Global Warming

[Sasquatch]

How are we contributing to the problem?

The question is, are we at all? Have humans made any impact, or would "Global Warming" happen regardless, as it has happened many times in the past, following natural climate cycles?

Fossil fuels are burnt to create the electricity we use – and by burning them we in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for example.

One main problem with this is that much of the world's electricity is produced from coal. While this is one of the most inexpensive methods of producing electricity, it's also one of the dirtiest, if not the dirtiest. While morons protest the opening of nuclear power plants and oil refineries to replace the ones that are decades old, the majority of America's (and China's) electricity comes from coal -- and not "clean coal", but regular coal. Add to this the fact that Obama flat-out stated that anybody who wants to open a "clean coal" power plant will be forced out of business, yet still refuses to subsidize or even allow nuclear plants to go up, and we're not helping ourselves.

Deforestation is yet another what in which we are destroying our Earth.

While this used to be a much more serious problem, more recently, more regulations have been put on logging companies, so that they have to replant trees to replace the wood they take. This is why you might see trees in perfect rows -- that land was logged years and years ago and reseeded.

Basically, I wanted to discuss all this and more. For example, how are you trying to help? How can we contribute to saving our planet? Is enough action being taken? What do you think about it all?

While I disagree with the concept that humans are a contributing factor to the natural change of climate that the earth experiences, you made a damn good post on it.

And while I don't give much thought to "reducing my carbon footprint", I do give thought to reducing my bills. I don't drive like a moron, so I don't use as much fuel as other people may (though I do have a larger engine). I recycle. I make sure all of my lights are turned off when I leave my place of residence, and unplug my computer when I leave for more than one night. I open windows and turn on a fan instead of using air conditioning (though now that it's getting hotter, I don't know how long that'll last).

And while I respect the idea that we should do what we can to stop polluting the planet, I don't think we should prioritize the nonproven idea of human contribution to climate change over manufacturing and progress. "Global Warming" has become synonymous with a war against Capitalism, with stricter regulations and restrictions placed on more successful industries and countries, letting others slide. Screw that.

And I wear natural clothing. The underwear I have on now is 100% natural baby seal fur. And let me tell you, it feels smoooooooooth.

The government can chuck as many new recycleing bins as they want on to the street, but it won't make people use them.

Hahahahah ... a little anecdote that you reminded me of. In many parts of Iraq, garbage collectors work for tips. This means that they spend more time collecting from the wealthier neighborhoods, and don't bother with the poorer neighborhoods. Thus, the poorer neighborhoods end up with garbage everywhere, and it goes from bad to worse. Anyway, the U.S. government paid to have hundreds and hundreds of giant metal dumpsters placed around the city. The plan was to put dumpsters out, wait a week or two, then collect the garbage from them and take it to a big landfill. That would help clean out some of the worse neighborhoods, that haven't had a garbage collection service for decades. What happened? The Iraqis cut up the dumpsters for scrap metal.

If everybody recycled, it would actually be very beneficial. Did you know that due to the overpopulation of people in California, Japan, and China, there is an overpopulation of garbage, and it is therefore sent into the ocean, halfway between California and Hawaii? It's just a giant floating waste dump out in the middle of the Pacific, three times larger than the state of Texas. Now that doesn't lead to global warming or anything, but it is disgusting.

That's partially true. First, garbage isn't "sent" into the ocean -- it ain't like China, Japan, and California decided to meet in the middle somewhere and dump freighters full of garbage into the sea. The Great Pacific Garbage patch formed in the North Pacific Gyre, which is basically a giant eddy, where crossing currents form a large (huge) area of semi-stagnant water. Garbage from all over the area, and from all over the world, is carried by sea currents to this section of ocean, where it is extremely slowly broken down by marine life, seawater, and sunlight. But no, garbage isn't "sent into the ocean" by California, Japan, or China. And while scientists and oceanographers still don't know if the GPGP is one patch or two, it prettymuch stretches from North of Hawaii to East of Japan. And while it does only mildly hamper the ability of marine vegetation to convert CO2 to O2, it definitely is disgusting.

The reason for this is because high powered executives and leaders of governments worldwide have gotten rich off of stuff like oil and other pollutants, and are fearful because they would rather kill the planet than lose their money, because all politicians, say for a good rare few, are criminal.

And let's not forget that the average American lives more than ten miles from their place of work, and it's just plain stupid to assume that somebody in Wisconsin is going to ride a bike twenty miles every day in February. Or that first-world countries like things like electricity.

I'm curious to know who's on your list of being the "rare few" politicians that aren't "criminal".

