Can We Even Stop Global Warming?

Originally posted by grover
BUT somehow i tend to equate the two of you together except that one is more intelligent than the other.

And that's how we know we've defeated you. When all you can do is spew elitist insults.

Your sword, please ...

Insults? I complimented one of you but I am not going to say who.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Then look forward to debunking the actual power consumption figures from Gore's personal residence, which have only increased since he made his mock-umentary. As someone posted on my thread, you'd think Gore would want to show us the way to energy conservation by using alternative power sources and perhaps cutting back on his own consumption. But no, not this elitist. As always it is do what Gore says and not what he does for himself. It's always the little people that shoulder Gore's burden.

Sorry, but this time (again) your boy has really stuck his face in it. And by the looks of him has also managed to swallow a lot of it.

Oh, well I will wait to see what your "sources" are. There are still people who think that Gore said "I invented the internet" which is simply not true. He contributed so much to it, however, that without his involvement it wouldn't be what it is today for the common user such as yourself and I. So just remember when you go on your Gore bashing fest, that his efforts were the ones that have allowed you to do it via the internet.

The petty bickering and insults need to stop now.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

Please get on topic and stay on topic. Action will be taken if that request is ignored.

wupy

While human activity contributes only a small amount toward the heat load on the planet, it's enough to shift the equilibrium significantly. However, there are so many of us, and so many independent economies that there's little hope of reducing our impact very much. Besides, it's a long term thing. What we were doing a half century ago is still part of the problem.

The highly populated areas near oceans will be innundated so people will be forced to move. Some farm lands will become arid, while some wastelands will become fertile. However, I doubt that we can respond fast enough to avoid wholesale famine. When societies are under stress they take extreme actions such as killing their neighbors so they can take over their natural resources.

We have made such progress in genetic engineering that the technology will soon be available to almost everyone. I can envision some group developing a virus or bacteria that is uniformly fatal, highly communicable and resistant to antibiotics. Once this gets loose, the human population will be decimated. If temperatures are not too extreme they will be able to rebuild a civilization in the next ten or twenty thousand years. Or, we may become extinct and be replaced by some species that was able to survive the changes.

On a more positive note, as we develop powerful alternative energy sources we could begin to break down water to oxygen to be released and hydrogen which we could react with carbon dioxide to make water and hydrocarbons. That way we could reverse what we've been doing and pump the hydrocarbons back down oil wells. That way, we could gradually reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Of course, we could use plants to take the first step, then it would be easier to generate the hydrocarbons, which could still be stored underground.

But then, I don't have to worry because the major effects of global warming won't show up in the next twenty-five years so, unless I live to be 101, I'm home free.

Occam

Originally posted by Occam
While human activity contributes only a small amount toward the heat load on the planet, it's enough to shift the equilibrium significantly. However, there are so many of us, and so many independent economies that there's little hope of reducing our impact very much. Besides, it's a long term thing. What we were doing a half century ago is still part of the problem.
............

Exactly what "equilibrium" are you talking about?

There is no magical equilibrium, the only constant on any ecological system is "change", not "equilibrium".

And as for your mentioning that coastlines will be flooded in the near future, let me show you that this has happened many times in the past without there being any "industrialization around.

Nearly 1,700 years ago, devastating tempests associated with sea-level rise destroyed villages of the Calusa Indians on the southwest Florida coast, near present-day Fort Myers, forcing the native fishermen to move inland to relative safety, said UF anthropologist Karen Walker.

Walker's clues to storms, sea-level rise and migration include village remains buried by storm-surge sediment, and other village deposits found at higher elevations than where they should be. In addition, the modest shells and fishbones left behind by the Indians, she said, show ecological correlations between rising sea levels and global warming periods documented in the historical record of ancient Europe.

"As we enter into a modern warming period, which seems to be the case, Florida is likely to experience flooded shorelines and an increase of intense storms," Walker said. "I think that it's not a coincidence that there were major storms recorded at some of the archaeological sites that I study and that those storms happened during the warm Roman Optimum period. I have the storms closely dated to the fourth century AD."

www.napa.ufl.edu...

Such changes are going to continue to happen whether mankind is around or not, and whether all countries in the entire planet "go green" or not.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by Muaddib]