TED Conversations

Haley Florio

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Do you really think global warming is a huge problem on Earth? (Or even real?)

In my opinion, I don't. Last winter (In New York) was the coldest winter on record. The earth is getting hotter because that is mother nature's way, but I would like to know your opinions.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 2 2012: There is no Global warming generated by human influence and man-made Carbon Dioxide. The whole theory is just a spam. Al Gore got the Nobel Price only because he could sell the theory supported by investors (recently the investors can buy and sell the clean air related commodities) Governments – they can add tax on air components as well. I did a calculation as scientist and only 3” of rain can absorb all the human made Carbon dioxide. The average rain is over 30” /year. Also the ethanol fuel is generating 1.7 times more Carbon dioxide as the regular hydro carbon fuel. The Government and pseudo scientist do not let me to publish my explanation, because is absolutely different from recent theory. The extreme weather condition, the volcanic activities and tectonic activities will grow in numbers and power. No one can stop it. My whole explanation will be published soon; I do not care about the Government and scientist any more.
    • thumb
      Jan 3 2012: Hey John, so in your view the warming earth is caused by natural events. What are these natural events you are talking about?
      • Jan 4 2012: Everyone knows that the lava has a strong flow under tectonic plates and this flow is resulting the tectonic plates move. At cracks and at earth quacks there is a gigantic energy passing from magma into upper zones and into the sea water. The Carbon dioxide accumulated in deep sea and a little higher water temperature immediately triggering a lager quantity of Carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere. I could not understand longer time the function of volcanoes and the explosive reaction of volcanoes. But if our planet the Earth and all the other planets turning around Sun are little babies of our mother Sun, I find out that the gases and the strong lava flow must be fuelled by permanent energy generation. Also we know that the Sun has a thermo nuclear reaction and because no one stopped this thermo nuclear reaction I started to understand the reason why we have so many gases and explosive volcano eruptions. Probably we have still thermo nuclear reaction ongoing deep inside the magma – on our mother Earth - and many new elements are produced by this thermo nuclear reaction. This is explaining for me why we have this strong magma flow. The volcanoes are working as safety relief valves. The evaporated lager quantity of water and the volcano eruption are increasing the mass flow in the atmosphere and resulting extreme weather conditions as like torrential rain, extremely strong and fast wind, strong and intensive snowing and so on. At thermal energy calculation every Professional Engineer know that only 30% of heat transfer is transmitted by radiation and the rest is by mass flow.
        The recent theory – concerning the Global warming – is completely ignoring the geothermal energy and the mass flow in atmosphere. Ref. : http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/layers.html
        • thumb
          Jan 4 2012: Thanks for taking the touble to reply and for giving me something to study and look into. I am sure that some carbon is released the way you suggest. Why then would you say more is being released now? If there was more thermal dynamic activity going on beneath the earth's surface would you not expect to see more activity, i.e. volcanic, plate movement on the surface? All the earths processes are cyclic as I understand it, including the carbon cycle. Other species have play a part in it over long time spans. We are accelerating our own impact on this particular part of the carbon cycle. Do you disagree with that?

          I will look into the science of what you re saying, but an iceberg the size of a street floated up past our southern island last year all the way from the South Pole for the first time in history. I took it for the portent it undoubtedly is.
      • Jan 4 2012: When I know that only 3” of rain all over the World absorbing all the human generated Carbon Dioxide and if we know that the temperature was higher many times back in history when the Carbon Dioxide had higher % this clearly proving that the C02 is only secondary effect and has no supremacy (especially no human generated effect at all) as recently Al Gore all the Governments and most of pseudo scientist stating. I will start an open discussion regarding my development soon and if these people cannot prove that I did a mistake I will publicly asking Al Gore to return his Nobel price.
      • thumb
        Jan 15 2012: I also agree with John about how the earth is causing the global warming. Yes, maybe it is us too, but scientists are trying to replace the fuel in nature with a different fuel that produces 1.5 more C02 than the regular fuel; and many say C02 is the problem. Isn't this strange?
        I am only 13, so maybe I am not up to date on all of the global warming problems. But thank you for answering and taking your time to give me something to think about.
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2012: Well Haley, the most important thing is you are thinking about it, and I admire that, especially since you are only thirteen.

          I am very interested in your ideas, and I have heard about it before, that the replacement fuels might even be worse. I have two questions for you, I hope you can help me with, can you remember the name of the alternative fuel you are describing? I would like to look it up and check it out a bit more. I do agree with you it IS strange.

