Contraversal!?!

[Ray]

Actually, no I hadn't read the link or watched the video till you asked. Most of those files are very big for my slow ass DSL setup, but I will give it a chance for sure. Just might take awhile. I did take a look at the ethynol PP, I already knew most of that stuff from racing karts as a kid. I'm going to watch the video too. I gotta see this.

[bhall]

I just find it amusing that being compared to the sitting President of the United States brought this on.

But I guess I understand. I'd feel the same way.

Let's have that debate though.

[Giancarlo]

Let's have that debate though.

Ever use this button before?

[DaveKillens]

I understand that since you are a Marxist-Leninist, you have difficulty having a debate with capitalists which often lead to pathetic temper-tantrums and red herrings as far as the eye can see. That's just how you people work -

How old are you? Dude, you have a lot to learn.

[Ignis Fatuus]

It has been damaged by spray cans and other chemicals but the abolishment of most of those chemicals have allowed it to recharge. It has the ability to do so. The fact that the ozone hole is not an issue anymore should be seen as a triumph of environmentalism not a bum arguement.

Really? How is it that its an annual occurrence according to the EPA? Is that not considered a problem anymore? What about the baby seals and penquins in Antartica that can't afford sunscreen to protect themselves? Why don't we have the wonderful UN send them care packages of sunscreen so they don't get skin cancer?

To what degree it is natural? To what degree it can be worsened by our industry?

These things are never as simple as both sides would like us to believe. One thing everyone should realize is, that no kind of energy is for free. No type of energy is completely ecological. You allways have to take it from somewhere...

I also think we should plant more trees and care about our forests. No, not just the rainforests in third countries, as our officials often like to say, while they are allowing for cheap soy beans from former Amazon rainforests being imported, when we are not looking...

[G-Rock]

Ray wrote:
G-Rock wrote:
It has been damaged by spray cans and other chemicals but the abolishment of most of those chemicals have allowed it to recharge. It has the ability to do so. The fact that the ozone hole is not an issue anymore should be seen as a triumph of environmentalism not a bum arguement.


Really? How is it that its an annual occurrence according to the EPA? Is that not considered a problem anymore? What about the baby seals and penquins in Antartica that can't afford sunscreen to protect themselves? Why don't we have the wonderful UN send them care packages of sunscreen so they don't get skin cancer?

Well Ray, seals and penguins have fur/feathers. Their skin is never exposed. Since most mammals on the north and south poles have fur, an ozone hole was never a problem for them and as long as it stays that size, it won't be a problem for the rest of the world either.
The point to understand, is that, the ozone was growing larger in the 80's, the world cut back on CFC emmisions and the ozone is on its way to stabilizing itself again.

I could spend 5 minutes of my time a find you a reference but I'm not going to because you can probably find some scientist somewhere around that world that would contradicit my source and then we would have to argue who has the best scientist.

[Ray]

I guess my sarcasm wasn't too good huh? I was kidding with the seal and penquin thing. My real point was that it was such a huge deal a few years ago, and now it seems like it was a scientific 'fad' to talk about the ozone layer hole. If it's important enough to mention, I think it's important enough to find out the exact cause, which I still don't believe was CFCs. There HAS to be more than that. I need to go do more research.

[Belatti]

Came here through the Regenerative systems thread. After reading that some people still denies that Global Warming IS happening and that it´s due to Human interaction with the enviroment, I wanted to throw some thoughts into the table, not very scientific, but more like a "Coffee chat" talk:

posted by Mikey_S

Climate change; As Ciro said, there is general acceptance within the scientific community that climate change is happening. What is not agreed is why and whether the cause is anthropogenic. There is also no doubt that the rise in atmospheric CO2 correlates extremely well with the increase in global temperature - cause, or effect????? no concensus as yet.

Why and wheter the cause is anthropogenic?

Well: it can be said that throught the million years of this planet partially unknown history and all through the various variations and cycles in the complex global climate, there might be a "natural" global warming, an anomally that is occurring right now randomly, impossible to predict 50 years ago like other climate changes could have been predicted if weather measure instruments would have existed 20,000 years ago. There might be...

To make things more interesting lets talk about the probability of that "natural" warming happening, lets say 1 in a million? Thats 0,000001.

Now lets rate the probabiliy in earth for an "animal race" evolutions so much so that it begins to throw so much sh*t from the underground to the atmosphere in only 100 years, like if 5000% more vulcanos exploded in that time than they regular expodes. I don´t feel like researching how much CO2 and other gases emissions can be compared to vulcano explotions (figures well apreciated) and its probabilities to explode randomly, but let´s say that the probs for a particular animal race building fossile burning machines is another 1 in a million (years) ok? So thats 0,000001 again.

We know that CO2 emissions are proportional to temp raise, doesn´t matter really if its cause or effect. They are proportional. Punto.

Now if you combine both events happening simultaniously, we have got 0,000001 * 0,000001 = 0,000000000001 (did I type the enough amount of 0´s? )

That seems pretty unlikely, at least to me.

[WhiteBlue]

posted by Mikey_S

Climate change; As Ciro said, there is general acceptance within the scientific community that climate change is happening. What is not agreed is why and whether the cause is anthropogenic. There is also no doubt that the rise in atmospheric CO2 correlates extremely well with the increase in global temperature - cause, or effect????? no concensus as yet.

