RE: Global warming??

RE: Global warming?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 2:30:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Joseff Look it up yourself, its easily available. I know that adherants to the global warming theory only give the evidence that supports them, but you should always go to the trouble to examine all evidence before making your decision. That is what I did. Joseff Please provide this data which disproves the hypothesis. Love to, though.. what is your "hypothesis"? Looking back at the first page, it seems like you're calling a rant in outline format a "hypothesis".. Still, if you're able to state it, as you mentioned, in accordance with the scientific principle, that could be neat.

CuriousLord -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 2:38:07 AM)
Global warming scares the hell out of me. I worry of extinction-level events. Global warming may have relatively little to do with humans. It may be a naturally occuring local event in the geographical timeline, and not even exist. However, I fimilar with the ignorance of our mutual condition. We do not know what's going on- and we may well be screwing with things on a scale that we have not yet even conceived.

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 4:31:46 AM)
One of the arguements against Global Warming is that humans could not possibly affect something so large as the Earth's Ecosystem. For those who really believe this look at what happened in the Atlantic Ocean as a result of New York City dumping it's municipal trash into the Atlantic over a period of about 25 years. They managed to so change the natural ocean conditions that "Red Tides" began to appear on the bathing beaches of New Jersey in the mid 70's. The tides were microbially polluted causing the reddish coloring and closing the beaches as unsafe for humans. When the city banned offshore dumping the red tides cleared up and the beaches were reopened. This is just a small scale version of evidence that the activities of man actually DO affect the enviornment. The global warming issue is similar on a larger scale. We have been industrially polluting our ocean of air since the dawn of the industrial age. Now we are seeing the changes that has wrought.

farglebargle -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 7:23:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Joseff Look it up yourself, its easily available. I know that adherants to the global warming theory only give the evidence that supports them, but you should always go to the trouble to examine all evidence before making your decision. That is what I did. Joseff Please provide this data which disproves the hypothesis. Love to, though.. what is your "hypothesis"? Looking back at the first page, it seems like you're calling a rant in outline format a "hypothesis".. Still, if you're able to state it, as you mentioned, in accordance with the scientific principle, that could be neat. I am suggesting no hypothesis. I am pointing out to everyone suggesting an hypothesis, that they are all full of shit.

DomKen -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 8:45:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne burning pure hydrogen in internal combustions engines "purifies" the airof everything, carbon included LOL I know it is pointless and utterly futile but this abuse of basic chemistry is just too much. Burning hydrogen gets you H2O or maybe H2O2. Anybody telling you that burning H2 in a mixed air medium is going to break down the CO2 so as to oxidize that O2 that instead of the free O2 is telling lies. How burning hydrogen would purify the air of particulates, any of the sulphur compounds or any of the other air pollutants out there is utterly beyond me. i was not aware particulates were the part of the warming problem. so your point then that a hydrogen explosion will not separate and burn off the oxygen from co2? You said burning hydrogen purified the air of everything. You made no exception for things not related to global warming. Hydrogen combustion in an ICE in the presence of a normal air mix will not result in the breakdown of CO2. A hydrogen combustion device could be designed to break down CO2 I presume but the process would almost certainly involve consuming all the available O2 in the reaction chamber first. Of course the problem with burning hydrogen this way is it would absolutely also combust the N2 in the air resulting in various NOx compounds which are serious pollutants.

farglebargle -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 10:44:38 AM)
Hydrogen combustion is dumb. Combustion is dumb. We have an electric grid already. Replace generating stations with Ground Stations, and 300 Billion Dollars later, we're cured of our addiction to burning dead biomass.

SirPizon -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 12:16:19 PM)
None will talk about the link between temperature rise and the rise of round earth science. Earth temperatures have risen since the Catholic church revised its condemnation of Galileo and his view of a Round Earth and the Sun as the center with the earth and planets going around the sun in the early 1980's. This is when Global warming began. In the 1970's climetolgy scientists warned of global cooling as severe winters ravaged the midwest in never before or since. Blizzards in the midwestern and eastern state made national news as communities were shut down waiting for the national guard and mother nature to resque them. This can all be linked to flat earth science being rejected for this new globalization crap. Repent sinner's !!!! Discard your globes !!! God is not happy build an Ark !!!! Yes I am this sadistic and cruel, I plan to introduce globe play as a fetish activity... This view is copyrighted with patent pending and cannot be used without my express written permission.

