| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2006 11:22:45 AM · #26 |
I just watched this movie. It was a little off putting for me with the tangent segments between Al Gore's presentation about his life. Those segments had little to do with global warming. It was sort of an Al Gore infomercial. I did vote for him, but this was annoying.
Of course, he did invent the internet. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 11:23:22 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
with the average human producing 900 grams of CO2 per day that mean that the world population produces 5400000000000 (5400 trillion grams) of CO2 per day on average.
It may not be the defining factor but it is a big factor. |
I'm sure it does contribute but if it were significant I'd expect for it to be involved in the debate and your's is the first mention I've heard on this topic.
Still, interesting.
thanks |
Its not involved in the debate because how can you change that factor without killing people or reducing the size of the population. And what scientist or politician wants to wade those waters?
MattO
Edit to add, we can change things like lower vehicle emissons or industry pollution(largest contributor of all yet one of the least pursued)
so thats why the discussion is there. Those are things we can theoretically change.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 11:35:09.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 11:33:22 AM · #28 |
"Bear, I have one example for you: When you were born, the polar bear was thriving, as it had for many thousands of years."
Yes, and what about the mammoth, the saber tooth tiger, the giant sloth, and a gazillion other animals that died eons before the industrial revolution.
(NOTE: there is still no excuse for pollution and we should clean up our act).
But the fact that there have been historically hotter and colder periods even in recent history. (Remember, the Vikings exploration period of north America.)
That said, there has also been potential evidence of both Mars and Pluto undergoing global warming. So that points to a possible "solar" cause. Which could be potentially much more devastating than C02 theorists. But is not getting investigated because of a single pet theory.
In fact, I'd wager less in regards to C02 being the problem and place much more blame on "cementification" we've cut down thousands of miles of forests, we've turned land into pavement and buildings all reducing the green bio mass that absorbs the sun's energy and converts it into food. This is a much more likely cause for global warming than C02. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 11:37:26 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Its not involved in the debate because how can you change that factor without killing people or reducing the size of the population. And what scientist or politician wants to wade those waters?
|
Huh?
That argument just doesn't make sense.
Whether something is actionable or not does not preclude it from being discussed.
If it were a significant contributer then it surely would "be involved in the debate" inasmuch as the naysayers and "propoganda" labelers would be citing its contribution in support of their argument that mankind's actions are not causing climate change.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 11:40:47 AM · #30 |
I think it’s pretty arrogant of us to think that we are responsible for global warming. Small volcanic eruptions put more CO2 into the atmosphere then we could ever hope to. Not to mention forest fires and our friend the ocean’s effects. Hey Al, did we make the glaciers over what is now Wisconsin retreat? Explain what happened to me there Al. Are we going to take credit for the start and end of the ice ages as well? Did we kill all the dinosaurs? We know the temperature of the planet changes. Geology shows us we have an ice age every 40,000-100,000 years. So because the planet has gotten a little warmer the last 100 years we are going to panic?
Our planet is dynamic. It changes. Did you know the earths magnetic field has changed polarity 170 times the last 80 million years? Yeah, north and south pole swapped. Did you know that both the north and south pole each move independently of each other about 10 miles evey year? Are we going to take credit for that too? Anyone think the polarity of the earth and the location of the poles may have an impact on our climate?
This global warming phase is getting ridiculous. Lots of hurricanes last year, global warming. No hurricanes this year, global warming. It’s warmer then normal, global warming. It’s colder then normal, global warming. It’s raining, global warming. We’re in a drought, global warming. Hairspray is the cause, no, SUV’s are the cause, now we find out its the cows farting that is the cause!
What about Mars? They now say there is strong evidence there was once water on Mars? Did we do that too, or was that just another planet going through it’s cycles?
Yes we should minimize our negative impacts on the planet and yes everyone should do what they can to conserve resources and reduce bad emissions, but let’s not get a big head and think we should take credit for every climate change. It changed before we got here and it will change when we are gone.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 11:47:20 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
This is a much more likely cause for global warming than C02. |
I never cease to be amazed at the sheer number of scientific experts we have in our photography community.
Blanket statements such as the one quoted without anything to back it up just don't hold much water.
Deforestation and "cementification" probably are contributing factors (deforestation, incidentally, reduces the planet's capacity for CO2 processing).
The point is continuously being missed or ignored, there is factual data showing a correlation to CO2 levels and global average temperature.
It is also fact that since the industrial revolution the CO2 levels have reached an unprecedented level and is increasing at an also unprecented exponential rate.
I am also puzzled why people consistently purport an agenda of those stating this reality.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 11:48:51. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 11:48:32 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by persimon:
If you have a pot of boiling water and a frog jumped in, the frog would immediately sense the danger and jump out. If you put the frog in the water and slowly heat it up, the frog wont go anywhere and will eventually die. That is where we sit today - in a pot of slowly heating water. We are unable or unwilling to sense the danger, therefore we do nothing. It is a shame. |
now THERE's a challenge idea for you! |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 11:58:24 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by MattO:
Its not involved in the debate because how can you change that factor without killing people or reducing the size of the population. And what scientist or politician wants to wade those waters?
|
Huh?
That argument just doesn't make sense.
Whether something is actionable or not does not preclude it from being discussed.
If it were a significant contributer then it surely would "be involved in the debate" inasmuch as the naysayers and "propoganda" labelers would be citing its contribution in support of their argument that mankind's actions are not causing climate change. |
Well using a couple of easy to find tables online I used the number quoted on the amount of CO2 produced by humans, factored in the average amount of CO2 that a car that travels 12000 miles a year and gets 25mpg produces 10460 pounds of CO2 per year and as humans we produce alot more then that as a whole. You do the math and tell me how many cars we are simulating each year just by breathing. Then tell me if its a significant factor or not.
MattO
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 11:59:41 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by persimon:
If you have a pot of boiling water and a frog jumped in, the frog would immediately sense the danger and jump out. If you put the frog in the water and slowly heat it up, the frog wont go anywhere and will eventually die. That is where we sit today - in a pot of slowly heating water. We are unable or unwilling to sense the danger, therefore we do nothing. It is a shame. |
Hey... I saw "Dante's Peak" too!
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
An example is the UK: London is 11 degrees further north than New York, but does not see snow. The country is warmed artificially by the "gulf stream" - undercurrents in the sea moving heat out of the mediterranean towards our shores. There is a risk that one side effect of global warming will be the slowdown or stoppage of this warming flow, and as a consequence we will be able to have ice fairs on the Thames again - only the Thames will be a couple of feet higher and will flood large parts of the city! |
I also saw "the day after tomorrow"
movies have the answer... |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 12:03:30 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by asimchoudhri:
Originally posted by persimon:
If you have a pot of boiling water and a frog jumped in, the frog would immediately sense the danger and jump out. If you put the frog in the water and slowly heat it up, the frog wont go anywhere and will eventually die. That is where we sit today - in a pot of slowly heating water. We are unable or unwilling to sense the danger, therefore we do nothing. It is a shame. |
Hey... I saw "Dante's Peak" too! |
Actually, I heard the illustration on a Tom Brokaw special on Global Warming. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 01:07:57 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Well using a couple of easy to find tables online I used the number quoted on the amount of CO2 produced by humans, factored in the average amount of CO2 that a car that travels 12000 miles a year and gets 25mpg produces 10460 pounds of CO2 per year and as humans we produce alot more then that as a whole. You do the math and tell me how many cars we are simulating each year just by breathing. Then tell me if its a significant factor or not. |
Hmmmm... I wonder how many cars us "heavy breathing marathon runners" are simulating?!? ;-)
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 01:09:06 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I think it’s pretty arrogant of us to think that we are responsible for global warming. Small volcanic eruptions put more CO2 into the atmosphere then we could ever hope to. Not to mention forest fires and our friend the ocean’s effects. Hey Al, did we make the glaciers over what is now Wisconsin retreat? Explain what happened to me there Al. Are we going to take credit for the start and end of the ice ages as well? Did we kill all the dinosaurs? We know the temperature of the planet changes. Geology shows us we have an ice age every 40,000-100,000 years. So because the planet has gotten a little warmer the last 100 years we are going to panic?
