mophus.png)
- DMwiki contributor
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:56 pm
- Location: Back in New Jersey
Here is a point for clarification about global warming:
The problem is not the amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere but where that carbon comes from. The problem is not that we are releasing CO2, but that we are burning coal, natural gas and oil which are stable, semi-permanent carbon sinks.
If a tree burns in the forest, the CO2 from that fire will be absorbed by the tree that will grow in its place, it's no big deal, and it all averages out in the end. On the other hand, if you burn all the carbon that's been stored up for four hundred million years you're going to end up with an atmosphere richer in CO2 than the Earth has seen in a billion years or more.
That is a problem.
Edit: At the same time, there is only enough oxygen to burn about 30 trillion (metric) tons of carbon before it's all exhausted. Burn simply 5 more trillion tons and the O2 concentration in the atmosphere will be low enough that we won't be able to breathe anymore. Better yet: unlike for carbon, there is no source of "fossile O2", so once it's gone, it's gone for good. The good news is, the blowhards who keep telling us that there is no such thing as global warming wil run out of breath, eventually. The bad news, so will the rest of us.
The problem is not the amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere but where that carbon comes from. The problem is not that we are releasing CO2, but that we are burning coal, natural gas and oil which are stable, semi-permanent carbon sinks.
If a tree burns in the forest, the CO2 from that fire will be absorbed by the tree that will grow in its place, it's no big deal, and it all averages out in the end. On the other hand, if you burn all the carbon that's been stored up for four hundred million years you're going to end up with an atmosphere richer in CO2 than the Earth has seen in a billion years or more.
That is a problem.
Edit: At the same time, there is only enough oxygen to burn about 30 trillion (metric) tons of carbon before it's all exhausted. Burn simply 5 more trillion tons and the O2 concentration in the atmosphere will be low enough that we won't be able to breathe anymore. Better yet: unlike for carbon, there is no source of "fossile O2", so once it's gone, it's gone for good. The good news is, the blowhards who keep telling us that there is no such thing as global warming wil run out of breath, eventually. The bad news, so will the rest of us.
I think we can both agree on: "PLANT MORE TREES" Anyway. Since CO2 is converatable by plant life, what should we do about those chemicals that aren't convertable to "chemicals in standard state" - C, O2, H2, N2 etc. like for example CH4, N2O, 2-SO4 etc.
That's what scientist are concentrationg on more than finding a way into reducing CO2 (nature offers the simplests and cleanest solution to this!). For example... N2O has proven such a tough cookie to break, that only pumping the gas through a plasma can break the bonds in the atoms and convert them to N2 and O2.
That's what scientist are concentrationg on more than finding a way into reducing CO2 (nature offers the simplests and cleanest solution to this!). For example... N2O has proven such a tough cookie to break, that only pumping the gas through a plasma can break the bonds in the atoms and convert them to N2 and O2.
Methane will become a huge problem once the Earth warms to a certain level. If it does. Current trends indeed show it to be warming up, on average, at a rate in excess of what can be expected within confidence intervals from natural processes alone. There is no way we can isolate the CO2 contribution as we can not hold all the other prcesses steady: indeed we don't even understand them all. But countless models, repeated time and time again improves accuracy of prediction, and it is that with this increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, we can expect a global increase in temperature to follow. One thing to realise with CO2 is that until a certain level, the effect may not be noticable ie the effect is not linear. We are approaching unprecedented levels of CO2. These have been encountered in the past, but we had different factors to consider that are not necessarily present at the minute. The Earth goes through many natural cycles as does the sun. The mini ice age was caused by (it seems) by a dimming of the sun at solar minimum and possibly volcanic activity which casues particels to reflect light in the atmosphere. So where does this leave methane? We have billions of tonnes of it stored in the Earths crust and ice which will be released when the Earth reaches a certain temperature. This could cause a runaway effect that cannot be halted. It may happen anyway eventually: we have to be aware that humans have accelerated this process some what.
We do owe a lot to global warming as without it the planet would be 20 degrees cooler. There is a difference in 'increased warming' and 'increased rate' of warming, and it is the latter which is causing the problems. Natural processes may have caused warming anyway: I firmly believe that humands have accelerated it.
