PDA

View Full Version : WWII Environmental Impact: What do we know?



Pirschjaeger
10-04-2006, 09:51 PM
Hi guys,

there seems to be a lot of information and specifications available regarding WWII but the environmental impact is almost never mentioned.

If you take a moment to think about it, the environmental impact must have been great. The sunk shipping, the countless bombs, the fires, and the countless combustion engine powered machines all had a very negative effect on the environment.

Maybe I'm using the wrong key words, but it seems even a google search is useless.

Does anyone have any info on this?

Fritz

sukebeboy
10-04-2006, 09:55 PM
I did see one cost estimate related to environmental damage and it was quite substantial. It was a small part of a bucketload of cost tables and pie charts. Damned if I can find it again though.

blakduk
10-04-2006, 10:10 PM
I recall reading something about this in the early 1980's (unfortunately i cant remember what it was called, but i think it was in 'Scientific American').
Basically there was an impact on the world environment but in real terms it was negligible compared to the modern industrial world.
As an example, one of the most numerous fighters in WW2 was the Bf109- 30,000+ manufactured over 8years. It seems like a lot until you consider that Ford has sold more than 20,000,000 pick-up trucks in the past 15 years. And that's only one type of vehicle that they sell, and the vast majority of those sales have been in the USA. When you consider the number of vehicles being manufactured and sold around the world now the scale compared to the entire WW2 economy is enormous.
The majority of shipping that was sunk was relatively tiny by todays standards- especially when you look at oil tankers etc. Most of the damage that occured to the environment was relatively localised and soon disappeared.
To put it in perspective- more bombs were dropped by the USA on Vietnam than was dropped by ALL sides of WW2.
During Gulf War1 some people made dire predictions for the world because of the fires that were lit in the oil fields of Kuwait. Environmentalists soon pointed out however that the volume of oil being burnt was a fraction of the average daily consumption worldwide. The difference was that it was being burnt in a spectacular fashion all at one time.

Most damage that occured in WW2 was readily repaired or fixed itself in a relatively short period of time. Far more damage occured during the cold war- especially when you look at the atomic research that took place without heed to environmental concerns.

AKA_TAGERT
10-04-2006, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hi guys,

there seems to be a lot of information and specifications available regarding WWII but the environmental impact is almost never mentioned.

If you take a moment to think about it, the environmental impact must have been great. The sunk shipping, the countless bombs, the fires, and the countless combustion engine powered machines all had a very negative effect on the environment.

Maybe I'm using the wrong key words, but it seems even a google search is useless.

Does anyone have any info on this?

Fritz
Because you buy into the man dogmah.. Simple fact is what we humans do is but a nat on natures arse. We think we are so important and that we can change the climet of the planet just because we split an atom once or twice.. Relitive to mother nature, we aint jack! One volcano puts more **** into the enviorment in one day than we have put into it in a hundred years.

Pirschjaeger
10-04-2006, 10:37 PM
Why do I have to rewrite this in simpler terms? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

What was the environmental impact of WWII?

This does not mean I'm implying it's comparable to todays environmental issues.

Today we refer to an oil spill as being a "great environmental impact". I'm sure WWII had it's own great environmental impacts.

Blakduk, your info was very interesting and informative, but you sent Tagert down the wrong path. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

p1ngu666
10-04-2006, 10:42 PM
its the chemical side, and toxins and the like thats probably the worst effect, and still is..

AVG_WarHawk
10-04-2006, 10:48 PM
WWII: the real cause of global warming and ozone layer depletion.

Pirschjaeger
10-04-2006, 10:52 PM
Last year, construction crews dug up a stash of poisonous gases near ShenYang(N.E. China)left by the Japanese in WWII. The Japanese sent a special clean up team to secure and remove the barrels.

There must be a lot of environmentally unfriendly products waiting to be found. Who knows what went to the bottom of the sea 65 years ago.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
10-04-2006, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by AVG_WarHawk:
WWII: the real cause of global warming and ozone layer depletion.

I think global warming is simply climate cycles. People can often imagine one single cycle but they can't imagine the various cycles that overlap and then cause new cycles.

It's been scientifically proven that both the Egyptian and Mayan civilizations were wiped out due to famine caused by lack of water, and therefore caused by climate changes.

We haven't been industrialized long enough to have a global climate impact. And the good news is that we are already looking for effects caused by us before we do the actual damage.

We can however effect the environment locally. We only need to see the damage we've done to the rain forests in South America to understand the effects but that effect is localized. (extinctions)

But I'm curious about WWII. I remember reading about WWI and the impact it had, especially regarding the forests and landscape of Europe.

Fritz

blakduk
10-04-2006, 11:19 PM
I didnt mean to confuse anyone, i was trying to answer your question by expressing it in relative terms.
The example you gave of the poison gas containers was illustrative of the point i was making. When you compare the damage caused by the manufacture of those chemicals compared to 'peaceful' manufacturing the differences can be quite stark. I suggest you research Minimata Bay or the heavy metal pollution of the sediments of the Mississipi river.

In Australia the damage to the environment DECREASED during WW2- the men were off fighting rather than concentrating on chopping down forests, clearing scrubland, and changing water flows.

The bulk of materials used in WW2 were biodegradable compared to today. There were far fewer synthetic chemicals used- a perfect illustration of this can be seen by examining the uniforms of the time. No plastics (except for bits of bakerlite), mostly leather, cotton, and wool. No kevlar, nylon webbing, etc.

Check out photos of the damage caused by bombing of places like PeenemĂĽnde- look again a few years later. The damage is almost invisible because most of it was just a very inefficient way of turning over the soil. Very little lasting damage was caused.

The war in North Africa also brought benefits- the areas where the allied armies especially (as they were better resourced) were encamped became fertile. This was due to the enormous amount of supplies the soldiers used, not to mention the mountains of excrement they left behind.