Our planet is dynamic. It changes. Did you know the earths magnetic field has changed polarity 170 times the last 80 million years? Yeah, north and south pole swapped. Did you know that both the north and south pole each move independently of each other about 10 miles evey year? Are we going to take credit for that too? Anyone think the polarity of the earth and the location of the poles may have an impact on our climate?
This global warming phase is getting ridiculous. Lots of hurricanes last year, global warming. No hurricanes this year, global warming. It’s warmer then normal, global warming. It’s colder then normal, global warming. It’s raining, global warming. We’re in a drought, global warming. Hairspray is the cause, no, SUV’s are the cause, now we find out its the cows farting that is the cause!
What about Mars? They now say there is strong evidence there was once water on Mars? Did we do that too, or was that just another planet going through it’s cycles?
Yes we should minimize our negative impacts on the planet and yes everyone should do what they can to conserve resources and reduce bad emissions, but let’s not get a big head and think we should take credit for every climate change. It changed before we got here and it will change when we are gone. |
What he said! Amen. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 01:21:19 PM · #38 |
I haven't seen it, nor will I likely ever. These global warming scare mongers are plain crazy, and Al Gore is the head of the class. It is pure BS, plain and simple!!
Excuse me, but I seem to remember from history books that the south pole was once tropical. The earth has gone through several ice ages.
If scientists can prove (and no, contrary to popular opinion, Al Gore is not one) that the earth temperature has never varied for millions of years until man came along, I might then buy it. Until then, Al Gore and all his global warming do gooders can continue driving around in their fleet of gas guzzling SUV's preaching to all the anti-corporation, anti-American crowds! |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 01:34:58 PM · #39 |
Wow.. seems there is alot of passion on both sides of the issue. Al Gore.. yes perhaps he is a politician with his own agenda but the information he presents is from the scientific community. Unfortunately people dont pay attention to scientists they dont know. *as an aside..The scientific community has been talking about this stuff for many many years.. falling on deaf ears consumed by the almighty dollar.. if I can make a buck now.. doing what im doing.. then i'm going to do it.. let someone else clean up my mess later* Al Gore has a public image.. good or not and if he can use that to present some ideas.. then why not?
Much like the One campaign that Bono pushes for ending poverty... he has the name and voice to raise awareness again I say Why not?
I agree there is alot of "scare mongers" out there and I dont typically choose to live in a state of fear... I take the information I need / want, then do my own research and leave the rest.
Someone mentioned earlier that An Invonvenient Truth was littered with parts of Al Gores life.. agreed and likely not necessary but its his movie so whaddevah... again parts I wanted ..left the rest.
I dont see what is wrong with people wanting us to live in a healthy way here on the earth... Everyone is making reference to the cycles of change going back millions of years.. the movie does this as well and the changes are coming faster than they used to. Keep in mind the population is grown exponentially and that has an impact. I'm not suggesting that we alone are the cause of major change but we are certainly assisting in the speed at which its taking place. Yes life will go on..but will we be a part of the life that survives? Why not prolong our place if we are able... I'd much rather enjoy the clean ocean than a polluted one, I'd much rather enjoy a drive out in the country than living under the polluted haze of a concrete jungle without escape..
Do what you will.. but i'm going to try and live a little more Green
wanders off singing Jack Johnsons song .. Reduce Reuse Recycle..
hey if you can.. I ask.. why not??
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 13:37:47. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 01:38:31 PM · #40 |
Whatever the reason may be, it sure has decimated my winter.. It should be too cold to go out without 20 billion layer of clothing and now I can't even wear full sleeves without feeling warm..
Yes, global warming may be a regurgitated excuse used extensively since it's inception but there are too many people out there who deem the idea trivial and get that excuse to do crap with this planet..