We do owe a lot to global warming as without it the planet would be 20 degrees cooler. There is a difference in 'increased warming' and 'increased rate' of warming, and it is the latter which is causing the problems. Natural processes may have caused warming anyway: I firmly believe that humands have accelerated it.
Suule: After having read through this thread I think I can summarize your rambling to: "I don't like EU bureaucracy and I don't like changes in the world so I mix them up all together, blame others for not being able to proof their oppinion because they can't read the future all the while indefinitely delaying a reasonable answer to Gambit's request about the reliability of my own information. That will allow me to go on unreflected with a good conscience".
Parting is all we know from Heaven, and all we need of hell.
[As for the O2 pb, O2 is in significantly larger quantities than carbon forParallax wrote:Here is a point for clarification about global warming:
The problem is not the amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere but where that carbon comes from. The problem is not that we are releasing CO2, but that we are burning coal, natural gas and oil which are stable, semi-permanent carbon sinks.
combustion, we won't run out of O2 EVER unless some major nuclear havoc]
Parallax I mostly agree on that point, though there
are other facts that must be taken into account :
- Green House effect : the main problem is that it's happening
in ONE CENTURY. Any other climate change we can record (by
geochemistry mainly) has spanned over millenia or hundreds
of millenia. We don't know at all what are the dynamics of such
a change, and that's the point :
how will change climate in different regions
(some have been saying that Europe will get colder in the short term)
how will plants and other lifeforms reacts ?
what if pollinizing insects like bees (who are already dying) die massively ? etc.
Also I believe that "climate change", say, more rain, less snow,
higher temperatures and higher ocean level is something we might
be able cope with in a certain extent (not with major drawbacks).
I mean people live in Africa where it's hot, even if North becomes
hotter it won't be a big problem for humans in the short term.
The problem is for the rest of lifeforms...
- Ocean chemistry : Ocean are the main natural sink for CO2.
The problem is, once they saturate with CO2, they become slightly
more acid. It means they become improper for some useful lifeforms
like cyanobacteria and other microbian which produce a great deal
of the O2 from atmospheric and oceanic CO2. Acid oceans also host
bigger amounts of other bacteria, notably Anaerobic bacteria, that don't
need any O2 or CO2, and in fact live on synthesizing H2S out of biologic
and mineral materials. H2S is highly toxic to most evolved lifeforms,
(it's sulfuric acid)
- There are countless other consequences of the "footprint" of mankind
on Earth, like fishing, deforestation, agriculture (which is second and soon
first source of green house effect emission through methane and CO2)
because that's the first time in history there are so much vegetarian type
animals (cows...) and we spend so much energy in growing cereals, which
are two gas emitting activities.
[All of this can be read in Scientific American / french version Pour La Science, N343 - Scott Doney's article and N349 - Peter Ward 's article
They are both director of research in US labs of good reputation. PM me for more details.]
Suule I'm totally [outraged] [EDIT : This word was not appropriate, sorry. I just meant that I'm at the same astonished, somewhat perplexed and a bit (but just bit, I insist) shocked ] by your position. Some scientist have been since the 70s warning about the evolution of population, carbon dioxid etc. I can't believe there are still people to say : "I can't see the wall so let everyone run into it".
Last edited by Joramun on Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
What Is Your Quest ?
Well, we could test that theory with relative harmlessness as we could then arrest the additional pirates if the average tempoerature dropped. My worry is that testing the 'it's all good, shut up' theory is irreversable if it's proven to be very wrong.
Anyway, thanks Suule, that made me laugh!
And people, let's remember it's a debate, that means presenting evidence of your position so the other side can make up their mind, not necessarily singling out one person directly for their contrary view and forcing them to change it.
Do you have any english links Suule, most of the links I could find for your source are unfortunately polish
Anyway, thanks Suule, that made me laugh!
And people, let's remember it's a debate, that means presenting evidence of your position so the other side can make up their mind, not necessarily singling out one person directly for their contrary view and forcing them to change it.
Do you have any english links Suule, most of the links I could find for your source are unfortunately polish
Hehe... I'm glad you enjoyed this little joke. The discusson was getting out of hand and I wanted to cool it down a bit...
I think there's another book by the same author... he had a lecture about the "Ecolies..." in 2005 in Torun on an international conference concerning chemical industry and ecology. So I thought the book might've been translated... sadly I was wrong.
I've found another intriguing book by him...
"The True Story of DDT, PCB, and Dioxin"
ISBN: 83-905776-5-8
"This book attempts to unearth the facts about DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls, and dioxins, which are contrary to general beliefs as well as to official politics and therefore are never talked about in the media. The relevant facts are deeply buried among library shelves and are not readily accessible to the public. Their exposure may help to improve public understanding of hazards resulting from the prescence of DDT, PCB, and dioxins in the environment.
The environmentalists have accused DDT, PCB, and dioxin of all possible evils, from child paralysis to male infertility. The book contains a severe critique of such propaganda and shows that environmentalist scaremongering is based on very poor science. The distinctive feature of the book is that every word of critique is meticulously substantiated with references to original literature. This should make it harder for the environmentalists to disregard this book.
Contents:
* The Stockholm POP convention
* Ideological and historical background of the war against DDT
* The literature on POPs
* The triumph, the demise, and the return of DDT
* Enter PCBs and dioxins
* Definitions of DDTs, PCBs, and dioxins
* Degradation of DDT, PCB, and dioxins in the environment
* The persistence of DDTs, PCBs, and dioxins in the environment
* DDTs, PCBs, and dioxins in various environmental compartments
* Organochlorines in animal tissues
* Food chains and biomagnification
* DDTs, PCBs, and dioxins in human food
* DDTs, PCBs, and dioxins in human tissues
* Expressing the toxicity
* Toxicity to fish
* Toxicity to birds
* Toxicity to domestic and wild animals
* Organochlorines and human health
* Organochlorines and animal cancer
* Organochlorines and human cancer
* Health consequences of the Seveso accident
* TCDD and the Vietnam veterans
* Hormonal activity of organochlorines"
Looks quite interesting. I'll see if the library has a copy of it...
I think there's another book by the same author... he had a lecture about the "Ecolies..." in 2005 in Torun on an international conference concerning chemical industry and ecology. So I thought the book might've been translated... sadly I was wrong.
I've found another intriguing book by him...
"The True Story of DDT, PCB, and Dioxin"
ISBN: 83-905776-5-8
"This book attempts to unearth the facts about DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls, and dioxins, which are contrary to general beliefs as well as to official politics and therefore are never talked about in the media. The relevant facts are deeply buried among library shelves and are not readily accessible to the public. Their exposure may help to improve public understanding of hazards resulting from the prescence of DDT, PCB, and dioxins in the environment.
The environmentalists have accused DDT, PCB, and dioxin of all possible evils, from child paralysis to male infertility. The book contains a severe critique of such propaganda and shows that environmentalist scaremongering is based on very poor science. The distinctive feature of the book is that every word of critique is meticulously substantiated with references to original literature. This should make it harder for the environmentalists to disregard this book.
Contents:
* The Stockholm POP convention
* Ideological and historical background of the war against DDT
* The literature on POPs
* The triumph, the demise, and the return of DDT
* Enter PCBs and dioxins
* Definitions of DDTs, PCBs, and dioxins
* Degradation of DDT, PCB, and dioxins in the environment
* The persistence of DDTs, PCBs, and dioxins in the environment
* DDTs, PCBs, and dioxins in various environmental compartments
* Organochlorines in animal tissues
* Food chains and biomagnification
* DDTs, PCBs, and dioxins in human food
* DDTs, PCBs, and dioxins in human tissues
* Expressing the toxicity
* Toxicity to fish
* Toxicity to birds
* Toxicity to domestic and wild animals
* Organochlorines and human health
* Organochlorines and animal cancer
* Organochlorines and human cancer
* Health consequences of the Seveso accident
* TCDD and the Vietnam veterans
* Hormonal activity of organochlorines"
Looks quite interesting. I'll see if the library has a copy of it...
I'm sorry I appeared to flame. I retract the word "outraged", which wasn't useful and didn't explain my actual opinion. Dunno my english well enough to find the correct word, and I'm too lazy to catch a dictionnary.
I was making a long post where I detailed some of my args. but I lost it to a firefox crash (no kidding). I still don't see the link between PCBs, infertility issues and climate change, and even if I agree some, if not most, people use fallacious arguments and are scaremongers, I still believe some aspects of climate change are seriously supported by scientific evidence.
