Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming Reversed In One Year

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Yeah, I'd go solar too if the up front cost wasn't so steep. My energy use at home is such that I'd be generating more energy than I actually use.


    That's the rub... solar is expensive. But yeah you'd think there's be more government initiated incentives to go solar... maybe the power company lobbyists are playing a part?
    "KA-BONGGGGG!!!"

    - El Kabong

    Comment


    • #92
      That's the rub... solar is expensive. But yeah you'd think there's be more government initiated incentives to go solar... maybe the power company lobbyists are playing a part?


      It's also not very efficient yet. Panels take up a lot of space for the power they generate. Looking forward to see what advances they make. . .

      On the topic of solar energy, check out the Solar Spark Lighter I might have to get one of these. . .

      Comment


      • #93
        My sister has a masters degree in chemistry and does not believe the science behind global warming. Would you say that you are more knowledgeable and educated in science than she is?


        I have a bachelor's in Biology and years of self education.

        Here's a question though, is your sister a conservative republican?

        You see, I'm not a republican or a democrat, I'm just a human being that lives on this planet. My brain has no reason to convince me to look beyond logic for another answer. I have no political motivation in my desire to preserve the habitability of this globe for future generations.

        Comment


        • #94
          People also like to say that oil is not renewable. That is a lie.

          It's decayed organic matter under pressure, heat and time.

          Is there still organic matter? Is there still pressure? Is there still heat? Is there still time?

          Have there always been?

          Then oil has never stopped being made.


          Problem is Anjinsan, we use up oil about 3 kabillion times faster than the earth is able to produce it.

          The oil reserves we have now are the results of MILLIONS of years..... If we use it all up in a couple of hundred years, we'll have to waid another several million for it to be renewed.....

          And then, there just arent the HUGE tracts of lands covered in ferns and **************** like there were in the carboniferous period.....Humans have removed a signifigant amount of the vegetation that covers the earth, not to mention that Oil comes from a time when PLANTS not reptiles or Mammals ruled the earth. That time is over forever Anjinsan.

          Sorry my friend, read a few books and turn off the Sean Hannity.....

          Comment


          • #95
            My sister has a masters degree in chemistry and does not believe the science behind global warming. Would you say that you are more knowledgeable and educated in science than she is?


            I'd also like to say that anytime you make a generalized statment as I did, there will be exceptions. However, that has no bearing on the fact that this is a generally true....

            They manage to find "scientists" to stand up in support of creationism too..... doesn't mean they're good scientists.

            Comment


            • #96
              http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9850473

              http://media.npr.org/news/specials/climate/graphics/icecore_graphic.jpg

              NPR is not a conservative pro-industry source...and the article certainly does not read as such.

              BUT...the levels were higher as short as 120,000 years ago.



              That graph shows a spike 120,000 years ago, and another spike NOW.

              It doesn't show that our carbon dioxide levels are at some critical historical low point as you said in your initial post. This data does not support the sentence you wrote in caps and told us to read 20 times WHATSOEVER. What it does show is that our carbon levels are at their highest point in 120,000 years. That's very different from our carbon levels being "at an all time historical low"

              Backpedal or whatever, but your post was so wrong as to show that you shouldn't even bother voicing and opinion on this issue. You clearly need much more education on it before you should presume to tell other people to read your **************** 20 times cause you're THAT RIGHT.

              Seriously dude, I don't want to let your political stance hinder our long friendship, I don't take it personal at all, but you're really, really wrong here and I tell you that as a friend, not to be harsh or offend you in any way.

              Comment


              • #97
                That graph shows a spike 120,000 years ago, and another spike NOW.

                It doesn't show that our carbon dioxide levels are at some critical historical low point as you said in your initial post. This data does not support the sentence you wrote in caps and told us to read 20 times WHATSOEVER. What it does show is that our carbon levels are at their highest point in 120,000 years. That's very different from our carbon levels being "at an all time historical low"

                Backpedal or whatever, but your post was so wrong as to show that you shouldn't even bother voicing and opinion on this issue. You clearly need much more education on it before you should presume to tell other people to read your **************** 20 times cause you're THAT RIGHT.

                Seriously dude, I don't want to let your political stance hinder our long friendship, I don't take it personal at all, but you're really, really wrong here and I tell you that as a friend, not to be harsh or offend you in any way.


                Well I'm certainly not going to be offended.

                If you are correct. Chicago will be a better city still. New Orleans will be ****************ed...but building below sea level was always a stupid idea to start with.

                If I am correct. Chicago will still be ****************ing cold in the winter...and New Orleans will survive. Let's wait until we can have conversations 2 hours long about our ailments before proclaiming a winner.

                We are at a low level overall though. Even 100,000 years is but a blip. (though you did say that this was the highest level in 800,000 years and I did show that to be incorrect...and a 20,000 year period with higher C02 within the past 160,000 years is not just a spike) Also if you are looking at the big picture...the Carboniferous Period was 60,000,000 years long.
                Yes, I hate you.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Let me educate you a little more.




