The earth is always changing. Certainly don't dump toxic waste or pollute chemicals into rivers, but I'm rather sure volcanoes give much more CO2 than humans have. Back in dinosaur times, I've heard it was much warmer. Then an ice-age comes and it gets cooler. Then warmer again... Seems like a natural cycle. There's also the medieval warm period, but I don't know much about that. Also, mars ice-caps melting. Google it, there's proof. The sun isn't something that stays the same all the time;it changes.
They found Fimmvorduhals was producing about 20-25,000 tonnes of CO2 each day.
Based on the relative size of the volcanoes, he estimates that Eyjafjallajoekull could have emitted about 10 times that amount per day at its peak.
But that lasted for less than a week; things now appear to be much quieter.
And even over that peak period, its daily CO2 output was only about one-thousandth of that produced by the sum total of humanity's fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture and everything else.
In fact, the extra CO2 produced from the volcano is probably less than the volume "saved" by having Europe's aeroplanes grounded.
The earth is always changing. Certainly don't dump toxic waste or pollute chemicals into rivers, but I'm rather sure volcanoes give much more CO2 than humans have. Back in dinosaur times, I've heard it was much warmer. Then an ice-age comes and it gets cooler. Then warmer again... Seems like a natural cycle. There's also the medieval warm period, but I don't know much about that. Also, mars ice-caps melting. Google it, there's proof. The sun isn't something that stays the same all the time;it changes.
Guess what.
Global Warming has absolutely nothing to do with the Sun. Also, Volcanoes do not give out as much CO2 as human activity. Not to long ago, that wouldn't have been true.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
Global Warming has absolutely nothing to do with the Sun. Also, Volcanoes do not give out as much CO2 as human activity. Not to long ago, that wouldn't have been true.
But receding ice caps on Mars! Anyways, there are LOTS of volcanoes... They have emitted way more CO2 than humans.(not say, per year, but over many years(millions?,more?)
Anyways, I like nuclear power plants a lot. Better yet, if we could get fusion technology, we would have lots of energy. Or, (far future) almost perfect matter to energy conversion!!!!!!!
But receding ice caps on Mars! Anyways, there are LOTS of volcanoes... They have emitted way more CO2 than humans.(not say, per year, but over many years(millions?,more?)
Anyways, I like nuclear power plants a lot. Better yet, if we could get fusion technology, we would have lots of energy. Or, (far future) almost perfect matter to energy conversion!!!!!!!
No. Over the years the CO2 that volcanoes released are nulled, because of the rate at which they release it. Do you know what trees do? They don't possibly use CO2 to live...
And your solution to a cleaner energy is nuclear power plants? What a brilliant idea, it's not like that waste is so toxic we have to hide it behind mountains for a couple generations or anything...
Not to mention all nuclear power plants are are steam engines.
But receding ice caps on Mars! Anyways, there are LOTS of volcanoes... They have emitted way more CO2 than humans.(not say, per year, but over many years(millions?,more?)
Anyways, I like nuclear power plants a lot. Better yet, if we could get fusion technology, we would have lots of energy. Or, (far future) almost perfect matter to energy conversion!!!!!!!
The receding ice caps on Mars are most likely Solar. That doesn't mean the ones on Earth are. Mars is a much, much different planet.
Before the Industrial Revolution, that would've been true. But now? Definitely not.
We have Fusion Technolagy. I'm actually currently doing AutoCAD drawings for a Fusor that's being built be a friend. However, it's very inefficient at producing energy because you have to put more in than you get out. What you're thinking about is Cold Fusion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
I just don't worry about it, there are enough people worrying about it for me, plus technology is increasing extremely quickly and with increased technology comes better ways to get energy, so I'm not really worried about it.
why at this rate, in 100 years we will be able to travel to Pluto.
The way I see it, climate change is obviously real, but the concept of 'global warming' seems a bit crap. I mean, if it were humans doing it, then we would try and do something. But when we have some huge conference, promised to 'devise a solution to the problem', bugger all happens. It's like all of the leaders of the world just say 'Balls to it, Lewis' and start watching illegally downloaded episodes of Family Guy on their iPhones. If it were a serious problem they'd actually decide on some serious measures, not set retardedly unrealistically high targets about the percentage of energy from wind in 2025...
And anyway, surely if the ice melts in the Arctic, some parts will start to move south, down the Atlantic, getting in the way of the Gulf Stream, shutting it down or cooling it immensely, therefore cooling western Europe and the north-west of Africa. The most northely parts of this will freeze back up again because it's so cold. Then there will be no ice moving down the Atlantic, so it warms back up again. Repeat ad nauseam...
So your reasoning for there not being climate change is because our politicians don't take it seriously... Hmmmmmm....
If they're not the kind who gets elected, chances are they're making too much money off fossil fuel.
Politics aren't about making the world a better place, it's about maintaining a personal status quo. The good of the planet does not come into consideration. Sick, ain't it? Get used to it.
He did find the perfect campaign trick, didn't he... The right words at the right time. Truly a great politician, more high standing than his peers, which of course doesn't say very much. :smile.gif:
I think you have to invert the "good" graph when you're talking about politicians.
Morally, heh. :biggrin.gif: I was talking more about being good as a politician. I might say Hitler was a good politician - he was a great orator, knew how to get what he wanted, perfectly set in the zeitgeist. No moral sentiment involved. In that way, Obama is comparable to Hit- OOOOOOH NOOOOOO WHAT HAVE I DONE
I'm sure this will convince climate change sceptics to change their minds-
Doubtful.
My opinions:
-Still waiting for waterfront property. While I think the environmentalists do have a point, I think some of the "doom and gloom" effects are exaggerated.
