|
Post by Toad on Apr 5, 2007 7:26:42 GMT -5
Just not our globe. www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/04/04/mars.climate.reut/index.htmlHmmm. So the sun is causing global warming on Mars. The Earth is closer to the Sun than Mars... Nah, too easy. I'm surprised they weren't able to pin this one on humans, Americans, or the Republicans somehow. Give them time though. It must have something to do with all the probes and robots we sent there.
|
|
stefan
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2005
Posts: 14,095
|
Post by stefan on Apr 5, 2007 10:46:43 GMT -5
Yea but they got their dig in- " On Earth, carbon dioxide traps infrared radiation which can affect global climate. This a phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Fossil fuel emissions add to the problem.
On Mars, it's the red-tinged dust." But no real mention of natural causes- Nope- just us gas guzzling, plastic using, consumers that create ALL the problems- we ought to be taken out and BEATEN!
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Apr 5, 2007 12:48:22 GMT -5
Toad, Humans, Americans, and Republicans have to stop worrying about blame for this or that and start acting to help regardless of who is responsible. If there is such a thing as Global Warming it will affect a lot of people whether it is their faul;t or someone else's. There are no simple explanations or fixes. Most recent scientific data points out that CO2 and other Greenhouse gases have been on the rise since the Industrial Revolution began. That's not blame, just fact. It may be inconvenient to think that we (most of whom love the environment and would never intentionally harm it) are responsible for Global Warming, but I'd rather know the answer, than ignore it entirely csroc
|
|
stefan
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2005
Posts: 14,095
|
Post by stefan on Apr 5, 2007 13:18:14 GMT -5
I think what Toad is trying to say is it appears that Global warming is going to happen regardlees of what we do (hmm what powered those Mars Rovers? I'd really hate to think CO2 emmisions from the rovers are causing Martian Global Warming
|
|
|
Post by rockds on Apr 5, 2007 14:12:07 GMT -5
LOL stefan.
Yea global warming is taking over here in Kansas where we are suppose to get snow today and tomorrow. I sure do wish global warming would hurry the hell up and get here!
|
|
|
Post by MrP on Apr 5, 2007 14:14:11 GMT -5
30 years ago it was Global Cooling now it is Global Warming. Follow the MONEY!!!!!!!!!!.....MrP
|
|
blarneystone
spending too much on rocks
Rocks in my head
Member since March 2010
Posts: 307
|
Post by blarneystone on Apr 5, 2007 15:43:01 GMT -5
Hey look!!! The barn's on fire!!! Call the fire department... No wait... let's see if the paint is flame retardant first... I for one don't wish to wait... if you live in a major city you know how bad the smog has become over the last 30 years... Why not just clean things up so we can all breathe easier? So we can leave a decent place for our children to live. I know so many kids here in Houston with respiratory problems... it's just sad. I personally think that the legacy we are leaving to our children and grand children is an environment that will be almost inhospitable. I'd rather believe the one's who say we need to do something and be wrong than to ignore the warnings and be wrong... It's a 'no brainer'...
|
|
desertdweller
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since August 2006
Posts: 1,803
|
Post by desertdweller on Apr 5, 2007 16:16:01 GMT -5
It won't be too much longer until the problem can't be ignored anymore. In the political world, it may be a blame game but to myself personally, it is a real concern.
|
|
|
Post by deb193 on Apr 5, 2007 18:23:17 GMT -5
I don't know, Todd, It sounds like you are suggesting that since no humans are on Mars, then global warming on Earth can't be caused by humans.
Which is Bull.
Maybe I am over-reading your remarks. Nobody (sensible) disputes that there are warming and cooling cycles on Earth. In fact, the idea that we were just in another cycle and Co2 had nothing to do with it was most frequently used as a basis by scientist who were not convinced that man-made changes were at the heart of the matter - that is until they could no longer deny it.
So what if Mars has cycles. Earth does too. But this cycle is going farther and faster than any before, and it has become clear then man-made changes are the reason why. Sure it is bad luck and bad alignment. Had we made all these changes just as a cooling cycle began, we would not even notice the problem for another 50,000 years. But we made these changes during a warming cycle, and we are screwed.
|
|
|
Post by freeform on Apr 5, 2007 18:36:31 GMT -5
here hear Daniel! besides, plus we dont know if their humans on Mars. We do know their was life on it once though. Maybe whats happening to our planet happened to thiers a long time ago? Yup, no one knows.
