Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
UM-Bot

How can we 'solve' climate change ?

20 posts in this topic

The UN climate change panel has been considering some unorthodox ways to tackle global warming.

With the IPCC climate change report indicating a 95% likelihood that human activities are the dominant cause of global warming, scientists have been attempting to find ways to counteract the effects and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/255448/how-can-we-solve-climate-change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that global warming is happening no matter what. Yes we are speeding up the process but no matter what it will happen, its just an earth natural cycle.

Preventing the natural cycle is not a good idea, its like you are postponing to pee, sooner or later you will pee your pants!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those are more short-sighted than outlandish ideas. The iron sprinkling on ocean floors for example, you do that for a while and then stop it, and there wont be too many planktons because they're used to eat the iron in the form you give it, not as a part of something which comes from their nearby living area naturally.

I'll say it here too: if they really wanted, they could push permaculture farming to people, but you dont see them doing that do you? Instead they rely on chemical solutions and technology because they bring more jobs & money. It's about money huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that global warming is happening no matter what. Yes we are speeding up the process but no matter what it will happen, its just an earth natural cycle.

Preventing the natural cycle is not a good idea, its like you are postponing to pee, sooner or later you will pee your pants!

It's not about stopping natural cycles. The ones I know about, you couldn't stop, anyway. Ever try to stop an earthquake? That's what resets the Chandler Wobble, which then gradually damps out over 60 or 70 years or until it is reset by another earthquake. There's not much we're going to do about the solar cycle - we're just along for the ride. There's a sixteen-year cycle we don't even know the cause of, let alone, what to do about it. And all these cycles get added together and warming gets added on the top. Human-caused warming is added to the natural cycles, so temps go up and down following the natural cycles, but at a slightly higher level. That's all that's going on: some heat gets added to the system.

That's not the whole story, of course. Nights are warmer than they used to be, so the average goes up. But people don't go out at night very much, so they don't notice. It's the lower temps that are rising. Winters are warmer too, and shorter. The annual average temp can rise without setting any new records just by lengthening out the growing season.

As far as the proposals: grinding up some battleships to spread in the southern ocean is probably not a bad idea (Except that metallic iron is Fe+++ and what we need to put in the water is Fe++.). Sulfides in the upper atmosphere - coal-burning powerplants already do that. But they also add carbon. And sooner or later that sulfide comes down to earth as acid rain. All these ideas run the risk of unforeseen consequences and they were the cause of the problem in the first place.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We likely have the ability to substantially reduce the physical impact of humanity on the planet. The real question is do we have the ability to substantially reduce the impact of greed. If past behavior is a predictor of future behavior, then we have a real challenge ahead of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE-

With the IPCC climate change report

indicating a 95% likelihood that

human activities are the dominant

cause of global warming,

.

.....which still leaves a 5% chance that it's caused by a race of giant space ants with a huge magnifying glass.....

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're still doing the climate change thing? I guess the 60% arctic ice increase is irrelevant then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're still doing the climate change thing? I guess the 60% arctic ice increase is irrelevant then.

That's a one-year increase. Just normal variation about a long-term curve. The current downward trend has been evident on the summer ice pack since the 50s and on the winter ice pack since the 70s. Do you really think a one or two-year reversal is something permanent?

In past climate shifts, the climate has "flickered" between the old and new regimes - like electricity arcing across the gap when somebody throws a switch. The "wild weather" we've been getting since about 2000 is consistent with this model, even though there's no solid evidence. Climatologists have long expected the melt-off of the Arctic Ocean to be the "threshold" that would bring about the next climate shift. That looks like what is happening. Typically, the climate shifts to the new regime for several years, then back to the old one for several years, then back to the new one. This can go on for decades to centuries. Current forecasts are that the Arctic Ocean will be substantially ice free by 2040.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

easy don't have kids. we get ride of like 95% of our population and all our problems are solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change has been going on since the planet was formed and will still go on when the human race is gone, we are helping to make it worse whith the population explosion i think this is our biggest problem we have refugues arriving here whith as many as 8 10 children, all have to be fed and housed adding to the never ending problem

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should we *want* to "solve" climate change? The climate has been changing since the birth of our planet. The only constant in the climate is that it is always changing. The question itself shows the ludicrious assumption on which the entire political "global warming" scam is based, namely that a) the climate is naturally stable and b ) can be controlled by us like an airconditioner.

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some talk show happened to mention that despite predictions, a person entering his senior year of high school this year has lived his entire life without any global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quit ******* up that's how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should we *want* to "solve" climate change? The climate has been changing since the birth of our planet. The only constant in the climate is that it is always changing. The question itself shows the ludicrious assumption on which the entire political "global warming" scam is based, namely that a) the climate is naturally stable and b ) can be controlled by us like an airconditioner.

The definition of "global warming" is human-caused warming. The temps go up and down, but with human-caused warming added in, they go a little higher and they don't go down as far, but they still go up and down.

Can we control climate? Well, we can make it warmer. So far, making it cooler has eluded us.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some talk show happened to mention that despite predictions, a person entering his senior year of high school this year has lived his entire life without any global warming.

A high school grad this year would have been born in 1995. In 1995, temps were still heading strongly upward. So that person lived through three years of VERY rapid warming. Temps started upward again in 2005, but slower. Since then, they have trended slowly upward. So that high school grad has seen something like three or four all-time highs in their lifetime.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of "global warming" is human-caused warming.

Pffft..... keyboard!

Gee, now THAT is convenient, isn´t it!

So, you postulate a claim, and then bend the facts to suit it. How do we call this? The "non-scientific method"??

The Catholic Church would have totally agreed with your deep thought, just a couple of hundred years ago. "The definition of earth is a disc." And if it is not a disc, it is still a disc!

Good grief...

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, now THAT is convenient, isn´t it!

So, you postulate a claim, and then bend the facts to suit it. How do we call this? The "non-scientific method"??

The pertinent question is whether or not that human-caused component is zero. When we take out the variation from every source we can think of, except humans, there's still an upward trend in the data. When that is correlated with temps, it disappears. What would you conclude?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plant more trees and create forests in desolate area's might be a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plant more trees and create forests in desolate area's might be a start.

That's a good start, but it's not enough. Forests have a finite limit on the amount of CO2 they can sequester. And, we're running out of places to replant. That is reflected in seedling sales by the state nurseries. There are still a considerable number of odd areas and a few small fields that aren't really workable for agriculture, but once most of those are planted, then what? Under the Conservation Reserve the US is planting farmland, but that only carries to ten-year contract. When the rental payments run out, most farmers convert back to cropland.

We could very quickly and easily start using soil tillage methods that sequester carbon. All the US has to do is tell farmers that if they want cost-sharing money, this is what they have to do. Technically, they aren't forced to do anything. They have the option of using old methods and forfeiting the cost-share money. But as low-margin as farming is, not many can afford to do that.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop using the oceans as a garbage dump and stop overfishing with those huge nets that grab everything up off the ocean floor would be a good start. There are so many dead zones in the ocean now. Ocean deserts, you could call them, where nothing living exists.

Without living, breathing oceans, may as well kiss this world goodbye.

Edited by moonshadow60

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.