Global warming...what to do?

[theAlphaDuck]

So...
Kamakatsu has turned into a 0% waste town..

the council does not collect ANY rubish and everything is to be recycled...
this is alot of effort....

question:

should we dedicate resources and money to trying to prevent the events of global warming....

or should we accept that it's going to happen anyway and instead put our resources and money towards dealing with the effects (i.e. flood defences ect.) of global warming when it happens?

and if that was done...would it be moraly wrong?

 

[Emoni]

There should be serious resources put towards cleaning things up and looking at the effect and reducing emissions. Global Warming I'm certain is caused by more than one factor, but also keep in mind that pumping out more crap into the air, ignoring the issue, certainly isn't going to have NO effect. Moreover, what about our own health in regards to the air, pollution, and who knows what else we are exposed too and consume.

Of course, for the United States the economy is in ruins and the government I am starting to absolutely fear, but for Japan they seem to be stabilizing politically. Also, their recycle system and other practices were some of the best I have seen, partly because it was a necessity. Yes, it could be improved but it is a damn good start.

However... with China and India building more and more who knows what good it will do. Japan can however set a very good example in this regard.

(BTW, what news story were you referring to? It seems Kamakatsu is news related or something you read)

 

[theAlphaDuck]

(BTW, what news story were you referring to? It seems Kamakatsu is news related or something you read)

yea it was just on the BBC....

yea japan has alot of cool tech.... i.e. power stations working better...

but india and china...and africa are not gonna use green tech.

so why should we?
or should we lead by example?

 

[Emoni]

Leading by example and advancing technology can be extremely helpful, this is where I believe Japan can have a strong assisting influence on countries like India and China (We are dead if Africa ever becomes strong, unified, and industrialized like China) By advancing the technology and methods, they are made cheaper and more accessible for developing nations to afford and have access too.

At least that is my opinion, without much knowledge of economics or environmental issues!

 

[Mike Cash]

Or.....we could recognize man-made global warming for the hoax that it is and get on with our lives.

 

[Mars Man]

I have moved this here due the more general concept of global warming presented in the OP, rather than any materially precisely expressed matter focusing on Japan. Please do be careful with thread starts. OPs should be laid out thoughtfully and carefully. Thanks. MM

 

[AroundTheWorld]

Go to your freezer/refridgerator, grab ice, throw it in the ocean.

There, global warming solved.

Oh wait, this is serious.

Well, in the centuries to come I have no doubt we'll terraform other planets and spread to the stars (as a species, other than an apocalyptic plague it really is our only viable option due to overpopulation.) But I do hope we learn from our mistakes. Kind of sucks that we ruined Earth, but such is the nature of humanity.

 

[ArmandV]

If there's "global warming," there's no proof that it's even caused by man. Then there's other scientists saying we are headed for another Little Ice Age. Personally, I think it is a scam by environmentalist wackos and liberals trying to control people's lives and impose more taxes for supposedly "green" programs. Bullplop!

 

[Haruspex]

There are examples and counterexamples for both, which means at least one of them is wrong. Since I can't really think about a solution for a problem that I don't understand completely, I say wait, watch and analyse.

 

[theAlphaDuck]

well man made or not....
i think we can sefely say it's happening...
the problem is we are on the verge of a VERY bad cycle...
when the ambient temp. of the earth go's up by another 2 degrees C
then the cycle begins..
the rainforests will be too hot to support rainforest and will instead turn to desert...
all the trees and life in this zone will die... thus releasing massive amounts of CO2.... this will increase the temp. further...and thus the strip of desert will expand north and south as more latitudes become too hot to support rainforest....the wider the strip of desert... the faster it grows...
so once this cycle has started the co2 levels will increase at an almost exponential rate...
then of course glaciers will melt and the sea will rise....
eco systems will be destroyed the world over....
most will die from disease and starvation...
the streets will be filled with beggers and preachers telling us all to repent...
there is even a chance that the sea's will be on fire!!
due to methane that is currently trapped just under the ocean floor...
if the sea temp go's up by enough this gas will expand and have enough pressure to escape to the surface.... and the higher levels of CO2 will lead to an increase of thunder storms...
of course this is a worst case senario....
but the rainforests turning into desert IS fact....
rainforrest (as the name suggests) rely on RAIN...
lots of it...everyday!
if it's too hot the rain will not fall...it will remain as water vapour...and fall somewhere else instead!
can we stop it?
africa, india, china...they are all industrialising at a phenominal rate!!
and they are doing so on the back of coal, oil and gas...
so why should we bother to combat global warming...
should we not just accept that it is going to happen and start thinking about what we are going to do when it does happen?

