Global Warming

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by greenpeace, Sep 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. greenpeace

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Sep 22, 2007
    30
    0
    Hello everyone ,


    do you believe that weather changes nowadays are due to
    human activities ( indurty in general ) ?

    Are you really concerned regarding this problem ?


    let's discuss this issue >
     
  2. recca02

    Senior Member

    Apr 2, 2007
    1,211
    0
    answer to the first question is:yes, largely actually i can hardly think of any natural reason.
    global warming can be related to COx emission for which automobile industry and power plants are very much responsible.
    a solution to which is clean form of energy like nuclear or wind ,hydal or solar.
    then comes for vehicles Battery Electric Vehicles.

    about the second question,
    i dont think most of us care about it(man do i sound ignorant here?) and above factors are well taken care by ISO and other organisations.
     
  3. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    425
    5
    To the first question: No, I don't believe the human population has a global impact on weather changes, or much of anything else. We populate only a small fraction of the surface of the planet, and our numbers are still very small compared to other life forms. I believe that if the planet is warming, it's entirely a natural accuring event, and nothing we can do to stop or slow it down. This fad, was born from observations in ice core samples from the north and south poles. Doesn't really say much about the planet as a whole, nor much about the pre-ICE AGE world. The planet was once a much warmer place before the big chill that killed much of the reptile life. Perhaps the planet earth is only recovering from whatever event that cooled it down

    Second question: Not so concerned about the temperature or weather, the changes are very small, and slow. People will natural adapt as needed over the years. People have survived the desert heat, long before the industial age, just as they have endured the polar cold. We'll likely kill everything with weapons, then polution.

    I'm totally for a greener world, but not because of the hype, the fads, or fear. This is my home, not a garbage dump. Why destroy the natural beauty, for the materials we don't really need, or to build things that will be torn down in a few years. The native americans had the right philosophy. The respected the land they lived on. because it was the land that kept them alive. They took just what was needed, and made some use of everything taken, gave back what they could. There is so much waste, so many people digging up resources just for the profit, stockpiling the rest. So many consumer products are made to serve no real need or purpose, just because they can market it as trendy. Lots of products aren't made to last much beyond the warranty period, not designed to be serviced or repurposed, only thrown in a trash pile. Petroleum isn't even used effeciently, most of what is burned as fuel, is exhausted as waste.
    There are a lot of re-usable materials like glass, plastic, and metals, that are just buried ind the landfills. Recycling cuts into the profits of those who origional made them.

    I think global economy is a much more pressing threat. Poorer countries will continue to allow the rich to come and rape their lands for a few hand outs. If the richer countries had to make do with what they had on hand, there would be much less wasted.
     
  4. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Question one's answer - yes, burning fossil fuel in industrial quantity is bad


    Question two's answer - no worries whatsoever!! We'll run out of fossil fuel in 10 to 30 years. After that, problem goes away. :D
     
  5. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    That's right on about the consumer goods. When I have to spend several minutes at a store going over the display of pens and pencils to find one that just looks functional, it's pretty obvious that it's just wretched excess to have all those "choices". There should be some happy medium between way too much and some "rationally" controlled market.

    As for global warming - like continental drift, not all scientists are on board as to the causation. Climate change is happening, but pointing fingers is going to be less than useful real soon. Just accomodating the population shift that a sea level rise will cause is going to make life very interesting.

    A cinic would advise investing in refridgeration equipment stock in Europe. Wouldn't want to but too much coastal real estate.
     
  6. recca02

    Senior Member

    Apr 2, 2007
    1,211
    0
    except for coal that is.
    those will last for at least say another 150 years or so.
     
  7. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Hmmm... too bad. I was really looking forward to selling my "primitive technology" skills to unprepared yuppies. :D
     
  8. cumesoftware

    Senior Member

    Apr 27, 2007
    1,330
    10
    Global warming is a real threat. Unfortunately real desperate measures to try to fix it don't exist just yet, and I tell you they should. I mean, here in Portugal we are having almost tropical storms. I never saw a thunderstorm so strong in my life like the one in the past week. There is flooding in England. I guess I can say that we all will be affected.

