Zeke109: We all know what WE can do to stop global warming. Buy a solar panel, Drill for geothermal power,put up a small windmill, even put up buy a hybrid. BUT: We can also buy totally air-powered cars, which are $3,000 less than conventional cars, and only costs 3 cents to fill up.
Also, scientists have been thinking up ingenious ways to solve this problems, From sending lenses into space to dilute the sun's rays, to making clouds shinier.
You got a solution?
No. No. No. No. Hybrids, no. Not only from the viewpoint that they suck all the fun out of driving, but environmentally. Yes they are efficient while in use, but the energy cost of creating the batteries and electronics, etc. that goes into a hybrid, and then into recycling when it outlives its usefulness is astronomical. Your average Jeep is actually friendlier to the environment in the long run, so no. No hybrids.
However, I do think we need to lessen or end our dependence on oil. There is enough wind across the great plains to power the US, the only problem being widespread distribution and infrastructure. Our distrobution networks are not efficient enough to make long distance power transfer viable, so wind, solar, hydro, wave, and even nuclear power are the way to go. All 100% clean. As for cars, I'm excited about Hydrogen fuel cells, as well as purely electric cars, as both have proven that they don't have to be boring and slow, while still being green (I so hate saying that...green...)
IT's been said that humans provide only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. (7% is caused naturally by forest fires and other causes...) But switching energy sources is definitely a good idea. I say we go nuclear!
Canadianwookie: IT's been said that humans provide only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. (7% is caused naturally by forest fires and other causes...) But switching energy sources is definitely a good idea. I say we go nuclear!
right. This water displaced by the melting ice caps needs to go somewhere right? So if i took a large amount of earth that was ORIGINALLY taken up by earth rather than water, blast it into space and fill it with water instead, this should take up all the excess water said melting would cause. This earth in question would be that really bad country. You know the one.
Also hybrids cause too much smug. Dont buy them people, dont fill the world with smug rather than smog.
Canadianwookie: IT's been said that humans provide only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. (7% is caused naturally by forest fires and other causes...) But switching energy sources is definitely a good idea. I say we go nuclear!
Where are we going to put the waste?
Nuclear reactors have become vastly more efficient through the years. There are also a number of methods for re-using and storing nuclear waste. Surprisingly nuclear reactor High level waste (HLW) accounts for only 5% of waste produced. The economic impact of a hardened storage shelter is likely to be less then a massive field of windmills or solar panels.
40% of the oil we use is spent for electricity. Just eliminating that use would put us in a much better situation.
If you buy in to global warming as being man made. The best solutions are not to buy overly expensive solar panels, hybrid cars or windmills. You have a more positive impact eating peanut butter instead of meat on your sandwich, then you do with any of those things( go look that up it's actually pretty interesting).
Bored Tomatoe: Global warming is nothing more than a heat blip in our earth's history, and like nmmoore13 said, is not man made, no scientific evidence supports global warming....its like saying that man caused all the ice ages as well.
Exactly think before following the masses, does it sound suspicious and/or be used by the media and corporations as a source of profit?
Personally, I think we can fix Global Warming by exposing everyone to A) Zergs B) Headcrabs C) The Flood D)All of the above
Canadianwookie: IT's been said that humans provide only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. (7% is caused naturally by forest fires and other causes...) But switching energy sources is definitely a good idea. I say we go nuclear!
Where are we going to put the waste?
Nuclear reactors have become vastly more efficient through the years. There are also a number of methods for re-using and storing nuclear waste. Surprisingly nuclear reactor High level waste (HLW) accounts for only 5% of waste produced. The economic impact of a hardened storage shelter is likely to be less then a massive field of windmills or solar panels.
40% of the oil we use is spent for electricity. Just eliminating that use would put us in a much better situation.
If you buy in to global warming as being man made. The best solutions are not to buy overly expensive solar panels, hybrid cars or windmills. You have a more positive impact eating peanut butter instead of meat on your sandwich, then you do with any of those things( go look that up it's actually pretty interesting).
The environmental impact of nuclear plants should also be much less provided that they don't melt down or blow radioactive steam and that the demands for cooling water can be met without drastically altering the environment. Still, point of use solar can be quite helpful, as the need to increase the expensive infrastructure can be reduced.
As to cattle, I think a better thing would be to build giant indoor cow parks, so that the methane can be captured and burned to produce electricity. Actually scientists are working on genetically engineering gut bacteria to convert the methane into harmless substances before its expulsion.
