Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

Causes of Global Warming


Carbon Dioxide from Power Plants

Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars
About 33% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks (minivans, sport utility vehicles, pick-up trucks, and jeeps).US Emissions Inventory 2006 page 8 Vehicles with poor gas mileage contribute the most to global warming. For example, according to the E.P.A's 2000 Fuel Economy Guide, a new Dodge Durango sports utility vehicle (with a 5.9 liter engine) that gets 12 miles per gallon in the city will emit an estimated 800 pounds of carbon dioxide over a distance of 500 city miles. In other words for each gallon of gas a vehicle consumes, 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted into the air. [21] A new Honda Insight that gets 61 miles to the gallon will only emit about 161 pounds of carbon dioxide over the same distance of 500 city miles. Sports utility vehicles were built for rough terrain, off road driving in mountains and deserts. When they are used for city driving, they are so much overkill to the environment. If one has to have a large vehicle for their family, station wagons are an intelligent choice for city driving, especially since their price is about half that of a sports utility. Inasmuch as SUV's have a narrow wheel base in respect to their higher silhouette, they are four times as likely as cars to rollover in an accident.

The United States is the largest consumer of oil, using 20.4 million barrels per day. In his debate with former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, Senator Joseph Lieberman said, "If we can get 3 miles more per gallon from our cars, we'll save 1 million barrels of oil a day, which is exactly what the (Arctic National Wildlife) Refuge at its best in Alaska would produce."

If car manufacturers were to increase their fleets' average gas mileage about 3 miles per gallon, this country could save a million barrels of oil every day, while US drivers would save $25 billion in fuel costs annually.

Carbon Dioxide from Airplanes

Carbon Dioxide from Buildings

Methane
While carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, methane is second most important. According to the IPCC, Methane is more than 20 times as
effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. US Emissions Inventory 2004 Levels of atmospheric methane have risen 145% in the last 100 years. Methane is derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine flatulence, bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production. Most of the world’s rice, and all of the rice in the United States, is grown on flooded fields. When fields are flooded, anaerobic conditions develop and the organic matter in the soil decomposes, releasing CH4 to the atmosphere, primarily through the rice plants. US Emissions Inventory 2004
Water Vapor in the Atmosphere Increasing
Water vapor is the most prevalent and most poweful greenhouse gas on the planet, but its increasing presence is the result of warming caused by carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. (See NOAA's National Climate Data Center (NCDC) FAQ page) Water vapor holds onto two-thirds of the heat trapped by all the greenhouse gases.[129] As the Earth heats up relative humidity is able to increase, allowing the planet's atmosphere to hold more water vapor, causing even more warming, thus a positive feedback scenario. Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when its warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere, says the NCDC. There is much scientific uncertainty as to the degree this feedback loop causes increased warming, inasmuch as the water vapor also causes increased cloud formation, which in turn reflects heat back out into space.

Nitrous oxide
Another greenhouse gas is Nitrous oxide (N2O), a colourless, non-flammable gas with a sweetish odour, commonly known as "laughing gas", and sometimes used as an anaesthetic. Nitrous oxide is naturally produced by oceans and rainforests. Man-made sources of nitrous oxide include nylon and nitric acid production, the use of fertilisers in agriculture, cars with catalytic converters and the burning of organic matter. Nitrous oxide is broken down in the atmosphere by chemical reactions that involve sunlight.

Deforestation
After carbon emissions caused by humans, deforestation is the second principle cause of atmospheric carbn dioxide. (NASA Web Site) Deforestation is responsible for 20-25% of all carbon emissions entering the atmosphere, by the burning and cutting of about 34 million acres of trees each year. We are losing millions of acres of rainforests each year, the equivalent in area to the size of Italy. [22] The destroying of tropical forests alone is throwing hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. We are also losing temperate forests. The temperate forests of the world account for an absorption rate of 2 billion tons of carbon annually. [3] In the temperate forests of Siberia alone, the earth is losing 10 million acres per year.

City Gridlock
In an annual study by traffic engineers it was found that drivers in Los Angeles and New York City alone wasted 600 million gallons of gas annually while just sitting in traffic. The 600 million gallons of gas translates to about 7.5 million tons of carbon dioxide in just those two cities.

you should save the venom for Fred. He's the one that took a dump in the middle of the room then ran out as quick as possible.


Tell me how my ass smells

Dear flesh4fantasy:

While neither I nor my wife would argue that I am a complete "idiot", let me clarify my earlier post to help relieve you of your rage:

The following comment:

"I think it's worth noting that "recorded history" is, in this case, a whopping 5 1/2 years. That's right - the relevant data tracking from NASA-built satellites commenced in 2002."

referred directly to the article Arkansas Fred linked to, whose byline screamed something to the effect of "SCIENTISTS THINK THIS SUMMER, PARTS OF THE POLAR ICE CAPS WILL MELT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RECORDED HISTORY!!!!". Unlike the author and FB, I thought it was worth noting that 'recorded history' refers to the 5 years that NASA satellites have been collecting and forecasting temperature data on the specific areas which are believed to be comprised of "one year ice" that may melt soon.

Google it - you'll find an interesting breadth of language used to describe what's going on and FB-like perversions of the above in otherwise respectable publications. The Independent, for example, says that "for the first time in HUMAN history..." just completely sloppy.

My only point, gents, is that anyone with a strong opinion on this sounds to the critical listener like a 13-year old spouting his political allegiances. You'd do best to keep it to yourselves.

