Human effects on global warming.
- Thread starter Kempley05
- Start date
NoPoke
Active Member
Moza the experimental fusion reactors that we currently have running are just as dirty as the fission reactors. I cant remember if any of the fusion reactors has actually managed to produce more energy than they consume. Fusion requires a breakthrough technology to make it work. Pity we have no idea what that will be. Still we've got 40 years that ought to be enough. Forty years ago we were all going to have energy that was too plentifull too measure. Flying cars, robots doing the houswork. people living on the moon and on mars. Just becaues we want something to happen doesn't mean that it will. The energy crisis is real it wont go away if we ignore it. The earth is a very resiliant system but that doesn't mean it can't be broken.
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
Well of course this isn't just going to eradicate most life on earth. But do you think humans will survive? At best, I think some people could live on but civilization would collapse...
LOL, yeah, I think they are. Many natural systems are in a fragile balance, and introducing a small change can create wild variations. That's what I was talking about before. Have you ever heard about what happens sometimes when you introduce an exotic species to a new environment, for example?
Humans aren't in danger of extermination.
What global warming worst case would do would be to uproot about 20% of the World's population.
A mere billion people.
Now, that billion people having to move from flooded coastlines will have major impacts on our lives.
It's not about us being killed off. It's about major disruptions.
Now, some species will get killed off.
They don't have the same options that people do to move.
But we're killing off lots of species anyway. It's not just Global Warming doing that.
Evoltion doesn't work in a 50 or 100 year timeframe.
It works in the time frame of 10's of thousands of years, millions of years.
Species don't actively evolve to adapt.
What happens is that members of a species die off that can't cope. The few that can cope live on to have offspring to carry on those genes that allowed them to cope.
So, are we happy with a large percentage of our wildlife dying off, knowing that 100,000 years from now that will lead to new species evolved from the survivors?
What global warming worst case would do would be to uproot about 20% of the World's population.
A mere billion people.
Now, that billion people having to move from flooded coastlines will have major impacts on our lives.
It's not about us being killed off. It's about major disruptions.
Now, some species will get killed off.
They don't have the same options that people do to move.
But we're killing off lots of species anyway. It's not just Global Warming doing that.
Evoltion doesn't work in a 50 or 100 year timeframe.
It works in the time frame of 10's of thousands of years, millions of years.
Species don't actively evolve to adapt.
What happens is that members of a species die off that can't cope. The few that can cope live on to have offspring to carry on those genes that allowed them to cope.
So, are we happy with a large percentage of our wildlife dying off, knowing that 100,000 years from now that will lead to new species evolved from the survivors?
Nuclear fusion... what a waste of money
An almost endless supply of clean energy, what a waste.
True, 40 years ago we did think we would flying cars, and we may not in 40 years have clean nulcear fusion, but the rate at which we are advancing technologically is astronomical(big words make me seem smarter when I am outnumbered
) compared to that of the 60's. I wouldn't be suprised if we did have it within the next 40 yearsCivilization will collapse as we know it if the earth gets about 2 degrees C hotter? wow...
Wild Variations =/= absolute destruction of the ecosystem in question. Yes, I have heard of the exotic species example, and that was an immediate change. If global warming is happening, it won't rise 5-7 degrees C average in a year, if it did, then yes, there would be problems, but it almost certainly won't(stupid aliens).
A lot of new research suggests that the oceans might rise only another 12 inches, hardly anything to worry about.
Yes, but I doubt that such a large number of the species will become extinct if it only rises 1-3 degrees, animals are hardy things. Humans survive in a large range of tempetures, Egypt to Idaho to India to Norway, and most animals are the same. Rats live almost anywhere, and so can dogs, and many many many other mammils. I don't think the rate of extinction will go up significantly because of global warming. The water might rise another degree or two, it won't kill off 5% of the species living there.
Insects breed to quickly for any slow procsess to wipe them out, and birds can fly to where they like the weather. Plants are getting more CO2 (if there is warming of the earth, CO2 increases follow tempeture increases), so they will have more energy to devote to keeping their internal systems in check.
You don't understand, it's not the slight change in temperature.
It's how that change in temperature affects the climate.
Look at Alaska.
There have been major changes there is just the past 10 years.
This is not still a projection. It's starting to happen at the extreme enviornments and will work it's way into ours soon.
recent studies say only 12 inches? Cite please?
It's how that change in temperature affects the climate.
Look at Alaska.
There have been major changes there is just the past 10 years.
This is not still a projection. It's starting to happen at the extreme enviornments and will work it's way into ours soon.
recent studies say only 12 inches? Cite please?
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
Hey, don't wander. This was meant entirely as a response to, "Well, everything won't die, it'll just adapt."
I never said things won't die, but yes, animals overall will adapt, I just find it highly unlikely that 5-10% of the species currently living will die out just due to global warming. Things will die, I don't deny that.
Humans do die because of to much heat, and they die because of to much lack of heat, so do other animals. I just don't see such a small increase in tempeture having a huge adverse effect like civilization as we know it will be destroyed and that 5-10% of the species will die out.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3400
http://www.americasfuture.net/1997/nov97/97-1123a.html
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed020807b.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/globalwarming.cfm
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Global-Warming-Environmentalism/dp/1596985011
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/warmingeditorial.html
*grabs flame shield*
Humans do die because of to much heat, and they die because of to much lack of heat, so do other animals. I just don't see such a small increase in tempeture having a huge adverse effect like civilization as we know it will be destroyed and that 5-10% of the species will die out.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3400
http://www.americasfuture.net/1997/nov97/97-1123a.html
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed020807b.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/globalwarming.cfm
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Global-Warming-Environmentalism/dp/1596985011
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/warmingeditorial.html
*grabs flame shield*
Last edited:
I spent several minutes explaining my point to just delete it. My reasoning? Its a hopeless argument. Can you convince a vegetarian to chaneg by means of writing a few words? Na. These life changing decisions are what make and break people.
Let me get this message out on the record. If you think global warming is real and want to to do your part in helping the world-I salute you! I think its the most noble thing to actually follow through on something you believe in.
Don't force me and others into your thinking though, like so many global warming activists are doing.
Let me get this message out on the record. If you think global warming is real and want to to do your part in helping the world-I salute you! I think its the most noble thing to actually follow through on something you believe in.
Don't force me and others into your thinking though, like so many global warming activists are doing.
Last edited:
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
Okay, I should explain myself. Basically, you said organisms will adapt to their changing environments. Indeed, this is so. But that also means a lot of the unfit members of each species will have to die out. Same for humans; the species might continue on, but if an evolutionary adaptation kicks in there's going to be a lot of death and chaos.
NoPoke
Active Member
I have no doubt that there is a lot of junk science involved in global warming. After all the politicians are involved and the 'global warming' threat is now an industry/business in its own right.
Like I said earlier I don't care if the climate change is caused by us or the Sun, a more energetic global weather system is not something that I particularly look forward too. More hurricanes, and the possibility of the atlantic conveyer changing or being shut off aren't good.
Waiting for the computer models wont do us any good either. If the climate models don't agree now (and they don't) they are unlikely to improve with greater complexity. I'd cite some relatively simple engineering problems that none of our existing computer models can agree on the final outcome. I'm trying to remember the example as I type
At present rates of consumption the future lack of energy will be the death of many of us. Nuclear, wind, solar, oil, wave, biomass, none of these is sufficient to quench our present thirst for energy. Right now our best option is to cut our consumption so that the reserves don't run out quite so fast and give those scientists that you expect to find a technological solution the maximum amount of time to get lucky.
I'm not trying to pursuade the meat eaters to go vegan or vice versa. Rather to point out that if you eat all the food today then you go hungry tomorrow. I don't know when that 'tomorrow' is but it looks a lot closer now than some decades ago.
Like I said earlier I don't care if the climate change is caused by us or the Sun, a more energetic global weather system is not something that I particularly look forward too. More hurricanes, and the possibility of the atlantic conveyer changing or being shut off aren't good.
Waiting for the computer models wont do us any good either. If the climate models don't agree now (and they don't) they are unlikely to improve with greater complexity. I'd cite some relatively simple engineering problems that none of our existing computer models can agree on the final outcome. I'm trying to remember the example as I type
At present rates of consumption the future lack of energy will be the death of many of us. Nuclear, wind, solar, oil, wave, biomass, none of these is sufficient to quench our present thirst for energy. Right now our best option is to cut our consumption so that the reserves don't run out quite so fast and give those scientists that you expect to find a technological solution the maximum amount of time to get lucky.
I'm not trying to pursuade the meat eaters to go vegan or vice versa. Rather to point out that if you eat all the food today then you go hungry tomorrow. I don't know when that 'tomorrow' is but it looks a lot closer now than some decades ago.
Last edited:
(TYranitarFReak)
New Member
I have no doubt that there is a lot of junk science involved in global warming. After all the politicians are involved and the 'global warming' threat is now an industry/business in its own right.