    I guess that EU is more worried with lead/tin solder. Then again, oil gives lots of $$$, lead doesn't.
     
  9. Gadget

    Distinguished Member

    Jan 10, 2006
    613
    0
    Of coarse global warming is real, and more extreme than any previous natural cycle, which leads the vast majority of people who have studied this problem to believe the "hand of man" and CO2 emissions have a definate influence.
    As for what can be done...... lobby governments to pass laws, and sign agreements, as most individuals have to be forced into action by either economics or legislation..... The problem however is that governments see the act of lowering emissions as unpopular with voters, and economic suicide... so many continue to bury their heads in the sand hoping it will Go Away. Unfortunately by the time they pull their heads back out, it will probably be too late.... it may already be too late. We may just have to evolve UV and heat resistant skin, CO2 scrubbers, webbed feet, and an appetite for plankton...assuming that survives .....
    Our country is trying to do its bit, but again.... not popular with the majority of voters.
     
  10. cumesoftware

    Senior Member

    Apr 27, 2007
    1,330
    10
    I completely agree to that. And I heard people talking about "global warming dictatorship", like those who believe that global warming is caused by the man are imposing their ideas to others. It seems completely unlise to me arguing that global warming doesn't exist or it is caused by an increase in the solar activity (ridiculous theory, Sun is too big to vary like that), and also arguing that there is a dictatorship that damages our "way of life".

    Not trying to be exagerated, but if we keep insisting, our "way of life" will be also our "way of death". And mankind will remain in universal history as the race that had potential to evolve, but choose not to due to $$$.

    P.S.:
    1- Most body proteins will alter irreversibly if they reach the thresold of 40ºC, 50ºC. That is the reason why global warming may kill animals and plants.
    2- CO2 increase motivates temperature rise which will melt the ice caps and release trapped methane, a four times more powerful greenhouse effect gas.
     
  11. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    425
    5
    Just out of curiousity, does anyone know how many degrees the planet's overall temperature has increased over the past 20 years? How many degree/year can we expect for the next 20 years? If we could actual stop releasing all greenhouse gases, how long will it take for the previous 400-500 years worth of damage to be reversed?
    Man-made greenhouse emissions aren't the only sources, nor apparently the largest contributer. Is there anyway to reduce natural emissions, other than killing all plants, animals, insects, and bacteria? Stop volcanos from erupting?

    I don't think we are that much to blame for the climate, and not a lot we can do to change it. We can't even accurately predict the weather. Never heard of anyone succesfully controlling the weather.

    When I see on the news where the police have to remove kids and animals form a garbage filled, feces littered, bug infested home, it discusts me that people could actually feel comfortable living like that. Pretty much the way we treat our planet, and that's discusting. Most of us would even think to just toss garbage on the floor in our house, why do it outdoors? Some people dig a hole in their backyard to bury trash, so do cities, counties and states. Is it anymore right?

    Personally, I think all these enviro-fads, distract us from the real problems. Just cut the waste, and make the most out of what we do use.
     
  12. cumesoftware

    Senior Member

    Apr 27, 2007
    1,330
    10
    I think a survey revealed that the amount of CO2 released each year worldwide was equivalent to the amount of CO2 released by four Mounts St. Helen. It is disastrous.

    And don't forget that the tropical storms and other natural disasters can cause poverty. So we cannot separate misery, global warming and the oil businness.
     
  13. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    IIRC, it was Pinatubo, not St. Helens. Couple hundred million metric tons, IIRC.
     
  14. greenpeace

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Sep 22, 2007
    30
    0
    so happy to see this serious disscusion :D

    I'll be back to your replys later

    so busy now :(
     
  15. Dave

    Retired Moderator

    Nov 17, 2003
    6,960
    144
    I take an agnostic approach with climate change - I have no way of knowing the true effect of humans on the environment and neither does anyone else. My reason for this belief is that the evidence from both sides is directly contradictory of one another.

