[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
If the temperateure of the earth were to increase because of greenhouse emissions, …
V[/quote]
…so global warming is fact?
[/quote]
I think you missed the word if.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you’d be glad to know that in a couple of decades that may be reality…
[/quote]
Just to make sure everyone realizes, I was being facetious to illustrate a point. I do not advocate the hunting of whales. Unless, of coarse, they happen to be really tasty. I don’t know, I’ve never eaten any.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
If the temperateure of the earth were to increase because of greenhouse emissions, …
V[/quote]
…so global warming is fact?
[/quote]
I think you missed the word if.[/quote]
…i did miss the ‘if’, thanks for pointing that out. Personally, i’d like to see nuclear powerplants getting popular again. I’m sure that with 4 or 5 medium sized plants Holland’s energy needs are met. That’ll solve much of the carbon emissions problem!
Remember when CO was the global warming boogie man? When that didn’t work, it became the CFC’s. Ahh the CFC’s are going to eat the ozone layer and kill us, other than the fact the the majority of CFC were to damn heavy to make it that high, it was still proven bunk. So whats the boogie man now? CO2. Living things breath it and expell it. But it’s the bad guy! Don’t drive ride a bike…no wait your still expelling CO2. We shouldn’t train either, clearly we expel more CO2 when we train then when we sit still. And you you kill yourself, you expell CO2 anyway.
When your smoking gun is a moving target, I tend to call horseshit. The earth warms and cools in cycles. Always has and always will and there isn’t a damn thing anybody can do about it.
[quote]pat wrote:
Remember when CO was the global warming boogie man? When that didn’t work, it became the CFC’s. Ahh the CFC’s are going to eat the ozone layer and kill us, other than the fact the the majority of CFC were to damn heavy to make it that high, it was still proven bunk. So whats the boogie man now? CO2. Living things breath it and expell it. But it’s the bad guy! Don’t drive ride a bike…no wait your still expelling CO2. We shouldn’t train either, clearly we expel more CO2 when we train then when we sit still. And you you kill yourself, you expell CO2 anyway.
When your smoking gun is a moving target, I tend to call horseshit. The earth warms and cools in cycles. Always has and always will and there isn’t a damn thing anybody can do about it.[/quote]
…i think you are partly correct. Our emissions do influence how fast those cycles change, making the changes more abrupt and violent, and no, i don’t think we can do anything about it anymore…
How stupid have we become? Now that it is regulated as a public danger this is basically Cap and trade through the back door route.
With no need for lawmakers to face worthless-opinioned voters come re-election time.
[quote]spurlock wrote:
Edit: Here, maybe this will help.
Industrial/Technological civilization-Bad
Life-Good[/quote]
Precisely. What did getting out of dollar-a-day poverty ever do for anyone?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Gregus wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…
[/quote]
Actually, ironically, plant decay is a leading co2 emitter.
[/quote]
False. They are Carbon Neutral.
[/quote]
Perhaps you misread what I said. Plant decay releases a shit ton of co2. That is a fact. One that is ironic. Plants, like the ones you see in rain forests, may infact be carbon neutral in their life cycle. That isn’t what I was commenting on. However, as you note, even if they are carbon neutral, destroying them would have no effect on co2.[/quote]
…except that the destruction of rainforests undermines the planet’s ability to [re]absorb CO2 into the system causing a cascade effect of ever increasing CO2 levels. Ironically, plants benefit from increased CO2 levels, but grass may grow tall overnight, a 100 foot forest giant takes a little while longer…[/quote]
If we are worrying about plants absorbing co2, maybe we should look to the earth’s oceans. Plankton are a lot more important in that respect that rain forests. If we are trying to save the plankton, I would think ask myself, “what kills plankton?” The damn whales. If co2 is so dangerous, maybe we should think about taking up whaling again. Save the earth, kill the whales![/quote]
I’d also like to point out that the largest forest in the world and it’s not even close the Taiga/Boreal is the leading consumer of CO2 and producer of oxygen. It’s the northenmost forest and since it has a high percentage of conifers, it has the ability to repirate 365 days a year. Here is the catch. They only respirate when it gets above freezing (obviously frozen water cannot be transported for respiration to take place). The average temperature of the forest is 1 degrees C, which means almost exactly half of the year it is not respirating. If the temperateure of the earth were to increase because of greenhouse emissions, this forest would be warm more days per year and essentially scrub even more co2 out of the air, making it a natural buffer for the greenhouse gas co2. Also some estimates indicate the forest itself has increased in density by 33% over the last 15 years and is increasing in size (moving further north) at 3 meters per year. Just some food for thought.
V[/quote]
…so global warming is fact?
[/quote]
I’m not going to say the earth doesn’t warm and cool, I do think any manmade emissions are very very tiny with respect to the whole system. Also if we did increase the co2 of the planet, by default, this forest would conume more co2 and get bigger, it would put a brake on the co2 warming the planet. Also as a side benefit, the earth would have an increased oxygen level, causing things to respirate better and grow bigger, sorta like when the dinos were around. Life is easier when the planet is warmer. There is more life, things are bigger because they can be, both plants and animals. Climate change idiots just don’t want any change ever.
I for one would love to be able to golf year round here in Upstate NY, right now though, i’m looking at snow out my window.
