BF2S Forums global warming

Darth i have read your evidence and its a good arguement, nice of you to finally do so... However i see from all of your posts that you swallow everything that your government shows you, and you wont be swayed from that. So im not even going to debate with you.

Global warming IS increasing in quantity and speed due to our burning of fossil fuels.

Regardless of you opinion on global warning, I think we can't all agree that Kyoto does bugger all.

Actually, it went pretty well for Australia.  And the basis for allowing growth in China et al was good (that being, they have yet to industrialise).  The problem is, global warming (if it exists, as I believe) isn't going to wait for us to be fair.

even if you did encase the sun in a dyson sphere, when the sun goes red giant the sphere would be evaporated anyway, how every efficient the energy transformation was.

jimmanycricket wrote:

even if you did encase the sun in a dyson sphere, when the sun goes red giant the sphere would be evaporated anyway, how every efficient the energy transformation was.

Not if it was made from a heat resistant material of sufficient thickness.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The sun is one day going to obliterate our planet, and it will be all our faults for not containing it with a properly synergized Dyson sphere.

lol no its wouldnt be our fault as you well know, we arent causing the sun to explode, however we have made a hole in atmosphere, which lets in increased strengths of sun light thus burning the poles.

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

http://i4.tinypic.com/16jh3tf.jpg
There's no "consensus" on global warming.
Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong.

that takes me to some article talking about Alqiada or whatever there fucking name is.

Vilham wrote:

...However i see from all of your posts that you swallow everything that your government shows you, and you wont be swayed from that...Global warming IS increasing in quantity and speed due to our burning of fossil fuels.

Vilham, I am quite unsure how you can possibly deduce from my previous posts on the topic as 'swallowing everything the government shows me'. None of the data presented comes from the government. I do have to question where you get your opinion though. It appears from the level of your understanding of the subject, that you get it from the extensive perusal of newspapers and supermarket tabloids and it is YOU who won't be swayed from your facile perspective. I have little doubt that if you had lived during the middle ages, you would have been included in those 'informed' people who believed in the Geo-centric universe model.

Now, as we are all in awe of your mighty scientific knowledge, please expound on the following statement and inform the rest of the readership here in the forum just how this works and its relationship to 'Global Warming'.

Vilham wrote:

lol no its wouldn't be our fault as you well know, we arent causing the sun to explode, however we have made a hole in atmosphere, which lets in increased strengths of sun light thus burning the poles.

'Hole in atmosphere', 'increased strengths', 'burning the poles'? Please enlighten us, Vilham. Tell us how this hole (singular) is burning both poles. Please explain how the poor penguins are able to breathe with a 'hole in atmosphere'. Explain with your 'non-governmental' gained insight the nature of the 'increased strengths' and just how they are 'burning the poles'. We are waiting.

Darth the cheeky, are you now trying to claim that thinned ozonosphere in BOTH poles doesn't harm us? And by showing that penguins can breathe there? How about uv radiations relationship between cancer for example? Maybe you should start taking medication that was tested on penquins, if you believe them can be so easily copared to humans.

You can't be that stupid, so do you assume everyone else here is?

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Vilham wrote:

...However i see from all of your posts that you swallow everything that your government shows you, and you wont be swayed from that...Global warming IS increasing in quantity and speed due to our burning of fossil fuels.

Vilham, I am quite unsure how you can possibly deduce from my previous posts on the topic as 'swallowing everything the government shows me'. None of the data presented comes from the government. I do have to question where you get your opinion though. It appears from the level of your understanding of the subject, that you get it from the extensive perusal of newspapers and supermarket tabloids and it is YOU who won't be swayed from your facile perspective. I have little doubt that if you had lived during the middle ages, you would have been included in those 'informed' people who believed in the Geo-centric universe model.

Now, as we are all in awe of your mighty scientific knowledge, please expound on the following statement and inform the rest of the readership here in the forum just how this works and its relationship to 'Global Warming'.

Vilham wrote:

lol no its wouldn't be our fault as you well know, we arent causing the sun to explode, however we have made a hole in atmosphere, which lets in increased strengths of sun light thus burning the poles.

'Hole in atmosphere', 'increased strengths', 'burning the poles'? Please enlighten us, Vilham. Tell us how this hole (singular) is burning both poles. Please explain how the poor penguins are able to breathe with a 'hole in atmosphere'. Explain with your 'non-governmental' gained insight the nature of the 'increased strengths' and just how they are 'burning the poles'. We are waiting.