                  And to a previous poster...plants DO emit C02. They die. They release C02 upon death.



                  The C02 a plant emits when it dies is irrelevant to this question.

                  Let me explan:

                  The average plant consumes indescribably more C02 during it's life, which it breaks down and releases back into the atmoshpere as 02.

                  Now, When a plant dies, it releases whatever carbon dioxide was in it's little body when it died.

                  This is like comparing you releasing your last gasp of oxegen before your body consumes it after death, and then considering yourself an Oxygen emmiting organism.

                  So, plants do NOT emit carbon dioxide while alive, and they only release their last unused gasp of breath on death. Not relevant to the discussion of how plants add C02 to our atmosphere, because in reality plants initially removed enough C02 and provided enough oxygen on earth for mammals and **************** to live here in the first place.

                  This is a bull**************** argument head to toe, and it's really a backpedal to try and make up for the huge mistake in your initial post. You included microorganisms as well, I've taken several classes in microbiology, I assure you not all microbes release C02 as their waste byproduct.



                  Long and short of it. Global warming IF true...is FAR FAR FAR less scary than global cooling. PERIOD.

                  Life LIKES warmth. Life HATES cold.


                  Again, let me educate you.

                  You want to see the severe end of global warming:

                  Read about the temperature of Venus and read about WHAT SPECIFIC GAS IS MOST ABUNDANT IN VENUS' ATMOSPHERE!!!!

                  A human would literally melt and incinerate on Venus, which is in the throes of a runaway greenhouse effect. Even your bones. Yeah life LIKES warmth!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    HUGE tracts of land





                    "KA-BONGGGGG!!!"

                    - El Kabong

                    Comment


                    • Global cooling is 100x more scary than global warming.

                      plants like warmth n ****************.

                      they don't like ice.


                      I think global cooling hit us about 4 months ago. At this point in the winter I would welcome some global warming.

                      Comment


                      • If you are correct. Chicago will be a better city still. New Orleans will be ****************ed...but building below sea level was always a stupid idea to start with.

                        If I am correct. Chicago will still be ****************ing cold in the winter...and New Orleans will survive. Let's wait until we can have conversations 2 hours long about our ailments before proclaiming a winner.

                        We are at a low level overall though. Even 100,000 years is but a blip. The Carboniferous Period was 60,000,000 years long.


                        Yeah, well I'm going to hope you're right, and act like I'm right....how about that?

                        And let me say, the carboniferous period being 60,000,000 years long supports my argument more than yours.

                        That's how long it took to produce the oil that you're saying is renewable.

                        We're causing an upward trend that's really severe that we can see in a graph. It's happening in a short "blip" of time yes, but the effects are dramatic for a "blip" in time, this is not normal. Not only that, this trend can only continue upwards with our current activity. You have to realize this. Dramatic changes to the environment in a "blip" can be very bad.

                        Comment


                        • Yeah, well I'm going to hope you're right, and act like I'm right....how about that?

                          And let me say, the carboniferous period being 60,000,000 years long supports my argument more than yours.

                          That's how long it took to produce the oil that you're saying is renewable.

                          We're causing an upward trend that's really severe that we can see in a graph. It's happening in a short "blip" of time yes, but the effects are dramatic for a "blip" in time, this is not normal. Not only that, this trend can only continue upwards with our current activity. You have to realize this. Dramatic changes to the environment in a "blip" can be very bad.


                          Semantics.

                          It is renewable...just got to think on a geological scale as opposed to a species scale. I am HOPING that it runs out for good...as we both know what the Mother of invention is.
                          Yes, I hate you.

                          Comment


                          • I think global cooling hit us about 4 months ago. At this point in the winter I would welcome some global warming.


                            Well, global cooling hits us in cycles. We're going to be due for another ice age eventually. That's definitely going to happen one way or another.

                            In fact, the receding of the last Ice age was the major change that allowed humans to move towards civilization in the first place.

                            Comment


                            • Well, global cooling hits us in cycles. We're going to be due for another ice age eventually. That's definitely going to happen one way or another.

                              In fact, the receding of the last Ice age was the major change that allowed humans to move towards civilization in the first place.


                              Cooling, warming. It's just a matter of time.

                              If we speed up the onslaught of one...we also are speeding up the onslaught of the other.

                              I'd be more concerned about the moon leaving orbit as that will destroy all life on the planet with few if any species being able to survive.
                              Yes, I hate you.

                              Comment


                              • Semantics.

                                It is renewable...just got to think on a geological scale as opposed to a species scale. I am HOPING that it runs out for good...as we both know what the Mother of invention is.


                                Yeah, semantics.

                                I'm talking about renewable within the lifetime of the human species.

                                renewable in 60,000,000 years doesn't really make any difference for me or my great great great great great great grandchildren.

                                I can see your point about wanting to see more innovation in other areas of renewable energy, but I'm just saying we should be working on that, and conserving what we have at the same time.

                                Comment



                                Working...
                                X