September 20, 2020, 12:28:16 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Environment  (Read 18495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline billnotgatez

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4026
  • Mole Snacks: +215/-57
  • Gender: Male
Re: Environment
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2006, 07:38:58 AM »
Quote
World population grew very slowly throughout human history, until the Industrial Revolution and the dawn of an age of fossil fuels. By 1900 it had reached 1.65 billion. It then multiplied nearly fourfold to 6 billion within a century.

<Tongue in cheek mode>
I got the above quote from the internet and we all know that it is more accurate than the newspapers.
</Tongue in cheek mode>

Do you still think that increase in population and industrialization has had no effect on tipping the ecological balance?

No one yet has answered my question.
When in recorded history did we have significant global cooling?
It did happen, when and why.




Offline P

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Mole Snacks: +64/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • I am what I am
Re: Environment
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2006, 07:42:48 AM »
Fair enough, but I could be very cinical and say neither are the scientists! Unless thay shock and scare, no-one will fund their research into global warming. One volcano erruption emits more CO2 than most industries do in a year. Also, what I said is true about not knowing if we are coming from or going back into ice age (coming out I'd say).

there are also privately-funded scientists that do their own independent research, and this is where checking the scientists comes in. which scientists provided the information for the newspaper? the odds of the newspaper being biased to produce 'grand' results compared to the odds of scientists biased to do likewise, overall is more greater imho. therefore, it helps to double-check by looking up the source of the information.

now if i may ask again, where did the newspaper get its info from? im curious in looking it up to read more too ???

I'm afraid te Newspaper did not give a reference
Tonight I’m going to party like it’s on sale for $19.99!

- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon

Offline funboy

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-4
Re: Environment
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2006, 10:26:04 AM »
The media is the worst place for information (except for all other souces).  Who controls the media??  How would the truth impact those people??.  Its more likely that things are worse than they appear, much like back in the 1980s when we were told that our parents generation would never see the ramifications of our actions, and low and behold here we are.

If the public new as much as the goverment there would be chaos and the economy would crumble.

To think that global warming isnt going to affect us as much as many scientists are leading us to believe is disaster in the making.

The 180 billion tonnes of CO2 emmited into the attmosphere and only 60 billion being a result of hummans probably doesnt take into consideration that massive amounts of green trees and plants have been burned (causing CO2) and leveled out for agrigulture (co2) or livestock (co2) or human living (more CO2).

Sure the direct relation of our CO2 contribution may be 1/3rd of the total problem but what about indirect actions??

Is there a scientific organization with a model in place that takes into consideration what the CO2 content in the air would be if the human population never grew above 500, 000 people??  Im sure there wouldnt be 120billion tonnes of CO2 being pumped into the air.

Just My thoughts,


Offline lemonoman

  • Atmospheric
  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 607
  • Mole Snacks: +71/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Environment
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2006, 12:51:22 PM »
Is there a scientific organization with a model in place that takes into consideration what the CO2 content in the air would be if the human population never grew above 500, 000 people??  Im sure there wouldnt be 120billion tonnes of CO2 being pumped into the air.

I just did a quick calculation to figure out how much 6 billion people produce in a year, but information on human breathing CO2 output is hard to find.  Some random guy said 0.02 to 0.08 g/h/person...seems a bit low.  Anyways using those numbers, it works out to 7 million tonnes/year from breathing.  If we get more accurate (maybe even certified :P) numbers, we can settle this thing.

Offline Dude

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 237
  • Mole Snacks: +42/-9
  • I'm a mole!
Re: Environment
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2006, 02:19:55 PM »
About 900 g / day per person (presumably adult) from reference 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Dioxide

There would also probably be a deforestation factor to enable human settlement (one of the few oxygen generation and CO2 reduction mechanisms on Earth).

Offline P

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Mole Snacks: +64/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • I am what I am
Re: Environment
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2006, 05:39:51 AM »
The media is the worst place for information (except for all other souces). Who controls the media?? How would the truth impact those people??. Its more likely that things are worse than they appear, much like back in the 1980s when we were told that our parents generation would never see the ramifications of our actions, and low and behold here we are.

If the public new as much as the goverment there would be chaos and the economy would crumble.

To think that global warming isnt going to affect us as much as many scientists are leading us to believe is disaster in the making.

The 180 billion tonnes of CO2 emmited into the attmosphere and only 60 billion being a result of hummans probably doesnt take into consideration that massive amounts of green trees and plants have been burned (causing CO2) and leveled out for agrigulture (co2) or livestock (co2) or human living (more CO2).

Sure the direct relation of our CO2 contribution may be 1/3rd of the total problem but what about indirect actions??

Is there a scientific organization with a model in place that takes into consideration what the CO2 content in the air would be if the human population never grew above 500, 000 people?? Im sure there wouldnt be 120billion tonnes of CO2 being pumped into the air.

Just My thoughts,




No, it was 6 billion, not 60 billion. -  about 3% - not 30%
Tonight I’m going to party like it’s on sale for $19.99!

- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon

Offline constant thinker

  • mad scientist
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
  • Mole Snacks: +85/-45
  • Gender: Male
Re: Environment
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2006, 03:13:39 PM »
I was thinking last night about hydrogen burning engines/fuel cells. Both of these release water vapor as a byproduct. Right?

Water vapor traps heat.

Would hydrogen powered vehicles really solve global warming issues?

I'm all in favor of hydrogen powered vehicles because it's not releasing all the toxins the traditional gas burning vehicles do. Also it decreases the demand for oil, dramatically.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' " -Ronald Reagan

"I'm for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers, or a bottle of Jack Daniels." -Frank Sinatra

Offline lemonoman

  • Atmospheric
  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 607
  • Mole Snacks: +71/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Environment
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2006, 04:18:31 PM »
My theory is, that even though water vapour traps heat...there's other places for it to go.  Carbon dioxide, at least at almost all the temperatures that exist on natural earth, is always a gas.  For all of the water pumped into the atmosphere, only a portion of it would remain as water vapour.  The rest would work its way into oceans, etc.

Which brings up the point...the sea levels would still rise, and we'd still have SOME of the effects of global warming...just for different reasons.

Offline xiankai

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • Mole Snacks: +77/-37
  • Gender: Male
Re: Environment
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2006, 10:48:10 PM »
My theory is, that even though water vapour traps heat...there's other places for it to go.  Carbon dioxide, at least at almost all the temperatures that exist on natural earth, is always a gas.  For all of the water pumped into the atmosphere, only a portion of it would remain as water vapour.  The rest would work its way into oceans, etc.

Which brings up the point...the sea levels would still rise, and we'd still have SOME of the effects of global warming...just for different reasons.

even if it remained as water vapour; if the ozone depletion continues, OH- radicals may be formed from water and helped by ozone and sunlight managing to pierce through the lower levels of the atmosphere. they are known to be very reactive though whether that is good or bad... im not so sure myself.

hydroxy radicals are reputed to be able clear up pollutants by reacting with them(most notably hydrocabons), but i dont see how the new compounds are much safer.
one learns best by teaching

Offline constant thinker

  • mad scientist
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
  • Mole Snacks: +85/-45
  • Gender: Male
Re: Environment
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2006, 03:20:57 PM »
I think one big thing we could now though, and we have the technology to do it today, is start building nuclear reactors to replace current fossil fuel burning power plants. That would help with the CO2 problem some and also the other toxins that are directly produced by burning fossil fuels.

You could also add in solar power and wind power, although they are less reliable. Geothermal power plants would work too in some areas.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' " -Ronald Reagan

"I'm for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers, or a bottle of Jack Daniels." -Frank Sinatra

Sponsored Links