Global warming. Believe? What do you think?
2017. The 8th of may. On the street it is snowing. No rain, but it is snow.Left among you, even those who do not believe in global warming? Because I remember from year to year, about 20 years ago, at the beginning of each Mar have all bloomed and the bees were flying.
PS the forum has a topic about global warming, but it's troltim with a completely different subject of discussion.
P. P. S. let me Remind you that global warming works both ways - leads to warming and to cooling. Importantly, it disrupts the climate. Theoretically, such an abrupt change in climate can lead to terrible disasters in the future.
unforgettable878
Let's just say I now try to argue you something quite difficult.
Just advise you to examine in detail at leisure, the work of scientists who actually do. Both ours and foreign.
However, we advise you to ignore pseudostate on obscure websites without attribution and links. It is best to look at serious sites: researchgate, sciencedirect, and the like.
There you can see that even foreign researchers quite a accept the Milankovitch theory. Or nominate your own. And they are usually not tied to anthropogenic influence.
OkGo
Thanks for the tip, but like I said, theory can be different, but the arguments of the representatives of a common world community's position on the influence of anthropogenic factor on the climate that led to the ratification of the largest countries of the Kyoto Protocol, along with visible climatic changes, in my opinion, more convincing. By and large, humanity has a choice, there are two ways to reduce the amount of harmful emissions or to reduce. In the case that it will go for the second option, and your theory appears to be incorrect, it will lead to disastrous consequences, in the case of the first option, whatever the outcome, nothing but positive consequences in the development of technologies for producing solar energy will not happen. To play with fire such a situation, jeopardizing what was created on Earth billions of years think extremely lightly.
unforgettable878
Sorry, to much discussion in text format uncomfortable.
But the fact that man can change the climate so that we will observe global warming is questionable. Very.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, I can say that it's just paper. The United States and China account for more than 40 % of all carbon dioxide emissions in the world. So the special obligations they have no.
The only reason that sooner or later there will be a reduction of CO2 emissions, when all countries will start to change your energy balance in the development of new technologies, and accordingly the change in the economic use of various fuels. But it seems that this time we have not establish, or take the beginning, if we live long enough.
OkGo wrote:
Under the Kyoto Protocol, I can say that it's just paper. The United States and China account for more than 40 % of all carbon dioxide emissions in the world. So the special obligations they have no.
Yes, the Kyoto Protocol, unfortunately, is more declarative, and the UN has already acknowledged that the measures they provided insufficient. However, the very fact of its adoption is already talking about the recognition of the role of anthropogenic factor in climate change. Given the fact that to admit it unprofitable countries - perhaps the signing of the Kyoto Protocol took place without proper consideration. You know, when I see the melting of the Greenland ice, which is thousands of years this means that all these thousands of years they were intact and suddenly now it started to melt. They started to melt 500 years ago or 300 years ago, and began to melt it in the period of increasing CO2 emissions on the part of the people. Sorry, but in such coincidence I don't believe, though do not possess any extensive knowledge on this issue.
OkGo wrote:
The only reason that sooner or later there will be a reduction of CO2 emissions, when all countries will start to change your energy balance in the development of new technologies, and accordingly the change in the economic use of various fuels.
I agree with that. Unfortunately, the level of people's consciousness right now is that even being confident in the destruction of the planet by anthropogenic reasons, in a hundred years - is still globally will change nothing. Therefore a great hope for the technological boom in the field of obtaining energy from alternative sources and promote electric cars. The benefit of cheap oil ends, because driving on gasoline will pretty soon become very expensive.
rambling wrote:
The 8th of may. On the street it is snowing
Global warming does not mean that a particular day should be warm. Global warming is calculated from the average temperature of the planet. Of course, global climate change on Earth has always been, and until human evolution. On climate change could impact, e.g., falling asteroids, volcanic eruptions.
People, undoubtedly, influences the climate, especially in the age of technological revolution, when he thoughtlessly pollutes the planet and emits greenhouse gases of anthropogenic origin (e.g., fuel combustion).