Siwarrior
10-04-2006, 11:20 PM
a bit OT but
what about spent bullents from aircraft, i mean the 99% that didn't hit targets, how many people did they kill..?

p1ngu666
10-04-2006, 11:24 PM
the german cannon shells exploded, so they didnt acidently wipe out half of berlin with there hero cannons.

think the stuff used for tracer led to the explosive, so it burnt forward and *bang*

Siwarrior
10-04-2006, 11:31 PM
ok, sorry again seamines, landmines?
and were there any chemical agents used in Ww2?

p1ngu666
10-04-2006, 11:39 PM
poison gas was produced, but not used in the ETO, or eastern front to my knowledge.

there was various nasty bits used by a mad japanease doctor or something in china, beubonic plauge anyone?

but various chemicals in paint, oil, making metals etc, it also wasnt know of the health/environmental risks. someone said that divers to a uboat found there was nothing growing on it, the paint was that good. no the paint so horrible nothing will live on it. wrecks attract wildlife after all...

Siwarrior
10-04-2006, 11:53 PM
geeez nazi war paint

im gonna do some research into this...

Feathered_IV
10-05-2006, 12:22 AM
I remember seeing an article in an old wartime copy of Time Magazine. It showed the way a huge swathe of coral reef could be dredged up and crushed into bits to make airstrips. All in a matter of days.

stathem
10-05-2006, 02:18 AM
Pirsch, that's scary. Yesterday I was toying with the idea of starting a topic about the very same, even to the extent of using the same title. Didn't quite get round to it though.

The two things that promted my thoughts were:-

1) Reading again, this time in 'A Separate Little War' about the Winter of 44/45 as being one of, if not the, worst in recorded history.

2) Reading on SimHQ about the Typhoon season in late 1945 in hte Pacific was being very violent and longer than usual.

We are very familiar today about the effect of pumping lots of particulate matter into the atmosphere as having an effect on weahter patterns and severity. At the most extreme, the concept of the nuclear winter, but it's also seen to a lesser extent in the explosion of Krakatoa. Other indicators would be the accounts of spectaular sunrises and sunsets. Not seen any of those particular to the late war period though, I wondered if anyone else has?

I think there's a distinct possiblity that the large worldwide extent of severe fires built up over previous war years may have influenced the weather patterns in 44/45 and 45/46, possibily even as late as '48 (I think I recall that the winter of 47-48 was very severe, at least in the UK.) This was a time when a lot of transportation was coal fired, so there was already a poor starting point in terms of atmospeheric clarity.) Like you, I too googled this yesterday briefly but could not find anything out there.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has seen any research into this in any more obscure books and papers on WW2.

EDIT; by the way I doubt that the usage of petrol in ICEs was a factor at that point. Although large compared to previous pre-war years, it does not bear comparison to the numbers of ICEs we presently have, even if their fuel usage was much less effcient.

NagaSadow84
10-05-2006, 03:13 AM
In 1945 the Allies dumped tons of German Sarin and Tabun gas into the North Sea. Probably wasn’t that great of an idea.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-05-2006, 04:53 AM
Taking Scapa Flow in the Orkneys as an example...the Royal Oak is just one of many ships sunk all over the world, of course. The USS Arizona in Pearl Harbour is another example, I believe.

http://www.esemag.com/0100/warship.html

http://www.challengeroceanic.com/newsarticles.htm#Scapa


Non-irradiated steel from old U-boats and the scuttled WW1 fleet at Scapa Flow.
http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn7.htm#G7

"Section G.7: Salvage of German WWII U-Boats
In 1995 it was announced that about 100 German WWII U-boats would be salvaged off the Scottish coast. These submarines were scuttled after the end of the war during Operation Deadlight, the disposal of the captured U-boat fleet. Because they were scuttled, there is no issue of them being war graves, as vessels sunk in combat would be. The reasons behind the salavge have been questioned, as raising a batch of U-boats doesn't seem to be a particularly economical way of getting scrap metal. In reality, the ship are not being salvaged to be cut up and melted down as ordinary scrap. These U-boats represent one of the last readily available sources of non-radioactive steel, and are being salvaged for that "clean" steel.

All steel made since the detonation of the first atom bomb in 1945 has contained tiny amounts of radioactivity. This is because the atmosphere now contains trace amounts of radioactivity. The steelmaking process involves the use of large amounts of air, which transfers the radioactivity to the steel. Instruments and equipment used for measuring radioactivity must be free from extra background radiation, so post-1945 "new" steel cannot be used for these purposes. Instead, pre-1945 "clean" steel is used. The steel is obtained from the scrapping of pre-1945 ships, and a considerable amount has been obtained from the German ships scuttled in Scapa Flow at the end of WWI. Obviously, steel obtained from these relatively limited sources is much more valuable than normal steel. The existing sources for "clean" steel have mostly dried up, so the salvage of the U-Boats is economically justifiable now. The submarines will not be melted down after salvage, rather, plates cut from the hulls will be used in their current form.

However, since the announcement of the salvage rights in 1995, everything has grown quiet, and there may be no actual salvage activity, now or in the future."

Sort of thing you're after?

BiscuitKnight
10-05-2006, 05:38 AM
Holy Scrit, low flyer, I had no idea about that stuff! That's mad!

For the rest of the damage caused by WWII I can't imagine it's that big: WWI was probably worse for localised damage, what with so much artillery fire and so forth being massed in small areas, all that **** being poured into small areas, and the gas. Someone probably has answers, but I would guess the multiple layers of bodies and decomposing materiels probably acted as fertiliser? I've read there are still miles of France that are surrounded by barbed wire fence and warning signs, still to be cleared, it really makes me sad in a way that even human cost doesn't: cruel as it might sound, people will always inflict terrible things on each other, but even nearly 100 years after it's over, we still pay the price in a very tangible way.

A side note: gas was never used "by the major combatants" (dunno why that wording was chosen, maybe some minor combatants used it at some stage?) in WWII, although Australia, for one, conducted testing after capturing gas canisters off the Japanese in New Guinea. The testing was on our own people, by the way. As someone already said, lots of countries dumped tons of Sarin, Tabun, and Mustard gas into the ocean, the USA only recently stopped doing it (1980s?) not to pick on the USA, it's just an example I'm aware of: no doubt the former USSR is less responsible...

When immersed in sal****er apparently most chemical weapons become a far more toxic sludge. Goody.

