Pages: 1 … 20 21 22 23

 

Poll

is global warming a real threat

yes71%71% - 337
no28%28% - 135
Total: 472
2007-01-02 20:03:01
Sorcerer0513
Member
+18|6743|Outer Space

Canin wrote:

Plankton absorbs more CO2 than the forests, melting ice due to global warming means more water in the ocean which means more plankton, which means less CO2, which in turn means refreezing of the ice, thus ending global warming.
Tell me, you think that is all that plankton needs? Water? If that was it, scientists wouldn't theorize about "seeding" the oceans with iron to cause blooms of phytoplankton.

Like I said, I don't know much about these matters(only what I remember from school), but I would assume that it needs SOMETHING to survive besides water(iron in above example), so your theory might not work.

P.S. Gunslinger, LOL at that site, good reply .
2007-01-02 20:03:40
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6676|Foothills of S. Carolina

Ok, that being said, Kmarion, then they should also know the increase of CO2 and GHG emitted by natural means over that same amount of time. What I am getting to is that 650k years ago humans did not contribute to the degradation of the atmosphere at the rate they supposedly are now. Correct, we have the internal combustion engine, burning fossil fuels and numerous other ways of generating GHG. The problem I see is that this isn't the first time, and probably not the last, that the earth has warmed, ice caps have melted, ocean levels have risen, .....well you get my point, I hope. All this has happened before, according to the same scientists. If so, how much are we really contributing to it?
2007-01-02 20:12:05
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6802|132 and Bush

Canin wrote:

. If so, how much are we really contributing to it?
More and more each day. It's not something that is going to kill us in a week. It is also not something that is going to be stopped immediately. Everything you mentioned happens naturally, but we are pushing the natural course further and faster every year. This is not something we need to encourage. We have the abilty now to do something about it. We rely on old technology to function as a society, economics being the only thing standing in the way. Unfortunately humans sometimes need a sudden jolt to do something about serious issues. I can think of examples but I don't want to derail this topic.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-02 20:12:32)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-02 20:14:25
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6676|Foothills of S. Carolina

Well, I would be interested in hearing them and have enjoyed the debate with you. Some others not so much.
2007-01-02 20:22:59
cospengle
Member
+140|6688|Armidale, NSW, Australia

Sorcerer0513 wrote:

This just reminded me of something. Did it occur to anyone that it's not only our pollution that matters here. Did anyone of you think about the shrinking rainforest? Lungs of the earth anyone?

So not only are we increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, we are also reducing the planets ability to absorb it at the same time. I won't even go into what pollution does to plankton. And if I am not mistaken, plankton absorbs even more CO2 than the rainforest.

Opinions?
Yeah, my opinion is I agree with you 100%, except that I'm not sure if plankton absorbs more CO2 than land based vegetation. But I know it does absorb a significant amount.

To reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we can either reduce the amount that goes in, or increase the amount that goes out, or both. Neither is happening at the moment.
2007-01-02 20:28:41
cospengle
Member
+140|6688|Armidale, NSW, Australia

Canin wrote:

.....well you get my point, I hope. All this has happened before, according to the same scientists. If so, how much are we really contributing to it?
No. All this has not happened before. CO2 is now at unprecedented levels.

Edit: Well, unprecedented since mammals have been on earth. That is to say, we don't know how hot the earth can get before we are cactus.

Last edited by cospengle (2007-01-02 20:31:11)

2007-01-02 20:36:08
Sorcerer0513
Member
+18|6743|Outer Space

cospengle wrote:

Yeah, my opinion is I agree with you 100%, except that I'm not sure if plankton absorbs more CO2 than land based vegetation. But I know it does absorb a significant amount.

To reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we can either reduce the amount that goes in, or increase the amount that goes out, or both. Neither is happening at the moment.
Canin is correct here I believe, and it is kind of logical, if you compare the size of the landmasses with the size of the oceans(they cover approximately 71% of the earth according to wiki).
2007-01-02 20:58:11
cospengle
Member
+140|6688|Armidale, NSW, Australia
But do plankton represent the same biomass per area as terrestrial plants?
2007-01-02 21:27:21
Sorcerer0513
Member
+18|6743|Outer Space

cospengle wrote:

But do plankton represent the same biomass per area as terrestrial plants?
Like I said, I am no expert on this and for accurate data you really should check research data from reputable research institutes. But in my opinion, you shouldn't use biomass per area, but biomass per volume.