O Sorry i put an S on the end of pole. Are you now also claiming that the O3 molecules in the atmosphere arent been changed to O2 by greenhouse gases thus reducing the protection from UV rays at the sun thus causing increased energy in the H2O molecules thus melting them and causing water levels to rise??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone BAM!

The reason i wrote the top part is because what you are saying is exactly what american political scientists are saying thus justifying the fact that america isnt reducing its carbon emmission on the same scale as the rest of the world. The sheer fact that you refuse to accept that we are causing increases in carbon emmission thus themeratures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect) shows you as a nutta.

Vilham wrote:

O Sorry i put an S on the end of pole. Are you now also claiming that the O3 molecules in the atmosphere arent been changed to O2 by greenhouse gases thus reducing the protection from UV rays at the sun thus causing increased energy in the H2O molecules thus melting them and causing water levels to rise??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone BAM!

No, I am not claiming that at all. I have no idea how you read that into what I did write. I acknowledge the correlation between some greenhouse gasses, primarily CFC's and the breakdown of O3. I was waiting for something a little more cogent from you after reading that inane post that you wrote. Now your claim that increased UV is causing global warming is very tenuous at best, ridiculous at worst. I saw nowhere in your Ozone article any link between Ozone depletion and global warming. Maybe you should read up a little on UV radiation. You may even refer to Wiki on this. You will note that there is no mention of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVB
Why is this? I'll tell you, it is because you are very confused about the mechanics of electromagnetic radiation and heat transfer.

A mini-lesson in basic electromagnetic physics:


Infrared.
The term "infrared" refers to a broad range of frequencies, beginning at the top end of those frequencies used for communication and extending up the the low frequency (red) end of the visible spectrum. The wavelength range is from about 1 millimeter down to 750 nm. The range adjacent to the visible spectrum is called the "near infrared" and the longer wavelength part is called "far infrared". In interactions with matter, infrared primarily acts to set molecules into vibration. It is molecular vibration that is detected as heat.

Visible Light.
The narrow visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum corresponds to the wavelengths near the maximum of the Sun's radiation curve. In interactions with matter, visible light primarily acts to set elevate electrons to higher energy levels. The primary mechanism for the absorption of visible light photons is the elevation of electrons to higher energy levels. There are many available states, so visible light is absorbed strongly. With a strong light source, red light can be transmitted through the hand or a fold of skin, showing that the red end of the spectrum is not absorbed as strongly as the violet end. While exposure to visible light causes heating, it does not cause ionization with its risks. You may be heated by the sun through a car windshield, but you will not be sunburned - that is an effect of the higher frequency UV part of sunlight which is blocked by the glass of the windshield.

Ultraviolet (UV).
The region just below the visible in wavelength is called the near ultraviolet. It is absorbed very strongly by most solid substances, and even absorbed appreciably by air. The shorter wavelengths reach the ionization energy for many molecules, so the far ultraviolet has some of the dangers attendant to other ionizing radiation. The tissue effects of ultraviolet include sunburn, but can have some therapeutic effects as well. The sun is a strong source of ultraviolet radiation, but atmospheric absorption eliminates most of the shorter wavelengths. The eyes are quite susceptible to damage from ultraviolet radiation. Welders must wear protective eye shields because of the UV content of welding arcs can inflame the eyes. Snow-blindness is another example of UV inflammation; the snow reflects UV while most other substances absorb it strongly.

I want you think of a cloudy day at the beach or on a sunny ski slope where the temperatures seem cool, yet later you notice that you have developed a nasty sunburn. UV is not a significant contributor to 'global warming', it poses a health threat of a completely different nature.

Vilham wrote:

The reason i wrote the top part is because what you are saying is exactly what american political scientists are saying thus justifying the fact that america isnt reducing its carbon emmission on the same scale as the rest of the world. The sheer fact that you refuse to accept that we are causing increases in carbon emmission thus themeratures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect) shows you as a nutta.

Your presenting of one Wikipedia article supporting your view hardly constitutes me being a 'nutta', Vilham,  it does however illustrate your limited understanding of the topic. I do not dispute that we are contributing to CO2 emissions, that was noted in the chart, it is just very minor at .28% of the total.

wiki is not>or=fact