There are plenty of renewable resources *we* can use that do not have any lasting negative effects on the Earth. This is one piece of logic that I cannot get out of my head- With all the oil/energy companies getting flack for supporting terrorist nations, destroying the climate, combined with the prediction that fossil fuels will cease to exist in the near future, why not expand into alternative energy production? Are the executives and shareholders who run these companies so stubborn that they refuse to try out any new forms of energy?
Poll
is global warming a real threat
| yes | 71% | 71% - 337 | ||||
| no | 28% | 28% - 135 | ||||
| Total: 472 | ||||||
In those regions, while most likely inhibiting growth and procreation in other regions. Once again, largely irrelevant.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
it is saying that the rise of the global temp will not have adverse effects upon all the fluffy creatures here on earth, but will promote growth and procreationKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
And what does this have to do with global warming? If you look in the ocean, there is more life there than anywhere else on the planet. An interesting footnote, but of no relevance to the global warming argument.Darth_Fleder wrote:
Another point to ponder... Where is the greatest abundance of animal and plant species found on land today? They are found in the equatorial, tropical climates, i.e the warmest places on Earth. Another conveniently forgotten fact in the hysteria of 'global warming'. There was once subtropical growth in Greenland and Patagonia. Also, the hottest periods in Earths history are notorious for their abundance of life. For more recent examples see the Paleocene and Oligocene epochs. Also see the Cambrian, Triassic, and Jurassic periods.
it doesnt so much say it ended, its more saying that the evidence for global warming has been spin doctored and the famous "hockey stick graphs" were critically flawed i thought the main points were that global warming isnt actually anything like what the press have made out.....
no the abundance of life is over the whole planet, it doesnt say there is was an abundance of life in europe during the hot jurassicKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
In those regions, while most likely inhibiting growth and procreation in other regions. Once again, largely irrelevant.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
it is saying that the rise of the global temp will not have adverse effects upon all the fluffy creatures here on earth, but will promote growth and procreationKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
And what does this have to do with global warming? If you look in the ocean, there is more life there than anywhere else on the planet. An interesting footnote, but of no relevance to the global warming argument.
and maybe it is because the alternative to fossil fuels....that is nuclear power, is not very popular with the public once more due to misreporting from the media..
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2006-06-26 15:28:37)
yes, the press has overhyped global warming. It is in the best interest of the press to scare the public. Y2K, anthrax, killer bees, mad cow disease, west nile virus, etc.
yes best interest of the press as they make more money but point being what they say is overexaggerated and biased
the thing is, there are more alternatives to fossil fuels than just nuclear power, and nuclear power is still not really a re-usable resource, like solar power or wind power.
but wind power is not practicle and solar power is a problem during winter. forgive me for being picky but i like to have a warm home in the winter. thing is we cant store electricity, if we could than yes use wind, water and solar power
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2006-06-26 15:37:58)
Apparently you missed this part of my post, Mr. Jennings.
Darth_Fleder wrote:
I quite agree, Cameron. The remaining oil is far more valuable to future generations as a lubricant than our burning it now as a fuel. Not to mention the implications of not sending billions upon billions of dollars into OPEC countries.CameronPoe wrote:
... it wouldn't harm to conserve the exhaustible resources we use in our daily lives and perhaps seek to use resources that are renewable...
what am I missing? I read that part, and it doesn't pertain to what I commented on. I agree with you on the above assessment.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-06-26 15:43:13)
no, but even as it pains me to say it you could put the wind farms miles out to sea and use them to turn the water into hydrogen and oxygen this is stored and then transported to the land and burned as needed, hydrogen produces no other prducts other then water when passed over a catalyst in the pressance of oxygen and the energy conversion is upwards of 80% not bad really considering no green house gasses are emited, but this is an expensive option and wind energy is not everlasting to many turbines will eventually slow the world wide wind speed and eventually the wind turbines will fail, tidal turbines on the other hand, relying on gravity will last for pretty much the fullness of time.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
but wind power is not practicle and solar power is a problem during winter. forgive me for being picky but i like to have a warm home in the winter. thing is we cant store electricity, if we could than yes use wind, water and solar power
but personally i think the only option is nuclear power as its cheap and clean.
