[typoon]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...eut/index.html

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.

I wonder what Environmentalists will have to say about this?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by typoon

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...eut/index.html

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.

I wonder what Environmentalists will have to say about this?

global warming also occured before humans were on the scene, so there were obviously sources of CO2 and methane before we started adding to it. the article doesn't mention much about the contributions that plants make compared with the man-made sources, but since it's gone on so long without being detected, i'd wager that it's background levels compared to the landfills, coal-mines, increases of animal and plant agriculture.

another indication is given by the article where it states the three-fold increase in the past 150 years. 150 years ago the industrial revolution started and human activity increased and as a result forests/grasslands suffered. yet this decrease in the number of plants is cause for an increase in methane?

i still say the culprits are humans.

[Scientist]

I don't see why environmentalists would care much. Volcanos and Wildebeest release greenhouse gasses too. The difference is that they have been doing this for a lot longer than humans.

[Atomic Rooster]

Damn turnips!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by typoon

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...eut/index.html

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.

I wonder what Environmentalists will have to say about this?

It is a well known fact that there are natural sources for greenhouse gases. However, that doesn't mean humans aren't contributing to global warming through artificial means.

By the way, are you saying here that global warming is actually happening?

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

another indication is given by the article where it states the three-fold increase in the past 150 years. 150 years ago the industrial revolution started and human activity increased and as a result forests/grasslands suffered. yet this decrease in the number of plants is cause for an increase in methane?

i still say the culprits are humans.

Emphasized to give a chance to Typoon to understand what he is reading.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol. Treehuggers are always good for a laugh.

[JoshuaZ]

Nothing like making fun of people who are trying to keep the earth clean for everyone now and in the future.

[Nicko]

Wow, I guess this means we should continue clear-cutting all our trees, dumpting toxic checmicals into our rivers and oceans, and pumping toxic cancer causing fumes into the air....

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Nothing like making fun of people who are trying to keep the earth clean for everyone now and in the future.

Those people are just the victims of Big Money Global Warming

[olePigeon]

"Global Warming" is a cycle. The question is whether or not humans are having a direct impact on it and accelerating it (or making it worse than normal) at an unnatural rate.

And as Nicko said, even if it isn't possible for humans to alter the natural cycle, how is that any excuse to continue polluting our planet?

[Miniryu]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

"Global Warming" is a cycle. The question is whether or not humans are having a direct impact on it and accelerating it (or making it worse than normal) at an unnatural rate.

And as Nicko said, even if it isn't possible for humans to alter the natural cycle, how is that any excuse to continue polluting our planet?

Sure Global Warming is a cycle, but the research so far shows that this point in time is the worst it has every been in the "bad/hot" part of the cycle, and the indicators show that it is still increasing.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

global warming also occured before humans were on the scene, so there were obviously sources of CO2 and methane before we started adding to it.

and then...

i still say the culprits are humans.

Huh

[Y3a]

Aren't PEOPLE natural biological inhabitants of earth too? So wouldn't the extra gasses and such be natural too?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

lol. Treehuggers are always good for a laugh.

So are Liberals, and anybody else that doesn't play on your team, right?

An ounce of respect afforded to people that see the world differently than you would do you some good.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by villalobos

Emphasized to give a chance to Typoon to understand what he is reading.

I understand what I'm reading. I would still need more proof that it's all Humans. I posted this article because I found it interesting and also because though mankind MAY be the biggest cause of it we aren't the ONLY cause of it. Many people seem to forget that.

[Stradlater]

NO ONE can argue that humans have not had a dramatic effect on the environment in the past few centuries. However, no one can say what the repercussions will be, i.e. what exactly the future holds, environmentally.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by typoon

I understand what I'm reading. I would still need more proof that it's all Humans. I posted this article because I found it interesting and also because though mankind MAY be the biggest cause of it we aren't the ONLY cause of it. Many people seem to forget that.

