WELCOME TO AO, MORTAL!! ![]() 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: |
| Global Warming; OH NOES!!!!!!!!!11!1 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 21 2009, 04:50 PM (601 Views) | |
| Allech-Atreus | May 25 2009, 04:00 PM Post #16 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Clean coal is a total myth- the only thing the industry can provide is cleaner coal, but that's not enough for me- it's still a non-renewable resource that pollutes. We can both agree that the opposition to nuclear is stupid, though. The French did it cleanly and efficiently- and if the French can do nuclear, I see no reason why the US shouldn't either. I also believe that- right or wrong- people really do need to be forced, for lack of a better term, to change sometimes. We cannot continue on the same path- and the commercial world has shown remarkably little desire for change; this isn't a free market question, really, because the domination of the market by a few key producers and suppliers means there's relatively little momentum for genuine change. People need to be pushed. |
![]() |
|
| Cobdenia | May 25 2009, 04:30 PM Post #17 |
![]()
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The problem I have, in a nutshell, is that climate is such a complicated thing there is the very likely possibility of an aspect not being realised causing innacurate results in the studies, and the impossibility for any truly scientific study through experimentation (as we don't have several accurate copies of earth) or indeed comparable observation (there has never been a time in the past in which fossil fuels have been used at the rate they have been now). A lot of aspects of metereology haven't been studied in any depth - deap ocean currents and the effect the magnetic field (the strength of which, incidentally, has decreased 6% since 1900) of the earth has on climate. To use a rather facetious example, if one did not know the chemical composition of various drinks, and subjected a group to drink a gallon of whisky and water, another a gallon of gin and water, and another a gallon of rum and water, one would have to conclude that it is the water that get's you drunk. And, even if it is indeed us, I can see very little that we can feasibly do that will have any effect rather than warm snuggliness. Obviously, returning to the trees is unfeasible, but even less extreme measures have their difficulties, partly based on honest technological and practical limitations, partly democratic limitations, and partly because in many circumstances the effect of doing it will be worse then the effect of not doing it. Take HFC's - if they are limited to cars it will make very little difference, but assuming the technology can be used for large scale power generation without additional environmental costs (i.e. it being more polluting to produce hydrogen then it would be to use oil in power stations) - even if the technology for it's practical application were introduced tomorrow, such a change would and could not happen overnight - you have to factor in financial costs, the development of infrastructure, the time taken to get the actual numbers of people trained to operate the system (which is one of the major reasons why nuclear power isn't used more - there aren't enough spare highly qualified nuclear physicist lying about) could well take 75 years, by which time it may be too late. Add on to the fact that hydrogen and the require infrastructue would take a hell of a lot of emmissions to construct on their own, plus conversion and construction of formerly oil or other using systems, and it may well end up suffering from Prius Syndrome. The democratic aspect is the logical problem of people saying "I don't wanna", and I very much doubt a ecological dictatorship is a likely possibility. The third is more tricky - do you not build a new factory because of the environmental implications? Do you ban world trade? Do you stop the building of a hospital in a third world country because of the ecological effects? A line must be drawn, obviously, otherwise the effects of dealing with climate change will be worse then the effects of not, but if that is the case, will we always be doing too little to make any difference whatsoever (whilst still causing some other, though more minor, problems)? And even then, we're not getting to the real rout cause of it all, over population - which, let's face it, can't be solved unless we legalise genocide and have a bloody massive war that makes all the wars of the last century combined look small in comparison. Which is why I recommend my plan for combatting climate change: take up smoking and plan on getting cancer before I end up either four foot in water or in a world that offers no hope or allows no dreaming or innovation for fear of causing greenhouse gasses or live in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. And if the ice caps melt and we survive, we get to be the bad guys (according to crap 1990's movies). |
![]() |
|
