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 1
The_Atheist_Mind

global warming

64 posts in this topic

i would like to say that we cannot do anything about global warming we are all going to die please prove me wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a thread floating around about this already with some pretty interesting things in, ill see if i can find it again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well we are all going to die unless someone can find an answer. . . the permafrost melting at the icecaps. . . itll end in like 50 years enjoy your medium-length lives. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I bet within 100 years we're all dead ....... ;)

People don't die from global warming. But they do die as a result of human ineptitude, arrogance, ignorance and avarice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well we are all going to die unless someone can find an answer. . . the permafrost melting at the icecaps. . . itll end in like 50 years enjoy your medium-length lives. . .

Your a bundle of joy then! lol only J/K........the ozone is reportedly fixing its self slowly but surely, i posted the details in the last thread about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that life causes death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theres a thread floating around about this already with some pretty interesting things in, ill see if i can find it again...

Is global warming a hoax? By yours truly

Edited by Aztec Warrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is global warming a hoax? By yours truely

That may be it, there have been so many i lose track

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would we all die because of global warming? Certainly, a great many lives are going to be overturned, but it's hardly an extinction event. Massive climate changes happen regularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't one way to absorb CO2 in the air ash. Aparantally, ash absorbs CO2, but not alot of it. There is a chemical which can absorb alot of CO2, but it's way to expensive for factory owners to use. Can't we just put a giant ice cube in the north pole like they did in Furturama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it is a mass extinction event, these things do n ot happen in a short space of time, the fastest mass exitinction was the Permian-Triassic mass extinction which lasted just under one million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your a bundle of joy then! lol only J/K........the ozone is reportedly fixing its self slowly but surely, i posted the details in the last thread about this.

The ozone hole has almost nothing to do with global warming. There is another thread in urban myths about dying from the ozone hole, but that is not going to happen either.

CFC's causes the decay of ozone which filters out uv radiation, while green house gases such as carbon dioxide and methane trap heat which leads to higher temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we are all going to die. Likely from some kind of illenss or injury, but there is a 100% mortality rate to life. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The good news is that it likely will not have anything to do with global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to worry about our children and grandchildren & so on, not us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly, which is why I'm against the Global Warming Hysteria Industry and its pursuit of policy that will be damaging to my kids and grandkids future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
exactly, which is why I'm against the Global Warming Hysteria Industry and its pursuit of policy that will be damaging to my kids and grandkids future.
I try not to call people names but you are definetly delusional. Please tell me how lowering C02 emissions is damaging to your kids and grandkids future? You are the only one doing the damage by hiding the truth from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I try not to call people names but you are definetly delusional.

lol thanks :)

Depending who's calling me names it either makes me think about what I'm saying, or I wear it as a badge of honor. Sparkly new badge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're all going to die!? :o What? :huh: Who said? :mellow:

Oh, wait, yes we all are going to die, the debate on global warming may still be going on a thousand years from now, but I don't think there is a debate on whether or not we're going to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol thanks :)

Depending who's calling me names it either makes me think about what I'm saying, or I wear it as a badge of honor. Sparkly new badge.

You can debate all you want as to the causes of the recent rise in temperature (natural vrs. manmade), but you can't deny that green house gases trap heat and the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere is increasing. So why then is pouring tons of green house gases every day into the atmosphere okay to some people when there can be alternatives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol thanks :)

Depending who's calling me names it either makes me think about what I'm saying, or I wear it as a badge of honor. Sparkly new badge.

I still would like to know how you think lowering C02 emissions would damage your kids and possible grandchildrens futures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still would like to know how you think lowering C02 emissions would damage your kids and possible grandchildrens futures.

It doesn't hurt anyone except the greedy shareholders of polluting multi-national corporations.

KGS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not planning on dying. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still would like to know how you think lowering C02 emissions would damage your kids and possible grandchildrens futures.

Other than I think doing something unnecessary is usually unnecessary and sometimes wasteful (the sun is the main contributor to global climate fluctuation), or the possible harmful unintended concequences from the best of intentions (banning DDT has claimed too many lives), it all depends How this lowering is accomplished.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...bwarming16.html

Could smog protect against global warming?

