Turn on thread page Beta

Global Warming - We're F***** watch

Announcements
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    Its possible to turn CO2 (carbon dioxide) + CH4 (methane) into H20 (water) + 02(oxygen) but its unknown how they going to react it... but I think in future they will have this idea into use.
    Where does the carbon go? 0.o
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnat)
    That guy's point is what pretty much everyone believes tho lol.
    I see it as a narcissistic attitude, but the main reason to care is it doesn't have to reach catastrophic levels to start messing up your life. The natural systems that power things like "is the weather going to be okay?" are based on delicate interconnected systems, like gears in a watch.

    If you abuse/neglect it, the damage gets worse and worse until it simply breaks.

    The entire agricultural system is based on a particular type of climate, if California is more drought-stricken by a 0.5C global rise in temperature (perhaps 5-10C more locally) then half the US start to go hungry. The same would apply to certain European and Asian countries that are responsible for producing our food.

    If you're not aware, the economic system is designed in a way that we're about 9 meals from anarchy. There are lots of civilised people ready to take it to the streets if they don't get fed and the shops are cleared of supplies.

    If we start to run out of water because the natural distillation system of clouds stop raining over a certain area, you better start either pumping up groundwater or purifying the sea because no water also means no food, which also means anarchy.

    If the sea level rises half a meter and forcibly displaces millions of people, the refugee crisis will look like the Golden ages.

    If the sea gets too acidic from the increase in partial pressure of CO2, entire ecosystems of exoskeletal creatures are wiped out. It has a domino effect on any ecological role the missing species had, eg if they controlled the populations of some other species.

    This affect humans on a massive scale. Climate change has a lot of risks, it's not worth the gamble.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    I see it as a narcissistic attitude, but the main reason to care is it doesn't have to reach catastrophic levels to start messing up your life. The natural systems that power things like "is the weather going to be okay?" are based on delicate interconnected systems, like gears in a watch.

    If you abuse/neglect it, the damage gets worse and worse until it simply breaks.

    The entire agricultural system is based on a particular type of climate, if California is more drought-stricken by a 0.5C global rise in temperature (perhaps 5-10C more locally) then half the US start to go hungry. The same would apply to certain European and Asian countries that are responsible for producing our food.

    If you're not aware, the economic system is designed in a way that we're about 9 meals from anarchy. There are lots of civilised people ready to take it to the streets if they don't get fed and the shops are cleared of supplies.

    If we start to run out of water because the natural distillation system of clouds stop raining over a certain area, you better start either pumping up groundwater or purifying the sea because no water also means no food, which also means anarchy.

    If the sea level rises half a meter and forcibly displaces millions of people, the refugee crisis will look like the Golden ages.

    If the sea gets too acidic from the increase in partial pressure of CO2, entire ecosystems of exoskeletal creatures are wiped out. It has a domino effect on any ecological role the missing species had, eg if they controlled the populations of some other species.

    This affect humans on a massive scale. Climate change has a lot of risks, it's not worth the gamble.
    Most people have their own personal problems to worry about.

    And people are selfish. There's an easy way to reduce CO2 emissions and that is to tax fuel like ****ing crazy. But I'm sure that the vast majority of the same people that say "global warming... Oh no our children and grandchildren blah blah" will be out protesting when their power bill is doubled and the nation's industries are less competitive. People don't want to sacrifice their personal comfort. How many people take a hot crowded bus if they could take a car for a journey? What about you? Are you spending the vast majority of your disposable income donating to green charities/causes? Are you giving away any of it at all even?

    I know there's a minority that truly care but almost everyone doesn't care really, some people just pretend they do. That's my point.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    Slightly off topic but I learnt today how important the Congo's rainforest basin is to forming our winds and storms etc. But due to high levels of felling of these trees for hardwood it's affecting our weather patterns.
    Sir David Attenborough's "Africa" right? That was the highlight of my day!
    He has done so much to spread the word to warn of global warming and the effects us humans are having on squeezed ecosystems.

    You can watch the 60 minute documentary here everyone:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...a-6-the-future

    Highly worthwhile!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    That's definitely not the only solution, it just happens to be the kind supported by Greenpeace that ruins it for those who are genuinely concerned about the environment. I think the most feasible option is a combination of the France model for energy security with small modular reactors to keep costs low, and the Spain/German approach of using renewables for the rest.

    It might then be feasible to use a battery based system for the grid at that point, or pumped hydro. It'd knock down CO2 emissions from electricity to 10% or thereabouts. The other major sources would be heating (which could be replaced with solar thermal and ground-sourced heat pumps) and motor vehicles (low cost electric vehicles).

