| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Answer for Tim | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 21 2012, 02:58 AM (568 Views) | |
| Tim from AL | Feb 22 2012, 12:44 AM Post #11 |
Gold Star Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OK. I get it, so don't get me wrong. Maybe you can explain this also. Our atmosphere doesn't actually stay here within the bubble 100%. The earth has a leak, as would any planet with an atmosphere, as it cannot completely be contained due to the fact that it isn't a sealed system. Scientists are up in arms about just how much we actually lose into space every day and every year. I tried to find the article about this, but can't just yet but i'll keep looking. So, if we lose, from what I read, virtually TONS of our atmosphere all the time, some say thousands, some say millions, some say billions, some even say trillions, then wouldn't we lost some of this waste and some of the CO2 itself we produce into space, thus lowering how much we actually keep on hand? In other words, aren't we actually losing a lot of what we are polluting into the air, thus keeping things in a lower amount than possibly is being taken into account? And, if this is true, then shouldn't they be trying to figure out how to make the pollutants more lighter so that they would rise and escape, thus reducing our contained amounts overall? |
![]() |
|
| Tim from AL | Feb 22 2012, 12:56 AM Post #12 |
Gold Star Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
LINK Here's an article I found, but it doesn't say it was that much as the first one I read and cannot find. That, in itself, could be why I cannot find this article, as it's been debunked...lol An exurb from it is...
Edited by Tim from AL, Feb 22 2012, 12:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Feb 22 2012, 12:56 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tim, you're right, the Earth loses thousands of tons of various parts of the atmosphere every year. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, most of what is lost is the very lightest components. CO2 and other pollutants are all relatively heavy. Actually, far more of our atmosphere is chemically bound to soils, etc, and is lost down, not up. But regardless, compared to the Billions of Tons of Carbon we pour into the atmosphere, it's a drop in the bucket. In fact, it may be making things slightly worse, losing the good stuff and increasing the percentage of CO2 even further. Edited by Brewster, Feb 22 2012, 12:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tim from AL | Feb 22 2012, 12:58 AM Post #14 |
Gold Star Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This alone makes me wonder if, not matter what we do, we're doomed in the long run, either doing it ourselves, or it happening under a normal evolutionary process. |
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Feb 22 2012, 01:11 AM Post #15 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Isn't that kind of like saying, I'm going to die anyway, so I might as well jump off a building? |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Feb 22 2012, 01:38 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've said this before - I'm very much against suicide - personal or species wide. I will fight tooth and nail to prevent that. Tim, your idea strikes me as just one more rationalization to avoid doing what's necessary. |
![]() |
|
| Tim from AL | Feb 22 2012, 03:04 AM Post #17 |
Gold Star Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, don't get me wrong, i'm not questioning the fact, i'm asking if, maybe, there is another factor or so included that is being overlooked, or that might need to be looked into further. I'm wanting to know if there is more than just man doing this. It could, also, be environment and many other factors CONTRIBUTING to it all. And, same thing with factors that may decrease what they are thinking that aren't taken into consideration, like the leaking atmosphere question. I'm just trying to get the entire picture, without the possibility that it's a one sided argument that doesn't have other facts that is intentionally being overlooked for political or personal reasons. Not from you, but your TAKE on it and any help with any facts you can find. I'm reading a lot of information, but I get 2 sides to every argument FOR Global warming and AGAINST it that i'm trying to wade thru to get the real, big picture. You've helped a lot, and your insight is helping me put the picture together of the puzzle i've wanted to look at and learn about. |
![]() |
|
| Tim from AL | Feb 22 2012, 03:06 AM Post #18 |
Gold Star Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, not in this case. I'm wondering if there are other factors that aren't being considered in the accounts of everyone FOR or AGAINST the arguments of Global Warming. And, it's those factors i'm asking about to learn more about. You cannot learn to drive without, also, learning to have a wreck. Think about it...lol |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Feb 22 2012, 03:28 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tim, if you're sorting through the counterclaims on the Internet, I can understand the problem. As I have stated elsewhere, I have been studying the issue for about a decade. In the first few years I was constantly amazed at the numbers of articles that came out completely opposed to the general concensus. Could they ALL be wrong? But after a while, if you really dig into it, you'll find that the vast majority of the articles against AGW all come from a very small group of sources, and are echoed throughout the rest of the denialist websites. Most damning of all, many of those websites gather their "information" indiscriminately, even when two articles side by side contradict each other - for instance, most of them have no problem saying: in the first article that there's no warming, then in the second that the warming is due to undersea volcanoes, then another says that it's the Sun that causing the warming, and the fact that all the planets are warming proves it, and then finishing up with an article saying that we're heading into an ice age! All on one page! I could give you a list of pages and people with good info, and another showing the websites and individuals that lie consistently, but I think you want to sort it out yourself. But I'll give you one point to ponder, and one site to use as a base reference: The point - I know that you're concerned that sources of heat, recent or future, are being overlooked, but think of this: Is it reasonable to expect that 20,000 Climatologists, many very intelligent men and women with PhD's, all with different backgrounds, specialties and political beliefs, would study the problem for over a century now, and not think to check all possibilities? The Site: Skeptical Science is a website that gathers all the scientific results from around the world, and tries to present them in a readable form. It also lists all the normal contrary arguments, and discusses them in detail. Good Luck! Edited by Brewster, Feb 22 2012, 04:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tim from AL | Feb 22 2012, 04:33 AM Post #20 |
Gold Star Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks. I'll look at the site. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




10:17 PM Jul 11
