So. Much. Willful. Ignorance. It's giving me an aneurysm.
Hmmm, is this an insult. It sounds like it.
Quote from wiki
Ignorance or nescience is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is sometimes misinterpreted as a synonym of stupidity, and is as thus often taken as an insult.
So Numsgil are you saying I don't know much, are you saying I am stupid.
It makes me sad , someone on the internet says my school did a poor job.
The greenhouse effect only deals with greenhouse gases. You're right that atmosphere thickness plays a roll in temperature too, but Earth's atmosphere hasn't suddenly become thicker, so that wouldn't be a good explanation for the observed warming (about 1 degree celcius).
WRONG.
The [
I]greenhouse[/I] effect doesn't just deal with greenhouse gasses.
First line english wikipedia.
The greenhouse effect is the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the atmosphere warms a planet's surface.
Where do you see that it only affects greenhouse gasses. Thickness of enviroment is in fact a main part of the greenhouse effect. More thick also more CO2 meaning more atombs CO2 but no extra percentage. Not taking thickness into the seeing of greenhouse is purely seeing blind.
CO2 levels, on the other hand, are at an all time high over the last several hundred thousand years. The other greenhouse gases are also in flux: ozone, water vapor, and methane. All are being modified by human activity either directly or indirectly.
You're wrong, ozone is not a greenhouse gas, it absorbs UV no IR. And oxygen is also a greenhouse gas. You forgot oxygen, shame on you.
I wonder if nitrogen-gas(well, I mean N2) is a greenhouse gas also.
The amount of temperature differences each gas cause are well known, and have been for over 100 years. As are the mechanics of this warming. This isn't guess work, these guys know what they're doing. Not all of the observed warming might be man-made, but you can bet that a significant portion of it is.
If those guys know what they are doing and they can exactly say how it works and prove it, why are there still scientists saying the opposite of it. I say it is gues-work, some kind of propaganda of certain scientists, I mean is Al Gore a scientist, well no, he had some scientists behind him I believe. The movie he made, can easy be said as it was propaganda, he has got some facts, CO2 and temperature grahps. From only that he made that human coused the whole temperature increase, and that it would couse many disaters, and that they all would be coused by humans. He earned much money out of it, he won the nobel-price, if I am not wrong the nobel-price is worth 1,6 milion euro. More out of a politican case than that he was enviromental right. There are also in much cases subsidions being given if you had a reseach to underbuild the enlarged greenhouse-effect.
In truth, I consider it the pinnacle of naivite to assume that thousands of years of human activity have had no effect on the planet. It'd be like if instead of throwing your garbage away you just through it in the backyard and wonder why your yard is so trashed. It's all a closed system.
Well, the planet is still just as big, it consists out of desame atombs. Pretty much desame atmosphere. So you call me the pinnapple of 'naivite'(is this spelled correct, I typed over from you but is naivite correct?), well eh thanks.
Alot. People have had thermometers for quite a while. Before that, we have ice core data. The neat thing is that the ice core data syncs up with the data our thermometers gave, so we know the ice cores are a reliable source of information on temperature trends. See Wikipedia.
Now, the nice thing about ice cores is that not only can they show us temperature, but they can show us CO2 concentrations. And the funny thing is that the two seem to rise and fall together. See this graph. Of course, that doesn't automatically mean that one causes the other. But there's definately a connection. And there's the greenhouse effect to suggest that CO2 causes the temperature changes.
Human is a blib, and the thermometers are even more a blib, ice core data gives more data yes, it is true, what does it prove. There is a connection but that could go any way, and this definitely doesn't prove it. It could even be that there is not even an connection between them and there is something else that couses both effects.
Last century was hotter than the one before. And it had alot more CO2. So we seem to be following the same connection. It would be naive to dismiss off-hand that the two are related.
Century is a complete blib, it was 400 years ago also colder then let say one thousend or twothousend years ago.
Right now is among the hottest times in the last 500 thousand years. So define unusual.