Zeke109: BUT: We can also buy totally air-powered cars, which are $3,000 less than conventional cars, and only costs 3 cents to fill up.
Eh? Joke, right? How are you going to power the compressor for the air?
clarinetJWD: No. No. No. No. Hybrids, no. Not only from the viewpoint that they suck all the fun out of driving, but environmentally. Yes they are efficient while in use, but the energy cost of creating the batteries and electronics, etc. that goes into a hybrid, and then into recycling when it outlives its usefulness is astronomical. Your average Jeep is actually friendlier to the environment in the long run, so no. No hybrids.
Uhm... reference to that Life-Cycle Analysis? I don't believe ya.
Bored Tomatoe: Global warming is nothing more than a heat blip in our earth's history, and like nmmoore13 said, is not man made, no scientific evidence supports global warming....its like saying that man caused all the ice ages as well.
I actually saw a chart in Social studies showing the increase in the Global Temperature from 1950 to 2000. The change? From 57 degrees to 58 degrees. Seriously-If global warming was such a big problem, then there would've been a bigger increase in 50 years rather than 1 degree!
Bored Tomatoe: Global warming is nothing more than a heat blip in our earth's history, and like nmmoore13 said, is not man made, no scientific evidence supports global warming....its like saying that man caused all the ice ages as well.
I actually saw a chart in Social studies showing the increase in the Global Temperature from 1950 to 2000. The change? From 57 degrees to 58 degrees. Seriously-If global warming was such a big problem, then there would've been a bigger increase in 50 years rather than 1 degree!
That's true, I suppose. The main thing is that the temperature has risen at all in 50 years.
Bored Tomatoe: Global warming is nothing more than a heat blip in our earth's history, and like nmmoore13 said, is not man made, no scientific evidence supports global warming....its like saying that man caused all the ice ages as well.
I actually saw a chart in Social studies showing the increase in the Global Temperature from 1950 to 2000. The change? From 57 degrees to 58 degrees. Seriously-If global warming was such a big problem, then there would've been a bigger increase in 50 years rather than 1 degree!
That's true, I suppose. The main thing is that the temperature has risen at all in 50 years.
Yeah, but just one (Explicit) Degree ain't that big of a (Explicit) deal in 50 (Explicit) Years.
Bored Tomatoe: Global warming is nothing more than a heat blip in our earth's history, and like nmmoore13 said, is not man made, no scientific evidence supports global warming....its like saying that man caused all the ice ages as well.
I actually saw a chart in Social studies showing the increase in the Global Temperature from 1950 to 2000. The change? From 57 degrees to 58 degrees. Seriously-If global warming was such a big problem, then there would've been a bigger increase in 50 years rather than 1 degree!
That's true, I suppose. The main thing is that the temperature has risen at all in 50 years.
Yeah, but just one (Explicit) Degree ain't that big of a (Explicit) deal in 50 (Explicit) Years.
Bored Tomatoe: Global warming is nothing more than a heat blip in our earth's history, and like nmmoore13 said, is not man made, no scientific evidence supports global warming....its like saying that man caused all the ice ages as well.
I actually saw a chart in Social studies showing the increase in the Global Temperature from 1950 to 2000. The change? From 57 degrees to 58 degrees. Seriously-If global warming was such a big problem, then there would've been a bigger increase in 50 years rather than 1 degree!
That's true, I suppose. The main thing is that the temperature has risen at all in 50 years.
Yeah, but just one (Explicit) Degree ain't that big of a (Explicit) deal in 50 (Explicit) Years.
Bored Tomatoe: Global warming is nothing more than a heat blip in our earth's history, and like nmmoore13 said, is not man made, no scientific evidence supports global warming....its like saying that man caused all the ice ages as well.
I actually saw a chart in Social studies showing the increase in the Global Temperature from 1950 to 2000. The change? From 57 degrees to 58 degrees. Seriously-If global warming was such a big problem, then there would've been a bigger increase in 50 years rather than 1 degree!
That's true, I suppose. The main thing is that the temperature has risen at all in 50 years.
Yeah, but just one (Explicit) Degree ain't that big of a (Explicit) deal in 50 (Explicit) Years.
