Global warming was already happening...?

[Deadbeat]

Global Warming = Earth Evolution

The Earth get's really hot and then it goes really cold, then i get's really hot and then it get's really cold.

There is nothing we can do to stop it.

It's common knowledge that the Earth is in the 'Green Zone' in the our Solar System which is why we have life and other planets here don't. We are just far enough from the Sun to not be too hot or far away enough to be really cold BUT as everyone should know the planets are slowly getting closer (though this is happening VERY VERY VERY slowly). So we are getting closer to the sun which is why it will get hotter and hotter but it won't happen for millions of years.

This is an amazingly simplified approach, where it's not downright wrong.

the 'Green Zone' to which you refer is specific to life as we know it. It allows for free & controlled gas exchange, enzymatic reactions, uninhibited replication - but only because these processes are suited to the envoronment, not because the environment suits the processes. You must have heard about Enceladus recently? Tiny little moon of Saturn, about 500km across, probable water presence? If the top-rated xenobiologists are excited about the possibility of life there, do you think you might be able to send them an email, draw your infallible logic to their attention and warn them to give uf the search now & save face?

You don't really have to look very far to know that the whole 'green belt' concept is pretty crap. What about those geothermal vents discovered, what was it, about 1998? Teeming with sulphur-fixing bacteria, even more complex life such as tubeworms & shrimp feeding off it, all in a rather toxic environment, an entire ecosystem deriving none of its energy from the sun - you might remember them from Planet Earth. Extremophile bacteria live in the most inhospitable environments - extremes of temperature, pH, aridity - and they thrive there, which is surprising only until you realise that their environments are only inhospitable by our standards.

The point being, nobody know to what extent life can survive, under what conditions. That was a lot to say just to disparage the 'Green Belt' hypothesis, but ignorance should never be left to fester. I am a healer.

As far as the planets spiralling toward the sun goes, I doubt ol' Sol is gonna last long enough for that to give us a hotter summer.

 

[Deadbeat]

If you ask me, it's the trees that are slacking. All them green things out there that are supposed to be inhaling this CO2 stuff just aren't cutting it anymore. I blame that on the deforestation efforts of the Asians and Europeans thousands of years ago.

Get rid of those gravel gardens (ooohh, they're so much easier to maintain!) and grow some grass, plant some trees around your house, and quit complaining.

And if those punks in California would quit burning all their forests down every year, that would help some too. They're concentrating so much on emissions from their automobiles, yet they keep burning down all their forests. One day they're going to heat up the ground so much they'll crack the crust of the Earth, drift into the Pacific and sink. That'll learn 'em.

Roffle, oh roffle indeed.

you hit on a good idea, though - not the trees, cos they don't really do much. The Amazon rainforest, for example, puts out about as much carbon dioxide as it absorbs. no, what we need are vast, flat water basins covered in Algae. They produce about 50% of the oxygen going into our atmosphere, you know. We need to flood some land, such as BUT NOT NECESSARILY France, and cover it with algae. It'd fix a hell of a lot of carbon in biomass, too. Win all round.

 

[Casdawer]

This is an amazingly simplified approach, where it's not downright wrong.

the 'Green Zone' to which you refer is specific to life as we know it. It allows for free & controlled gas exchange, enzymatic reactions, uninhibited replication - but only because these processes are suited to the envoronment, not because the environment suits the processes. You must have heard about Enceladus recently? Tiny little moon of Saturn, about 500km across, probable water presence? If the top-rated xenobiologists are excited about the possibility of life there, do you think you might be able to send them an email, draw your infallible logic to their attention and warn them to give uf the search now & save face?

You don't really have to look very far to know that the whole 'green belt' concept is pretty crap. What about those geothermal vents discovered, what was it, about 1998? Teeming with sulphur-fixing bacteria, even more complex life such as tubeworms & shrimp feeding off it, all in a rather toxic environment, an entire ecosystem deriving none of its energy from the sun - you might remember them from Planet Earth. Extremophile bacteria live in the most inhospitable environments - extremes of temperature, pH, aridity - and they thrive there, which is surprising only until you realise that their environments are only inhospitable by our standards.

