BF2S Forums global warming

Canin wrote:

Oh yeah, and since I am about to be flamed. Did you also know that with the reduction of CFC's the ozone has slowly increased. But at the same time with increased use of HCFC's or HFC's that are used in the CFC's place, there has also been an increase in global warming. Take your pick, because apparently unless we all go back to living in caves and hunting with rocks, we will destroy the earth.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-02 19:25:25)

sergeriver wrote:

Yesterday we had 43º down here, not a normal temperature if you ask me.

King_County_Downy wrote:

I've been trying to explain that to people for years. Solar Maximum, solar minimum. 12 year cycle. It's all explained very clearly. We should be starting to cool back down now after the solar max a few years ago.

The more Co2 we produce, the faster plants will grow and give off oxygen in return. meh

Kmarion wrote:

That is the normal cycle yes. But the whole point of this is that we have caused an unbalance.

The Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that moves massive amounts of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere. The oceans and land vegetation release and absorb over 200 billion metric tons of carbon into and out of the atmosphere each year. When the cycle is balanced, atmospheric levels of CO2 remain relatively stable. Human activities are now adding about 7 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year,which is only about 3–4% of the amount exchanged naturally. But that’s enough to knock the system out of balance, surpassing nature’s ability to take our CO2 emissions out of the atmosphere. The oceans and land vegetation are absorbing about half of our emissions; the other half remains airborne for 100 years or longer. This is what is causing the rapid buildup of CO2, a buildup that dwarfs natural fluctuations.
(Per National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration)

Kmarion wrote:

PS: 2005 was the warmest year ever since we have had accurate equipment to do so. 2006 results have not came out yet.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

See, the thread is titled wrong.  Pretty much everyone here agrees that the globe is warming right?  I mean the science is pretty solid on that.

The thing people seem to debate is whether or not industrialization and humans in general are having any significant impact on the warming of the Earth.  People seem to fear that we (humans) may cause too much destruction to the Earth through pollutants.

Personally, I think that humans are causing damage to the Earth, but to what extent remains to be seen.  Definitely it would be great for the planet if every person was as self-sustaining as possible, and we could use strictly renewable resources.  The problems I have stem from corporate interests exerting pressure on governmental agencies to roll back environmental protections and fund studies stating that rocket fuel in aquifers is of no concern.

ReDevilJR wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

My english teacher is making us watch that video. (Flaming liberal who i have global warming arguments about) Two things i have a problem with, one, are you saying that the Co2 level is in direct proportion with temperature? Second, How could Co2 levels be that high, and the oxygen level hasn't changed? What I'm trying to say is, is that how can Co2 levels increase that dramatically and have the oxygen level not change?

First off let me say Al Gore is not exactly a hero of mine neither. As for your other comment, am I to understand that you do not believe we have had a rise in CO2 levels? And yes CO2 has a direct proportion, CO2 traps the UV rays in that are normally deflected back out. Show me 1 scientist that disagrees with this and I'll show you 100 that agree. Everywhere you look we are already seeing the effects (Greenland, Siberia, the Arctic).Yet since it doesn't fit with our current way of life we have these fake ideas planted in our minds to try and combat what the ENTIRE scientific community is saying.

You really don't see a nasty trend here?

http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/120622585-L.png

http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/120622610-L.png

http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/120622624-L.png

http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/120622628-L.png

Okay, i see where you're going with this. I wanted to confirm that you said that you believe there is a direct trend. But Al Gore (i know you don't think highly of him either) Showed out Co2 to rise to that high extent, now if they were in proportion, why doesn't he show the projected temperature increase with in proportion to the Co2? Because, it's not in direct proportion there's no way our temperature could be that high with the Co2 in his chart, meaning it's not going to go with the Co2 on his graph, he misleads you to make your own prediction...

If supposedly the ozone layer is thickening from Co2, wouldn't it make it more difficult for light energy to be transferred into our planet? I mean, if it's thickening, it's gotta be more difficult for more light rays to be contracted into our climate.

The Scientists you are referring to are being payed the big bucks to prove their point, to make the public fear and believe Global Warming is caused by us.

Why can we only track back 650,000 years ago? It is my oppinion that the polar caps were created at that time.

cospengle wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

Okay, i see where you're going with this. I wanted to confirm that you said that you believe there is a direct trend. But Al Gore (i know you don't think highly of him either) Showed out Co2 to rise to that high extent, now if they were in proportion, why doesn't he show the projected temperature increase with in proportion to the Co2? Because, it's not in direct proportion there's no way our temperature could be that high with the Co2 in his chart, meaning it's not going to go with the Co2 on his graph, he misleads you to make your own prediction...

As I said before, I haven't seen Al Gore's film, but why is there no way the temperature cannot increase to ANY level?

Sorcerer0513 wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

If supposedly the ozone layer is thickening from Co2, wouldn't it make it more difficult for light energy to be transferred into our planet? I mean, if it's thickening, it's gotta be more difficult for more light rays to be contracted into our climate.

It wouldn't because it isn't. CO₂ doesn't thicken the ozone layer as far as I know, because ozone is 0₃ not CO₂. And ozone is formed from O₂. Check Wiki.

ReDevilJR wrote:

cospengle wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

Okay, i see where you're going with this. I wanted to confirm that you said that you believe there is a direct trend. But Al Gore (i know you don't think highly of him either) Showed out Co2 to rise to that high extent, now if they were in proportion, why doesn't he show the projected temperature increase with in proportion to the Co2? Because, it's not in direct proportion there's no way our temperature could be that high with the Co2 in his chart, meaning it's not going to go with the Co2 on his graph, he misleads you to make your own prediction...

As I said before, I haven't seen Al Gore's film, but why is there no way the temperature cannot increase to ANY level?

All i'm trying to say, is how can it be in proportion to what he said, the part of the movie you posted first, he shows you the projected Co2 level, but he makes it up to you to figure out what the temperature is.