Charlie Posted January 1, 2006 Posted January 1, 2006 The Earth is heating up, but is it part of the planets natural climate cycle or because of man? The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago, during the last couple of million years of the Earth's existance there have been many ice ages occurring at 40,000 to 100,000 year frequencies. That picture shows that, if following the trend, we still have to rise another 4 degrees to get back to normal with no ice age at all (polar caps completely melted). The Earth will stay at this temperature for a very short time (a thousand years or so) and will then go back to it's normal covering off ice over a period of 40,000 years. The ice caps will melt, cities will flood. What difference have we made to this? None at all, greenhouse gases, global warming is fiction. ------ Your thoughts?
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 1, 2006 Posted January 1, 2006 Personally, i do think that man has played a very significant part in all of this. I've picked up an interest in this topic over the few years or so, because we're seeing things like floods becoming a more recent occurance. I could go into more detail, but i believe the theory that there is a blanket around the Earth keeping the heat in. So, for me, global warming because of man is a harsh fact.
dabookerman Posted January 1, 2006 Posted January 1, 2006 well...the sun is expanding is one explanation
Bowser57 Posted January 1, 2006 Posted January 1, 2006 It's a subject I'm in no way qualified to make a judgement on one way or the other. I've no idea personally what makes the argument for either case more convincing as I have next to no understanding of any of it.
Rick Dangerous Posted January 1, 2006 Posted January 1, 2006 The question should not be whether it is fact or fiction (carbon dioxide and methane clearly trap heat better than oxygen), but whether we have pumped out enough of the stuff to make and effect on the temperature of the earth. I think we have. Besides how are you going to get the energy to run your games console when fossil fuels run out or become unenconomical to extract from the earth? It makes sense to me to establish sources of renewable energy now.
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 1, 2006 Posted January 1, 2006 It makes sense to me to establish sources of renewable energy now. Although that would be simple, it isn't. I did a project on renewable energy, and although Nuclear energy isn't safe, it is probably the best replacement for giving out power. It would take something like 70 wind farms to equal the power output of a nuclear power station (probably more). So, the options are not looking great, imo. I don't have go into the Chernobyl incident, do i?
Marshmellow Posted January 1, 2006 Posted January 1, 2006 i think global warming is definalty fact because when i was little alaska would get like 6ft of snow!!! now it barely gets 2in!!! it snows for a day then it rains making awful slush
Arragaun Posted January 1, 2006 Posted January 1, 2006 Well while we're on sources of energy, I've been told (by the BBC) that France has recently been given permission to start developing nuclear fusion technology. If the sci-fi books I've read tell any truth, then fusion is the way to go. I think fusion is what goes on inside of stars, which must be produce a lot of energy right... PS; www.hm-FUSION.co.uk
Charlie Posted January 1, 2006 Author Posted January 1, 2006 i think global warming is definalty fact because when i was little alaska would get like 6ft of snow!!! now it barely gets 2in!!! it snows for a day then it rains making awful slush But how do you know thats due to Global warming and not what I said in the original post?
Rick Dangerous Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 Although that would be simple, it isn't. I did a project on renewable energy, and although Nuclear energy isn't safe, it is probably the best replacement for giving out power. It would take something like 70 wind farms to equal the power output of a nuclear power station (probably more). So, the options are not looking great, imo. I don't have go into the Chernobyl incident, do i? Yeah they dont produce much but every little counts. Shame it takes about 60 years to build a fission plant. Fusion would be ideal but they havent made any energy from the process as of yet. Hopefully it wont get to the point where electricity needs to be rationed that would suck.
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 Yeah they dont produce much but every little counts. Shame it takes about 60 years to build a fission plant. Fusion would be ideal but they havent made any energy from the process as of yet. Hopefully it wont get to the point where electricity needs to be rationed that would suck. Rationing would be terrible, and i hope we never get to that point. Ooo, another thing, wind farms are frowned upon by certain people in the countryside. I remember seeing news broadcasts about how some people felt that they were ruining the landscape. Another thing is that birds have a nasty habit of flying into them. I probably shouldn't laugh at the last bit. So, i guess it looks like we're sorting the problem out at the right time. If we start researching into fission/fusion, then hopefully some good will come out of that.
The Peeps Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 Here's an example just to get a point in... The diagram shows how harmful sun rays and stuff pass through the ozone layer into our atmosphere. With a hole in the ozone, more harmful rays from the sun will get in. That's one of the arguments for the theory of global warming... but while we're getting all this extra heat and stuff through the hole, we can be losing just as much through it aswell. It isn't a one-way process. So you can't really say that we've caused global warming by punching a hole in the ozone layer, we probably did make a hole but there's no evidence to show that it's had a negative effect.
Konfucius Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 I think both theories are right, the earth will naturally heat up again (about 2000 years ago it was 2°C warmer than now and the romans didn't pollute the earth) and to some extent also man is responsible for the global warming. We have polluted the planet for over a hundred years now, that must have an effect.
Gaijin von Snikbah Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 I do believe we have an impact on the ozone layer. And ther is no doubt that its getting hotter. We can only hope it doesnt get too hot.
Chaz Rea Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 The diagram shows how harmful sun rays and stuff pass through the ozone layer into our atmosphere. With a hole in the ozone, more harmful rays from the sun will get in. That's one of the arguments for the theory of global warming... but while we're getting all this extra heat and stuff through the hole, we can be losing just as much through it aswell. It isn't a one-way process. So you can't really say that we've caused global warming by punching a hole in the ozone layer, we probably did make a hole but there's no evidence to show that it's had a negative effect. Global warming is not the same thing as the hole in the ozone layer. The hole in the ozone layer is simply a hole in the ozone layer of gases. Global warming is entirely different. It is due to the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which prevents some of the sun's heat which is radiated away from the earth from leaving the atmosphere. So like you said, the hole in the ozone layer is a two-way thing, but global warming is a one-way process.
Cube Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 It makes sense to me to establish sources of renewable energy now. Do you realise that, as they are unreliable, the power stations that they are "replacing" still have to be kept running in case the renewable sources don't produce enough ebergy. With the technology we have now, renewable energy is just a waste of money and materials. It seems the government only make them to shut up environmentalists and the EU, who dont know anything about renewable energy. And talking about global warming...this year i've had hardly any snow because its too cold. I think its just a natural cycle. Remember trees/plants have a minor effect in reducing CO2, however people would like you to think otherwise. The main thing reducing CO2 is bacteria in the sea. edit: About the Ozone hole, recently its getting smaller. It appears to be a natural expanding/contracting cycle. Notice how many things environmentalists say its "our" fault, turn out to be natural cycles.
Kurtle Squad Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 Well while we're on sources of energy, I've been told (by the BBC) that France has recently been given permission to start developing nuclear fusion technology. If the sci-fi books I've read tell any truth, then fusion is the way to go. I think fusion is what goes on inside of stars, which must be produce a lot of energy right... PS; www.hm-FUSION.co.uk Well fusion is old anyway...I expect it'll never work to the extent they want it to...or they'll destroy the world trying. Well anyway, I think man has been doing something to cause global warming, it's ashame the UK's one of the only two countries actually trying to do something!!!
KKOB Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 anyhwo getting back on topic- mankinds contribution to global warming is a fact-if you had the joy of watching horizon etc over the years or my geography teacher you'd understand. basicly we're all fucked-theres a huage stored amount of carbon dioxide in the amazon and if the rains fail in the amazon for a while then its likey it'll spark a massive forest fire releasing a mamoth amount of green house gass into the atmosphere-at the same time a type of rock (i forget its name) under the sea is storing another even larger amoung of a worse green house gas-methane-and if sea temperatures carry on rising the ice etc holding it down there wil melt resulting in another mass release of green house gasses basicly its a huage snowball effect-and we're the ones who will feel its effects in like 30 years time!
mario114 Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 Fact for sure. Everyone knows it (apart from the US).
gaggle64 Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 When you have almost the entire independent scientific community (a.k.a all scientists not hired by Texco) telling the world that mankinds CO2 emissions are poisioning the atmosphere and destroying the worlds climate, it's rather difficult not to listen. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the fact that there is still any actual debate on the issue. The world has warmed up more in the last 50 years then in the last 5 centuries, and so has our levels of CO2 emmisions have increased. You only need to look at the crumbling ice caps or increasingly violent weather systems to see this. The mountain Killimanjaro in Africa will soon no longer have a snowy peak, despite being topped with perma frost for thousands of years. Unless you have scientific proof that this is just some kind of huge coincidence, it seems pretty clear that unless we start applying green-energy and energy conservation technologys on a united international scale today, Earth is fucked.
ShadowV7 Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 The suns heat is getting stronger every few thousand hundred years,the 'safe-zone' that earth has been in is moving away from the earth,but also man is destroying the earth with the chemicals thats being released such as fumes from cars and factories,its increasing the earths temperature aswell
mario114 Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 I would agree that nuclear power is a viable and safe option to cut back on co2 emmsions. I just finished writting up a report on nuclear physics (for physics), and am studing the viability of nuclear power in environmental science (A-level). There has only been 2 major inciendents, and france had shown (getting about 70% power form nuclear power stations) can work well. There only probelms are were to put the watse and public opinion. As for global warming as i prevuisly said i beleive it is fact. There has been so much research into the effects of carbon emissions, and they nearly allways global warming is given as an effect.
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 I would agree that nuclear power is a viable and safe option to cut back on co2 emmsions. I just finished writting up a report on nuclear physics (for physics), and am studing the viability of nuclear power in environmental science (A-level). There has only been 2 major inciendents, and france had shown (getting about 70% power form nuclear power stations) can work well. There only probelms are were to put the watse and public opinion. As for global warming as i prevuisly said i beleive it is fact. There has been so much research into the effects of carbon emissions, and they nearly allways global warming is given as an effect. Hey, you know your stuff. France have an outstanding record for using Nuclear power stations. But, as you said, there have been a few major incidents. It's unfortunate that due to the nature of those incidents, people associate nuclear power with devastation or death.
Recommended Posts