| Zarquon Froods | May 25 2009, 06:01 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's the other thing that gets me. Nobody seems to be concerned about all these babies running about. When "the pill" was introduced in the 60's the inventor thought it would help limit the population. Instead, it's doubled since then. I did a paper in one of my health classes on sexual health and included as part of the report that mankind has become obsessed by it. Thinking back to 100 years ago and beyond, the main purpose of sex was reproduction. Typical households consisted of at least five children because the birth defficiency rate was so high. If you managed to live past the age of 3 you were damn lucky, if you made it to 5 the gods favored you. Not only that, but families needed the longevity either to work the farms or settle communities. Fast forward 100 years and we're still doing the same thing, except we don't take into account that nearly every child has a 100% of seeing age 10, but also the fact that we don't have the need for large families anymore......unless you're Catholic but that's a different discussion. Same thing with eating, especially here in the states. People still eat the same portions, really big problem in the south, that they would if they were working on the farms still but they're desk jockeys instead and rarely see daylight. So I guess if you were to look at things on the broad scale instead of centralizing on one aspect of the whole, we'd see the problem as covering many situations from rising birth rates to over consumption to everyone's right to do as they please. The Chinese figured out the population problem 20 and nipped it in the bud. Now here's my solution. In the US, struggling families get aid per child. Trust me this is true, I see families going to WalMart all the time with four kids under the age of 7 and one in the oven. If we were to stop that aid, or at least limit it to those already receiving it, and instead institute a tax on households with more than 2 children we'd see the curve start to stabilize then turn downward. It's quick, easy and full of controversy and that's why I like it. Now enough on that rant. As for clean coal, it can be a reality. It's a tech that has been researched for the oil industry as well. Basically they pipe the CO2 back into the Earth and store it in either the oil fissures or pump it to the sea floor. I'm not a big fan of it, but at the moment that's all we have. And make no bones about it, I want to get away from oil and coal as much as anyone else, but what are we going to use? Wind and solar just aren't going to cut it. Wind takes far too much land, and the same can be said for solar. I foget where I saw it, but I remember a study saying methane was showing a lot of promise and since it's made from the decomposition of waste, I think it's a way to take care of two problems at once. As for hydrogen, you could say the same for any alternative fuel. How you can remedy it, I don't know. But since we all seem to agree that our CO2 impact on the global temperature is minimal, I think expending a little extra now so that 10-20 years from now we can cut our contribution by half is worth it. I think one of the things people get hung up on, not saying this applies to any of you, is that the planet is totally helpless and can't fend for itself so we have to step in and save it. Which to an extent is true. But, a long long time ago the Earth was literally a hot place, so hot nothing could survive, except microbials. Then it cooled, and leveled off then it froze, then it heated up again. I think scientist now agree that aside from cycles, these trends were caused from outside interference of the extra terrestial kind. No, not aliens, but meteors, volcanic activity as well as sunspot activity. The fact that Cob mentions the magnetosphere weakening is a big player in the global climate. It is the magnetosphere that is the first line of defence against the sun which is coincidentally trying to kill us!!! Seeing as we are in the middle of a sunspot minimum, I'm curious to see how the globe temps work out over the next few years. |
![]() |
|
| Allech-Atreus | May 25 2009, 07:08 PM Post #19 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
when we get into demography, we're getting into an entirely different set of problems that I don't think are really the most pressing things; population growth in certain areas is offset in others by disease or warfare. I think that expanding our view to a greater philosophical question of population growth is, in fact, quite harmful- because it forces us to assign blame to some greater sociohistorical movement or tendency, which often serves to detach us from the necessity of modern action. We do want to avoid, I think, reducing population growth to Malthusianism, which is just plain crazy. If we really want to look at the future, we need to look at Japan: a highly advanced, commercially rich society that has a negative population rate; if we can view Japan in the historical context of a rapid developer, we see what happens to societies that exceed rampant industrialism and move more toward technological or service-based economies. The debate in Japan right now is what to do with the contracting social service sector and the reducing economy; there are thinkers who are arguing it might be the best thing for Japan to simply accept the dropping population rate and work with it. Maybe fifty, sixty years down the line, we will likely see the same thing in China; their population is likely to decrease and their industrial development will level out and focus more on technology and services. But, with this evolutionary process comes the need to develop alternative, renewable fuels. Lessen the dependence on public or monopoly utilities, make individual houses energy-efficient or independent, emphasize community interaction and reduce corporatism in agriculture. There are very large portions of the economy that can be reformed in this manner. |
![]() |
|
| Douria | May 26 2009, 01:32 AM Post #20 |
|
The Jester
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think you're confusing certain whacko's(the "OMG 5 years from now we're screwed" crowd) with those of us that understand global warming to be a serious man-made issue that will likely only affect our children and grandchildren. The science isn't settled. The science of how gravity works isn't settled either. The problem I guess is not understanding the problem. Almost everyone knows by now how this works. Sunlight passes through greenhouse gasses and hit the Earth. The earth absorbs the energy and then re-emits it as infrared radiation, which the greenhouses gasses reflect. It bounces around inside the atmosphere and keeps the Earth warm enough for life. The biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect, as said earlier is water vapor. Now I know what you're thinking "We're not throwing water vapor into the air, we're throwing CO2 into the air. What gives?" A lot of people think the danger is a runaway greenhouse effect. CO2 is a much more effective greenhouse gas than water vapor. It can cause global warming much more easily than water vapor. Only a little bit(comparatively anyhow) can have a serious negative impact. So the Earth gets a little warmer. This has a two-fold effect. One, warm air can hold more water vapor. Two, a warmer earth means more water vapor evaporates from the ocean and is held in the atmosphere. So now we've got more greenhouse gasses(water vapor) in the atmosphere. Now it's a little warmer again. We've got a positive feedback loop. Runaway Greenhouse Effect. The true problem with definitively saying "Ok this is bad, let's stop," is that there are also corresponding negative feed backs that works to prevent this. Water vapor doesn't always exist as water vapor, and rain is a method of converting heat energy. Water evaporation from the oceans actually cools them, as the most energetic particles are the ones that escape(much like sweating). As I said earlier, the Earth gets warmer and emits infrared radiation that starts the greenhouse effect, but that's true for everything, including water vapor. As it gets warmer so to does it emit more infrared radiation, thus cooling. Because of these negative feed backs, we likely won't have a true runaway greenhouse effect from simple water vapor. But bad things happen even if the temperature only goes up a little bit. Sea levels rise. Palentine might not give a shit about the polar bears, but the ice they're standing on contains quite alot of methane. That's a REAL danger if it's all released into the atmosphere, because methane is a very big contributor(over 21 times stronger than CO2) to global warming when it's present, and there is a lot of it in the ice caps. If the water level goes up two feet and an inch instead of two feet, we're not doing our best. What it comes down to is this, we are warming the earth. Maybe only a little bit. Maybe only a tiny amount, but we are doing it. If we can limit it or eliminate it with current technology, we should. If we can research ways to do that we should. If a cap and trade bill means I pay a bit more for energy, but that my great-grandchildren might not have to deal with as serious a problem, it's my responsibility to do what needs to be done. We do have an effect, argue over how big of an effect some other time. Or we can say "Ah well, it won't affect me. I'm only contributing a little bit. Let someone else worry about it," and move on. You might be right about that, you might even be wrong about it, but one thing is for damn sure, it will affect someone. Edit: Also hello. |
![]() |
|
| The Evil Smurfs | May 26 2009, 02:30 AM Post #21 |
|
Blue Nazi Devil
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
True, provided you define "a bit" as "two to three times the current rates". And since we're in THE WORST ECONOMY SINCE THE DEPRESSION, doubling or tripling energy rates doesn't strike me as the best idea ever. The other problem is that many wogs are saying that decreases in pollution are thinning out pollutants in the sky, which lets more sunlight hit pavement, which... warms the planet! So, if we pollute, we cook, if we don't, we cook. Buh? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sign on to neo-primitivism. I'm not going to start arguing we rip up roads. And frankly, I'm not going to throw the economy under the electric bus because of projections made against one of the most complex, chaotic, and poorly understood systems on the planet. Especially when many of the opponents of anthrogenic global warming that are scientists are... planetary climatologists. At least we agree that Al Gore needs to go soak his head. And turn off his lights. Also: Welcome back. |
![]() |
|
| eco | May 26 2009, 05:20 AM Post #22 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I feel even worse for being drunk and snippy earlier: this has evolved into a fine debate. Some thoughts... Global 'warming' is an unfortunate misnomer, I reckon, and not helpful in communicating the issue to people living in areas that will most likely be cooler as a result of climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise). I think we overlook certain important considerations. Cutting pollution and changing our approach to energy consumption isn't just helpful in terms of combatting climate change (assuming for the sake of this particular point that we accept this to be the case), it's also good in that it improves the environment we all live in: there are knock-on effects in terms of physical and mental health (the latter because most people, I'd argue, feel better about life when their surroundings are pleasant). I used to be anti nuclear power but I think we're at the stage where it's pretty much essential if we're going to make any realistic effort to turn this situation around. Storage of waste still concerns me but I don't think it's a dealbreaker any more. Biofuels can help but the way most nations are tapping them is really stupid. The processes used in most cases are of no use in cutting emissions at present, plus we're shafting food production. A debacle, really. More generally, I think it's useful for us to learn how to manipulate our environment in a more controlled manner. We are due an Ice Age, after all (and I appreciate that in stating this I've just handed the antis a big club to beat me with). |
![]() |
|
| Cobdenia | May 26 2009, 05:53 AM Post #23 |
![]()
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As I say, I think anything that can be done feasibly with no ill effects should be done - it is harmless and will help in other ways even if it turns out that we have nothing to do with climate change (I do agree with you on the point of the term global warming). However, I do think governments are going to wrong way about it - using the stick rather than the carrot. Plus, when they do offer a carrot, they're complete inability to do anything sensible is always going to be a problem (such as the British government offering incentives to scrap old cars if you buy a new car and justifying it on ecological grounds :rolleyes: ) Incidentally. smurfs, erm...wouldn't advise using the word "wog" when there are Brits about. It has a similar meaning as the n-word over here, and puts a rather different spin on your point
|
![]() |
|
| Flibbleites | May 26 2009, 07:06 AM Post #24 |
|
Mental Masturbator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8 |
![]() |
|
| The Evil Smurfs | May 26 2009, 11:17 PM Post #25 |
|
Blue Nazi Devil
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ah, oops. I more meant it in the meaning of "wonk". Sorry about that. |
![]() |
|
| eco | May 27 2009, 07:19 AM Post #26 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Was it a typo or is it a widely used alternative to 'wonk'? If an alternative, I wonder how that came about... mind you, Aussies use it all the time specifically in a racial context and it's not regarded as a slight; it's kinda been de-fanged as an offensive term. There's some suggestion that the same may be happening to 'n*****' over here (younger people with racially mixed friendship groups using it in jokey, 'ironic' fashion, and so on). Anyway, that has nothing to do with the discussion. Sorry! |
![]() |
|
| Kenny | May 27 2009, 07:31 AM Post #27 |
|
King of California
![]()
|
I'm for any type of offensive language you can name, but n***** and f***** are two words I will not tolerate. Ever. EDIT: sorry, I know you weren't being offensive, I was just making a general point. |
![]() |
|
| eco | May 27 2009, 03:06 PM Post #28 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No offence taken, I did hesitate before posting and have no problem with being asterisked. I can't fathom what the f-word you're referring to is. |
![]() |
|
| Cobdenia | May 27 2009, 03:07 PM Post #29 |
![]()
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think he means the one ending in t, also meaning a sort of pork offall meat ball thing |
![]() |
|
| Zarquon Froods | May 27 2009, 06:54 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In the dictionary, it is the word for twigs, but it has since been corrupted to be a derogatory term referring to sexual orientation. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |

WELCOME TO AO, MORTAL!! 


![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







11:15 AM Jul 11