i know it may be hard to see it, but entertaining the conversation at all IS cutting you slack. This is how it works. 1. You create the undersea volcano. 2. You use the windsock to directly distribute the steam to the upper atmosphere. 3. That steam then in some part is hit by cosmic rays and turns into 03. 4. Thus, we replace ozone. 5. Thus, global cooling. 6. Thus polar ice caps grow. 7. Thus sea level drops.
am i missing that this is only a joke? It seems half serious? You folks do realize that if every human on earth was inflated to the size of a school bus with water, the net effect would be less than one percent of one percent of the water being displaced? ?? Sorry if i'm just being too square.
Ozone is a greenhouse gas, but not an important one. Ozone is much more important for blocking UV radiation, not for its greenhouse effect.
no, ozone is not a greenhouse gas at least not in the upper atmosphere; its what cools the atmosphere, and it is why we are having global warming- ie depletion of ozone due to assorted petrochemicals which are bonding with it. www.YouthNoise.com Join the Global Warming debate! Share your opinion with other YouthSearch Results Global Warming and Ozone Depletion Ozone Depletion and Global Warming: Minimize emissions of ozone depleting (ODP) and direct global warming (GWP) refrigerants used by your organization. www.ess-home.com/news/global-warming/ozone-depletion.asp - 29k - Cached - Similar pages NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story Are Ozone Holes related to Global Warming or the Greenhouse Effect? ... The formation of ozone holes is related to global warming and the greenhouse effect ... www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages Two Evils Compete: Global Warming vs. Ozone Hole | LiveScience Apr 24, 2008 ... Continuous sulfur injections would deplete polar ozone, delay ozone hole recovery. www.livescience.com/environment/080424-sulfur-ozone-hole.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages Ozone and global warming : Nature Aug 16, 2007 ... This indirect effect could contribute more to global warming than the direct effect of ozone as a greenhouse gas. ... www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7155/edsumm/e070816-12.html - Similar pages by S Sitch - Related articles - All 2 versions Stratospheric Injections To Counter Global Warming Could Damage ... "This study highlights another connection between global warming and ozone depletion," says co-author Ross Salawitch of the University of Maryland. ... www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080424140407.htm - 54k - Cached - Similar pages CNN - Global warming may increase ozone hole - March 29, 1999 Despite international measures to reduce atmospheric concentrations of ozone destroying halogens to protect the ozone layer, global warming may lead to a ... www.cnn.com/NATURE/9903/29/global.warming.enn/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Global Warming Potentials of ODS Substitutes | Ozone Layer ... The global warming potential (GWP) represents how much a given mass of a chemical contributes to global warming over a given time period compared to the ... www.epa.gov/Ozone/geninfo/gwps.html - 25k - Cached - Similar pages Environment Theme Page: Air Pollution, Ozone, Global Warming The Teacher's Guide Environment Theme Page. We have lesson plans on recycling, air pollution, global warming, and ozone depletion along with internet ... www.theteachersguide.com/Environment.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages Environmental Science - Ozone This database contains experimental Global Warming Potentials (GWP) and Ozone depletion Potentials (ODP) compiled from the open literature. ... www.syrres.com/esc/ozone.asp - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Ozone Depletion & Global Warming The U.S. is spending billions of dollars each year to combat the effects of ozone depletion and global warming on human health and weather patterns. ... www.fpif.org/briefs/vol5/v5n08ozone_body.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages 12345678910Next Search within resul
I'm still not sure why a degree or two warmer is worse for us than the eight or ten degrees colder we can expect when the next ice age hits. Doesn't anyone worry what will happen when the current interglacial period ends? ---------------
"When the next ice age hits." A few hundred thousand years from now. Given that we are having gloabl warming, what makes you think we aren't pre-empting the ice age? You sense of scale and cause and effect are completely out of touch. There will be no ice age if we don't stop global warming, just to start. secondly, a degree or two warmer isn't such a big deal UNTIL YOU REALIZE THAT ALL THAT THAT IS IS PROOF THAT ITS GOING TO KEEP GETTING HOTTER AND HOTTER AT A GEOMETRICALLY INCREASING RATE. Absolute, incontrovertible proof that its going to keep climbing. The capacity for denial and sticking your head in the sand is amazing. We explain it to you, and you choose to keep up the make believe. That makes no sense. What is your vested interest in pretending ? Why are you denying the obvious and absolutely proven science fact, in obvious and total abject ignorance? Maybe you should quit digging in and being obstinate and actually take science fact as meaningfully true.... Don't you think?
