Wait, why was global warming bad again? Options

[Hudzon]

With all the discussions on how it should be stopped, I seem to have forgotten why we want to stop it to begin with.

I recall there was something said about polar caps melting, but I can't seem to recall how serious the issue was and how much of our world would drown. Besides, if that was all to it then why not just let it do its thing and have it solve the overpopulation issue along the way.

Any other ideas?

[forgottenpresence]

With all the discussions on how it should be stopped, I seem to have forgotten why we want to stop it to begin with.

I recall there was something said about polar caps melting, but I can't seem to recall how serious the issue was and how much of our world would drown. Besides, if that was all to it then why not just let it do its thing and have it solve the overpopulation issue along the way.

Any other ideas?

I think the issue is all of the pollution going into the atmosphere and destroying the protective barrier that prevents they suns rays from negatively effecting this earth and our health. Not too sure though, not something I worry about too much.

Not too sure about you, but some of us want to live in a healthier atmosphere. But it's not like I'm gonna change any of that.

[maximus242]

With all the discussions on how it should be stopped, I seem to have forgotten why we want to stop it to begin with.

I recall there was something said about polar caps melting, but I can't seem to recall how serious the issue was and how much of our world would drown. Besides, if that was all to it then why not just let it do its thing and have it solve the overpopulation issue along the way.

Any other ideas?

The reason why Global Warming is a bad thing is because it causes the earth to increase in temperature. Known as the greenhouse effect. Essentially, if the polar ice caps melt, certain parts of the world will be underwater. Not only that but there will be a much larger imbalance in temperature changes during different times of year. Global Warming could essentially change the world as we know it.

[Rick]

Climate changes associated with global warming are projected to contribute to famine and war, resulting in significant net harm to humanity.

[kortikal]

Global warming bad? Nah, it's a good thing, and here's why. We've got to get off this stinkin earth at some point. Think of over-population and all the disease and filth infesting this little planet. Global warming may herald a catastrophe, an armageddon, that is just the incentive our pitiful, lazy species needs to get off our fat asses and colonate space and other planets.

[Flex]

So that we can continue to spread as a galactic virus destroying the Universe.

[kortikal]

So that we can continue to spread as a galactic virus destroying the Universe.

since humanity is an expression of the Universe, the Universe would be destroying itself.

[forgottenpresence]

So that we can continue to spread as a galactic virus destroying the Universe.

since humanity is an expression of the Universe, the Universe would be destroying itself.

That is a far-fetched statement, IMO.

[Flex]

Maybe humans are really just like the pheonix.

"since humanity is an expression of the Universe, the Universe would be destroying itself."

Conservation of energy would indicate that with death comes new life. Our vital force will go on to continue the expansion (change) of the Universe. This said the universe is not destroying itself, but evolving, and our destruction may be a vital function of this new growth.

[forgottenpresence]

IME death is necessary for re-birth, in that I would have to agree.

[lucid_dream]

Conservation of energy would indicate that with death comes new life.

conservation of energy indicates no such thing. Ever heard of heat death? Please stop preaching your pseudo-science.

[Flex]

Conservation of energy would indicate that with death comes new life.

conservation of energy indicates no such thing. Ever heard of heat death? Please stop preaching your pseudo-science.

You misenterpret what I am saying. Ever consider the fact that your view of what life is, is not the only view?

[Rick]

Global warming bad? Nah, it's a good thing, and here's why. We've got to get off this stinkin earth at some point. Think of over-population and all the disease and filth infesting this little planet. Global warming may herald a catastrophe, an armageddon, that is just the incentive our pitiful, lazy species needs to get off our fat asses and colonate space and other planets.

Now that's some really tough love!

Living in space is hard, very hard. We won't be ready for several hundred years.

[trojan_libido]

Conservation of energy would indicate that with death comes new life.

conservation of energy indicates no such thing. Ever heard of heat death? Please stop preaching your pseudo-science.

I understand both sides of this arguement, conservation of energy is a physical law that has never been proven incorrect. Flex is comparing the death/birth cycle with this in a metaphysical and spiritual way. This is something I do myself and although its unproven, because if theres an unbreakable law of physics then in my view that law will be repeated kaleidoscope-like throughout all the iterations of matter and life. Since no energy is ever destroyed, only transformed, then its not a wild statement to equate that to the universes cycles like birth and death of life and stars, seasons etc. While not science its spirituality grounded in real Truth.

[DRZion]

How sweet would it be if we turned the whole of North America into a Rain Forest?? As temperatures rise, the rain forests start to grow further and further north; eventually we would all have productive rain forests in our back yards. Think about what this would do to crop growing seasons, too.

[boots]

Maybe humans are really just like the pheonix.

"since humanity is an expression of the Universe, the Universe would be destroying itself."

Conservation of energy would indicate that with death comes new life. Our vital force will go on to continue the expansion (change) of the Universe. This said the universe is not destroying itself, but evolving, and our destruction may be a vital function of this new growth.

"Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.
The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it." Tao Te Ching Ch. 29


The Earth is also an expression of the Universe. And not only is humanity an expression of the Universe, it is an expression of life on the Earth. The Universe cannot be destroyed. That is not the Way.

BUT, as humans we were born into this life with an Ego. The Ego is innately self-preserving. As humans, we were also born into this life with the ability to reason and to understand certain connections. To some extent, we understand cause and effect, and how change happens somewhat logically over time. Humans are mortal and require certain conditions to live. We understand that, and we should understand that our actions today make a difference on our state of existence tomorrow. If our current actions threaten our future security as a species, our Egos should tell us to change our current actions, so that the conditions of the future are sufficient to support human life!

[boots]

How sweet would it be if we turned the whole of North America into a Rain Forest?? As temperatures rise, the rain forests start to grow further and further north; eventually we would all have productive rain forests in our back yards. Think about what this would do to crop growing seasons, too.

That would be great, if that were to happen. But perhaps the rain forests would shrink due to rising temperatures, rather than thrive. The deserts would be least affected because they are already hot and dry. But the rain forests are full of moisture and life. The rain forests have the most to lose.

But rising temperatures could have a dramatic effect on the ocean currents. Who knows what kind of world-climate would result from that?

[Rick]

Current climate theory holds that we will get drier as we get hotter, not wetter.

[boots]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGKKJFD5M1.DTL

Current climate theory also suggests that "the melting of carbon-rich permafrost in Siberia could expel hundreds of billions of tons of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." Permafrost forms because when the plants die, they freeze rather than decomposing. Upon freezing, they store all of the carbon that was present in them. Rather than releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere slowly, a bank of it is created and built upon. If the permafrost melts, it will rapidly release dangerous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, exponentially speeding up global warming and terrestrial drying.

[Rick]

We may already be past the tipping point. The way things are going with more coal power plants being built, if we're not past the point of no return by now, we will be soon.

[boots]

So where do we go from here? Do we cut back on carbon emissions? Do we seek new energy sources? Do we try to initialize global cooling?

Cutting back on carbon emissions seems like it would only be prolonging an inevitable problem, but would be a great initial step.

Trying to initialize global cooling is probably a bad idea. It is probably best not to tamper any more with the atmosphere.

Seeking new energy sources seems like the only other option (besides doing nothing at all and taking our chances with the current predictions). Of course we can already harvest energy from wind, water, the earth, the sun, from nuclear fission. But why aren't we utilizing these sources? There must be a reason. Maybe the reason is that burning fossil fuel is the most convenient or reliable. Maybe it's the cheapest way. But surely not the most sustainable.

[boots]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm

Hmmm....nuclear fusion on Earth. Creating a star on Earth and harvesting its power. Good idea? What kind of hazardous waste would something like that create? Seems like we would be able to reap a lot of benefits, but seems extremely risky.

[Rick]

So where do we go from here? Do we cut back on carbon emissions? ...

It's a fact that we are pumping 85 million barrels of petroleum from the ground this year, more than ever, and similarly for coal. Every ton of carbon that gets extracted from the ground gets burned (except for feedstocks for manufacturing). Only when coal and oil get more expensive to extract than alternatives (solar, wind, etc.) will the burn rated be reduced. So it's a given that we will have to live with the consequences of climate change.

People have been aware of this problem and trying to change things for 30 years. Is it any wonder people become cynical and give up trying to change? As Baba Ram Das said, you can only change yourself.

Don't hold your breath waiting for practical fusion power. That research project is probably a bottomless pit.

[boots]

So it's a given that we will have to live with the consequences of climate change.

Would you consider trying to initiate global cooling a good option? I don't have any idea as to how or if it could be done, but it seems like it could be done (not necessarily practically or safely). Maybe something could be pumped into the atmosphere to either react to the carbon or to act against it. If significant climate change is certain, then maybe it will be our only option.

That, or adapt as a less-overpopulated species.

[Rick]

No. If we don't have the political will to control worldwide atmospheric carbon, there's no way we could ever do anything to reverse climate change. One theory is that a global ice age will follow the shut-down of the gulf stream current in the atlantic after global warming causes the Greenland ice sheet slide into the sea.

[boots]

I can see how it's easy to give up hope. It doesn't seem like anything can be done. We can talk all we want about alternatives to fossil fuel but talk is only noise unless action follows. And action is not following the noise.

Can I repeat this?:

"Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.
The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it." Tao Te Ching Ch. 29

Ride the wave (unless it dries up).

[DRZion]

There are two option that I am aware of:


1. Alternate fuel sources.

2. Reflective chemical blanket. This works on the same principle that volcano eruptions can change the climate. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_k...ate_change.html
This would not curb carbon emissions, but would lower global temperatures.


At the same time, I would like to point out that alternative fuel sources such as nuclear power and geothermal may not in themselves stop global warming, only to slow it way down. Both of these options bring out heat onto the earth's surface from a place where it would be otherwise permanently stored, possibly causing warming in the long term ( and with exponential growth it might be quite fast ).


But again, how F**KING awesome would it be to have a global, catastrophic event to bring humanity together? Imagine, sitting in your chair at 90 yo and telling your grandkids how you had to canoe your ass out of NYC to your 'hick' cousins in Appalachia, who have subsequently become real estate barons??
I'm talking penguin hunting and igloos with plasma screens or alligators at the north pole!!!!!!

[boots]

But again, how F**KING awesome would it be to have a global, catastrophic event to bring humanity together? Imagine, sitting in your chair at 90 yo and telling your grandkids how you had to canoe your ass out of NYC to your 'hick' cousins in Appalachia, who have subsequently become real estate barons??
I'm talking penguin hunting and igloos with plasma screens or alligators at the north pole!!!!!!

Ey man, ah ain't no dang hick!

Cool link. Thats what I meant by initiating global cooling. But I think Rick said it best..."If we don't have the political will to control worldwide atmospheric carbon, there's no way we could ever do anything to reverse climate change."

[boots]

Ey man, ah ain't no dang hick!

I'm not really from Appalacia, but am from the Catskill Mountains, a dissected plateau often considered an extention to Appalacia. (but you're right, DRZion; there are a lot of hicks 'round these parts)

My home is about 150 miles from NYC and I often feel like it is going to witness extreme population change with the current climate predictions.

Change is already happening here. To survive in my town, you either have to be a farmer or appeal to tourism. People from NYC come up on weekends during the summer and during ski-season, and they bring their wealth with them. However, with the price of gas, less and less people are visiting each year and our local economy is suffering greatly. People who grew up here are moving away. When kids grow up here and leave for college, they don't come back. There is nothing here for them. The population is getting older and older and smaller and smaller.

However, when NYC floods because of rising sea levels, this place is going to be booming! It could even become part of the New New York City, being higher enough in elevation to make up for the rising water in the place millions of people once called home.

[DRZion]

Hehehe sterotyping is good fun


The issue with global warming is that it is the effect of human greatness; it is caused by our rapid expansion as a specie. If you cut carbon emissions out instantly you are going to do more harm than global warming would by itself. This, and the fact that the fossil fuel industry supports millions of workers makes for a very complicated political situation. I have yet to see Al Gore's documentary.