jimmydanger wrote:The solution to pollution (sorry) is simple but presently expensive: collect it and send it into the sun. Of course we're only talking about nuclear waste and other super poisons; burning fossil fuels will continue to escalate atmospheric pollution until they are used up.
Sorry to keep picking your posts to reply to Jimmy - nothing personal, I just find things in your posts that interest me. In this case, there is a new theory out there that says the theory of fossil fuels (dinosaurs & plants = oil) is false. New (see how new facts present themselves to debunk old ones?) facts surface that oil is the result of "abiotic" processes.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/45838/If so, then fossil fuels will not expire - they self-replenish. The question is, can we use it up faster than the earth can replenish it? I doubt it. We may have local outtages - we suck it out of a well til its empty, but that's a local incident - and if it replenishes, then you can go back to that well at a later time. In the meantime, there's the rest of the world to explore.
As far as pollution is concerned - volcanoes and natural earth fires (underground coal fires & forest fires) produce massive pollutants into the air on a day to day basis.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... no01m.html.
and this excerpt from another site:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-causes-air-pollution.htm wrote:"Indonesia’s Mount Tambora in 1815 sent such a huge amount of noxious gases and particulate matter into the atmosphere, that much solar energy was effectively blocked from reaching the earth’s surface. As a result, widespread famines were suffered worldwide in 1816. Brown and red snows were also seen in Europe, due to the presence of volcanic ash in the atmosphere. A killing frost in July of 1816 also led to massive crop failures in the northeastern United States, leading to colloquial references to 1816 as “The Year Without a Summer,” and “Eighteen Hundred And Froze To Death.”
Do we contribute? Yep! But compared to volcanoes and natural fires? Minuscule IMO. The opening paragraph of this 2001 article :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 234907.htm
shows that Spending an hour behind a roaring lawn mower can spew nearly the same amount of oily pollution into the air as a 100-mile car trip, according to a Swedish study.
Lower emissions = better MPG which is in demand by the consumer, so car makers wanting to fill demand, produce more efficient (less polluting cars). While population increases, individual pollutant contribution decreases. If you were to localize pollution then you'd have a problem, but the air to pollution ratio is minuscule contribution-wise to the effects of natural sources.
No, I don't advocate pollution - I advocate being responsible enough to clean up after yourself and not spew waste into the air frivolously, but at the same time, I don't associate our weather patterns to human activity. I'ts more likely the cause of solar activity - we are situated pretty close to a huge ball of fire in the sky that often spews solar flares and pulsates as all good stars in the solar system do.
I would also like to add that the global temperature monitoring stations are under serious scrutiny. I've posted this before, but I'll do it again. Over time, the weather stations responsible for monitoring temperature have fallen out of repair, or cities and structures have grown up around them which affect the temperature readings. You can learn more about this here:
http://www.surfacestations.org/about.htm
In short, you can't tell if your kid has a fever if the thermometer is broken.