There are irrefutable proofs that CO2 output has increased in the last 150 years due the human activity. There are irrefutable proof that the earth temperature is on the increase. There is no irrefutable proof that one is causing the other. There are suspicions. We are not even sure what effects an increase of temperature will have to the global climate equilibrium. One theory is that increase of average concentration and temperature 'should' increase the speed of growth of plants (since CO2 is a limiting factor). Does that mean we should not care and 'wait and see'?
There are irremediable proofs that a small part of the world is wasting lots of energy and contributing to the CO2 output increase. Energy conservation as proned by environmentalists is just good sense. Nothing else.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by typoon

I understand what I'm reading. I would still need more proof that it's all Humans. I posted this article because I found it interesting and also because though mankind MAY be the biggest cause of it we aren't the ONLY cause of it. Many people seem to forget that.

It's a two sided problem. Uninformed Conservatives think that Global Warming doesn't happen, or, that humans don't contribute to it period. Uninformed Liberals think that humans cause Global Warming in its entirety.

Global Warming is real, however, it is a natural occurance for our planet. Evidence of past warming and cooling trends is very prominent. However, recent evidence indicates that this particular trend is more extreme than those in the past. The record highs and lows starting to crop up shortly after the European and American industrial revolutions. This is by sampling soil and mineral deposits of the past checking levels that only occur during certain temperature ranges (calcinite and other organic residue.)

There is a strong indication that Global Warming is being accelerated by humans through exceeding amounts of carbon monoxied and dioxides, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons.

The first three are arguable. Carbon monoxide and dioxides as well as methane are all greenhouse gasses, but are also produced by natural bodies (both organic and gelogical). Normal animal and plant species as well as volcanic erruptions and so forth all attribute large amounts of greenhouse gasses. However, chlorofluorocarbons are only produced by humans. It is an artifical, manufactured gas that does not occur naturally anywhere on the planet Earth, and it does contribute to ozone depletion.

A depletion in the ozone layer can effect global climate and accelerate cooling and warming trends. So the question remains, are humans forcing this change at an unnatrual rate?


I think yes. I also tend to believe the guys at NASA and other organizations. Those are some of the smartest people on this entire planet and most of them think that the evidence points towards humans having a direct impact on the Earth's climate. I'll take the general consesus of a group of people with an average IQ of 160 than Rush Limbaugh and some crackpot meteorologist no one knows about (which I'm sure most of the Conservatives got their idea that Global Warming isn't real.)

I think it's good that Spliffdaddy and others remain critical as there's just as much crap out there from the left about Global Warming as there is from the right. But to ignore evidence because of faith, stubbornness, or especially out of dedication to ones political party is just plain silly.

[ambush]

Originally Posted by typoon

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...eut/index.html

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.

I wonder what Environmentalists will have to say about this?

that doesnt stop the humans from being the largest contributer, and by far, to global warming..

what kind of 4th grade logic is that?

In any way, even if nature was a major contributor, we'd be forced to act.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

NO ONE can argue that humans have not had a dramatic effect on the environment in the past few centuries.

Uh... buy a clue!

Question: what difference do you think a "few centuries" make in geological time?

Answer: zilch.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Dale Sorel

Uh... buy a clue!

Question: what difference do you think a "few centuries" make in geological time?

Answer: zilch.

Clue to what?

Difference to who?

[Dale Sorel]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Clue to what?

The big picture...

Difference to who?

...to the planet and the rest of the universe.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

An ounce of respect afforded to people that see the world differently than you would do you some good.

I am keeping this quote for later usage.

[JoshuaZ]

On island nations like Japan Global warming is a major concern. How would you feel if every major city in your country was flooded thanks to a few CM incream in world wide water levels?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Dale Sorel

The big picture...

Vagueness doesn't look good on you.

...to the planet and the rest of the universe.

The difference made to non-sentient objects and processes is irrelative.
The difference is just that: the difference.

I was merely attending to the correlative views to "global warming"...

