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. |
:
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.
|
:
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.
|
:
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. |
:
Also: we get what you are saying about very little of global warming being anthropogenic. We just disagree. |
Actually, the birth rate in Western nations is well below replacement level in some countries, and certainly has decreased significantly in just a century. And its fairly likely that with Western influence and contraception, birth rates will drop in Africa and Asia too. Also, those doomsday prediction are based on computer models, not historic observation.
|
:
|
Then regulate it by culling cows and planting trees.
|
Which would cost huge amounts of money, screw up our lifestyle and create huge amounts of pollution in order to heal a small amount. It seems to me it would be more efficient just not to create as much pollution in the first place.
*anticipates PV ignoring this post also* |
:
Cutting down carbon dioxide emissions will have little effect on global warming. Humans contribute a tiny amount to it. My evidence for this is the previously higher Cambrian temperatures before apes even existed, much less evolved into homo sapiens sapiens, became sapient, developed a sophisticated civilization, and had an Industrial Revolution. Historically, the burning of medieval forests resulted in HIGHER air pollution levels than today. I am not denying the possibility that a sapient species can have significant effects upon its homeworld, but are merely skeptical of doomsday predictions demanding hundreds of billions of dollars to be spent on but one aspect of the problem, or politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, and publicity hounds attaching themselves to said doomsayers to enhance their careers. EDIT: Also, many, many people, including reputable scientists, climatologists, news sources, and organizations believed that Terra was in danger of global COOLING (http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf) only 30 years ago. They too offered charts, doomsday predictions, and scaremongering. And ultimately, it turned out to be a "Chicken Little" case. |
:
|
Cut out an important source of income. Children, for example.
|
:
|
But then the corporations threaten to stop funding the political parties.
|
I can't really say anything here that hasn't been said already, but something off-topic but kind of related - They're now saying Global Warming is the biggest threat to mankind ever, and if we don't do something about it now, it'll cost us a lot more to sort out in the future. They say the damage to the planet will be irriversable in 10 years.
But then, we all value the War on Terror more then Global Warming. We spend more in Iraq then on cutting down our human impact. Anyone else feel like we have our priorities messed? Anyone else feel like we're about to kill ourselves? Still, it'll be the end of humanity - The earth has apparently had heat changes throughout its history. Many wildlife and other species will die too, but some will survive. Unlike us. Maybe we'll just get what we deserve. Compared to the other species, we don't balance with the planet anyway. . . Everything we do has a harmful impact, even if individauls are as "green" as they can be. EDIT: Equally they say that there's supposed to be an Ice Age soon. Maybe that'll balance it out by some fluke and we stay as we are. :P lol. Would be funny. |
:
:
:
|
I say its a good thing to eat meat, your killing animals that produce methane.
|
(Except the animals wouldn't be bred at the same numbers if you didn't eat them)
|
Well, there is the factor that not eating meat is unhealthy and can even cause severe problems in some people. Look at human teeth, and examine the evolution of the incisor and its purpose. The absurd vegetarian revisionism on "shredding leaves" reminds me of a similar and equally absurd hypothesis put forward by creationist "scientists" like Kent Hovind. Humans evolved to be omnivores, and probably will remain omnivores for the rest of their existence, as it is disadvantegous for a species to restrict its diet.
Anyway, cows produce far more methane than humans do, and this is largely due to their vegetarian diet. Vegetarians produce more methane than omnivores due to the effect their diet has on their digestive system. Cut back excess cows, which will, by the way, force Macdonalds and other burger chains to have to raise their prices due to the lower supply and high demand, which in turn makes them richer, the environment better, and the air a little cleaner. Or alternatively, create regulations requiring methane collectors in every pasture. This will also create clean, waste free energy, which should also help the environment, at least as a secondary route. Once an effective method of nuclear waste disposal is found, start a large scale replacement of coal and oil power plants with nuclear ones, which will generate much more power for the world, and cut down pollution. Use the extra energy to help fuel rockets so that they are able to make faster trips to the Moon. Plant tree farms there, and collect some of the oxygen they produce into a fleet of supertankers. Then bring them down to Terra and release the oxygen, counteracting carbon dioxide the balance the air. EDIT: Also, on the War on Terror thing, the problems from the War on Terror are the fault of humans and possibly powerful beings. Generally, if something can be stopped, its creator is one of the people who can stop it. Global warming, on the other hand, is certainly not mutually anthropogenic, and only a tiny percentage of it is caused by human activities. |
:
Two. You are wrong that only a tiny percentage is human. Stop making stupid generalisations, will ya, ya kiwi? |
Everything is non renewable in the (absurdly) long term. However, atoms will be around decillions of years longer than humans or cows. So explain to me how energy gained from splitting the atom is non renewable. Also, A: Show me a direct correlation in a peer reviewed journal based on neutral, blindly funded research conducted by two or more seperate teams that proves that global warming is majority anthropogenic. And B: for the record, I'm actually a Scotsman. My residence in Aotearoa/New Zealand/Leftopia/Godzone is temporary.
|
Well, here's the thing. You keep coming back to the fact that in Cambrain times CO2 levels were much higher. And they were, for purely natural reasons. Now they are much lower. Ever wondered where it all went?
The answer is underground. As I have said, in the Carboniferous alot of trees grew in swamps, and when they die they fall into the mud. Usually a dead organism would rot away, and the Carbon would return to the atmosphere, but in the anaerobic conditions in the mud, that could not happened. So they were fossilised, and the result is what we call coal, and substance that is mostly carbon. We burn it. Combustion. The molecules are combining with oxygen in the atmosphere, and as it is mostly carbon, the result is CO2 (and some carbon monoxide). It goes back into the atmosphere. Now we know that Cabon Dioxide andhane (and to a lesser extent, water vapour) are greenhouse gasses: Their presence in the upper atmosphere increases the amount of heat that is reflected off of the Earth that is reflected again back to the ground. Now tell me that burning fossil fuels is not a major contributing factor to Gobal Wrming. |
Even so, the conditions in the Cambrian were extremely good for life, and helped it back on its legs after a mass extinction. So its perfectly possible global warming, even if it is anthropogenic, is good for the planet.
|
:
BM: A lot of it isn't underground, it's in living or decomposing plant matter, so burning forests adds to said thing. |
Yes, but I didn't include living matter, because it it still a regular part of the cycle. When things die, their carbon returns to the atmosphere. Oil and coal are in it for the long haul.
:
|