If by clean you mean does not decompost or lose its radioactive properties for tens of thousands of years, all the while laying in a lead and concrete casket because it leaks through anything else, then yes, you have a point.jimmanycricket wrote:
but personally i think the only option is nuclear power as its cheap and clean.
Actually... geothermal works beautifully. The earth can never run out of heat techincally - it gets the heat from the pressure from the overlying layers! More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heatingCheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
all of the above methods are crap. quite honestly they are too expensive and not effecient enough. (yet) we can power the whole of the uk with abotu 8 nuclear power plants, whereas 8 windturbines power your computer. hydroelectric, that soudns like a good idea, lets run all our river water inc the fish etc etc through a big turbine now theres a good idea hey. and your right the uk is full of mountains and big rivers?? i know there are a few plants in wales and scotland which make up 3% of the national grid, but its not possible for the whole of a flat country e.g. England. Solar depends on the sun obviously. and as we cant store electricity what happens when it is cloudy? i know it not purely the sun its the heat. so what do we do in winter, when we need to be warm and cosy, sorry no heat the solar powerplants arent working its too cold. Geothermal i dont know how exaclty they work but i assume the drill huge holes into our poor dying mother earth, and then ram huge metal pipes in there as spin turbines off of the earths heat. so lets take the heat out of the earths core and put it into the atmosphere.......that will help global warmingherrr_smity wrote:
there are more ways to produce zero emission energy then windmills.jimmanycricket wrote:
on the point of wind farms, cheeky is on the whole truth full, beacause the wind farms are not a stable source of power sop when wind levels are low power must be created wastefully else where to compensate the demand as the electricity is not stored so at the moment wind power can at some points be counter productive, but not always.
we have geothermal, solar, hydroelectric to name a few and withe newer better generators these ways are better then the polluting, coal oil and gas power plants that we have now.
the best solution to carbon emisions is nuclear power. nuff said
Costs a bit though. And you can't do it everywhere
However, I have to agree. Either nuclear or clean coal - and clean coal still isn't that 'clean'.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Global warming is a real threat. It will not affect us, but it will affect our grandchildren and their children, and so on.
wrong gamma radiation can only travel a few metres you dont need lead to stop it unless you dont want it travelling a few metres. The energy in the ray is absorbed by atoms and molecules that it passes through air has these but not as densely as lead and thus it travels further in air. plz stop spouting bullshit.jimmanycricket wrote:
wrong, sorry to say this but you cannot stop gamma radiation you can just reduce it with large amounts of lead.Vilham wrote:
gamma radiation and those particles travel very tiny distances before they are enhilated. Therefore if you burrow the material ina concrete casing 2m wides into 10m of silt it aint gunna give off emissions that even reach life that live around it.
"For example, gamma rays that require 1 cm (0.4 inches) of lead to reduce their intensity by 50% will also have their intensity reduced in half by 6 cm (2½ inches) of concrete or 9 cm (3½ inches) of packed dirt." This just goes to show that gamma rays passing through 10m of thick silt will either be removed or of such a low energy level they wont kill cells.
You realise that if this werent the case we would all be screwed as most bottle/food containers are exposed to radiation of beta and gamma sources to kill off bacteria.
Last edited by Vilham (2006-06-27 04:30:54)
no you are the one that is wrong gamma radiation is exceedingly dngerous and under no curcumstances can it be stopped hence the whole problem with us going to mars, you are correct that it is dramactically reduced but it is still there i agree with you that they will be reduced to an incredably low level but they will still kill cells it would just take millions of years of radiation onto the cell, but as it is part of the electromagnetic spectrum it can be reduced to infinatly small amounts as there is no smallest value particle at the end for the 50% reduction to stop if this makes sense.Vilham wrote:
wrong gamma radiation can only travel a few metres you dont need lead to stop it unless you dont want it travelling a few metres. The energy in the ray is absorbed by atoms and molecules that it passes through air has these but not as densely as lead and thus it travels further in air. plz stop spouting bullshit.jimmanycricket wrote:
wrong, sorry to say this but you cannot stop gamma radiation you can just reduce it with large amounts of lead.Vilham wrote:
gamma radiation and those particles travel very tiny distances before they are enhilated. Therefore if you burrow the material ina concrete casing 2m wides into 10m of silt it aint gunna give off emissions that even reach life that live around it.
