Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Human effects on global warming.

I was sceptic about this few months ago but now when our summer has started I know that Global Warming is a fact. Finland doesn't usuallu have hot summers and by now few temperature records have been broken. I'm not a scientist but meteorologists say that this really isn't a normal Finish summer and I can stand by that.

The G8 countrys will never get a contract on anything that really matters because they all think only their own good. Moneymoneymoney...
 
Just because the proponents of global warming overstate their case does not mean that the underling message can be ignored.

The world is getting hotter and it matters little if it is man made or Solar in origin. What does matter is that we survive the change.

Increasing energy consumption and hoping for a technological solution just doesn't cut it for me. I don't care if the warming is man made or not. If I'm contributing either directly or indirectly then I need to do something to move towards a more sustainable future. I can't plead ignorance, I know that my current consumption footprint is too big.
 
Stripes you don't need to give your proof? I doubt you have any that will covince anyone that gloal warming is NOT taking place.

What bothers me is you stated your points as if they were FACTS and not your opinion, an NoPoke made extre good points. change is happenning, natural or man made shouldn't be the concern, the concern is how to stop that change in order for the world as we know it not to change drastically. Some people think a 1 degree centigrade increase is not much, but that can kill thousands of species in the sea and rivers and whatnot, I could list examples of horrible outcomes here but I wont because that is not the point.

I decided I want to major on chemical engineering specializing on the environment because I am ware of what is taking place and I want to be a part, big or small of changing the future by helping out future generations.
 
Here is why it is difficult to put a "Green Energy Scheme" on the entire planet:

Some countreys are just to poor. Take almost any African countrey, there is no way they are going to buy hundreds of acres of solar generators instead of cheap oil. They just aren't rich enough to afford almost anything else.

Oh, and heaven forbid anyone else but the US uses nuclear energy, THEY MIGHT BOMB US!!1121311!!matrixreloaded!!2321!!

So Nopoke, I agree that it would be nice to get off foreign oil, but not every countrey could do that. The cost for Greener energy is very high and the return energy is a lot lower compared to oil. A lot lower.

And to all the animals dying, I remember in school hearing something about something called "eevolution", I don't remember much about it(Kansas school board was having an argument), but I think that it is the adaptation of organisms to their enviroment.

And Pablo, I am sure you knew this already, but water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas, and dying vegatation/volcanoes do a lot more then mad-made factories do. Heck, a lot of cells release carbon dioxide, we are breathing it out right now. Should we breat out into special containers that we launch to the moon?
 
A lot of chemists are working on photosynthesis right now. nature has managed something that scientists haven't been able to reproduce in the lab.. I have forgotten all the details but it is I think a double electron capture or transfer. Anyway its potentially very important to solving the energy crisis that the world faces in the future. A hydrogen economy doesn't work if you can't make the hydrogen efficiently.

I wonder if I can remember/find the link...

Moza, extinctions are happening all the time. There is no reason to believe that mankind is immune from them. Just because I can't fix the problem doesn't mean I can continue to make it worse! just turning the TV off instead of leaving it on standby can make a difference.

Here's the link. http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P7396.htm its not a treatise for or against global warming. Its a brutal projection of where the world is heading in its thirst for energy and what options we have to satisfy that thirst. True its not about global warming its about energy supply but you ought to be able to make the connection.

Professor Nocera said:
"The people who claim CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't contribute to global warming are the biggest gamblers and risk-takers you've ever met," he declared, adding: "If I'm wrong, I'm a safe bet - just one more crazy MIT professor, and believe me there are plenty."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't thin mankind is immune, I am almost certain we will die out within the next million years or so.

And leaving a TV/computer modem in standby actually uses a negligable amount of power compared to turning it off, it takes a lot more energy to keep turning it off and on again each day.

Yes, exticions happen all the time. Thing is, death breeds life. First major extiction was when oxygen was introduced to lifeforms, and 98% of them died. Then they became adaptive to oxygen, and look around you. Who knows what amazing creatures the next extinction will bring.
 
moza said:
Here is why it is difficult to put a "Green Energy Scheme" on the entire planet:

Some countreys are just to poor. Take almost any African countrey, there is no way they are going to buy hundreds of acres of solar generators instead of cheap oil. They just aren't rich enough to afford almost anything else.

Oh, and heaven forbid anyone else but the US uses nuclear energy, THEY MIGHT BOMB US!!1121311!!matrixreloaded!!2321!!

So Nopoke, I agree that it would be nice to get off foreign oil, but not every countrey could do that. The cost for Greener energy is very high and the return energy is a lot lower compared to oil. A lot lower.

