freely translated (by me)
so... that ain't good. =P
freely translated (by me)
so... that ain't good. =P
And the solution they would end up would be immigration to the less populated countries and areas
Well, to be serious. It's not discussed because it's too, how would I say, harsh like JTbo's comment, it's not acceptable to talk about population control because somehow we have lifted ourselves above all animals. Secondly, western world is shrinking, our population isn't increasing enough for it to survive, so it would be immoral to say to others they can't have babies but we can. It is a problem, a massive. Could say thirdly, it's very much cultural issue, maybe not religious. In Asia and Africa families, and parents on their old days, are dependant on their children. In the west there are pensions to take care of the old and the input of the children isn't that important. Birthrate of the immigrants coming to Europe drops on our level after one generation, it's cultural.
Hands up all of you who think what we do as a human effort can slow down the effects of GW?
If thats what you think you are gravley mislead.
Mother nature does her own thing as she likes, the cleaning of coal from China and the dirty past that other major nations have seen don't matter, they have contributed very,very little compared to what mother nature churns out daily.
Yeah! lets all vote for spending hundreds of billions on new sources of energy whilst the enevitable will carelessly draws closer fueled by the earths natural ways and cycles.....at the end of the day we cant do anything delay the next ice-age,doomsday whatever.
Dont get me wrong new technology is needed as far as oil/gas usage goes, but don't be mislead into thinking you are contributing to help save the ice-caps from melting.
What will happen will happen weather we all like it or not, I'm sorry folks but there is just not a whole lot we can do in that respect.
If thats what you think you are gravley mislead.
Mother nature does her own thing as she likes, the cleaning of coal from China and the dirty past that other major nations have seen don't matter, they have contributed very,very little compared to what mother nature churns out daily.
Yeah! lets all vote for spending hundreds of billions on new sources of energy whilst the enevitable will carelessly draws closer fueled by the earths natural ways and cycles.....at the end of the day we cant do anything delay the next ice-age,doomsday whatever.
Dont get me wrong new technology is needed as far as oil/gas usage goes, but don't be mislead into thinking you are contributing to help save the ice-caps from melting.
What will happen will happen weather we all like it or not, I'm sorry folks but there is just not a whole lot we can do in that respect.
People use too much emotions to make decisions that should be made only based on reason, I know it should not be said and so on, but truth is planet can support only certain amount of life at certain area and if that is exceeded and nobody can't say anything, then they should stop crying about global warming etc.
so tell me if co2 doesnt have any influence on the earths temperature explain to me why it has been roughly the same over ther past 4 milliard years
4 millard years is nothing but a blink of an eye in time
that 'gap' allowed us to evolve
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/milliard
and WHAT ?!? 4 milliard years is about 1/3 of the time _time_ existed in the first place
so whats your point?Shhhh! shotglas I dont know what I am talking about! lol!!!
Really, people should recycle and save energy more. That would help a lot.
And sadly nuclear power is the "best" form of power-making resource in a country like Finland where there isn't any height differences to make water energy, wind like in Denmark, or sun like in the Sahara. I'm waiting for fusion power plants, but I will be old before those will be useful.
And sadly nuclear power is the "best" form of power-making resource in a country like Finland where there isn't any height differences to make water energy, wind like in Denmark, or sun like in the Sahara. I'm waiting for fusion power plants, but I will be old before those will be useful.
Which one, the temperature or the CO2 level? Neither one of them has been the same, actually. But which one you meant?
the worlds mean temp has been roughly the same for 4 milliard years now while the suns radiative power has increased by some 40% during that timeframe ... try to explain that without the greenhouse effect
One point to nuclear energy discussion. I don't support it, but I don't support fossilefuels either. Currently it seems that we must choose between two evils and that naturally sucks. Real problem is, that when nuclear energy is lobbed as an acute solvant to pollution, it at the same time takes away chances of getting better and cleaner methods of getting energy.
Remember: explosions and catastrophies are nothing in comparison to the state of conservative energy politics. If we decide to solve environment issues with nuclear energy, then no new method can come up in 50 years (or so), because all that time we have a decent source of energy. Full-scale development of alternative energy sources would be too expensive and not so efficient as nuclears in short timespan. Remember that political memory can barely remember yesterday (and doesn't give a damn about it, at best) and doesn't care about tomorrow. Today's incomes talk.