The point being, nobody know to what extent life can survive, under what conditions. That was a lot to say just to disparage the 'Green Belt' hypothesis, but ignorance should never be left to fester. I am a healer.

As far as the planets spiralling toward the sun goes, I doubt ol' Sol is gonna last long enough for that to give us a hotter summer.

Sorry, i should have been a bit more specific in my comment.

I didn't mean that no life can live outside the 'Green Belt' but living in this area has given us the ability to evolve beyond bacteria.

We all know that bacteria can survive no matter what the temperature but what about other living things? There are no trees on other planets, no grass, no other kind of funghi... anything.

There is no way of knowing if other Alien beings are in the Universe, and for all we know they don't need air or food or water or anything, so my statement is somewhat wrong but hey, i'm not perfect.

 

[mmj_uk]

I swear i read something about the earth actually heating up BEFORE we drove cars and generally caused masses of pollution etc etc etc.

Anyone point me in the right direction or have i just made this 'fact' up?

It did but the global warming/climate change brigade only go as far back in history as it suits them, the idea that Earth will stay at a constant temperature is ridiculous, everything about our planet and solar system consists of cycles. It's like taxing people and blaming them for the summer season each year only those cycles are so short people are not fooled.

It's true we are doing a good job of raping the planet but taxing people is not the answer, we need a change of system and new way of living, consumerism like we have today is simply unsustainable, you could blame the population boom but that is easy answer and probably only way of keeping status quo for a little while longer, people need to become more independant and support themselves but governments don't want that because they will lose power when people no longer rely on them or fund them - I hear it's now illegal in the US to collect rainwater.

 

[Deadbeat]

Sorry, i should have been a bit more specific in my comment.

I didn't mean that no life can live outside the 'Green Belt' but living in this area has given us the ability to evolve beyond bacteria.

We all know that bacteria can survive no matter what the temperature but what about other living things? There are no trees on other planets, no grass, no other kind of funghi... anything.

There is no way of knowing if other Alien beings are in the Universe, and for all we know they don't need air or food or water or anything, so my statement is somewhat wrong but hey, i'm not perfect.

It's just numbers that allowed us to evolve in complexity, not the environment. A combination of old, harmless mutations handed down from one generation of amoeba to the next, suddenly combining and birthing efficient energy-producing organelles, a few more million years and something pops up that two cells but still one living entity... it's a matter of probability. If we found anything as complex as plankton in our solar system, it would be amazing. However, if we'd evolved on Enceladus to the level at which we are now, there's be someone up there arguing that complex life could never evolve somewhere as hot & damp & volatile as Earth. For all intents and purposes, complex life is extremely likely somewhere, but there's an extremely rare chance per planet - environment will not figure into that calculation much. Drake fell down a bit there, but his equation still holds true for life that has evolved along the same lines as Earth.

Props for admitting you may be wrong - it's a technique I've never been able to master. Massive arrogance, don't you know. Still, worth a note when I recognise it in someone else.

 

[SourChipmunk]

no, what we need are vast, flat water basins covered in Algae. They produce about 50% of the oxygen going into our atmosphere, you know. We need to flood some land, such as BUT NOT NECESSARILY France, and cover it with algae. It'd fix a hell of a lot of carbon in biomass, too. Win all round.

I hear cannibus does its share, also. Again, Win all 'round.

I hear it's now illegal in the US to collect rainwater.

Just in Colorado and trying to get passed in Utah, I believe. We are taxed on rainwater Texas, though. Rain that falls on industrial roofs are subject to contamination. I think that's done to encourage harvesting (so contaminents don't get into drainage systems).

 

[Glaucus]

I hear cannibus does its share, also. Again, Win all 'round.

Nope doesn't collect anything, as you then smoke it releasing it all back out agaiin.
Algea dies and a large percent sink to the ocean floor where the co2 is trapped.

Just in Colorado and trying to get passed in Utah, I believe. We are taxed on rainwater in Michigan and Texas, though. Rain that falls on industrial roofs are subject to contamination. I'm not sure how that's measured, though.

WTF that is insane and retarded. What excuse have they used for that.

 

[SourChipmunk]

WTF that is insane and retarded. What excuse have they used for that.