And to all the animals dying, I remember in school hearing something about something called "eevolution", I don't remember much about it(Kansas school board was having an argument), but I think that it is the adaptation of organisms to their enviroment.

And Pablo, I am sure you knew this already, but water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas, and dying vegatation/volcanoes do a lot more then mad-made factories do. Heck, a lot of cells release carbon dioxide, we are breathing it out right now. Should we breat out into special containers that we launch to the moon?
Click to expand...

I know the #1 green house gas is water vapour, and carbon dioxide from dying vegetation and volcanoes, and even if they did 1 billion times more gas than factories, that was the balance the Earth was suited for, and with the increase in emmissions from non natural sources we are making an imbalance and thus the climate is chaning to accomodate these. Carbon dioxide IS needed in the air, just as every other gas in it, but EXCESS of any of them is bad. No I do not think we should breathe into special containers, I think we need to reduce carbon dioxide emmissions originated by manmade proccesses to the least amount possible to stop altering the balance nature had. Dont give me that crap please, that's serously insulting.

And switching to greener energy issues: so what, because poor African countries can't afford it, even if the energy conumption is less than that of a CITY (not even country), like New York or Mexico City, means the rest shouldn't do it because not all are equal?
 
I know the #1 green house gas is water vapour, and carbon dioxide from dying vegetation and volcanoes, and even if they did 1 billion times more gas than factories, that was the balance the Earth was suited for, and with the increase in emmissions from non natural sources we are making an imbalance and thus the climate is chaning to accomodate these. Carbon dioxide IS needed in the air, just as every other gas in it, but EXCESS of any of them is bad. No I do not think we should breathe into special containers, I think we need to reduce carbon dioxide emmissions originated by manmade proccesses to the least amount possible to stop altering the balance nature had. Dont give me that crap please, that's serously insulting.

And switching to greener energy issues: so what, because poor African countries can't afford it, even if the energy conumption is less than that of a CITY (not even country), like New York or Mexico City, means the rest shouldn't do it because not all are equal?
Click to expand...

The Earth isn't as fragile as most people make it out to be. And extra megaton or few won't change much, if anything, and if it does change something, it will be so small it is insignificant. The sun is a much more controlling factor then the CO2 humans produce. Much greater.

Even if we do produce CO2, I don't think it is nearly enough to upset any sort of balance in life or the ecosystem, they aren't all that fragile.

Because poor African countries can't afford it, we shouldn't make it mandatory for all the people on the planet. Let them choose what to do for their own countrey, don't have some small group of scientists decide what is best for the world, let the people decide.
 
Stripes said:
Yep that is true. I'm not perfect.

Pablo, WHISCASHEX, I don't need to answer or give my proof why its not around! Neither of you can meet the burden of proof level I need to actually think something so catastrophic exists in the world.

I admit I am no where near a level of expertice when it comes to weather, but I have done my homework on this subject. College professors are picky on a 17 yr old I think =/
Yes Pablo I realize global warming isn't just the warming of the planet-melting ice bergs and so forth. But also can be pointed towards the cause of abnormal cold in certain regions. Tornadoes, hurricanes, you name it can be the cause of "global warming."
I threw that comment in on another thread mostly to prove to myself if anyone knew what they were talking about, and could point it out. gratz

I can't answer how is global warming NOT there..Its a task my mind just thinking about is boggled by. Its not touchable, able to be seen, heard, I just can't do it.

The burden is on you my friends to convince me of it.
Click to expand...

1). Then why are you postng comments like this then? If you can't support your opinions/claims then there's no way you can say you are correct. There's proof the green house affect occurs.

Just look at the core samples of ice researches take from the artic. In the [insert period here] there were less plants than there were today. Thus, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher because of less plants to convert it to oxygen. So the planet was warmer... naturally.

2). How can you compare something like global warming to, say, the theiry of the void (I think that's what it is called)? There's hard proof that the planet warms and cools naturally. There's proof humans have some affect on this natural cycle. There's no proof of the void, or even what it is, so it's naturally impossible you cannot think about what it would be like.

Can you imagine what it's like to live in reality? Yes, because that's existence. And global warming is in existence. Thus, it can be grasped by the mind. Can you imagine what it's like to live in te void (theoretical area of 'non-existence)? No, because it's not reality and we're not in that realm. Thinking about the void or the creation of the universe is what boggles minds, even scientists. But a clearly present form of weather change does not.

moza said:
Even if we do produce CO2, I don't think it is nearly enough to upset any sort of balance in life or the ecosystem, they aren't all that fragile.
Click to expand...