One ethical question is, that if nature has it's own way, then isn't it only natural that humen mess things up? I strongly feel that humankind has a power to determine most of it's destiny. We also must adapt to changing situations. If a comet is going to destroy Earth in two years, then we must come up something fast or vanish. If we are drowning in our own waste, then we definately must come up with something. In an universe, where random luck keeps us safe, it's pretty darn stupid to make a suicide.
End of rant. Gotta work.
Remember: explosions and catastrophies are nothing in comparison to the state of conservative energy politics. If we decide to solve environment issues with nuclear energy, then no new method can come up in 50 years (or so), because all that time we have a decent source of energy. Full-scale development of alternative energy sources would be too expensive and not so efficient as nuclears in short timespan. Remember that political memory can barely remember yesterday (and doesn't give a damn about it, at best) and doesn't care about tomorrow. Today's incomes talk.
One ethical question is, that if nature has it's own way, then isn't it only natural that humen mess things up? I strongly feel that humankind has a power to determine most of it's destiny. We also must adapt to changing situations. If a comet is going to destroy Earth in two years, then we must come up something fast or vanish. If we are drowning in our own waste, then we definately must come up with something. In an universe, where random luck keeps us safe, it's pretty darn stupid to make a suicide.
End of rant. Gotta work.
It's been roughly the same, few degrees which seems small is actually quite much in global scale, maybe on average the same. But that should be explained without greenhouse effect? That doesn't make sense as those two conflict with each other, of course if you aren't saying that the greenhouse effect is actually making climate cooler. But if you watched that film in the first post, it's all down to solar winds and clouds they say.
I don't understand how the fact that nuclear power is going the get more expensive is going to reduce the chances of alternative energy sources. It's been said that soon it's not going to be worth building new plants as they won't be able to produce enough energy in their lifetime to cover the building cost as the uranium prices will rise. The fact that electricity is market good will make sure that any profitable way of getting energy will be used, I'm positive about it, but the problem is that those seem to be rather expensive. Another solution of course it to make nuclear power more expensive artificially and make it less profitable, but I'm sure that won't happen. Of course that nuclear plants are usually, at least partially owned by the government has something to do how they are so well supported. I agree that it's not the solution to any problem, but really can't stand how those green hippies would like to ban everything but at the same time can't come up with a better solution, or suggest wind power. Don't understand how building huge rather inefficient metal towers, which are ugly as hell and take a huge amount of energy to make is a sustainable solution. So while waiting the fusion energy, let's all move to the unmapped areas of Africa and live without electricity! Who's with me?
Thought so...
its known as the 'faint young sun paradox'
basically the theory on how suns work predicts that a stars radiative power will increase over time (more and more hydrogen fuses to heavier atoms which increase gravitational pressure => radiative pressure has to increase as well to keep the equilibrium => increased radiation) and that our suns power has increased by roughly 40% (not sure if thats actually the increase in power or if its non quadratic but exact numbers dont really matter for this discussion) whereas the mean temp on the earth hasnt increased much over those 4 milliard years
afaik the accepted explaination for this is that earths atmosphere was closer to what youd find on venus (with a lot of methan as well) with lots of greenhouse gases in it from volcanic eruptions which gradually were consumed by plant life as the sun grew stronger thus decreasing the greenhouse effect to keep the surface temperature constant
I reckon the government are on to a great thing with green tax on the back of all this global warming bunkum. It's little more than a conscience tax for the well off middle classes who are told that the earth is spiralling towards disaster unless they allow the government to take more of their hard earned wages away from them. It's similar to the premium prices people are willing to pay for free-range eggs or organic tomatoes, even though the true validity of some of these items leaves much to be desired.
Anyone standing against higher green tax issues can so easily be painted as an irresponsible and uncaring villain, the government are laughing all the way to the bank.
Remeber how all the government bodies and so-called expert think tank scientists, engineers and IT consultants hyped up the millenium bug beyond all proportions? They must have creamed it for all it was worth, all that extra pay for checking and rewriting systems. Now I suppose there are some that say it was because of all the early planning that a massive crisis was prevented, but I think I'm too cynical for that. They hyped it beyond all reason to turn itself into its own industry and it was a very profitable short-term exercise. Now exactly the same thing is happening on environmental lobbying, global warming and general CO2/carbon tax issues, only it is morally reprehensible to stand up and announce that the panel of scientists and experts don't know what they're talking about.
