Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/19/2005 10:51:03 AM EDT
It will not be global warming that destroys the habital environment of the Earth. Ironically it will lower levels of C02 (a green house gas) that will no longer sustain plant life, which will doom animal life.

C02 levels will decrease to levels that will no longer sustain plant life in approx. 500-700 million years. Although some estimates suggest this will happen as early as 100 million years. As plant life has existed for at least 2,000 million years this means the age of plants on Earth is already 95% complete.

Carbon dioxide is currently only a trace gas in our atmosphere. When lowered beyond a certain level it will be the end of photosynthesis, the eneregy base of almost all life and the primary source of free, breathable oxygen.*

The Life and Death of Planet Earth by Peter Ward pg. 106.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:54:06 AM EDT
oh well it was good while it lasted.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:58:01 AM EDT
So how did the plants get by before there were mammals emitting carbon dioxide?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:59:30 AM EDT
So much for living forever....
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:01:09 AM EDT
Well we better party like we only got 100 million years to live.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:03:39 AM EDT
Oh dear Marklar.

For every psuedo science reaction there's an equal and opposite psuedo science reaction.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:05:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:11:44 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
So how did the plants get by before there were mammals emitting carbon dioxide?



C02 existed prior to animals. It is a natural element.

It is found in natural reservoirs such as forests, soil, oceans and rocks.

And while it is the lower levels of C02 which have prevented Earth from becoming a Venus like oven as the sun has grown brighter and hotter, that continued drop in C02 will someday no longer be able to perform the balancing act that sustains life on the planet.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:05:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:06:51 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By Stealth:
Oh dear Marklar.

For every psuedo science reaction there's an equal and opposite psuedo science reaction.



Ummm, that isn't psuedo science.

The only thing in debate is "when." While some suggest as early as the next 100 million years, estimates of 500-700 million are probably more accurate.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:11:45 AM EDT
I read the "end of evolution" by Peter Ward, good book. The only problem with your/his argument is that it doesn't include human factors.... The fact of the matter is that Co2 is on the rise, no if ands or buts, it IS NOT DECREASING.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:13:38 AM EDT
You used the words 'fact' and 'liberal' in the same sentence. How opposite can 2 words be?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:14:49 AM EDT
Seems backwards to me.

According to some scientific studies I have read, humans are reproducing at a rate of 40 gajillion a second and tearing down rainforests at a rate of 400 trillion acres an hour. Since plants put out oxygen and people put out carbon dioxide, I would think we would all die from too much CO2 and not enough plants to convert it back to oxygen.

I dunno.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:15:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By theliberating1:
I read the "end of evolution" by Peter Ward, good book. The only problem with your/his argument is that it doesn't include human factors.... The fact of the matter is that Co2 is on the rise, no if ands or buts, it IS NOT DECREASING.



Are you talking about in the last 100 years or in the last million?

Humans are a factor but not the ultimate factor.

Just as we likely cannot CAUSE runaway global warming we will not prevent the inevitable loss of Co2 in the next 500 million years.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:15:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Partisan:
You used the words 'fact' and 'liberal' in the same sentence. How opposite can 2 words be?



about the same as "conservative" and "free thinking"
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:20:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By theliberating1:

Originally Posted By Partisan:
You used the words 'fact' and 'liberal' in the same sentence. How opposite can 2 words be?



about the same as "conservative" and "free thinking"



I don't be either are universally true.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:21:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Are you talking about in the last 100 years or in the last million?

Humans are a factor but not the ultimate factor.

Just as we likely cannot CAUSE runaway global warming we will not prevent the inevitable loss of Co2 in the next 500 million years.



I'm talking about the last 150...

Common sense should tell any human that we are causing dramatic changes to our climate... the magnitude of it depends on people like G.W. Bush, you and me.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:21:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
So how did the plants get by before there were mammals emitting carbon dioxide?



the atmosphere originally had a lot more CO2 and hydrogen

there is lots of information on the evolution of earth's atmosphere, its an interesting subject


Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:22:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Stealth:
Oh dear Marklar.

For every psuedo science reaction there's an equal and opposite psuedo science reaction.



Ummm, that isn't psuedo science.

The only thing in debate is "when." While some suggest as early as the next 100 million years, estimates of 500-700 million are probably more accurate.



Hmm....we got some time.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:25:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By theliberating1:
Common sense should tell any human that we are causing dramatic changes to our climate...



"Common Sense" told people of 600 years ago the Earth was Flat.

"Common Sense" told people of 800 years ago the Earth was at the Center of the Solar System.

"Common Sense" of 200 years ago said people could not fly.

"Common Sense" of 100 years ago said peple could not go faster than sound and live.

"Common Sense" of 50 years ago said people would never walk on the moon.

But let's not let Scientific fact get in the way of "Common Sense" for a "feel good liberal cause".
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:26:02 AM EDT
Current CO2 emissions are on the rise, humans are responsible for most of it as are volcanoes. So before humans or other animals you still had CO2 in the atmosphere from volcanoes.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:27:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:29:05 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By theliberating1:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Are you talking about in the last 100 years or in the last million?

Humans are a factor but not the ultimate factor.

Just as we likely cannot CAUSE runaway global warming we will not prevent the inevitable loss of Co2 in the next 500 million years.



I'm talking about the last 150...

Common sense should tell any human that we are causing dramatic changes to our climate... the magnitude of it depends on people like G.W. Bush, you and me.



In the end, I don't think we will offset anything in any significant way no matter what you, me or George Bush does. This included anything our children may or may not do.

In about 500-700 million years the Earth will be a brown planet hosting only microbrial life.

Our current generation of green house gasses will buy us only a small amount of additional time.

But my main point is while "global warming" advocates decry green house gasses, they are what are actually sustaining life on the planet.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:29:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By theliberating1:
Common sense should tell any human that we are causing dramatic changes to our climate...



"Common Sense" told people of 600 years ago the Earth was Flat.

"Common Sense" told people of 800 years ago the Earth was at the Center of the Solar System.

"Common Sense" of 200 years ago said people could not fly.

"Common Sense" of 100 years ago said peple could not go faster than sound and live.

"Common Sense" of 50 years ago said people would never walk on the moon.

But let's not let Scientific fact get in the way of "Common Sense" for a "feel good liberal cause".



Wow. I think your trying to be a feel good guy. Don't worry, those huge stack of black smoke just go away.

Smog is not real.

Caps are not melting.

We don't create trash.

We aren't breeding out of control.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:30:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Stealth:
Oh dear Marklar.

For every psuedo science reaction there's an equal and opposite psuedo science reaction.



Ummm, that isn't psuedo science.

The only thing in debate is "when." While some suggest as early as the next 100 million years, estimates of 500-700 million are probably more accurate.



Hmm....we got some time.



Certainly. Hell the species might not even still exist by that point.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:30:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By theliberating1:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:


In about 500-700 million years the Earth will be a brown planet hosting only microbrial life.



yeah... and in a few billion more we will be consumed by the sun. That's not the point to me... To me the point is to try to make it as good for everyone for as long as we can. Because if you argue "we are all dead anyway" let's just nuke the fucking place and end it all now.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:37:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By theliberating1:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By theliberating1:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:


In about 500-700 million years the Earth will be a brown planet hosting only microbrial life.



yeah... and in a few billion more we will be consumed by the sun. That's not the point to me... To me the point is to try to make it as good for everyone for as long as we can. Because if you argue "we are all dead anyway" let's just nuke the fucking place and end it all now.



We are actually saying the same thing. I'm not saying "screw it we are dead anyway."

I'm trying to point out that the "average" global warming dumbass (not you mind you) doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't realize that C02 is NECESSARY to sustain life and the loss of Co2 below a certain level will be the end of most life on the planet.

More importantly, our current increase in Co2 is actually buying us a little more time in the final result.

I not sure it is possible, let alone likely, to generate so much Co2 that we can cause a Venus "greenhouse."
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:39:44 AM EDT

We just need to bioengineer a plant that produces carbon dioxide.

If everyone plants a lawn grown from a genetically altered grass seed we will all be saved.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:41:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Carbon dioxide is currently only a trace gas in our atmosphere.



WTF??? What are they basic that on?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:43:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FredM:
Smog is not real.


Wow I'll bet you're a butterfly scientists or something eh?


Caps are not melting.

Doesn't matter if they are or not - can you PROVE it's due to humans. Come back when you can.


We don't create trash.

Again another brillian quote. Come back when you can tell me how many cubic yards of trash we produce in the US on a yearly basis - and what is the square mileage of the US.



We aren't breeding out of control.


Obviosly not, as we can still feed everyone.

Again come back when you do a calculation on the density of NYC compared to the population of the world. Compute how much of an area it would take to house everyone if you could build a 'mega city' that housed the Wold's current population at NYC level densities. Then look up the area of a large state (say Texas). Then come back and we'll discuss the issue.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:43:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasEd:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Carbon dioxide is currently only a trace gas in our atmosphere.



WTF??? What are they basic that on?



Gas Name Chemical Formula Percent Volume
Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
*Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
*Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
*Ozone O3 0.000004%

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:44:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By theliberating1:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By theliberating1:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:


In about 500-700 million years the Earth will be a brown planet hosting only microbrial life.



yeah... and in a few billion more we will be consumed by the sun. That's not the point to me... To me the point is to try to make it as good for everyone for as long as we can. Because if you argue "we are all dead anyway" let's just nuke the fucking place and end it all now.



Talk about taking the easy way out of an argument.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:45:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:47:17 AM EDT by theliberating1]
If deforestation continues at it's current rate... we will be screwed. There is one good side to global warming when it comes to oxygen/CO2 production/conversion. It's the theory that the vast frozen tundras of the artic will be able to support plant life again when global tempratures rise and thaw them out. It will create millions of acres of grasses and plant life that will help convert o2/co2. I'd rather see it stay the same... but at least it's some kind of hope
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:46:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasEd:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Carbon dioxide is currently only a trace gas in our atmosphere.



WTF??? What are they basic that on?



1-4: Atmospheric Composition, Carbon Dioxide

The earth's atmosphere, as discussed in unit 1-2, is mostly nitrogen and oxygen. These two constituents alone account for 99.03% of all atmospheric "dry air" gases below 100 km (water vapor accounts for 0-4% depending on latitude, altitude and weather conditions). Concentrations of trace gases are given in Table 1. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are, to different degrees, variable in concentration, but all others are relatively stable.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:47:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By theliberating1:
I read the "end of evolution" by Peter Ward, good book. The only problem with your/his argument is that it doesn't include human factors.... The fact of the matter is that Co2 is on the rise, no if ands or buts, it IS NOT DECREASING.


The FACT is that 99% of the Co2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, one volcanic eruption puts out more Co2 than several years of human activity. What is happening now is all a part of the natural cycle that has been going on for millions of years, it is the utmost conceit to believe that humans can overpower the natural cycles of the planet. The entire product of mankind is nothing but a pimple on Mother Nature's butt.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:48:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By theliberating1:
If deforestation continues at it's current rate... we will be screwed. There is one good side to global warming when it comes to oxygen/CO2 production/conversion. It's the theory that the vast frozen tundras of the artic will be able to support plant life again when global tempratures rise and thaw them out. It will creates millions of acres of grasses and plant life that will help convert o2/co2. I'd rather see it stay the same... but at least it's some kind of hope



As plant life is critical to photosynthesis and a habitable planet, if we reduced plants below the level necesssary to sustain life, we will be screwed.

I'm not sure what the currently level of deforestation is however.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:49:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wingman26:

Originally Posted By theliberating1:
I read the "end of evolution" by Peter Ward, good book. The only problem with your/his argument is that it doesn't include human factors.... The fact of the matter is that Co2 is on the rise, no if ands or buts, it IS NOT DECREASING.


The FACT is that 99% of the Co2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, one volcanic eruption puts out more Co2 than several years of human activity. What is happening now is all a part of the natural cycle that has been going on for millions of years, it is the utmost conceit to believe that humans can overpower the natural cycles of the planet. The entire product of mankind is nothing but a pimple on Mother Nature's butt.



Hit probablility...98%.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:51:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FredM:

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By theliberating1:
Common sense should tell any human that we are causing dramatic changes to our climate...



"Common Sense" told people of 600 years ago the Earth was Flat.

