trooper Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Just watched in the news that UN had released new climate change report that is the most depressing of them all so far. Is this a suprise for anybody that according to many sources certain countries tried to manipulate the report. These certain countries were USA, China, Russia and Saudi-Arabia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 IPCC report part 2 due...here's the skinny...part 1 stated it was 90% certain humans were causing global warming.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6532323.stm They reviewed 29,000 pieces of data and scientists from 100 countries were involved... So can the propaganda fed idiots who constantly challenge global warming please just shut up? This isn't a few individuals, this was over 2,000 scientists from around the world.... To the doubters...get a clue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 I think it will be found that the sun is the main cause for the global warming. It appears to be cyclic in nature. Man has caused some problems, but not as much as the sun. The problem is not who is causing what but what action is going to be done to minimize damage. This later part is the pathetic part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denarius Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 IPCC report part 2 due...here's the skinny...part 1 stated it was 90% certain humans were causing global warming.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6532323.stm They reviewed 29,000 pieces of data and scientists from 100 countries were involved... So can the propaganda fed idiots who constantly challenge global warming please just shut up? This isn't a few individuals, this was over 2,000 scientists from around the world.... To the doubters...get a clue! Are these the same scientists who 30 years ago said that the world was cooling down and headed to an ice age? Or is this a new group think? What are they going to say 30 years from now? Seems that they just do not have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreigner Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 fact 1: the CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing. is that to be disputed? if so, cite a study. fact 2: the changes in the gaseous composition of the atmosphere has an effect on the planet. is that to be disputed? if so, cite a study. the deduction derived from the above MEASURABLE & DOCUMENTED FACTS & OBJECTIVE FINDINGS .. & deduced by 90% of the scientist there is a green house effect. Granted predicting the future is "IFY" .. but there is no doubt about the gases. the burn is actually an exothermic chemical reaction the gaseous composition of the atmosphere is changing due to gases released by the the exothermic chemical reactions .. commonly called the burning of fossil fuels.. the gaseous by products produced by the burning of carbon based fuels: C + O = CO2 + .. (depending on the purity of the 'fuel' & completeness of the burn) .. + S02 + CO + .. if nothing else the CO2 is changing the pH of the oceans. & ALL OBJECTORS I KNOW OF ARE SPECIAL INTEREST, EVANGELICAL OR .. (forum rules against flaming limit my description of the .. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denarius Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Do you know the percentage of the atmosphere which is C02? Too small to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreigner Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 OK, you cited superior information .. now, put up or shut up what was the % CO2 pre industrial revolution & today? what was the % 200K years ago.. ?? what is the rate of increase in the 20th century % increase the past 20 years? projected increase the next 20? (I could easily look it up ) .. but you indicated you had superior knowledge to the scientist or the UN or NASA.. so my research would also be poo-bahed & I agree it would be difficult for you to not have superior knowledge to me, all I do is read the expert reports. & UN reports & NASA reports & EU reports & I even try to transliterate Bush speech .. I found a pig-Latin dictionary, read upside down & backward, invaluable to interpret 'bush speak'.. bush actually understood the parts of abby road recorded backward! so far you 1. make fun of 90% of the scientist (without a single supporting fact) & 2. discount the effect a radical change in the environment makes. (without a single supporting fact) granted, predicting the future is a guess ( stinkin' CO2 made my crystal ball cloudy) but, to contend that pumping 10s of 1000s of tones of long lasting toxic gases into the 'closed circuit' that is our atmosphere without effect is near-Cheney like.. stand at the corner of soi 7 & sukhumvit & tell me there are no toxic gas issues ( blow your nose after 20 minutes for 'hard copy' of your study) & the dying coral reefs are to stupid to read the bought & paid for neocon reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denarius Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Maybe you can start to understand how insignificant Co2 is with this. But, if you do not want to learn, then you never will, no matter who the source is. FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants. At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- [color:red]less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present[/color]. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished. CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide. CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide. If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate! The rest of your questions are answered here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianTroy Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Foreigner, the problem about all these super reports is that they are talking about green house gases, green house effect and all that stuff, some even say it is about the holes in the ozone layer (which I thought is not longer an issues anymore) etc... None of any articles explains a dumb boy like me what a green house effect is! So there was one guy who explained it for dummies, AL GORE, by saying that the atmosphere is getting enriched with CO2 and Methan and that the sea/water reflects the incoming sunbeams (some of them) like a mirror back to space. The new mix of the atmosphere keeps a fair amount of the sunbeams inside and that is what causes global warming (heating up the seas he said was one of the main problems) Is that what I have described in childish words the green house effect and if yes or not, is it true and have you seen the documentary of Al Gore and the scientific facts he is presenting, the way they can measure temperature and rain by analyzing ice and are his theories about the warmer seas having influence on the speed of hurricanes, geothermic etc...? Like I have said, I have no clue, he could have totally fooled me but for me it all sounded like he had a clue about it! Sorry for so many questions, I would love to hear you opinion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Denarious, you're not religious by any chance? Right wing? Work for an oil company... You need to brush up on your info...drastically....it's very out of date...and you appear to lack any awareness of the carbon cycle or the symbiotic nature of many of the processes you cite...also your CO2 figure is out of date...otherwise, you're spot on. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.