Oddworld Forums - Global Warming- Fact or Fiction?

Oddworld Forums (http://www.oddworldforums.net/index.php)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.oddworldforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Global Warming- Fact or Fiction? (http://www.oddworldforums.net/showthread.php?t=14483)

Obviously, Mother Earth. But even the most drastic cuts will barely make a dent in the vast array of other factors influencing global warming. At most, I'd say it would be slowed by 20%, ands thats if you count the influence of cows.

Ah, but are you taking into account Solar Flare activity and Chaos Theory?

Well, if those are an influence in global warming, then that proves my point of it being nearly impossible to stop, being a natural process. If you can't stop earthquakes, but merely prepare and try to soften them up (in a way that doesn't end up causing nearly as much damage as the earthquake), you sure as hell ain't gonna stop solar flares or the fundamental laws of thermodynamics and entropy. Or chaos theory, which is related.

What about an Einstein-Rosenburg Bridge?

Far, far beyond current technological capabilities. We've barely started atom making, for goodness sake. Sure, that might set off mini black holes, but not all black holes lead anywhere except to absorbtion by their singularity. You might as well consider a Dyson swarm, Dyson sphere, or ringing up Vogons to move Earth out of the way.

I was about to suggest a Dyson Sphere.

What about altering the Earths orbit by constructing an artificial moon?

Again, far ahead of what current technology can accomplish. They are still working on the International Space Station after around 10 years, and that is less than 1000th of the size of an object qualifying as a moon. Let alone an object or series of objects 1 AU in diameter.

Actually, all you need to do is grab a largeish asteroid and stick a huge booster onnit.

Again, consider the amounts of fuel, distance, difficulty in navigation, potential accidents, and cargo size issues. It takes millions of dollars to even travel to the Moon, let alone the asteroid belt. In anycase, how would giving Terra a second moon do anything but majorly screw up the tides, likely making the problem even worse and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

But what if you TERRAFORM the new moon and live there? then noone will die^^.

I think you're pulling my leg;)

No, I'm just an optimistic Sc-fi ethusieist who enjoys debate for debates' sake.

Oh, alright then:)

In that case, for science fiction solutions, how about a mini dyson sphere around Terra that collects Sol's rays and converts them into a power source, which is partially diverted in order to power artificial superlights.

EDIT: Or, just start again by placing Terra's entire population on the Death Star II, then going Base Delta Zero on the place, effectively affording a nice reboot.

Or, we could just use the second moon, powered by black hole rockets, to conquer the universe.

Messing with celestial bodies is both beyond our capability and not a good idea.

Or, ask Q for some quantum technology that kills things in all possible universes, and conquer the multiverse!

Or go even further and use the quantum technology to kill the Living Tribunal and conquer the Omniverse!

Mwahahaha!

Who says?

It didn't stop NASA blowing a hole in some space rock.

()

Can you bring a source for those numbers? Because I certainly can bring a source to say that cutting down CO2, methane and other emissions will reduce global warming by a far higher amount.

Note that I say 'far higher amount' rather than make up numbers.

Hey, while we're talking about farting cows, ever hear of farms using the methane produced for electricity? Happened around me in Wisconsin a few times, works out pretty well.
Taken from the manure. I'm not really sure how they'd get the gas.

Sorry, I should of said methane, not overall greenhouse emissions. But according to a quite reliable source (http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-...eengas-14.htm), humans contribute, on a global scale, around 0.59% of total methane output, and cows contribute 1.8%, making my figures overestimations. Methane is only 23% as strong as C02 in causing global warming though, so lets consider this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...n_Dioxide.png). According to this chart, which is based on the GEOCARB, COPSE, and Rothmann models, under the GEOCARB and COPSE models, C02 550 million years ago was significantly higher than today. But it was around this period of time that life flourished, and the Cambrian explosion occured. So, C02 could actually be an extremely good thing for Terra's biosphere. Even the not so optimistic Rothmann model does not show a significant increase in C02 during the Holocene era.

Life would flourish. Only, humans probably would not. Certainly they wouldn't anywhere near a current coastline.

Saying something like "life will flourish" is pointless unless you follow the thought through.

Why not set up massive tree farms and develop a paste with similar properties to lumber then? Then the C02 will be balanced out, plus deforestation problems will be solved. And the C02 should help stop forest fires spreading.

I'm sorry? What would that help? If I'm setting up massive tree farms, why don't I just use the lumber?

And where am I going to put these farms then? Should I knock down some rainforest to do it?

Because trees convert C02 into oxygen.

()

NOTE: Yes, I know we've had a thread on this before, but the last time it was posted in was eight months ago. Plus, it's still a relavent debate, and has become more "high profile" with the release of Al Gore's new comedy... err, documentary.

What does everybody here think about the theory of global warming? Does it exist? If it exists, is it anthropogenic? Has it happened before? Didn't they warn us of a new Ice Age thirty years ago? Discuss.

