DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> More from Gore
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 391, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/21/2006 11:51:42 AM · #1
Greenhouse BS

More greenhouse BS from Gore. Do folks actually believe this stuff?
04/21/2006 11:57:16 AM · #2
I read recently that in the last 8 years the core temp of the earth has actually dropped very slightly. Not sure if that's true or not though.
04/21/2006 12:36:27 PM · #3
What happens with the core isn't the same as the greenhouse effect - I believe those two are quite unrelated.

I moved to Australia 23 years ago, (and came to the States 4 years ago - one more to go) and in that time there is no doubt that most summers have been getting hotter and longer, most winters shorter and milder.

Yes, there are exceptions and fluctuations, but the overall trend is very much unmistakable - it IS getting hotter.

Even here in Seattle I keep hearing people talk about how they've never had a whole lot of snow, but there certainly used to be more than there is now.

There is no denying it.
04/21/2006 12:51:29 PM · #4

wow...i've never heard anyone try and debunk the fact that
"the Earth’s atmosphere acts like a greenhouse". Maybe that our CO2 emissions are but a drop in the ocean, and thus inconsequential in any major climate change, but surely noone doubts that at least the basic 'greenhouse effect' theory is correct?
04/21/2006 12:53:11 PM · #5
Hi Beetle. Way before the SUV, data taken from ice cores and rings of trees has shown temperature swings throughout the history of the earth. Data from satellites actually shows a decrease in surface and atmospheric temperature of .01 centigrade over the last 25 years. Icecaps are thinning on Mars and environmentalists are having a tough time blaming that on someone. While some glaciers are melting others are actually thickening; however, you only hear about the ones that are melting.

I love earth. I value and treasure her daily. My portfolio will tell you that. I just can't stand to see propaganda being spewed from our leaders and so called "environmental fundamentalists" to gain support for their own agenda that truly has nothing to do with saving the planet.
04/21/2006 01:00:16 PM · #6
So Phil, how do you explain people knowing that - on average - temps have gone up and that weather patterns have changed? We can't ALL be forgetful and get it wrong.
Just check the history of weather records - basically all the record lows happened way back when, all the record highs happened in recent years and getting higher and higher.

At this point I am not even debating whether this has anything to do with humans or not. I'm allowing that it may just be a natural occurence.

My point here is that from very personal experience, I know the weather is in fact getting warmer, and the greenhouse effect (natural or man-made) seems to be the cause of that.

04/21/2006 01:20:38 PM · #7
I hope you understand that I'm not debating seasonal changes or natural occurances. I was just trying to make the point that many people are tricked into thinking that global warming and cooling are man made. Human produced greenhouse gases account for 1% of gas in the atmosphere. If you doubled the output that we have today, you'd raise the earth's temperature by 1 degree. So if we start walking everywhere, eat only tree bark and grass, and shut down all factories and power plants we'll cool off by a single degree. Natural occurances account for 99% of greenhouse gases. If we drain the oceans and chop down all the trees so they couldn't emit gases, we might get this thing under control.
04/21/2006 01:28:02 PM · #8
Trees emit unwanted gases? Heck..... I always thought they gave us oxygen.

Phil, I don't have any actual figures, and I have no authority to argue this, but I don't think YOU do, either.

You make it sound like no matter what we do, we wouldn't make much difference. There are so many things I would like to say about this, but for the sake of peace, I won't.

So I'll better leave the computer right now with just one plea:

please don't leave care of this planet up to everyone else - ALL nations and people need to help.
04/21/2006 01:29:21 PM · #9
Originally posted by dudephil:

If we drain the oceans and chop down all the trees so they couldn't emit gases, we might get this thing under control.


Don't drain the ocean or chop down the forests as both CONSUME CO2...

The whole problem is that by the time we have a definite answer, it's likely too late. So those who don't want to change push for that definite answer while those who do want a change say we need to take an educated guess.

The debate will rage on.

Message edited by author 2006-04-21 13:30:34.
04/21/2006 01:32:48 PM · #10
Originally posted by Beetle:

So Phil, how do you explain people knowing that - on average - temps have gone up and that weather patterns have changed? We can't ALL be forgetful and get it wrong.
Just check the history of weather records - basically all the record lows happened way back when, all the record highs happened in recent years and getting higher and higher.


What was the first year they started recording temps and weather? How do we know it wasn't warmer and there weren't more storms before then?