True, and I agree with that. But there's the 'over time' factor and population growth. Even if we are putting small amounts of CO2 in the atmopshere now, imagine how much we'll be putting in when the human population is 2 or 3 times larger.
 
Global warming is happening but I'm not convinced it's the humans' fault. Sure there are charts, graphs, etc that show the global rise in temperature corresponding with emitting more carbon dioxide in the air, but how do we know that isn't just a coincidence.
 
moza said:
The Earth isn't as fragile as most people make it out to be. And extra megaton or few won't change much, if anything, and if it does change something, it will be so small it is insignificant. The sun is a much more controlling factor then the CO2 humans produce. Much greater.

Even if we do produce CO2, I don't think it is nearly enough to upset any sort of balance in life or the ecosystem, they aren't all that fragile.

Because poor African countries can't afford it, we shouldn't make it mandatory for all the people on the planet. Let them choose what to do for their own countrey, don't have some small group of scientists decide what is best for the world, let the people decide.
Click to expand...

You have to remember the effects of pollutants won't necessarily have a linear effect on temperature. Increasing the parts-per-million of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere by 1% will not give you a 1% change in the temperature in Celsius. In addition you must remember the timescale over which this is happening, and how we aren’t taking out any of what we put in as such.

Oh and the greenhouse effect is 100% natural and good. The enhanced greenhouse effect is what concerns us.

The suns emits short wave radiation, most of it passes through into our atmosphere, some of it is reflected to space. As it does this it becomes long-wave radiation. The long-wave radiation transfers some of it’s energy into earth as it reflects off it’s surface, and when it reaches space again, much of it is reflected back to the earth again as it’s now long-wave radiation, creating the heating effect that allows life to exist on this planet.

Now, if more gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect are produced, the greenhouse effect is enhanced – ergo the world gets hotter. I genuinely don’t see any evidence to the contrary as long as you believe the laws of physics work.
 
Last edited:
moza said:
Even if we do produce CO2, I don't think it is nearly enough to upset any sort of balance in life or the ecosystem, they aren't all that fragile
Click to expand...

Just because you're not seeing an upset in the balance now (and there IS one) doesn't mean we should continue to produce as much CO2 just because its not harming us now. Since we wont be alive in 100 years time, why bother huh?
 
Kempley, you forget that the extra heat from Sun Spots can cause more evaporation on the earth, and produce clouds, one of the major earth tempeture regulators. Clouds play a huge part in the tempeture, and that is why so far the Global Warming scientists are waiting on the computer inudustry to produce higher speed-higher memory computers, the biosphere is very complex.


Pablo, I currently see no upset in the balance of the earth which would not have happend without any influence we can exert on the planet. I have nothing against people using green products, that is fine, just don't pass laws forcing people too.

We can bother if it makes us feel happy.
 
moza said:
Kempley, you forget that the extra heat from Sun Spots can cause more evaporation on the earth, and produce clouds, one of the major earth tempeture regulators. Clouds play a huge part in the tempeture, and that is why so far the Global Warming scientists are waiting on the computer inudustry to produce higher speed-higher memory computers, the biosphere is very complex.


Pablo, I currently see no upset in the balance of the earth which would not have happend without any influence we can exert on the planet. I have nothing against people using green products, that is fine, just don't pass laws forcing people too.

We can bother if it makes us feel happy.
Click to expand...

Clouds have an effect on local temperature and weather, not global temperature, or climate.

With respect tnc's for example make money from not being green - I don't see them self policing to be frank.
 
The pictures of earth that I have seen have some pretty large cloulds covering contenents at a time.
 
By keeping in more radiation that the sun gives out. It can get through the atmosphere, just not out(as well as it normally would without clouds). The heat kept in from one place can spread and cause other places to become warmer then they would normally.
 
its not a case of getting off of foreign oil. There isn't enough energy available to meet the anticipated needs of the worlds population in 40 years time.

You wont have to get off foreign oil. You don't get a choice. The foreigners will be keeping it all for themselves.

Has anyone actually read the abstract or even listened to the lecture. Global warming is a non problem when compared to the energy crisis that we face in the near future.
 
Its just like the food and space crisis that was founded in the 70's and 80's. In 40 years time, we should have many more nuclear power plants using fusion instead of fission. Fusing hydrogen into helium doesn't produce harmful toxic substances and produces much much more energy then the splitting of atoms.

Or we could start trying to harvest lighting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top