Climate Change Skeptics

polaris
polaris Posts: 3,527
edited February 2007 in A Moving Train
hopefully, all your doubts and questions can be answered here ...

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/problems/cause/climate_sceptics/index.cfm
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134567

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    I do have a question that doesn't appear to be answered here:

    If human beings stopped producing any greenhouse gases, short of breathing, what would happen to global temperatures and sea levels?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I do have a question that doesn't appear to be answered here:

    If human beings stopped producing any greenhouse gases, short of breathing, what would happen to global temperatures and sea levels?

    that's impossible to do. but if we can reduce emmissions by half; the temperatures should start to reverse in about 50 years. it's going to get a little worse before it gets better but now we're preserving the earth for our children and their children.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Or this one. If humans hadn't existed at all the last 150 years, would the climate of the earth be any different today?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    onelongsong wrote:
    that's impossible to do. but if we can reduce emmissions by half; the temperatures should start to reverse in about 50 years. it's going to get a little worse before it gets better but now we're preserving the earth for our children and their children.

    My question isn't about whether or not it's possible. I'm just curious if anyone can give me an answer to the hypothetical.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    does it matter to anyone that the earth is 4,500,000,000,035 years old.
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    jlew24asu wrote:
    does it matter to anyone that the earth is 4,500,000,000,035 years old.

    Liar...:)
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    Liar...:)

    haha nope I just did an experiment from a rock I found outside. came up with that exact age.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I do have a question that doesn't appear to be answered here:

    If human beings stopped producing any greenhouse gases, short of breathing, what would happen to global temperatures and sea levels?

    what would happen hypothetically is that the planet would not be artificially warmed ... natural cyclical patterns would take over which would be more easily predictable without the extremes we are experiencing now ...

    basically, instead of us affecting the weather - it would just be mother nature
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    A 50 percent reduction should be attainable, and does seem like a small price to pay.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    what would happen hypothetically is that the planet would not be artificially warmed ... natural cyclical patterns would take over which would be more easily predictable without the extremes we are experiencing now ...

    basically, instead of us affecting the weather - it would just be mother nature

    I don't understand. Are we not part of the "natural cyclical pattern"?

    Anyway, I don't think this even answers my question. What would happen to temperatures and sea levels in my hypothetical situation?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    reborncareerist wrote:
    A 50 percent reduction should be attainable, and does seem like a small price to pay.

    A 50% reduction in what?
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    farfromglorified wrote:
    A 50% reduction in what?

    Greenhouse gas emissions ... What did you think I was talking about, exactly? See, this is why this place is insanity-provoking. No one has any powers of logical deduction. What was the odds that I was talking about greenhouse gas emissions, given the previous content in this thread? Was it not fairly high?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Greenhouse gas emissions ... What did you think I was talking about, exactly? See, this is why this place is insanity-provoking. No one has any powers of logical deduction. What was the odds that I was talking about greenhouse gas emissions, given the previous content in this thread? Was it not fairly high?

    Slow down...I really had no idea what you were referring to. It could have been gasses, it could have been temperature increases, it could have been sea levels, it could have been a whole host of things.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    I read somewhere recently that one large forest fire puts more carbon monoxide into the air than 30 years of anything man made....? I'll try to dig up the link.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Slow down...I really had no idea what you were referring to. It could have been gasses, it could have been temperature increases, it could have been sea levels, it could have been a whole host of things.

    Sorry ... My apologies.
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Greenhouse gas emissions ... What did you think I was talking about, exactly? See, this is why this place is insanity-provoking. No one has any powers of logical deduction. What was the odds that I was talking about greenhouse gas emissions, given the previous content in this thread? Was it not fairly high?

    Of all the guys who post here I woild figure you would be the least surprised to have "silly" questions asked to you...anyway that made me laugh....and to re-iterate what I have been saying for the last two weeks...emission reductiona can be done within economic reason...and yet again how do I know....because I am involved in the design of such systems...so I understand the calculations/dispersion models that go along with their design.....it is attainable.....
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    PJPOWER wrote:
    I read somewhere recently that one large forest fire puts more carbon monoxide into the air than 30 years of anything man made....? I'll try to dig up the link.

    Also take into account sulphur products/chloride products/fluorine products/various other man made (inorganic) compounds....that are blasted into the air.....these are the ones that bother me to be completly honest with you.....NO'x from car emmissions...
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    Of all the guys who post here I woild figure you would be the least surprised to have "silly" questions asked to you...anyway that made me laugh....and to re-iterate what I have been saying for the last two weeks...emission reductiona can be done within economic reason...and yet again how do I know....because I am involved in the design of such systems...so I understand the calculations/dispersion models that go along with their design.....it is attainable.....

    farfromglorified is a smart guy, I was needlessly snarky. Too much going on these days.

    I agree with the rest of your post. I don't understand enough about economics to actually propose HOW this could be done.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Greenhouse gas emissions ... What did you think I was talking about, exactly? See, this is why this place is insanity-provoking. No one has any powers of logical deduction. What was the odds that I was talking about greenhouse gas emissions, given the previous content in this thread? Was it not fairly high?

    greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, ozone, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide. so the question was probably which one of these gases. the answer would be methane, nitrous oxide, and most importantly, carbon dioxide, which man influences.

    That is what the question was...
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    Also take into account sulphur products/chloride products/fluorine products/various other man made (inorganic) compounds....that are blasted into the air.....these are the ones that bother me to be completly honest with you.....NO'x from car emmissions...
    Yeah, but I guess you could say that those compounds will help the global warming issue because they will kill us, lol. The thing that I find funny is how people say that global warming can be reversed. Humans are definatately not helping the cause, and are probably speeding up global warming, but it's hard to prove that we are the main cause of it. The more research I do, I learn about solar flares, forest fires, volcanoes, etc. It seems like something that will happen one way or another.........Unless we come up with a way of artificially replinishing the atmosphere.

Categories