Global Warming
BulletHead
Join Date: 2004-07-22 Member: 30049Members
Join Date: 2004-07-22 Member: 30049Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Gasses or...?</div> I believe global warming is natural. Think about it... the Earths Magnetic Field is slowly weakening as it gets ready to "flip" as it does every so many centuries. In some places (eg, the Bermuda Triangle) it already has. This results in higher levels of UV radiation getting in, as well as more "penetration" from the solar wind
Comments speculations or insults?
Comments speculations or insults?
Comments
Changes in the climate ARE natural, they have occured long before we started tampering with things (and what's this whole thing about humans and their doings being unnatural anyway?). The question is whether we want them or not. And whether we have the capability to prevent them (which we have if we are the cause - just stop whatever we are doing) or not (if it's not caused by us, chances are we can't prevent it either).
also i think i will have to buy some big fur coats
Read up:
Global Dimming: A Review of the Evidence, G Stanhill and S Cohen Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Volume 107 (2001), pages 255-278
Observed Reductions of Surface Solar Radiation at Sites in the US and Worldwide, B Liepert Geophysical Research Letters Volume 29 (2002), pages 1421-1433
But also, ask yourself this...
The earth doesn't burn fossil fuels at the same rate (read: not even remotely close) as we humans do. And we know burning these fossil fuels damages the enviorment, so what can we conclude?
I mean we may or may not be harming the enviorment, but what sense does it make to just say "ahh **** it". Wouldnt it be smarter to try and curb our influence first, which could potentially help the enviorment, and hey if it doesnt help no hard no foul, rather than not trying at all and risking permanent damage that could have been prevented? One method allows you to go back to your old ways, one would change everything forever, which is the smart choice
People in developed nations, especially the United States have the utmost responsibilty to be sensitive and informed about issues that we contribute grossly overproportioanately to. Some may not see it the same way I do, but I just feel that it is common logic to do so, given that the effect of something such as global warming will weigh very heavily on nations who played relatively no part in the cause.
And of course theres the third category of non-developed nations, who only produce emissions through such tactics as burning down forests to create temporary farmland. Would you suggest we relegate ourselves into that category, as an "experiment" to see if that solves global warming?
So you don't plan to have a family line?
GG for you sucka <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3143798.stm' target='_blank'>Really?</a> It might be better to say that the US has the potential to decrease its emissions, but so far that hasn't happened, and from what I know there are no plans to do so either.
And of course theres the third category of non-developed nations, who only produce emissions through such tactics as burning down forests to create temporary farmland. Would you suggest we relegate ourselves into that category, as an "experiment" to see if that solves global warming? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
aint the usa 50% of the polution?
And of course theres the third category of non-developed nations, who only produce emissions through such tactics as burning down forests to create temporary farmland. Would you suggest we relegate ourselves into that category, as an "experiment" to see if that solves global warming? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? I would like to know how you came up with this fact... or assumption because it would really be a surpirse if the US wasn't polluting much more than countries of equal size.
Yes we have the money and ability to spend on those things, but it wouldn't be us spending money on emissions persay, it would be the corporate sector and we all know that legislation will never pass.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->China is the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but as a developing country is not yet required to reduce its emissions.
With China accounting for a fifth of the world's population, increases in its emissions could dwarf any cuts made by the industrialised countries.
The average Chinese person consumes only 10-15% of the energy an average US citizen uses, but with the economy developing at high speed many analysts expect China's total emissions to overtake America's by mid-century.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to the statistics from that article, China puts out about 59% as much CO2 as the US, while using about 50% of our energy. That suggests that our energy generation is more environmentally friendly than theirs, and as their power requirements soar past ours in the coming years their CO2 emissions will soar past ours as well.
Next, I'd point out that there are many categories of environmental pollutants, only a few of which count as greenhouse gasses. Many of these other pollutants are tightly regulated in the US, and are largely unregulated in other areas. And these are the really dangerous ones...CO2 isn't detrimental to anyone's health, while many other pollutants can kill you.