Dude.


You are WAY too serious.


You need- like... a girlfriend or something

I wish my wife would feel the effects of global warming.

She is as cold as a fkn iceberg and her bodily functions could reverse the effects of global warmning on a universial scale.

When she says, "I'm Hot" and isn't because of greenhouse gases.

F U C K M E

If you read my earlier post carefully you'd see I'm already married. I know that doesn't mean much to you colored dudes but that's not how I roll

olv 26
RE: Global Warming Pt.II
Reply
6/30/2008 8:45 PM

If you read my earlier post carefully you'd see I'm already married. I know that doesn't mean much to you colored dudes but that's not how I roll


Since you are married then Global Warming is the least of your problems.

Being married isn't so bad. My sense is that things go south for most couples when kids come into the picture.

Sounds like that's not true in your case 371? Didn't pick a winner, eh?

M E N O P A U S E.

A real fkn winner.

You sound like a young dude.

Enjoy it while it last.

Thank God I still have my memories.

PROBLEM SOLVED!!!









Now I just need to figure out where I'm gonna throw some D's on that fucker.

Who says "colored" anymore?

And another thing- "how you roll" is a not a phrase you are permitted to say-

That's for people who USED to be hip

Dino, unless I am missing some sarcasm, are really saying it is a fact that the planet has been warming for thousands of years because of human activities? That is only true if you believe Mann's hypothesis, which has way too many holes in it.

I believe it was section that posted data on CO2, methane, water vapor, etc. I appreciate the science and logical argument. Other than an increase in CO2, I am just having trouble getting past the rest. Methane has been produced naturally forever. The Everglades give off a tremendous amount of methane (much more than the entire State of Florida farting at the same time). Yet, the Everglades are protected. Wetlands produce methane, yet they are protected (side note - not arguing their protection, just the goose-stepping extent they are). I understand water will hold heat to a point, but 2/3 of the Earth is covered by water. Water vapor/humidity will occur no matter what.

Regarding NASA research, in 2007 NASA revisited their annual data for US temperatures since 1840. They made corrections which show there were error in the data. The top 3 hottest years, based on the old data were: 1998, 2006, and 1934. After the corrections, the hottest years were 1934, 1998, and 1921. Not exactly showing the warming trends being sensationalized.

For the record, I am not advocating building subdivisions in the Everglades.

....you are a GENIUS!



Make them Section 8 and we are halfway home to our dream of the Croc-filled Moats. Just gotta ship the few crocs from down near the Keys a bit up north and stop feeding the Gators.

Can I suggest the use of the Gaboon Viper?

Very effective and far more cost efficient than Crocs.



Just sayin'.

Slappy,

I merely reposted Flesh's quote to explain to him how folks could have "mis" read it.

You need to read his post above. So to answer your question, yes, you missed some sarcasm.

Big fan of the 'Boon but you have no shot of it being more cost effective.

Actually, if i may-

The cost of ONE 'boon viper is about half that of a Crocodile (note i didnt reference Aligators- which are like goldfish anymore,in accessibility).
The fact that the Croc is endangered also makes its handling highly illegal- so youve gotta factor in the cost of some new legislation etc.

Now, ist widely known that Crocs in captivity do not have high birth rates- the mating is a touchy thing and they dont yield the amounts of offspring that snakes do. I should state that Crocs dont have the successful birthrates to adulthood. (that grow to maturity- even without natural predators like birds etc that youd surely have in the "glads of death'/ New Wave Section 8"


To support the crocs - assuming they wont be regularly feeding on the inhabitants of "Hamsterdamn South" there's goin to be the need for a concerted wildlife management team to ensure plenty of natural prey are thriving in the area.
Fish and Game will have to up their manpower and sadly, toy with the idea of introduction of some new species or more than are currently in the mix down there.

Im thinking feral pigs but I'll revisit that at another time.

With the Vipers, their natural prey are the sortsa creatures that go wildly unchecked for the most part- rodentia, fowl etc.

No expenditure required or extra manpower from Fish and Game.

Not to mention- the Viper is the more humane option.
A bite will leave a nasty wound, perhaps 1 that never closes, who knows? But it wont KILL/EAT the resident.

I think even Sharpton would back the 'Boon V' after reading my position paper on the matter.

"Your peoples'" exploitation knows no bounds.

Global Warming, like many topics, has never had a serious debate and the science is far from settled. One of the problems is that too many things are being "caused by Global Warming."

Link

By over-playing the hand, the advocates of man-made GW have done what social activists in the 80s did with AIDs. They tried to scare the population so badly that 1) they tuned out and 2) when the predictions came back the opposite, they lost credibility. They need to ratchet down the rhetoric, respect the opinions of those that find reason to be skeptical, and admit when parts of the theory prove wrong (i.e. "hockey stick").

I think Global Warming needs a better spokesman that Gore. He's not a scientist and would get smoked in a sciency debate on the topic. The guy couldn't even beat W in a debate and that takes some talent.

Al Gore has pretty much steamrolled the entire world on thsi topic, so I guess he did his job pretty well.

I mean, they gave him the Nobel prize for cripes sake. Not exactly a fireable offense.

F-D is to Al Gore and the Global Warming Debate what a hybrid of Dave Spadaro and Shoulder Pad Shawn (Seth's boy) would be to the Eagles organization.

In all fairness FD, Gore won the Nobel Prize for peace, not science.

What happened to flesh in this thread? He kinda split after slapshot came on

1 2 3  4 5 6