|
Post by sammy on Apr 22, 2011 2:53:36 GMT
This is a chart showing each countries portion of Co2 emisions since the 1700's. The length of color from top to bottom on the year mark shows how many tons that country produced (the metric tons on left of chart). Every year we find more solutions to this problem, but are not applied to the problem. The answer seems simple but things like solar, wind, and nuclear power are only a fraction of the solution we now need. More and more companies are made without "green" applications, making a even larger divide in our problem when it comes time to pay for upgrades. The argument with nuclear power is well known. The reason it is being looked into is because it doesnt have the emisions as a coal burning plant does. To me it seems like were getting rid of one problem for a much larger one in the future, but good luck convincing them that. The focus is now to stop the steady increase of emisions and Im happy about that. The answers will come when the time is right, I just hope it isnt too late.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Apr 22, 2011 12:23:24 GMT
Well your right, it is a natural gas of Earth. Much like how E. coli and salmonella are always in our stomachs, there is levels of tolerance as to what the body can take.
Co2 sits in the atmosphere, and light particles pass through it doing its normal thing and heating the Earth. The Co2 at this point would normally let alot of that heat back out. If the levels are too high the heat wont escape. Wallah... global warming.
Besides can you honestly tell me you like paying what you do for electricity and fuel?
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Apr 22, 2011 14:09:56 GMT
You really have no inclination that the MASS amount of Co2 that was suddenly exploded into 300 years ago will have any effect? The Earth (as far as we know it) has never had to deal with this amount of buildup.
|
|
|
Post by maat on May 4, 2011 0:53:18 GMT
Forests use up lots of CO2 Stop using wood
|
|
|
Post by sammy on May 8, 2011 18:21:18 GMT
Forests are carbon stores, and they are carbon dioxide sinks when they are increasing in density or area. In Canada's boreal forests as much as 80% of the total carbon is stored in the soils as dead organic matter.[17] A 40-year study of African, Asian, and South American tropical forests by the University of Leeds, shows tropical forests absorb about 18% of all carbon dioxide added by fossil fuels.[18] Tropical reforestation can mitigate global warming until all available land has been reforested with mature forests. However, the global cooling effect of carbon sequestration by forests is partially counterbalanced in that reforestation can decrease the reflection of sunlight (albedo). Mid-to-high latitude forests have a much lower albedo during snow seasons than flat ground, thus contributing to warming. Modeling that compares the effects of albedo differences between forests and grasslands suggests that expanding the land area of forests in temperate zones offers only a temporary cooling benefit.[19][20][21][22]
In the United States in 2004 (the most recent year for which EPA statistics[23] are available), forests sequestered 10.6% (637 teragrams[24]) of the carbon dioxide released in the United States by the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas; 5657 teragrams[25]). Urban trees sequestered another 1.5% (88 teragrams[24]). To further reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 7%, as stipulated by the Kyoto Protocol, would require the planting of "an area the size of Texas [8% of the area of Brazil] every 30 years".[26] Carbon offset programs are planting millions of fast-growing trees per year to reforest tropical lands, for as little as $0.10 per tree; over their typical 40-year lifetime, one million of these trees will fix 0.9 teragrams of carbon dioxide.[27] In Canada, reducing timber harvesting would have very little impact on carbon dioxide emissions because of the combination of harvest and stored carbon in manufactured wood products along with the regrowth of the harvested forests. Additionally, the amount of carbon released from harvesting is small compared to the amount of carbon lost each year to forest fires and other natural disturbances
But it is a concern. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that "a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit".[28] Sustainable management practices keep forests growing at a higher rate over a potentially longer period of time, thus providing net sequestration benefits in addition to those of unmanaged forests But ofcourse we can't have our wood use restricted, so they came up with this. Scientists in the United States are developing a "synthetic tree" capable of collecting carbon around 1,000 times faster than the real thing.
As the wind blows though plastic "leaves," the carbon is trapped in a chamber, compressed and stored as liquid carbon dioxide.
The technology is similar to that used to capture carbon from flue stacks at coal-fired power plants, but the difference is that the "synthetic tree" can catch carbon anytime, anywhere.
"Half of your emissions come from small, distributed sources where collection at the site is either impossible or impractical," said Professor Klaus Lackner, Ewing-Worzel Professor of Geophysics in the Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering at Columbia University.
|
|
|
Post by maat on May 10, 2011 1:34:27 GMT
With you all the way Anubis.
One might look to the Sun for some explanations for climate change, which is natural if not challenging at times.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 10, 2011 2:47:11 GMT
The Sun is the number one contributor to global warming and global cooling. Since the Sun does work on a cycle, that we are just now figuring out by several inferential methods, that is quite remarkable because of its prime importance in our solar system (note that it is not called a Mars system). The problem, in my humble and uninformed opinion, is the marginal application of science when it does not fit an agenda.
|
|
|
Post by nventr on May 10, 2011 5:30:31 GMT
I really don't know who's right and who's wrong about all this, but I'm tired of relying on other people for my (mostly oil-based) energy needs and having to pay out the wazoo.
So, my new house's design will have a glass solarium as the top floor. Not only will I be able to grow fresh vegies in the winter and enjoy my personal forest all year around, the glass will absorb the sun's heat all winter long that can be vented throughout the whole house. In the summer, the excess heat will be vented out the top like the average greenhouse.
The Mall of America in Minnesota does not have any furnaces, even though temps in the winter are subzero. All they use is a glass roof to absorb the heat. There is a fault in the design. There is no way to vent the excess heat. So, sometimes they have to run the air-conditioning on bright sunny days in the dead of winter.
If the technology comes along like I have been watching then the glass will also contain strips that work like solar panels and run all the electric inside too, including charging my new electric car.
Now all I need is a million dollars to build it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by maat on May 11, 2011 1:39:48 GMT
Piers Richard Corbyn (born 10 March 1947)[1] is a meteorologist, astrophysicist, consultant, and owner of the business Weather Action which makes weather forecasts up to a year in advance, and which he also bets on.[2] This man accurately predicted the catastrophic Queensland floods a year before they happened. He also predicts they might happen again next year (sadly). Co2 and global warming... rubbish he says. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
|
|
|
Post by sammy on May 11, 2011 2:28:28 GMT
I personaly have not mentioned global warming. Im simply displaying results that astound me, and voicing my opinion off those facts.
"You really have no inclination that the MASS amount of Co2 that was suddenly exploded into 300 years ago will have any effect? The Earth (as far as we know it) has never had to deal with this amount of buildup."
Which I guess only implies "I think something will happen", and my apologies for that. The fact that we dont know what can happen with the buildup is what worries me most.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 11, 2011 15:47:08 GMT
Move inland.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on May 12, 2011 1:37:58 GMT
Again my apologies, I had mentioned the hypothesis "global warming". It was not my focus... Ive had a super rough week, and rushed through my posts this morning.
|
|
|
Post by maat on May 12, 2011 23:47:57 GMT
Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. Maybe then we will find out whether there have been some truly wonderful inventions suppressed for commercial reasons.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on May 14, 2011 0:36:05 GMT
True maat, it astounds me how technology has taken off and progressed in the past 30 years.
I was thinking of eco-systems earlier and in these systems if one of those life forms becomes a majority, the rest of the system suffers or ends completely. Being overrun, eaten, or have no food source anymore, and many other various reasons. Then the species that overran the system will die off for the same reasons, or for animal control (like with cats in Australia, or locusts in some areas). My point is that earth has a way of balancing itself out, and do we realy want to test those waters?
The answer to the problem is easy, the steps are easy, the process is easy, and so are repairs. The hard part is getting people to just say ok to alternitive methods. Its like Spam in Hawaii. Just because it was good in a pinch back then, doesnt mean its still good now.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Jun 2, 2011 14:47:15 GMT
All hysteria. The IPCC falsified data to reach a pre-conceived result. They were caught red-handed. No credibility. Many scientists disagree with the conclusions you are relating here. There is no solid evidence that increased CO2 is causing a rise in average surface temperatures. An axiom in science is "Correlation does not prove causation." It is thought by many, many scientists that the rise in mean temperature is what causes the increase in CO2, not the reverse. We were, on average, four degrees warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, and no destruction happened. In fact, quite the opposite. Crops flourished, grapes were grown in England, Greenland was green, Iceland was established by the Scandinavians. It was during the beginning of the "Little Ice Age," which lasted from the 1300's to the 1850"s, that Europe began to suffer from the Great Plagues - because the winters, and even the summers, became too cold and wet to grow crops, so mass malnutrition occurred, which led to 20% of Europe dying off due to disease. This isnt my conclusion. There is a certain way light particles interact with Co2, how this interaction will play out is whats up for debate. The fact greenhouse effects have always happened is not an issue. The concern is if that is largley increased, how will it result. As for ice ages it could have been atmospheric as well as something planetary (like a massive valcano). Even still its safe to assume "something" was blocking out the light particles, and that was the result. As warming would be safe to assume, if its pulling the particles in and then they can't all escape. The process used for determining global warming has been proven, the result the process will have in truth will have to happen for us to find out. That is unless we can all decide it isnt worthe finding out.
|
|
cwhite
Member
Too much attention to subtleties makes you oblivious to the obvious.
Posts: 55
|
Post by cwhite on Jul 15, 2011 14:08:40 GMT
I've studied data from NASA that suggests global warming is not exclusive to our planet. Its affecting every planet in our system. I have theories if anyone is interested.....
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Jul 16, 2011 12:39:13 GMT
I've studied data from NASA that suggests global warming is not exclusive to our planet. Its affecting every planet in our system. I have theories if anyone is interested..... Please do share!
|
|
cwhite
Member
Too much attention to subtleties makes you oblivious to the obvious.
Posts: 55
|
Post by cwhite on Jul 16, 2011 17:27:26 GMT
The NASA data is concrete, my theories are speculative (or speculatory) at best. In any case, I believe its part of a solar cycle. Dictated by the Mayan long count calender (speculative). And I believe that could be the purpose of the calender. Between the 13th baktun, 13th zodiac and the new earth age coming upon us, I feel that our planet will soon "rebirth" itself into the new age. I apologize if I'm coming off as a nut job. Just some theories of mine. On a related note, Eros is scheduled to pass by us in Jan. 2012, whose dimensions are 33 x 13 km.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jul 17, 2011 9:09:30 GMT
What is the big deal - the earth has always changed - Species come and go and so they should - Most Freemasons I know probably have only a few more New Years Eves to endure - before they go somewhere else. So Lets live in the Now - that is really all we have . If we have global warming - some things will grow differently - some things will die out for better or worse - Who would like to have Dinosaurs roaming around - Will there be an energy and atmosphere crisis - some will just see change.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Jul 17, 2011 13:19:59 GMT
I do agree with you whistler, my concern is that this "change" is man made or produced. Not a product of nature, but human motivation and indulgence.
|
|