No, they've managed to pull a really slick number on us with this one, we're paying through the nose while whats left of our industry battles to remain competitive against rising costs of environmental issues and immense commercial pressures from Asia who are allowed to go dumping and spewing all sorts of nasties into the environment with no control or regulation whatsoever.
Anyone standing against higher green tax issues can so easily be painted as an irresponsible and uncaring villain, the government are laughing all the way to the bank.
Remeber how all the government bodies and so-called expert think tank scientists, engineers and IT consultants hyped up the millenium bug beyond all proportions? They must have creamed it for all it was worth, all that extra pay for checking and rewriting systems. Now I suppose there are some that say it was because of all the early planning that a massive crisis was prevented, but I think I'm too cynical for that. They hyped it beyond all reason to turn itself into its own industry and it was a very profitable short-term exercise. Now exactly the same thing is happening on environmental lobbying, global warming and general CO2/carbon tax issues, only it is morally reprehensible to stand up and announce that the panel of scientists and experts don't know what they're talking about.
No, they've managed to pull a really slick number on us with this one, we're paying through the nose while whats left of our industry battles to remain competitive against rising costs of environmental issues and immense commercial pressures from Asia who are allowed to go dumping and spewing all sorts of nasties into the environment with no control or regulation whatsoever.
Goverment is working for you, you tell what they must do and how, that is democracy, goverment exists only for people if that is not the case then there is bad people voted in.
Hmm, however I don't know how it works in UK, you do have Queen and all, maybe you still have elections, if not there sure is other means to make point trough.
Problem of course are these sheeps, they vote like sheeps, are afraid of change or something
Then there is of course some address where you can collect names, don't know if that helps, how did that new car tax thing end up? Or toy gun ban? Haven't heard if those addresses did have any effect?
Hmm, however I don't know how it works in UK, you do have Queen and all, maybe you still have elections, if not there sure is other means to make point trough.
Problem of course are these sheeps, they vote like sheeps, are afraid of change or something
Then there is of course some address where you can collect names, don't know if that helps, how did that new car tax thing end up? Or toy gun ban? Haven't heard if those addresses did have any effect?
You have a nice vision of our Government, we often lose sight of the fact that they are in fact at our beck and call doing our bidding, and not riding roughsod over our civil liberties.
We do still have a queen and voting, but we don't really know if it works.
And yes, sheep do remain a big problem, especially round my area on the edge of the peak district.
Internet-based pressure groups/email petitions are a laughable failure: too many armchair activists too content to sit at home in the comfort and warmth of their front room typing away in blissful anonymity. Nobody cares enough but everyone like to have their say.[/irony]
We do still have a queen and voting, but we don't really know if it works.
And yes, sheep do remain a big problem, especially round my area on the edge of the peak district.
Internet-based pressure groups/email petitions are a laughable failure: too many armchair activists too content to sit at home in the comfort and warmth of their front room typing away in blissful anonymity. Nobody cares enough but everyone like to have their say.[/irony]
I would more refere to the positive experiences we made in the past with warnings from earth scientists.
If earth scientist wouldnt have warned that CFC'S are causing damage to the ozon layer people in australia and elsewhere would really have a problem. Indeed the problem got worse then most scientists predicted.
There were some scientists in the past who doubt that CFC's is a problem for the ozon layer. But the world came together and has forbidden most of the CFC's in industrial products and processes.
Today in earth science the theory of global warming is as accepted as the theory of the damage of ozon layer was in the past.
I know there cant be a rapid change in emission because people wont lose their life-standard and countries wont get overtaken industrialy by other countries. Sounds harsh but we are lucky here that countries like China will be the most affected countries by global warming(desertification is just a keyword). We will see the beginning effects not today or tomorrow but in the next tenth of years.
I hope the global warming hype we see at the moment will not end as fast as it rised. I hope its a bit more lastingly and the governments will really invest more in renewable energies. The potential is far bigger then most think. The energy source of the future will not be staying on 2 or 3 feet it has to be a mix of energy, adapted to the different regions of the earth. You cant get solar power everywhere. There you may get bio-energy, wind energy, geothermal energy or energy out of water power and other energy sources.