Some say it's happening, others say it isn't.
Some say it's because of humans, others say it's not.

The planet's climatic processes were rather staid for a very long stretch up till our adventures with coal, et al. Now, scientists—year by year—readily observe the changing migratory behaviors of adaptable animals and believed extinctions of others.

So tell us, what do you really think of the matter?

[Spliffdaddy]

Nobody knows what the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 150 years ago.

30 years ago those same 'great minds' were convinced we were in a cycle of global cooling.

Some of you folks are suckers.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Nobody knows what the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 150 years ago.

30 years ago those same 'great minds' were convinced we were in a cycle of global cooling.

Some of you folks are suckers.

its nics tu hav edjamacated peepul liek yu on dis forarm.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Nobody knows what the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 150 years ago.

10,000 years ago: 260+/-20 ppm
200 years ago: 260+/-20 ppm
40 years ago: 320 ppm (up 60 ppm)
20 years ago: 346 ppm (up 86 ppm)
Today: 378 ppm (up 118 ppm)

30 years ago those same 'great minds' were convinced we were in a cycle of global cooling.

Link?

Some of you folks are suckers.

A lot of people are, but as Dale might ask: "Who cares?"

[d4nth3m4n]

f*ck this thread.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Dale Sorel

and then...

Huh

if there were no greenhouse gases, the average temperature around the earth would be below zero. it obviously hasn't been that way. things don't thrive so well at those temps.

also, i re-read that cnn article and it mentions that today, the methane produced by trees is 10-30% of atmospheric methane. also, with a three-fold increase since the the industrial revolution, that means either 1) plants have unilaterally increased their methane output three-fold in that time or 2) 66% of current methane is antropogenic.

option 1 is unlikely (though it would support evolution!)
option 2 is the simplest and most likely.

well, this research is still emerging we'll see what emerges. and serioulsy nobody should worry about global warming at all. because, after all, it's only going to affect our grandkids, not us. :rollseyes:

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

10,000 years ago: 260+/-20 ppm
200 years ago: 260+/-20 ppm
40 years ago: 320 ppm (up 60 ppm)
20 years ago: 346 ppm (up 86 ppm)
Today: 378 ppm (up 118 ppm)

Link?

A lot of people are, but as Dale might ask: "Who cares?"

LOL

I'm sure they had some wonderful CO2 measurement tools back in 1806.

sucker.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Nobody knows what the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 150 years ago.

You're still an idiot. We've already discussed this, you and I and others. You've still got your head shoved firmly up your own ass, I see.

We know the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 5, 10, 100, 500 or 400,000 years ago. You know this, because I've told you before. I'm unsure if you just like to pretend to be ignorant to get a reaction, or if you really are dumb as a post.

Anyways, it's all good. You like to have your fun.

However, chlorofluorocarbons are only produced by humans. It is an artifical, manufactured gas that does not occur naturally anywhere on the planet Earth, and it does contribute to ozone depletion.

CFCs have been banned for quite some time now. Their atmospheric concentrations are, as far as I'm aware, decreasing rather pleasantly.

greg

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

LOL

I'm sure they had some wonderful CO2 measurement tools back in 1806.

sucker.

the scientific community awaits you spliffdaddy! you have, afterall, been able to completely discredit evolution after 18 years of study (though you failed to share).

[Spliffdaddy]

It's OK.

Being a sucker isn't a permanent condition.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

LOL

I'm sure they had some wonderful CO2 measurement tools back in 1806.

sucker.

Don't know much about science, eh?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It's OK.

Being a sucker isn't a permanent condition.

Idle thoughts:
An idle brain!
Do idle hands
Adjoin the frame?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Don't know much about science, eh?

It's actually kinda funny, huh?

Last year, or maybe a couple years ago now, there was some dude on here who pointed out to me that we couldn't know earth temperatures before the last couple hundred years because the thermometer was only a recent invention.