Well scientists also can be corrupt as any other professional group can be. Perhaps people remember that long after the world accepted the health dangers of cigarettes and arranged for better protection some scientists in the employ of the tobacco industry maintained similar positions to those who denie global warming today. it is a phenomenon that cannot be avoided as long as there are sufficient numbers of greedy scientists and people who are prepared to cultivate their addiction rather than recognise their responsibility.

[Ciro Pabón]

Interesting to see this thread revived. I just want to add that there is no "science central commitee", so I think it's irrelevant if corrupt scientists exist or not.

Either you read about the themes you are interested in or you do not understand them. However, if you read enough about a theme you get a sense of its direction. As time passes, more controversial theories clarify themselves.

I find amazing that I had to fight a year and a half ago about the idea that oil was scarce and was going to become expensive, but back then, I wasn't sure: a majority of well written articles said so, a minority of not as well written ones opposed that point of view.

I think that the correlation between the global temperatures and the amount of CO2 has been proved from the geologic point of view. There is a pretty good correlation between estimates of CO2 in atmosphere and global temperature for the last 600,000 years. That's enough of a good statistical series for me.

Sure volcanoes influence the weather, but they can be sized against fossil fuel impact:

- Volcanoes and all kinds of CO2 natural outgassing inject, average, 200 million tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere.
- Cars and electric plants produce, in average, 26800 million tons of C02 per year, that is, 100 times the amount of volcanoes.

Yes, there have been super-duper gigantic eruptions in the history of earth. You should check the structure that exist below the Indian continent: the mother of all eruptions (the Deccan traps). However, the last one happened 60 million years ago...

Of course nobody is 100% sure if cars and electricity are to blame for the earth warming nowadays, but if you're in a forest fire it's better to throw water around instead of coal. Who cares about who started it?

Most science and all engineering revolves around the fine distinction you have to make between posible and probable.

This could be one my most used phrases, when people argues about the relativity of scientific knowledge: anything is posible, not everything is probable.

To talk about possibilities all you need is a good glass of alcohol and a couple of friends, to know something about probabilities you need a calculator and some time and effort. If you have some intuition and "a hunter's mind", it'll help a lot.

[Belatti]

Yes, there have been super-duper gigantic eruptions in the history of earth. You should check the structure that exist below the Indian continent: the mother of all eruptions (the Deccan traps). However, the last one happened 60 million years ago...

So I´ll correct my probs. (not my pos. BTW Ciro, nice method to do brainstorming )
1/60.000.000 = 0.000000016
0.000001*0.000000016 = 0,000000000000016

Of course nobody is 100% sure if cars and electricity are to blame for the earth warming nowadays, but if you're in a forest fire it's better to throw water around instead of coal. Who cares about who started it?
.

So, according my probs, I´m not 100% sure, I´m:
100 - (0,000000000000016 * 100) = 99,9999999999984% sure

[enkidu]

I still stand by my ground with the research i've done through the net.

Yes we have higher CO2 levels than we did in recorded past.

Yes this will slightly warm up the planet.

But... Also the sun is hotter now than in the past.


My theory is with increased CO2 levels, plants will grow faster and help maintain levels if we bloody stop cutting them down!

Remember 50% is taken into the sea and 50% by plants and trees and we're losing an area the size of scotland every year in rain forrests.

Yes lets be more efficent with our resourses and push technologies forward but the problem has been the same problem since I was at school 17 years ago. Stop cutting the bloody trees down! Carbon footprint is just for governments to make money!

[Belatti]

My theory is with increased CO2 levels, plants will grow faster and help maintain levels if we bloody stop cutting them down!

Remember 50% is taken into the sea and 50% by plants and trees and we're losing an area the size of scotland every year in rain forrests.

Yes lets be more efficent with our resourses and push technologies forward but the problem has been the same problem since I was at school 17 years ago. Stop cutting the bloody trees down! Carbon footprint is just for governments to make money!

I don´t really know if plants would grow faster with more CO2, I know nothing about biology. Would we grow faster with more O2 ??? Does basketball players inhale O2 to reach higher? I don´t know...

Meanwhile, because we are so smart and clever, enough to realize we need green fuels, we started to replace rainforests with soy plantations to get biodiesel. So that was good! Now soy price went to the clouds like Petrol barrels did and we can let the poor starve a little more. Who cares a lot?

BTW, do I need to say I was being sarcastic out there?

[enkidu]

Here's one example;
http://ezinearticles.com/?Positive-Effe ... th&id=1607

I don't know its all crazy, my idea is instead of paying all these new carbon tax how about we pay a tree tax which goes to countrys which expand forests?!

[roost89]

Here's one example;
http://ezinearticles.com/?Positive-Effe ... th&id=1607

I don't know its all crazy, my idea is instead of paying all these new carbon tax how about we pay a tree tax which goes to countrys which expand forests?!

Buying trees sounds like a good idea..but we'd need millions and millions of them and we don't have enough space for all of them. Farmland takes up huge amounts of area..all of which is needed. As does natural land and even more so cities and towns.

Personally, I think the only solution to the energy problem, at the moment, is Nuclear along with Wind, solar and when it can be harnessed..tidal! Everyhouse should have a solar-panelled roof along with a small wind-turbine. With very large Nuclear stations to provide the bulk of the energy..I'm sure it'd work in the long run

It's interesting to note that Hydrogen cars, the apparently clean vehicle, emits an even greater green-house gas than CO2, Water Vapour, although it's effects aren't as prolonged they're greater. Sort of 2 times the power with 1/2 the running time.