I updated my post after looking a little more.

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/iwt/rainwater/faq.html

edit again: I don't see anything about taxing the water from roofs, so that may have just been a rumour started when I lived in Austin. One of the local auto shop owners said they taxed him for it.

Edit another time: It appears I'm not entirely off-base. Winona, Minnesota has discussed it.

 

[Glaucus]

so it's a tax if you do not harvest?
Well that's not to bad. encourages people to use it.

 

[Deadbeat]

I hear cannibus does its share, also. Again, Win all 'round.

I did a presentation on "God's Garden: The Miracle Plant" once. Found out some interesting stuff. Like per acre, hemp produces 4 times the yield of paper that woodpulp does, and it can be harvested every year, rather than every 20 years. On a further environmental point, just think of the enormously damaging wood-cutting industry that wouldn't be needed. It can also be bleached naturally, without the harmful synthetics used to bleach woodpulp paper, and it lasts a hell of a lot longer too - some of the oldest man-made artefacts (not rocks) are hemp clothing. And on the clothing front, it's still made into the strongest, cheapest natural rope today, but it can also be spun as fine as silk. The extremely long, flexible fibres actually soften with age and washing treatments, so they get a hell of a lot more comfortable the longer you have them, and they don't lose any of their natural resilience, either.

Not to mention the myriad medical benefits - everybody knows about glaucoma & depression therapies using cannabis, but it's also used with considerable success in treatment of addictions, like smoking (ironically) and alcohol abuse. George Bush Sr. parachuted out of a fighter in WWII with a hemp parachute.

I chucked in a few things about hemp yielding 8x biofuel end product than the current favourite (corn), and I was gonna call it 'How Cannabis can Save the World', but since it was for my university course I didn't wanna seem too keen. Made it through the entire presentation without using the words 'cannabis' or 'recreational' though, so I think it went down okay.

 

[*Moangroan*]

I've been reading about other planets in our solar system warming up as well.

 

[teaboy5]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html

 

[cheets64]

A lot of experts in here, what honours do you lot have, seeing as you seem to think you know whats going on with this planet.

 

[D D Danneh]

No doubt it's part of a natural cycle, but humans have probably made an impact on global warming too. It just depends how much.

Personally, I'm not that bothered. Most of the "green schemes" don't work and just make the energy conscious person pay more. I'm all for saving energy, but going out of your way to spend more money is stupid.

 

[Nix]

CO2 is not the most abudent greenhouse gas (GHG) nor is it the most 'effective' - Methane is. However, CO2 does happen to be the one GHG which we' seem to be playing around with and the one which alarms us the most for various reasons.

If you need a rough idea in your head to actually work out on what scale we're playing with here: Coal, Oil & Gas - three different forms of stored Carbon from the past few epochs on the planet. Since the industrial revolution, which was roughly around 200 years ago we have started putting all this Carbon Dioxide back into the atmosphere. There is even discussion about how much of these stored forms we actually have left - we have used that much. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is obviously effecting and altering the natural balance. I've said this a thousand times before and it seems to be the same idiots ignoring it: the question is not of if climate change is happening, or happens - it does regardless of if we were here or not. The question is one of how much of an influence is humanity having on the process and what are the consequences of such. The answer, unfortunately for you is that we are effecting the process, and the consequences will not be mild, and they will not be good.

Current understand for example seems to point that we are effecting the process insomuch as that the CO2 we are releasing is not speeding up the process and we want to try and curb this before we reach any positive feedback or lag-effect which could see **** really hit the fan for a few centuries at the very least. Should things continue the way they are, there are predictions at present that within the next couple hundred years there will be no more Kent as it will simply flood. You're living in Disney Land if you think we can continue the way we are and then stand up, and face the changes saying "Yeah, bring it on."

Humanity will have to adapt and change significantly if we, as a species, are to survive such dramatic changes. We are effectively poking the sleeping bear at the moment and claiming it aint getting ****ed off.

We're looking at mass-extinctions of flora and fauna, borders having to be re-written or abolished altogether, genocide, mass-diaspora. It will not be pretty.