Real0ne -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 2:55:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hydrogen combustion is dumb. Combustion is dumb. We have an electric grid already. Replace generating stations with Ground Stations, and 300 Billion Dollars later, we're cured of our addiction to burning dead biomass. How else can we meet the demands for energy? There is not enough biomass to support automotive energy requirements alone so i am not sure there is any other way?

Real0ne -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 3:01:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne burning pure hydrogen in internal combustions engines "purifies" the airof everything, carbon included LOL I know it is pointless and utterly futile but this abuse of basic chemistry is just too much. Burning hydrogen gets you H2O or maybe H2O2. Anybody telling you that burning H2 in a mixed air medium is going to break down the CO2 so as to oxidize that O2 that instead of the free O2 is telling lies. How burning hydrogen would purify the air of particulates, any of the sulphur compounds or any of the other air pollutants out there is utterly beyond me. i was not aware particulates were the part of the warming problem. so your point then that a hydrogen explosion will not separate and burn off the oxygen from co2? You said burning hydrogen purified the air of everything. You made no exception for things not related to global warming. Hydrogen combustion in an ICE in the presence of a normal air mix will not result in the breakdown of CO2. A hydrogen combustion device could be designed to break down CO2 I presume but the process would almost certainly involve consuming all the available O2 in the reaction chamber first. Of course the problem with burning hydrogen this way is it would absolutely also combust the N2 in the air resulting in various NOx compounds which are serious pollutants. you are setting up a worst case scenario, you can do that for gas too, i am not talking about a worst case burning condition, there is no reason to burn it that way, it depends on the ratios. so you are comparing your oranges to my apples

Griswold -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 4:30:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onmykneesforhim Hi, Im in Baltimore, near the harbour. I have actaully seen the effects of global warming yesturday and unit this incident, I had never thought much about it.is very scarey. There ws a stentch in the air from so many dead fish. The patrols were scooping them out by the bucket fulls. One of my friends had tryed to explain the one degree rise that made the algea grow at an excelerated rate. Anyway, I had never really thought it was a real threat, until I saw for my self. Its really something that cant be stopped, is it? omk I remember the first time I heard (in church) that God created the Heavens and the Earth in a snap of his fingers (on a Monday, as I recall), and 7 days later he rested. I remember in the 60's and 70's all this debate about how that (God/finger snap) and The Big Bang theory about how it was all this really big fucking explosion which, out of nothing, created everything. It always kind of sounded like a Godly snap of ones fingers to me. Either way, it happened in an instant...and everything...came from nothing. Today they call the extension of that whole thing (the human/plant/animal part) "Intelligent Design". Earth has gone through all kinds of waxes and wanes throughout eternity, hot cycles, cool cycles, rainy, dry, windy, less so and on and on and on. The argument commonly posed about global warming is "it's just the normal wax and wane of the planet" or it's "impossible for something as large and homogeneous as the Earth to be affected by something as gnat like compared to the whole of it all as Humans". Indeed, we produced more carbon, not only per captia, but in fact between 1885 and 1945 than we have since....so how come we didn't heat up then...and why aren't we cooling down now? Well...it's collective, like a garbage dump that's finally reached it's maximum as to capacity, and likely, had we not been so profligate then, we'd be dealing with this 40 years from now, when we'd have likely solved it. And we will. The alternative is not at all workable. The Earth is very likely in one of those waxes (or wanes), and we added to it. Had we not been into burning massive amounts of coal in the 1700's through to today, had we remained a simple agrarian society as we may have been up through the 1200's it's likely we'd have put this all off until the year 2387. It's really a moot point whether or not humans caused, contributed to or are simply participants of global warming, and much like the God debate, it's really immaterial whether God snapped his fingers, or this whole thing called The Universe was just literally, all by itself, with no help whatsoever by a named deity, ready to snap it's (figurative) fingers. The fact is, no group of animals or race on this hyar planet of ours has (that anyone has any knowledge of anyway) had the previous capacity to "work around" this issue, either by stopping those things that contribute to it, or building greenhouses the size of Nebraska to grow food on the natural assumption that sections of our planet that will either be too cold or too hot to grow food...will be needed to grow food. We're the first that can actually "solve" this problem. No matter what happens, we either need to stop doing things that contribute to the problem, or we need to start obviating those things that will be the inevitable result of same. In either case...we will.