 

[ArmandV]

Scientists have found that the sun is shining brighter lately. Is that manmade?

Also, the polar icecaps on Mars have also greatly receded. Is that manmade?

Bullplop!

 

[theAlphaDuck]

Scientists have found that the sun is shining brighter lately. Is that manmade?
Also, the polar icecaps on Mars have also greatly receded. Is that manmade?
Bullplop!

man made or not...

you can't deny it's happening though.

the question is...
do we aim to prevent...or prepare?

 

[Haruspex]

Are there humans living on Mars or the sun?

 

[Elizabeth]

If there's "global warming," there's no proof that it's even caused by man. Then there's other scientists saying we are headed for another Little Ice Age. Personally, I think it is a scam by environmentalist wackos and liberals trying to control people's lives and impose more taxes for supposedly "green" programs. Bullplop!

If you think it is caused by the Sun, by the planet being bombared with solar radiation, then why is the earth warming more at night than during the day ? Because greenhouse gases trap heat around the clock -- the sun does not.

If warming was due to the Sun, why is the upper atmosphere actually cooling ? Because greenhouse gases trap warmth in the lower atmosphere. The sun does not.

Greenhouse gases cause the planet to warm. It's a basic scientific fact. The level of atmospheric CO2 increase is approximately 37% since the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, humans have caused almost the entire increase we are currently witnessing.


ArmandV may be able to round up an assemblage of crackpot meteorologists, coal/oil/gas industry lobbyists, social scientists or mathemeticians to agree with his "alarmists skepticism." But very, very few reputable climate scientists.

 

[ArmandV]

ArmandV may be able to round up an assemblage of crackpot meteorologists, coal/oil/gas industry lobbyists, social scientists or mathemeticians to agree with his "alarmists skepticism." But very, very few reputable climate scientists.

"There you go again!"

Likewise, I am sure you are able to round up plenty of alarmist "chicken littles" with their cries of doom & gloom and more government regulations and taxes. But the facts don't support the doom & gloomers.

Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze - Global Research

Are there humans living on...the sun?

There are, but only at night.

 

[Mars Man]

What's kind of funny, is that there is already a thread here in Serious Discussions about this general matter, althought the theme is different. This is a hard call in some ways--do we focus on trying to prevent some possible disasters, and put our economical efforts there? or do we instead spend on what might amount to theoretical-only efforts to keep the earth on this side of the point of no return.

I have a lot of articles in Science and American Scientist, as well as NewScientist which toss things related to this subject around. I will try to dig into my way behind cataloging, and pull some out.

In the meantime, I'd like to ask the OP to provide some source material and evidence for the statements that he has made--I mean this is Serious Discussion, after all.

 

[theAlphaDuck]

evidence?

hows the uk government MET office for a credible source

here are a few extracts:



"Secondly, the model predicts that, in the second half of this century, vegetation carbon storage in South America will begin to decline as a result of the die back of the Amazon forest, which is caused by regional warming and drying (direct anthropogenic deforestation is not included). Around the middle of the century, the land biosphere as a whole switches from being a weak sink for carbon to a strong source, mainly due to the rapid loss in soil carbon beyond 2050. In total, between the middle of the 19th century and the end of the 21st century, the combined effects of climate change and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are predicted to reduce global soil and vegetation carbon storage by around 100 Gt C."

for the full page goto:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/carbon_cycle/results_trans.html

 

[theAlphaDuck]

oh and the unit GT C incase your wondering is
Giga-Tonne of Carbon

also note that human deforestation and illigal logging is NOT taken into acount...thus things are likely to take effect more quickly than the model suggests

 

[ArmandV]

oh and the unit GT C incase your wondering is
Giga-Tonne of Carbon
also note that human deforestation and illigal logging is NOT taken into acount...thus things are likely to take effect more quickly than the model suggests

There is one other thing that people seem to overlook: vulcanism. There have been several volcanic eruptions during the past several years. Volcanoes also sprew stuff into the atmosphere.

 

[Elizabeth]

There is one other thing that people seem to overlook: vulcanism. There have been several volcanic eruptions during the past several years. Volcanoes also sprew stuff into the atmosphere.

Wrong. The major effect volcanoes have on climate is as a cooling effect. The sulfates they spew out as ash actually work to counter-act greenhouse gas buildup, albeit by an impossibly small degree -- 1/00(0) of a percent or such ??

So pray for an eruption around the world's few remaining unpopulated territories.

 

[ArmandV]

Wrong. The major effect volcanoes have on climate is as a cooling effect. The sulfates they spew out as ash actually work to counter-act greenhouse gas buildup, albeit by an impossibly small degree -- 1/00(0) of a percent or such ??

So pray for an eruption around the world's few remaining unpopulated territories.

Maybe that's why there has been more talk about another "Little Ice Age" (like in the 1700s) of late.

In the meantime, thing to do is to take Mike Cash's advice:

Or.....we could recognize man-made global warming for the hoax that it is and get on with our lives.

 

[Taiko666]

Maybe that's why there has been more talk about another "Little Ice Age" (like in the 1700s) of late.
In the meantime, thing to do is to take Mike Cash's advice:

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but dismissing the idea of 'man-made' global warming as a 'hoax' seems reckless at the very least.

Scientists have found that the sun is shining brighter lately. Is that manmade?
Also, the polar icecaps on Mars have also greatly receded. Is that manmade?
Bullplop!

This sort of post does nothing to enhance the credibility of your opinions on this issue... quite the reverse in fact.

 

[ArmandV]

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but dismissing the idea of 'man-made' global warming as a 'hoax' seems reckless at the very least.
This sort of post does nothing to enhance the credibility of your opinions on this issue... quite the reverse in fact.

Not at all. If you would read my first post on this subject I said, "If there's global warming..." There may be global warming or there may be the opposite of it going on.

It is my view that this idea that man is causing it is a hoax for the reasons stated earlier.

 

[Revenant]

I'm no expert on the matter here, so I'd rely on what the experts as a whole say. I know that in the past the experts have been wrong, but given that this is science, and science is both rigorous, peer-reviewed, and self-correcting, I don't see it as a bad place to start to trust the experts as a whole (I certainly don't have the time to become an expert myself)..

In the meantime, I can see Eco-technology as doing mostly good, as oil, coal, and the like are finite sources of energy, and the world's population is expanding, placing more demand on the limited supply of goods and energy. So more energy efficient lifestyles will eventually pay off, as will relying less on goods that also demand energy to make. Don't get me wrong here, all items take energy to make and bring to you, just some more than others, some A LOT more than others.

Eventually economics will force people to use less energy, and products that take lots of energy to make will become less and less feasible. In short, getting a jump start on not relying on finite energy resources, staying away from making nuclear plants in more and more people's back yards, and relying on renewable energy resources seems to be the ideal as I see it.

 

[theAlphaDuck]

In short, getting a jump start on not relying on finite energy resources, staying away from making nuclear plants in more and more people's back yards, and relying on renewable energy resources seems to be the ideal as I see it.

hmmm it's interesting that you mention nuclear power,

in my view nuclear power is clean, safe, and the minerals required for it are abundant...

there IS the issue of waste...but the new site being planned in australia should fix that! (its in the middle of nowehere so even if it does go belly up...it won't effect anything)

nuclear power gets a bad name.... because of things like chernobyl.... which wasn't a situation where a nuclear power station went wrong...everything was working fine...they just did a slightly nuts experiment and it went VERY wrong...tho it did answer an important engineering question...the answer being...no not really

nuclear power stations have safefty systems that are flawless.
if something goes wrong...the reactor can alway's be "scrammed" and this kills the reaction 100% of the time...
every reactor core has a couple of tonnes of boron dust above it...with one button press (or manually) this is released and kills the core dead....

core's retail (not that you can buy them) at a fair few million each...so in some situations...namely long island...company's or rather staff are a bit hesitant to use this option....i mean who would want to call thier boss to say that you just made the decision to scram several million dollars worth of damage and take the entire station offline for probably the next year at least!

but yes...that's a bit of a rant...

Nuclear power is SAFE...so should we not use more of it in order to maintain our consumer lifestyles?