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Apr 7, 2007 19:56:18 GMT -5
How about we talk about something we Can control. Like keeping the planet clean, and conserving energy. I always wonder how many people that have gotten on the global warming bandwagon are true conservationist. Do you have the power saving flourescent light bulbs in your house? Do you and your neighbor work in the same area, but each one drives his own car to work each day? Do you make one or many trips to town ( rural folks) each day? Do you save and recycle cans? Paper? Glass? Are you an Al Gore do as I say and not as I do person? If it will inconvenience me, am I still willing to do it?
Everyone seems to want to regulate industry. OK fine, let's have reasonable regulations. I would really rather each one of us do what we can than to regulate industry to other countries. Lord knows we have enough of that already.
Want to keep our planet a clean and healthy place? Let's each one of us do everything we can. If everyone in the US would only switch to flourescent light bulbs, it would be about the same as taking 3 million cars off the road.
OK, off my soapbox. ;D
Curt
|
|
rollingstone
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since July 2009
Posts: 236
|
Post by rollingstone on Apr 8, 2007 2:20:26 GMT -5
Predicting climate seems to be far from an exact science. Even forecasts about what a common event like an El Nino or La Nina will mean to the weather over the next several months seem to be fraught with inaccuracies, so I'm not so sure that I trust anyone who says they can predict the climate decades or more in the future. And when people point to things like melting mountain glaciers as proof of man-made global warming, I really believe that this kind of thing would happen whether we had industrial emissions or not -- the Earth is still coming out of the last glacial period, and glaciations are the coldest extremes of Earth's climate, so warmer climates are the norm not the exception in Earth's long history.
That said, if you increase greenhouse gases, then yes, you are likely to warm the planet, and warming it beyond its normal cycles is probably a bad thing, particularly when that warming seems to be so abrupt as it is now.
But I'm really suspect of things like Kyoto, trading emission credits, ethanol fuel, etc. Ethanol from corn does nothing to stop CO2 emissions, because the amount of fossil-fuel required to produce ethanol (farm machinery, pesticide production and application, harvest and transport of grain, etc) is virtually equal to the energy you get from ethanol... so instead of burning the fossil fuel in your car, you burn the same amount to make the ethanol that is then burned in cars. Good for corn farmers, useless for the environment.
And as far as I'm concerned, trading emission credits is just a way for rich people to avoid doing anything to reduce CO2 emissions, they just use their money to make it a poor country's responsibility. And as was pointed out in an article in Business Week a month or so ago, often the money that goes to companies that sell emission credits goes to third world economies that have terribly inefficient and polluting factories, and they just keep one factory underproducing to reap the emission credit cash, then use those funds to start up a new equally polluting factory.
What really burns me though is the idea that all we really have to do to solve CO2 emissions is to drive more efficient cars, turn our thermostats down a couple degrees in winter or up a couple degrees in summer, switch to fluorescent lights, carpool or take public transit, etc. Don't get me wrong, all those things are good ideas, but I don't believe for an instant that they will solve CO2 emissions. All they do is delay things by a few decades, which ultimately means nothing.
A three percent growth rate is often considered to be a healthy economy, and energy consumption is pretty closely tied to economic growth. That means that the global economy (and energy use) can be expected to double every 23 or 24 years. Even if we improve fuel efficiency by 50%, those gains will be entirely eroded after 23 or 24 years, which is a miniscule amount of time in geological or Earth climate terms.
The only way to solve CO2 emissions is to get off fossil fuels as our primary energy source. Wind energy can't do it because sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and there aren't big enough batteries to save that amount of power for whole cities, so we are pretty much restricted to wind energy making up no more than ten percent of the power supply. (There is research that might allow this to go to 25%, but that's not certain yet). The only legitimate alternative right now is nuclear, and people seem more freaked about that then they are by global warming. Options like solar or fusion-power need a lot more research to be competitive with cheap and widely available fossil fuels, and I just don't see the money being put into those options, instead it goes to useless "solutions" like ethanol or carbon-trading.