I would say last jear was possible the hottest time of the last 100 thousend years, and even that has for climate not that much weight, therefore you had to take an average on the last 30 years and in that average it was the hotest time since the midle-ages when there wasn't the high carbodioxide emision into the air, and that timescale isn't really a big one. I believe that if the temperature keeps stable for another ten years and that is what probably happens, we can pretty definite say this was the hottest time in 100.000 years. But what does it say, I could say it is coifidence, I could also say not, but what is the reason for it, could be anything. Not only human.
Food economics is really weird. The federal government subsidizes American farmers not to grow food. The weird thing about food is that the more you grow, the less money you make. That's part of what caused the great depression in the 30s. So basically America is way below capacity on food production. If a viable biodiesel market arose, it wouldn't have profound effects on the price of food. The US also taxes imported food (sugar especially), which makes up a large part of the cost of food in America. It's the reason soda uses corn syrup instead of sugar. All the government would have to do is readjust its policies to assume for a greater demand. Prices would change very little.
It is the same way in europe also there farmers are being given money to grow nothing, there was every year an minimum of 10% of the land where there may nothing be growth. The idea for it came from enviromental groups who say it supports diversity. Any way, you can make more money if you grow crops so making more money if there are less crops is pretty much robage.
Strange thing is that enviromental groups also have land where they do nothing with but get much more money per hectometer then any farmer could make with it, if the same ammount was top qualty land and he would have top quality crops. This is a main point why I am against enviromentalism, money is always wrong spent, the money that goes to many envirolism groups goes to the people that work there and with the money they spent time to get more money in.
Some others like the famous greenpeace, are doing desame they get a lot of money in from different goverments that way, and on their turn they happen to randomly destruct the economy, destroying a few companies with the actions, with the claims(about dangerous for the enviroment or simular) they make they often cost in some cases even milions to other companys, becouse the claim has to be investigated.
Okay that was the rant about greenpeace, an orginasation I uterly hate.
Well, further, next year for the first time sice 1975 when it started, the minimum amount of 'braak' land( %land that may not be used) is going to drop from 10% to 0%. That isn't for no reason. The 'viable biodiesel market' you spoke off is already there for several years and is growing fast cousing a price rice for different products and this has already happened, in rich countrys it may happen people don't even know, but I am sure that in parts of Mexico they know and also in other parts of the world. You are pretty ignorant that you think there couldn't happen any price raises, I have read somewhere that the pricerice in Mexico was already 800%, so it is possibles.
The drop to 0% that happened in europe is really for a reason, it will couse a severe arguement with enviromental groups. The drop is certainly there for a reason, you would easily see the connection.
However, biodiesel is missing the point. While it does remove our dependance on oil, it still polutes and produces CO2. Meaning it's not a solution to global warming. It's more a political lifesaver than an environmental one.
It doesn't produce CO2, point. The plants absorb CO2 and with it they store energie in themself, the same amount it produces. There isn't a process human made that negatively produce CO2 as far I know. But what you said was wrong.
Your ignorance startles me. Slash and burn only works for a couple of growing seasons before the soil wears out and the farmer has to go slash and burn some new ground. Soil in rain forests is extremely poor in nutrients. Slash and burn is not a sustainable practice, whatever your attitude towards environmentalism. See Wikipedia.
Second, the Amazon is extremely susceptible to drought. While sahara is probably an exageration, it could easily turn in to something between a savannah and desert. The forest would take centuries to grow back. See Impact of Amazon drought.
Soil can be made more rich with different agriculture techniques. Secondly sahara is a desert amazone is not. Amazon has more rain then sahara. The amount of sunenergie is, I think, also lower. So you can agree I think that you can't compare it with eachother. Further you do forget the human activity on it. They will not let it become desert that fast, as earlier stated places to grow crops are becoming more priceful, if the farmers there won't care about the land, a dozan companies will come and take over the land, they will threat it well, you can bet on that, not threating it well is very stupid especially economic.
