|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
You wish. Politicians care about getting reelected. These leaked emails have blown a hole right through the sham, and soon everyone is going to know it |
I better repeat for you...
| Quote: |
| It's basic physics that the world is being warmed by greenhouse gases |
You see stuff that happens in the physical world is quite unrelated to the intrigues and politics of humans. If an apple falls from a tree, gravity occurs. This is unaffected by your fantasies of conspiracy among public figures.
We have numerous facts at our disposal. All of them independent of peoples opinion. Lets go through these for a moment:
1) There is a massive human-caused hole in the ozone layer. You can follow its updated progress here, as recorded by NASA.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
This hole is not "totally without any effect" as you seem to think. It allows in UV rays (among others) of sunlight that then cause damage and get trapped in the earths atmosphere, causing warming. This is one proven link between humans and warming. It also exists wether someone sends a dodgy email or not.
2) Carbon dioxide causes atmospheric warming.
This was discovered by scientists in the early 1800's. Its not a recent conspiracy made up in the 1990's. Google "Joseph Fourier".
Experiments in 1859 proved that Carbon dioxide is effective at trapping heat rays. Google "John Tyndall".
Obviously..more CO2 traps more heat rays...causing atmospheric warming. Likewise this exists regardless of wether a few humans write vaguely questionable emails.
3) The climate is warming. Yes, no matter if someone writes an email and people read it as suspicious...the climate will continue to warm! As evidenced by rapidly receding glaciers and melting polar ice over the past 3 decades. How many satellite images do you require?
It is indeed simple physics, that what we do has an effect and a reaction, wether we get to actually see the end result or not. The earth is a closed system. If you flush tissue paper down the toilet, that paper doesn't vanish into thin air. It ends up somewhere else, on the earth.On this planet. The same goes for all the pollution, chemicals and gases humans manufacture then release into the air. They don't dissapear. They either float up and sit in the atmosphere, causing some effect, or they come back down to earth somewhere else. Everything has an effect somehow, every action has a reaction. Do you get it yet?
We as humans now cover every part of the surface of this planet, concreting, altering, damaging and polluting as we go, in unprecedented numbers. If you think this "has no effect" .. "because the world's too big"..then I can only throw my hands up in resigned bewilderment and start planning my escape rocket to Mars, because if a majority of the dumbed-down world thinks as you do, then our planet is going to be trashed into oblivion very soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
^
It's basic physics that greenhouse gas levels go up and down (CO2 was 12X higher than current levels during a previous ice-age). If you can't understand the basic idea that heat trapped by greenhouse gases isn't cumulative, then you seriously need to take a step back and check your head... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| We as humans now cover every part of the surface of this planet, concreting, altering, damaging and polluting as we go, in unprecedented numbers. If you think this "has no effect" .. "because the world's too big"..then I can only throw my hands up in resigned bewilderment and start planning my escape rocket to Mars, because if a majority of the dumbed-down world thinks as you do, then our planet is going to be trashed into oblivion very soon. |
Rather than buy into the hysterics and feel "bewildered", why don't you just take a deep breath, and realize it's not that bad. Most of the earth is actually uninhabited by people. Have you actually been to the countryside recently?? Or did you just read about how badly we're trashing the planet in some magazine?
Anyway, I agree with you that reducing our pollution and consumption of resources is a good idea. But CO2 is not pollution. It is a harmless gas.
If you're really looking for something to blame, blame the central banking system around the world. It is responsible for just about all of our problems - not the least of which is our wasteful need for ever increasing resource consumption (to keep up with inflation caused by our corrupt debt-based fractional reserve monetary system). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| (CO2 was 12X higher than current levels during a previous ice-age).... |
Source? or did you just pull that one off the top of your head. Its discredited anyhow.
"Based on an analysis of fossil leaves, Wagner et al.[14] argued that CO2 levels during the period 7 � 10 kyr ago were significantly higher (~300 ppm) and contained substantial variations that may be correlated to climate variations.
Others have disputed such claims, suggesting they are more likely to reflect calibration problems than actual changes in CO2.[15] Relevant to this dispute is the observation that Greenland ice cores often report higher and more variable CO2 values than similar measurements in Antarctica. However, the groups responsible for such measurements (e.g., Smith et al.[16]) believe the variations in Greenland cores result from in situ decomposition of calcium carbonate dust found in the ice. When dust levels in Greenland cores are low, as they nearly always are in Antarctic cores, the researchers report good agreement between Antarctic and Greenland CO2 measurements."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png/250px-Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| But CO2 is not pollution. It is a harmless gas. |
CO2 is proven to act as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat within our atmosphere.
We already pump out X billion tonnes per year. Your recomendation is to not worry about it and pump out even more?
I'd agree it wouldn't seem such an issue if it were not for the fact that vast areas of rainforest in Asia, Africa and S. America are being lost and vast tracts of tundra are thawing and bubbling up methane /CO2. To recommend redoubling our own outputs at this stage of the game is perverse.
| Quote: |
| Most of the earth is actually uninhabited by people. Have you actually been to the countryside recently? |
Dude every scrap of "countryside" you care to look at has been altered, adjusted and adapted by humans for their own end.