Note: I'm not arguing if global warming is occuring or not, or who/what is at fault if it is. Persoanlly I think we should all do what we can to prevent it and it doesn't really matter who's fault it is. I simply want everyone to keep in mind that this planet has been around a long time and we have very little idea of what had happened in the past and if the planet moves in cycles or not. We do know that at some point something happened and killed everything except the cockroaches, but we still only have guesses as to what happened. Although, I am pretty sure that it wasn't caused by the T-Rex driving to work in his SUV and the Wolly Mammoth using hairspray (but it hasn't been proven).
04/21/2006 01:42:55 PM · #11
Please understand my sense of humor guys. The draining of the oceans and chopping down of the trees was a tongue in cheek joke. Of course they are beneficial to us but they also emit the majority of greenhouse gases. That is a fact.

And Beetle, there is no need to get personal about these issues. I studied greenhouse gases in the early 90's - well before the Hummer and global warming were considered such a huge issue. You may assume that I have no knowledge on this but you didn't ask. If you want to leave for the sake of "peace" and can't have a discussion without resorting to a flared temper then I think moving on is a great idea.

Sure we should do more to help out - but not much for the greenhouse effect. We should drive more fuel efficient cars to decrease our dependancy on oil. We should turn the light off when we leave the kitchen. We should get that dripping faucet repaired. We should recycle more. Many more to choose from but you see where I'm going. All of these are things that we could be doing and should've been doing for years. However, to think that not doing these things is melting the polar icecaps on Mars is just a bit ridiculous.
04/21/2006 01:45:55 PM · #12
Originally posted by dudephil:

If we drain the oceans and chop down all the trees so they couldn't emit gases, we might get this thing under control.


Huh? Trees and the ocean store CO2...if we did that we'd be getting ourselves in deeper trouble, not to mention the extra methane from the rotting trees. (which is waaaay more effective as a greenhouse gas than co2)

And plus, we're not wanting to specifically cool down the earth, we're just not wanting to mess up the current equilibrium in either direction. The problem isn't the temperature change, but rather the effect this has on global weather and sea-currents. The Earth's one massive system of different fragile equilibria. Yeah, one degree might not sound too bad, but during the last ice age all the tropics/sub-tropics were only 4degrees lower. Any unnecessary change can make a BIG difference that we may live to regret.

History has been full of fluctuations - big and small - in climate and temperature, but we can't do anything about the natural processes that have been going on for millenia and contribute so much. What we can do is avoid foolishly adding to it by our fuel habits etc. Trying to debunk the evidence is not helping anyone (except maybe Bush's campaign)

edit: most of what I said has been said in the time I took to write that...but I'll leave it in to reiterate

Message edited by author 2006-04-21 13:47:49.
04/21/2006 01:50:33 PM · #13
It has been proven through studies done on the ice in Greenland that there have been major fluctuations in termperature that (as far as humans in current times) occured naturally. The ice in Greenland basically accumulated in layers, like a tree and its rings. By analyzing each layer, they have been able to determine climate fluctuations going back to through the first two ice ages (I think. I may be wrong on that)

I can site my sources, but they are from scientific journals which I don't know if everyone has access to (I get it through my school)

One theory is that these major climate changes were due to somethign happening causing the climate to 'flip.' An analogy is that due to whatever happening, a boat was being rocked, until it got rocked so hard the boat flipped over.

A concern (whether you want to beleive it or not) is that the CO2 emissions are rocking the boat again.

I just want to point out that I always find that people tend to generalize and think that because you are concerned about the environment, you are autmatically an anti-SUV, Birkenstock wearing, Greenpeace supporting, vegetarien, ignorant to the needs of middle-class America, hippies, or you are a gun-toting, SUV driving, anti-science, redneck, proud to be who I am, meat loving redneck.

Now, in all honesty, who really fits into either catgory? The reason that environmental groups (and their counter parts) often make things so dramatic, is because they feel a need to grab the general populace attention, and the only way to do that is through spectacular, splashy claims (a la chicken little). The general populace doesn't sit down and read Nature, Science, or Scientific American to see what the latest studies are saying about climatology.

