Global warming part 2?

Aye Birdy, You forgot to add " What about the high density populated areas with all those windy people that out number your cattle in their metane production as it exits from both ends.:rolleyes:
Cheers Des Garvin.
 
So everyone is wrong and some of us are right?
Birdy, all cities are in river valleys, they built where they were not suppose to and the result is this mess.
Now the impermeabilization of the ground creates flash floods and some engineerś mistakes add to it. Here in Bauru, the under ground man made river hits the Bauru river at 90 degree angle, when it rains . . .it pours and one river pushes the other back . . .
Last night another pouring all over, danm bursting, people dragged down rivers, six more deaths mostly children.
The soil is like pudding, more rain and hills will collapse.
Heron
 
This man made global warming I dont buy... I hear my dad talking about the severe droughts that he went through back in the 30ties...the 50ties...

I believe the reports I read from scientists that say its mainly sunspot activity that is the biggest effect.

Then there is the simple fact that the earth precesses along its axis and the earth will eventually precess to much less than its 23.5 degree tilt it is on now. This will once again thaw out Greenland.....where they find wooly mammouths preserved in ice with grass in their bellies. That was some serious global warming definately not caused by man.

I still am responsible for trying to be a good steward over my actions on this planet. I try to buy my wood for my stairways from sustainable tree sources...and not from some $ signs for someones eyes..... tree hacker that is simply going to leave a hole in the Amazon for every mahogany stairway I build!

Stan
 
Man made probably not, but man enhanced . . .definitly!
Question is: what are we going to do about it as a group? Prepare for worst and hope for the best . . .is it not what they say?
Heron
 
So everyone is wrong and some of us are right?
Thats generaly the case Heron, wen sum people with alterier motives brain wash the ignorant messes.
To say i dissagree with the majority coz iv got the "i know better' attitude is rong.
I dissagree with the majority coz the majority only believe wot they are told, i figure it for meself, so naturaly we wont agree.

Birdy, all cities are in river valleys, they built where they were not suppose to and the result is this mess.
Or rite, now i get it.
Im go'n to be bled dry coz sumone built his house ona river bank, then built a flow choken bridge down stream and now gose under wen it floods. [ like its been do'n for millions]
That makes sence, bleed the producers so's the rest can hava good view out their back door.

Question is: what are we going to do about it as a group?
Duno wot the group is go'n to do, but i know nuthn will change ere.
 
"Question is: what are we going to do about it as a group?"
Just mabe mankind as a whole requires to stop mineing the earth and learn how to harvest our resources with less waste. May be we could learn more about the way that the civilisations in bygone times worked with nature, instead of the current way of stuff tomorrow, today is all I am interested in.
How many of ye readers of this thread have thought of how the mode of mass travel air vechicals is affecting the weather patterns. I think that even we gyro flyers contribute to the upset in a small way, but then we are low and slow so not tooo much contrabution ;) If one conciders the number of large aircraft that are moving through the earths atmosphere in a day at speeds to cause turbulance that remains in the high state of movement/turbulance for greater than 5 minutes, the numbers get rather large.
When I see one of those space shuttles launched I wounder how much that is contributing to globle warming with all the turbulance created. I wouldn't like to fly throught the wake of them for a fair while after they passed by.
Nup not giving up my gyro flying as I am just like the rest of the people in this world, Self gratifcation comes first.:wave:
Cheers Des Garvin
 
An engineering perspective

An engineering perspective

Man made probably not, but man enhanced . . .definitly!
Question is: what are we going to do about it as a group? Prepare for worst and hope for the best . . .is it not what they say?
Heron

Heron,

You are the perfect groupie. There is nothing to be done about it Heron.

Here is an engineering perspective on man's contribution to the solids and gases that could contribute to global climate change; courtesy of google Sketchup.

The entire image is the three dimensional atmosphere. The blue portion is total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And the little black dot is the approximate volume of greenhouse gases and solids man contributes to the atmosphere in a continuing cycle of fallout and replenishment.
 