I know today these sources cant fit all the energy need. But building new nuclear power plants won't help these alternative energy sources to develop like the past has shown impressively.
This is all just my opinion, but i hope the world is reasonably enough to come together.
If earth scientist wouldnt have warned that CFC'S are causing damage to the ozon layer people in australia and elsewhere would really have a problem. Indeed the problem got worse then most scientists predicted.
There were some scientists in the past who doubt that CFC's is a problem for the ozon layer. But the world came together and has forbidden most of the CFC's in industrial products and processes.
Today in earth science the theory of global warming is as accepted as the theory of the damage of ozon layer was in the past.
I know there cant be a rapid change in emission because people wont lose their life-standard and countries wont get overtaken industrialy by other countries. Sounds harsh but we are lucky here that countries like China will be the most affected countries by global warming(desertification is just a keyword). We will see the beginning effects not today or tomorrow but in the next tenth of years.
I hope the global warming hype we see at the moment will not end as fast as it rised. I hope its a bit more lastingly and the governments will really invest more in renewable energies. The potential is far bigger then most think. The energy source of the future will not be staying on 2 or 3 feet it has to be a mix of energy, adapted to the different regions of the earth. You cant get solar power everywhere. There you may get bio-energy, wind energy, geothermal energy or energy out of water power and other energy sources.
I know today these sources cant fit all the energy need. But building new nuclear power plants won't help these alternative energy sources to develop like the past has shown impressively.
This is all just my opinion, but i hope the world is reasonably enough to come together.
isnt a good and clean energy source an evil as well ? with the current exponential economic growth (naturally it must be logistic unless energy is available "for free") sooner or later well get to the point where industry becomes a direct rather than an indirect cause of global warming
So you're saying earth being cooler than it should be is a cause of the greenhouse effect?
no im saying that the earth was a lot warmer than it should have been 4 milliard years ago because of the greenhouse effect
So, err, you say the earth has stayed the same temperature even though the sun has got hotter, and this is because the greenhouse effect must now be far weaker than it was 4 million years ago?
Then it's true, the greenhouse effect is in fact receding and we can all rest easy in our beds knowing the global warming scientists are speaking , as I suspected all along, a big load of tosh.
Trouble is where lobbyists and politicians get hold of science and statistics, they can manipulate it to show their own points of view and ignore the rest. Very dangerous.
[cough] millennium bug[/cough]
Then it's true, the greenhouse effect is in fact receding and we can all rest easy in our beds knowing the global warming scientists are speaking , as I suspected all along, a big load of tosh.
Trouble is where lobbyists and politicians get hold of science and statistics, they can manipulate it to show their own points of view and ignore the rest. Very dangerous.
[cough] millennium bug[/cough]
So Mr shotglass and his theory is right, and the 1000s of scientists and their so called 'global warming' thingy is totally wrong.
The fact that the current co2 levels in the atmosphere are twice as high as they have been over the last 650,000 years and are set to more than triple in the next 50 years is something to ignore. The premature melting of the ice caps could induce a new ice age within the next 100 years, but thats ok because we all love skiing.
The guy can't even spell million, I will be listening to the science rather than the speculation and media spin.
The fact that the current co2 levels in the atmosphere are twice as high as they have been over the last 650,000 years and are set to more than triple in the next 50 years is something to ignore. The premature melting of the ice caps could induce a new ice age within the next 100 years, but thats ok because we all love skiing.
The guy can't even spell million, I will be listening to the science rather than the speculation and media spin.
Have you watched that film in the first post?
wrong conclusion
yes the greenhouse effect is substantially weaker than it was 4 milliard (not million) years ago and the concentration of greenhouse gasses has decreased a lot as well
these facts and the simple example of venus is a direct proof that the greenhouse effect is reality and not just humbug
however its also fact that the co2 concentration has increased exponentially over the last few decades so the obvious conclusion is that the atmoshere must heat up over time
how much of an effect humans have on that is debateable though
and quicksilver read my posts and understand them before you try to put me down
The Great Global Warning
(143 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG