Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

so it takes decades and billion of dollars... Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im just so annoyed at the endless talks of global warming and climate change and then a handful of people coming up with ways of preventing climate change developing for example sending trillions of particles of sulfate into space to "cool the earth" and then mentioning

    "This will take decades and billions of dollars to occur" :lolwut"

    I mean if we take some scientists predictions that with the rate of climate change now, we underestimated the next ice age and it MAY *to all the ranty TSR users* occur in our lifetime.

    So by the time it takes for the plans to come into action the world is in BOOM.
    Why cant we just take action immediately and not waddle about?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The climate changes over time
    The climate is changing over time
    I am confused where the panic arises from
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parfait-ego)
    Im just so annoyed at the endless talks of global warming and climate change and then a handful of people coming up with ways of preventing climate change developing for example sending trillions of particles of sulfate into space to "cool the earth" and then mentioning

    "This will take decades and billions of dollars to occur" :lolwut"

    I mean if we take some scientists predictions that with the rate of climate change now, we underestimated the next ice age and it MAY *to all the ranty TSR users* occur in our lifetime.

    So by the time it takes for the plans to come into action the world is in BOOM.
    Why cant we just take action immediately and not waddle about?
    Because actions have consequences, and these must be considered most diligently beforehand.

    As an analogy, imagine that medical research had produced a cure for cancer. I can almost guarantee you that the day it is given to the first human patient will be almost a decade after the day that it is discovered. Why? Because if your solution to the problem isn't thoroughly checked before it is administered, it may just turn out that, while it solves the major problem at hand, it may create a larger problem than you had to begin with. Nobody wants to get rid of cancer only to find that they're going to be blind for the rest of their lives, and similarly, nobody wants to halt global warming only to find that we're all going to die from some adverse effect of sulphur being pumped into the atmosphere.

    Why spend 20 years and billions of dollars putting sulphur into the atmosphere, only to find that it doesn't work? I'd much rather we spent 2/3 years thinking about it, and trying to determine whether or not it works. If it works, great. If it doesn't, then we've only wasted a few years thinking about it, and we can spend our time and our money on something with a better chance.

    There has always been, and probably always will be, a delay between discovering some new technology, and making it available to the masses. If you ever read New Scientist, what you are actually reading about isn't really going to materialise for at least another few decades. It's been discovered, it's here, we can do it, and it works. But before we can even dream of getting one in argos, there is a few years of testing, and then a few more years of bureaucracy (admittedly, we could lose the bureaucracy...). If you think about what we can do now in terms of technology, it's amazing! But if you look at modern medicine, a modern home, modern transport, it hasn't actually changed much in the past 20 years. Our application of technology is far more advances, we're too slow at getting it into action for it to have made a considerable mark on modern life so far.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    We're just going to continue to destroy our planet and look for a quick fix solution. That will probably be abandoning the planet.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sidewalkwhenshewalks)
    The climate changes over time
    The climate is changing over time
    I am confused where the panic arises from
    I agree but I doubt people will listen...
    Offline

    16
    Unfortunately, any repsonsibilty for dealing with environmental issues will probably be passed to the generation beyond us, where it'd be the same situation of people asking 'should the next generation pay the price for the current generation' etc, except this time, they'll be in a far worse position.

    What's the point of putting money into wars etc as opposed to dealing with 'environmental issues,' when there were won't be a planet to do anything on? [Exaggerating, granted]. :sigh:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Because actions have consequences, and these must be considered most diligently beforehand.

    As an analogy, imagine that medical research had produced a cure for cancer. I can almost guarantee you that the day it is given to the first human patient will be almost a decade after the day that it is discovered. Why? Because if your solution to the problem isn't thoroughly checked before it is administered, it may just turn out that, while it solves the major problem at hand, it may create a larger problem than you had to begin with. Nobody wants to get rid of cancer only to find that they're going to be blind for the rest of their lives, and similarly, nobody wants to halt global warming only to find that we're all going to die from some adverse effect of sulphur being pumped into the atmosphere.

    Why spend 20 years and billions of dollars putting sulphur into the atmosphere, only to find that it doesn't work? I'd much rather we spent 2/3 years thinking about it, and trying to determine whether or not it works. If it works, great. If it doesn't, then we've only wasted a few years thinking about it, and we can spend our time and our money on something with a better chance.

    There has always been, and probably always will be, a delay between discovering some new technology, and making it available to the masses. If you ever read New Scientist, what you are actually reading about isn't really going to materialise for at least another few decades. It's been discovered, it's here, we can do it, and it works. But before we can even dream of getting one in argos, there is a few years of testing, and then a few more years of bureaucracy (admittedly, we could lose the bureaucracy...). If you think about what we can do now in terms of technology, it's amazing! But if you look at modern medicine, a modern home, modern transport, it hasn't actually changed much in the past 20 years. Our application of technology is far more advances, we're too slow at getting it into action for it to have made a considerable mark on modern life so far.
    I completely agree with you and your reasoning although this may make it seem like im contradicting myself.

    To clarify my annoyance about this topic *the sulfur* is because they know it works, in 1991 a volcano in Philippines erupted creating almost the same impact and our overall temperature decreased by a few degrees however still the smallest change may have the biggest impact.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parfait-ego)
    I completely agree with you and your reasoning although this may make it seem like im contradicting myself.