Less snow on some mountain is certainly not a proof of climate change, but the average CO2 rate in the atmosphere IS indeniably the result of human activity, and calculus and experiment agree on its heating effect on the atmosphere.
PS: I actually laughed at your pirate joke. I apply to the Strawhat's pirate crew if it is to reduce temperature.
I was making a long post where I detailed some of my args. but I lost it to a firefox crash (no kidding). I still don't see the link between PCBs, infertility issues and climate change, and even if I agree some, if not most, people use fallacious arguments and are scaremongers, I still believe some aspects of climate change are seriously supported by scientific evidence.
Less snow on some mountain is certainly not a proof of climate change, but the average CO2 rate in the atmosphere IS indeniably the result of human activity, and calculus and experiment agree on its heating effect on the atmosphere.
PS: I actually laughed at your pirate joke. I apply to the Strawhat's pirate crew if it is to reduce temperature.
What Is Your Quest ?
Well, many arguments here do not seem to be very rationale. I mean, it doesn't make much sense to say, "well we can't proof the anthropogenetic nature of global warming so be better continue to deforest and intoxicate our ecosystem until there is a perfect catastophy that proofs the point of those who, due according the information available to them, consider the probability of these effects to be real rather high and thus deem it to be wise to be a bit more cautious with what we do."
Parting is all we know from Heaven, and all we need of hell.
My father firmly believes there are no climate gases. According to him , the sun is doing all the crazy stuff to the earth ie it is to blame. He disagrees with the climate gas theories ( CO2 ) because of the # third thermodynamic "Rule": Energy cannot go from a cooler body to a warmer one.
Well, I cannot explain it very well. Just for telling some opposite view on the climate - change.
I do believe however that humans are having an effect on the climate . Interesting discussion, btw and interesting points. I will discuss that with him..
Well, I cannot explain it very well. Just for telling some opposite view on the climate - change.
I do believe however that humans are having an effect on the climate . Interesting discussion, btw and interesting points. I will discuss that with him..
Oddly enough... I've read an article about that... about sun activity <-> climate relations. You know, it does seem logical if you view it from a thermodynamical point of view. 1 degree in Kelvin scale IS a lot when it comes to bodies with masses that have at least 9 digits in a number.zoooom wrote:My father firmly believes there are no climate gases. According to him , the sun is doing all the crazy stuff to the earth ie it is to blame. He disagrees with the climate gas theories ( CO2 ) because of the # third thermodynamic "Rule": Energy cannot go from a cooler body to a warmer one.
Well, I cannot explain it very well. Just for telling some opposite view on the climate - change.
I do believe however that humans are having an effect on the climate . Interesting discussion, btw and interesting points. I will discuss that with him..
Now if I could dig up that magazine it was posted in. I could dig up the scientist name.
yeah, true. The whole debate gives me headaches sometimes.
You don't want to be oblivious to it ,but you can't really do sth...
I know too little about it to really go one way or the other, but as Gambit stated you need a reliable source. THis is not easy to come by .
I guess it is a rather complex problem- no one knows for sure .
But I believe 2500 scientists that did think about the matter a large portion of their lives are closer than my father!
What can be done .. ? Sometimes this issue lets me realize how fragile the whole live we lead right now is.
You don't want to be oblivious to it ,but you can't really do sth...
I know too little about it to really go one way or the other, but as Gambit stated you need a reliable source. THis is not easy to come by .
I guess it is a rather complex problem- no one knows for sure .
But I believe 2500 scientists that did think about the matter a large portion of their lives are closer than my father!
What can be done .. ? Sometimes this issue lets me realize how fragile the whole live we lead right now is.
It's not the gases that increase the temperature. It is in fact the sun which provide the energy, and a change in the sun light cycle -which is known only through two centuries of reliable observations, and several century of less reliable observation- would have much more effect. But we can't control the sun, can we ?
The green house gases (like CO2) have the property of reflecting infrared domain light. So what ? Well, the energy coming from the sun is dominantly in the visible domain, meaning it goes through the CO2 cover (ultraviolet are stopped by Ozone, and InfraRed - IR, are stopped by CO2, H2O (water) and CH4 (methane) ). It also means that IR coming from the sun do not reach the ground.