While that is not that important for terrestrial plants, seeing a plant can only grow so high, it is important for plankton. Wikipedia says that abundance of plankton varies horizontally and vertically, and if you look at the total VOLUME of the oceans, I think you will agree that plankton has a rather larger volume to grow in than the terrestrial plants(admittedly it is not as big as it could be as phytoplankton still needs light for photosynthesis and that is somewhat lacking in the depths of oceans).

So I think it is quite possible, but like I said, I haven't looked at this stuff since my schooldays and I don't know for sure. My reasoning could be total bullshit, and if it is I would appreciate if somone disillusioned me .
2007-01-02 21:44:16
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6607|North Carolina
The title "an inconvenient truth" is really too appropriate here...  People believe whatever is convenient to their worldviews.  They'd rather disregard research than change their views, and because of that, humans will continue to be their own worst enemies.

I'll say it again...  maybe global warming isn't such a bad thing if it rids the world of a species that can be so loathsome.
2007-01-02 21:51:09
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6845

Turquoise wrote:

The title "an inconvenient truth" is really too appropriate here...  People believe whatever is convenient to their worldviews.  They'd rather disregard research than change their views, and because of that, humans will continue to be their own worst enemies.

I'll say it again...  maybe global warming isn't such a bad thing if it rids the world of a species that can be so loathsome.
you dirty jew hating misanthrope.....j/k
2007-01-02 22:31:09
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7030

Kmarion wrote:

cospengle wrote:

Can anyone tell me what's so hard to understand about this?

For the past 650,000 years the global average temperature has correlated (not linearly) with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

We (humans) are causing an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The concentration of CO2 is now much higher than it has ever been in the last 650,000 years.

Therefore the earth is getting hotter than it ever has in the last 650,000 years, and this is caused by us.
In all honesty I can't really blame the skeptics. There has been a concentrated effort to raise doubt by those who stand to lose much with a policy change. This is why there are only two countries who have not adopted Kyoto Protocol. (And the US wonders why they can't sell their cars overseas)

http://i18.tinypic.com/2mhfukh.png
One reason we won't sign it is because China would be exempt. China is the #2 emitter of CO2.
2007-01-02 23:10:47
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6802|132 and Bush

CC-Marley wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

cospengle wrote:

Can anyone tell me what's so hard to understand about this?

For the past 650,000 years the global average temperature has correlated (not linearly) with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

We (humans) are causing an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The concentration of CO2 is now much higher than it has ever been in the last 650,000 years.

Therefore the earth is getting hotter than it ever has in the last 650,000 years, and this is caused by us.
In all honesty I can't really blame the skeptics. There has been a concentrated effort to raise doubt by those who stand to lose much with a policy change. This is why there are only two countries who have not adopted Kyoto Protocol. (And the US wonders why they can't sell their cars overseas)

http://i18.tinypic.com/2mhfukh.png
One reason we won't sign it is because China would be exempt. China is the #2 emitter of CO2.
How so, China signed?

This is the real reason

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[40] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[41] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-02 23:18:41)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-02 23:27:51
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7030

Kmarion wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

In all honesty I can't really blame the skeptics. There has been a concentrated effort to raise doubt by those who stand to lose much with a policy change. This is why there are only two countries who have not adopted Kyoto Protocol. (And the US wonders why they can't sell their cars overseas)

http://i18.tinypic.com/2mhfukh.png
One reason we won't sign it is because China would be exempt. China is the #2 emitter of CO2.
How so, China signed?

This is the real reason

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[40] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[41] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
Yes they did. Did you read any of it? China as well as India are exempt from the restrictions. And Germany's coal industry is exempt as well. Sounds like a great Protocol.

Last edited by CC-Marley (2007-01-02 23:32:29)

2007-01-02 23:29:51
cospengle
Member
+140|6688|Armidale, NSW, Australia

Sorcerer0513 wrote:

cospengle wrote:

But do plankton represent the same biomass per area as terrestrial plants?
Like I said, I am no expert on this and for accurate data you really should check research data from reputable research institutes. But in my opinion, you shouldn't use biomass per area, but biomass per volume.