"Common Sense" told people of 800 years ago the Earth was at the Center of the Solar System.

"Common Sense" of 200 years ago said people could not fly.

"Common Sense" of 100 years ago said peple could not go faster than sound and live.

"Common Sense" of 50 years ago said people would never walk on the moon.

But let's not let Scientific fact get in the way of "Common Sense" for a "feel good liberal cause".



Wow. I think your trying to be a feel good guy. Don't worry, those huge stack of black smoke just go away.

Smog is not real.

Caps are not melting.

We don't create trash.

We aren't breeding out of control.



news.mongabay.com/2005/0502-rhett_butler.html

If one is wrong, can the others not be questioned ? I live just a few miles from the Houston Ship Channel and can tell you that all that "smoke" you see is usually nothing more than steam. This was not the case when I moved here in 1961
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:53:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wingman26:
The entire product of mankind is nothing but a pimple on Mother Nature's butt.



Not really... Earth, I can agree with. When you are talking about a giant rock floating through space. But in terms of life on planet earth... to think we are not causing dramatic changes to "mother nature" is quite insane. Would rivers be catching on fire if man wasn't around... would shark populations in the North Atlantic be down over 85% from a hundred years ago... would entire species of animals and plants be wiped out daily? The thought that we don't have an effect on LIFE on the planet is just wrong. But I agree 100% that there is no way humans can alter the orbit, speed or direction of this earth... but we are causing dramatic changes to the miniscule portion of this planet that is able to sustain life.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:57:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By theliberating1:

Originally Posted By Wingman26:
The entire product of mankind is nothing but a pimple on Mother Nature's butt.



Not really... Earth, I can agree with. When you are talking about a giant rock floating through space. But in terms of life on planet earth... to think we are not causing dramatic changes to "mother nature" is quite insane. Would rivers be catching on fire if man wasn't around... would shark populations in the North Atlantic be down over 85% from a hundred years ago... would entire species of animals and plants be wiped out daily? The thought that we don't have an effect on LIFE on the planet is just wrong. But I agree 100% that there is no way humans can alter the orbit, speed or direction of this earth... but we are causing dramatic changes to the miniscule portion of this planet that is able to sustain life.



The dinasaurs would disagree with you.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:58:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:59:19 AM EDT by Stealth]
It should be easy enough to determine the CO2 content of our atmosphere historically and estimate where it's going. Having not read the book, I wonder how he is estimating future volcanic outgassing. As far as some mentioning how much CO2 people put into the atmosphere, it's a minor thing. People have only been around a short time and I doubt in a few hundred million years that we would have been anything but a tiny blip in history.

There's also the long term evolution of plants to consider as some require less CO2 than others. How much time that would buy the world... who knows.

When talking about hundreds of millions of years, there's a lot that can happen, but a consistant downward trend in CO2 levels is hard to argue with if the data confirms it.

Interesting theory. Is it a good read?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:58:13 AM EDT
Only recently has it become clear that Ice ages are not the result of some Global shift, POlar Shift, Sudden distancing from the sun, or some other planetary factor, but from the existence of life itself upon the earth. It is a cycle like any other and is created by the interaction of plant and animal life on this earth. It is more or less a recent phenomenon as the large scale volcanic activity on Earth has slowed down, slowing the emissions of naturally occurring CO2.

IT works like this......

Starting with a warm cycle, plants flourish and cover every available inch of land. Algae and other plant life flourish in the oceans. They consume CO2 as part of their life cycle There is a slight imbalance in that the CO2 producing creatures could not ever keep up with, and with the slowed emissions of naturally occurring CO2, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere decreases, lessening the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat. It begins to get colder.

The opposite happens during an Ice Age. There is not alot of plant life, as much of the Earth is covered by ice, and the levels of CO2 slowly build.



Where I live, and where many of you live now used to be covered by Ice, maybe at one time ocean, forest, lakes, rivers, whatever. This mentality that the Earth is changing OMG!! Life is going to END!!! is ridiculous.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:58:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DigDug:

The dinasaurs would disagree with you.



that is why they are dead
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:10:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By TexasEd:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Carbon dioxide is currently only a trace gas in our atmosphere.



