Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We can plant trees in our yard, might help a little. Right. And plant plenty of plants. I heard somewhere that was supposed to help.But where are you going to plant them? Since natural forests are healthier than man-made forests, why not just leave the rainforests alone? Are you willing to live without the beef from the ranches that are the driving force behind clearing much of the forest?
Opinions are like onions. They make me cry.I can't place my vote because none of your options match my opinion - "global warming may be real but it is NOT man-made".
I think it's a little of both. I think the effects of global warming would happen anyways, but men an woman make it worse. Anyways I believe God will take care of it.I can't place my vote because none of your options match my opinion - "global warming may be real but it is NOT man-made".
We have been observing drastic increases in temperature for the last half century.
I guess you missed all the mass hysteria in the 1970's when the earth was threatened by global cooling, and scientists were coming up with all kinds of schemes to warm the earth.
\Actually, that's a popular press myth promoted by deniers. There's some (two) infamous covers of Time and Newsweek that promoted an impending ice age, but they should be taken as seriously as announcements that UFOs were visiting us.
There was no mass hysteria and your claim about scientists coming up with "all kinds of schemes to warm the earth" is a flat out falsehood. Climate scientists have been concerned about warming based climate change since the 1960s.
\
Sorry, but Time and Newsweek were not thought of as The National Enquirer back then. And scientists were concocting grandiose schemes that might help to keep the earth warmer. The "deniers" are on your side.
We are in a solar maximum..the more sunspots (solar storms) there are, the more radiation is expelled, creating heat.
The infamous hockey stick graph showed that CO2 increases occur 80 years AFTER a significant rise in temperature.
Venus is much closer to the sun than we are, so it naturally is much hotter than we are.It is also many more times volcanically active than we are.Using Venus as a template for our future is not viable.
It certainly doesn't hurt to limit the amount of gasses we emit,but what we try will be a drop in the bucket.
Earth has been heating and cooling in cycles since it was created..we just happen to be in a warming trend between ice ages.
I guess you missed all the mass hysteria in the 1970's when the earth was threatened by global cooling, and scientists were coming up with all kinds of schemes to warm the earth.
\
Sorry, but Time and Newsweek were not thought of as The National Enquirer back then. And scientists were concocting grandiose schemes that might help to keep the earth warmer. The "deniers" are on your side.
See what I mean?I vote: stop arguing with people whose notions of the natural world arise from ideology rather than observation.
.
Freezerman, I see you haven't commented on the basic case for global warming per the opening post. Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you deny that we have greatly increased the level of CO2 on our planet after the industrial era began? Do you deny that temperatures have indeed risen as the CO2 rose, just as expected?
There are a lot of claims here not supported by mainstream science.
For instance the website mentions temperature changes on Mars, which appears to be a bogus claim. See RealClimate: Global warming on Mars?.
Solar Maxima and Minama cannot account for the rapid rise in temperatures in the last 50 years. See Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age: Sunspots — A blog on Environmental Happenings by Dean Bill Chameides
Actually it doesn't. The chart in this paper shows temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have oscillated about +/-.2 deg C in the 900 years prior to 1900. By contrast temperatures have oscillated over about a 12 deg C range in the last 400,000 years. (see CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years ) So if historically temperatures have oscillated in a 12 degree range, and recently they have stayed steady within 0.5 deg, that is remarkably stable. That is exactly what I said. So sorry, but you haven't blown my claim "out of the water".
We did a hell of a lot politically to make sure it didnt happen. Not a false alarm there.1950s---nuclear war.
Ongoing chronic problem. No one thinks its the "end of the world".1970s---global pollution.
No one thought it was the "end of the world". BUT it was considered important enough that we acted globally in the form of effective treaties to drastically reduce the most harmful emissions. This tale might have a different ending had we done nothing.1980s---ozone depletion.
"End of the world"??? No one thought that. Yet still an ongoing problem.1990s---deforestation, water shortages.
A real problem, just like all of the above.2000s---global warming/climate change.
Crude oil is also being formed under the ocean now in the waters of the Gulf Of California :In many geological situations much longer time intervals are available but evidently the molecular mechanism of the decomposition is little changed by the additional time. Thus, within sedimentary basins, heating times of several years are sufficient for the generation of oil and gas from suitable precursors. The precise point in this range of times from seconds to years, at which the products adequately resemble natural gases and/or oils, remains to be established. Heating times of the order of years during recent times may even improve the petroleum prospects of particular areas. Flooding of a reservoir with migrating hydrocarbons is more likely to produce a reservoir filled to the spill point than slow accumulation over a long geological period with a possibility of loss ....4
These might provide some hope for future generations but petrol still releases harmful gases so I think it would be best if it's use was minimized. After studying these things as an environmental science student, you realize how much it's difficult to implement alternative energy sources due to cost implications, geographical and topographical location of communities and constancy of the energy source. Looks like things are only gonna get worse including climate conditions.The oil is being formed from the unusually rapid breakdown of organic debris by extraordinarily extensive heat flowing through the sediments, offering scientists a singular opportunity to see how petroleum is formed....Ordinarily oil has been thought to form over millions of years whereas in this instance the process is probably occurring in thousands of years.... The activity is not only manufacturing petroleum at relatively high speed but also, by application of volcanic heat, breaking it down into the constituents of gasoline and other petroleum products as in a refinery.
Anyways I believe God will take care of it.
I guess you missed all the mass hysteria in the 1970's when the earth was threatened by global cooling, and scientists were coming up with all kinds of schemes to warm the earth.
I can't place my vote because none of your options match my opinion - "global warming may be real but it is NOT man-made".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?