I think there is a lot of stuff said on BOTH sides that is sensationalized just for the sake of being sensational, and thus, as the doc says, the debate rages on

edit: spelling because I can't type

Message edited by author 2006-04-21 13:51:52.
04/21/2006 01:58:13 PM · #14
In response to the article

I think people use 'the Greenhouse effect' because it is something peopel can relate to. It's much easier to say than: the effect caused by the sun radiating light, some of it being reflected back into space, and the rest mostly passing through to the earth surface where it is absrobed and then re-radiated back out as heat in the infrared zone which is then re-reflected back towards the earth by the atmosphere which is how the earth has a tolerable climate for us.

As far as climate models done by computers, of course they are not perfect, but apparantely, the computer models have so far been correct. Granted that's not very solid, and if one chooses to ignore the models, that is one's choice. Just as one person cannot say the models are 100% correct, one cannot say they are a completely useless piece of crap
04/21/2006 01:59:14 PM · #15
dudephil, I think you have it backwards. Trees take in CO2 and use it in photosynthesis to make glucose. Diatom plankton take in CO2 and use it to make their calcium carbonate shells. They then sink to the bottom of the ocean to be turned into the white cliffs of dover.

You'll have to educate me on your opinion...
04/21/2006 02:02:57 PM · #16
Originally posted by Beetle:

So Phil, how do you explain people knowing that - on average - temps have gone up and that weather patterns have changed? We can't ALL be forgetful and get it wrong.
Just check the history of weather records - basically all the record lows happened way back when, all the record highs happened in recent years and getting higher and higher.

At this point I am not even debating whether this has anything to do with humans or not. I'm allowing that it may just be a natural occurence.

My point here is that from very personal experience, I know the weather is in fact getting warmer, and the greenhouse effect (natural or man-made) seems to be the cause of that.


If you look at a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average minute-by-minute today, it shows great fluctuations and will end up lower or higher than it started. This does not indicate a trend. If you step back and view the chart over a quarter, or year, or 5 or 10 year period, large swings in prices will be evident.

Looking at people's memory of the weather ... even 20, 30, 50 years worth of memory is like looking at the day chart, because weather patterns happen over centuries and millenia.

I am not debating your personal memories, I am sure they are correct. And more correct than mine because I'm an old fart, but I digress. My point is that they cover too short a time to be indicative of any meaningful trend.

When it comes to global warming, I don't know what the truth is. I am inclined to believe the earth is currently getting warmer, possibly naturally, and possibly more so with the "help" of man. I am inclined to believe that as it does, sea levels will rise and cause problems. Storms will increase in intensity to dissipate the added heat. I am unable to prove to myself that mankind is causing global warming if indeed global warming is occuring. Out of an abundance of caution, I am inclined to believe we should systematically reduce carbon emmisions. But I don't know if it will help or by how much.
04/21/2006 02:17:16 PM · #17
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

dudephil, I think you have it backwards. Trees take in CO2 and use it in photosynthesis to make glucose. Diatom plankton take in CO2 and use it to make their calcium carbonate shells. They then sink to the bottom of the ocean to be turned into the white cliffs of dover.

You'll have to educate me on your opinion...


:D

Trees also emit methane hence the reason why we should chop them all down! (I guess I'd better put </sarcasm> here eh?) As you know, methane is baaaaad for the roof of our little greenhouse here. However, trees also store carbon which happens to be good for the same little greenhouse.

As you alluded to above, no matter what one study can show another can do it's best to disprove it and vice versa. This is why I think we need to do what we know is right for mother earth but not do it from the fear that is being fed to us daily by people with a seperate agenda. Of course, maybe the fear does scare people enough to try to clean up their act. If this works then the end result may not be a bad thing. However, I choose to do what I do (recycle, energy saving methods, etc) for the simple fact that I know it's the right thing to do to keep from raping the earth of her goodies. Not because I'm afraid of Chicken Little's sky falling on me or the myth that I'll be able to fry an egg on an icecap in a few years.

Message edited by author 2006-04-21 14:18:26.
04/21/2006 02:21:59 PM · #18
Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

dudephil, I think you have it backwards. Trees take in CO2 and use it in photosynthesis to make glucose. Diatom plankton take in CO2 and use it to make their calcium carbonate shells. They then sink to the bottom of the ocean to be turned into the white cliffs of dover.

You'll have to educate me on your opinion...


:D

Trees also emit methane hence the reason why we should chop them all down! (I guess I'd better put </sarcasm> here eh?) As you know, methane is baaaaad for the roof of our little greenhouse here. However, trees also store carbon which happens to be good for the same little greenhouse.