WTF??? What are they basic that on?



1-4: Atmospheric Composition, Carbon Dioxide

The earth's atmosphere, as discussed in unit 1-2, is mostly nitrogen and oxygen. These two constituents alone account for 99.03% of all atmospheric "dry air" gases below 100 km (water vapor accounts for 0-4% depending on latitude, altitude and weather conditions). Concentrations of trace gases are given in Table 1. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are, to different degrees, variable in concentration, but all others are relatively stable.




Wow...I was wrong I guess...so what happens to all of the CO2 all animals exhale everyday??? I always figured that O2/CO2 were pretty much a ying/yang thing in balance. Didn't realize that there's that much more O2.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:19:07 PM EDT
Just to add my .02 cents, one of the biggest producers of CFs is a volcano in the southern hemisphere that can really pump out CO2, CO and CFs like crazy.

If we can believe that the ozone has a huge hole (or the ozone {O3] is depleting) over the Andes, and the Andes are in South America, and the wind patterns between the Northern hemisphere and the Southern hemisphere don't overlap, how, when I was a kid, did my model airplane paint spray can cause the big hole in the Ozone layer over the Andes?

That's right, it didn't.
Back when I was in High School in the '70s, the science teachers were telling us we should be getting ready for the coming Ice age. This was really weird since we had just come out of a mini Ice Age in around 1850.

Sometimes I really feel like I'm surrounded by idiots.
And they have driver licenses as well.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:25:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stealth:
It should be easy enough to determine the CO2 content of our atmosphere historically and estimate where it's going. Having not read the book, I wonder how he is estimating future volcanic outgassing. As far as some mentioning how much CO2 people put into the atmosphere, it's a minor thing. People have only been around a short time and I doubt in a few hundred million years that we would have been anything but a tiny blip in history.

There's also the long term evolution of plants to consider as some require less CO2 than others. How much time that would buy the world... who knows.

When talking about hundreds of millions of years, there's a lot that can happen, but a consistant downward trend in CO2 levels is hard to argue with if the data confirms it.

Interesting theory. Is it a good read?



Actually yes. It covers the differnet ways life will end on the planet and the ultimate fate of the planet iteslf.

And he actually addresses the grasses (the ones that require far less Co2) that you are probably referring to. And it is with those plants in consideration that estimates were revised from about 150 million to 500-700 million.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:26:01 PM EDT

yeah thats why its COOLER in the summer here than in the 80's. Common sense tells me the reason the planet's temprature fluctuates is due to the massive ball of burning hydrogen in sky fluctuating. its not a 100 watt bulb working on steady current.


Originally Posted By theliberating1:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Are you talking about in the last 100 years or in the last million?

Humans are a factor but not the ultimate factor.

Just as we likely cannot CAUSE runaway global warming we will not prevent the inevitable loss of Co2 in the next 500 million years.



I'm talking about the last 150...

Common sense should tell any human that we are causing dramatic changes to our climate... the magnitude of it depends on people like G.W. Bush, you and me.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:28:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasEd:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By TexasEd:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Carbon dioxide is currently only a trace gas in our atmosphere.



WTF??? What are they basic that on?



1-4: Atmospheric Composition, Carbon Dioxide

The earth's atmosphere, as discussed in unit 1-2, is mostly nitrogen and oxygen. These two constituents alone account for 99.03% of all atmospheric "dry air" gases below 100 km (water vapor accounts for 0-4% depending on latitude, altitude and weather conditions). Concentrations of trace gases are given in Table 1. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are, to different degrees, variable in concentration, but all others are relatively stable.




Wow...I was wrong I guess...so what happens to all of the CO2 all animals exhale everyday??? I always figured that O2/CO2 were pretty much a ying/yang thing in balance. Didn't realize that there's that much more O2.



