Global Warming Page 6

Started by Gabri August 25th, 2007 3:26 PM
  • 5483 views
  • 140 replies
  • Poll

Do you think it will be possible to reduce the Global Warming?

Age 32
Female
Australia
Seen August 7th, 2012
Posted August 23rd, 2010
1,120 posts
15.7 Years
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

Credit to aragornbird for the Cresselia image :)

Nicole is happy :)
Age 30
Rule Britannia!
Seen August 13th, 2015
Posted October 22nd, 2009
86 posts
16.1 Years
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.
Age 32
Female
Australia
Seen August 7th, 2012
Posted August 23rd, 2010
1,120 posts
15.7 Years
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*

Credit to aragornbird for the Cresselia image :)

Nicole is happy :)
Age 32
Male
Cerulean Cave
Seen November 9th, 2010
Posted August 17th, 2008
1,090 posts
16.2 Years
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"
Age 32
Female
Australia
Seen August 7th, 2012
Posted August 23rd, 2010
1,120 posts
15.7 Years
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?

Credit to aragornbird for the Cresselia image :)

Nicole is happy :)
Age 32
Female
Australia
Seen August 7th, 2012
Posted August 23rd, 2010
1,120 posts
15.7 Years
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?

Credit to aragornbird for the Cresselia image :)

Nicole is happy :)
Age 32
Female
Australia
Seen August 7th, 2012
Posted August 23rd, 2010
1,120 posts
15.7 Years
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.

Credit to aragornbird for the Cresselia image :)

Nicole is happy :)
Age 32
Female
Australia
Seen August 7th, 2012
Posted August 23rd, 2010
1,120 posts
15.7 Years
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.

Credit to aragornbird for the Cresselia image :)

Nicole is happy :)
Age 32
Male
Cerulean Cave
Seen November 9th, 2010
Posted August 17th, 2008
1,090 posts
16.2 Years
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
Age 32
Female
Australia
Seen August 7th, 2012
Posted August 23rd, 2010
1,120 posts
15.7 Years
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...

Credit to aragornbird for the Cresselia image :)

Nicole is happy :)
Age 30
Rule Britannia!
Seen August 13th, 2015
Posted October 22nd, 2009
86 posts
16.1 Years
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.

Harper

Crazy guy with red hair...

Age 32
Seen November 14th, 2009
Posted October 27th, 2009
74 posts
15.7 Years
I dont care if you all call me a total #%$hole for saying this. it's just my opinion.

I dont realy care if global warming is our fault or not. Either way is fine by me.
Personaly i think the human race is far too up itself. I dont know if global warming is coming or not, and i dont realy care. everyone's worying about how we're ****ing up the planet. but it's all just selfpreservation. I'm not a sientist or a total brain but if anything will hurt a billion ton rock floating around the sun, then it wont be global warming.
Oh sure, worst case senario. we all die out and the world is left as a hunk of rock that no one can live on. but that'll only be for a few hundred thousand years, and then some other life form will jump out of the sea and do it all over again.
and even if global warming is 10 times worse than everyone says it will be. what's the worst that can happen? the earth is left as a piece of cosmic trash? i dont care as long as it dosnt hapen in my lifetime :)
but seriously, if the earth turns to an uninhabitable rock then who will cosmicaly care? the universe is big, who are we to claim that our petty problems are so important.
hey, we might be unique and we might be a race of real smart monkys but i think there is a lot of other smart monkies out there. and they are all unique. so what makes us any more important than the rest of the universe? Who should care if we stuff up our planet?
OK, then there's the option that the whole planet smartens up and pulls it's weight to clean up the earth. i find that such an eventuality would be highly unlikely. there is just too much of the world who just dosnt care.
i'm one of them.

hey i dont think the earth isnt a swell playground but is it worth moaning about?

Ok, before you tell me im an incensetive #$%^ who is too lazy to help the world out, i'm going to say that i'm quite cinical and you've probably noticed i dont care much about the world. so dont waste your breath geting angry at me :)

PS and why cant we use wind farms if fosil fuels are stuffing up the planet? or those sunroof thingys that i forget the name of at the moment. ppl complain about the noise of having a wind farm next door but then they complain about global warming...

this is just my cosmicaly faulty view. and i'm probably dead wrong, but hey who cares. life's a $&#^
Don't mind the hair, I was born like that...

Harper's PokePet

Adam the level 60 Umbreon!


Spoiler:
Official Country Bumpkin Code:
3454 9674 5994 3456
(If you live on the Earth then this does not aply to you.)