By Charles J. Hanley

The Associated Press

NAIROBI, Kenya — If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade.

The ''shade'' would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate. The reaction here at the U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such ''massive and drastic'' operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.

The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself ''not enthusiastic about it.''

''It was meant to startle the policy makers,'' said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. ''If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this.''

Serious people are taking Crutzen's idea seriously. This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other ''geoengineering'' ideas for fending off climate change.

In Nairobi, meanwhile, hundreds of delegates were wrapping up a two-week conference expected to only slowly advance efforts to rein in greenhouse gases blamed for much of the 1-degree rise in global temperatures in the past century.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol requires modest emission cutbacks by industrial countries — but not the United States, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, because it rejected the deal. Talks on what to do after Kyoto expires in 2012 are all but bogged down.

When he published his proposal in the journal Climatic Change in August, Crutzen cited a ''grossly disappointing international political response'' to warming.

The Dutch climatologist, awarded a 1995 Nobel in chemistry for his work uncovering the threat to Earth's atmospheric ozone layer, suggested that balloons bearing heavy guns be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the stratosphere.

While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.

Tom Wigley, a senior U.S. government climatologist, followed Crutzen's article with a paper of his own on Oct. 20 in the leading U.S. journal Science. Like Crutzen, Wigley cited the precedent of the huge volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.

Pinatubo shot so much sulfurous debris into the stratosphere that it is believed it cooled the Earth by .9 degrees for about a year.

Wigley ran scenarios of stratospheric sulfate injection — on the scale of Pinatubo's estimated 10 million tons of sulfur — through supercomputer models of the climate, and reported that Crutzen's idea would, indeed, seem to work. Even half that amount per year would help, he wrote.

A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain.

Wigley said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels — the main source of greenhouse gases. He said experts must more closely study the feasibility of the idea and its possible effects on stratospheric chemistry.

Nairobi conference participants agreed.

''Yes, by all means, do all the research,'' Indian climatologist Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the 2,000-scientist U.N. network on climate change, told The Associated Press.

But ''if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects,'' Pachauri said.

Philip Clapp, a veteran campaigner for emissions controls to curb warming, also sounded a nervous note, saying, ''We are already engaged in an uncontrolled experiment by injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.''

But Clapp, president of the U.S. group National Environmental Trust, said, ''I certainly don't disagree with the urgency.''

In past years scientists have scoffed at the idea of air pollution as a solution for global warming, saying that the kind of sulfate haze that would be needed is deadly to people. Last month, the World Heath Organization said air pollution kills about 2 million people worldwide each year and that reducing large soot-like particles from sulfates in cities could save 300,000 lives annually.

American geophysicist Jonathan Pershing, of Washington's World Resources Institute, is among those wary of unforeseen consequences, but said the idea might be worth considering ''if down the road 25 years, it becomes more and more severe because we didn't deal with the problem.''

By telephone from Germany, Crutzen said that's what he envisioned: global haze as a component for long-range planning. ''The reception on the whole is more positive than I thought,'' he said.

Pershing added, however, that reaction may hinge on who pushes the idea. ''If it's the U.S., it might be perceived as an effort to avoid the problem,'' he said.

NASA said this weekend's conference will examine ''methods to ameliorate the likelihood of progressively rising temperatures over the next decades.'' Other such U.S. government-sponsored events are scheduled to follow.

I fear MOST of the "solutions" way more than the imagined "problem".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fear MOST of the "solutions" way more than the imagined "problem".
We have enough smog as it is and our planet is continuing to warm rapidy. The number of lung and breathing related problems has risen due to the decline in quality of our atmosphere, more smog is not a realistic option and will never be used. As your article said, the study was "'meant to startle the policy makers". Sure, it might contain some elements that reflect solar radiation but is this how you want to fight global warming?

You are worried about your childrens futures being harmed by lowering C02 emissions because:

I think doing something unnecessary is usually unnecessary and sometimes wasteful
But you are trying to show us more smog might be better instead.

I feel bad for your kids. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't worry about My kids, they'll be fine... but going by your response I think you should be more worried about your reading comprehension skills. Thanks for the good laugh tho! :)

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.