|
Originally Posted by nthfinity
"most c02 in 650,000 years" which indicates there has been more, and would coinsicide with the last eruption of Yellowstone... yet the earth manipulated itself back to normal.
"Although Stanford's researchers with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration agreed that even with the the account of the Sun Cycles, it still does not account for the average 0.6 C Degree raise in temperature in the past 100 years and 0.4 C in the past 25 years. "
might it be possible it has anything to do with the presicion, and accuracy of the tools used to measure temperature?
|
As you pointed out Earth's ecosystem is cyclical. Unfortunately, they do not have ice core samples any older than that so it would be extremely hard to extrapolate any additional data without some other advances else where.
As far as the measurements are concerned, I have seen a few website with independent measurements. Some have it as high as 1.0 C degrees, and others have it as low as 0.5 C degrees, within this century. I believe Stanford and NOAA just took the average. There is no doubt that Earth has been warming from 1900-2000. Again, is it because it coincided with the Industrial Revolution? More research is needed.
|
Originally Posted by Mattk
|
Maybee the money being piled into this reseach would be better spend saving the lives of those currently inhabiting the planet, ie aids, cancer cures etc.
|
Maybe the greenies should focus solely on emissions which actually cause immediate harm, if they want to focus on emissions at all. |
In the US and most of the other western countries, we have already have toxic dumping laws which restrict where and how you treat immediate toxins. And California would be the first state to introduce legislation that will curb Green house gases by 25% by 2020.
|
Originally Posted by silentm
some good points were made in this thread. the temp. diagrams are surely interesting, i am pretty sure that the human being is contributing to a higher CO2 level than normal, but the car being solely responsible for this? oh please we have far bigger industrial machines that produce more CO2 overall than all the cars could do.
|
|
Originally Posted by TNT
you know that the earth has been around for billions of years. who is to say that this just isn't a normal phase of the earth? now i know we are having an effect but come on how can you even begin to understand the "life" cycle of some thing that is billions of years old.
|
No one is saying it is only from Cars, I am saying that it coincides with the entire Industrial Revolution during the mid-19th century.
Of course we know that Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years old, again as I pointed out before, it might be the normal phase, it might be not. How do we know where the tolerance and the breaking point is? We do not, like I pointed out earlier, it might be 10 trillion tons of CO or it might be only 500 million tons. And what about other gases as Mattk pointed out? What about a combination of gases? Should we worry about? We are not so either way, in which I believe we should take the Precautionary Principle stance.
|
Originally Posted by RC45
|
Originally Posted by blinkmeat
and for gods sake whats wrong with a cleaner environment? i mean really  |
Nothing, except the "western" world will be the only countries sacrificing to meet the clean requirments, while the rest fot he world will continue entering their "industrial age" and simply continue to pollute and exploit and trash the planet with impunity and embolden themselves to the point of superiority.
Meanwhile the "clean air" west will weaken themselves into PC green-ness and wither up and die  |
That is the greatest problem right now. Because if we are to take measures to curb this, we do need global effort. China and India are two of the countries right now producing the heaviest damage to the enivornment in general. And I believe that you could solve this problem via Economics.
There are a couple of factors in this. One, United States' economy (I do not know much about Western Europe), now is based on a service economy. We have shifted from an agriculture to a manufacturing and finally to service. Which means that in general legislation will be affecting fewer firms and the economy should be able to withstand the additional burden. No doubt that it would hurt our manufacturing base.
Secondly, we have already started a scheme of Environmental credits. Firms are offered credits in which they have an allowance to release gases. Firms that are more efficient could sell or trade their credits to other manufacturers that are not as efficient. This type of market would encourage more development to be cleaner in the long run.