    To clarify my annoyance about this topic *the sulfur* is because they know it works, in 1991 a volcano in Philippines erupted creating almost the same impact and our overall temperature decreased by a few degrees however still the smallest change may have the biggest impact.
    Yes, it is a known and well documented solution to the problem of global warming.

    In fact, a series of volcanic eruptions would be great right about now. It would reduce global temperatures without us having to do it ourselves.

    So, sure, when nature does it, it works out fine, it's free, there aren't many dangers associated with it (apart from the volcanoes themselves...), and everybody wins. But when we talk about doing it ourselves, a new issue comes in to play, and that is liability. People become very, very careful when liability comes in to play, and rightly so. Nobody wants to be the guy who spent billions of dollars ruining the world. So although there's a pretty good scientific grounding for the theory, and there's a method for doing it, somebody has to be responsible at the end of that day, and the perceived risk factor of such a scheme seems to explode disproportionately for that person, as soon as they are informed that they are the liable party.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sidewalkwhenshewalks)
    The climate changes over time
    The climate is changing over time
    I am confused where the panic arises from
    To be honest, I don't really care if the climate is changing naturally, or if the climate is changing because of something we are doing.

    There's a pretty strong case to suggest that we are doing a lot of it, but what does it really matter who is doing it? The fact is that it is a danger to mankind REGARDLESS of who or what is responsible for it, and if we want to outlast the next century in numbers more than a few hundreds of thousands, then I suggest we take preventative measures absolutely independently of who is responsible.

    The panic does not arise out of the notion that we might be doing it, the panic arises out of the notion that, regardless of what is causing it, it's not looking good for us.

    Are you happy for the species to disappear into oblivion, just as long as we didn't cause it? I'm not.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parfait-ego)
    billions of dollars
    That's why.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Yes, it is a known and well documented solution to the problem of global warming.

    In fact, a series of volcanic eruptions would be great right about now. It would reduce global temperatures without us having to do it ourselves.

    So, sure, when nature does it, it works out fine, it's free, there aren't many dangers associated with it (apart from the volcanoes themselves...), and everybody wins. But when we talk about doing it ourselves, a new issue comes in to play, and that is liability. People become very, very careful when liability comes in to play, and rightly so. Nobody wants to be the guy who spent billions of dollars ruining the world. So although there's a pretty good scientific grounding for the theory, and there's a method for doing it, somebody has to be responsible at the end of that day, and the perceived risk factor of such a scheme seems to explode disproportionately for that person, as soon as they are informed that they are the liable party.
    This could start a series of debates, so many things happened in our history where we can blame singles. So many people have screwed up our universe but life goes on.

    However i still agree with you. Taking risks soon wont be an option, everything is to valuable nowadays.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sidewalkwhenshewalks)
    The climate changes over time
    The climate is changing over time
    I am confused where the panic arises from
    Regardless of your opinions on man's effect on global warming, don't you think it's good that people are finally caring for the environment on a large scale?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sidewalkwhenshewalks)
    The climate changes over time
    The climate is changing over time
    I am confused where the panic arises from
    Welp, that's evidence enough for me. Hey guys, CASE IS CLOSED. It's fine, this guy is totally chill with it.

    :facepalm: it's like something from the Jeremy Clarkson school of geography.

    As to the OP, the main reason people aren't acting NOW, is because the actions we need to take would be extremely unpopular. It would mean the Western World would have to scale back by a hell of a lot - there is quite simply no way we could sustain this standard of living and hit the Environmental targets we aspire to, with current technology.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Its fine we can just put a big block of ice in the sea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parfait-ego)
    Why cant we just take action immediately and not waddle about?
    What makes you think we aren't ?

    More research is being done into clean energy now than in any time in history.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parfait-ego)
    This could start a series of debates, so many things happened in our history where we can blame singles. So many people have screwed up our universe but life goes on.

    However i still agree with you. Taking risks soon wont be an option, everything is to valuable nowadays.
    I think we must also remember that there are several very strong possible solutions out there, but obviously, it would be impractical to implement them all. So a lot of this 'waiting and thinking' period is about trying to calculate which method will give us the best bang for our buck. It would be annoying to go with sulphur, only to find that we could have done it better, cleaner, and cheaper with dying the ocean white.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandeep90)
    We're just going to continue to destroy our planet and look for a quick fix solution. That will probably be abandoning the planet.
    and go where exactly?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fran.ha)
    Its fine we can just put a big block of ice in the sea.
    Haha been watching Futurama?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ttx)
    What makes you think we aren't ?

    More research is being done into clean energy now than in any time in history.
    Clean energy doesn't solve the problem of reducing the current temperature of the earth, it only seeks to slow the rate of increase of the temperature.

    Even if completely and utterly stopped all activities that resulted in carbon being pumped into the atmosphere, the earth would remain in a state of positive feedback.

    As it stands, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is trapping more heat which is heating the ocean, which is melting the ice, and since the ice is melting, there is less reflective surfaces to reject heat on the surface, which means more heat is accepted, the ocean gets hotter, more ice melts, less reflective surface, more heat, less ice, etc etc etc. And all that happens without an increase in carbon levels.

    Not only do we need to decelerate the rate of temperature increase, we also need to do something to reduce it by a few degrees to get ourselves out of this system of positive feedback.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    unless by warming you mean getting colder and wetter its really all rubbish, you dont hear "coldest summer since records began" or "wettest summer since 1940"
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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