 

[Glaucus]

Current understand for example seems to point that we are effecting the process insomuch as that the CO2 we are releasing is not speeding up the process and we want to try and curb this before we reach any positive feedback or lag-effect which could see **** really hit the fan for a few centuries at the very least. Should things continue the way they are, there are predictions at present that within the next couple hundred years there will be no more Kent as it will simply flood. You're living in Disney Land if you think we can continue the way we are and then stand up, and face the changes saying "Yeah, bring it on."

And you seem to forget natural cycles and the fact that kent and other places will probably dissapear at some time as the ice sheets melt. human intervention or not.

But the main point is according to IPCC the cut we need to achieve and the time scale available is simply not possible. So you will have to come to accept that we will exceed there moderate danger ppm estimate.

We're looking at mass-extinctions of flora and fauna, borders having to be re-written or abolished altogether, genocide, mass-diaspora. It will not be pretty.

This has happened many times before. Just look at the land mass lost around 14000 years ago.

 

[Nix]

And you seem to forget natural cycles and the fact that kent and other places will probably dissapear at some time as the ice sheets melt. human intervention or not.

FFS, I'm not forgetting, you're just deliberately ignoring the point. I've talked to professors who know their crap about this, so let's not play games here.

Flooding will be a natural consequence of the climatic change - all of these consequences which could befall us will be as a direct result of natural process. What I said earlier, and I will repeat again, just for you as you seem to be hard of hearing: we (as in humanity) are unduely speeding up these processes - we are setting ourselves up for the fall. These processes will not happen for a very, very long time if it were not for current anthopogenic influences. This is the point: we are causing the change now when overwise it would not be happening until humanity no longer represents today's society then we do the hunter-gather. When it happens by its own accord, we should be technologically able to deal with it. Currently, we are going to get very badly burnt.

But the main point is according to IPCC the cut we need to achieve and the time scale available is simply not possible. So you will have to come to accept that we will exceed there moderate danger ppm estimate.

The IPCC want pre-1990 levels by roughly 2030, which it is hoped will prevent any lag-effect which they're worried will occur. If we carry on, without capping CO2 at today's levels, by 2050 (IIRC) we will then be looking at positive-feedback taking over. No, it isn't currently feasible, but that doesn't mean we think "**** it.", it means we get our backsides in gear and work out a solution.

This has happened many times before. Just look at the land mass lost around 14000 years ago.

Look, I've studied a lot of this at university. I really don't need you spelling me out the basics.

 

[Glaucus]

FFS, I'm not forgetting, you're just deliberately ignoring the point. I've talking to professors who know their crap about this, so let's not play games here.

Flooding will be a natural consequence of the climatic change - all of these consequences which could befall us will be as a direct result of natural process. What I said earlier, and I will repeat again, just for you as you seem to be hard of hearing: we (as in humanity) are unduely speeding up these processes - we are setting ourselves up for the fall. These processes will not happen for a very, very long time if it were not for current anthopogenic influences. This is the point: we are causing the change now when overwise it would not be happening until humanity no longer represents today's society then we do the hunter-gather. When it happens by its own accord, we should be technologically able to deal with it. Currently, we are going to get very badly burnt.
.

No it could happen much faster than that naturally. Just look at the research on volcanic activity under the ice sheets melting them from the underside.

I'm not say do nothing. I'm just pointing out that at some point this will happen naturally.
We have no way at the moment of getting the ppm in the time frame needed.
The plans people want are not viable.

 

[Nix]

No it could happen much faster than that naturally. Just look at the research on volcanic activity under the ice sheets melting them from the underside.

I'm not say do nothing. I'm just pointing out that at some point this will happen naturally.
We have no way at the moment of getting the ppm in the time frame needed.
The plans people want are not viable.

It could, but realistically, based on what is happening now it will - as a natural occurance - still come later than 2030-2050. At the moment, our concern is what we're doing. I never once said it wouldn't happen naturally, I've pointed out exactly what it happening several times, I really don't see why you feel the need to argue with me on this.

Again, you're repeating what's already been agreed upon - I know it isn't viable but to many people that simply means "Oh well" or the even worse crime of "It isn't an issue, it's not happening." ;/

 

[Tefal]

How long do you think till cosmo turns up here?