Idea on global warming

[flanque]

I didn't think this appropriate fitted into The Lounge so I'll post it here.

It's a link to a new scientific concept of helping to reduce global warming, though it's really treating the symptoms rather than the cause. Anyways, here's something to think about:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=172559

[roka64]

I think, the Earth goes in cycles, just like any other thing. If global warming is to happen, there is nothing we could/should do....it kind of goes along with evolution.....whomever adapts survives.....

[JM]

Perfect example of how this whole planet is screwed up. Instead of fixing the problem by stopping what is causing the destruction lets just keep messing everything up and trying to figure out a way to fix it. How do we know what the long term effects of putting that stuff in the atmosphere will do. How bout we stop wrecking our planet and then we won't have to worry about shooting sulphur into the atmosphere.

[Esra]

What I find funny is people who use phrases like "We're killing the planet!"

We're only killing ourselves, the planet will keep going no problem.
Even if we killed off everything in the process, new species would emerge and the cycle would start again.

All we're doing is severely limiting the time we as a species have here to enjoy and the number of species with which to enjoy it.

[hc8719]

Originally Posted by Esra

What I find funny is people who use phrases like "We're killing the planet!"

We're only killing ourselves, the planet will keep going no problem.
Even if we killed off everything in the process, new species would emerge and the cycle would start again.

All we're doing is severely limiting the time we as a species have here to enjoy and the number of species with which to enjoy it.

i agree with you esra, somewhat...

when people say we're killing the planet, they dont mean it litterally. humans are unnaturally altering earth, so such a rapid extent that most species wont survive, the cycle may not start again, and even if it should, we still dont have an excuse to do it anyways.

as far as the OP, we just talked about this in bio lecture, if the polar caps continue to melt, the salinity in the oceans will drop so rapidly that most sw fish will be wiped out (in theory).

it takes a minimum of 5000 years (about) for even the slightest significant physical characteristics (internally and externally) to change. look at the pinky toe, if you look at human (not "cavemen") skeltons from 100,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago, 20,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, and from today, you will notice that due to feet protection (shoes) we have lost need for the pinky toe.

again, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and puring toxins into the earth and waters, we should stop what we can, give all animals their birthrights

[Wood_Dog]

Originally Posted by Esra

What I find funny is people who use phrases like "We're killing the planet!"

We're only killing ourselves, the planet will keep going no problem.
Even if we killed off everything in the process, new species would emerge and the cycle would start again.

All we're doing is severely limiting the time we as a species have here to enjoy and the number of species with which to enjoy it.

Very good point

[tecwzrd]

:Moved to Lounge: Has nothing to do with SW.

Originally Posted by hc8719

as far as the OP, we just talked about this in bio lecture, if the polar caps continue to melt, the salinity in the oceans will drop so rapidly that most sw fish will be wiped out (in theory).

That's the problem I have with most "Global Warming" arguments. Most are theories which are based on computer models going out 100+ years.

The "experts" who predicted a massive 2006 hurricane season were completely off and they only had to predict 8 months into the future. They can't even tell us what the weather is going to be within 5 degrees 14 days out but we are supposed to take their theories as "hard fact" that in the next 100+ years the earth will be 1-2 degrees warmer???

We have no idea what can be considered normal fluctuation over centuries and until we have been gathering data for a few millennia we should not assume anything is out of control and needs fixing.

Are we so naive to believe we won't have vast technological advances in the next 50 years as we have in the last 50 years and that we won't be able to solve our energy needs without depending on fossil fuels which is the main argument.

If/when we do find another viable energy source will that then cause the earth to cool?

To those that say we must act NOW "just in case" what if we had spent billions in the 70's to fight "Global Cooling" as was predicted then only to have the earth warm instead? (strike that, then they would have thought they STOPPED it)

Is it worth sending most prosperous nations into economic ruin based on theories "just in case"?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to be the best stewards of our planet.

I just think we need a better understanding of why the earth is warming/cooling (both natural and man made) before we do more harm then good.

[hc8719]

Originally Posted by tecwzrd

If/when we do find another viable energy source will that then cause the earth to cool?

Is it worth sending most prosperous nations into economic ruin based on theories "just in case"?

the earth wouldnt "cool down" it would remain what it currently is, and slowly change over time to whatever the next million years brings us

sending the most prosperous nation to ruins? ha, we'll flush ourselves funding 90% of all UN activites, and selling our debt to china, so be can pay it back in double, like we currently are...
seriously, we wouldnt be 9 trillion (yes trillion) in debt, and have high taxes if the government didn't fund every 'poor' nation

EDIT: the US is 9 trillion in debt, dont be confused with the england or australia

[crazyred]

It has been proven, based on core samples at the polar ice caps, that, several million years ago, either the Arctic circle or Antarctica (can't recall which) were more like Hawaii....with 80 degrees year round and lush, tropical vegetation. I doubt that that happened because dinosaurs were driving around in gas guzzling SUV's and using CFC fueled hair spray. I believe that the Earth's climate changes on it's own cycle and that very little that we do is going to change it. As a matter of fact, it has also been proven that one belch of ONE volcano puts more "ozone destroying" toxic gasses in the air than if every vehicle every where on Earth were started at once and ran for a year. I'm pretty sure volcanos aren't new.

Now, I'm not saying that we should go about things that we know are harming the Earth, such as slashing and burning most of this planet's rainforest to make way for farming, but the Kyoto treaty would be a HUGE disaster leading to financial ruin, as would most governmental efforts to control behavior in the name of "global warming". Most of these gloom and doomers will say anything to try to get the government to force people to act the way that they think people should act.

BTW, I love that cartoon tecwzrd!!!

[QTOFFER]

Interesting thread! It's so nice that the members of AA can discuss such a hot button topic rationally.

Referring to flanque's linked article: wouldn't injecting sulfur into the atmosphere to counter global warming produce acid rain? As I see it, this proposal has the potential to trade one global problem for another.

In regards to global warming, I don't think enough data has been collected yet. Meteorology is a relatively recent development. Accurate measurements over a wide area have only been recorded for the last 120 years or so. How can we make predictions about processes that occur over millenia based on such a small dataset?

Of course, if the more pessimistic climatologists are right, confirmation of global warming may come too late for us to do anything about it. I think we should take a middle ground approach to the problem by continuing to reduce emissions without taking radically drastic actions that will tank the economy