          Secondly if you agree the earth is warming up, whether it is natural or manmade, what do you think we as humans should be doing about it?
    • thumb
      Jan 5 2012: Won't your prize in the end be a brown sky? I live in Los Angeles... We let the sky get brown, then we fixed it... Now, it's killing our economy... We won't go back. Poor people will leave. It's sad, but true. Why would anyone want to go back to living under a brown sky, on one of the most beautiful coastlines in the world?

      Proving Al Gore wrong, will only temporarily spur wasteful corporate spending on ancient, inefficient, unsustainable technology, which democracy inevitably will correct, through progressive legislation, that reminds us that the sky is supposed to be blue. I don't understand, why anyone would waste their time fighting that.
      • Jan 5 2012: The air, water pollution and contamination have nothing to do with clean Carbon dioxide. The Government spend billion of $ on “clean energy “like ethanol and bio fuel technology and generating more contamination. All the bio fuels are generating more than 1.5 times more C02 as the regular hydro carbon based fuels. I just started up a gas fuel plant in 1998 producing 110 octane quality fuels in Europe before immigrated to Canada. Till now North America has no vehicles and developed technology able to handle this quality fuels. When I asked why the North American vehicle manufacturer just not starting to use the more fuel economy engines already developed and used in Japan and Europe. The answer was: this decision is in hand of Vice president of USA. Just ironic remark: that time just Al Gore was the Vice President and that time nobody wanted to build better quality engines.
        Also I would like to let everyone to know, that at heating, power generation and in engines only the thermal energy is used, the electro chemical energy is just spoiled. I need to notice also that the lager % of energy is in the electro chemical energy in each fuel, what is recently just spoiled.
        Carbon tax is just on our shoulder and we need to stop overloading average people living just from paycheque to paycheque.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2012: I personally disagree with your assessment of carbon, because I see it as something that correllates with poisoning our atmosphere. Are technologies designed to reduce co2 intentionally ignoring arsenic? No. The same device innovated to reduce the co2 problem, solved other problems.

          I can understand disagreeing with that... In theory. What I can't understand, is, why would anyone dedicate their life, to defending something old, and extremely chemically inefficient. How could that possibly be more fulfilling than developing, or creating something new?

          The Tesla AC motor, is way more efficient than anything else we have, and it can be powered by solar, wind, water, or tidal power... If we use it for motorcycles, our children might actually be able to survive another 50 years or so on this planet... Why would anyone spend time debating causes, when the earth is literally becoming uninhabitable... We should be past this phase, and into the brainstorming solutions phase... We've known the earth was in danger for 40 years.
      • Jan 13 2012: Dear David Hamilton
        Your may disagree with me, but this is not helping to solve the problem. If you are thinking that the C02 is causing all the problems I am asking you why the recent scientist trying to replace the natures hydrocarbon fuel by synthetic (ethanol, bio fuel) when this one is generating 1.5 times more C02 as the regular fuels? Second I studied fuel and energy scientist and I have two masters of Scientist degrees in this field. Can we just chat as scientist? The idea to use the electrical power is good, but till today we have no suitable and sufficient storage system to use electric engines to operate vehicles, trains, ships and aircraft.
        • thumb
          Jan 17 2012: I wasn't disagreeing with your science... Merely your attack on legislation, because I believe that current air pollution laws often attack CO2, but that attack, even if I agree with your science, still creates a market for new air purifiers, filtration systems, and efficient uses of power. These things corellate, with a decrease in other, actually toxic chemicals, that your study doesn't mention.

          I'm not necessarily for increasing CO2 regulation. However, getting the laws to where they are today, in California, has been a good thing for air quality. The increase in emissions you talk about, still sound large enough, to mildly over long periods of time, influence climate. Your research seems to suggest that the impact is just much, much smaller that previous research concluded... Not that the impact doesn't exist.

          Also, you don't seem to disagree that the earth is getting hotter, and in a few degrees life will become uninhabitable at the equator... so... How is reducing legislation going to fix this problem? We need better research, we need solutions... We need to stop debating the cause of a problem we've all seen coming for 40 years, and start working on solutions.