-If you want to convince people to change their habits, here's a thought: Instead of scaring them to death, perhaps we should convince them to save energy to reduce electric bills? It's a lot more effective if you can save people money as well as helping the environment.
-Same thing with cars. Would I buy a fuel efficient car for some global warming thing? Probably not. Would I buy a fuel efficient car to save money on gasoline? You bet.
The more you can give real, tangible benefits to doing these things, the more successful you'll be convincing people to change their habits.
Personally, I don't think we have enough data to draw conclusions about all of the claims yet. So I'm undecided.
C'mon, you promised me waterfront property, and supposedly had scientific data to prove it too. Now, where is that rising water? :dry.gif:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When all is said and done, Will you have said more than you have done?
-If you want to convince people to change their habits, here's a thought: Instead of scaring them to death, perhaps we should convince them to save energy to reduce electric bills? It's a lot more effective if you can save people money as well as helping the environment.
Scaring people to death works. Look at what it turned our airports into.
... I have a knee-jerk reaction to sincerely disregard people who post Absolutes.
"THIS IS THE ONLY CAUSE, THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER, THIS IS THE ONLY EFFECT IT WILL HAVE!1!"
Blech.
Anyways, there are probably tons of solutions to this problem, we just haven't found them yet. Well, we haven't found an easy one yet, that's for certain.
And your solution to a cleaner energy is nuclear power plants? What a brilliant idea, it's not like that waste is so toxic we have to hide it behind mountains for a couple generations or anything...
Not to mention all nuclear power plants are are steam engines.
Yes, lets use nuclear power plants! The waste does eventually decay to lead, so as long as you safely dispose of it, it would be fine.
Yes, lets use nuclear power plants! The waste does eventually decay to lead, so as long as you safely dispose of it, it would be fine.
I agree.
Yeah, it's not like any organic life in proximity to the stuff without proper protection gets extremely contaminated, and that we are constantly red taping mountains just to store this extremely dangerous toxic waste.
But of course, it's okay if we have 5 arms, so long as we don't have to deal with high temperatures.
You heard that, green and red.
This is just plain wrong, if it were true and volcanoes have been spewing that much co2 for billions of years earth would be a co2 gas giant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8631396.stm
Guess what.
Global Warming has absolutely nothing to do with the Sun. Also, Volcanoes do not give out as much CO2 as human activity. Not to long ago, that wouldn't have been true.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
But receding ice caps on Mars! Anyways, there are LOTS of volcanoes... They have emitted way more CO2 than humans.(not say, per year, but over many years(millions?,more?)
Anyways, I like nuclear power plants a lot. Better yet, if we could get fusion technology, we would have lots of energy. Or, (far future) almost perfect matter to energy conversion!!!!!!!
Can you at least agree with what I said?
You heard that, green and red.
No. Over the years the CO2 that volcanoes released are nulled, because of the rate at which they release it. Do you know what trees do? They don't possibly use CO2 to live...
And your solution to a cleaner energy is nuclear power plants? What a brilliant idea, it's not like that waste is so toxic we have to hide it behind mountains for a couple generations or anything...
Not to mention all nuclear power plants are are steam engines.
The receding ice caps on Mars are most likely Solar. That doesn't mean the ones on Earth are. Mars is a much, much different planet.
Before the Industrial Revolution, that would've been true. But now? Definitely not.
We have Fusion Technolagy. I'm actually currently doing AutoCAD drawings for a Fusor that's being built be a friend. However, it's very inefficient at producing energy because you have to put more in than you get out. What you're thinking about is Cold Fusion.
The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it - Phil Plait
why at this rate, in 100 years we will be able to travel to Pluto.
So your reasoning for there not being climate change is because our politicians don't take it seriously... Hmmmmmm....
Or work toward change. :wink.gif:
You heard that, green and red.
I think you have to invert the "good" graph when you're talking about politicians.
You heard that, green and red.
Exactly. :laugh.gif: Hehe, in before shitstorm?
You heard that, green and red.
Doubtful.
My opinions:
-Still waiting for waterfront property. While I think the environmentalists do have a point, I think some of the "doom and gloom" effects are exaggerated.
-If you want to convince people to change their habits, here's a thought: Instead of scaring them to death, perhaps we should convince them to save energy to reduce electric bills? It's a lot more effective if you can save people money as well as helping the environment.
-Same thing with cars. Would I buy a fuel efficient car for some global warming thing? Probably not. Would I buy a fuel efficient car to save money on gasoline? You bet.
The more you can give real, tangible benefits to doing these things, the more successful you'll be convincing people to change their habits.
Personally, I don't think we have enough data to draw conclusions about all of the claims yet. So I'm undecided.
C'mon, you promised me waterfront property, and supposedly had scientific data to prove it too. Now, where is that rising water? :dry.gif:
Scaring people to death works. Look at what it turned our airports into.
"If it bleeds, it leads."
You heard that, green and red.
"THIS IS THE ONLY CAUSE, THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER, THIS IS THE ONLY EFFECT IT WILL HAVE!1!"
Blech.
Anyways, there are probably tons of solutions to this problem, we just haven't found them yet. Well, we haven't found an easy one yet, that's for certain.
Yes, lets use nuclear power plants! The waste does eventually decay to lead, so as long as you safely dispose of it, it would be fine.
I agree.
Yeah, it's not like any organic life in proximity to the stuff without proper protection gets extremely contaminated, and that we are constantly red taping mountains just to store this extremely dangerous toxic waste.
But of course, it's okay if we have 5 arms, so long as we don't have to deal with high temperatures.