    One thing I am sure of is the wastefulness of humans, and the sheer amount of rubbish generated that just ends up in land fill. With all the intelligence and technology we have, surely more should be done to recycle and reuse what is not broken. Particularly here in the UK, we are very much behind in this area. I personally recycle everything I use because I believe it is the least I can do. And although I support recycling, I do not feel that government should force people with taxation initiative (at least not the ridiculous one proposed by the UK government). It is my belief that people do want to recycle, but they want the powers that be to make it easier for them.

    Dave
     
  16. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    It may be a problem that has to be "solved" by governmental action. A nearby city had a can and bottle recycling progrram established by a local ordinance. It functioned for about 10 years, but required the local stores to give over some space to receive the cans and bottles.

    The largest recyclers were the homeless. People would come in with huge bags of cans to get the $.05 recycling payment (a charge that was tacked on to the original sale price).

    The store owners were unhappy about the loss of profitable space, and campaigned againt the program. They were ultimately successful in getting the recycling program repealed. They are making more money now, but the litter of discarded cans is back.

    Some funded program needs to be instituted. It should be easy and convenient to recycle. I would be happy to sort out items, especially it it did not require a trip is 25 - 50 miles to get to a recycling center. No such interest seems to have occured to the state legislature. Sadly, if it's not profitable, it's not likely to happen.
     
  17. Dave

    Retired Moderator

    Nov 17, 2003
    6,960
    144
    I agree that at some level it should be "solved" at government level, however I have no faith in the UK government so would be inclined to suggest we would be better off without any involvement.

    As an example, there are proposals afoot that suggest making households that generate waste to landfill pay more than those that don't - good idea somewhat. Where the proposals fall down is that they fail to address the lack of recycling facilities, and in some cases they have closed them down. Secondly, they do not address the source of much of the problems, for example why don't they tackle the manufacturers who wrap products (often needlessly) in excessive packaging. If you don't generate the packaging in the first place, then people cannot be idle and send it to landfill.

    This is a much more complex debate than the one I am making here but the small and simple things often make a big difference. As my technology teacher told me at school, "Boy, do the simple stuff first, and the difficult stuff will follow" - he was also my football coach and I didn't listen to him then either!

    Dave
     
  18. recca02

    Senior Member

    Apr 2, 2007
    1,211
    0
    lol, else u wud have Dav-id (beckham) instead.:D

    I am not sure how much CO2 is released by natural process but flue gas exhaust contain CO2 in the range of 15% by wt (might be higher for gases and oil)
    and we burn about 16000 tonnes of coal per day per GW. this migh give u some estimate why power plants are one of the major contributors.
    and this is just CO2 there are lots of other pollutants as well viz CO, NOx, SOx.
     
  19. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Find a profit motive and you find a motive!!!

    My wife and I save about $200US per year by carting our own trash to the dump. They just happen to have extensive recycling facilities there, and they just happen to charge a lower fee if we avail ourselves of those bins.



    Regarding the five cent bottle & can tax... screw it!! On the few occasions when I've bothered to try reclaiming that nickel, it has cost me a dime. Badly maintained automated machinery jams, attendants are inattentive, and the whole process reeks of stale cheap beer. No thank you! I'll gladly pay a nickel per bottle for the privilege of NOT returning my empties!

    Maybe I should hand the bottles out to those guys begging on the on-ramps...
     
  20. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    425
    5
    Yeah, kind of wonder if that nickel deposite idea was really that great. The responsable people would be recycling anyway, most people would still be dumping the empties as usual. Mostly it just seemed like the derelic street people just exchange the empty beer bottles for full ones. Atleast somebody is picking up some of the litter in the streets... But seriously, it just made a simple way for these addicts to stay hooked, rather then get them to get thereselves straightened out and cleaned up.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.