"For example, gamma rays that require 1 cm (0.4 inches) of lead to reduce their intensity by 50% will also have their intensity reduced in half by 6 cm (2½ inches) of concrete or 9 cm (3½ inches) of packed dirt." This just goes to show that gamma rays passing through 10m of thick silt will either be removed or of such a low energy level they wont kill cells.
You realise that if this werent the case we would all be screwed as most bottle/food containers are exposed to radiation of beta and gamma sources to kill off bacteria.
no we are not screwwed because the gamma rayes move through the bottles thus when they reach us they no longer contain gamma radiation, just accept it.
Last edited by jimmanycricket (2006-06-27 05:14:25)
so really you are jsut agreeing with him.. ...the cell will die through natural causes before it has suffered millions of years of reduced gamma raditation......what do you mean there is no smallest value particle? :S gmma radiation is made of photons is it not?jimmanycricket wrote:
no you are the one that is wrong gamma radiation is exceedingly dngerous and under no curcumstances can it be stopped hence the whole problem with us going to mars, you are correct that it is dramactically reduced but it is still there i agree with you that they will be reduced to an incredably low level but they will still kill cells it would just take millions of years of radiation onto the cell, but as it is part of the electromagnetic spectrum it can be reduced to infinatly small amounts as there is no smallest value particle at the end for the 50% reduction to stop if this makes sense.Vilham wrote:
wrong gamma radiation can only travel a few metres you dont need lead to stop it unless you dont want it travelling a few metres. The energy in the ray is absorbed by atoms and molecules that it passes through air has these but not as densely as lead and thus it travels further in air. plz stop spouting bullshit.jimmanycricket wrote:
wrong, sorry to say this but you cannot stop gamma radiation you can just reduce it with large amounts of lead.
"For example, gamma rays that require 1 cm (0.4 inches) of lead to reduce their intensity by 50% will also have their intensity reduced in half by 6 cm (2½ inches) of concrete or 9 cm (3½ inches) of packed dirt." This just goes to show that gamma rays passing through 10m of thick silt will either be removed or of such a low energy level they wont kill cells.
You realise that if this werent the case we would all be screwed as most bottle/food containers are exposed to radiation of beta and gamma sources to kill off bacteria.
no we are not screwwed because the gamma rayes move through the bottles thus when they reach us they no longer contain gamma radiation, just accept it.
also what are we proposing to do about global warming exactly...if we agree that its a very serious threat, and we totally halt ALL emmisions, all of evidence says that the temperature will still not stay constant, so we would have to act to keep the temperature a constant? weve got even less chance of success here than we do holding back the tides.....you cant stop nature
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2006-06-27 08:10:51)
mate u dont know much about radiation do u, still doing GCSE's?jimmanycricket wrote:
no you are the one that is wrong gamma radiation is exceedingly dngerous and under no curcumstances can it be stopped hence the whole problem with us going to mars, you are correct that it is dramactically reduced but it is still there i agree with you that they will be reduced to an incredably low level but they will still kill cells it would just take millions of years of radiation onto the cell, but as it is part of the electromagnetic spectrum it can be reduced to infinatly small amounts as there is no smallest value particle at the end for the 50% reduction to stop if this makes sense.Vilham wrote:
wrong gamma radiation can only travel a few metres you dont need lead to stop it unless you dont want it travelling a few metres. The energy in the ray is absorbed by atoms and molecules that it passes through air has these but not as densely as lead and thus it travels further in air. plz stop spouting bullshit.jimmanycricket wrote:
wrong, sorry to say this but you cannot stop gamma radiation you can just reduce it with large amounts of lead.
