Wow - there's about 3 or 4 threads within this thread - getting harder to keep up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjmarsh81
Humans have had the ability to pollute the Earth for well over 600 years. I read somewhere once (sorry I didn't keep it) that sulphur pollution levels back in Roman times when they were making swords and nice chariots were on a par with current pollution levels, even more so.
Well, to be completely correct, we've had the ability to "pollute" since the dawn of time... but I think you know what I mean when I say we've only had the ability to really pump out pollution on a monster scale within the last century or so. We may have had some localised pollution of a specific sort in some place (like sulphur - I'll take your word for it), but I think that's not in the same league of what we're capable of now. The romans weren't technological capable of doing the same damage as millions of cars, coal driven power stations, mass production, etc etc etc....
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjmarsh81
There seems to be one recurring them in all the arguments however. Humans=Bad
No, not really. More like Humans=="Bad for the environment". Small difference, but an important one. I personally see most people as "good" - but not in an ecological sense.
Let's face it, from an environmental viewpoint, the earth really doesn't need us at all, and would definitely be better off without us - unless an asteroid comes in our direction and we need to send up Bruce Willis - then all those animals will be glad we're here!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ponders
And this is something we can do now. Plant more trees. Help your local climatic conditions to stabilize and buffer possible future problems. Oh and of course they may even just help reduce some of that other stuff that's causing so much worry.
Damn! Before I got my telescope, I loved trees. But my place has a huge tree canopy which blocks out too much precious sky. Is it bad if I start wanting a freak storm to take them down?
By the way Paul, a small correction on your comment about tree's, yes every tree is important and I for one cant get enough of them, but the greatest percentage of oxygen on the planet comes from the oceans and their life forms, the kelp forests of southern Tasmania for example produce more oxygen than the forests of Tasmania, we need to protect our oceans far more than our lands, but dont get me wrong, re-build the forests too.
I don't know where you got the idea I was talking about producing oxygern. If you mean this statement
Quote:
Oh and of course they may even just help reduce some of that other stuff that's causing so much worry.
I was actually referring to the fact that trees remove carbon dioxide, one of the green house gasses that started this thread, not that they produce oxygen.
I'm curious nightshift, just what do the Rothchilds etc have to gain by this "Hoax" ?
I would have thought that the gain would have been to deny the problem so more coal & oil can be sold !
That is a point I was thinking about too. I've been listening to various conspiracy theories saying that GW is made up for alterior motives ... but common sense points the other way. There is far more at stake for some to maintain the status quo (fossil fuels for a start). It reminds of of an old "MAD" magazine where there was a comic saying "You're a genius if you can invent a water driven car ........ BUT an idiot if you think the oil companies will let you make it", while the illustration showed the men in black suits with guitar cases leading a man into their limo.
History shows that the powers of the day have a far greater tendancy toward wanting to keep the status quo maintained, which makes sense, because the status quo is normally WHY they have some power.
Yep and if your going to quote me at least get it right, I said "floating ice" and specifically excluded land locked ice in my comment
Actually, both acropolite and janoskiss were making very valid points. They responded to your experiment of filling a cup with ice to the top.
It's an unfortunate distraction if you feel they didn't quoted you 100% accurately, but they did correctly point out that your "ice in a cup" experient is a flawed representation since you arranged the experiment so that no ice stuck out above the rim of the cup.
Moving away from polar ice caps (and I'm not sure how much impact this would have - will need to look this up), wouldn't the expansion of the liquid ocean as it warms have some impact on sea levels? I'm guessing here, but wouldn't even a modest temperature rise to such an enormous volume of water have some kind of impact?
Note that in some ways, the "water level" issue is yet another distraction - if GW is happening as many think, then rising water probably wouldn't be our worst challenge facing us.
It reminds of of an old "MAD" magazine where there was a comic saying "You're a genius if you can invent a water driven car ........ BUT an idiot if you think the oil companies will let you make it", while the illustration showed the men in black suits with guitar cases leading a man into their limo.
now I am not into conspiracy theories but thats giggleworthy
makes you think....
different tangent: how much scientific research is held off and how many of the worlds problems could be solved if the govt paid more attention and funded said projects? unfortunely they are only in for 4 years and because of that dont think long term... BOO HISS!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderchild
It's an unfortunate distraction if you feel they didn't quoted you 100% accurately, but they did correctly point out that your "ice in a cup" experient is a flawed representation since you arranged the experiment so that no ice stuck out above the rim of the cup.
the outcome of this experiment might depend on whether the cup is half full or half empty
I'm curious nightshift, just what do the Rothchilds etc have to gain by this "Hoax" ?
I would have thought that the gain would have been to deny the problem so more coal & oil can be sold !
It's too involved to reply here, once again I draw your attention to a book by Peter Sawyer called, The Green Hoax Effect". ask your library, search google for "Green Hoax" and read your heads off if you dont like libraries, Peter sawyer has been dismissed on some subjects but he isnt the only author of this subject, unlike many in the scientific community who are funded by Governments or Corporate Giants he has nothing to gain by his comments, lets not forget that there is no money to be made by scientists, they exist due to grants alone, take away their grants and they are over educated unemployed people. NASA wouldnt exist if it wasnt for government funds. (possible exception here is drug companies but thats another story). If you want to doubt my comment just look at the new CSIRO diet emploring you to eat tons of meat (and i aint no vege lover) that diet and all the research was funded by the Meat Board, yet our government tells us this is the best thing for us, no nutritionist in the world will recommend this diet and in fact they have been up in arms over it, it is a good example of what I'm talking about though.