It's kinda funny, but at the same time it tells you why so many people are still ignorant about the whole issue.

greg

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

f*ck this thread.

f*ck it! yes that's your answer. that's you answer to everything! tatoo it on your forehead. your revolution is over mr. d4nth3m4n! condolences! the bums lost!</lebowski>

mind if i do a j?</the other lebowski, jeff lebowski>

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

On island nations like Japan Global warming is a major concern. How would you feel if every major city in your country was flooded thanks to a few CM incream in world wide water levels?

seriously spliffdaddy. why tampa bay only temporarily? worried about land subsistence due to water table depletion? worried about those encroaching waters lapping ever higher at your shores?

[gumby5647]

Damn you Broccolli!!!

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

It's actually kinda funny, huh?

Last year, or maybe a couple years ago now, there was some dude on here who pointed out to me that we couldn't know earth temperatures before the last couple hundred years because the thermometer was only a recent invention.

It's kinda funny, but at the same time it tells you why so many people are still ignorant about the whole issue.

greg

Haha. Sad, really, how few people realize what information can be deciphered from old materials. If one was to make a plausible argument, he would—instead of being ignorant of what information can be gathered—point out where information doesn't necessarily imply what some people theorize (for example, the atmospheric number of CO2 alone does NOT account for fluctuations in global temperature—regardless, Spliff is the one that brought up CO2 measuring, to the dismay of his area of the argument).

The funny thing is, Spliff has no idea what my opinion on the matter is, yet he makes ignorant, irrelevant comments anyway.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

seriously spliffdaddy. why tampa bay only temporarily? worried about land subsistence due to water table depletion? worried about those encroaching waters lapping ever higher at your shores?

It seems like he only seeks information that reaffirms his preexisting beliefs, and doesn't seek out new information that conflicts with his existing mindset.

There is definitely some climate change going on - the crazy winter we've been having, the 24+ days of ran in Washington, the hurricanes, etc. If there are scientists who believe that we are contributing to this (most do), what does it hurt to try to curb this problem? Really, there is so little downside to making some industrial changes and creating some industrial restrictions that I wonder why this is simply a non-issue?

[jwoods]

Personally, I think it's a cycle. Did man accelerate this cycle? Perhaps. Did man make it worse? Perhaps. Can it be undone?

Does it really matter at this point if mankind did this? Not really. Either someone finds a valid solution, or they don't. Either way, this cycle will continue just as it has for centuries.

I'm waiting for "global cooling" to become THE buzzword. I do have to wonder.......who or what gets the blame for that when, not if, it happens? (I am not suggesting this happens in our life times).

[production_coordinator]

I hear george w bush likes plants!!!! OMG OMG OMG

[el chupacabra]

Funny how every problem to the tree killers can be found as part of some natural cycle somewhere and therefore is not a problem. All together human's effects have been negative. This being the greatest mass extinction of all time is not a "natural" cycle.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Funny how every problem to the tree killers can be found as part of some natural cycle somewhere and therefore is not a problem. All together human's effects have been negative. This being the greatest mass extinction of all time is not a "natural" cycle.

Some scientists say that in earths history there have something like 7 or 8 mass extinctions (from things like meteor strikes, plagues, natural disasters ect..) and that we humans are the 9th. Or whatever number it is.

[B Gallagher]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I hear george w bush likes plants!!!! OMG OMG OMG

LOL!!! Funny ****.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Those people are just the victims of Big Money Global Warming

Can't wait to see Mother Nature sue the a**es off those exploiters!

[Dale Sorel]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Vagueness doesn't look good on you.

Sorry... by big picture I meant the overall geological scene which the common man has absolutely no concept of i.e. hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Just curious, do you think homo sapiens will still be on top of the totem pole in a hundred thousand years?

So tell us, what do you really think of the matter?

Frankly, I think the Earth and the rest of the universe can take care of themselves. Mankind's attempts to micromanage things so much bigger than us are ridicules, IMO.