Humanity has no future, while it will not change your attitude towards yourself and the environment!!
You need to remember that keeping the nature clean for themselves, we keep it clean for future generations.
unforgettable878 wrote:
the popularization of electric vehicles
Environmental friendliness of electric vehicles is a controversial issue. After all, the electricity for charging the batteries of a car is often obtained via heat dissipation from the combustion of coal or the nuclear reaction of radioactive fuel, with the consequent disposal of spent radioactive waste. This is not in favor of environmentally friendly electric vehicles. That is, the electric cars are not environmentally friendly. Eco-friendly can be a way of electricity production, for example, using hydro-, wind-, and light - sources, and other waste production.
Although, to be correct, any technological human actions pollute the nature. Remains open only the question minimizatio harm to the natural and cultural resource consumption.
yariko.v wrote:
Environmental friendliness of electric vehicles is a controversial issue.
Of course we mean the use of electric vehicles coupled with energy from alternative sources.
unforgettable878 wrote:
You know, when I see the melting of the Greenland ice, which is thousands of years this means that all these thousands of years they were intact and suddenly now it started to melt. They started to melt 500 years ago or 300 years ago, and began to melt it in the period of increasing CO2 emissions on the part of the people.
You see, even here it is possible from a scientific point of view to break your arguments.
As such the Greenland ice sheet was formed millions of years ago. And there were periods it disastrous contractions, much stronger than it is now. Up to almost complete disappearance. Then everything came back. Naturally, to talk about any anthropogenic influence in this case is impossible.
The boundaries of glaciation, which we observe now were formed, most likely in the late Pleistocene. And if a couple of thousand years the ice cap will disappear, it does not mean that in the future again he is not covered with a thick layer of ice.
unforgettable878
Unfortunately, alternative energy sources are very often constrained by geographic or economic reasons. And sometimes ignoring the opportunity of harm by an alternative source of energy. An example is the biofuel.
yariko.v
Meanwhile, nuclear energy is one of the most environmentally friendly energy sources on a large scale.
Not all can provide, unfortunately, using:
yariko.v wrote:
hydro-, wind-, and light - sources, and other waste production.
Therefore, it remains to wait and hope that in a few decades physics to cope with nuclear fusion.
On warming need energy. Thought clouds and warm air will suit the greenhouse effect. Mistaken means. A few days ago I was freezing and couldn't because of this sleep, though I live on the Yuga.
Don't know what thinks the Russian government, so here is just wasting resources. About the future would think, but not about your thirst for power and Bank accounts.
Masha wrote:
About the future would think, but not about your thirst for power and Bank accounts.
That's right, they think about the benefits under the scheme right now. It would be good to expel them from their homes and forced to work, how does the common people (the average resident of the poorest of the population)...
Gauguin
And the opposite is true, it is actually there
It is. Average temperature increases over the last 100 years.
Dick knows what's happening, but the climate has changed. The elderly generally in Acher.
Dumpling goodness
Sucks that he's not just changed, and continues to change. And what will happen next, it seems, no one can say.
ToxaF1
CAN! Writers of fiction have given humanity many possible scenarios! But, which path humanity depends on us in the present. As you know
Small step for man giant leap for mankind!
Remember the Popov who made the small step that created radio and changed our life. If everyone respects the nature will come to pass just thank you - no nuclear winters, toxic water and poisoned atmosphere, etc ..
yariko.v
However, more and more things trying to make hydrocarbons and other difficult recyclable materials.
But purely for reflection; paper (once very popular material for packaging) had obvious damage to the environment in the form of pulp mills and cutting down trees, this is quite simple decaying and nearly untraceable. At the present time polyethylene is used (and its variants) also has factories for its production (but less polluting) and not affected trees (although one figure is cut down massively) and a huge number of poorly degradable material, polluting for decades.
Global warming is a myth. The land is now in the beginning of the 30-year cycle of the little ice age. During the cold weather will be in 20 years, hence the abnormal cold