Friendly_flyer
10-05-2006, 06:09 AM
The amount of environmental damage is a function of human activity and the number of humans doing that activity. Human population has grown enormously since WWII, actually there are more people alive today than all humans combined since, well, ever. All these people have to eat, drink, defecate and use various things to get by. During war, there's a rather tight lid on civil consumption. The result is that most affected nations actually saw a decrease in mean weight. Combined with the losses (civil and military), I'll guess (I haven't done the math) that the total biomass of humans actually dropped during WWII.

Lowe human total biomass means less environmental strain, and while activity was high, most went into building relatively complex machinery from relatively sustainable resources, while civil consumption was kept at a minimum in large parts of the world. All in all, WWII possibly had a positive net environmental effect.

NagaSadow84
10-05-2006, 06:10 AM
Actually the Poles used Mustard gas training mines in 1939. They were used to defend some bridge and injured 20~ German Soldiers. But that was more of an accident.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-05-2006, 03:12 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Ever since the bomb...

GLOBAL FALLOUT
Through atomic bomb testing since 1945 radioactive fission products have artificially entered and spread worldwide throughout the atmosphere. Each test produces ca 200 fission products of which many are not identifiable due to their very short physical halflife. Of the remaining fission products the isotopes Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 have a special significance:

They have long half-lifes (Sr-90 = 28 years, Cs-137 =30 years)
They behave physiologically like the important bio-elements calcium and
potassium
They occur in large amounts after every atomic test (ca. 3 – 7% fission yield)

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by AVG_WarHawk:
WWII: the real cause of global warming and ozone layer depletion. ROTFL
Sad but some think that is true.. For anyone that thinks man is causing global warming or global cooling (aka next ice age) please explain to me how the earth did it when man was not around, when man was around but didnt have cars.. In that as far as we know the earth has had severl ice ages. Answer that.. or try to and you will realise just how little effect man has on anythig.. relitive to the effect mother nature has.

tagTaken2
10-05-2006, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVG_WarHawk:
WWII: the real cause of global warming and ozone layer depletion. ROTFL
Sad but some think that is true.. For anyone that thinks man is causing global warming or global cooling (aka next ice age) please explain to me how the earth did it when man was not around, when man was around but didnt have cars.. In that as far as we know the earth has had severl ice ages. Answer that.. or try to and you will realise just how little effect man has on anythig.. relitive to the effect mother nature has. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there's nothing to prevent the earth being destroyed by meteorite strike, if that's what you mean... but given the mounting evidence- do some reading please- and the stakes (ante up your grandchildren, folks)... I can separate my garbage and catch public transport to work.

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Well, there's nothing to prevent the earth being destroyed by meteorite strike, if that's what you mean... but given the mounting evidence- do some reading please- and the stakes (ante up your grandchildren, folks)... I can separate my garbage and catch public transport to work. How is it I just KNEW you would not be able to explain how the earth did it (ie ice age) before man was even on the planet.

Also I noticed that you refred to mounting evidence, but failed to list any. That and for every egg head that says we are causing an ice age, there is another saying we are causing global warming. Just a bunch of egg heads making noise to get goverment grants to "look into" it more.

But again, note I did not ask you to coment on commets.. I ask you to explain to me how the earth pulled off several ice ages before man was even on the planet. Once you do that, we can talk. I know you wont, cept to try and make some other snappy answer that shows you agree with all the folks that think a big hug will make it all better, or you think that agreeing with so called smart people makes you smart.. it does not, it makes you a follower. Fact is man does not have a clue, we can no sooner start it than stop it. Mother nature has to be laughing her arse off at you and yours.

tagTaken2
10-05-2006, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Well, there's nothing to prevent the earth being destroyed by meteorite strike, if that's what you mean... but given the mounting evidence- do some reading please- and the stakes (ante up your grandchildren, folks)... I can separate my garbage and catch public transport to work. How is it I just KNEW you would not be able to explain how the earth did it (ie ice age) before man was even on the planet.

Also I noticed that you refred to mounting evidence, but failed to list any. That and for every egg head that says we are causing an ice age, there is another saying we are causing global warming. Just a bunch of egg heads making noise to get goverment grants to "look into" it more.

But again, note I did not ask you to coment on commets.. I ask you to explain to me how the earth pulled off several ice ages before man was even on the planet. Once you do that, we can talk. I know you wont, cept to try and make some other snappy answer that shows you agree with all the folks that think a big hug will make it all better, that and you think that agreeing with so called smart people makes you smart.. it does not, it makes you a follower. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a thought: why don't you show me how man has contributed nothing to global warming?

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Here's a thought: why don't you show me how man has contributed nothing to global warming?
How is it I just KNEW you would not be able to explain how the earth did it (ie ice age) before man was even on the planet.

tagTaken2
10-05-2006, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Here's a thought: why don't you show me how man has contributed nothing to global warming?
How is it I just KNEW you would not be able to explain how the earth did it (ie ice age) before man was even on the planet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a search engine: http://www.google.com/

Here's a search term: <STRIKE>removing head from ars</STRIKE> ice age causes
Off you go.

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Here's a search engine: http://www.google.com/

Here's a search term: <STRIKE>removing head from ars</STRIKE> ice age causes
Off you go.
How is it I just KNEW you would not be able to explain how the earth did it (ie ice age) before man was even on the planet.

Enforcer572005
10-05-2006, 07:28 PM
Um, did anyone notice that the censor nanny wont let you write salt water as one word? I think that's rich.....ok, carry on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Feathered_IV
10-05-2006, 07:31 PM
Ah, another thrilling episode in psychological buggery.

WB_Outlaw
10-05-2006, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Sad but some think that is true.. For anyone that thinks man is causing global warming or global cooling (aka next ice age) please explain to me how the earth did it when man was not around, when man was around but didnt have cars.. In that as far as we know the earth has had severl ice ages. Answer that.. or try to and you will realise just how little effect man has on anythig.. relitive to the effect mother nature has.

To state that man is incapable of influencing the global climate in a certain way just because similar changes have happened independent of man in the past is beyond ludicrous.

There are many more, and better, studies showing that man's emissions of CO into the atmosphere dwarfs volcanos by many many times than there are otherwise.

--Outlaw.