Actually oxygen breathing animals account for very little of the Co2 in our atmosphere. And the Earth has a finite supply in the soil, oceans, rocks, etc. And basically once that is below a certain level, the Co2 produced by animals will not be enough to sustain plant life and those plants will die. In turn the animals will die. There will still be Co2 and oxygen, just not enough to sustain most life forms.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:29:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By theliberating1:
If deforestation continues at it's current rate... we will be screwed. There is one good side to global warming when it comes to oxygen/CO2 production/conversion. It's the theory that the vast frozen tundras of the artic will be able to support plant life again when global tempratures rise and thaw them out. It will create millions of acres of grasses and plant life that will help convert o2/co2. I'd rather see it stay the same... but at least it's some kind of hope



And also, for all the brainiacs out there spouting deforestation, The majority of oxygen on earth is produced by algea in the oceans, not the Brazilian jungle as the nut case enviro's think.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:30:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By darth_pavoris:
yeah thats why its COOLER in the summer here than in the 80's. Common sense tells me the reason the planet's temprature fluctuates is due to the massive ball of burning hydrogen in sky fluctuating. its not a 100 watt bulb working on steady current.




Careful with them easy and obvious answers. We wouldn't want anyone to "learn" anything.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:35:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stealth:
It should be easy enough to determine the CO2 content of our atmosphere historically and estimate where it's going. Having not read the book, I wonder how he is estimating future volcanic outgassing. As far as some mentioning how much CO2 people put into the atmosphere, it's a minor thing. People have only been around a short time and I doubt in a few hundred million years that we would have been anything but a tiny blip in history.

There's also the long term evolution of plants to consider as some require less CO2 than others. How much time that would buy the world... who knows.

When talking about hundreds of millions of years, there's a lot that can happen, but a consistant downward trend in CO2 levels is hard to argue with if the data confirms it.

Interesting theory. Is it a good read?



That is because they can't. For goodness sake, we can barely predict the weather ten days into the future! They (the scientists that write all these books about the future) don't really know about the future and not as much as they think they do regarding the past.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:35:50 PM EDT
Oh God, not another AFRCOM science thread...

IBTPOACB.

(In before the plane on the conyair belt)
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:40:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 12:42:33 PM EDT by Planerench]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By TexasEd:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By TexasEd:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Carbon dioxide is currently only a trace gas in our atmosphere.



WTF??? What are they basic that on?



1-4: Atmospheric Composition, Carbon Dioxide

The earth's atmosphere, as discussed in unit 1-2, is mostly nitrogen and oxygen. These two constituents alone account for 99.03% of all atmospheric "dry air" gases below 100 km (water vapor accounts for 0-4% depending on latitude, altitude and weather conditions). Concentrations of trace gases are given in Table 1. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are, to different degrees, variable in concentration, but all others are relatively stable.




Wow...I was wrong I guess...so what happens to all of the CO2 all animals exhale everyday??? I always figured that O2/CO2 were pretty much a ying/yang thing in balance. Didn't realize that there's that much more O2.



Actually oxygen breathing animals account for very little of the Co2 in our atmosphere. And the Earth has a finite supply in the soil, oceans, rocks, etc. And basically once that is below a certain level, the Co2 produced by animals will not be enough to sustain plant life and those plants will die. In turn the animals will die. There will still be Co2 and oxygen, just not enough to sustain most life forms.



Which is why I believe we need to get ALL the buried hydrocarbons topside. It is the duty of the human race to save our planet. Think about how many carbon molecules reside under the surface in various forms! Once the ice caps melt (we need to capture the fresh water there) We can create enough plants and animals to spice up our atmosphere!
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 1:01:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By theliberating1:

Originally Posted By Wingman26:
The entire product of mankind is nothing but a pimple on Mother Nature's butt.



Not really... Earth, I can agree with. When you are talking about a giant rock floating through space. But in terms of life on planet earth... to think we are not causing dramatic changes to "mother nature" is quite insane. Would rivers be catching on fire if man wasn't around... would shark populations in the North Atlantic be down over 85% from a hundred years ago... would entire species of animals and plants be wiped out daily? The thought that we don't have an effect on LIFE on the planet is just wrong. But I agree 100% that there is no way humans can alter the orbit, speed or direction of this earth... but we are causing dramatic changes to the miniscule portion of this planet that is able to sustain life.



Dude, you are wrong. Most of the animal species (and plants) that have lived on the earth (way greater than 95%) are EXTINCT! and this occured when there were no humans. Get a life and read a real book now and again instead of your liberal propaganda.

Humans are not as powerful as some think.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top