•
•
•
•
What is DaniWeb IT Discussion Community?
You're currently browsing the Geeks' Lounge section within the Coffee House category of DaniWeb, a massive community of 456,277 software developers, web developers, Internet marketers, and tech gurus who are all enthusiastic about making contacts, networking, and learning from each other. In fact, there are 3,174 IT professionals currently interacting right now! Registration is free, only takes a minute and lets you enjoy all of the interactive features of the site.
Please support our Geeks' Lounge advertiser: Programming Forums
Views: 5864 | Replies: 101
 |
•
•
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Posts: 12,873
Reputation: 
Rep Power: 32
Solved Threads: 304
there is, if you look throughout time, the carbon
lleves fluctuate massively.
in fact ,if you look at the data, there was a spike in 12something where levels were equivilent to those in 1900.
lleves fluctuate massively.
in fact ,if you look at the data, there was a spike in 12something where levels were equivilent to those in 1900.
TRY MY SUGGESTIONS AT YOUR OWN RISK
Master of puppets Im pulling your strings, blinded by me, you cant see a thing. Master! Master!
Master of puppets Im pulling your strings, blinded by me, you cant see a thing. Master! Master!
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 5,752
Reputation:
Rep Power: 19
Solved Threads: 200
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by lasher511 
Animals have been around letting off methane for alot longer then humans have been around. So why is it that these things are all of a sudden supposedly having an impact on the earths climate?
for the same reason that CO2 emissions are suddenly having an impact when they never did before (the eruption of Mnt St Helens in 1980 for example put out more CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" in a few hours than has humanity between roughly 1700 and 2005, and such eruptions happen on average several times a year)...
In other words, no reason at all
As people are clearly allowed to attack me but I'm not allowed to defend myself, I no longer post to this site.
•
•
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Posts: 12,873
Reputation:
Rep Power: 32
Solved Threads: 304
krakatoa was a good one. by examining ice we can see that it had a profound impact
TRY MY SUGGESTIONS AT YOUR OWN RISK
Master of puppets Im pulling your strings, blinded by me, you cant see a thing. Master! Master!
Master of puppets Im pulling your strings, blinded by me, you cant see a thing. Master! Master!
•
•
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 145
Reputation:
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 13
Junior Poster
I happened to be listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday. He talked about an article, written by John Coleman, who is the founder of the Weather Channel and who has been closely following this "Global Warming" stuff for many years. He has gone public with an article about why he is convinced that all of the (so called) scientific research that proves that global warming is man made and catastrophic is "THE GREATEST SCAM IN HISTORY". Those are not my words, they are the words of John Coleman.
Here is the URL that contains the text of the article. The text of the article is preceded by the local San Diego forecast and some other stuff, so you sort of have to scan down to the bottom of the page.
The artical does not contain any specific technical information, but at the bottom are a number of references to "YouTube" pages and videos that contain the details.
http://www.kusi.com/home/11131801.html
Hoppy
Here is the URL that contains the text of the article. The text of the article is preceded by the local San Diego forecast and some other stuff, so you sort of have to scan down to the bottom of the page.
The artical does not contain any specific technical information, but at the bottom are a number of references to "YouTube" pages and videos that contain the details.
http://www.kusi.com/home/11131801.html
Hoppy
•
•
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: France
Posts: 1,051
Reputation:
Rep Power: 6
Solved Threads: 46
Makes you wonder why the Weather Channel is pushng that "Global Warming" scare every chance they get.
Should you find Irony, you can keep her!
•
•
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 145
Reputation:
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 13
Junior Poster
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by bumsfeld
Makes you wonder why the Weather Channel is pushng that "Global Warming" scare every chance they get.
That's interesting, I have never watched the Weather Channel. Do you know if John Coleman is still associated with the Weather Channel? If he is, then you have certainly asked an interesting question.
I did notice, when reading his piece that it seemed to have a tone to it that was remarkably similar to the piece written by that Card fellow to whom some recent posts to this thread have referred. Maybe they read the same Cliff notes or maybe they are actually on to something. I guess I'm becoming suspicious of everything anyone writes on the subject.
Hoppy
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,604
Reputation:
Rep Power: 7
Solved Threads: 119
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by hopalongcassidy
I have a question. If anyone knows the answer, I'd like to hear from you. The question is:
1. Is there really more CO2 in the atmosphere than in past years? (I suspect that there is.)
2. Did it get there because of industrial polution and automobiles (which add CO2) or from deforestation (which reduces the vegatation that consume CO2 and produce O2)?
Hoppy
We really don't know. The "evidence" given relies on ice being a hermetic seal for the atmospheric gases trapped in it.
Ice is NOT a hermetic seal for CO2, although it is for most of the other gases in the atmosphere. CO2 can combine with the H2O in the ice, forming H2CO3 (carbonic acid). This can then migrate through the ice. If the ice is in contact with the ocean or rock, the CO2 is carried away to react with the minerals in the water, or with the rock. This produces insoluble carbonates, and is not a reversible reaction.
Daylight-saving time uses more gasoline
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,604
Reputation:
Rep Power: 7
Solved Threads: 119
The Weather Channel, the History Channel, and Discovery are pushing global warming so all of the environmentalcases will watch the advertising.
Daylight-saving time uses more gasoline
•
•
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,089
Reputation: 
Rep Power: 15
Solved Threads: 307
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by MidiMagic
The Weather Channel, the History Channel, and Discovery are pushing global warming so all of the environmentalcases will watch the advertising.
Yeah, that's got to be it. You have it all figured out.
•
•
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 145
Reputation:
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 13
Junior Poster
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by MidiMagic
We really don't know. The "evidence" given relies on ice being a hermetic seal for the atmospheric gases trapped in it.
Ice is NOT a hermetic seal for CO2, although it is for most of the other gases in the atmosphere. CO2 can combine with the H2O in the ice, forming H2CO3 (carbonic acid). This can then migrate through the ice. If the ice is in contact with the ocean or rock, the CO2 is carried away to react with the minerals in the water, or with the rock. This produces insoluble carbonates, and is not a reversible reaction.
What I am getting from all that I am reading and listening to is that there is no real evidence of any kind of climate change trend. There especially does not seem to be any evidence that the planet is facing any catastrophic global warming. There does seem to be some evidence (although it is far from convincing) that there might be some catastrophic global cooling on the horizon. If this is the case, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could only serve to exacerbate the problem (if it has any measurable effect at all).
Most of what I am reading and hearing on this global warming issue seems to be agenda driven. (This is not necessarily directed at the quote above).
The one argument that seems to make sense to me is that we ought to take steps to protect ourselves just in case some catastrophic peril is about to befall us. And even with that comes the question: What will be the cost to us in terms of life style change? And will we be happier having taken these steps in case no catastrophe appears?
From my personal perspective, I think I would be happier if we were able to fuel our life styles in a cleaner way than we have done in the past. We might also be better off economically than if we continue to fund people (through petro-dollars) that are bent on our destruction.
|
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DaniWeb Geeks' Lounge Marketplace
•
•
•
•
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
- Global warming!! (Geeks' Lounge)
Other Threads in the Geeks' Lounge Forum
- Previous Thread: Lifecam vx-600 Webcam
- Next Thread: [QUIZ] Stick Man Movie Scenes
