Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
 Global cooling. >

Global cooling.

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Global cooling.

Old 04-23-2007, 09:04 PM
  #21  
Giant Nontypical
 
jeepkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ****ifornia
Posts: 5,049
Default RE: Global cooling.

ORIGINAL: MountainHunter

Here's an article on the topic:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
Good article . Has opinions from both sides. I tend to trust researchers from other countries about this subject though, too much politics involved in USA's research. I believe WE have a very small amount of influence towards "global warming" not nearly as much as Gore says. I read an article a fews months back in the local newspaper (and i can't find it[:@]) thats said American automobiles are contributing about 6% while Livestock is contributing about 18% towards "Global warming".
Even if we all start driving hybrids tomorrow "global warming" is still going to happen.
jeepkid is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 11:23 PM
  #22  
Typical Buck
 
MountainHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 753
Default RE: Global cooling.

Maybe we should all become vegetarians...no, wait, plants eat CO2, so we don’t want to kill them…andvegetables make me emit methane, too…hmmm…dilemmas…

I don’t know about those numbers (where are they from?); it probably depends on how you measure it. Livestock emits mostly methane which has a much larger, but much more short-term greenhouse effect than CO2. If I remember correctly, methane’s greenhouse effects lasts about 20 years after it’s emitted into the atmosphere, while CO2’s effects last for centuries. But it’s not just cars that create CO2, jeepkid, it’s coal powered electrical power plants, it’s natural gas used for heating, etc., and it’s not JUST the U.S. (although we are by FAR the leading contributor of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere compared to any other country…China is second and gaining). I think the U.S. emits something like 25% or 30% of global man-made greenhouse gases.
MountainHunter is offline  
Old 04-24-2007, 06:54 AM
  #23  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: pennsylvania
Posts: 3,248
Default RE: Global cooling.

presume for a moment either

a) global warming is a myth; or

b) global warming is occurring, but man is not the causal factor.

in either scenario, can anyone explain to me why reducing carbon emissions, reducing and eliminating fossil fuel consumption, and increasing efficient, environmentally neutralenergy usage is a BAD thing?
boysda is offline  
Old 04-24-2007, 07:24 AM
  #24  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 27,585
Default [Deleted]

[Deleted by Admins]
Deleted User is offline  
Old 04-24-2007, 07:53 AM
  #25  
Dominant Buck
 
burniegoeasily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 26,274
Default RE: Global cooling.

Guys, some are very confused. Global warming is not a myth. It has been going on for millions and millions of years. Our planet has warmed and cooled in cycles well beyond writen records. All the CO2 released by fossil fuelsis the same carbon that was used in the organic compounds that were locked in plants and animals long ago. The cycle will continue.
burniegoeasily is offline  
Old 04-24-2007, 09:02 AM
  #26  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 27,585
Default [Deleted]

[Deleted by Admins]
Deleted User is offline  
Old 04-24-2007, 09:06 AM
  #27  
Dominant Buck
 
kevin1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ramsey , Indiana
Posts: 22,545
Default RE: Global cooling.

Has anyone cracked the riddle of producing sustained fusion yet Iff? I'd a whole lot rather have that than fission reactors everywhere.
kevin1 is offline  
Old 04-24-2007, 09:29 AM
  #28  
Typical Buck
 
MountainHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 753
Default RE: Global cooling.

Bernie,it is not carbon that is the problem, it is carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere that is the problem. Carbon has been captured by living things for hundreds of millions of years. Then those things died and decayed in the ground. Eventually much of that carbon turned into oil, coal and natural gas trapped underground. When we dig it up and burn it, it releases CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere, where it increases the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. So, while you’re right in that the carbon is still in the Earth’s planetary system (the Earth itself, what is on its surface and the atmosphere above its surface but held to the Earth by gravity), the form of the carbon and the associated chemical and other physical properties has changed and its location has changed (from underground to the atmosphere). And in its new form, CO2, and location, the atmosphere, its effect on Earth’s systems has changed. It changes the atmosphere and increases the greenhouse effect.

And, in geological terms, the speed with which we have released the hundreds of millions of years’ worth of carbon from the below the earth’s surface into the atmosphere, is very very short. It is, in effect, a shock to the system. One analogy might be to imagine if someone drained three quarters of your blood and then fed it back to you. You still have the same amount of blood in your body, but its effect is different, and will likely make you very weak and sick.
MountainHunter is offline  
Old 04-24-2007, 10:24 AM
  #29  
Dominant Buck
 
burniegoeasily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 26,274
Default RE: Global cooling.

Moutain hunter.

I understand all that. I was addressing the planets global fluctuations over time and the carbon cycle. Basically for those who feel that global warming is a new thing. Its been cycling since this rock cooled down. It will cycle agian and agian, and agian. We can increase CO2 by releasing excess amounts beyond the capacity of carbon fixers. That was not my point. Like I said, I was just pointing out that its a cycle that has occured many times. Even in writen records wehave seenhigh global warming with a low CO2 level. The full link between global warming and CO2 is not supported by writen records, as well as earth/ice core samples. Take for example; Dinasours were the biggest organisms to inhabit this planet. The forests were lush. Basically a very high density of Biomass. Most of the earths carbon was locked in bio compounds and was cycled quickly due to the flora of the time, yet the global temp was one of the highest. Now consider that some of the coldest times we know of, showhigh levels of C02 in core samples. Also, Romans have records of growing grapes in the U.K.. It has been too cold to grow grapes in these same regions of the U.K. since(I speak of wild types, not the hybrids and stolon graphsof today). Or at least that is what is all published inthe journals in my office. I'm a science Dept. head, and all the lit I get does not conclusively support the notion of CO2 and higher global temps. I will not side with either front, just posting the factual info.. Im,by no stretch of the imagination supporting the excessive release of CO2. It would be crazy to say we do not need to clean the air. Who wants poision in great amounts in the air we breath. And to get lose from the fossil fuel strangle hold we are under, would be a great benifit to boot.
burniegoeasily is offline  
Old 04-24-2007, 10:56 AM
  #30  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 27,585
Default [Deleted]

[Deleted by Admins]
Deleted User is offline  

Quick Reply: Global cooling.


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.