Do ricefields look "natural" to you? Mountains covered in commercially valuable plantations? Drained swamps, concreted riverbanks, dams, lakes, agricultural land...its all been changed by people to something that is less than its optimum natural state. That goes for most of North America. Even vast tracts of Asian steppe is in an artificial state as it is intensively grazed by herders and livestock...same goes for Africa.
i'm not saying we live on every inch of the planets surface: I'm saying we've tampered with,altered and impacted the majority of it, overwhelmingly to the detriment of natural processes and ecosystems which would normally have acted as a shield or buffer from climate change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| (CO2 was 12X higher than current levels during a previous ice-age).... |
Source? or did you just pull that one off the top of your head. Its discredited anyhow.
"Based on an analysis of fossil leaves, Wagner et al.[14] argued that CO2 levels during the period 7 � 10 kyr ago were significantly higher (~300 ppm) and contained substantial variations that may be correlated to climate variations.
Others have disputed such claims, suggesting they are more likely to reflect calibration problems than actual changes in CO2.[15] Relevant to this dispute is the observation that Greenland ice cores often report higher and more variable CO2 values than similar measurements in Antarctica. However, the groups responsible for such measurements (e.g., Smith et al.[16]) believe the variations in Greenland cores result from in situ decomposition of calcium carbonate dust found in the ice. When dust levels in Greenland cores are low, as they nearly always are in Antarctic cores, the researchers report good agreement between Antarctic and Greenland CO2 measurements."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png/250px-Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png |
The wikipedia commons section is not a "source".
Here's another source:
"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.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| But CO2 is not pollution. It is a harmless gas. |
CO2 is proven to act as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat within our atmosphere.
We already pump out X billion tonnes per year. Your recomendation is to not worry about it and pump out even more?
I'd agree it wouldn't seem such an issue if it were not for the fact that vast areas of rainforest in Asia, Africa and S. America are being lost and vast tracts of tundra are thawing and bubbling up methane /CO2. To recommend redoubling our own outputs at this stage of the game is perverse. |
CO2 is a very weak, trace greenhouse gas. It has a negligible effect on climate (the chief greenhouse gas is actually water vapor). In fact, the concentration of CO2 follows the temperature, not vice versa (the earth gets hotter naturally, then CO2 levels increase later). We are currently in a period of carbon deficiency - we could actually use more CO2 (it would benefit plant life, including the rainforests).
| Quote: |
Dude every scrap of "countryside" you care to look at has been altered, adjusted and adapted by humans for their own end.
Do ricefields look "natural" to you? Mountains covered in commercially valuable plantations? Drained swamps, concreted riverbanks, dams, lakes, agricultural land...its all been changed by people to something that is less than its optimum natural state. That goes for most of North America. Even vast tracts of Asian steppe is in an artificial state as it is intensively grazed by herders and livestock...same goes for Africa.
i'm not saying we live on every inch of the planets surface: I'm saying we've tampered with,altered and impacted the majority of it, overwhelmingly to the detriment of natural processes and ecosystems which would normally have acted as a shield or buffer from climate change. |
This is a separate issue from climate change - however, using land for agriculture does not necessarily mean we are "destroying the planet". It is possible to live in relative harmony with nature, while using land for agriculture. However, I am staunchly against the kind of farming practices currently used in the US - with GM monoculture crops (manufactured by Monsanto) taking over, subsidized by our corrupt government.
At the end of the day, the majority of the earth's surface is not used by humans. Around 30% is still covered by forests. I think we should preserve our forestation, but this is a separate issue from climate change (since CO2 is actually good for trees). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Here's another source:
"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.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html |
The assumption only holds true if all other components of the atmosphere were the same during the Carboniferous as they are today, which they were not. Although the C02 level was much higher, so was the atmospheric 02 level. During the Carboniferous it was 35%, whereas today it is only 21%; the insulating properties of the two time periods of atmospheric structure are not comparable. In addition, much of the terrestrial landmass was centered over the south pole, hence evidence of extensive glaciation in the geological record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So that's where you're getting this from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm[/b]. |
And sea levels were about 30 metres higher too.
ie..to reach such levels again would be catastrophic for human civilisation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Here's another source:
"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.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html |
The assumption only holds true if all other components of the atmosphere were the same during the Carboniferous as they are today, which they were not. Although the C02 level was much higher, so was the atmospheric 02 level. During the Carboniferous it was 35%, whereas today it is only 21%; the insulating properties of the two time periods of atmospheric structure are not comparable. |
Why would this even matter?
| Quote: |
| In addition, much of the terrestrial landmass was centered over the south pole, hence evidence of extensive glaciation in the geological record. |
This doesn't change the fact of the matter.
Last edited by visitorq on Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm[/b]. |
And sea levels were about 30 metres higher too.
ie..to reach such levels again would be catastrophic for human civilisation. |
There was no causal relation whatsoever between sea level and CO2... are you trying to be obtuse here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm[/b]. |
And sea levels were about 30 metres higher too.
ie..to reach such levels again would be catastrophic for human civilisation. |
There was no causal relation whatsoever between sea level and CO2... are you trying to be obtuse here? |
hark...... the whining squeals of a pampered baby who doesn't want his SUV and icecubes taken away.
Your link to denial central has no credibility by the way, neither do any of your other websites funded by Mobil Exxon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The CRU's data, controlled for their lies, shows no trend to warming in the period they examined. Final. It's over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm[/b]. |
And sea levels were about 30 metres higher too.
ie..to reach such levels again would be catastrophic for human civilisation. |
There was no causal relation whatsoever between sea level and CO2... are you trying to be obtuse here? |
hark...... the whining squeals of a pampered baby who doesn't want his SUV and icecubes taken away.
Your link to denial central has no credibility by the way, neither do any of your other websites funded by Mobil Exxon. |
You've lost the debate. Hard. Just give it up already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