Oh the point slash and burn, the burning gets pretty fast an rich ground that could be used for a few years if you don't treat the ground well enough, if you do threat it well it will stay rich, Like I see it notihing complicated, very simple.
You're talking centuries to thousands of years. If then. Plastics might never decompose.
If plactics don't decompose they aren't a harm too, you can eat a stone but it goes out exactly desame the other way(if you're lucky). Some additives could be bad, but just as the plastics they have comparely lots of energie, enough to get a few bacteria that possible going to eat it. They eat oil too. Plastice could be more difficult, but possible.
The issue isn't people eating monitors . The issue is that improperly disposed electronics, and other gadgets, with "safely sealed" toxins will eventually leak and poison the ground water. Or get burned in 3rd world countries as they try to harvest used copper, resulting in all that crap being airborne.
Yes, I know the isue wasn't people eating monitors. There was only half a line saying that nobody ate them. And as I said I don't know the exact procedure of waste disposel. I can't really make a point there, I can just say, that you are right. I can't deny that. I don't know in what loads it goes good or goes wrong.
Tell me you don't really believe that. Tell me that you're just telling a really bad joke.
No, why would I say that. What didn't you like what I believed, what I thought or my way of thinking.
I think you're confusing a population explosion with repopulation. Usually when European explorers arrived somewhere, a huge chunk of the native population got killed. The Europeans could then easily colonize the oddly "empty" land. See this article.
Well, no I really meant 'really' empty lands. Small ilands, where no human lived, you know the famous bird dodo, well he had no humans around. I was particulair speaking of that colonists setted up pigs an other animals on multiple small ilands, for possible in case in the future they had a ship wrecked. I wasn't speaking about the possible amount of native people that where killed when the colonists arive, mainly the complete diversity-kill at smaller ilands.
Exactly my point. It's possible that there's a natural economic force that keeps the human population at a stable carrying capacity. As there's more people, the cost of raising a kid increases and so families don't have quite so many. Thanks to birth control, they can make that choice. But since reliable birth control is fairly new, it has yet to be seen if this is a long term trend. Let's hope it is, since it would demonstate that humanity does have some natural self restraint on a global level.
I agree, If it isn't a long term trend, I am afraid, there have to be worldwide regulations about the amount of children.
I was wrong about captive breeding. This article says over 90% of mammal species in zoos are born in captivity. However, the fact remains that it's an expensive and labor intensive process of keeping a viable zoo population. It's really much easier if the animals have a stable natural habitat.
You where wrong, wou where wrong . Then about the fact it is expensive, a very high building like let say the WTC(world trade center) used to be. It is expensive, but it is economicly rendable. I don't know the exact numbers of subsidions the zoos get, but the zoos do exist today, ofcource it is more easy to have a giant piece of land and just let the animals be. That is not the point.
You just forget to mension the point about diversity in a specie and stuff like that coused by a small group on animals that exist in zoos and that have to stop from extinction. You can argue about that it is really bad for a specie, or it is good enough. Is there a possibility that the animals ever could be set back in wild, is it bad if not. Is it good to keep endangered species in zoos to keep them from exstinction or is it against nature.
I don't really have an opinion about if it is good or bad.
You could read over it so, let's see what makes letters big.
TestlundI think the distance to the sun is the main reason for the different temperatures between mars and venus. Earth happens to be at just the right distance, but it's a delicate balance that tend to tip a little back and forth through earth's history.
I think it is a combination between distance and the greenhouse effect(where thickness takes in part). Venus is the hottest planet of the solar-system but it is the second planet. Venus is a lot hotter then it would be just of distance.
Venus : closer, thicker atmosphere.
Mars : Further , thin atmosphere.
If venus was at the place of mars and mars at the place of venus. It would be very difficult to see whitch planet would be the hottest. I would bet on the closer place, I believe distance is the main factor. But I believe atmosphere is pretty important too.
Also if anyone can find something about the so called amazone-desert. For example is there already a little part of converted to desert/savanne. Please post. I do like to know if the used to be forest really could chance into desert.