Sinergy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 4:53:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind One of the arguements against Global Warming is that humans could not possibly affect something so large as the Earth's Ecosystem. For those who really believe this look at what happened in the Atlantic Ocean as a result of New York City dumping it's municipal trash into the Atlantic over a period of about 25 years. They managed to so change the natural ocean conditions that "Red Tides" began to appear on the bathing beaches of New Jersey in the mid 70's. The tides were microbially polluted causing the reddish coloring and closing the beaches as unsafe for humans. When the city banned offshore dumping the red tides cleared up and the beaches were reopened. This is just a small scale version of evidence that the activities of man actually DO affect the enviornment. The global warming issue is similar on a larger scale. We have been industrially polluting our ocean of air since the dawn of the industrial age. Now we are seeing the changes that has wrought. We have permanent red tide in Southern California from Chinese ships dumping their ballast tanks outside the harbors. Two years ago, the State of California passed a law stating they had to do this 100 miles offshore. It will be nice to not get a rash when I go in the water. Sinergy

Joseff -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 5:27:45 PM)
I did my research 20 years ago, when I read Al Gore's book Earth in the Ballance. I didn't have the internet back then, I had a university library. You have all the resources of the internet, if you are inclined to use them. I'm not going to do that for you, mainly because I just don't care if you believe in global warming or not. The point is, I went to the trouble of examining all sides of the issue before I decided what I believe about the theory. If you believe otherwise, then go ahead and do what you feel you should do about it. Just don't ask me to do it, 'cause I ain't gonna. Joseff

farglebargle -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 6:13:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hydrogen combustion is dumb. Combustion is dumb. We have an electric grid already. Replace generating stations with Ground Stations, and 300 Billion Dollars later, we're cured of our addiction to burning dead biomass. How else can we meet the demands for energy? There is not enough biomass to support automotive energy requirements alone so i am not sure there is any other way? The sun produces all the energy we need. ALL we need to do, is spend 300 billion dollars building and launching the satellites to harvest it, and the groundstations to receive and connect it to the electric grid. ZERO EMISSIONS. And shit, we HAD the money before Bush done wasted it in Iraq!

farglebargle -> RE: Global warming?? (6/10/2007 6:14:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joseff I did my research 20 years ago, when I read Al Gore's book Earth in the Ballance. I didn't have the internet back then, I had a university library. You have all the resources of the internet, if you are inclined to use them. I'm not going to do that for you, mainly because I just don't care if you believe in global warming or not. The point is, I went to the trouble of examining all sides of the issue before I decided what I believe about the theory. If you believe otherwise, then go ahead and do what you feel you should do about it. Just don't ask me to do it, 'cause I ain't gonna. Joseff I don't believe one way or the other. And people don't seem to ever be able to offer up DATA to support their positions, ether for or against.

philosophy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/11/2007 9:10:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 People who "want" to believe in global warming will do so no matter how much scientific evidence exists to the contrary. Even when it is proven beyond any doubt that it doesn't exist they'll still "believe" because they have that "Anal-Retentive" type of personality. ...sorry Popeye, but the only debate between those who put facts over opinion is over whether or not there is a human influence on global warming. The idea that it is happening is simply not a supposition or an opinion....it is simply reporting the observable facts. It does seem, however, that those who wish to disbelieve global warming will do so no matter how much scientific research you put in front of them, as they prefer to believe the words of pundits with agendas. If global warming has a manmade component then only global action will do anything about it. There exist, particulary in the states, a body of opinion that is ideologically opposed to acting globally. These people are the antiscientific ones Popeye, because they ignore the scientific opinion in favour of an ideological one. As for anal-retentiveness......i'm sure that soon there'll be a visine for that [:D] See what I mean? ...sadly, not really.....what's your point?

Real0ne -> RE: Global warming?? (6/26/2007 1:44:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hydrogen combustion is dumb. Combustion is dumb. We have an electric grid already. Replace generating stations with Ground Stations, and 300 Billion Dollars later, we're cured of our addiction to burning dead biomass. How else can we meet the demands for energy? There is not enough biomass to support automotive energy requirements alone so i am not sure there is any other way? The sun produces all the energy we need. ALL we need to do, is spend 300 billion dollars building and launching the satellites to harvest it, and the groundstations to receive and connect it to the electric grid. ZERO EMISSIONS. And shit, we HAD the money before Bush done wasted it in Iraq! yeh well that way we can give all the money to arms and the dead oil industry instead of new growth companies

Sinergy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/26/2007 4:40:57 PM)
A satellite is an extremely low power usage device. Difficult to fix. Expensive to launch. Relying on the sun's energy to do things. The attentuation (drop in energy) of an energy signal has, as part of the equation, the "square" of the distance. We can get a lot of the sun's energy even through our atmosphere. What is required is not some pie in the sky technological upgrade, but efficiency in how we utilize energy. We can float things in the oceans and rely on tidal motions to move generators. We can set up ways to harvest wind energy. We can make dramatic increases in insulating our buildings. We can increase the number of plants on the ground, which convert CO2 into O2 and sequestor carbon to build their stems. While I hated driving 55 miles per hour, there was a significant drop in gas usage during the time this was done. Forcing auto manufacturers to better standards would do the same thing. We can build more rail infrastructure. We can convert our cities to the models used in Chicago and New York and other cities with elevated trains and subways. Sinergy

Real0ne -> RE: Global warming?? (6/26/2007 5:42:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy A satellite is an extremely low power usage device. Difficult to fix. Expensive to launch. Relying on the sun's energy to do things. The attentuation (drop in energy) of an energy signal has, as part of the equation, the "square" of the distance. We can get a lot of the sun's energy even through our atmosphere. What is required is not some pie in the sky technological upgrade, but efficiency in how we utilize energy. We can float things in the oceans and rely on tidal motions to move generators. We can set up ways to harvest wind energy. We can make dramatic increases in insulating our buildings. We can increase the number of plants on the ground, which convert CO2 into O2 and sequestor carbon to build their stems. While I hated driving 55 miles per hour, there was a significant drop in gas usage during the time this was done. Forcing auto manufacturers to better standards would do the same thing. We can build more rail infrastructure. We can convert our cities to the models used in Chicago and New York and other cities with elevated trains and subways. Sinergy yeh and as a result of all the research and other work i have been doing with my going off grid project i wound up inventing, (in my head so far), a way to use water to drastically increase the gas mileage of any vehicle. without crunching any numbers yet i thinking maybe 50+ish% or so on the average vehicle and maybe 30%ish on the really high mileage ones getting over 50mpg. i am in no hurry on that thogut because like most things that get better gas mileage it all gets tossed to the side. My main concern is the grid project for now.

farglebargle -> RE: Global warming?? (6/26/2007 5:49:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy A satellite is an extremely low power usage device. Difficult to fix. Expensive to launch. Relying on the sun's energy to do things. The attentuation (drop in energy) of an energy signal has, as part of the equation, the "square" of the distance. We can get a lot of the sun's energy even through our atmosphere. What is required is not some pie in the sky technological upgrade, but efficiency in how we utilize energy. We can float things in the oceans and rely on tidal motions to move generators. We can set up ways to harvest wind energy. We can make dramatic increases in insulating our buildings. We can increase the number of plants on the ground, which convert CO2 into O2 and sequestor carbon to build their stems. While I hated driving 55 miles per hour, there was a significant drop in gas usage during the time this was done. Forcing auto manufacturers to better standards would do the same thing. We can build more rail infrastructure. We can convert our cities to the models used in Chicago and New York and other cities with elevated trains and subways. Sinergy For 400 Billion Dollars we can replace every coal and oil fired electrical generating plant with a ground station, and put up a constellation of solar power satellites. Damnit. We wasted that much dicking around in Iraq! Bush's continued reliance on external energy supplies IS a National Security Issue.

uwinceismile -> RE: Global warming?? (6/26/2007 9:02:00 PM)
for the record, i havent checked any of the web pages that a few here have thrown out to be perused. im sure all of them were written by wel meaning folks. i also believe that if i wanted to prove something, i too could find something on the internet to back my play. remeber, not everything you read on the w.w.w is valid. :( and onmyknees.... i too live in md. im afraid i dont watch a great deal of tv, so i didnt see if there was any coverage of this story?im guessing there was. i do tend to spend a lil time on the bay tho, and i and around some of the fine waterways in our humble state. and i can think of a few things that could make the fish in a certain area start to perish rapidly, and in larger numbers :( i hope you werent looking for an answer from me , because i dont have it. from what i have read, the current cycle that the earth is in,,is actually tending towards a cooling off stage. although we have had some spikes in recent years. we are actually moving towards the next "ice age" if u will .....so i have a dificult time knowing who to believe when it comes to global warming etc..... im glad to see that many have given up the falacy of a hole in the ozone theories tho :)

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875