Rotting trees give off methane - or at least far more than when living

But hey
04/21/2006 02:33:10 PM · #19
All green growth plants, not just trees or even rotting trees, emit methane gas. Recent studies have shown that up to 30% of the worlds methane gas output may come from green plants that are very alive.
04/21/2006 02:44:07 PM · #20
Originally posted by dudephil:

All green growth plants, not just trees or even rotting trees, emit methane gas. Recent studies have shown that up to 30% of the worlds methane gas output may come from green plants that are very alive.


Wikipedia has a chart which lists the various emitters of methane. They do mention the plant idea...

Slightly over half of the total emission is due to human activity [4].

Living Plants (e.g. forests) have recently been identified as a potentially important source of methane. The recent paper calculated emissions of 62–236 Tg yr-1, and "this newly identified source may have important implications". [5], [6]. However the authors stress "our findings are preliminary with regard to the methane emission strength".

I did not know the ocean is such a producer of methane, although i suspect it is natural methane bubbling from source under the ocean.

04/21/2006 02:49:05 PM · #21
You guys got me thinking about this...

" In an article in the Sunday Times, Norman Miller has stated that the conditions responsible for the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle ( which lies between the West Indies islands and the south-eastern coast of USA could provide the answer to the world’s energy crisis.

The energy source is methane gas and there are no alien spaceships or suburbs of Atlantis here. The myth of the Bermuda Triangle, the mysterious disappearances and strange events, has generated much interest all over the world through the years. Charles Berlitz’s book on the subject, published in 1974, sold nearly 20 million copies in 30 languages. Ships, boats, and even aeroplanes are all said to have disappeared in this area and all the mystery has been attributed to extraterrestrials.

But scientists now have an explanation for these phenomena and the cause is not extraterrestrial but chemical. It goes by the name of methane gas hydrate, which is methane (created by decomposing organic debris) that has been entombed in an ice crystalline. Conditions are ideal for the formation of this gas in areas of permafrost. Another area is the deep sea floor where the pressure and the temperature are right for the creation of this gas."

04/21/2006 03:05:44 PM · #22
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:


If you look at a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average minute-by-minute today, it shows great fluctuations and will end up lower or higher than it started. This does not indicate a trend. If you step back and view the chart over a quarter, or year, or 5 or 10 year period, large swings in prices will be evident.

Looking at people's memory of the weather ... even 20, 30, 50 years worth of memory is like looking at the day chart, because weather patterns happen over centuries and millenia.

I am not debating your personal memories, I am sure they are correct. And more correct than mine because I'm an old fart, but I digress. My point is that they cover too short a time to be indicative of any meaningful trend.

When it comes to global warming, I don't know what the truth is. I am inclined to believe the earth is currently getting warmer, possibly naturally, and possibly more so with the "help" of man. I am inclined to believe that as it does, sea levels will rise and cause problems. Storms will increase in intensity to dissipate the added heat. I am unable to prove to myself that mankind is causing global warming if indeed global warming is occuring. Out of an abundance of caution, I am inclined to believe we should systematically reduce carbon emmisions. But I don't know if it will help or by how much.


Along this line of thought, "we" are coming off of an ice age. When T-rex and them were around the Earth was fricking hot. Then big rock from sky+Earth = lots of dirt blocking out the sun = Ice age And 15 Land Before Time movies.

Yes there is bound to be some problems caused by us. But Earth is tougher than we think. How many mass extinctions have happened since existence, 3 if I recall (I'll Google it and get back with you). And were still here spinning away.

But in the end, you can kill me for it later, I have more things to think about than the Earth and if we are the next mass extinction then so be it. <no sarcasm at all>
04/21/2006 03:06:05 PM · #23
Hey Doc. It will be interesting to see those values from 1999 updated if it is proven that green plants do emit the upward end of the 62–236 Tg per year. That should knock the man made figures down to around 25-30%.
04/21/2006 03:08:05 PM · #24
Basically it looks like we need to learn how to hook our car up to the rear end of a cow....
04/21/2006 03:08:31 PM · #25
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Basically it looks like we need to learn how to hook our car up to the rear end of a cow....


Now that is the quote of the day!
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 01/22/2018 11:56:04 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2018 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/22/2018 11:56:04 PM EST.