Like I said earlier I don't care if the climate change is caused by us or the Sun, a more energetic global weather system is not something that I particularly look forward too. More hurricanes, and the possibility of the atlantic conveyer changing or being shut off aren't good.
Waiting for the computer models wont do us any good either. If the climate models don't agree now (and they don't) they are unlikely to improve with greater complexity. I'd cite some relatively simple engineering problems that none of our existing computer models can agree on the final outcome. I'm trying to remember the example as I type
At present rates of consumption the future lack of energy will be the death of many of us. Nuclear, wind, solar, oil, wave, biomass, none of these is sufficient to quench our present thirst for energy. Right now our best option is to cut our consumption so that the reserves don't run out quite so fast and give those scientists that you expect to find a technological solution the maximum amount of time to get lucky.
I'm not trying to pursuade the meat eaters to go vegan or vice versa. Rather to point out that if you eat all the food today then you go hungry tomorrow. I don't know when that 'tomorrow' is but it looks a lot closer now than some decades ago.
we are in THE "tomorrow", we're experiencing the EFFECTS. The rapid melting of icebergs is a good proof~
You put in more energy than you take out. It is a waste.
NoPoke
Active Member
Stating that as a fact is what gets the global warming proponents dismissed as junk scientists. There is vast disagreement over what the properties of 'tomorrow' will be: over what the climate will look like in 20 years time. we really do not understand the climate and pretending that we do just allows both sides to take up entrenched positions.
The earths population is increasing.
The energy consumption of that population is rising per person.
No one can disagree that those two result in escalating energy consumption.
Then add in the big problem. Our energy is primarily derived from non renewable sources.
The crunch is that renewables, biomass, and nuclear can't make up the gap.
Global warming may turn out to be our saviour by killing off the bulk of the worlds population. Nice! But there will be major energy wars, famine, nuclear devices will get used by desperate people, along the way. Technologically we will be returned to the pre-industrial age. With a big difference: all the easily accessible high energy fuel sources will be unavailable. Thats a scary future. If turning off a light bulb makes that future less likely then I'm going to turn off the light bulbs! I even benefit immediately from turning off the light bulbs as my energy bill goes down.
Don't let the politicians divert you from the real threat to your way of life - an unstable energy supply. Don't be fooled by those using global warming as a smoke screen. Ask the real question : how am I going to keep the air conditioning / cars / airplanes going in 30 years time? Listen real hard to those that are worried that we wont be able too. Its that vision of the future that we have to avoid.
Last edited:
Ky00ber the III
New Member
Really, there's hardly any good reason to debating/discussing on the internet. Everybody comes out triumphant and unchanged etcetc.
Anyways, in my opinion, even if global warming is not killing us, blablabla. Why not just listen to the environmentalists(at least some of them), and do some good for the Earth. Iy's like Pascal's Wager, except it actually does more good than harm.
Anyways, in my opinion, even if global warming is not killing us, blablabla. Why not just listen to the environmentalists(at least some of them), and do some good for the Earth. Iy's like Pascal's Wager, except it actually does more good than harm.
NoPoke
Active Member
Here is the begining of the abstract of Proffessor Nocera's lecture..
i'm including it because I don't think anyone clicked the link I gave.
just read again what we have to do to hit this 2050 projection: all rivers damed, all land turned over to energy crops, a new fission plant every two days. windmills everywhere. Breakthrough technologies can't be forced, and to meet this 2050 demand we need a breakthrough technology very soon. The only practical approach is to moderate our insatiable thirst for energy.
i'm including it because I don't think anyone clicked the link I gave.
just read again what we have to do to hit this 2050 projection: all rivers damed, all land turned over to energy crops, a new fission plant every two days. windmills everywhere. Breakthrough technologies can't be forced, and to meet this 2050 demand we need a breakthrough technology very soon. The only practical approach is to moderate our insatiable thirst for energy.
Last edited:
Ok, I didn't know you ment induviduals will die out. Yes, single organisms will die, they do all the time to changes around them. Again, I just think it is highly unlikely that 5-10% of the known organisms on earth will die out.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
And to Kempley about fusion, fusion is what the sun does, and it hasn't ran out of energy for a very very very long time. And it will keep on going for a very very very long time. Fusion will also solve the energy problem, fission won't.
Or like I said earlier, try to harvest lightning.
Last edited:
It is quite, quite impossible to get continuous fission on earth. Even the best results so far only get about 70% of the energy back that was put in.