I vote for an Alien Invasion. Seriously, I think it's the only way we can survive. Let's face it, we humans are f***ed big time. We can't even agree on the big issues! How the hell are we supposed to fix the really big end of the world issues?!?! EXACTLY! But if we were invaded by aliens and the Earth got taken over or assimilated (don't mention the borg, i'm not making a star trek reference) into a larger galactic civilization, we'll suddenly have access to so many resources and so much technology, So yea, I think the only way to survive is to be invaded by aliens and taken over (but not annihilated or destroyed or killed or anything like that).
Global warming isn't as big an issue as people think it is. It's only brought to our attention through the media, & that's how it spreads like wildfire.
However, even if it DID start to cause severe problems, then the fact is that as people, we will start looking for solutions. Sure, prevention is a solution, but it's kinda too late for that, considering how much we depend on using items that cause so much pollution. Things will balance out.
Eipok Kruden: I vote for an Alien Invasion. Seriously, I think it's the only way we can survive. Let's face it, we humans are f***ed big time. We can't even agree on the big issues! How the hell are we supposed to fix the really big end of the world issues?!?! EXACTLY! But if we were invaded by aliens and the Earth got taken over or assimilated (don't mention the borg, i'm not making a star trek reference) into a larger galactic civilization, we'll suddenly have access to so many resources and so much technology, So yea, I think the only way to survive is to be invaded by aliens and taken over (but not annihilated or destroyed or killed or anything like that).
I have a theory that if humans were to ever inact an event which would place the entire planet in immediate peril, watching Aliens would intervene. For example, if CERN would have indeed sucked europe into a black hole, Watchers from above would cause the device to break, leaking or burning out some circuts...
What's so flawed about wanting to keep the world approximately the way it is, so we can interact with it in ways we understand? Not caring whether the world changes in a way we can't accurately predict seems pretty reckless.
1) Nature is in a continuous stage of change in and of itself that we do not (and will not) ever completely understand. It regulates itself by NEVER being completely rigid and unchanging.
2)Last time I checked, Global Warming Theory was changed because of the observations that several parts of the world were actually getting colder (now I believe it is called "Global Climate Change"). Anybody confirm/deny this?
3) Though I do believe that it is mankind's responsibility for the care and upkeep of this planet, I do not know of (m)any success(es) that mankind has had in forcibly regulating nature (through the passage of law). Has any other country besides the U.S. had success in doing this. note: I am NOT talking about national parks legislation or generalized rules/regulations- I am talking about specific laws enacted to solve ONE particular problem in nature (overpopulation of a species, etc.) that didn't need refreshing every two years
"Although ice sheet disintegration and the subsequent sea level rise lags behind rising temperatures, the process will become irreversible sometime in the second half of the 21st century, Overpeck said, "unless something is done to dramatically reduce human emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.
"We need to start serious measures to reduce greenhouse gases within the next decade. If we don't do something soon, we're committed to four-to-six meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise in the future."
partyguy: Okay Okay, I admit the earth is getting warmer...wasn't it a total of like .01 degrees or something? I still don't see why warmer weather is bad. Longer growing seasons, I tan faster, solar power works more efficiently; it seems like the benefits are boundless and the cons are that a whole bunch of ice is melting. If this had all taken place 100 years ago, the Titanic would not be at the bottom of the see.
Please realize I am not serious because I don't take global warming as a serious issue.
Also I am trying to reduce my carbon footprint by eating 3 times as much beef as normal to make up for all the vegans/vegetarians who are eating the plants that CONVERT the CO2 into oxygen!
1 degree, Celsius. No, doesn't sound like much, but by current theories, the largest mass extinction ever, which killed off 95% of all life, was caused by a global temperature increase of about 10 degrees. We're expecting it to go up by a few more degrees before it levels off. The heat itself isn't the problem; it's the drastic, sudden changes to weather patterns: massive droughts, floods, etc.
And please don't bring in the "vegans/vegetarians = global warming" thing; eating animals is always less efficient, because the animals had to eat massive amounts of plants to grow up before you ate them, and most of that energy never reaches you. I dunno if that part is just a joke, but it sure contradicts the idea that you're not worried about global warming anyway.
And that was caused by volcanoes spewing out shit for tens of thousands of years, more than we would EVER be able to do. Remember the SCIENCE behind it, and why it actually happpened, how it got to that state, and why it actually matters.
I am however into independent energy sources for OTHER reasons. I like solar and wind because they help the world have less energy struggles and fights. The only way i will eventually support them is if they are cost effective. It all boils down to how much it costs, and "going green" costs too much.