Something has to be done, or else we could all face one of three options. One, the melting of the northern ice cap could send too much fresh water into the gulf stream, causing massive storms that force the world into a new ice age (see The Day After Tomorrow.)

Yes, let's use a fiction movie in an attempt to support logical arguments. You know what, if aliens ever come to Earth, let's make sure we don't send a helicopter to greet them, or else they'll destroy it and start a global war against all mankind (see Independence Day).

Two, much of the planet could flood.

Ice takes up more space than water. While water levels would raise ever-so-slightly if the ice caps melted, it wouldn't be enough to flood "much of the planet", or even a significant amount.

Three, water could dry up, and instead of countries fighting over land or oil, they would fight over water...

... So water, which covers 2/3 of the planet, would just disappear? And countries would fight wars over water, despite the fact that we can purify and desalinize seawater?

Which would actually be pretty cool, because then they would be fighting for something that they actually need, unlike the two, three, four, or five wars that are going on now.

Because nobody needs those little things like freedom or secuity.

It took us a massive electricity bill to change our ways sadly but now we turn everything off at the power point and use candles as much as possible instead of lights and other than that yeah we just turn everything off when not in use.

... You do know that a candle burning produces even more Carbon dioxide than is produced by a coal plant to generate the electricy needed to power a flourescent light bulb, right?

[Govinda]

So if it's not sent into the ocean, then the only other option is that it really isn't in the ocean. Let me explain. Such cities as LA, there is bound to be a hell of a lot of trash lying about out on the streets. When rain or other circumstances arrive, the trash gets washed down drainage pipes, which lead into sewers, which leads into the ocean, hence sending the trash via sewer lines, into the ocean. So you're right, people don't purposefully send it into the ocean, but the amount of people in those parts of the world, combined with the amount of trash they produce, finds it's way into sewers and other gateways to the ocean, and hence, accidentally sending trash into the ocean.


Lance Armstrong would have no problem doing that. Are you going to call him stupid? No, I think not, because if you do, that means that you're bias towards testicular/brain cancer survivors.


Of course they do. It makes them rich.


I'm not sure. That's why I called them a rare few; because I couldn't think of any. There's bound to be at least a few who aren't criminal.


What, you think no research went in to the writing of the movie? I don't really care if it's science fiction or not. If it makes sense, then it makes sense. It doesn't matter where it came from.


When I was referring to "much of the earth," I was referring to all areas below sea level. It's not "most of the earth," but it's still a lot of land.


Fresh water would, and areas away from seas or lacking the technology to purify seawater would be at a crisis. Use your imagination, tough guy.


There hasn't been a war fought for freedom or security since the last one ended in 1945. I mean, sure, the South Koreans fought against communism and the North Koreans, but during that same war, when America and the Soviet Union became involved, they weren't fighting to protect either side, they were fighting a proxy war of their own. And all of the middle east invasions have started off with the premise of providing freedom and security, such as going to war to help defend Saudi Arabia, or to fight terrorism, but in the middle east, it always comes down to one thing; oil.


In the past 100 years, the average global temperature has increased 0.6 degree Celsius, which is an extraordinary increase, seeing as though every century before that, although the global temperature has increased, it has never increased to that amount. This increase coincidentally came as industrialization around the world continued, expanded, and grew.

Please don't mention The Day After Tomorrow. It is utter, utter fiction, and a rubbish movie at that. They are firmly on my list of American Filmmakers Who Liked the Idea of Scotland But Couldn't Be Bothered Looking It Up on Wiki. They have a little Scottish weather station...in which they position three Englishmen. I liked my country being the centre for European apoclaypse, though.

Desalinisation is a long and very expensive process. Countries like Australia would need to start building desalinisers now, and build a lot of them.

Wars fought over scarce resources are worse than wars fought for freedom (of which there have been plenty since 1945. For starters: NATO in Afghanistan and Bosnia). In wars like that, peaceful resolution could be an option. In scarce resource is it not. You die if you don't get it, they die if they don't get it. It drives people to do horrible things.

Also, the sea is not like a bath. If you put water into it, the whole level won't rise; it'll do more rising in specific places. Bangladesh, Miami, London, The Netherlands are in the target zones though, because they have always been susceptible. I've been to Holland, and the dykes are creepy - you can see that the water is higher up than you are standing. The thing about this flooding is that it will be a very slow process. Like the Thames Barrier - today it is almost constantly raised to hold back higher seawater and keep it from the centre of London. It never used to be that way. It's taken years. London should be strengthening its defences (it's been more than 30 years since Joe Strummer warned them), as should other target areas.

Where I live is headed for ice age anyway, so there's not much we can do about that. The Gulf Stream actually stopped for a little while last year. Very suppressed news story at the time over here. At least you can melt snow to get water.