For example, here's some questions.
Q. Why do we have catalytic converters on our cars?
A. To clean up our exhaust emissions by removing Lead.
Q. Who owned the worlds biggest lead mines?
A. Rothschild family enterprises. Why? in 1910 they realised by adding it our petrol it would stop pinging and high quality spirit could be replaced by cheap-to-produce petroleum or gasolene, they bought most of the lead mines.
Q. Whats in a catalytic converter?
A. It has a honeycomb of expensive metals in it which react with the gases converting them to more harmful gases than they started such as Sulpher dioxide (causing the rotten egg smell) but I digress, the metals is question are platinum (Pt), rhodium(Rh), and/or palladium (Pd).
Q. Who bought up and now owns the mines for these metals back in the early 70's? The same Rothschild companies that own(ed) the lead mines.
Q. Why not clean up fuel instead?
A. Coz us dumb consumers can pay for the converters when we buy the car and the rothschilds can go on selling us the metals and the petro chemical giants can keep making cheap nasty fuel and charging us $1.20+ for it.
For those that dont know, before petrol as we know it we used to burn spirit in cars that was much much cleaner and didnt need either lead or catalysts to achieve it but it cost more to produce reducing the profits of the fuel companies. I for one would pay more for clean fuel than pollute the air we breathe more by way of a cataytic converter, yes we removed lead but introduced a cocktail of worse chemicals, but you see the worse chemicals are invisable, it was mostly the lead that causes the brown smog in california.
I don't know where you got the idea I was talking about producing oxygern. If you mean this statement
I was actually referring to the fact that trees remove carbon dioxide, one of the green house gasses that started this thread, not that they produce oxygen.
Ummm yes but, trees produce carbon dioxide at night due to the lack of photosynthesis, they produce oxygen in daytime due to photosynthesis.
But I take your point, they help filter CO2 from our environment.
but they did correctly point out that your "ice in a cup" experient is a flawed representation since you arranged the experiment so that no ice stuck out above the rim of the cup.
Now you have mis quoted me, as I said, "if you fill a cup with ice, THEN add water to the rim" then the ice (because it floats above the surface) will be above the rim, but when it melts it wont overflow, the main reason for this is the oxygen bubbles that get caught in ice helping to expand it, about 12% of ice is air, therefore about 12% of the polar caps is NOT water.
And..... Water expands ever so slightly as it is warmed, but, no where near enough to raise ocean levels by 6 metres or as some same hundreds of metres, certainly not if we are talking 1 to 3 degree's, even if the oceans boiled (100 degree's C) it wouldnt rise that high, it would be uncomfortable though especially in Fiji.
Mr Night,
the problem with that is that the icecaps were created on top of the water and not the icecaps created and then water added.... fill your cup with water then add ice...
different tangent: how much scientific research is held off and how many of the worlds problems could be solved if the govt paid more attention and funded said projects? unfortunely they are only in for 4 years and because of that dont think long term... BOO HISS!!!
Sadly ving, I think you're on the money - and it's hard to blame them in some ways because a government tends to get hammered when they're not producing the best short term outcomes. If we as a voting public rewarded long term thinking, more of it would happen - but unfortunately we don't.
Similar goes for our purchasing choices too I guess - we want companies to be socially & environmentally responsible - but at the end of day, we will tend to choose the cheapest product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ving
the outcome of this experiment might depend on whether the cup is half full or half empty
Boy has this thread got some legs !
I'm with Paul though ... plant more trees, if we all did just a bit our local areas would be a better place.
To quote an old green adage "think globally ... act locally"
Of course as astromomers, we need to make sure that they are low growing trees that dont obstruct our views of the night sky
Plant ornamental Eucalypts. My yard is full of em. They also block the steet lights a treat
Very interesting guys, i can see that global werming is not real at all but it feel likes it because it comes in the natural cycle. For example, the single matter explodes as the big bang and make universe around the space interoir and everything starting to come closer again and make one matter again and it doing repeat all the time. I can see that earth is doing the similar cycle in weather patterns. I wonder who made this universe?
There is also known that the perihelion and aphelion points of earth orbit is precessing later in the season. Meaning the Spring and Summer seasons arrive earlier on the calender about 1 day every 6 decades regardless of man made global warming.
There is also known that the perihelion and aphelion points of earth orbit is precessing later in the season. Meaning the Spring and Summer seasons arrive earlier on the calender about 1 day every 6 decades regardless of man made global warming.
"Marking Time by Dr. D. Steele"
True, but autumn is coming later. The point is that the growing season is longer than it used to be.
to think global warming doesnt exist would mean that you obviously are on another planet, not awake or possibly not alive. We all know that the global warming issue is real and its causing melting of ice and freakish weather, but the big question is just how much of what happening is human induced?
I believe that while we have added to the global warming issue (or climate change as the pollies call it now) our input is not as significant as we are lead to believe. We all know that warming is part of the natural cycle and as part of that cycle ice will melt and weather patterns will change...
is what attenborough say that global warming is natural but we cause the ice to melt and the cyclones?
![[1ponders]'s Avatar](../vbiis/customavatars/avatar45_9.gif){kind=avatar}