HuCast: "Although ice sheet disintegration and the subsequent sea level rise lags behind rising temperatures, the process will become irreversible sometime in the second half of the 21st century, Overpeck said, "unless something is done to dramatically reduce human emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.
"We need to start serious measures to reduce greenhouse gases within the next decade. If we don't do something soon, we're committed to four-to-six meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise in the future."
The record that we were supposed to lose "massive amounts of ice this year were false
"Satellites first started taking measurements of sea ice in 1979-1980. After 28 years of warming Arctic sea today is where it was when measurements started. Will we see news photos of Polar Bears frozen to the ice?
Where is the media now that the Arctic ice concentration is at the same concentration as when measurements began 28 years ago? How many years of normal ice conditions will it take before they admit the Polar Bear isn't threatened? The coverage of both Arctic and Antarctic ice has been very one sided."
Do calm down everyone. Despite what the environmentalists say, the world is not about to end in a firey burning apocalypse because you drive a large car. Though why America insists on making such inferior cars is beyond me, but....bah, off-topic. Humans are remarkably adaptable creatures. I mean, we survived the god-damned COLD WAR, for chrissakes, and for a good amount of time there we had nutters like Reagan and Thatcher (or Brezhnev) holding the keys to the nuclear arsenel.
Global Warming is not the apocalypse. When the Apocalypse is immenent, I and Ultrajoe will inform you all.
However, I will deign to say that there is a large quantity of evidence supporting the theories of man-made global warming. How relaible it all is is a different matter, but I'm going to assume that, cetrus paribus, that the levels of lying, misanthropy and skullduggery are equal on both sides of the debate.
The solution to the problem as described by the enviromentalists: Burn less oil. Problem. Solved. And possibly reduce China to a burnt, arid wasteland of corpses and smoking ruins, but that's just for personal preference.
How to do that:
Force America to build cars to a the same standard as is practised internationally (i.e not so thirsty and inefficent).
Encourage a fuller investment in solar, hydroelectric, hydrogen and other 'clean' energy sources around the world. And halve the taxes on such products, while increasing the taxes on conventional petroleum, coal and so on. Yes, we're going to have inflation (cost-push) as the corporates pass on the prices, but on the other hand the long-term competition that will result from such a product will stabilise prices nicely. (Long-run)
Thirdly- prevent said corporates from destroying such alternate products by predatory pricing, dumping or just buying them (even if the state must take the product as a national secret and develop it itself)
nmmoore13: Solution: realize global warming is not man made.
Yeah, because there's tons of legitimate scientific evidence for that, and it's totally not another conspiracy theory. [/sarcasm]
It really bugs me that people keep saying there's no scientific evidence for global warming when, actually, there's an absurd amount of it, and the evidence only continues to grow as everyone continually ignores it.
The only long-term solution is to just burn way less fossil fuels, and when we do burn them, try to filter out most of the CO2 before it escapes into the atmosphere. Though nothing is really going to happen unless people stop denying it without any real evidence.
Okay Okay, I admit the earth is getting warmer...wasn't it a total of like .01 degrees or something? I still don't see why warmer weather is bad. Longer growing seasons, I tan faster, solar power works more efficiently; it seems like the benefits are boundless and the cons are that a whole bunch of ice is melting. If this had all taken place 100 years ago, the Titanic would not be at the bottom of the sea.
Please realize I am not serious because I don't take global warming as a serious issue.
Also I am trying to reduce my carbon footprint by eating 3 times as much beef as normal to make up for all the vegans/vegetarians who are eating the plants that CONVERT the CO2 into oxygen!
dude, if this all took place 100 years ago half of the world would be underwater... and try to think before you post
No. No. No. No. Hybrids, no. Not only from the viewpoint that they suck all the fun out of driving, but environmentally. Yes they are efficient while in use, but the energy cost of creating the batteries and electronics, etc. that goes into a hybrid, and then into recycling when it outlives its usefulness is astronomical. Your average Jeep is actually friendlier to the environment in the long run, so no. No hybrids.
However, I do think we need to lessen or end our dependence on oil. There is enough wind across the great plains to power the US, the only problem being widespread distribution and infrastructure. Our distrobution networks are not efficient enough to make long distance power transfer viable, so wind, solar, hydro, wave, and even nuclear power are the way to go. All 100% clean. As for cars, I'm excited about Hydrogen fuel cells, as well as purely electric cars, as both have proven that they don't have to be boring and slow, while still being green (I so hate saying that...green...)