Global Warming paper
- Thread starter ranger
- Start date
accualyisdolan
Active member
Inb4 shitstorm
feihlination
Active member
yeah simply write that.
or go looking for some scientific data that right now shows that there is a manmade effect on however you wanna call it.
or go looking for some scientific data that right now shows that there is a manmade effect on however you wanna call it.
Dragonite.
Active member
Don't cheat, write that shit yourself. It's an issue you should be concerned with.
howlongcanausern
Active member
>implying a few million years ago there wasn't 20x as much co2 in the atmosphere, yup life still here
>implying ~10,000 years ago most of north america was covered with a layer of ice a mile thick
>implying climate on earth has ever been static
>implying anybody in the west/developing nations actually gives a shit about climate change besides a few butthurt liberals
seriously OP google that shit and re-word it, thousands of MLA paper out there
>implying ~10,000 years ago most of north america was covered with a layer of ice a mile thick
>implying climate on earth has ever been static
>implying anybody in the west/developing nations actually gives a shit about climate change besides a few butthurt liberals
seriously OP google that shit and re-word it, thousands of MLA paper out there
Charlie_Kelly
Active member
>implying that all the greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere have no effect on the amount of heat that is reflected back to earth
128368798788
New member
Without proper compensation I do not believe it is condusive that I simply cede over my 6 page paper that took me hours to research and write.
Do the research scrub
Do the research scrub
Hammyslapwagon
Active member
> implying ITT we talk like we're on 4chan
iSmokeweed
Active member
shut up.
yo OP bump.
yo OP bump.
panojibber.
Active member
>Implying that water vapour is not overwhelmingly the most common and potent greenhouse gas. Where does that shit come from? Oh yeah, the fucking ocean.
Randy_Quench
Active member
easybib.com - thank me later.
it could legit take you 5 minutes to put together a dank lookin work cited if you quit being a jagaloon and actually put your mind to it.
it could legit take you 5 minutes to put together a dank lookin work cited if you quit being a jagaloon and actually put your mind to it.
JakeAssBeatClap
Active member
Global warming isn't real, it's called the theory of rapid climate change now. You just failed your paper.
Darth.Maul
Active member
>implying that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere when in reality it is water vapor
Randy_Quench
Active member
"create a better world for nothing"
why is creating a better world a bad thing? god forbid we do something for "nothing." greedy motherfuckers.
why is creating a better world a bad thing? god forbid we do something for "nothing." greedy motherfuckers.
howlongcanausern
Active member
yeah, pretty much. it's amazing how much resistance there is to 'green' energy from environmental groups. want to build a dam? nope destroys fish habitat. build wind farm? nope, destroys migratory bird habitat. solar panel complex? nope, destroy shrub habitat.
ThaLorax
Active member
Not going to get into a debate on this, so I'll just leave a few of my quick thoughts here.
Two ice ages and the medieval warming period aside, our climate has been very temperate the past 10,000 years, which has allowed man to prosper. We are still coming out of that ice age, so of course there are going to be patterns of warming. We are just now beginning to understand climate mechanisms and cycles, so I don't like to put all of my cards in one hand because a group of political and industry sponsored scientists tell me so. However, it's impossible to deny that things are changing. How they are changing and what is causing it is in debate. Climate is always changing and always will. All life on Earth would die if the climate stopped changing. You want to stop CO2 concentrations from rising? Then stop talking about useless cap and trade banter and work to stop clear cutting our rainforests, polluting our oceans (a huge carbon sink), and degrading our soils (another huge carbon sink). Yes, carbon is released by us Humans into the atmosphere, but carbon is heavier than the air it travels through, and thus sinks to the ground (eventually), where trees and photoplankton absorb it and create oxygen. It's called the carbon CYCLE for a reason. That said, cutting down on emissions of any type is always a good thing. Warming, changing or not, we should be doing our best to eliminate all emissions, not just carbon. Basically, I think the issue gets way too simplified and sensationalized and many variants get over looked such as the island heat effect, variations in ground v.s satelite vs. tree ring vs. ice core vs. sedement data, the differences between tree and plankton loss to CO2 concentration, cloud seeding, and many other variable which complicate the mainstream view on climate change.