As for my thoughts, well, my general opinion of the global warming theory matches the title of a certain show by Penn & Teller. I have read a novel, "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton, that, although intended as fiction, is partially based on real events, and uses actual charts from extremely reliable sources (Namely the United Nations, NASA, and arctic scientists, some of which believe in global warming) and in one of the chapters, completely eviscerated the environmentalists argument.

Crichtons Mini Penn and Teller Show:
First, they looked more closely at the famous "hockey stick" graph, and showed that when looked at closely, despite that fact that between 1940 and 1970, C02 went up, temperature went down. Also, the hockey stick is a possibly deliberate half truth, as when looked at the total rise in temperature over 120 years is;

1/3rd of a degree.

Even that will probably die down, as temperature fluctuate over hundreds of years.

My Own Thoughts:
Also, global warming theory does not consider that to geology, 1 year is like 1 second.

Lastly, although scientists supposedly (emphasis on supposedly) found that temperatures was the hottest in 100000 years, figures can be twisted. Who funded the research? Was it peer reviewed? Did similar results occur in other tests? Science has shown that expectations of results can actually influence their outcome (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind_experiment). Is it not possible, indeed plausible, that the scientists involved were expecting such results? It is because of political pressure and media sensationalism that such stringent procedures are employed in the selection of jury members. Surely such an effect can affect even men and women of science?

I rest my boring monologue.

As taken out of said movie, 0% of peer reviewed articles question global warming. Also, the temperature has not had time to rise - it's a delayed reaction, as you'd know if you bothered to look anything up. Also, about the Ice Age dilemma, the areas of sinking water in the North Atlantic have already halved, and it is KNOWN that they are the only areas of sinking water in the world, and obviously this cannot be good. Also, people have SEEN the sea ice breaking up in Greenland and Antarctica, and a temperature rise of even a degree is extremely important as it moves timings and habitats around beyond species' ability to cope.

I rest my boring, but slightly more accurate, monologue.

Also, did you read what I said? I no longer deny global warming exists, but question its cause. In any case, Gore changes his story. He first says that according to the study, which measured one statistic, the peer reviewed studies never doubted the EXISTENCE of global warming, and then says that they never doubted the CAUSE of global warming as not being anthropogenic.

That just sounds to me like he's proving two similar points. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Please reread my last post. Then try and answer my questions.

For your question about space, bulldoze abandoned urban areas and use the resulting materials to help build the farm. And there is a difference from believing that global warming EXISTS AT ALL, and believing that global warming IS ANTHROPOGENIC.

()

C02 550 million years ago was significantly higher than today. But it was around this period of time that life flourished, and the Cambrian explosion occured. So, C02 could actually be an extremely good thing for Terra's biosphere. Even the not so optimistic Rothmann model does not show a significant increase in C02 during the Holocene era.

Of course CO2 levels have been higher. But that was 550 million years ago. Life was adapted to such conditions, something that life is not adapted to now. Therein lies the problem. The rate that anthropogenic global warming is and will increase is much higher than it ever has in the past. Ever noticed that every diversity explosion was preceeded by a mass extinction. In the past increases in atmospheric CO2 were relatively slow.

The carbon we put back in the atmosphere now was locked away since the Carboniferous, when trees in massive forests fell into swamps and became fossilised as coal. Oil comes from sea creatures, in which the carbon moved up the food chain before the dead were buried and compressed.

This is millions of years worth of CO2 and it is suddenly being returned to the atmosphere. It is true that years ago the Earth was much warmer, the Cenozoic is far cooler. We are actually in an Ice Age now, no other period had such large ice caps, and the temperatures cycle between full blown ice age and milder periods such as now. That is what life on earth is adapted to. Sudden increases in temperature will lead to mass extinction, and we are part of the ecosystem, whether we like it or not. We have evolved to prey on many of the planets creatures, and if they go, we go.

Even if warming triggers crash cooling, our society may not survive. We survived before, but as "cavemen". We live very differently now, and we each specialise in individual skills that require everyone else to be of use. Few of us could survive in the wild.

Cooling would be caused by the cessation of the Gulf stream. The northern hemisphere owes its unusually warm climate to warm water flowing from the Carrribean and Gulf of Mexico north to America and western europe. Decreasing salinity due to the melting ice cap can stop the stream completely, resulting in rapid cooling. Studies show that is is already weakening.

()

What abandoned urban areas? The human population is increasing at a huge rate. There are few abandoned urban areas and virtually none of them would be appropriate for tree-farming. At least not without creating more pollution than the trees would suck up. That said, reforestation (and, more importantly, the non-destruction of old growth forests) is a major part of the Kyoto Protocol. But it will only work together with cutting down the production of CO2 as it is impossible to plant enough trees for the entire planet to be carbon neutral (unless we destroy all the cities and farming land).

Also: we get what you are saying about very little of global warming being anthropogenic. We just disagree.