EPA Regulations are destroying the rain forrests

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

You do realize that everyone else is treating this thread like a joke, no?

God I hope so. So glad the really angry liberals on this forum (you know who I'm talking about) haven't shown up here yet.

Andy is doing his best to throw a wet blanket on things though.

It's Christmas time. Have a discussion and have fun. Laugh a little.

Quote

It's intellectually dishonest, or wildly ignorant, to think that their level of modeling is remotely near pirates versus carbon dioxide. It's very easily demonstrated that adding CO2 to a closed system results in a temperature increase. This is not correlation, this is causation. The world has more variables - more C02 can mean more cloud cover and rain, which could ameliorate the change. Still, there's not much question that there has been some increase in temperature in the past century. There's more honest debate on the significance and quantity of the change.

As stated earlier, you can recreate a lot of stuff in a fish bowl, but what happens when you add in all the other factors? Electrical storms, jet steams, solar flares, the cycle of the oceans (they are on a 33 year cycle).

Quote

Which leads to the second answer - that this would happen anyway as we're exiting an ice age from a few hundred years back, or the major one 10000 years ago. Which starts to collide a bit with the first argument.

Which is another point. If there were no humans on earth, what change would be going on right now? While we do have an effect on the CO2 level, how much? And what is the actual amount of change these green house gasses are having, after you factor in all the other stuff I already mentioned? Some scientists say the oceans temperatures have the greatest effect on climate.

Right now it's all speculation and theory Which way that speculation leans depends on who's funding the project. I would just like to see more than that.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,991]

>If there were no humans on earth, what change would be going on right now?

It would be very safe to say that we'd have much less CO2 in the air. And it's also pretty safe to say that the total greenhouse effect would be reduced by about 2 watts/square meter, resulting in less heat retained.

As to what specific result that would have on weather - that's harder to say. It's almost certain that it would be cooler, although how much cooler and what other effects you'd see are harder to determine accurately.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>If there were no humans on earth, what change would be going on right now?

It would be very safe to say that we'd have much less CO2 in the air. And it's also pretty safe to say that the total greenhouse effect would be reduced by about 2 watts/square meter, resulting in less heat retained.

As to what specific result that would have on weather - that's harder to say. It's almost certain that it would be cooler, although how much cooler and what other effects you'd see are harder to determine accurately.

Once again, speculation on a mico-level. Not all results translate to a full scale model.

Fold a paper airplane out of a 8 1/2" x 11" piece of paper and throw it, then make a paper airplane the size of a 747 and throw it and tell me if you get the same results.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,991]

>Once again, speculation on a mico-level.

Did you mean "micro level?" CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (which covers the planet) isn't a micro phenomenon, nor is the greenhouse effect. Both work on a planetary scale.

However, local weather is a micro effect. Thus a cooler planet overall might mean warmer temperatures in some locations (and vice versa.)

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

But at the same time, I'm trying to make a point.

"Trying" being the operative word.

Quote

Also, I think this is just plain funny.

"Think" being the operative word.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>If there were no humans on earth, what change would be going on right now?

It would be very safe to say that we'd have much less CO2 in the air. And it's also pretty safe to say that the total greenhouse effect would be reduced by about 2 watts/square meter, resulting in less heat retained.

As to what specific result that would have on weather - that's harder to say. It's almost certain that it would be cooler, although how much cooler and what other effects you'd see are harder to determine accurately.

If there was no people no one would put out forest fires causing a huge increase in emissions and particles in the air causing global cooling then it would switch to global warming when the particles feel to earth and the co2 took over. or is it the path the earth takes around the sun that affects our climate during warming and cooling cycles? The earth has had many cycles without man's influence and will continue to have cycles with us here. we would be fools th think we can change the natural cycle of the planet.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If there was no people no one would put out forest fires causing a huge increase in emissions and particles in the air causing global cooling then it would switch to global warming when the particles feel to earth and the co2 took over. or is it the path the earth takes around the sun that affects our climate during warming and cooling cycles? The earth has had many cycles without man's influence and will continue to have cycles with us here. we would be fools th think we can change the natural cycle of the planet.

If there were no people around, forest fires would occur more frequently but on a smaller scale. And without us draining the water level underground and the rivers above, these trees wouldn't be as dry.

Volcanoes would likely be the greatest source of particulate matter in the atmosphere.

[billvon 2,991]

>If there was no people no one would put out forest fires . . .

. . . and no one would start forest fires or burn coal or oil. Thus there would be a big decrease in emissions, especially CO2.

>we would be fools th think we can change the natural cycle of the planet.

Didn't you just claim that having no people to put out forest fires would cause a "huge increase in emissions and particles in the air causing global cooling?"

Your posts become less effective when you contradict yourself by the end of them.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>If there was no people no one would put out forest fires . . .

. . . and no one would start forest fires or burn coal or oil. Thus there would be a big decrease in emissions, especially CO2.

>we would be fools th think we can change the natural cycle of the planet.

Didn't you just claim that having no people to put out forest fires would cause a "huge increase in emissions and particles in the air causing global cooling?"

Your posts become less effective when you contradict yourself by the end of them.

go back a reread I did not contradict myself

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>If there was no people no one would put out forest fires . . .

. . . and no one would start forest fires or burn coal or oil. Thus there would be a big decrease in emissions, especially CO2.
[/reply

The fires aren't going away. A significant number are caused by lightning strikes.

• Quote

[billvon 2,991]

>The fires aren't going away. A significant number are caused by lightning strikes.

Of course. There have always been forest fires.