a theory

what makes our planet sustainable compared to mars and venus was the carbon cycle through rocks and rivers. messing it up would be as catastrophic as removing the moon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

what makes our planet sustainable compared to mars and venus was the carbon cycle through rocks and rivers. messing it up would be as catastrophic as removing the moon.

---

And about a thousand other factors, such as makeup of the atmosphere, quantity and forms of water and other liquids, distance from the sun, age of the planet, what has impacted the planets and at what speeds, angles, carrying what, at what size, etc. etc. etc..

Quote:

---

what makes our planet sustainable compared to mars and venus was the carbon cycle through rocks and rivers. messing it up would be as catastrophic as removing the moon.

---

GOD - what more can one say?

Heh so many factors and we honestly cannon grip them all at this time... We know so very little yet to be making such high claims imo.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

what makes our planet sustainable compared to mars and venus was the carbon cycle through rocks and rivers. messing it up would be as catastrophic as removing the moon.

---

Our planet isn't sustainable according to some theories. We may have only a few hundred million years before the earth is as baren and uninhabitable as Mars, or the other planets according to some. And believe it or not, it's supposedly because the overall quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to fall in the long run, until eventually, there won't be enough to sustain the plant life on earth and everything will die out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Quote:

---

When mount St. Hellens errupted - its pit out over ten times more Co2 and other gasses than humans have over thier exsistance. Thats just one volcano.

---

That is ONE VERY common belife -- truth is the volcano and all other volcanos add only a roughly 2 - 4% of Co2 into the atmoshphere every year.
Volcanos only let out 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; Fossil Fuels by man made sources let out .6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere. That is according to my natural Science book I have leftover from college :cool:


The earth has many systems which work in cycles. Even our magnetic poles are sought to change here relativley soon ( I beleive it was 100 yr - 200 yrs). So I believe That instead of contributing to these balances and screwing everything up we should try our hardes to cut down our emmisions etc.

It's almost like the earth is set so that we cannot relly screw it up >:) (another common belief) not really - but It has a way of cleaning itself. I am not saying leave it all out for mother earth - I do think we should be more causious about the supposed "Green house gasses" and such for short term goals. I don't belive that that the long term situation is as bad as predicted. But I also know my place as a tax paying tool; I wont hold my knowlage against that of a scientist for sure :tongue:

Bipper

---

Either that is a major typo, or you have one screwed up text book then. Proper Scientific Notation NEVER starts with a decimal point. ".6 x 10^12" should be "6 x 10^11". I hope that the textbook you get your information from at least knows how to use Scientific Notation properly.

Well if the fact is right.. I wouldn't care much.. At least the text is still teaching you real facts(even if they can't notate scientifically) instead of being like my physic's book. We just threw it out mostly... Teach couldn't even get anything out of it.. and she has been teaching physics for 20+ years easy. But this book was just messed up. Many times you could get the answer from thier setup.. but you would repeat several steps(didn't need to) and it mixed words up quite often.. Talk about a messed up year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

Well if the fact is right.. I wouldn't care much.. At least the text is still teaching you real facts(even if they can't notate scientifically) instead of being like my physic's book. We just threw it out mostly... Teach couldn't even get anything out of it.. and she has been teaching physics for 20+ years easy. But this book was just messed up. Many times you could get the answer from thier setup.. but you would repeat several steps(didn't need to) and it mixed words up quite often.. Talk about a messed up year.

---

A textbook that doesn't know how to properly document its facts isn't one whose facts I'd trust under any circumstances.

yes sky - it was a typo. Thanks for pointing that out...

I was kinda in a hurry-- if you dont notice I usually have a million typos - sorry for one more.
bipper

So which is it? 6x10^11 or 6x10^10?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

yes sky - it was a typo. Thanks for pointing that out...

I was kinda in a hurry-- if you dont notice I usually have a million typos - sorry for one more.
bipper

---

I only really care about typos when people are quoting statistics. They can cause no end of confusion. I would like to know the actual figure, though. Thanks.

but to the main point away from why america is killing this planet.

is my theory possible?

"Possible", yes.

"Probable"? I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

climate change has never before been this rapid. that is the main concern. before wolly mamoths had a chance to evolve and the like. this time it is too much too fast.

milf but you get a blanket effect at night with clouds and that was the point.

---

Actually, there have been plenty of climate changes in the past which have led to mass extinction, and they've happened long before we were around.

As to what you are saying, there is indeed a blanket effect, that stops the heat escaping into space. Just as clouds during the day prevent heat entering. Therefore, at most one could say the clouds have an effect dependent on the external factor of how far the Earth is from the sun, and whether it is day or night; this effect would remain the same whether clouds occupied 1% of the sky or 100% - the area under the cloud would be insulated.

By typo i mean the decimal should not be there :rolleyes2
Since we are so nice about it the actual figure is 6X10^12 kg

Sorry for causing so much undue stress... have a day

so th next question is. if water gievn off by burning hydrocarbons is helping the global warming along side co2. then doesn't this mean that hydrogean powered stuff (gives off pure water) is a horrible idea? the same with many new technoligies and that we should not be looking of alternative forms of power but just to use less power.