V
Watch them slap a carbon tax on propane tanks, gasoline, firewood, etc. Pretty soon they’ll be strapping a monitor to your face to tax your emissions.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you’d be glad to know that in a couple of decades that may be reality…
[/quote]
Just to make sure everyone realizes, I was being facetious to illustrate a point. I do not advocate the hunting of whales. Unless, of coarse, they happen to be really tasty. I don’t know, I’ve never eaten any.[/quote]
LIAR! Sperm whale juice is your preferred Post workout drink. I saw it in a thread somewhere.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…
[/quote]
Once again you can not prove that CO2 does anything.[/quote]
It’s a greenhouse gas.[/quote]
And what does it do? We can see it doesn’t raise temperatures because if it did the “scientists” wouldn’t have had to create a bunch of fake data.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re denying. Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That it asorbs and re-emitts radiation? If we can’t deny that, then we know it has an effect. And, if we know we contribute CO2…
Higher life forms have benefited from this effect, really. It wouldn’t be nearly as cozy a planet if you were correct. The real question is if we humans, with our cleverness and industry, are capable of freeing up enough CO2 (amongst other contributions) to make life rather unpleasant on the whole. But, to say CO2 has no effect? I think the argument is lost right there.
Can it trend colder while CO2 levels rise? Sure, makes sense to me. I don’t think greenhouse gases are the only factor. But, I don’t think anyone claims such a thing. However, might it’ve been colder? When it trends warmer, will it be even warmer? Not to mention the debate over the existence of a cooling trend from 1998, as we always hear about.
I wouldn’t call myself an enviromentalist, for sure. Far too much leap before you look going on in that camp. Maybe a conservationist suits better. So, while I’m skeptical, I’m not a denier. I am very skeptical of how much we contribute (not that we don’t), and what we’d actually be able to do about a long term warming trend in the present, without bringing economic harm to ourselves. [/quote]
That is pretty much exactly my position. The latest revolations no more prove ‘man made climate change’ is false than the previous ‘data’ proved it was true.
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Watch them slap a carbon tax on propane tanks, gasoline, firewood, etc. Pretty soon they’ll be strapping a monitor to your face to tax your emissions.
[/quote]
In the county in CA where I live, the air pollution control district has a regulation that gives them the authority to decide if homeowners are allowed to burn wood in their fireplaces. Each day, some bureaucrat looks at some air pollution charts and decides if it is a “burn day” or not. Each year, they decrease the number of burn days. I happily ignore this shit, risking a $200 fine. I do have my 12-gauge ready to chase off any air inspectors that knock on my door.
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The point of that being, the claim that molecules differ according to the source is very widespread and undoubtedly you’ve seen it said countless times. And perhaps never before have you see it said that it is fact-free: no difference of any kind has ever been detected in molecules of the same structure depending on their origin.[/quote]
What about molecules that have been created from different isotopes of the same constituent atoms? These would be different sources, with different molecular properties.[/quote]
We can throw Chiral compounds in there as well along with different folding patterns
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I would say that the structure is not the same, if speaking very precisely instead of broadly. It is perfectly ordinary to write a structure to show where a different isotope is used.
But you’re right on the technicality that the structure is often called the same regardless of isotopic composition, though in fact the arrangement of atoms is different.
I understand “same structure” to mean “same arrangement of atoms.”
In practice though, one doesn’t worry where carbon isotopes might be randomly different within a structure. It would make a difference in the carbon NMR and the mass spec, or a truly tiny difference in diffusivity, but not any other property that I can think of. (Doesn’t affect chemistry except maybe to the 9th decimal place or something.) So in that sense yes, people do wind up calling them the same structure.[/quote]
Actually it can make a big difference in the chemistry
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
We contribute exactly .28% of greenhouse gasses. Guess its time to destroy civilization because of that.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I would say that the structure is not the same, if speaking very precisely instead of broadly. It is perfectly ordinary to write a structure to show where a different isotope is used.
But you’re right on the technicality that the structure is often called the same regardless of isotopic composition, though in fact the arrangement of atoms is different.
I understand “same structure” to mean “same arrangement of atoms.”
In practice though, one doesn’t worry where carbon isotopes might be randomly different within a structure. It would make a difference in the carbon NMR and the mass spec, or a truly tiny difference in diffusivity, but not any other property that I can think of. (Doesn’t affect chemistry except maybe to the 9th decimal place or something.) So in that sense yes, people do wind up calling them the same structure.[/quote]
Actually it can make a big difference in the chemistry[/quote]
Cockney, how so?
Can you elaborate a little, please? Or give an example.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I would say that the structure is not the same, if speaking very precisely instead of broadly. It is perfectly ordinary to write a structure to show where a different isotope is used.
But you’re right on the technicality that the structure is often called the same regardless of isotopic composition, though in fact the arrangement of atoms is different.
I understand “same structure” to mean “same arrangement of atoms.”
In practice though, one doesn’t worry where carbon isotopes might be randomly different within a structure. It would make a difference in the carbon NMR and the mass spec, or a truly tiny difference in diffusivity, but not any other property that I can think of. (Doesn’t affect chemistry except maybe to the 9th decimal place or something.) So in that sense yes, people do wind up calling them the same structure.[/quote]
Actually it can make a big difference in the chemistry[/quote]
Cockney, how so?
Can you elaborate a little, please? Or give an example.[/quote]
Radiation would be a good starting point.
With the industrial vs man debate, isn’t there other shit the industrial exhausts that causes damage to the environment? Like shit people don’t exhale.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
With the industrial vs man debate, isn’t there other shit the industrial exhausts that causes damage to the environment? Like shit people don’t exhale.[/quote]
Oh you mean like Methane?
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources. Human-influenced sources include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial process.
Source: http://www.epa.gov/methane/
V