Looks like we are past the Global Warming thing

[Maluco]

EDIT: I don't feel like arguing.

that was a good choice cause by stating "you guys know nothing about climate" change you added yourself to "you guys"

You said the increase of co2 throws off the whole system??? Did you know that carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere?

That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound.

[joshh]

Thread of the year!!!!

[Intro]

That's what I was going to say after reading the title... You can't argue with climate change, it always happens, a little here, a little there, the trouble with global warming theory is something called equilibrium, if it gets too warm then the planet starts to cool, more too it than that, but a good start for some :firehop:

for those that dont know why global warming would cause the Earth to cool.
Here is the theory: By melting the ice caps you release a bunch of particles into the ocean which slows the circulation of water, (the circulating brings heat to the colder areas of Earth). thus global cooling.

[delfin]

for those that dont know why global warming would cause the Earth to cool.
Here is the theory: By melting the ice caps you release a bunch of particles into the ocean which slows the circulation of water, (the circulating brings heat to the colder areas of Earth). thus global cooling.

"A bunch of particles"

O LAWD TEH PARTICLES

[joshh]

for those that dont know why global warming would cause the Earth to cool.
Here is the theory: By melting the ice caps you release a bunch of particles into the ocean which slows the circulation of water, (the circulating brings heat to the colder areas of Earth). thus global cooling.

Thay have all their bases covered just in case it does get cold.

[Hallen]

What I like about this whole mess is how the fanatics started this whole "global warming" thing just like they did the ice age thing back in the 70's. All the real scientists mostly kept their mouths shut and their hands out because they were getting tons of money in grants to study the problem. Now, when enough ethical scientists step forward and give us actual facts, and explain what climate change is, then the envirowhacos start using the term climate change instead of global warming. They are trying to usurp the use of those words and manipulate things back to their point of view.

I do think that population is the #1 problem the world faces and where we should be putting a lot of consideration into fixing it. I have felt that this was THE problem for many years.

The US would have a negative population growth if it were not for immigration. Many parts of the rest of the world continue to spew out kids at a prestigious rate, most of whom are born into abject poverty. We have given much of our medical technology to areas of the world where having 10 kids was necessary because 7 of them used to die before they were adults. Now, most of them live. The cultures haven't adapted to smaller families so populations boom past what is sustainable.

I think that sanctions should be applied to any country that has a population growth rate above a certain limit. Why? Because their huge populations have a real and imediate affect on the quality of life worldwide. Each person in the world should be allowed one replacement. That means married couples can have two kids. If they want more, they have to kill off a family member before they have kids. (or something like that :) )

But, this will never happen. There are many companies and all the world's governments, rely on population growth for increased revenue flows. It is like the mortgage scandal. It was in the government's best (short term) interests to allow it to go on (or even start in the first place).

[h0lmes]

that was a good choice cause by stating "you guys know nothing about climate" change you added yourself to "you guys"

You said the increase of co2 throws off the whole system??? Did you know that carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere?

That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound.

Your argument has no basis in logic. Just because co2 particles only make up a small portion of the atmosphere, that does not mean that increased co2 levels have no effect. Also, you kind of shoot yourself in the foot when you say that co2 particles are twice what they were when we started burning fossil fuels. What exactly are you arguing?

[Intro]

"A bunch of particles"

O LAWD TEH PARTICLES

Sorry to big of a word for you?
Here is a dumbed down version for you.
The dirt in the Solid ice drops into the ocean when said ice melts.
Sorry if i confused you.

[Hallen]

None of the evidence of global warming convinces me, but why would you not try to limit the amount of poisonous gas you introduce to the environment?
And to conserve our supplies. Eventually we will run out of fuel, the only question is when.

I agree with those last statements... to a point. CO2 is of course food for plants. Their respiration cycle "eats" CO2 and poops O2. I don't know about you, but the weeds around my place are growing a lot faster than before. I bet it is because they are really happy to have this extra food available. ;-)

I seriously doubt that CO2 is a major problem, but it wouldn't hurt to get it's production trend going down. There are other, bigger problems to deal with though.

I think that we should be pushing harder to invent long-term and sustainable energy sources that don't produce any pollution. I think we should have been pushing hard for this for years. Oil companies are just that, oil companies. They need to be energy companies or face extinction very soon.

[jflip2002]

for those that dont know why global warming would cause the Earth to cool.
Here is the theory: By melting the ice caps you release a bunch of particles into the ocean which slows the circulation of water, (the circulating brings heat to the colder areas of Earth). thus global cooling.

