a theory

[Cloud No.9]

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?

[Madame Adequate]

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

[Skyblade]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[Rye]

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!"

[eestlinc]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[DocFrance]

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.

[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.

[gokufusionss1]

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.

[Madame Adequate]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[gokufusionss1]

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

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[bipper]

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


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

Bipper