When people give the 'My plant's emmision can't possibly amount to much in comparison to what the earth's giving out' excuse really makes me gag.. all I hear is *cha ching*
Sure, global warming could be a myth or whatever but if it gets people a bit more concious about about how ungrateful they are about this planet then... hell I don't mind it resurfacing now and then..
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 01:39:22 PM · #41 |
Rising levels of CO2 insulate the earth and cause global warming. Abundance of CO2 causes an increase in phytoplankton (as any aquarist with algae problems knows) which then decreases the CO2, and the planet cools. It's been going on for at least millions of years. There is no such thing as a stable environment because "stability" is based on negative feedback loops which inherently cause an oscillation. It's like the temperature in a house with a thermostat: the temperature rises, so the AC kicks on and the temperature drops. The temperature drops too much, so the heat comes on and the temperature raises. Yet you still tell yourself that your house is a constant 70 degrees Fahrenheit. That's how our bodies work and that's how ecology works.
As for animals that are becoming extinct, well it's not the first time in the history of the earth that some animals were deemed more fit to survive in the environment than others. Species have always disappeared from the fossil record almost instantaneously.
With all that said, I still think polluting is bad. You should recycle, fill up after 6, carpool, and hug a tree. ;-)
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 01:40:23 PM · #42 |
There is a lot misunderstood about this topic, and as several recent posters have alluded to there is plenty of hysteria. Doesn't mean there isn't something there, but I don't think it is what people think it is. If today is a warm day (or hot day), that is not because of global warming. If the data shows that we are one degree warmer than we were in the past, then it would still be a hot day one degree cooler. If the last snow melts in early march and not late march on a given year, that's not global warming... the impact that one degree has will not be noticed by individuals, we are just seeing normal background variations and cannot notice the impact directly in these cases.
Also, with regard to CO2 everyone seems to be talking about reducing gasoline consumption. I personally keep my thermostat at 60 degrees in the winter and 80 degrees in the summer. I wear a sweatshirt at home in the winter and wear shorts in the summer. Separate from CO2, there are many other pollutants we need to worry about. We need to think about increasing recycling and minimizing landfills. Most of all, I think the real big problem that isn't being addressed is water... the scarcity of fresh water will cause problems for mankind before global warming (yes, you can argue that global warming will cause more strain on water supplies, but even separate from that fresh water will be a major limiting factor).
With regard to Kyoto, people often have a hazy memory of why the US did not ratify... the US senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto, clearly involving both parties. A big reason was not because they objected to the treaty overall but because they objected to countries like China and India being excluded. The impact of the enormous growth of the Chinese economy and resource consumption boggles the mind.
With regard to Al Gore, he has done a lot to further public awareness on this topic... possibly fueling some degree of misunderstanding as well. Keep in mind that the Gore family has made more money from the petroleum industry than the Bush family has (look into the Gore families long-term relationship with Occidental Petroleum). That is his real inconvenient truth. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 02:02:12 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by AZSnapper:
I haven't seen it, nor will I likely ever. These global warming scare mongers are plain crazy, and Al Gore is the head of the class. It is pure BS, plain and simple!!
Excuse me, but I seem to remember from history books that the south pole was once tropical. The earth has gone through several ice ages.
If scientists can prove (and no, contrary to popular opinion, Al Gore is not one) that the earth temperature has never varied for millions of years until man came along, I might then buy it. Until then, Al Gore and all his global warming do gooders can continue driving around in their fleet of gas guzzling SUV's preaching to all the anti-corporation, anti-American crowds! |
Wow, that is one ignorant attitude.
If you read the earlier points I made about well accepted facts you will readily see that what you are rallying against is so far from what anything has been said from the point of view that mankind has had, and is making, an impact on our global climate.
"Pure BS plain and simple", what other facts do you conveniently disagree with that you have been told go against your political ideals?
Fact: Unprecedented levels and rate of CO2 increases.
Fact: Correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.
Fact: Exponential CO2 level growth coinciding with industrial revolution.
This is accepted science.
