global warming what we can do/fact or fiction

[INFINTEBAJAN2]

ok their has been alot of debate on both sides.

 

 

 

you know the usual and stuff but alot of people have been arguing that global warming is not true,and im starting to believe it so can you guys persuade me either way so i can know whether to reduce my carbon footprint or not

[Giordano]

The less you use, the more money you save when the bills come in. Thats my motivation to be honest.

[Agunimon979]

Well think about this: Plants and trees need Carbon Dioxide for photosynphesis.

 

 

 

It's not that I follow global warming, I more follow air pollution. I've listened to presentations that show the effect of smoke on crops and plants. Yeah it likes dries them out or something and kills them.

[jackattack]

You should reduce your carbon footprint anyway. The question is what lengths you will go to. Global warming is a fact. What's up for debate is how much of it is caused by humans, what's coming next, and what we can do. Some research shows that up to 35% of warming since the 1970's is due to increased solar output. Plus cosmic rays or urban heat islands. Global Warming isn't going to be as bad as as most people say. Some scientists have said that climate sensitivity is as low as 1.6 degrees. Sice there's been .8 of warming there wouldn't be much left. That being said we shouldn't panic and cut our own wrists. There's a difference between walking a few miles and paying thousands of dollars for a hybrid or solar panels.

[Range_This11]

Yeah a carbon footprint is not related to global warming when you think about it. Global warming shouldn't have an effect on your choice; you should be reducing it anyways for the good of the planet.

[INFINTEBAJAN2]

how do i reduce it?

[jackattack]

Turn off all electricity you can. Plug all your stuff into power strips and turn the whole strip off when your done because some things use power even when off. Drive less, take the bus, walk, no bottled water, eat less meat, and buy those squiggley lightbulbs.

[Ouchy]

Let me guess, are you doing Global Warming for your topic in school? :XD: I know I had to ;) .

 

 

 

But I will give me view on it however:

 

Global warming is a cockup, a lie. There has been more than suficent evidence to prove that it is something that has happened before many thousands years ago with more devastating effects and higher temperatures. It has only been driven by the media and Al Gore (Funnily enough his house uses more power in a months then the average house does in a year, I am sure he uses energy efficient light bulbs and turns the T.V. off after looking at his pornography). The media and Al Gore take facts and graphs and only show half of them, or they take things that are not true and stretch them to their liking. A graph can show that the temperature has gone up in the past 50 years then gone down again, then happened to go up again, yet they would only show the current 50 years. Al Gore blames the Ice Caps in Antarctica for causing the Sea Level to rise; the fact is they aren't, and it is impossible for them to rise this way. The Ice Cap is already in the water. Two thirds of it is submerged in this water while the other third is shown to us. If that ice cap melts then the sea level will not rise, it will simply stay the same, as the mass of the ice cap is already in the water, so it is impossible for it to magically gain more weight and make the sea levels rise. I know you will think that is not true but you can do it at home. Put about 5 Ice Cubes in a cup, then fill it up with water to the top, or to a desired level. Mark the water level and/or weigh it on the scales and leave it in cool place with no direct sunlight (the sunlight will cause the water to evaporate, thus making your experiment not a fair test) and leave it there for about 1 day. Come back to it and the ice should be melted. Weight it and check the water level. Nothing would have changed.

 

 

 

Now for my list on how to reduce your carbon footprint:

 

 

 

o Don't drive unless you have to

 

o Walk whenever possible

 

o Take the bus or bike to school/work

 

o Recycle plastic bottles

 

o Hang your clothes out to dry on the line then using the dryer

 

o Turn off your computer/appliances when you go to school/bed

 

o Don't leave the tap running when you are not there, same with light

 

o Use the energy efficient light bulbs at your own risk (they have mercury in them, which is poisonous)

 

o Re-use paper

 

o Pack your own lunch and bring the waste home

 

o Use a water saving shower head

 

o Don't use the heated towel rail

 

o Wear warm clothing then turning the heater on

 

 

 

There are probably countless more ideas to save power, but I cannot list them all :P

 

 

 

Well, that is my view.

[Cup Lion]

Infinte, you should watch Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth". Lots of information in there. Believe it or not, its your choice.

 

 

 

I believe in global warming, and try to reduce pollution as much as possible.

[Da Pirates]

I hate how people buy into this stuff. I mean come on, so what, should everyone start riding bikes to work?

[myshadow7]

"buy into it"

 

 

 

you're the one that's buying into it, bud. By "buying into it" you would save quite a bit of money a year.

 

 

 

by "not buying into it" you thus don't care, and continue to spend money on excess gas, electricity, etc.

 

 

 

which actually I don't care, but waste is waste.

 

 

 

 

 

To say global warming can't be proved is false. It's provable by smallscale experiment, and the effect is apparent.

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly, there was a 2 degree shift in temperature a long time ago, and it killed alot of life on the planet. Too lazy to look up the details.

 

 

 

 

 

I actually saw a bit of something on the Sundance Film channel this morning, look up Earthships or Biotecture, it will give you some ideas (though it is a bit drastic for short notice) pretty cool stuff though.

 

 

 

Use less lights. Play less Runescape ;D wear smaller shoes, stop breathing out co2,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oh interesting fact that many probably know, methane is 20x more powerful than co2 as a greenhouse gas. so stop farting.

[deloriagod]

You can live your life like normal but cut down on using CFCs. The ozone is made of 3 oxygen atoms per molecule. The bonds for the third oxygen atom are very weak (unlike diatomic oxygen) and the CFCs easily break the bonds and the pass through the ozone layer. Scientists have figured out how to recreate the ozone (not very effectively I think) but with one major problem, they don't know how to get the molecules up to the ozone.

 

 

 

That's about all I remember from chemistry :-k

[Agunimon979]

Err... how's turning off your lights supposed to stop global warming? What, the power company starts generating slower because you're not using energy for your light?

[Gehackte]

The less i use the less money spend and my parents are going to give me some sort of present every year when the electricity bill is lower than the year before:D:O

[cryztalwing]

What is your carbon footprint? That is the wrong question to ask. A more meaningful question is--How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the wheat required to produce a loaf of bread? Or--How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the corn for the chicken feed required to produce a dozen eggs?

 

 

 

Far from being a pollutant, man along with every animal on land, fish in the sea, and bird in the air is totally dependent on atmospheric carbon dioxide for his food supply. So why reduce it? To reduce the world's population?

 

 

 

It has been estimated that more than two hundred billion tons of atmospheric carbon are fixed yearly by photosynthesis, 10%to 20% by land plants, and the remaining 80%to 90% by plant plankton and algae in the ocean, which constantly resupply us with oxygen. Atmospheric carbon dioxide acts like a thermostat for plant growth, increases triggering vast blooms of ocean algae, and spurts in the rate of growth of land plants. As long as man burns coal and oil responsibly, that is with pollution controls that minimize the production of acid rain, and air pollution sich has smog, the earth can never have too much carbon dioxide. The plants will not permit it.

 

 

 

Anyone who has lived in a desert area where the relative humidity is frequently below 5%, knows that dry air is a lousy green house gas. It can be 115 degrees F (46 degrees C) during the day yet cool off so rapidly that a sweater is needed two or three hours after sunset. Despite the heat sink of the ground with rocks hot enough to fry an egg, the heat is radiated rapidly away through the dry air to the clear night sky. Since dry desert air has about the same .04% concentration of carbon dioxide as air everywhere else, it is not credible to conclude that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

 

 

 

More Carbon Dioxide there is, the better it is for plants, in turn it's better for Humans and animals. Becuse the plants grow better, produce more food, and oxygen. Among the things that are needed for life is Carbon, Water, Oxygen, heat and light.

[Mollerz]

Is it true? Yes.

 

Is it natural? Yes.

 

Are we speeding it up? Yes, slightly.

 

Anything we can do? Not really.

 

 

 

It [bleep]ing happened, we are too late to do anything about it.

[assassin_696]

You can live your life like normal but cut down on using CFCs. The ozone is made of 3 oxygen atoms per molecule. The bonds for the third oxygen atom are very weak (unlike diatomic oxygen) and the CFCs easily break the bonds and the pass through the ozone layer. Scientists have figured out how to recreate the ozone (not very effectively I think) but with one major problem, they don't know how to get the molecules up to the ozone.

 

 

 

I thought CFC's were pretty much banned anyway?

[afatbomba]

Global warming is a myth loaded with hypocrisy, half baked truths, and the overblown ignorance of left wing politicians. If anyone would appreciate a long list of my reasons, do not hesitate to ask.

[warri0r45]

Global warming is a myth loaded with hypocrisy, half baked truths, and the overblown ignorance of left wing politicians. If anyone would appreciate a long list of my reasons, do not hesitate to ask.