Well, sorry for the soapbox, but I just don't take any CO2 solutions very seriously right now, because I think they are just short-term delaying tactics. The world needs to either accept nuclear power as a viable option, or spend some serious money to develop alternatives like solar cells or fusion reactors that can compete on a price-basis with fossil fuels. I'm not seeing that at all, and until that happens I don't think we have a hope in Hell of solving any CO2 emission problem. -Don
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Apr 8, 2007 7:53:03 GMT -5
Don So we as individuals should sit back and do nothing?
I don't believe we have a lot to do with global warming. The planet is going to do what it is going to do, but I do believe that we should have a clean planet and that every individual on earth is responsible for his/her part.
Curt
|
|
rollingstone
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since July 2009
Posts: 236
|
Post by rollingstone on Apr 8, 2007 12:30:19 GMT -5
Curt, maybe my rambling was rather long so my points got lost, but I do state that energy conservation is a GOOD thing. But I'm saying that while it is good, it is really just delaying the issue, not solving it. Doing something that takes the equivalent of however many cars off the road is good, but it still leaves a billion other cars out there burning fossil fuel and pumping CO2 into the air.
Unless we take serious steps to switch our main energy source from fossil fuel to some other energy source, then we will never solve the problem of CO2 emissions. And so far humanity seems to be mainly focussing on how to use less fossil fuel, not switch to something different in any meaningful way. And as I stated above, switching to things like ethanol might sound nice, but the reality of it is that producing ethanol uses as much fossil fuel as if we just burned the gasoline instead. -Don
|
|
|
Post by lbowman1 on Apr 8, 2007 13:40:20 GMT -5
Of course humans caused the global warming on Mars. It's caused by the methane from the farts of all the bacteria that was on those probes we sent.
Lori
|
|
|
Post by freeform on Apr 8, 2007 15:37:54 GMT -5
Don, i find your point important and valid. It wont take one thing to get us off fossil fuels, it will take many things and instances for us to change. And oil still has it value in a true production since, vers a true money making sense. We wont stop mining oil unless we are wiped off this planet in one swoop. But why not develop other methods that actually bring more jobs back to America? AS someone pointed out in another tread about America is a service based economy. And i personally find most people i know, think their being productive because they made more money last year. Which is a complete lie to the meaning of being productive. Making money is not the same thing as being productive, it only one of the many results of being productive. And personally not on the top of my list with my business.
Recently i stop drinking cheap beer, mainly for the health reason sake, as beer in general is proven to be one of the most harmful things we allow ourselves to produce and consume at great levels, and is publicly accepted even in places like Alaska were there no cut off time, or Las Vegas were you can walk around the strip drinking. I switch to better beer and instead of a couple a day with cheap beer. I'M now doing a couple a week with good beer. Miller lite vers Samual Smith. Yes, the costs are the same, but the benefit is change no matter what. And that change is evidant in just the amount of trash i reduce by drinking better beer. It may only delay my death a few years, which i suppose it better for me? Thats the question one must ask i feel. But instead of "me" Put "my kids", "my grandkids" in place of. (as i dont have any)
The problem lies in not your point, but your mental i believe. Becasue as Curt points out, your reply comes off as its not your problem, so why should you do anything to start change. The older we get, the more strife we feel when change is evidant and something we cant control. But the control i feel is emontional, not physical. Like voting, its known to allot of people their vote does not count. Why else would voting be so low in the US? We are like something like 74 out of 100 democatic nations who vote and keep records of voter turnout. I really know most people dont have something better to do, their subconscience feels their vote doesnt count(based on facts of the 2001 preisdential effection), thats why we have such low turnouts. AS we all know, we walk a different walk when we find out our elected officals are just stabbing us in the back. At least the majority sees it that way now. And i know some will say that point is invlaid by itself. But not on a level of soical reasons on why people dont vote.