Not a political agenda, not a statement that we are doomed, just data that should be a cause for concern.
Al Gore may not be a scientist but 99.9% of the scientists agree 100% with the above three facts.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 14:05:08. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 02:02:37 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by MattO:
Well using a couple of easy to find tables online I used the number quoted on the amount of CO2 produced by humans, factored in the average amount of CO2 that a car that travels 12000 miles a year and gets 25mpg produces 10460 pounds of CO2 per year and as humans we produce alot more then that as a whole. You do the math and tell me how many cars we are simulating each year just by breathing. Then tell me if its a significant factor or not. |
Hmmmm... I wonder how many cars us "heavy breathing marathon runners" are simulating?!? ;-) |
And dont even forget the porn industry, those people are just killing the planet! :-)
MattO
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 02:08:05 PM · #45 |
There is not too much CO2, there are simply to many people. We survive to well, but I think the day a new virus hits humanity it will hit us hard. Seems like authorities are terrified of new flu viri for example. Maybe nature will take care of itself and wipe us all out. We made such a mess that I cannot be really sad when that happens.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 02:55:05 PM · #46 |
| *Art ponders the irony of this thread. ...and tries to calculate the amount of CO2 expended in it - but alas, Art sucks at math* |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:35:28 PM · #47 |
There seems to be 4 kinds of people in this thread as there are in life.
People in denial
People who agree with the facts but think we can't do anything about it.
People who agree with the facts but don't want to give up anything.
and those that accept the the facts, know we we are the ones causing it and we are the ones who can do something about it, we only have to decide to.
The scientists do have an agenda, they don't want to be part of the generation that trashed the planet.
Lots of businesses are making money from using up all the earth's resources in one or two generations.
Unfortunately these businesses make BIG donations to our governments and advertise with or own our media.
So change isn't going to come from the one's in power until it starts to cost them money.
At this stage it will be more than an inconvenience.
But at least it will be the next generation that suffers and not us :(
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 04:12:22 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Art sucks at math* |
Art and math ... it's a right-brain / left-brain thing. Only rarely do the two come together. :-) |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 04:18:20 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
But another thing that has to addressed is CO2 when a human exhales. Ok the CO2 level is about 75% greater now than 650,000 years ago. But how may more people live on the earth now vs. 650,000 years ago. Over 6,000,000,000 people will produce a lot of CO2 and combine that with urban development (plan and tree reduction) there are bound to be greater CO2 levels ppmv. |
Quite a stretch.
Burning fossil fuels produces way more CO2 than a human exhaling.
Show me some data where the rise in the human population contributes a significant amount to the atmospheric CO2 levels.
I would be shocked to see that. Shouldn't be hard, x-number of people x's average CO2 per exhalation x's ave exhalations in a lifetime.
Also of important note is the vast amount of forest that no longer processes CO2. This deforestation also coincides with the Industrial Revolution. |
Hmm. I've seen reports that cattle and NOT fossil fuels is the leading cause. They produce C02, nitrous oxide and methane, the latter two being more damaging greenhouse gases than CO2. Yet the focus is always on SUVs and the oil. I wonder why. It couldn't be because Al Gore had owned a cattle business could it?
If we were really serious and thought we truly knew how to "fix" this planet it will have to come from not politicians leading the way but the individual. If you care about the environment and think it's doomed if we don't change things then you have to be the catalyst for change and not be the one "waiting" for the bill in congress that fixes the problem for you because no bill exist nor will it ever.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 16:18:49. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 05:10:11 PM · #50 |
Note that this thread is in the Challenge Suggestions section of the forums.
Unless you all want it moved to the Rant section (an undeserved fate), I suggest you phrase your subsequent comments in such a way as to argue solely whether/how the theory of human-induced climate change (or perhaps ecology in general) would or would not make a good photographic challenge topic.
Whether that theory is valid or bunk is irrelevant to the discussion of photographic propriety, and arguments in favor or opposed to the theory itself are misplaced in this thread. You can continue/resume them in this existing thread on that topic if desired.
Thanks. |
|
