World Meteorological Organization: Carbon Dioxide hits 400ppm, 'Time is running out'

Tech bubble... house bubble... green bubble.

Whole thing is a scam, a make work program to try and make a new bubble (and taxes)
 
Chucking CO2 into space would waste oxygen. We probably need to use plants/phytoplankton to convert it into oxygen and carbohydrates.

I wonder how many houses could become energy self-sufficient using geothermal for space heating, solar panels for water heating, and wind power to do the rest ?
 
To me one of the big issues this will never get resolved properly until crisis point is the nature of us (and our political system) to think of the very immediate future

4year terms have thier pros and cons!

it could really hurt geographically small localities (this includes us) if anything russia is sitting pretty! (im making a complete assumption they will warm)
im not really sure what will affect each 'area'
uk is meant to get very cold if the conveyer shuts down is it not?
some countries may actually benefit.. if you are tundra and your climate warms
if you are desert and you get increased precipitation
etc

seeing as our climate is pretty much ideal we may have a gradually harder and harder time
 
AGD said:
Maybe your post was meant to make fun at this article? I'm going to assume that you agree with the arguments in it though.

A few dissenting scientists is meaningless. Roughly 97% of scientific papers on the subject agree that climate change is happening. Imagine that article with 97 quotes from scientists arguing for the existence of climate change and 3 against and you'll have a more realistic idea of the situation.

Nuclear would be a good stop gap to reduce CO2 emissions and we should be investing in it rather than fracking.
Click to expand...

Clearly you didn't read the article. No one is denying that the climate changes, what the NASA scientist is questioning is human's impact on it and the doomsday predictions.
 
Worrying about emissions in the UK is laughable when you have huge overcrowded countries where every man and his dog has a vehicle that is doubtful to pass a UK MOT emissions test, as well as more Fossil Fuel Fired power stations than any of us have had hot dinners.

Sadly, for these countries to reach the point where they can consider other methods of power (electric cars, wind farms, nuclear etc) they need to go through the technological milestones that the western world had to. That means that things are going to still get worse before they get anywhere near better.

USA and UAE still have no excuses though for their ridiculously huge engines and ridiculously cheap fuel.

So, on the scale of it, taxing UK vehicles for being 121g/km instead of 120g/km is going to make no difference at all when you have developing countries with 300g/km beasts, and also other oil rich nations with blatant disregard for fuel economy.
 
Only when it happens will those doubting it start to realise it's not just a fantasy. Countries in the far east like China are horrific producers of CO2, but unlike the countries that are investing in renewable sources, once they've burned their way through the supply, they'll have done irreversible damage to the environment and be stuck up the creek.

But hey, we all have defence budgets to spend huge money on. At least we can blow ourselves to pieces, if we last that long.
 
Ryan-3 said:
Only when it happens will those doubting it start to realise it's not just a fantasy. Countries in the far east like China are horrific producers of CO2, but unlike the countries that are investing in renewable sources, once they've burned their way through the supply, they'll have done irreversible damage to the environment and be stuck up the creek.

But hey, we all have defence budgets to spend huge money on. At least we can blow ourselves to pieces, if we last that long.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. Could burning fossil fuels be used as an act of aggression against other countries which might be affected by a (perceived manmade) change in the icecaps?
 
elmarko said:
We actually have the technological capability already, we just need to apply the resources/technology & manpower we already have into it.

The problem is that capitalism & democracy forces us to only consider the short term for a long term issue (mostly) - as I'm no fan of either the solution is actually pretty straightforward to me (as it can be).

The purpose of an economy is to service the needs of the population, if our current model is driving us into destroying our own ecosystem then I'd argue it's failed it's most basic test & requires a serious redesign.

If collectively we manage to destroy ourselves while we have the means to resolve the problems we face sitting on the shelf then maybe we don't deserve to survive as a species. (not that I believe we are looking at any doomsday style scenario) - as a species we will continue, but huge parts of the world will most likely suffer significantly more than they do already.

The problem with necessity is, it arrives significantly sooner to the poorest & most desperate parts of the world & last to those most able to shield themselves from the impact of ignoring it.
Click to expand...
There is only really one long term solution to all the earths human made problems (climate change being just one symptom).

Population reduction.

There is no way we (as a species) can all live like the west with a population increasing, we need to make a concerted effort to reduce our population by a few billion and keep it there at a sustainable level. How we do that is the question, lots of teaching, access to birth control and greater women's rights in many countries would help. Other more draconian possibilities could include global child limits (say one child per adult - 2 per couple). That would help reduce the population. There are charities out there trying to affect the former, unfortunately they have few funds and little political power.

Reduction in population would help the other major symptoms of "humanity", extinction of species, over fishing, deforestation, pollution and water shortages, desertification and potentially wars (over resources). Unfortunately it's a difficult task and as yet no major party (outside China) have even broached the fact, probably in part because so many so called environmentalists aren't environmentalists at all, rather "humanists", only caring about how it affects humans rather than the environment as a whole.

There is only so much land we can cover in concrete, so many valleys we can flood and dam, so many deserts we can cover in solar power (which seems to be the policy of many CO2 reduction policies). If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint significantly, don't have kids*. Simple...

*gets off soapbox*

*Or alternatively, a more realistic option is to have only one or max 2 kids.
 
arknor said:
that better world comes at huge cost to us though..

like all the green energy crap pushing up electricity prices because of stupid wind farms etc

we need more nuclear
Click to expand...

Considering the costs associated with the recent nuclear deal the government have signed makes offshore wind look cheap I don't think that will be a solution.
 
I agree with Amp34, unfortunately I don't think that governments will do anything about overpopulation because it would be seen as "nasty" and "unfair" and there's too much ignorance in the developing world. China's one child policy has been very successful and with India looking to surge to over 1.4billion at some point we should all be very worried indeed.
 
Amp34 said:
Considering the costs associated with the recent nuclear deal the government have signed makes offshore wind look cheap I don't think that will be a solution.
Click to expand...

what do these wind turbines do during heavy winds? don't they get shut down so they don't catch fire :confused:
What are the maintenance and general running costs for

nuclear vs wind
assuming of course the wind farm is big enough to match the power output of a single nuclear plant.

I'm assuming offshore wind farms are much more expensive in that regards due to being off shore and they seem to have a habit of failing during high winds if they aren't shut down first.
There is only really one long term solution to all the earths human made problems (climate change being just one symptom).

Population reduction.
Click to expand...
dJIHUsy.png

I'm sure farming land to support a growing population becomes a major issue in the not to distant future though
 
estebanrey said:
Clearly you didn't read the article. No one is denying that the climate changes, what the NASA scientist is questioning is human's impact on it and the doomsday predictions.
Click to expand...

I did read the article. Obviously the climate changes. I was referring to man made/aggravated climate change and my points stand. The main quotes in that article are from someone who is not even a climate scientist and has a very minority view in the scientific community.

Amp34, I agree that population reduction is an important strategy in protecting our habitat. It is a politically difficult one though!
 
Last edited:
Ryan-3 said:
Only when it happens will those doubting it start to realise it's not just a fantasy. Countries in the far east like China are horrific producers of CO2, but unlike the countries that are investing in renewable sources, once they've burned their way through the supply, they'll have done irreversible damage to the environment and be stuck up the creek.

But hey, we all have defence budgets to spend huge money on. At least we can blow ourselves to pieces, if we last that long.
Click to expand...

Actually China is spending huge sums on renewables and nuclear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom