Global Warming

[Craig²]

Even if someone doesn't believe in Global Warming, they should still make an effort to take better care for our planet. All around the world people are realizing what needs to be done and changes are being made. It is possible to reduce Global Warming, and I believe we are beginning to realize this and the human race is on the track of reducing its effects. When you combine our advancing technology with the eco friendliness most of us are trying to acheive, amazing planet-saving changes can be made.

 

[Sgt. Custard]

. Haven't you noticed the fact that the Earth is the only rocky planet in our Solar system that has life?

Um... yes... so?

Dude, the Earth is supposed to be cooling down. Well let's see...the Earth is the largest of the rocky planets in our Solar system, meaning that it has a smaller surface area in proportion to volume than the other rocky planets. Therefore it is the only one which still has internal heat left since a smaller surface area implies a slower rate of heat-loss. This heat came from the original collisions of its formation and the radioactive heavy elements are a small but significant part of its composition since they help to maintain the internal heat of the Earth. However, although we are supposed to be radiating heat naturally out into space like the other rocky planets, it is being trapped within the atmosphere of the Earth. So we are getting the heat from the Sun trapped in our atmosphere and we are maintaining internal heat. This is most certainly not natural.

What UTTER garbage. I'm sorry, but, WHAT?! Why should we be cooling? We never did in the past! Yes we should be radiating heat out: we are. The reason we haven't been a small frozen blob for billions of years is: we don't radiate all of the sun's heat. That's because of the greenhouse effect of water mainly and also a much smaller effect of CO2 because raising CO2 from 0 to 20ppm has a warming effect of several degrees. From 20 to 40, maybe half a degree and from then on the effect declines into virtual nothingness: its a logarithmic scale.We've been way hotter, we've been way cooler, generally in cycles with absolutely NO downwards trend. CO2 during this time has also fluctuated to an order of magnitude higher than today, and way less than today, randomly and with no correlation in the very long term (in the shortish term there is a correlation for an explanation see https://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html.

By the way there's been significant warming (more than on Earth) registered in the last quarter of a century on: Pluto, Neptune, Triton, Encaladus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and of course Earth. Now what might link all these places...? OH! I know! The sun! Genius.

Have a look at this site:https://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

Although Venus is nearly the same size as the Earth (about 80%) and its core is frozen, it's mean surface temperature is 464 degrees Celcius, which is even hotter than the surface of airless Mercury. It is veiled in a thick, all-enveloping atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide.

You answered the very reason for the heightened temperature yourself: an all-enveloping atmosphere of CO2 and SO2. Our atmosphere has an atmosphere with a grand total of... 0.07% CO2... Wow. Not to mention the fact that Venus is millions of miles closer to the sun and has a far more pressurised atmosphere.

Sorry for carrying on but please do a bit of research before you post.


Also, I've constantly made the point here that money would be far better spent on other environmental issues: listed in previous posts. To see just how much money is being spent and how little effect it is having(there is some effect:CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just a pathetically weak one), have a look at the calculator at the side of the pages on the links above. Its mind-boggling. That's poor taxpayers money flooding into that hopeless, but easy-to-implement-compared-with-other-environmental-stuff, vote-grabbing policy that is Kyoto. Rediculous.

 

[Lady Nicole]

By the way there's been significant warming (more than on Earth) registered in the last quarter of a century on: Pluto, Neptune, Triton, Encaladus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and of course Earth. Now what might link all these places...? OH! I know! The sun! Genius.

Have a look at this site:https://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

Jesus, did you not read my posts? Did you miss the part where I said there was natural global warming on Venus? And did you miss the part where I said Venus was 3.5 times hotter than Mercury, and Mercury and Venus are much further away than Earth and Venus?

Ever heard of Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku or Giles Sparrow? Yeah, well that's where I get most if not all my information. I never speak unless I know exactly what I'm talking about, thank you very much.

 

[Sgt. Custard]

Well you obviously do talk without knowing what your talking about.

Yes I did read your posts. And I quoted them. I'm not talking about warming on Venus. Venus is very different to other planets because of its rediculously high levels of CO2 (simply HUMUNGOUS amounts compared to the 0.07% on Earth), so obviously there's high temperatures there, though not, as you said, 3.5 times higher than Mercury. There is also revent warming however on the other planets I mentioned in my post in which I did not count Venus.

 

[Lady Nicole]

WTF? Venus is 3.5 times hotter than Mercury, it's a fact!
I said I didn't know anything about global warming; I only know about physics, especially cosmology and nuclear physics.

And didn't I say I wasn't stating opinion, only fact?
The only opinion I stated was this:

I think (and this is just me thinking now) that nuclear scientists should be trying to form nuclear fission reactions where the fission fragments are oxygen. If we could just get some more oxygen into the air I think that would help a lot. So I do think it's possible to prevent global warming, but I don't think our current technology is quite good enough to do such things yet.

1. You have read at least 8 books on cosmology.
2. You have been taught cosmology by Stephen Hawking or someone of similar knowledge and intelligence.
3. You have an IQ of 170 or higher.

If you do not fulfill at least three of these points then please SHUT UP, you're obviously stupid (no offense).

 

[Sgt. Custard]

Oh don't worry, no offence taken. For your information, my IQ is 168, which is close enough. But here are the facts:

Mercury surface temperature: 179 (because of the rediculous fluctuations of day and night)
Venus surface temperature: 457

457/179 ~ 2.5

 

[Lady Nicole]

Oh don't worry, no offence taken. For your information, my IQ is 168, which is close enough. But here are the facts:

Mercury surface temperature: 179 (because of the rediculous fluctuations of day and night)
Venus surface temperature: 457

457/179 ~ 2.5

Yeah, exactly. Doesn't that prove all the stuff about the atmosphere on Venus compared with airless Mercury despite the fact Venus is nearly twice as far away from the Sun? And where the hell did you get those figures? Or maybe I remembered mine wrongly...if that's the case then sorry, my mistake, it has been a few years since I saw the figures written down. I never usually forget things like that though, ever.
OK, OK. I'm not going to post my IQ on here by the way because, as Stephen Hawking said when asked his IQ, "people who boast about their IQs are losers".
(Yeah, I'm obsessed with Stephen Hawking lol. I admire him to the nth degree)

EDIT: Look, I'm really sorry about my behavior if I appeared moody or unkind. It's just that I find it hard to keep a cool head when people question my intelligence...or my heroes' intelligence as the case may be XD

 

[Sgt. Custard]

Yeah, this argument has got a bit out of hand... sorry man.

But I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the temperatures you're talking about, I'm just questioning the applicability of it on Earth, I mean, your comparing an tiny airless planet, and a planet with a thick blanket of CO2 and SO2. We've only got 0.07% CO2 in our atmosphere, so it doesn't prove anything to do with global warming.

 

[Lady Nicole]

Yeah, this argument has got a bit out of hand... sorry man.

But I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the temperatures you're talking about, I'm just questioning the applicability of it on Earth, I mean, your comparing an tiny airless planet, and a planet with a thick blanket of CO2 and SO2. We've only got 0.07% CO2 in our atmosphere, so it doesn't prove anything to do with global warming.

Yeah, I'm sure you're perfectly right. I don't know anything about how people have affected it, but it's just that Earth has tectonic plates and Venus doesn't so Earth shouldn't really have an atmosphere quite like that of Venus.

The question is: why is Earth getting so much more carbon dioxide than before (or is it? I'm assuming it is) even though it doesn't have the same "excuses" as Venus? I fail to think of a decent answer *shakes head*

 

[Erimgard]

from what I understand, there IS a slightly abnormal increase in carbon dioxide. no one can deny we are polluting the planet.
BUT
the increase in carbon is not an alarming amount, and not enough to be consistent with the warming trend...and the warming trend itself isn't even that alarming
I agree with alex, any warming trend is caused by the sun, not our pollution. and the current warming trend is not abnormal.
that said, I'll once again state: I do think we need to cut back on pollution. I'm not someone who wants to pretend global warming doesn't exist just so he can pollute. I think pollution is terrible...I'm just not worried about "global warming"

 

[Lady Nicole]

Yeah, but that's where nuclear power leads us. The fission fragments formed from nuclear power stations are ridiculous. They are so radioactive you can die within a mile and their half-lives last tens of thousand of years. They're not natural and there is no way of reacting them with something else to get rid of them. The only way to get rid of them is to bury them deep in the Earth...or we could send them out to space but if something bad happened and they came back down the world would be wiped out. Remember the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl? Jesus, not only did that affect Russia but it also affected the UK. But we can't stop using nuclear power or we'll have to use fossil fuels instead...and now we've come full circle.

It helps not to pollute, but most unfortunately I don't think we can avoid it. Still, I vote nuclear power since it's far more efficient. As the Sun is growing bigger (and I think that is the way life on Earth will probably end up dying) I think we should do all we can to prevent the surface of the Earth from heating up too quickly so that we can maintain life.

Of course, life will evolve to adapt to the expansion of the Sun, but quickly enough?

 

[Sgt. Custard]

Its not the expansion of the sun, just a repeating cycle that we happen to be near the top of at the moment. Solar activity is predicted to peak in a few years then fall, along with temperatures.

 

[Lady Nicole]

Yeah, I get that but I'm talking about the end of life on the Earth: it will be the Sun's fault anyway in thousands of years. We just have to find a way to prolong life and the fact that the Earth is already at the stage where it's getting warmer is rather a problem. I mean, we don't want to die out before our time comes, do we?

 

[Erimgard]

...so you're changing the subject because you can't logically stand by your point?

 

[Lady Nicole]

I never had a point to start with. I only said the facts I knew. As I say for the third time, I don't know anything about the current situation: "global warming." I'm just obsessed with cosmology and nuclear physics, that's all.

 

[Erimgard]

but the topic is global warming, not whether or not the sun will expand and kill us a thousand years for now.

 

[Lady Nicole]

OK, why are we worrying about global warming if it's not about life?
You probably don't care about what the situation is in thousand of years, only the one you're in now.
You see, when you study with Stephen Hawking you want to think about stuff like that in more detail.

 

[Erimgard]

of course I care about what life will be like in 1000 years.
I never said anything to the contrary.
My point is, that you have come into this thread about global warming, made few bold statements that you were either A:wrong about, or B: could not defend when questioned
you've changed the subject several times
you've questioned alex's intelligence
and now you're accusing me of not caring about the planet because I want to stay on topic?

if you want a thread about the dangers of sun expansion, or the pros and cons of nuclear energy...make one
but don't change the topic in this thread everytime someone asks you a question, or presents you with a fact that you can't deal with

 

[Lady Nicole]

Sorry, I honestly don't understand how I've gone off topic. Man, I was just quoting from either what I read in a book or what I've been told. And I also don't understand why we are arguing when I've understood everything that has been said to me and I don't recall disagreeing with any of it. That's why I'm so confused.

I have trouble registering the "point" of what other people say to me and finding out what is going on in their heads...if you must know, I have Asperger's. I didn't want to say anything about it but looks like I've had to now...

 

[Sgt. Custard]

Look, its because we're talking about different things. We're talking about imminent global warming from the sun or raised CO2 whatever you want to believe. You're talking about the sun expanding in billions of years. They're not related OK, so don't talk about them here.

Now let's stop this stupid argument.

Something I think is an important point to discuss is the amount of money flowing into "stopping" global warming, for example the Kyoto protocol.

Did you know, that even by the alarmists reckoning of the effect of CO2 on climate it takes over $100,000,000,000, to prevent 1 millikelvin of warming. That's ridiculous. In the US alone more than $150,000,000,000 is wasted on this futile effort. If course, many scientists don't think CO2 has anywhere near the effect the alarmists say, so really, this value could be way higher. There have however been calls for the implementation andeven more money: up to $400,000,000,000, that is, 1% of the country's GDP. Unbelievable.

So those of you who are saying the government should spend more taxpayers money on climate change, think again because the reality is, that's just what the governments want: calls for more money to flood into this area, so they can give the money to climate scientists and say do your work. Nothing for them to do, and the votes come rolling in.

Meanwhile, we have millons of people living off pence per day, animals dying out from hunting and habitat loss (e.g. the yangtze river dolphin) and god knows what else.

So call for less not more money for global warming, and more for other more worthwhile causes.