VW-IceFire
10-05-2006, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVG_WarHawk:
WWII: the real cause of global warming and ozone layer depletion. ROTFL
Sad but some think that is true.. For anyone that thinks man is causing global warming or global cooling (aka next ice age) please explain to me how the earth did it when man was not around, when man was around but didnt have cars.. In that as far as we know the earth has had severl ice ages. Answer that.. or try to and you will realise just how little effect man has on anythig.. relitive to the effect mother nature has. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The simple answer is this. The Earth has a number of long term cycles where the temperature rises and cools. Most of it has to do with the internal structures of the earth, its atmosphere, volcanic activity, and so forth.

How does man fit in? We've dumped plenty of nasty stuff into the air and water. Part of this stuff is bad because it causes health problems and kills off parts of the ecosystem. But it doesn't necessarily cause global warming. Its all of the carbons we're pumping into the atmsophere, all of the fumes were letting off...even just the airliners flying around add to overall cloud cover and heat trapping particles in the atmsophere and they block in heat that normally gets ejected into space. So the earth is warmer. Most of the people who are really into this stuff are not arguing "if we have an impact, its just by how many degrees extra were adding to the effect".

So understand this...the earth is going to warm on its own and then cool on its own (and hopefully warm and cool again and so forth). The concern is if we sprinkle a little extra in on there...how much warmer is it going to get and how much quicker is that cycle going to go? The problem being that if the cycle is really fast...we have situations like the central US states producing so much food that the US exports it all over the world to a situation where the plains become desert, crop yeilds decrease, and there isn't enough to feed just the US population nevermind anyone else.

There's a reason that the Pentagon released a report in I think it was 2003...stating that global warming (regardless of how much we're impacting it) will be a greater security threat due to instability than terrorism or any other threat. In my book...even if we're not sure if we're going to affect overall temperatures by 0.5c or by 5c (which is HUGE by the way) we do have an impact and if its large one then our way of life is dead.

I'm a little younger than most of those on the forum. Let me tell you guys that my generation is generally pessimistic. We know we're never going to have it as good as most of you have had it...we're worried that its going to be much worse and most are generally annoyed that nobody cares (and then they wonder why the 18-29 age group votes in the lowest percentage numbers in western democracies - just a piece of our general apathy).

Pirschjaeger
10-05-2006, 09:49 PM
Well said Ice-fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I agree that we effect global warming but do not cause it.

It seems I can't get much information regarding the effects of WWII but the thread has gone towards the environment in general. That's ok since the general populaces seem to know little about it.

Does anyone have charts that show the various cycles and their histories? I know we have many cycles of different magnitudes but sometimes the extremes of these cycles occur simultaneously. We also know that what happens on one side of the world effects the other.

A good example is a recent Alaskan storm that broke a huge iceberg in Antarctica. It created waves big enough to travel all the way south. These waves were tracked and monitored, that's how we know.

I'm not talking about the "Butterfly Effect". In my opinion that was only invented for a philosophical discussion. The "B" effect completely dismisses physical resistance.

cientists take ice core samples from various locations around the world. These can accurately record dates within 20 years. It's interesting that every so often they find a dust layer. Analisys from these layers can determine what was happening in that period.

One good example which was the straw that broke the camel's back, was a sample taken from the source of the Nile in the mountains in Africa. The dust found coincided with the decline of the Egyptian civiliazation. The decline was a relatively short period. The sample indicated a very intense dry spell.

Another sample taken in iceland accurately recorded to the dry spell that caused the decline of the Mayan civilisation.

Of course their were many other factors involved in proving what happened, but these were the end all be all of the scientific debate.

Interestingly, when it's abnormally hot and dry in the south, it's abnormally cold and wet in the north.

If in fact we are entering an age of dry spells, I think I'll make my life in northern Europe. I can handle the cold but I'm not for hot and dry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

LStarosta
10-05-2006, 09:56 PM
Tagert, quit being a ***.

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Tagert, quit being a ***. Truth too much for ya?

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The simple answer is this. The Earth has a number of long term cycles where the temperature rises and cools. Most of it has to do with the internal structures of the earth, its atmosphere, volcanic activity, and so forth.
Agreed 100%! Espically the "most of it part" as in what man does does not amount to jack relitive to mother nature.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
How does man fit in? We've dumped plenty of nasty stuff into the air and water. Part of this stuff is bad because it causes health problems and kills off parts of the ecosystem. But it doesn't necessarily cause global warming.
Still Agree 100%


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Its all of the carbons we're pumping into the atmsophere, all of the fumes were letting off...even just the airliners flying around add to overall cloud cover and heat trapping particles in the atmsophere and they block in heat that normally gets ejected into space. So the earth is warmer.
Ah, so your one of the "it makes it warmer crowd". Funny, ten years ago these egg heads were saying the carbon in the air blocked sun light, thus not enough sun gets through to warm the planet.. Back in the 70s and 80s when things were looking cooler.. Now that things are getting hotter they say the carbon absorbs the heat and is making it hotter, and I am sure that 20 or 2000 years from now when it get cooler for 5 or six years in a row they will switch back and say carbon is not allowing sun light to get through to warm the earth.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Most of the people who are really into this stuff are not arguing "if we have an impact, its just by how many degrees extra were adding to the effect".
Yup, some say it is all mans fault, the same bunch that think spliting the atom makes us god like, and some think what we do is so small relitive to what mother nature does that it has little to do with anything.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
So understand this...the earth is going to warm on its own and then cool on its own (and hopefully warm and cool again and so forth).
No need, in that I knew that.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The concern is if we sprinkle a little extra in on there...how much warmer is it going to get and how much quicker is that cycle going to go?
Some say alot, some say so little that it is in the noise. I for one have seen how some of these egg heads operate first hand. I have seen how they can twist statistics to say what they want to say and I also have alot of respect for mother nature and realise that man is not all that. We give ourselfs way too much credit for things going on, the fact is, knowing human nature, it is more about the money than anything else.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The problem being that if the cycle is really fast...we have situations like the central US states producing so much food that the US exports it all over the world to a situation where the plains become desert, crop yeilds decrease, and there isn't enough to feed just the US population nevermind anyone else.
Just like the dust bowel 1930s when man had hardly put anything into the land, sea or air. Stuff like that happens all the time.. but people think that because they notice a change in thier short lifes that it means something. Fact is man has only been collecting data for about 100 years.. which aint jack on the scale of mother nature.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
There's a reason that the Pentagon released a report in I think it was 2003...stating that global warming (regardless of how much we're impacting it) will be a greater security threat due to instability than terrorism or any other threat.
I can belive that


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In my book...even if we're not sure if we're going to affect overall temperatures by 0.5c or by 5c (which is HUGE by the way) we do have an impact and if its large one then our way of life is dead.
If if if.. lots of ifs. Im sure it seemed like the end of the world in the dust bowl 30s too.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I'm a little younger than most of those on the forum. Let me tell you guys that my generation is generally pessimistic.
Another thing about human nature, yougins allways think they are the first to be. Ill tell you one thing, this generation is no where near as pessimistic as the no good hippy generation from the 60s.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
We know we're never going to have it as good as most of you have had it...we're worried that its going to be much worse and most are generally annoyed that nobody cares (and then they wonder why the 18-29 age group votes in the lowest percentage numbers in western democracies - just a piece of our general apathy).
Bet the 18 year olds during the depression felt the same way.

LEXX_Luthor
10-05-2006, 10:33 PM
Oceans are warming we are told (I can believe this), and this is advertised as evidence for global warming caused by humoid CO2 emissions, butt...


(1) Mass of ocean water is (a guess) a thousand times the mass of the atmosphere.

(2) Specific Heat of water is (a feeling) a thousand times greater than Specific Heat of air -- I should look this up, but we know the difference in specific heat is huge.

Multiply this Guess and Feeling together, and we guess/feel that the oceans have one million times the Heat Capacity of the atmosphere. Thus, a warm atmosphere cannot warm the oceans. Increasing volcanic activity deep inside the far more massive Earth can warm the oceans indeed, and those warmer oceans can easily warm the atmosphere. But no "political" program can be inspired to prevent this, so we use CO2 to motivate The People.

CO2 -- the new deadly "toxin" we all must Fear, so destructive we can ignore traditional toxic waste dumping in areas where poor people live. I do think that is one reason why so much media attention is given to CO2 as The New Toxin that will kill humanity through Global Warming. That, and if poor countries can be forbidden to increase their use of energy, they can be kept in poverty forever.


Notice Friendly_Flyer's poast at the top of this page is a subtle way of saying that less humans is "better" -- supposedly for Earth. Fewer people is demonstratably not better for Earth, but a smaller global population is certainly much better for the desires of the establishment who crave control of the gigantic massive Earth's unlimited resources.

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Oceans are warming we are told (I can believe this), and this is advertised as evidence for global warming caused by humoid CO2 emmissions, butt...


(1) Mass of ocean water is (a guess) a thousand times the mass of the atmosphere.

(2) Specific Heat of water is (a feeling) a thousand times greater than Specific Heat of air -- I should look this up, but we know the difference in specific heat is huge.

Multiply this Guess and Feeling together, and we guess/feel that the oceans have one million times the Heat Capacity of the atmosphere. Thus, a warm atmosphere cannot warm the oceans. Increasing volcanic activity deep inside the far more massive Earth can warm the oceans indeed, and those warmer oceans can easily warm the atmosphere. But no "political" program can be inspired to prevent this, so we use CO2. Nothing can be done by humans to stop global warming if the heat is coming from inside of the Earth. Agreed 100%! On that note, some scients have reported that they are detecting temp increases on other planets in our solar system. So.. how is it that man on this planet is causing the temp to go up on MARS? Bet none of the tree huggers will even atempt to address that one! Fact is there are alot of things going on this planet that man has no clue about.. and even less about what is going on in the solar system. More than we knew 100 years ago mind you, but still just a drop in the bucket of what there is to be learned. But we split an atom and put a man on the moon and we now think we got it all figured out.. TOO FUNNY!


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
CO2 -- the new deadly "toxin" we all must Fear, so destructive we can ignore traditional toxic waste dumping in areas where poor people live. I do think that is one reason why so much media attention is given to CO2 as The New Toxin that will kill humanity through Global Warming. That, and if poor countries can be forbidden to increase their use of energy, they can be kept in poverty forever.
I dont buy into the "man keeping us down" theorys, but, I would belive that of human nature far before I would belive we humans make a dent in mother nature


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Notice Friendly_Flyer's poast at the top of this page is a subtle way of saying that less humans is "better" -- supposedly for Earth. Fewer people is demonstratably not better for Earth, but a smaller global population is certainly much better for the desires of the establishment who crave control of the gigantic massive Earth's unlimited resources.
Kind of scarry aint it? Has that whole 30s kind of feel to it that we know best how you should live your life thing.

WB_Outlaw
10-05-2006, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
On that note, some scients have reported that they are detecting temp increases on other planets in our solar system. So.. how is it that man on this planet is causing the temp to go up on MARS? Bet none of the tree huggers will even atempt to address that one!

Holy moley, this is even more ludicrous than the last one!! It's beyond laughable to even mention the temperature change on another planet in this discussion as no human on Earth (well, maybe one but, surely not) is dumb enough to believe that there is any need to address such a temperature change.

--Outlaw.

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
On that note, some scients have reported that they are detecting temp increases on other planets in our solar system. So.. how is it that man on this planet is causing the temp to go up on MARS? Bet none of the tree huggers will even atempt to address that one!

Holy moley, this is even more ludicrous than the last one!! It's beyond laughable to even mention the temperature change on another planet in this discussion as no human on Earth (well, maybe one but, surely not) is dumb enough to believe that there is any need to address such a temperature change.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry you missed the point.. it being that earth.. along with other planets in the solar system may all be affected by "somthing" that is causing all of them to warm up.. which has nothing to do with what is comming out of the tail pipe of your pinto.

Jetbuff
10-05-2006, 11:19 PM
Now you're trying to discount scientific evidence to rationalize our addiction to fossil fuels? Why am I not surprised?

LEXX_Luthor
10-05-2006, 11:47 PM
There is no science in this thread, except what I poasted last page, and even that's just a rough order of magnitude calculation...


Oceans are warming we are told (I can believe this), and this is advertised as evidence for global warming caused by humoid CO2 emissions, butt...


(1) Mass of ocean water is (a feeling) a thousand times the mass of the atmosphere.

(2) Specific Heat of water is (a guess) a thousand times greater than Specific Heat of air -- I should look this up, but we know the difference in specific heat is huge.

Multiply this Feeling and Guess together, and we feel/guess that the oceans have one million times the Heat Capacity of the atmosphere. Thus, a warm atmosphere cannot warm the oceans. Increasing volcanic activity deep inside the far more massive Earth can warm the oceans indeed, and those warmer oceans can easily warm the atmosphere.

To understand the political science of human caused global warming, we must study human politics. No political program can be inspired to prevent the Earth's deep interior and undersea vulcanism from warming the oceans and in consequence so warm the atmosphere, but we can use media fanned fear of CO2 to motivate The People to support a political goal that effects the use of energy.

CO2 -- the new deadly "toxin" we all must Fear, so destructive we can ignore traditional corporate/government toxic waste dumping in areas where poor people live. I do think that is one reason why so much media attention is given to CO2 as The New Toxin that will kill humanity through Global Warming. That, and if poor countries can be forbidden to increase their use of energy, they can be kept in poverty forever.

And no, just one planet (Mars) may be independently warming with no relation to Earth's warming, although some may say the sun is causing both Earth and Mars to warm together.

WB_Outlaw
10-06-2006, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
On that note, some scients have reported that they are detecting temp increases on other planets in our solar system. So.. how is it that man on this planet is causing the temp to go up on MARS? Bet none of the tree huggers will even atempt to address that one!

Holy moley, this is even more ludicrous than the last one!! It's beyond laughable to even mention the temperature change on another planet in this discussion as no human on Earth (well, maybe one but, surely not) is dumb enough to believe that there is any need to address such a temperature change.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry you missed the point.. it being that earth.. along with other planets in the solar system may all be affected by "somthing" that is causing all of them to warm up.. which has nothing to do with what is comming out of the tail pipe of your pinto. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry you missed the point.. it being that yours.. is laughable. There is no "something". Solar radiation is the only meaningful external source of heat energy reaching this planet and it is measurable. I haven't seen any publications stating that there is a corresponding increase in solar radiation to match the, so far, short term temp. increase here on Earth, however, I admit I haven't looked very hard.


--Outlaw.

WB_Outlaw
10-06-2006, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Thus, a warm atmosphere cannot warm the oceans.

Lexx,
Why would ocean heating depend upon the atmosphere when it comes to solar radiation? The radiation that makes it to the surface of the ocean (and isn't reflected back) can heat it quite nicely.

--Outlaw.

LEXX_Luthor
10-06-2006, 12:13 AM
I've seen it both said and reported that the warming atmosphere causes a warming ocean. A slight increase in vulcanism can also heat the oceans quite nicely. Some say we are getting more or less radiation from the sun, some say we are experiencing more or less vulcanism.

WTE_Googly
10-06-2006, 01:46 AM
Tagart this shows how 'greenhouse gasses' absorb radiation, causing heating.

http://www.cambridge.org/resources/0521538432/1483_2184...ve%20re-radiation%22 (http://www.cambridge.org/resources/0521538432/1483_218421.pdf#search=%22Long%20wave%20re-radiation%22)

Anyway, scientists support both sides of the debate, and you are right, they do twist figures, for example I was shown a graph of damage in US dollars from storms in the US and how they said that storm damage was increasing, which meant that storm frequency was increasing due to global warming. However when this graph was fixed for inflation et cetera, it showed a pretty much straight line...

Also, temperatures taken around cities will always be warmer due to the urban head island, with things like concrete and stuff absorbing heat.

However there are also many convincing arguements that global warming may indeed be taking place - CO2 levels have NEVER been so high as they are now (shown from ice cores) and these have also shown temperature has fluctuated greatly over history.

Nobody knows whether they are right or wrong, but I feel why should we take the chance of the theory being right? For the immediate future fossil fuels are needed, but technology is increasing rapidly, meaning that altenative fuels may be viable in the future, for example Solar power, biofuels... which are much nicer to the environment.

I may post some of my lecture notes if I can find them.

stathem
10-06-2006, 04:11 AM
Just thought I'd one into the mix:

global dimmming (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml)

Click on the link for Programme transcript if you have time:


NARRATOR: September 12th 2001, the aftermath of tragedy. While America mourned, the weather all over the country was unusually fine. Eight hundred miles west of New York, in Madison, Wisconsin a climate scientist called David Travis was on his way to work.

DR DAVID TRAVIS (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater): Around the twelfth, later on in the day, when I was driving to work, and I noticed how bright blue and clear the sky was. And at first I didn't think about it, then I realised the sky was unusually clear.

NARRATOR: For 15 years Travis had been researching an apparently obscure topic, whether the vapour trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the climate. In the aftermath of 9/11 the entire US fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.

BiscuitKnight
10-06-2006, 04:36 AM
The whole global warming thing really is a crock: as much as I do think we should look into Solar Energy, et cetera, the realities should be respected. For one thing, it's a scientific fact that CO2 is a spent force for increasing the global temperature.

Also stated was that we really have no idea about long term weather patterns: Victoria, Australia, has supposedly been in a drought since about the time I was born. I honestly have no memories of rainy winters. And yet, they insist, Victoria used to be wetter. Well, what are we going by? The data doesn't go back beyond 1905.

In the 1500s Earth entered a period of global warming. They colonised Siberia, crops were abundant and there were a myriad of other benefits.

Should we keep pouring cr@p into our atmosphere at the rate we have? Nope.

Should be run around tearing our hair out and telling starving South Americans and Africans they can't cut down trees for farmland? Nope.

Should we immediately decommission our Coal Power Plants and ruin our economies overnight? Nope.

IRT NagaSadow84

That explains the term "Major Combatants"; it obviously means the superpowers never used gas weapons (although Winnie apparently ordered a gas attack on Berlin in 1940, the Wehrmacht had several chemical warfare units and Germany was constantly working on new gas weapons, and Japan issued Mustard Gas to its troops) thanks for clarifying that.

Oh and Enforcer, I noticed that when I posted. I sat there trying to think of why it censored the middle of the compound word Salt Water, it took me an amount of time I guess I should be proud of to realise what I'd inadvertantly spelt. I had a bit of a chuckle when I realised, but I really think the netnanny is a bit over zealous.

danjama
10-06-2006, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
I remember seeing an article in an old wartime copy of Time Magazine. It showed the way a huge swathe of coral reef could be dredged up and crushed into bits to make airstrips. All in a matter of days.

yea i was reading about this recently in Baa Baa Black Sheep. Apparently they made the nicest airstrips too.

VW-IceFire
10-06-2006, 04:47 PM
Ok...but even if you folks don't believe that were contributing to global warming and that the rest of that is going to go along with or without us. Don't you guys think its a BAD idea to be dumping as many chemicals and garbage we can into the air. You know...the stuff we breathe? Or does nobody care?

marc_hawkins
10-06-2006, 04:58 PM
Apparently not IceFire, a sizeable percentage of people do not want to admit or take responsibility for anything we do to the environment, and when it does come back to bite us on the proverbial behind, all that will happen is the rabid hunt for somebody else to blame before the end.

AKA_TAGERT
10-06-2006, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Now you're trying to discount scientific evidence to rationalize our addiction to fossil fuels? Why am I not surprised? Is there anything or anyone you and yours dont hate?

AKA_TAGERT
10-06-2006, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
Sorry you missed the point.. Dont be in that I have not.


Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
it being that yours.. is laughable. Hardly


Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
There is no "something". Solar radiation is the only meaningful external source of heat energy reaching this planet and it is measurable. Just to be crystal smacktard, the SUN is SOMETHING! I only said something in that it is one of the few things we as humans have come to understand.. There may be other SOMETHINGS discoved in the future.. Also dont forget the force that keeps the planets in obirt around the sun.. There are some that say it can effect the magntic field of the earth and cause the core to warm up or cool off.


Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
I haven't seen any publications stating that there is a corresponding increase in solar radiation to match the, so far, short term temp. Again, there are things in heavon and earth that we have yet to discover. Only a fool would think we have it all figured out.


Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
increase here on Earth, however, I admit I haven't looked very hard.
Clearly in that you didnt even consider the force that keeps the planets in orbit.. typical of a close mind to get so focused on one thing that they forget the rest.. or even consider the posibility that there are other forces at work. But dont feel too bad, your in good company! Most tree huggin modern man hating types are.

WB_Outlaw
10-07-2006, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Just to be crystal smacktard, the SUN is SOMETHING!

Do you think so? Maybe that's why I SPECIFICALLY mentioned it as the source of external energy into the Earth's system. On a side note, I don't think you will have much agreement from the scientific community that, "...it is one of the few things we as humans have come to understand...".

I did make a mistake in assuming that it was pretty obvious to any halfway intelligent being that when I said, "There is no something", I meant things like solar system wide, climatic changing, undetectable energy sources. I apologize for the mistake.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Also dont forget the force that keeps the planets in obirt around the sun. There are some that say it can effect the magntic field of the earth and cause the core to warm up or cool off

While the Earth's magnetic field has a huge and not completely understood effect on the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's atmosphere, I am unable to find a claim of gravity affecting the Earth's magnetic field, which then causes the Earth's core to heat up.

The gravitational forces on the Earth affect a wide variety of possible climatic variables and there are multiple instruments in place to specifically detect gravitational effects on the global climate.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Again, there are things in heavon and earth that we have yet to discover.

Agreed, yet in spite of the obvious fact that, "Only a fool would think we have it all figured out", you discount 100% man's ability to affect the global climate.

I doubt if any, "tree huggin modern man hating types" could stand my company. Of course, I've never met one so maybe they share my motto of, "there is no replacement for displacement". Admittedly I have softened some as my minimum acceptable power plant dropped to 325 cubic inches with my latest vehicular purchase so maybe I am one.

Just as a refresher, I'd like to reiterate the two points of my original post into this discussion as you have yet to comment...


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Sad but some think that is true.. For anyone that thinks man is causing global warming or global cooling (aka next ice age) please explain to me how the earth did it when man was not around, when man was around but didnt have cars.. In that as far as we know the earth has had severl ice ages. Answer that.. or try to and you will realise just how little effect man has on anythig.. relitive to the effect mother nature has.

To state that man is incapable of influencing the global climate in a certain way just because similar changes have happened independent of man in the past is beyond ludicrous.

There are many more, and better, studies showing that man's emissions of CO into the atmosphere dwarfs volcanos by many many times than there are otherwise.

--Outlaw.

AndyHigh
10-07-2006, 03:07 AM
Atmosphere doesn't warm the earth, its the sun. Polar ice covers function as cooler for the earth as they reflects much of the sun's heat back and cool the atmosphere. If dumping co2 by humans increases the natural greenhouse effect and raise the average temperature, it would make ice covers melt which in long term would rise temperature even more causing a chain reaction.

Something to think about:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1673
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&a...4E5-BDFF83414B7F0000 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000EABE4-BDFF-14E5-BDFF83414B7F0000)

These are valid American sources, no revisionism here be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

btw. There is a saying that goes something like this: "Roots for wisdom are found by accepting the facts."


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Multiply this Guess and Feeling together, and we guess/feel that the oceans have one million times the Heat Capacity of the atmosphere. Thus, a warm atmosphere cannot warm the oceans. Increasing volcanic activity deep inside the far more massive Earth can warm the oceans indeed, and those warmer oceans can easily warm the atmosphere. But no "political" program can be inspired to prevent this, so we use CO2 to motivate The People.

triad773
10-07-2006, 03:39 AM
The going logic is that the earth has a thermostat that regulates the ebb and flow of icesheets, temperate zones, etc. Somewhere around the time of the dinosaurs extinction, there was a time known as 'the great warming.' During such time a then large portion of the biodiviersity of the planet both land and sea were extinct. This era of great warming was marked by increased volcanic activity and significantly greater surface temperatures. A great number of scientists believe we are headed toward such a similar era with much increased surface temperatures.

It is also hypothesthized that increased human activity/carbonization of the atmosphere has triggered this event. While a number of leading scientists, politicians and celebrities are alarmed by the statistics and want to warn people that there are ramifications to human impact on the global temperate mechanisms.

There are those in the US whose agenda is impaired by the entire notion of ecology, efficiency, and a sense of global stewardship. Such a group includes those whose impact on the environment impact their bottom line: like the coal industry; lumber industry; auto manufacturing industry (remind me to tell you about the joke that SUVs are that have been perpetraited on the public); the ENERGY industry (big time: consider 'peak oil'- we've already been there); the paper industry; and more. As well as those religious wingnuts who beleive the end of days are at hand, and global warming is just a sick validation of some will of God - a fate that cannot be changed.

Look around our solar system and contemplate this: our nieghboring planets are both hotter then earth: Venus, becuase it has a thicker atmosphere then us (MORE carbon in the air,) and Mars with less. Who is to say for sure that the balance that has typified what we have come to expect as a livable environment will not change in the future?

Gee when I saw the topic header I hadn't anticipated it might have turned into a global warming debate! Even the right-Wingnuts in Washington have AKNOWLEDGED global warming: true they are still obfuscating the facts, even after prominent scientists have issued warnings stating that not changing the status quo will have DIRE consequences for future generations. If you have children, or even just a shred of humanity, one should consider the wisdom of trying to make this planet we live in a cleaner, more livable place, It's the only one we have.

WTE_Googly
10-07-2006, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by triad773:
The going logic is that the earth has a thermostat that regulates the ebb and flow of icesheets, temperate zones, etc. Somewhere around the time of the dinosaurs extinction, there was a time known as 'the great warming.' During such time a then large portion of the biodiviersity of the planet both land and sea were extinct. This era of great warming was marked by increased volcanic activity and significantly greater surface temperatures. A great number of scientists believe we are headed toward such a similar era with much increased surface temperatures.

It is also hypothesthized that increased human activity/carbonization of the atmosphere has triggered this event. While a number of leading scientists, politicians and celebrities are alarmed by the statistics and want to warn people that there are ramifications to human impact on the global temperate mechanisms.

There are those in the US whose agenda is impaired by the entire notion of ecology, efficiency, and a sense of global stewardship. Such a group includes those whose impact on the environment impact their bottom line: like the coal industry; lumber industry; auto manufacturing industry (remind me to tell you about the joke that SUVs are that have been perpetraited on the public); the ENERGY industry (big time: consider 'peak oil'- we've already been there); the paper industry; and more. As well as those religious wingnuts who beleive the end of days are at hand, and global warming is just a sick validation of some will of God - a fate that cannot be changed.

Look around our solar system and contemplate this: our nieghboring planets are both hotter then earth: Venus, becuase it has a thicker atmosphere then us (MORE carbon in the air,) and Mars with less. Who is to say for sure that the balance that has typified what we have come to expect as a livable environment will not change in the future?

Gee when I saw the topic header I hadn't anticipated it might have turned into a global warming debate! Even the right-Wingnuts in Washington have AKNOWLEDGED global warming: true they are still obfuscating the facts, even after prominent scientists have issued warnings stating that not changing the status quo will have DIRE consequences for future generations. If you have children, or even just a shred of humanity, one should consider the wisdom of trying to make this planet we live in a cleaner, more livable place, It's the only one we have.

Indeed, Global Warming may or may not be happening (personally I think it is) but it's an easy subject to get complacent about - it isn't us who may be affected, it's the future generations.

AKA_TAGERT
10-07-2006, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Just to be crystal smacktard, the SUN is SOMETHING!

Do you think so? Maybe that's why I SPECIFICALLY mentioned it as the source of external energy into the Earth's system. On a side note, I don't think you will have much agreement from the scientific community that, "...it is one of the few things we as humans have come to understand...".

I did make a mistake in assuming that it was pretty obvious to any halfway intelligent being that when I said, "There is no something", I meant things like solar system wide, climatic changing, undetectable energy sources. I apologize for the mistake.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Also dont forget the force that keeps the planets in obirt around the sun. There are some that say it can effect the magntic field of the earth and cause the core to warm up or cool off

While the Earth's magnetic field has a huge and not completely understood effect on the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's atmosphere, I am unable to find a claim of gravity affecting the Earth's magnetic field, which then causes the Earth's core to heat up.

The gravitational forces on the Earth affect a wide variety of possible climatic variables and there are multiple instruments in place to specifically detect gravitational effects on the global climate.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Again, there are things in heavon and earth that we have yet to discover.

Agreed, yet in spite of the obvious fact that, "Only a fool would think we have it all figured out", you discount 100% man's ability to affect the global climate.

I doubt if any, "tree huggin modern man hating types" could stand my company. Of course, I've never met one so maybe they share my motto of, "there is no replacement for displacement". Admittedly I have softened some as my minimum acceptable power plant dropped to 325 cubic inches with my latest vehicular purchase so maybe I am one.

Just as a refresher, I'd like to reiterate the two points of my original post into this discussion as you have yet to comment...


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Sad but some think that is true.. For anyone that thinks man is causing global warming or global cooling (aka next ice age) please explain to me how the earth did it when man was not around, when man was around but didnt have cars.. In that as far as we know the earth has had severl ice ages. Answer that.. or try to and you will realise just how little effect man has on anythig.. relitive to the effect mother nature has.

To state that man is incapable of influencing the global climate in a certain way just because similar changes have happened independent of man in the past is beyond ludicrous.

There are many more, and better, studies showing that man's emissions of CO into the atmosphere dwarfs volcanos by many many times than there are otherwise.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If beliving all that is what you need to get to sleep at night Nancy, be my guest

Viper2005_
10-07-2006, 07:59 AM
Wars are generally good for crows and worms, and bad for everything else!

As for global warming, I would make several points.

i) The earth is a complex system which we do not fully understand. Experience shows that messing around with complex systems which you do not understand tends to make things worse not better.

ii) I don't really care why global warming is happening or who (if anyone) is to blame. I care about its potential consequences. Not all are bad, (we might be able to grow really good wine in England in a few years, and higher temperatures generally mean better gliding weather!) but the bad consequences must be dealt with.

iii) If humanity is to survive for any length of geological time, we need to either start taking a responsible attitude towards understanding and caring for our environment, or else start spending serious $$$ on space flight...

carguy_
10-07-2006, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by NagaSadow84:
In 1945 the Allies dumped tons of German Sarin and Tabun gas into the North Sea. Probably wasn’t that great of an idea.

Baltic sea also....in simple tin cans.