"For example, gamma rays that require 1 cm (0.4 inches) of lead to reduce their intensity by 50% will also have their intensity reduced in half by 6 cm (2½ inches) of concrete or 9 cm (3½ inches) of packed dirt." This just goes to show that gamma rays passing through 10m of thick silt will either be removed or of such a low energy level they wont kill cells.
You realise that if this werent the case we would all be screwed as most bottle/food containers are exposed to radiation of beta and gamma sources to kill off bacteria.
no we are not screwwed because the gamma rayes move through the bottles thus when they reach us they no longer contain gamma radiation, just accept it.
The simple fact is nothing will be hurt by radiation that travels through metres of anything.
Last edited by Vilham (2006-06-27 09:14:05)
Radiation is not one of my stronger points no... but if i am wrong it is nice if you can tell me where i am going wrong i like to know the reason not the fact. I might beleive what you say more if you developed your ideas and presented them better
i was under the impression that if you kept on halving something you never really could get rid of it compleatly, untill you end up with a singlearity of the substance you are halving and i dindnt realise there was a unreducable amount of gamma radiation. I never really under stood photons, i do not see how something can have energy, but no mass, the cannot have mass as they move at the speed of light and therefore i presumed they couldnt have any energy.
i thought of it like the fact that is you drop a ball, it will bounce, say it lost half its height each bounce, the ball in theory never stops bouncing, it just is impossible to see the incredably small amount it risses and falls. i do not even pretend to know what happens to the ball when the bounce hight reaches sub atomic heights.
i was under the impression that if you kept on halving something you never really could get rid of it compleatly, untill you end up with a singlearity of the substance you are halving and i dindnt realise there was a unreducable amount of gamma radiation. I never really under stood photons, i do not see how something can have energy, but no mass, the cannot have mass as they move at the speed of light and therefore i presumed they couldnt have any energy.
i thought of it like the fact that is you drop a ball, it will bounce, say it lost half its height each bounce, the ball in theory never stops bouncing, it just is impossible to see the incredably small amount it risses and falls. i do not even pretend to know what happens to the ball when the bounce hight reaches sub atomic heights.
Last edited by jimmanycricket (2006-06-27 10:07:28)
well eventually the ball will not have enough energy to leave the ground so it will jsut wobble i mean the balls energy will not be stronger than gravity so it cant bounce anymore
fire is enegy but it doesnt have any mass? sure you need something to burn but the actual flame is energy without mass? im not really sure about this lol
Wouldn't it be ironic that if the effort to halt global warming was the exact opposite of what was in our best interests and we end up plunging the Earth back into an Ice Age?
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Looking at the chart you can see that the average global temperature rode at approximately 22C with sharp dips into lower temperatures followed by sharp rises back to historical normal. We have just come out of an ICE AGE people, and very recently by geological standards (10,000 years). Of course the temperature is rising. Any reasonable person looking at that graph would have to conclude that average global temperatures are going to rise again, and significantly.
Now as to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere...
"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.8 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 19 times higher than today.
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss … imate.html
Now, I have to ask, why is the the Earth returning to it's historical average temperature bad? Life has flourished in periods of warmth far better than it has trying to scrap out a living during Ice Ages. We humans are one of the most adaptable species ever, flourishing in every climate on Earth, save perhaps Antarctica.
I also suggest that while the Earth is heating up, there is very little we can do to stop it, nor should we want to. I realize that there are a vast number of people out there that who, though they slept during their science classes, have seen films like "The Day After Tomorrow" that are based upon junk science and let these movies and TV shows influence their emotional reactions to the hype of the day. Any dire predictions for harm are based solely upon conjecture and speculation, for crying out loud, the predictions of the weatherman are so notoriously off they have become the adage for inaccuracy.
However, historically, the amount of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere is in a trough. That is to say the CO2 levels are near the lowest they have been in Earths history. There is only one time with comparable levels of CO2 and that was 300,000,000 years ago.William F. Ruddiman wrote:
Now, though, it seems our ancient agrarian ancestors may have begun adding these gases to the atmosphere many millennia ago, thereby altering the earth's climate long before anyone thought.