False. It would "slow" the time it takes for one particular water molecule to get from point a to point b. It wouldnt necessarily "slow" the entire current though. Its just more total water moving. The water would still continue to be raised from the benthic zone up, there would just be more volume to do so. There is a greater concern of the whole ocean conveyor belt stopping, but that doesnt necessarily have to do with the upwelling, as much as it does the currents circulating the waters throughout the globe. But thatd be WAY down the road.

The thing to be concerned about is the changing pH of the ocean waters. The CO2 does effect that, and its a fact. When the pH starts to drop calcifiers in the oceans start to suffer. Meaning invertebrates and corals will diminish within due time. That seems more crucial (just in my opinion) than the raising temperatures.

[delfin]

I agree with those last statements... to a point. CO2 is of course food for plants. Their respiration cycle "eats" CO2 and poops O2. I don't know about you, but the weeds around my place are growing a lot faster than before. I bet it is because they are really happy to have this extra food available. ;-)

I seriously doubt that CO2 is a major problem, but it wouldn't hurt to get it's production trend going down. There are other, bigger problems to deal with though.

I think that we should be pushing harder to invent long-term and sustainable energy sources that don't produce any pollution. I think we should have been pushing hard for this for years. Oil companies are just that, oil companies. They need to be energy companies or face extinction very soon.

The O2 that comes from plants is entirely derived from the H2O the plants soak up and use during the Calvin Cycle. Nothing to do with the CO2. That CO2 is used as the final electron acceptor.

[Intro]

I agree with those last statements... to a point. CO2 is of course food for plants. Their respiration cycle "eats" CO2 and poops O2. I don't know about you, but the weeds around my place are growing a lot faster than before. I bet it is because they are really happy to have this extra food available. ;-)

I seriously doubt that CO2 is a major problem, but it wouldn't hurt to get it's production trend going down. There are other, bigger problems to deal with though.

I think that we should be pushing harder to invent long-term and sustainable energy sources that don't produce any pollution. I think we should have been pushing hard for this for years. Oil companies are just that, oil companies. They need to be energy companies or face extinction very soon.

I agree but, Oil companies have their hands on the governments leash and that is a shame.
Also oil companies have bought many a patent on alternative forms of energy and then lock them away never to be put to use. GREEDY afgkajbwetkjb q324itbiuawbefa4g I cant even tell you how angry it makes me that money rules the land.

[jflip2002]

I agree with those last statements... to a point. CO2 is of course food for plants. Their respiration cycle "eats" CO2 and poops O2. I don't know about you, but the weeds around my place are growing a lot faster than before. I bet it is because they are really happy to have this extra food available. ;-)

I seriously doubt that CO2 is a major problem, but it wouldn't hurt to get it's production trend going down. There are other, bigger problems to deal with though.

Yes, CO2 promotes photosynthesis.... But at the rate we are populating the earth, the fear is there wont be any room for these plants to photosynthesize. Or at least not as many plants we need to keep up with our CO2 outputs. You can doubt CO2 is a problem, but its a proven fact that it is raising, and it is detrimental to us. If not to our atmospheric gases alone, but to the coral reefs certainly.

[Intro]

False. It would "slow" the time it takes for one particular water molecule to get from point a to point b. It wouldnt necessarily "slow" the entire current though. Its just more total water moving. The water would still continue to be raised from the benthic zone up, there would just be more volume to do so. There is a greater concern of the whole ocean conveyor belt stopping, but that doesnt necessarily have to do with the upwelling, as much as it does the currents circulating the waters throughout the globe. But thatd be WAY down the road.

The thing to be concerned about is the changing pH of the ocean waters. The CO2 does effect that, and its a fact. When the pH starts to drop calcifiers in the oceans start to suffer. Meaning invertebrates and corals will diminish within due time. That seems more crucial (just in my opinion) than the raising temperatures.

sounds like we are saying the same thing. If something slows down then it doesnt get as far before it cools, and eventualy if it stops moving then, circulations has stopped.
And good point about the pH levels.

[Hallen]

The O2 that comes from plants is entirely derived from the H2O the plants soak up and use during the Calvin Cycle. Nothing to do with the CO2. That CO2 is used as the final electron acceptor.

Yes. I didn't say the CO2 got turned into O2.

I had Biochem a long, long time ago. I used to be able to write out the whole sequence. Fortunately, I have forgotten all of that. :)