I'll oversimplify by using pictures since most of you don't like to read:
These ones look a bit different than the popular hockey stick model eh?
To sum things up, do your own research and form your own opinions.
Two ice ages and the medieval warming period aside, our climate has been very temperate the past 10,000 years, which has allowed man to prosper. We are still coming out of that ice age, so of course there are going to be patterns of warming. We are just now beginning to understand climate mechanisms and cycles, so I don't like to put all of my cards in one hand because a group of political and industry sponsored scientists tell me so. However, it's impossible to deny that things are changing. How they are changing and what is causing it is in debate. Climate is always changing and always will. All life on Earth would die if the climate stopped changing. You want to stop CO2 concentrations from rising? Then stop talking about useless cap and trade banter and work to stop clear cutting our rainforests, polluting our oceans (a huge carbon sink), and degrading our soils (another huge carbon sink). Yes, carbon is released by us Humans into the atmosphere, but carbon is heavier than the air it travels through, and thus sinks to the ground (eventually), where trees and photoplankton absorb it and create oxygen. It's called the carbon CYCLE for a reason. That said, cutting down on emissions of any type is always a good thing. Warming, changing or not, we should be doing our best to eliminate all emissions, not just carbon. Basically, I think the issue gets way too simplified and sensationalized and many variants get over looked such as the island heat effect, variations in ground v.s satelite vs. tree ring vs. ice core vs. sedement data, the differences between tree and plankton loss to CO2 concentration, cloud seeding, and many other variable which complicate the mainstream view on climate change.
I'll oversimplify by using pictures since most of you don't like to read:
These ones look a bit different than the popular hockey stick model eh?
To sum things up, do your own research and form your own opinions.
ThaLorax
Active member
Because there are better ways to do it. Instead of outdated technology andbuilding giant dams, we should have micro plants that don't affect habitats as much. Instead of using huge wind turbines that are modeled after mills, create ones that use a double helix design. Instead of building large solar panel complexes that cover large tracks of land, create subsidies and incentives so that individual houses can put it on their houses and reduce thier impact on the energy grid. The biggest change is going to have to be a bottom up effect, where individuals work together as local communities to do work son.
accualyisdolan
Active member
Holy twelvetuple diagram batmen...
feihlination
Active member
lets just say that no matter what is going on, how about everyone is for reducing our footprint until we rely only on sustainable energy/food sources?
panojibber.
Active member
No. The earth is only here for us to rape and pillage it of its precious minerals and resources, discard, and move onto another one.
feihlination
Active member
a lot of people think that way. even though youre just trolling
klayer_9
Active member
Dude you are out of your element. Have you ever done any research or taken a course on any of this stuff?
Hydro dams are not just bad because they destroy fish habitats. The southwest dam systems will only be a viable energy source until they silt up. Then all thats left are miles and miles of silted muddy lake bed that was once a thriving ecosystem. Look what is happening to Lake Powell, it is drying up. Also lower snow pack means that a lot of the dams like Glenn Canyon, Mead, and Hoover, will not be able to generate power because there won't be enough water in their reservoirs.
Wind farms kill less birds than feral cats per year, so I don't know who told you that was an issue but they were wrong.
Solar is going to be extremely important in the next few decades. Large solar "complex" or huge power installations are not the most effiect. Urban areas have thousands and thousands of sq feet of roof tops that could easily power the buildings they are on and put more back into the grid. Plus photovoltaic and battery life is exploindg. In a few more years it will be 4 times as efficient as it is today.
Environmental groups resist things that are going to create more problems then they solve. I don't see how you could have a problem with that unless you are just holding on to your own personal biases.
Hydro dams are not just bad because they destroy fish habitats. The southwest dam systems will only be a viable energy source until they silt up. Then all thats left are miles and miles of silted muddy lake bed that was once a thriving ecosystem. Look what is happening to Lake Powell, it is drying up. Also lower snow pack means that a lot of the dams like Glenn Canyon, Mead, and Hoover, will not be able to generate power because there won't be enough water in their reservoirs.
Wind farms kill less birds than feral cats per year, so I don't know who told you that was an issue but they were wrong.
Solar is going to be extremely important in the next few decades. Large solar "complex" or huge power installations are not the most effiect. Urban areas have thousands and thousands of sq feet of roof tops that could easily power the buildings they are on and put more back into the grid. Plus photovoltaic and battery life is exploindg. In a few more years it will be 4 times as efficient as it is today.
Environmental groups resist things that are going to create more problems then they solve. I don't see how you could have a problem with that unless you are just holding on to your own personal biases.
Wallisch_pl
Active member
I don't know why but I lost it when you added this, wat
volvotom
Active member
Linzden, Richard.
"Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously". Energy and
Environment 2007:
937-950.
-----is a good start.
Also, go to the IPCC website, they literally have hundreds of thousands of pages of peer-reviewed research.
Additionally, JSTOR or academic search complete will yield easy results.
"Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously". Energy and
Environment 2007:
937-950.
-----is a good start.
Also, go to the IPCC website, they literally have hundreds of thousands of pages of peer-reviewed research.
Additionally, JSTOR or academic search complete will yield easy results.
Darth.Maul
Active member
Solar and Wind power can't be relied on as of right now and the solar do have isn't doing nearly as much as people think it is. Until technological advances in photovoltaic technology can be had and mass energy storage can be formulated, solar and wind have no hope for our future.
klayer_9
Active member
Harvard disagrees with you. aka you're doing it wrong.
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-07/more-windpower-previously-thought
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-07/more-windpower-previously-thought
Darth.Maul
Active member
9th grade huh?
Darth.Maul
Active member
way to quote me way out of fucking context. I said they have no hope in our future until they are made more efficient and we find a way to store the power. As of right now, they aren't doing jack shit towards helping us become environmentally friendly because the power output is so inconsistent.
ThaLorax
Active member
And to diglett, you have some truth in what you say, but there have been major advances in storage capacities/facilities as well as the efficiency/consistency of solar power output. Same goes for solar. I was at a convention a few months ago where some of the top engineers and businessman (woman, actually) behind the future of the energy grid and energy storage spoke about the technology, what needs to happen to implement it, and how possible it is to make happen in the very near future. Let me tell you, the future looks good if people will only be open to a little change, and I'm not talking the climate type.......
Also paige isn't wrong, it's about time for another ice age. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the climate if and when the polar shift happens that we are supposedly due for as well. That said, San Francisco is about due for another massive earthquake but just as the two things i just mentioned, it could happen tonight, or it could happen in a thousand years. Science is fun eh?
paige.
Active member
It was pretty impressive and scientifically sound. I had three tubs of water with different amounts of white foam in them, then measured temperature. That said the idea was cool.
And lorax - I know a couple years ago the primary issue was with the sustainability of the various materials used to construct the solar panels. Lots of limited metals and stuff. Do you know if that's still the case/what's been done to work around that?
And lorax - I know a couple years ago the primary issue was with the sustainability of the various materials used to construct the solar panels. Lots of limited metals and stuff. Do you know if that's still the case/what's been done to work around that?
Darth.Maul
Active member
I did and it was interesting. I was just pointing out how you quoted me out of context and didn't take into consideration what i said in the first place. The thing about putting wind turbines in the ocean is that it will cost billlions if not 10's of billions of dollars to install everything for those wind turbines and the maintenance would be ridiculous.
Ahmadinejad
Member
Yep I agree. It would cost billions. Coal gets 72 billion in tax subsides a year though, and without it the extraction process would too expensive.
No energy sector has ever been successful with out government subsides. So it's not unfeasible that governments could start subsidizing wind and solar, instead of coal and natural gas.
No energy sector has ever been successful with out government subsides. So it's not unfeasible that governments could start subsidizing wind and solar, instead of coal and natural gas.