    Flights and agriculture would be naturally more difficult to solve, but we'd be 70-80% of the way there.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Stop worrying about this nonsense and get on with your lives.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    People actually believe in climate change???
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I heard a stat where if we spend something like 2% (or some small amount) of our GDP now to prevent/reduce climate change, we won't have to spend like 20% (or some big amount) when **** goes down.

    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    A Royal Society report on this a couple of years ago suggested that in comparison with alternatives like solar radiation management through stratospheric aerosols, BECCS or CCS at source, direct CO2 sequestration would be prohibitively expensive. Unless some incredibly cheap and energy efficient pathway is developed that vastly exceeds our expectations, it is very unlikely that direct CO2 capture will make any significant contribution to attempts to slow the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere this century.
    The fact that it's not impossible doesn't mean it's likely if there's good reason to believe that it won't be. I could give you a very long list of other not-impossible-but-unlikely methods of geoengineering like sending billions of mirrors into space at lagrange points in the Earth's orbit.
    Why don't we just do the easier stuff like raise the price of beef and fuel and plant more trees?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Where does the carbon go? 0.o
    I meant CH4 + H20 -> O2 + CO2 + H2 something like that (it was late at night k)
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    People actually believe in climate change???
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I heard a stat where if we spend something like 2% (or some small amount) of our GDP now to prevent/reduce climate change, we won't have to spend like 20% (or some big amount) when **** goes down.


    Why don't we just do the easier stuff like raise the price of beef and fuel and plant more trees?
    Both of these things are positive changes but I don't think you've really grasped the scale of the issue if you think that there's a quick-fix to climate change. Fundamental changes in the way energy, transport, manufacturing and food production works are required in order to deal properly with the issue.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    its because of the beauty of global warming that British weather is improving year by year. Appreciate it!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    People actually believe in climate change???
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I heard a stat where if we spend something like 2% (or some small amount) of our GDP now to prevent/reduce climate change, we won't have to spend like 20% (or some big amount) when **** goes down.


    Why don't we just do the easier stuff like raise the price of beef and fuel and plant more trees?
    That's possible but doesn't get us very far. In Economics, there's an idea known as demand inelasticity - even if you made fuel 10x more expensive people will still pay (even if they're unhappy about it) because it's a necessity. The same applies for electricity and such.

    It won't be possible to cut use significantly based on consumer choices alone, as long as you don't want to caveman or live the lifestyle of the least developed countries then you're automatically using a ton of energy. I suppose there is one way to cut back we haven't discussed, which is to remove 90% of the population, but WWII has shown it's not a popular option.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanderson596)
    Sir David Attenborough's "Africa" right? That was the highlight of my day!
    He has done so much to spread the word to warn of global warming and the effects us humans are having on squeezed ecosystems.

    You can watch the 60 minute documentary here everyone:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...a-6-the-future

    Highly worthwhile!
    Yes it was!!! He's amazing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think it might be helpful to henceforth refer to climate change as "Ocean Acidification, Desertification, Deforestation, Ecological Destruction, and Permanent Changes to Long-Term Weather Systems" or OADDEDPCtLTWS for short.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Well it coincides with all else-the trend of those above us living in complacency, at least in the west, and getting all the benefits of this world whilst dismissing everything that will go on after them, I've seen it over and over. Denial, self-satisfaction, and then they try and get you into the likes of Religion, yeah that will help won't it. Pathetic.
    The one thing that could help us is a natural cooling cycle, in fact left out of the debate has been we are due another ice age soon..the trouble is it may not be soon enough, and some science seems to suggest that global warming would not only counteract the effects at the start, but that it may actually prevent an ice age altogether, and prevent the cycle of ice ages into the future, which is just mind bending. Maybe it looks worse when it is all put in one quite speculative article, I dunno. All I can think of is that we might have the genetic engineering or gene therapy that means we can have people's genome adapted more to the new environment, as there is already extensive knowledge about gene function and genes for certain environmental conditions

    The bit about carbon, and 'no bowing to corporate power' makes me depressed- not because it is wrong, because it is far too human, honest and rational, and such thinking is continually undermined and so impossible to make influential in a world of sociopaths and a bankrupt political system.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Look at the difference in 2016 so far. What's very odd is that it also seems to have much more variability, with a big dip down over summer, that nevertheless is still much warmer than other years. It seems we won't just get warmer weather, but crazier weather.
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Time to switch to a global resource based economy and build as many solar panels as we need and share food equally between the worlds people.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    The one thing that could help us is a natural cooling cycle, in fact left out of the debate has been we are due another ice age soon..
    It's been left out of the debate because it's irrelevant. "Soon" in the sense you're talking about is on timescales pretty irrelevant to modern civilization.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.