          Does global warming exist... Of course, no one disagrees with that. Did we cause it? Who cares? Lions, and sharks aren't going to fix it... We have to. In a conversation entitled "Is global warming real?", you basically responded "Well, no... because I've proven, that it's not our fault."... Well, great... Lets all just die happy then : p
      • Jan 17 2012: Attention to David Hamilton
        Because the originator (Haley Florio ) of this public and open discussion was initiated only about Global warming, I just respond to this article. But if you are asking about Air pollution and water & soil contamination, I need to respond. The situation in this field is really bad. The oil & gas companies do whatever they want and the Governments just do not care. Even in North America the situation is worst as in Europe. I do not know exactly what the situation in USA is but in Alberta we have extremely bad situation. Few years ago I find hydrocarbon (carcinogen) in drinking water and after many hard phone and letter exchanges I got a respond from Alberta Environment Minister. I try to explain it very shortly. My statement that WHO regulation prohibiting to have any hydrocarbon in drinking water was signed by Federal Government of Canada, but it was not ratified in Alberta and because no regulation he can do nothing. (many people get into the hospital as well drinking contaminated water ) The same situation is in food industry. I did ask Canadian and USA authorities why they have approve and listed additives knowingly toxic and carcinogen in food like wheat flour. These additives are prohibited already more than 25 years in Europe, most of Asian countries. I never got respond. Just for fun, I would like to mention here, that I already eliminated many allergies like wheat, gluten, lactose and dairy products, yeast and so on. I can make bread from wheat flour full of gluten, that 99 % people even with Celiac Disease can eat my bread as like gluten free. But everyone who has allergy or Gluten intolerance. I am not just a theoretic scientist. On the weather changes I have again only short respond.
      • Jan 17 2012: The humans are overestimation their influence. It could be better if they focus just on increasing their own safety and trying to survey but I am not excluding any catastrophic changes like it was for dinosaurs. We could face similar situation. The worst situation is the strong and depending networks, like communication, fuels, power systems, water and sawyer and food supply. If you look to any catastrophe these are gone and the local people have no knowledge what to do .
    • thumb
      Jan 15 2012: I like the way you are thinking, because usually I would say people go along with the scientists and what they say. As I am only 13, I'm not really up to date with what scientists say about global warming. But I can agree with you that it is confusing how scientists and trying to replace hydrocarbon fuel by synthetic, although it's generating much more C02 than the regular. It doesn't make sense, does it?
      • Jan 16 2012: The scientist just does what fore they get money. I did real engineering calculation and at the burning this is really about 10 % of C02 saved. But even if you are only 13 years old you know that at the fermentation (converting sugar to alcohol) there are clean gas bubbles and this is the C02. The Governments and Scientist just do not talk about this quantity of C02. You may ask any chemist or professor at school, why this part of C02 is is not published at Global Warming phenomena or at clean energy. Just the synthetic fuel is new business for Investors and Government, nothing else. I was younger than you when I started to collect scientific published information’s regarding volcanoes, earth quacks, tectonic plates moving, weather conditions, Earth magnetism and planets, and step by step I get close to my recent explanation and understanding of Earth Scientist. Also the El Nino & La Ninja (the extra large warm water flow in sea water, or missing this effect – the La Ninja) not yet explained by any Scientist. This effect is not generated by Sun or C02 but easy to understand if we know the earth tectonic moving and effects. The cold and hot weather also influenced by close to 70 % by energy and mass flow from Earth core (prove- the El Nino warming up more the air )and do not forget please that we are living on Fire Ball. If you want to compeer the thickness of tectonic plate and magma, you find out similar situation as like the egg and egg shell, but the plates are thinner. Thank you for your questions.
      • Jan 16 2012: The colder weather and the recent none standards snow in Alaska is also prove that lager quantity of water evaporated from sea. The water & snow is also in direct contact with atmospheric C02 and absorbing it. In high atmospheric region we have temperatures even under -100 degree. The higher evaporation generated stronger mass flow up and down in atmosphere. That is why we have more snow, rain and stronger wind and more frequent extreme weather conditions as like flash floods, mudslides. I just want to point out again, many entire scientist well paid, are trying to find out that how the water disappeared from Moon and Mars. I can call them again, just poor scientists. They do not know the simple physical and chemical rules. The magma has 0% of water and the lava by the time contacting the water make chemical and physical absorption of the water. This way by the time (could be many million years) from our Planet – Earth the water will be disappearing as well. Recently many scientists get paid to find out how the water disappeared and they do not want to talk to me and they do not let me to publish my developments. I hope ones they will start to talk with me and soon they can look even after magma on Moon and Mars and many of other planets.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.