New evidence suggests that concentrations of CO2 started rising about 8,000 years ago, even though natural trends indicate they should have been dropping. Some 3,000 years later the same thing happened to methane, another heat-trapping gas. The consequences of these surprising rises have been profound. Without them, current temperatures in northern parts of North America and Europe would be cooler by three to four degrees Celsius--enough to make agriculture difficult. In addition, an incipient ice age--marked by the appearance of small ice caps--would probably have begun several thousand years ago in parts of northeastern Canada. Instead the earth's climate has remained relatively warm and stable in recent millennia. ...
http://scientificamerican.com/article.c … 414B7F0000
Again, I point to the long term historical record.Monte Hieb wrote:
Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Looking at the chart you can see that the average global temperature rode at approximately 22C with sharp dips into lower temperatures followed by sharp rises back to historical normal. We have just come out of an ICE AGE people, and very recently by geological standards (10,000 years). Of course the temperature is rising. Any reasonable person looking at that graph would have to conclude that average global temperatures are going to rise again, and significantly.
Now as to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere...
"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.8 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 19 times higher than today.
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss … imate.html
Now, I have to ask, why is the the Earth returning to it's historical average temperature bad? Life has flourished in periods of warmth far better than it has trying to scrap out a living during Ice Ages. We humans are one of the most adaptable species ever, flourishing in every climate on Earth, save perhaps Antarctica.
I also suggest that while the Earth is heating up, there is very little we can do to stop it, nor should we want to. I realize that there are a vast number of people out there that who, though they slept during their science classes, have seen films like "The Day After Tomorrow" that are based upon junk science and let these movies and TV shows influence their emotional reactions to the hype of the day. Any dire predictions for harm are based solely upon conjecture and speculation, for crying out loud, the predictions of the weatherman are so notoriously off they have become the adage for inaccuracy.
Someone mentioned that the mindset of people has to change, I say what needs to change is the level of education. Much of the history of mankind has been marked by belief in superstition and the fear of the unknown and I say that the current 'Global Warming' hysteria is no different.globalwarming.org wrote:
Projections of future climate changes are uncertain. Although some computer models predict warming in the next century, these models are very limited. The effects of cloud formations, precipitation, the role of the oceans, or the sun, are still not well known and often inadequately represented in the climate models --- although all play a major role in determining our climate. Scientists who work on these models are quick to point out that they are far from perfect representations of reality, and are probably not advanced enough for direct use in policy implementation. Interestingly, as the computer climate models have become more sophisticated in recent years, the predicted increase in temperature has been lowered.
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=65
Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-06-28 07:06:08)
I agree, the level of education we get should be increased. Maybe with more education we can discover new energy production that does not waste non-renewable resources. Also, maybe becoming more educated will allow us to see through the 95% of bullshit that is on the news in general, not just in regards to "global warming."
However, global warming is not the only byproduct of burning fossil fuels and other industrial waste. We are actively destroying our planet, not just making it hotter (which still seems up for debate). In fact, I would say that global warming is the least of our environmental concerns right now. We should be more concerned with the destruction of habitats, water pollution, agricultural pollution, diminishing of the agricultural gene pool, soil pollution, etc.
However, global warming is not the only byproduct of burning fossil fuels and other industrial waste. We are actively destroying our planet, not just making it hotter (which still seems up for debate). In fact, I would say that global warming is the least of our environmental concerns right now. We should be more concerned with the destruction of habitats, water pollution, agricultural pollution, diminishing of the agricultural gene pool, soil pollution, etc.
fire isnt energyCheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
fire is enegy but it doesnt have any mass? sure you need something to burn but the actual flame is energy without mass? im not really sure about this lol
i love fire...wikipedia wrote:
A flame is an exothermic, self-sustaining, oxidizing chemical reaction producing energy and glowing gas, of which a very small portion is plasma. It consists of reacting gases emitting visible and infrared light, the frequency spectrum of which is dependent on the chemical composition of the burning elements and intermediate reaction products.
Last edited by jimmanycricket (2006-06-27 13:27:59)