 

 

 

I'm amazed that people get their information on science from any politicians, Al Gore included. Read a book, not a political press release.

[Furah]

I hate how people buy into this stuff. I mean come on, so what, should everyone start riding bikes to work?

 

 

 

if 'they' hadn't killed off the electric car then we could use them (even counting in the carbon emmisions for making the elexctricity it is still far better then the petrol)

 

 

 

I watched a Doc. on it the other day called "Who Killed The Electric Car?" was pretty good, better then some of those films I go and see at the movies

[henman888]

What is your carbon footprint? That is the wrong question to ask. A more meaningful question is--How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the wheat required to produce a loaf of bread? Or--How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the corn for the chicken feed required to produce a dozen eggs?

 

 

 

Far from being a pollutant, man along with every animal on land, fish in the sea, and bird in the air is totally dependent on atmospheric carbon dioxide for his food supply. So why reduce it? To reduce the world's population?

 

 

 

It has been estimated that more than two hundred billion tons of atmospheric carbon are fixed yearly by photosynthesis, 10%to 20% by land plants, and the remaining 80%to 90% by plant plankton and algae in the ocean, which constantly resupply us with oxygen. Atmospheric carbon dioxide acts like a thermostat for plant growth, increases triggering vast blooms of ocean algae, and spurts in the rate of growth of land plants. As long as man burns coal and oil responsibly, that is with pollution controls that minimize the production of acid rain, and air pollution sich has smog, the earth can never have too much carbon dioxide. The plants will not permit it.

 

 

 

Anyone who has lived in a desert area where the relative humidity is frequently below 5%, knows that dry air is a lousy green house gas. It can be 115 degrees F (46 degrees C) during the day yet cool off so rapidly that a sweater is needed two or three hours after sunset. Despite the heat sink of the ground with rocks hot enough to fry an egg, the heat is radiated rapidly away through the dry air to the clear night sky. Since dry desert air has about the same .04% concentration of carbon dioxide as air everywhere else, it is not credible to conclude that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

 

 

 

More Carbon Dioxide there is, the better it is for plants, in turn it's better for Humans and animals. Becuse the plants grow better, produce more food, and oxygen. Among the things that are needed for life is Carbon, Water, Oxygen, heat and light.

 

 

 

So your saying that if humans add more and more Co2 to the carbon cycle, it is a good thing?

 

Carbon Dioxide destroys coral reefs. Now onto plants...

 

Who is going to absorb the Co2 when the amazon rainforest is being cut down?

 

Humans don't just release Co2, what about CO? We need oxygen to breathe, dumping Co2 and CO into the air and cutting down all the forests is not such a good idea.

[afatbomba]

I will assume that Warrior45's last statement was an invitation of my list. Ready or not, here it comes.

 

 

 

1. Those who sponsor global warming issues are absolute hyprocrites - You will find that the most public proponents of global warming have expansive power guzzling homes, private planes (extremely inefficient vehicles), and large stables of vehicles that guzzle insurance money and fuel. The lesser ones such as weather forecasters and lawyers tend to drive around in Hummers (one of the most inefficient vehicles on the market) and tell the world what they want the world to know, not what needs to be known.

 

 

 

Source: Personal observation of thier transporation methods, photos of their estates, and articles about the corresponding peoples.

 

 

 

2. Thier solutions are inherently flawed - Their first complaint is "We should stop relying on foreign oil." Good luck folks. You tree huggers refuse to let us drill on national lands (thanks to lobbying and bribes) such as Alaska and offshore areas which have definite oil reserves. Most natural gas is produced domestically. Thier "alternative energy" outlook is also flawed.

 

 

 

"We need to invest in solar and wind energy," chant the environmentalists. Easier said than iplemented. Any company that invests in these areas has to pay extensive taxes on real estate. Solar and wind energy require vast amounts of land to achieve a worthwile energy return. The solar panes + equipment and windmills+turbines are also extremely maintenance intensive. Most of the poential profits in 'green' energy are spent on taxes, staff, and maintenance. Even worse, they are hihgly unreliable. You will get next to no energy from these methonds on a cloudy, windless day. It would be funny to see these environmentalists groping in the dark.

 

 

 

Traditional (natural gas, oil, coal, and garbage fired) power plants require far less real estate, are easier to maintain, far more reliable, and generate more power than 'green' methods. The closest "green" contemporary to these would be a fission power plant; fuel rods can usually be recycled and used control rods are often put to use for other areas. "OH NO! WE CANNOT HAVE NUCLEAR WASTE IN THIS WORLD!" chant the environmentalists.

 

 

 

While fusion power would only generate waste products of ozone and water, we would yet again hear "OH NO! WE CANNOT HAVE RADIOACTIVE ITEMS IN THIS WORLD!" from the evironmentalists. However, many physicst question the feasability and cost/benefit ratio of fusion power as well.

 

 

 

Sources: Christopher Herbert, professor of physics

 

Bloomberg Radio - Segment "On the Economy"

 

French and American anti-nuclear publications.

 

 

 

3. Level of accessibillity - Most of the hybrid and electric vehicles on the market today are highly priced and cannot be easily purchased by the average person. Furthermore, battery technology has not advanced enough for a sufficient cost/benefit ratio. It is also a known fact among the technology community that once you buy something, it is bound to be obsolete within the next two years, so most people are highly reluctant to buy new cars until they are sure of the benefit they could receive.

 

 

 

Source: Wired Magazine

 

 

 

5. Validity - The validity of global warming is higly speculative. By including the "global warming factor" in thier forecasts, meteorologist have been routinely wrong. In the last two weeks, meteoroligists have been forecasting thunderstorms for my area; rain showers have come by, but no kind of noise from the clouds whatsoever (unless you count the Independence Day fireworks). Whenever they said it would rain, it was almost always a clear, hot day. Whenever they said it would be sunny, the skies were cloudy and drenching people with water. In other words, the "global warming factor" has dramatically reduced their credibility.

 

 

 

Source: The Weather Channel, New Jersey News 12 Weather, Google and Yahoo! weather coupled with personal first hand observation.

 

Witnesses: Vincent Grossoti, David Pruiksma, ElaineMartinez, New Jersey Transit, and many others.

 

 

 

6. Efficiency - many proposed "global warming cures" would cause the inverse result. The most popular item, ethanol, is the most inefficient solution. The energy require to plant and harvest the corn, tranport it to the ethanol/diesel plants, produce the fulels, and ship it to fueling stations far outweighs the energy reduction of using these "green fuels." Even worse, there is little to no profitability in it, so few people will try and implement it. Hydrogen energy cells are also highly inefficient. Trasporting hydrogen gas would require energy guzzling cryogenic tanks (inefficient and un-economic) or higly compressed, explosive hydrogen gas (too dangerous for commercial use). One explosion caused by this would not only terrorize the populace, but release more heat than ten metric tons of greenhouse gasses could contain.

 

 

 

Sources: Kenneth Christiansen, petrochemical specialist.

 

Charles Schumaker, physicist

 

Augustus Vanderboch, farmer for sixty years.

 

 

 

In summary: The defficiencies in thier methods of solving the problem and their arguments for the issue are sketcy at best and fraudlent at worst.

 

 

 

If anyone wants me to continue this list of arguments, I would be happy to do so.

[dusqi]

Yes, it is true.

 

 

 

No, you shouldn't reduce your carbon footprint, because no one else will until there is an incentive to do so. You should encourage your government to create these incentives.

[deloriagod]

You can live your life like normal but cut down on using CFCs. The ozone is made of 3 oxygen atoms per molecule. The bonds for the third oxygen atom are very weak (unlike diatomic oxygen) and the CFCs easily break the bonds and the pass through the ozone layer. Scientists have figured out how to recreate the ozone (not very effectively I think) but with one major problem, they don't know how to get the molecules up to the ozone.

 

 

 

I thought CFC's were pretty much banned anyway?

 

 

 

As far as I know they're still used in things like air conditioners and refidgerators. But I think they totally banned them from being used in aerosol cans.

[re4p3r1]

You can live your life like normal but cut down on using CFCs. The ozone is made of 3 oxygen atoms per molecule. The bonds for the third oxygen atom are very weak (unlike diatomic oxygen) and the CFCs easily break the bonds and the pass through the ozone layer. Scientists have figured out how to recreate the ozone (not very effectively I think) but with one major problem, they don't know how to get the molecules up to the ozone.

 

 

 

I thought CFC's were pretty much banned anyway?

 

 

 

As far as I know they're still used in things like air conditioners and refidgerators. But I think they totally banned them from being used in aerosol cans.

 

 

 

CFCs are mainly found in outdated refridgerators and air conditioners and are completely banned from aerosol cans. they were found to be dangerous and corrosive for the ozone layer so everyone got together to work out an action against it...wish they would do that with global warming