And that doesnt make majority right in this instance of low voter turnout. But it does make it right when it something like our planet. If all the sience is wrong, and its only a money making endeavor. It will come to light no matter, giving time. But if all the sience is right, what then? Will the earth one day look like mars? I think is quite possible if we continue to pollute and ruin the only thing we know of that can sustain our children's, children. I feel anyone who doesn't believe in man effected climate change doesn't care about the planet, only themselves into believing its their world, and no one else's. The sience is there, theres just different motivations on either side. Both have to do with money, of chorse thats true. I hate seeing that responds because both sides use it as a tactic to discredit they other. I feel it comes down to those who believe in a clean and wild world for their children's children, and those who believe that change is not a good thing for them, unless theres allot of money to be made. These people are on both sides of the debate. Ask yourself, can man effect climate? I'M still waiting to hear someone try and debunk the heat island effect i brought up in the last GW debate. Those heat islands wouldnt be there if man didn't build such wasteful large cities. And another report came out today stating Phoenix as one of the top fastest growing cities in the US. Why do you suppose that is? As most i hear from out of towners is "how can you stand the summer?" Then i ask, well, then why the heck all more and more people moving here? Its weather related, not economic. But as i still see daily, its the same people moving here that are afraid of the GW debate. But not one has anything to say about what the heck are we gonna do when we run out of water here in the SW? Facts are proven our water hasn't grown, or gotten better here in the SW. So then i should take the side and hope climate will fix that problem? When its a known man made consumption problem, not one golf player, green lawn home owner cares about. They why should i, right?
|
|
rollingstone
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since July 2009
Posts: 236
|
Post by rollingstone on Apr 8, 2007 17:07:43 GMT -5
The problem lies in not your point, but your mental i believe. Becasue as Curt points out, your reply comes off as its not your problem, so why should you do anything to start change. Maybe I'm making myself terribly unclear? I'm not saying it's someone else's problem and I don't intend to do anything. For what it's worth, I have changed as many lights in our house to compact fluorescent as my wife will allow (she doesn't like the shade of the light), I have turned our hot-water heater down as low as is safe to cut energy consumption, I do live is a small house instead of a large one and the house has 6" thick walls for extra insulation, plus styrofoam insulation under the siding on the outside, and I have only ever owned 4-cylinder cars. Plus both my wife and I work at home, so we aren't driving to work each day. I'm not saying I'm Mr. Virtuous, but I'm not ignoring things entirely either. The point I was trying to make, and I seem to be failing miserably ;D, is that I think many people believe that they can fix the CO2 emission problem by conserving energy, and while good, that isn't go to fix the problem. It's like a litterbug saying he will fix his littering problem by cutting back on how much he litters. If he's still littering, there's still a problem. I think the world needs to make a serious effort to find a new energy supply besides fossil fuel. Wind can only make part of that. Hydro power isn't exactly environmentally friendly. Nuclear might well work, but it's been decades since a new nuclear plant has been built on this continent. I think the energy crisis of the 70's was the last time there was a serious push for solar energy, and research into things like fusion power seems to get mired in red tape and politics. Why not take the money that is being wasted on trading emission credits and use it to develop viable alternatives to fossil fuels? (I say wasted because I think paying someone else so that you can pollute is not solving anything.) I am just terribly suspect that people are hung up on conservation as the solution to the CO2 problem, but as long as they are still producing CO2 there is still a problem, and conservation is only going to slow the issue, not make it go away. -Don
|
|
|
Post by freeform on Apr 8, 2007 22:35:24 GMT -5
Hey Don, I didn't mean any disrespect, and understood your point i feel. As i understand what you originally said, is we need to do more than just reduce CO2 emissions. But this is were i see conflict in your point and why i ranted like i did.
If reducing CO2 emissions will not effect climate change for the good or bad. Then why are your trying to reduce yours? It seems conflicting if you say reducing CO2 wont do a thing, yet going about practices that reduce them? As the main debate lies in GW, were one side says CO2 emissions by man has no effect on climate change. And the other side saying it does. Yet as i read your post, your on both sides?
So again, i don't mean any disrespect with your opinion or point. You are very much right that its gonna take a big move on everyones part, not just a few. And not just a few types of those parts. We need change on many levels in order for this to happen. And when i say "your mental", i mean a mental that seems conflicted were one doesn't believe what they' re doing will effect change. Yet they continually do it, knowingly and recognizing it may effect change but stating otherwise. I will shut my mouth now.
|
|
rollingstone
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since July 2009
Posts: 236
|
Post by rollingstone on Apr 9, 2007 2:09:15 GMT -5
No problem. You are probably right that my point is somewhat conflicted. Truth be known, the main reason I made the conservation efforts I mentioned is because it saves money, which frees up some cash for other things. (Hey, I said I'm not Mr. Virtuous ;D). I'm not entirely sure what I think about CO2 and GW, but I guess anytime you are making definite changes to the composition of the atmosphere, that's probably a bad thing. Okay, I'll shut up now too. -Don
|
|