Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Corki, Mar 23, 2014.
i'm going to bring an argument here . it's my personal opinion so far .
having some linear Knowledge about Photosynthesis . it increases by alot of factors .
1- The higher Temperature the more Photosynthesis done in cells / done faster not to meniton Millions of Plants now doing an average Photosynthesis after the slight increase in Temperature in most of Eroupe and North Asia and Canada .
2- The More Co2 in the Environment the more the cells are stimulated to do Photosynthesis and the Crops grow bigger
3- Higher Temperatures erupts more moist cause of Sea evaporating . which to some extent also increase Photosynthesis
So the Plants are adjusting to providing more O2 and absorb more Co2 as they previously did . [ Oxygen comes from water . Early plants created Oxygen it wasn't poof ! the entire atmosphere have Oxygen ]
so basically the Climate change is inducing Photosynthesis and increasing food as indirect result . just enough with the Hazardous Chemicals already ....
I will not assume to know co2's effects on the warming itself. However, it is proven that it thins the ozone layer, thus allowing more dangerous ultraviolet rays from the sun to come through. I don't know how much the ozone layer actually keeps the temperatures low, but it blocks out most of the sun's dangerous emissions, which is why skin cancer is on the rise lately, due to this thinning.
Exactly what I mentioned. If there was less co2 it is probably because a lot more of the planet was covered with trees.
Interesting. Any other takes on this?
This is a very shady topic that's now being put into a pedestal, simply because the Green lobby is currently too strong.
GW is, for the most part, not anthropogenic. Saying that "greenhouse gases" trap sun is just nonsense. The compound that traps the most sunlight/heat is water vapor; the Earth is almost ALL water, so by this logic, we should already be Venus. However, that's simply not the case. This argument is by far the largest rebuttal to anyone who ever says that "GHGs cause global warming."
Second, it's a cycle. The Earth is continuously getting hotter and cooler, and this is mostly because of the sun's sunspot cycle, and the Earth's distance from the sun, which changes slightly every 5-12 years or so. Even small changes in the orbit distance has a large effect on global climate.
Going to post more soon.
---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 PM ----------
Oh, and if the atmosphere has too much CO2, the oceans would just release a whole bunch of gases (either methane/more CO2, which just poisons the entire surface and rids the oceans of oxygen) which would lead to mass extinction. This is what happened during the P-T extinction event, where ~90% of all Earth's species were wiped out.
To add on what most people here agreed on, CO2 takes up like only 0.01% of the Earth's atmosphere so even though the modern age increased CO2 on the atmosphere say like 10 times it's still 0.1%.
If people are saying this amount can have the power to alter climate then I don't know any more.
Yeah bc. global warming only is caused by CO2, it's not like there are any other gases we blow into the atmosphere.
I coincedentally watched a show on global warming last night. With statistics showing 97% of the greenhouse gasses produced do not come from human activity.
I haven't been here in a while, so on the topic of nuclear power I feel people really overreact. The few examples are such outliers. Of all the plants how many problems have there been? What actually caused the problems? Chernobyl was because of a total f****up when they where trying to test the limits and didn't know what they where doing, that one did serious damage but still it wasn't a case of a random failure, it was incompetence. 3-mile Island was similar, the crew also screwed up and it wasn't a normal failure. And more importantly it caused basically no damage at all. The people involved received radiation to the level of a chest x-ray.
Fukushima was not a case of incompetence but did it cause significant damage? I am not sure because I heard that the damage was overestimated in the beginning and ended up as very minimal. I might be wrong about this though.
I'm not familiar with how things are handled in your country, but if i'm getting a x-ray at my dentist i'm given a huge lead-apron. And yeah it's nice to mention that 3-mile Island did nothing (i'm not familiar with the topic so i can't argue against it) but leaving out what Chernobyl did. Clouds carrying the radiation to other countries, increased chancer risk from eating plants because the radiation rained down and the need to often re-new the shell for the reactor - and that's just scratching the surface.
And afaik Fukushima is still heating the pacific and the radiation has long term effects on the pacific.
And i would like to see where that statistic comes from and what it includes, otherwise i'd have to call it most likely inaccurate or badly done.
Well if we only had a weather machine we could have stopped the global warming and make it rain snow on the planet (I'm serious, I like snow :rambo.
Rain rains. Snow snows.
Sorry I didn't use the correct wording, what I should have said is an unprotected one. And just one isn't particularly awful, obviously not something that you want but it isn't as bad as people think the effect of the event was.
You are absolutely right, it should be mentioned. Once again I wasn't explaining enough. My point was that the incidents where caused by incompetence and not inherent problems with the system. Chernobyl was a real fuckup and still causes problems, but the chance of something like that happening again are almost zero. You could argue that it isn't good enough, but I believe the reward is worth it for the risk. And I do live near one.
So it was terrible, but with the huge advances in regulations and more importantly the technology I don't see the problem. I also base my view on the fact that so many plants have existed for so long, and those are the only 3 incidents.
Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Now I will be more correct about this in the future.
Despite the claim that the chances are so low and the system is safe we allready have so much incidents. It seems that incompetence is something you cannot eliminate which makes the 'perfect' systems so prone to mistakes.
And it's not 3 incidents it's 11 incidents of the size of Harrisburg or above (INES-5). 11 incidents from a perfectly safe system, this should ring alarm bells.
In risk-management, dangers with very high impact are still classed in the most serious categories even when the chance is low - nuclear power plants at least belong to the ALARP-category if not being inacceptable.
Its even funnier because people think recycling has to do with global warming.
We sure do emit tons of CO2 when making plastic, glass, and cardboard compared to recycled plastic, glass, and cardboard. :cat:
In certain ways it is true.
When pumping up oil we bring CO2 and other things onto the surface, recycling plastic reduces the amount of oil required.
Glas needs ingredients and to make those we need energy and where energy is there is CO2, recycling again reduces the amount of work needed for producing a 'new' bottle.
Same applies to paper.
I can't give you exact numbers but it sure reduces the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and apart from that it still fullfills another important purpose so whats wrong with recycling?
Note that cow farts are just as much a factor in Global Warming / Climate Change as CO2, and that water vapor, the greenhouse gas which someone mentioned, increases in concentration in the atmosphere when the world heats up. With water vapor, it could just as easily be: water vapor increases by x% because the temperature has increased by y degrees due to the effect of Green House Gasses.
And a huge amount of cows are raised purely as supply for meat by humans, different purpose but still caused by humans in the end.
Yes, because we are eating too much meat nowadays.
And people ask why I'm a veggie...
I especially agree with this part. It isn't always better for the environment or sensible.
But I still think overall it should be done.
One example of when it is unnecessary is paper. The transport emissions and chemicals needed as well as the emissions of the factory. And people tend to talk about deforestation, but the trees used for paper are man made forests for this purpose.
Coincidentally don't believe everything you see on the tv. Usually everything has a bias, those who claim there is no global warming will fudge the numbers, those who claim there is global warming will also fudge the numbers. Shock and awe tactics 101. As posters above me have mentioned, just because its not a human directly creating the gases, doesn't mean they aren't there because of humans.
There have always been GHG's on the planet, but at levels that weren't rapidly harmful and wouldn't cause any damage to ecosystems. GHG's have risen dramatically since humanity came into the picture (obviously a lot more in contemporary society). To the point where the atmosphere can't naturally dissipate the gases and thus we are seeing a rapid deterioration of the atmosphere (rapid in relation to the entire life-span of the planet).
Separate names with a comma.