I don't know that we're not, but if we are it's possibly a good thing, since I don't think much good will come from glaciers in Missouri. I'm just not quite prepared to believe that scientists know everything. If they did, then we'd have no more need for them. Do you think scientists are obsolete? ---------------
straw man arguement, and not a good reason to bother to answer you. Nobody has ever said that they know everything. Your can raise the bar as high as you want, but its just a silly evasion game, and i'm done playing nice or BS with you. Grow up. We do know for a fact that humans are causing global warming and we do know for a fact what the consequences will be. You have already determined in your own mind what the outcome of this "discussion" will be, and so anything anybody could say to you is a waste of time. The only good reason to continue to talk to you is to make that point firmly so that other people are not suckered into it. No, I think irrational denialism, republicanism, consumerism, oil, and arrogant insane arguments from ignorance are obsolete. What do you think you are going to trap me in your silly little double bind? Get real. Who do you think you are talking to anyways? Do you need a logic primer? Do you expect me to believe you have any integrity in this conversation after the assorted obvious propagandisict evasions and doublethink which you are displaying? Get real. Again; what is your vested interest? edit; http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=66964
okay. Has anybody thought to do the calculations on the volume they are talking about storing? "large" water containers? The size of a small continent? It would be cheaper and more effective to build a space bridge and pump the water into space, thereby doubling your problem solving process by adding ozone, and thus as previously stated, dealing with the problem the old fashioned way- by having ice caps.
I have no idea who I'm talking to, but it's obvious that you have no tolerance for any opinion other than your own. You are convinced that Man is destroying the Earth? Fine, but I'm not quite there yet. I do admit that it's possible, and that we've certainly been trying, but I also believe that climate change (both long and short term) are less well understood than you seem to, and that the outcome is less than certain. None. What is yours? ---------------
I have a new idea and it's so simple. My new idea is to dig artificial rivers and estuary's in unpopulated areas of Russia, or Canada for example or even countries of Africa or Australia, anywhere really. The artificial rivers and estuary's will be extremely wide and after they have been dug the flood gates so to speak will be opened and water from the oceans and seas will be allowed to flow along these artificial rivers and estuary's and thus lower sea level. Another benefit of this would be hydroelectric power, a river flowing all the way from western Australia to eastern Australia for example could be capped in the middle by a huge dam and could use the water to turn generators for power.
In digging out all that land, you'd expend more power than the hydro would generate back. In flooding all that land, you'd lose about the same amount as what you expose from the sea bottom. The only thing you'd accomplish is to mess up a lot of existing infrastructure and destroy a lot of wildlife.
It's not about generating power, that's just an addition to it, the whole idea is to prevent sea level rise, sea level rise that will kill millions of people and destroy the Netherlands. I don't quite get what you mean. Are you kidding, the new rivers and estuary's will be a new place for wildlife to thrive.
Maybe we do the smart thing... Take half of the Global Warming Doomsday Experts and turn them into City Planners and Land Use Managers. Then force them to make plans to move everyone from where they will be living in the Ocean in a hundred years. There are several islands in the Pacific thy could help out first.
Okay, but I'm just noting that your suggestion about generating power is not an advantage. I mean that you're merely displacing a large amount of water from one place to another. To lower sea level, you have to flood somewhere else. You don't gain any total land area, but you do lose a lot of existing land that has potential use... if it's not already in use. Hope there are no people there already! Maybe they can move to the Netherlands. After you destroy the wildlife that was already there. This is all right with you? Besides, what kind of new wildlife would thrive around a river full of salt water?
I said clearly the land would be unpopulated and although land will be lost (obviously) the sea level WILL drop because there will be more volume for the sea water to fill. The land you're digging out isn't going into the sea, it's getting piled up somewhere. I don't know where you're getting the idea that wildlife will be destroyed, we're only going to be creating an artificial river in the middle of nowhere. No wildlife will be disrupted, it's not as though they'll be getting built in the middle of a national park..
You're making a massive excavation that would realistically have to measure over 100,000 square miles, you're breaking up existing waterways and migration routes with a canal filled with salt water, and you don't expect to disturb any wildlife?
I'm talking about building these things all over the world in large numbers. There are no existing waterways and migration routes being destroyed. Individually they are nothing special or major.
Ah, I see. I mistook your original spec of "extremely wide" for "extremely large", and took that to mean there would only be a few of them. Well, personally I don't think it would gain all that much, but since my original objections no longer apply, I think I'll retire from this discussion. Carry on.