Attachments

  • manscotribution.jpg
    manscotribution.jpg
    22.3 KB · Views: 0
The three largest stores of fresh water on earth are the South Pole, North Pole
and the Tibetan Glaciers.
The last two will not exist by 2050.
Antarctica is breaking up and melting as we read on.
The Greenland ice shelf is millions of years old and is melting fast.
These events have not occurred for millions of years.
Can someone from the Coal Fired Flat Earth Society please explain how this is occurring if man is not to blame?
Don't accept what I've written above, Google each of these topics yourself.
I really want to be wrong on this, can someone help me out here?.
Hoges
________
Z series
 
Last edited:
97% of the Earths water is salt water. None of that water is part of the polar ice caps or glaciers. Of the 3% fresh water, 2/3 is caps and glaciers. You claim that the North pole and Tibetan glaciers will be gone in 2050. Where is your proof? That is a prediction of the future and predictions for weather are pretty unreliable for 2 weeks in the future, so where is the science and the climate models that back that assertion for 40 years into the future?

When you supply it, we can go over whether the science is valid, whether the other predictions of the model that claims all that ice will melt has been accurate so far, whether they manipulated the data etc. etc.

From that point, you'll have quite a bit more difficulty proving that CO2 over and above anything else man made or not man made is in fact responsible. I welcome the opportunity to examine the actual papers that prove your assertions. I think we can agree that going off like chicken little crying "the sky is falling" is not productive, and that whatever solution to whatever problem that is provable is likely to be expensive, we don't want to squander the money necessary to fix the planet on issues that either won't help or weren't the root of the problem in the first place. Do you agree?
 
Last edited:
Bit of a reality check for you blokes;

The ETS tax (Emission Trading Scheme)


Let's put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!

________________________________


ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which
would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.



Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of
carbon dioxide as a weather controller.


Here's a practical way to understand Mr. Rudd's Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme.



Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon
pollution in it created by human activity.



Let's go for a walk along it.



The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.



The next 210 metres are Oxygen.



That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.



The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.



9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.



A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.



The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit
over one foot.



97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.



Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.
Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.



That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into
the atmosphere.



And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.



Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!



As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr.
Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.



Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr. Rudd.
It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its
1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd says we
have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on
the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.



There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.



It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in
the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't
believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky
hair away.



After all, the sun controls the climate on our planet, not human beings.
Always has, always will.
Only the arrogance of human beings over their
own importance makes people think otherwise.
 
It's just my opinion, but the focus on CO2 and climate change is because it is difficult to argue against "pollution" even though we are talking about the gas we and every animal on the planet exhales, the gas that plants inhale. The second reason, and the most important in my opinion, is that through the control of CO2, you effectively have control and regulation of almost all power generation as well as manufacturing and a host of other industries.
 
Last edited:
John,
Have a look at this youtube video of Base Load Solar in Africa and the Middle East.
No coal or oil required.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMuS7ZlZh_8
Hoges

Unfortunately, I believe we'll find that the reflectivity of solar arrays cause far more global warming than CO ever could. If carbon fuel is replaced with solar generation, the Earth will fry.
 
Last edited:
I very much like wind and solar power. I believe the push to regulate CO2 is, like I said before, a power play. The reason they want to control it is, in part, because enough politicians are reluctant to do anything about cheap coal power plants. Coal lobbys have effectively barred any regulation to existing plants. They've been able to reach the auto industry to control pollution, at great cost to consumers, but now cars have reduced the pollution emitted by about 99%. To reduce it any more cost vastly more money for an insignifigant improvement. The law of diminishing returns. That hasn't happened to coal. They were given a grandfather clause for existing plants not to do have to add controls to them. Those plants keep getting refurbished and won't go away because it is cheap power. This is a way to gain control by circumventing the political process.
 
Solar arrays shouldn't cause warming, they probably would have a very small cooling effect as part of the heat is converted to electricity and the mirrors shade the ground underneath them.
 
I'll start listening to Chicken Little when I see him walk the walk . . . when he stops driving, riding, heating, cooling, primping and prancing in his machinations.
 
Top