Trees & Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 97 Responses
- JazX0
wtf are you talking about pavlovs_dog? CO2 levels have been even higher, recording in the geologic rock cycle, even before today. There's my side, you figure it out.
- JazX0
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossil…
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
- TheTick0
wtf are you talking about pavlovs_dog? CO2 levels have been even higher, recording in the geologic rock cycle, even before today. There's my side, you figure it out.
JazX
(Dec 27 05, 10:39)
-----------------
JazX, have they been this high in the period of time of humanity's evolutioanry time here? I think noy, and that's really the point. If you want to work hard to make the climate safe for large ferns and some giant lizards, right on, but you know, I'd like to keep the thermostat set to "human civilization friendly"
- pavlovs_dog0
lolz, it was hotter then?
- Crouwel0
lol jazx just wants to bring anything forward that defends a luxurious lifestyle haha.. a real republican.
- TheTick0
No hey..JazX is many things, but calling him a "republican"..that's hitting below the belt..
- Crouwel0
tick. chill.
jaz knows me.
- JazX0
hey look, I'm not saying that our human endeavors, by any means, is good for the environment. probabilty dictates it can't be, right? just trying to prove a point based upon the physical rock record and the analyzation of absolute dated specimens. although, the Carboniferous is highly disputed in terms of its age. but I stick on the side of whomever makes more sense at the time with evidence. and new found evidence could change the way you view this as well. what's so wrong about that?
- JazX0
lol jazx just wants to bring anything forward that defends a luxurious lifestyle haha.. a real republican.
Crouwel
(Dec 27 05, 10:48)I'm GWB's b*tch! He spanks me in bed and I like it!
:O
- TheTick0
tick. chill.
jaz knows me.
Crouwel
(Dec 27 05, 10:50)I'm chill.
Jaz knows Crouwel. Word.
- JazX0
I know Crouwel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wim…
"Crouwel is still an active member of the Dutch graphic design scene."
Lekker
- pavlovs_dog0
wtf are you talking about pavlovs_dog? CO2 levels have been even higher, recording in the geologic rock cycle, even before today. There's my side, you figure it out.
JazX
(Dec 27 05, 10:39)this is where the greenpeace fuck nuts have made a mess of things.
yea, the earth ahs been much hotter and did just fine? so there's no need to "save the earth" right?
correct.
its our ass we have to worry about. climate change WILL (but how much?) create instability for human civilization.
if you look at the maya, romans, greek, or lomec, istability seems to have played a role in thier demise.
say for instance, a large percentage of our population (40% ?) lives in costal cities.
a modest rise in sea level would turn the water table of many of theses cities saline.
distant water sources would beceome essential to thier survival. ...distant water sources that would be worth fighting for....
get it?
- Crouwel0
werd up!
- pavlovs_dog0
and like maybe 2% of climatologists think that global warm is a sham.
this is a false deabte.
like evlootion.
- JazX0
where are you getting those numbers from? 2% seems very low to me.
- mrdobolina0
you guys all know that earth is only 6000 years old though, right?
- bradpitt0
you guys all know that earth is only 6000 years old though, right?
mrdobolina
(Dec 27 05, 11:11)actually 2000. don't you remember?
- mrdobolina0
you guys all know that earth is only 6000 years old though, right?
mrdobolina
(Dec 27 05, 11:11)actually 2000. don't you remember?
bradpitt
(Dec 27 05, 11:12)Kane and Abel were inbreeds too. ;)
- JazX0
Global Cooling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glo…
Human activity - mostly as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion; partly by land-use changes - increases the number of tiny particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere. These have a direct effect: they effectively increase the planetary albedo, thus cooling the planet by reducing the sunshine reaching the surface; and an indirect effect: they can affect the properties of clouds by acting as cloud condensation nuclei. In the early 1970s some speculated that this cooling effect might dominate over the warming effect of the CO2 release: see discussion of Rasool and Schneider (1971), below. As a result of observations (aerosol concentrations may have increased, but not enormously) and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seems likely; the overwhelming bulk of current scientific work concentrates on the forcing, prediction and understanding of possible global warming.
Plate tectonics also pull it's weight, no pun intended, for the cause of both.
- pavlovs_dog0
if the world is only 6000 years old, how did the bigfoot evolove?