But once absorbed / reflected etc. by objects, mainly the ocean, clouds, ground and plants, most of the energy is mainly emitted in the IR domain. You can see that by studying body light emission law. The domain in which light is emitted grossly depend on the body temperature (and the body properties, especially important for gases) :
At sun surface temperature ( 6000 K ), light is mainly emitted in visible domain.
At common earth temperature ( 300 K ), it infrared light that is emitted.
So the problem is that most of the energy is "converted" from visible domain, which can escape because atmosphere is transparent to them, to infrared, which cannot completely escape because of green house gases effect.
With a total absence of green house gases (ie no atmosphere) the Earth would be significantly colder [I don't remember the number, but it is not very hard to calculate] say something about 270 K or less [below water freeze temperature]
So we can thank G-H gases for the warm weather. But too much will cause the Earth to heat to levels that have not existed since as far as the dinosaurs era (when CO2 was at higher levels, and temperature, too)
I'm no expert in chemistry or climate, but I study physics and I did those kind of calculus a few years ago, and they are not relying on any sort of "touchy" approximation.
The debate on climate is not really about temperature, because we know that if CO2 rate increases, temperature will inevitably increase, but more about what is causing the emission, how countering it, what are the other consequences besides temperature, etc.
[ You can "see" the domain of emission by heating metal : cold metal does not emit in visible light, only infrared, but if you heat it will become red, then blue, and then white as it is hotter. The sun is white, and would be blue or red or black if colder, like there are white/blue/red & brown stars etc.
This is theoretically described by Planck's "black body" light emission law ]
The green house gases (like CO2) have the property of reflecting infrared domain light. So what ? Well, the energy coming from the sun is dominantly in the visible domain, meaning it goes through the CO2 cover (ultraviolet are stopped by Ozone, and InfraRed - IR, are stopped by CO2, H2O (water) and CH4 (methane) ). It also means that IR coming from the sun do not reach the ground.
But once absorbed / reflected etc. by objects, mainly the ocean, clouds, ground and plants, most of the energy is mainly emitted in the IR domain. You can see that by studying body light emission law. The domain in which light is emitted grossly depend on the body temperature (and the body properties, especially important for gases) :
At sun surface temperature ( 6000 K ), light is mainly emitted in visible domain.
At common earth temperature ( 300 K ), it infrared light that is emitted.
So the problem is that most of the energy is "converted" from visible domain, which can escape because atmosphere is transparent to them, to infrared, which cannot completely escape because of green house gases effect.
With a total absence of green house gases (ie no atmosphere) the Earth would be significantly colder [I don't remember the number, but it is not very hard to calculate] say something about 270 K or less [below water freeze temperature]
So we can thank G-H gases for the warm weather. But too much will cause the Earth to heat to levels that have not existed since as far as the dinosaurs era (when CO2 was at higher levels, and temperature, too)
I'm no expert in chemistry or climate, but I study physics and I did those kind of calculus a few years ago, and they are not relying on any sort of "touchy" approximation.
The debate on climate is not really about temperature, because we know that if CO2 rate increases, temperature will inevitably increase, but more about what is causing the emission, how countering it, what are the other consequences besides temperature, etc.
[ You can "see" the domain of emission by heating metal : cold metal does not emit in visible light, only infrared, but if you heat it will become red, then blue, and then white as it is hotter. The sun is white, and would be blue or red or black if colder, like there are white/blue/red & brown stars etc.
This is theoretically described by Planck's "black body" light emission law ]
What Is Your Quest ?
Well, the point is that if everyone thinks that, then the cumulative effect of everyone doing nothing is pretty staggering, just like the cumulative effect of everyone doing somehting small and encouraging others to do the same.zoooom wrote:You don't want to be oblivious to it ,but you can't really do sth...
Obviously, if we don't the earth will still be here, life will still exist in many wonderful forms, we aren't that powerful as a race, we merely have the power to make sure our lifestyles drastically change for the worse, our comfortable living space shrink (when we need it to grow) and all in all just be able to shoot ourselves in the foot. And take a huge swipe at the ecology too so it will shift to somehtign different if we really push ourselves.
As has been pointed out, cosmic and natural forces are already lined up against us, and reallyt the resources we rely on are mostly not renewable. We should be at least intelligently living our lives to the future to know exactly what we should be doing, doing it and getting us hoverbikes and trips to mars dammit!