Animation Source Forums

I knew it was false after I saw the statistics about mars. Unless the mars rover is that much of a pollution hog, why is it heating up also?

I believed it was possible once, but the evidence was too inconsistent and I stopped believing. I hope more people look into it and find out that the "green" hybrids, actually pollute more then my 22 year old Ford truck. What does it take to make a battery that big? It's mostly lead, it's a huge impact to the environment, and I scowl at every hybrid I see driving...if anything, THEY'RE the ones polluting.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

Seeing as both of you think this Global Warming thing is a scam, I have several questions I would like to ask you.

- Personally, I am neutral on the matter, I neither believe nor do I dismiss the theory -

First of all, there has appeared much evidence on the fact that Global Warming actually -is- happening. For instance, the Greenland ice has shrunk with approx. 25% (number may be slightly inaccurate). In addition, the polar ice caps are melting rapidly (surely, during a solar flare some of it might melt as well, seeing that the flares are redirected to the polar zones by Tellus' magnetic forcefield), and this is also caused by the pollution. When our ozone layer gets thicker (you may thank the CO2 we create), less sunrays gets to escape earth, thus bouncing back on us again, creating warmth. Here in Norway, for instance, winters have become about ten degrees warmer over the last five years. (from about minus thirty, to minus 20 - Celcius)
With this knowledge (I have done some research on myself and I can confirm that sunrays are bounced back by an ever-thickening ozone layer), how is it possibly to deny that this is happening? The proof is there, but scepticism is the only thing preventing people from seeing it. It is natural, of course, because one definition of human psychology is this; "What man does not know, man fears and what man fears, man destroys." or rather "Man will blame anything before blaming itself."
See my point?


Then again, we know so little about this it really -is- frightening. How do we even know that this is true, apart from all the evidence pointing towards it? I mean, some people go lengths for attention (the Madeleine case would be an example, if the authorities discover that she was murdered by her parents).


EDIT: Forgot a "t" in "thirty"

Stone Paw said it for me.

Exactly. Just because the weather channel CEO doesn't think it's happening doesn't mean it's true. I don't even know if he has any reliable knowledge in this field of science! All I know about him is that he knows how to run a company. I'd only listen to scientists who have at least graduate school education on the subject and isn't "sponsored" by petroleum or anyone who makes money from burning crap that releases large amounts of CO2.

Besides, if this whole thing isn't true, where global warming doesn't exist, what could possibly be wrong with decreasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? It's not like buying a hybrid or hydrogen powered car is going to do anything bad, or that switching to wind power (like Denmark is in the process of doing) is going to do any harm (just to name a few.) Besides, if you think that the atmosphere is too large for us to have any impact on the amount of CO2 in it, well, if we didn't do anything about the amount of CO2, then it's going to build up sometime. And no, CO2 cannot leave the atmosphere. There are only two gases that can leave the atmosphere by just floating away are Hydrogen and Helium, because they're extremely light. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with preventing CO2 from building up in the future. On the other hand, if it does exist, and everyone chose to not do anything about it, everyone who doesn't live 20 feet above sea level near the coasts are going under.

And Togo, the reason that they don't talk about that hole in the ozone is because that was from CFCs in the atmosphere. Since there is a freaking world-wide ban on them, that hole is shrinking, because there is less of that CFC crap in the ozone.

And animal droppings produce methane, not CO2. Besides, those coal-fired power plants make so much CO2 it's not even funny. If the same amount of coal and petroleum were burned (separately), the coal would create at least 3x more CO2 than the petroleum. So cars don't have as much of an effect on it, but coal-fired power plants do. However, they do have an effect that is measurable to some extent.

Allow me to illuminate a bit on that;
The suns cycluses consists of two parts; Minimal activity, and Maximum activity.

The sun does not become hotter during the maximum activity cyclus, but it does, however, increase the chance of solar flares hitting the earth (this process happens between 48 or 18 hours, depending on the flare strength), because during the maximum activity-time, the sunh is more unstable.
These flares are doing nothing, but contributing to radioactive -erhm- activity, melting the polar ice caps, and just barely (should be about 0,7%) increase the degree's on the the areas which include (but not limited to); Arctis, The North Pole, Greenland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Southern America and Australia.
Although the strength of these flares vary A LOT, the degree Celsius will NEVER increase by more than two percent (a good example would be the flare in 1864, please mind, though, that I'm not good with numbers and especially not years (do correct me if I'm wrong), the socalled "Perfect Flare", which knocked out almost all technical systems in the world, increasing the heat of the Earth by two percent for the next couple of years).


But, the sun is also contributing to GW in its way that it -is- getting hotter every decade, and in about 5 billion years, it will collapse and turn into a yellow giant (or dwarf), and by then it will have absorbed Mars and Venus, and scorched the life away from our planet.

So, by ignoring the fact that Global Warming actually DOES happen (to all sceptisists, by the way), would do nothing but shorten the time left to exists for all Earthlings (earthlings; noun. Non-genderly-, speciesistic- and racistic term for a creature on planet Earth).



But have you ever considered that NASA is a space-research- and expedition company? How much about Tellus would they know, apart from the physics?
And, I must say, aren't NASA earning A LOT of money, by poisoning our world with CO2?



This is something which really annoys me; people who are earning money by polluting is often the ones who deny these things happening. Why, I wonder?



I completely agree with you, Swords. Although, doesn't hybrid cars run on dead plants and animals? As far as I know, fuel is made out of oil, which in turn is made out of biological waste (i.e dead plants and animals), which in turn are carbon-based life forms?
Would this not still pollute with CO2 exhaust?



CFC gases were quite recently banned, historically seen, at around 1960 - 1990 (once again, my bad mind with numbers hits me hard), and since then, yes; that hole has shrunk. But to this day, it still exists, thus still posing a threat. We cannot be sure if it will ever close again.
Coal-fired powerplants are ALMOST banned in Norway; there are only a few active, and the rest are mainly water-based. We also buy power from Denmark, which are mostly supplied by wind-power. Coal is, indeed, one of our worst polluters, and they do much more pollution than cars, sure. But even though petroleum pollutes less than coal, it also produces some lesser known gases, which might turn out to be much worse than CO2.


Of course, now we all need CO2 to survive; plants breathe in CO2, and breathes out the air we can breathe. We breathe that in too, and breathe out CO2. We can never get rid of the CO2 completely, but we should reduce it... and I mean; reduce it by lots.

Talking about big companies which are not using CO2, we have several companies that supports the war against GW, animal protection companies, schools (it is a company :O It's run by the government, omg!), and the list goes on.
However, if you are talking about companies which produce products like cars, computers, plastic, etc. then I think that'd be none.

Regarding NASA's space missions; how much CO2 does their machines release when flying into space? I mean, the fuel turns into fire, which in turn creates smoke, which is burnt oxygen, that is CO2. Am I right?

2% increase in warmth is the complete percentage after that "Perfect Flare", and with that day's percentage of CO2 in the ozone layer, and the very minimal visual effects of GW at that time.

And the estimate of how long we will have petrol on Earth is fifty years In case anybody's interested.

Two things:
First: Just being able to create oxygen and ozone through cold fusion won't get rid of CO2. Besides, cold fusion doesn't separate CO2 into oxygen and carbon, cold fusion basically takes (for example) a hydrogen atom (1 proton) and a helium atom (2 protons), then smashes them together to make lithium (3 protons). It's called "cold" fusion because normally such fusion is done at the temperatures of the sun, but cold fusion is done at a much lower temperature. I'm sure by some point in the future it may be possible to take massive quantities of CO2 and separate them into oxygen and carbon, but seriously, is just waiting for the future to happen something to justify not doing anything right now?
Which leads to my second point: If in 100 years we're able to take away the dangerous amounts CO2 in the atmosphere through massive and efficient chemical reactions, you think that's going to look good on us, having let it build up when we had the means to prevent it? Seriously, would anyone here want to be remembered as the generation that just sat on their lazy bums, not caring about a problem that they could prevent quite easily? Tsh, we'd be known as the "lazy ignoramuses of the 21st century".
It's like this principle I tell myself about losing weight: "It's a lot easier to keep it off than to take it off." Meaning: It takes a lot more work to lose, say, 100 pounds of fat, than to just make the right choices and not eat in ways that will make you gain that much fat, therefore preventing that. So, in relating to the issue of GW, it's a lot easier to just prevent the CO2 from building up to the point where all the ice and snow in the world melts than to take it all out when it does get to that point.

Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with cutting down on all that crap we keep putting up into the air.


Wolflux: as to the hybrid cars, well, they do run on some gas, but just a whole lot less. They get, like, 40 MPG at least, because they're half run on gas, half on a battery. However, if you're looking for a car with no pollution, then check out the upcoming BMW Hydrogen 7. You put water in, it separates the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then combusts the two (hydrogen gas is explosive when you have oxygen gas and a spark present), and water comes back out. No CO2 emissions whatsoever.

I read somewhere that the Earth goes through a stormy period that lasts for thirty years and then another thirty years of not-so-stormy weather. We are about to enter another stormy period, but I'm not sure.

I think that Global Warming does exist, but I think it's often exaggerated. But we are still destroying the Earth and we could all stand to try and conserve some of our resources. But I don't think we'll have anything like the craptacular 'Day After Tommorrow.'