While that is not that important for terrestrial plants, seeing a plant can only grow so high, it is important for plankton. Wikipedia says that abundance of plankton varies horizontally and vertically, and if you look at the total VOLUME of the oceans, I think you will agree that plankton has a rather larger volume to grow in than the terrestrial plants(admittedly it is not as big as it could be as phytoplankton still needs light for photosynthesis and that is somewhat lacking in the depths of oceans).

So I think it is quite possible, but like I said, I haven't looked at this stuff since my schooldays and I don't know for sure. My reasoning could be total bullshit, and if it is I would appreciate if somone disillusioned me .
As you say, plants only grow so high. But phytoplankton only grow so deep, and although plankton contain the largest ACTIVE pool of carbon on the planet (wiki), they do not have the same ability to store large amounts of metabolically inactive carbon such as is found in the woody parts and roots of plants.

Anyway, it's an interesting point because if the ice caps do melt, the oceans will become even more important. We might see all of the middle of Australia become a sea.

Last edited by cospengle (2007-01-02 23:30:46)

2007-01-02 23:31:12
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6802|132 and Bush

CC-Marley wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

One reason we won't sign it is because China would be exempt. China is the #2 emitter of CO2.
How so, China signed?

This is the real reason

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[40] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[41] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
Yes they did. Did you read any of it? China as well as India are exempt from the restrictions.
I did, nowhere have I seen an exemption of China. Maybe I missed it.

EDIT:Found it.. I had to edit/find this page/ and put exempt in there.
Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98) is the specifics that prevent us from signing, but yes it is because they are exempt. Didnt the US help draft the protocol though? That is where I am confused.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-02 23:37:45)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-02 23:35:40
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7030
So can we agree that the USA and the Aussies have good reasons for not putting the official stamp on it.
2007-01-02 23:41:25
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6802|132 and Bush

CC-Marley wrote:

So can we agree that the USA and the Aussies have good reasons for not putting the official stamp on it.
Indeed. That is not to say we should not be taking measure. Everyone needs to be held to the same standards though.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-02 23:42:49
jax
Member
+12|6969
um dude i live in new zealand and there have been iceburgs that have broken of and floated half the way up the south island (this has never even come close to happening before) so obviously something is warming up
2007-01-02 23:45:11
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6802|132 and Bush

jax wrote:

um dude i live in new zealand and there have been iceburgs that have broken of and floated half the way up the south island (this has never even come close to happening before) so obviously something is warming up
Who are you addressing?

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-02 23:45:23)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-02 23:45:34
cospengle
Member
+140|6688|Armidale, NSW, Australia
I don't think everyone needs to be held to the same standards, different countries rely on different industries for their livelihood, and they also export the produce from those industries to the rest of the world. Some industries are, by their nature, less greenhouse friendly. But that's not to say we should all be doing better.
2007-01-02 23:47:00
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6802|132 and Bush

cospengle wrote:

I don't think everyone needs to be held to the same standards, different countries rely on different industries for their livelihood, and they also export the produce from those industries to the rest of the world. Some industries are, by their nature, less greenhouse friendly. But that's not to say we should all be doing better.
So long as we all live on the same planet, and have to deal with the same consequences, no one should be exempt.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-02 23:47:13
jax
Member
+12|6969

Kmarion wrote:

jax wrote:

um dude i live in new zealand and there have been iceburgs that have broken of and floated half the way up the south island (this has never even come close to happening before) so obviously something is warming up
Who are you addressing?
oh soz the writer of the post saying that the polar caps are gettin cooler
2007-01-02 23:47:43
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7030

Kmarion wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

So can we agree that the USA and the Aussies have good reasons for not putting the official stamp on it.
Indeed. That is not to say we should not be taking measure. Everyone needs to be held to the same standards though.
what about the U.S. sponsored Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.
2007-02-09 09:37:08
Neoburn_1035
Medic!!!!!!!
+27|7030|OP, KS
Check this out. NY to get 100 inches of globally-warmed snow

CNN.com

Last edited by Neoburn_1035 (2007-02-09 09:37:50)

 

Pages: 1 … 20 21 22 23

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard