More interesting news
Greenland's glaciers are not speeding up as much as previously thought, researchers have estimated.
Sex God
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Climate Change - The beginning of the end of the great decep
Quote by GnV
gulsonroad30664 wrote:
taxpayers spend money on war and arms manufacturers and suppliers recieve money. very profitable too. in fact the permanent war on terror having replaced the cold war is very very profitable for some especially if you can steal peoples natural resources as well.
I can not disagree with that
I can disagree with that one, well the bit about 'Stealing peoples natural resources' anyway. Having gone to all the cost, time, and trouble to invade Iraq, why aren't the taxpayers able to fill their petrol tanks with cheap Iraq Petrol?
Technically that would be pillaging!
aye, whilst we get ...
yep, just filled up on the M5. well and truly stuffed. roll on electric cars!!
Quote by Bluefish2009
The theory behind CO2 causing climate change never made sense to me.
I am with you on that one :thumbup:
Out of all the gasses that might cause a greenhouse effect, C02 is one of the smallest.
Water vapor being the biggest. This was always my problem with there so called theory's, facts and figures' regarding global warming often completely ignored the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system.
I wonder why they did that
hmm, odd isn't it... :P
Another thing is how they compare average global temperatures over time "since records began." When did these records begin? 200, 300 years ago? A drop in the sea compared to the amount of time the earth has been here. It's just arrogant to believe we're having such a huge effect on a planet that can only sustain us on less than 1/3 of it's surface, and we're only on about 10% of that.
Quote by Gee_Wizz
The theory behind CO2 causing climate change never made sense to me.
I am with you on that one :thumbup:
Out of all the gasses that might cause a greenhouse effect, C02 is one of the smallest.
Water vapor being the biggest. This was always my problem with there so called theory's, facts and figures' regarding global warming often completely ignored the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system.
I wonder why they did that
hmm, odd isn't it... :P
Another thing is how they compare average global temperatures over time "since records began." When did these records begin? 200, 300 years ago? A drop in the sea compared to the amount of time the earth has been here. It's just arrogant to believe we're having such a huge effect on a planet that can only sustain us on less than 1/3 of it's surface, and we're only on about 10% of that.
There are other records other than written/recorded records. cutting open a tree for example and checking the ring patterns once can see the periods of good growth and poor growth. these can be compared to growth rings in known periods to enable an assumption to be made at previous passage of time when no records were kept.
Similarly rock strata is also used for checking on clay and peat sediment levels and how they have "stored" changing climate conditions.
Climate change cycles have been happening since the earth was a molten chunk of rock and iron and will keep happening. Through internal forces and external forces this has caused mass extinction to fauna and flora and changes to the planetary conditions. One of these changes enabled us to develop! So not a bad thing in some cases.
I don't think its arrogant to believe man has an effect on climate change at all, in fact its quite the opposite that our own stupidity can cause something as fragile as the earth to fuck up.
Here are a couple of "facts"
Beijing:- industrial output has increased so much the air is polluted causing a nauseous smog
London "Pea Soupers":- caused by chimney output soot particulates combining with localized Thames mist and fogs
LA Smog:- Air pollution caused by vehicle emission
so I have just cited three examples in history of where we have affected localized climate. So still think we can't change the atmosphere of the planet?
Quote by Rogue_trader
The theory behind CO2 causing climate change never made sense to me.
I am with you on that one :thumbup:
Out of all the gasses that might cause a greenhouse effect, C02 is one of the smallest.
Water vapor being the biggest. This was always my problem with there so called theory's, facts and figures' regarding global warming often completely ignored the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system.
I wonder why they did that
hmm, odd isn't it... :P
Another thing is how they compare average global temperatures over time "since records began." When did these records begin? 200, 300 years ago? A drop in the sea compared to the amount of time the earth has been here. It's just arrogant to believe we're having such a huge effect on a planet that can only sustain us on less than 1/3 of it's surface, and we're only on about 10% of that.
There are other records other than written/recorded records. cutting open a tree for example and checking the ring patterns once can see the periods of good growth and poor growth. these can be compared to growth rings in known periods to enable an assumption to be made at previous passage of time when no records were kept.
Similarly rock strata is also used for checking on clay and peat sediment levels and how they have "stored" changing climate conditions.
Climate change cycles have been happening since the earth was a molten chunk of rock and iron and will keep happening. Through internal forces and external forces this has caused mass extinction to fauna and flora and changes to the planetary conditions. One of these changes enabled us to develop! So not a bad thing in some cases.
I don't think its arrogant to believe man has an effect on climate change at all, in fact its quite the opposite that our own stupidity can cause something as fragile as the earth to fuck up.
Here are a couple of "facts"
Beijing:- industrial output has increased so much the air is polluted causing a nauseous smog
London "Pea Soupers":- caused by chimney output soot particulates combining with localized Thames mist and fogs
LA Smog:- Air pollution caused by vehicle emission
so I have just cited three examples in history of where we have affected localized climate. So still think we can't change the atmosphere of the planet?
I'm not saying we don't have an effect, I'm saying that we're not having a big enough effect to bring about the "impending doom" we're constantly being threatened with. Those localised climates are just that, localised and relatively small areas compared to the land mass we inhabit.
Quote by Gee_Wizz
The theory behind CO2 causing climate change never made sense to me.
I am with you on that one :thumbup:
Out of all the gasses that might cause a greenhouse effect, C02 is one of the smallest.
Water vapor being the biggest. This was always my problem with there so called theory's, facts and figures' regarding global warming often completely ignored the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system.
I wonder why they did that
hmm, odd isn't it... :P
Another thing is how they compare average global temperatures over time "since records began." When did these records begin? 200, 300 years ago? A drop in the sea compared to the amount of time the earth has been here. It's just arrogant to believe we're having such a huge effect on a planet that can only sustain us on less than 1/3 of it's surface, and we're only on about 10% of that.
Not really odd. Does human action influence the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere? However, does human action influence the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
There is a correlation with climate change and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is fact. What has not been proved adequately is if the CO2 makes a difference to climate change.
Science is based on theory, and some will proved and some will be disproved. Yet this is all the human race has at this time. We can either change or carry on. Whatever way we go, it will eventually be proved one way or the other. I hope it doesn't have an effect, but I change in small ways because I don't want it to be shown that the lack of knowledge and action was the thing that had a detrimental effect on me or others.
Dave_Notts
Sex God
Quote by Dave__Notts
There is a correlation with climate change and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is fact. What has not been proved adequately is if the CO2 makes a difference to climate change.
but I change in small ways because I don't want it to be shown that the lack of knowledge and action was the thing that had a detrimental effect on me or others.
Dave_Notts
Dave is right, there is a correlation between climate change and co2 concentrations in the atmosphere. "Most of the solar radiation incident upon the ocean causes evaporation of the ocean fine spray and foam. When ocean water fine spray or foam evaporate the contained calcium bicarbonate solution decomposes and releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere".
So the warmer it gets the higher the co2 is, this can be seen in ice core samples.
However, just like Dave, I have made small changes to my behavoiur, but not to stop climate change.
Sex God
Quote by Dave__Notts
Does human action influence the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere?
Dave_Notts
Yes
Quote by Dave__Notts
does human action influence the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Dave_Notts
Yes
Let us take LPG for instance. As a result of complete combustion we get heat and light, also we get CO2 and H2O. In fact as a result of combustion we actually put more water vapor into the atmosphere than we do CO2
C/3H/8 + 50/2 = 3/CO2 + 4/H2O.
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
Does human action influence the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere?
Dave_Notts
Yes
Quote by Dave__Notts
does human action influence the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Dave_Notts
Yes
Let us take LPG for instance. As a result of complete combustion we get heat and light, also we get CO2 and H2O. In fact as a result of combustion we actually put more water vapor into the atmosphere than we do CO2
C/3H/8 + 50/2 = 3/CO2 + 4/H2O.
just wait then blue the hydrogen car produces you know what and is the favorite to replace the petrol engine despite the electric lovers
Sexpert
'just wait then blue the hydrogen car produces you know what and is the favorite to replace the petrol engine despite the electric lovers'
But assuming that the Hydrogen is obtained from water in the first place, surely it's just going to end back where it started?
But assuming that the Hydrogen is obtained from water in the first place, surely it's just going to end back where it started?
Quote by Robert400andKay
'just wait then blue the hydrogen car produces you know what and is the favorite to replace the petrol engine despite the electric lovers'
But assuming that the Hydrogen is obtained from water in the first place, surely it's just going to end back where it started?
But it is a better option than other power, for example cycling is very bad for the atmosphere, all that up and down movement of my legs makes me fart more and if you don't think that is bad come and sit behind me on my tandem
I've always maintained that I think Biofuels is the best way forward for sustainable energy. I can't find the article, but recently there was something written about how carefully engineered biofuel-producing crops have been able to produce significantly larger quantities of fuel without an increase in the land area required to grow them. We've already got the technology to use them, since it would pretty much just replace petrol in our cars of course.
The idea of plug-in-rechargeable cars is ridiculous to me. Where does the electricity come from? Coal-fired power stations. Only distributing that energy across the country inevitable means a lot of it is wasted. Add to that the devastating effect on the landscape mining the Nickel for the batteries has. The only way plug-in cars would work is if the electricity came from Nuclear-fueled stations, which I'm all in favour for as well.
The idea of plug-in-rechargeable cars is ridiculous to me. Where does the electricity come from? Coal-fired power stations. Only distributing that energy across the country inevitable means a lot of it is wasted. Add to that the devastating effect on the landscape mining the Nickel for the batteries has. The only way plug-in cars would work is if the electricity came from Nuclear-fueled stations, which I'm all in favour for as well.
Sex God
Quote by Gee_Wizz
I've always maintained that I think Biofuels is the best way forward for sustainable energy. I can't find the article, but recently there was something written about how carefully engineered biofuel-producing crops have been able to produce significantly larger quantities of fuel without an increase in the land area required to grow them. We've already got the technology to use them, since it would pretty much just replace petrol in our cars of course.
The idea of plug-in-rechargeable cars is ridiculous to me. Where does the electricity come from? Coal-fired power stations. Only distributing that energy across the country inevitable means a lot of it is wasted. Add to that the devastating effect on the landscape mining the Nickel for the batteries has. The only way plug-in cars would work is if the electricity came from Nuclear-fueled stations, which I'm all in favour for as well.
Bio fuels may possibly be a way forward, I am not comfortable with them as yet
Quote by Gee_Wizz
I've always maintained that I think Biofuels is the best way forward for sustainable energy. I can't find the article, but recently there was something written about how carefully engineered biofuel-producing crops have been able to produce significantly larger quantities of fuel without an increase in the land area required to grow them. We've already got the technology to use them, since it would pretty much just replace petrol in our cars of course.
Biofuels don't have the same longevity in storage that ordinary diesel does and has a higher freezing point.
Add to that, the cost is invariably higher too, for whatever reason.
That translates to higher transport costs and higher prices of food/goods to the ordinary consumer (me and you).
Raze the supermarkets, dig up the concrete - disposing of it in a green way of course
- and grow veg on the plots instead to sell at local markets and village shops within walking/cycling distance.That's the way to reduce your carbon footprint.
Quote by Gee_Wizz
The idea of plug-in-rechargeable cars is ridiculous to me. Where does the electricity come from? Coal-fired power stations. Only distributing that energy across the country inevitable means a lot of it is wasted. Add to that the devastating effect on the landscape mining the Nickel for the batteries has. The only way plug-in cars would work is if the electricity came from Nuclear-fueled stations, which I'm all in favour for as well.
Nuclear is good, wind farms are for wankers and the next iteration of photocell sun harvesting is too long coming because of the problems of storage (nickel).
Sexpert
I have to agree GNV. Longer term, regardless of the arguments around climate change, unless Nuclear is more widely adopted most economies are going to be short of energy.
In particular Nuclear fusion rather than fission. It's either that, or all of us back in mud huts and so on.
In particular Nuclear fusion rather than fission. It's either that, or all of us back in mud huts and so on.
Sex God
the problem with alternative fuels is that things like electricity theft from charging points, logistics of taxing fuels like hydrogen which are freely available in water and so on and so on
so i wouldn't give up on fuels like petrol and natural gas for the time being
so i wouldn't give up on fuels like petrol and natural gas for the time being
Sex God
Can I suggest this ....
Look at the historical data going back 150 years and on the face of it the rise in temperature looks startling.
Look at the historical data going back 100,000 years and in will become apparent that there have been constant peaks and troughs. It is nothing new.
However, the official data fits the agenda for what they want to do.
Shame David Belamey was sacked from the BBC 20 years ago for speaking out.
Look at the historical data going back 100,000 years and in will become apparent that there have been constant peaks and troughs. It is nothing new.
However, the official data fits the agenda for what they want to do.
Shame David Belamey was sacked from the BBC 20 years ago for speaking out.
