a theory

okay here it goes. the modern theory is that co2 causes global warming which casues all kinds of bad stuff. so to stop this we need to cut down co2 emmissions. but i had a thought today.

burning hydrocarbons produces two things. co2 and water. the water is what i am interested in. my burning coal, oil and gas we are producing water as well as co2. so we have both more co2 and water than we had before in the atmosphere. now water in the atmosphere is called clouds. clouds do two things. they make rain (whihc would explain wetter weather). and they cause a blanket effect similar to the greenhouse effect (whihc would explain a raise in temperature).

and clouds unlike co2 are regional. they act differently in differnt places. like over mountains and the tropics. that would also explain differences in the rising of temperatures.

so is this all possible?

Clouds reflect light and heat back into space. More of those - at least with terrestrial clouds - leads to a cooler planet.

Actually, current theories believe that Global Warming has nothing to do with CO2 (Or any other gas) emmissions of ours. Historically, Earth cycles through varying hot and cold periods. Having just (historically speaking) exited a cooler period, the warming of the Earth is not only natural and unrelated to ourselves, it is predictable to anyone studying climate changes throughout history.

tut tut skyblade. using the american exucse. 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.

American excuse? Hooray, it's gonna be another anti-American thread because it's the "cool" thing to do nowadays.

The rising heat is because we're lacking the ozone layer. It's really as simple as that. There can be other minor things that affect it, but the main reason is the Ozone layer. Why else is the North Pole melting and the Krill population around that area decreasing? The only thing we can really do about that is build the rainforests back up and support hydrogen powered car research, because the oil companies are trying to hold it back. And it's because of all countries, not just the USA. I'm going to bet 10 to 1 that this thread turns into "The USA is evil because it has people who have cars!"

I think Cloud means it's the US government's excuse for refusing to sign Kyoto. And we do have a ton of people who pretend that our carbon emissions have no ill effect and we don't need to curb them.

Hydrogen cars aren't currently a very practical solution because it takes a lot of energy created by other sources (ie fossil fuels) to create the hydrogen needed to run fuel cells. Hydrogen may be the most plentiful element in the universe, but we can't exactly throw a big net up in space and haul it back down to earth.

no rye the US is evil because it is the world's number 1 polluter in both pure numbers and per head of the population. on top of that refused to sign kyoto and so is doomed to continue that way. it has made no progress on cutting co2 emmission or fossil fuel usage. in fact it has risen.

and to stop people wondering why they don't care about the rest of the world heating up under the greenhouse effect (or the excess water being released). they make up some daft excuse of "well it might not be global warming".

the rest of europe has cars. but we are cutting our emmissions and oil usgae. we agreed to kyoto and most countries are going beyond that.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...val_marsh.html

It's not just "the american excuse," it's a commonly held theory that from 1300 to 1800, the world experienced a Little Ice Age. In fact, there is evidence that from before 1300, the global climate was warmer than usual. It could very well be that we're on the up-slope of this 500-year cycle. Certainly, C02 emissions are contributing to global warming, but to what extent is uncertain.

no that is the point. a 500 year cycle and a minor cold spell. not a 10 degree celsuis change in temperature in 100 years.

it's time and scale which is the problem here. it has never been seen on this scale in this short a time.

1812 the thames froze over, there hasn't been a winter that cold since.

Earth global temp is allways changing we've have periods of massive natural change.

A volcanic eruption puts the same amount of C02 into the air as one country does in a year.

Kyoto only stops a supposed temp rise of 1 degree by 3 years, well worth the billions in cost to industry.

I'm skeptical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

no that is the point. a 500 year cycle and a minor cold spell. not a 10 degree celsuis change in temperature in 100 years.

it's time and scale which is the problem here. it has never been seen on this scale in this short a time.

---

10 degrees in 100 years?

AHAHAHAHA!

I will assume that was a typo.

no it's not when all considertaions are taken into account gloabl warming will cause the temperature to rise by 10 degrees. these include the death of plants. the heating of co2 in the sea causing it to rise. the rise of india and china and the american refusal to cooperate.

after all that the earth's temperature will rise by 10 degrees. the ice caps will melt and the climate will change. and without a balanced eco system it will be permanant.

even by the propsed numbers the temprature will not go up 10 degrees.

sorry just checked. my bad. i know the figure had doubled to take into effect other sources of co2 rather than it remaining stable and the cloud issue. it is infact 5 degrees. but i had doubled that figure instead of the oringinal prediction of 2.5

sorry i will stick at 5.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

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.

---

Then turn off your computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Then turn off your computer.

---

Congratulations, you win the thread.

Would global warming (in theory anyway) cause more hurricanes?

I've noticed that there are more hurricanes the last few years, and one (this year) is projected that it could possibly reach New York. I can't remember if such things had ever happened before.

MAybe it has nothing to do with global warming.

Well I personally think temp is rising faster then what it should. We used to celebrate if it hit 90 degrees here.. and it would only do that at most once a year(about 4-5 years ago).. Now we can't wait till it leaves the 90's... We have had more school/class/work cancellations then ever before cuase the temp is just TOO high. 90 here is really bad cause we have such high humidity. But it was up there way to much... Now when we see it in the 80's we celebrate.. doesn't happen as often as we wish.

Also or time of day is screwy... used to be 2-3pm was the hottest part of the day(with it begining to cool at 4pm on occasion).. now the temp keeps rising to nearly 5-6pm and it doesn't get cool to 10pm or later.


I say something is up... cause it is mostly this year. Last year while we were warmer then usual.. we at least heated and cooled at similar times. Maybe this year is anomoly.. but dunno.. something is up.. I don't think that is normal.


I should prolly check the record temps and such to get exact numbers.. since all I really have are the actions that occured from the numbers(such as dad actually buying AC for the house.. since some of our dogs were siezuring from the heat... not to mention some of us kids were also coming close).

europe has had below average rain fall for 8 months solid for the time of year.

and that is a repeating pattern every year now.

Any form of energy that we harvest is taking energy from another cylce and using it as we see fit - then dispersing it into another cylce. I don't think there will ever be much of a non hazerdous energy form in the long run.

Actually - if we had billions of hampsters running on little wheels in plants - producing mega huge ammounts of electricity...

There ya go -- problem solved

Bipper

Isn't it possible that we're still in an Ice Age? And weird things start to happen. Wouldn't it be possible that the ice age came really fast, so maybe it's gonna start to end really fast. Sounds a little out there, I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Actually - if we had billions of hampsters running on little wheels in plants - producing mega huge ammounts of electricity...

There ya go -- problem solved

Bipper

---

The PETA would be on our asses like white on rice.

Zombie hamsters then.... are undead really people too? - Hey they made a zombie dog... now with a few more million in funds-- they will master the art of zombie hampsters as well... Now.. Where is that thread about the end times? lol

bipper