.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

The Falklands War - Save $7.00
War Plan Pacific - Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Shrapnel Community > Intel Forum Bar & Grill

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 19th, 2009, 07:23 PM
Imp's Avatar

Imp Imp is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Uk
Posts: 2,726
Thanks: 60
Thanked 296 Times in 252 Posts
Imp is on a distinguished road
Default Climate Change

Is anybody else getting pissed off with this I may be wrong but will make a few points for both sides. I dont think either side will contest the fact the world is getting warmer its the science behind it i.e. the cause that is in question.
Lets assume CO2 is a major cause we need to cut it drasticly like 50% in 5 years anything else is the usual to little to late. This will cause major problems but its like cutting off a gangreous limb to save the life, drastic but better tha dying probably.
At the recent talks they are talking about restricting temp rise to 2 degrees, how pretentious is that do they really think man can take on mother nature & control it. Besides & correct me if I am wrong but there is not one decent model out there they all base the data on far higher emisions than in reality, like 10x as much. So from this botched model they can figure out what 2 degrees needs, really what are they magicians if the data is massaged how can the result be right.
Lets be optomistic & assume we cut Co2 by 50% will it make any diffrence I am thinking no there are far more easier ways to cut Co2 than industry & the car as I understand it.
The oceans are the major producers of Co2 they give it off when it gets hot & the other camp argues its a product of rising temp not the cause. Not advocating getting rid of them mind thats like not breathing because there are pollutants in the air.
Animals that chew grass etc with multi stomachs give off huge amounts of Co2 from there rear. Cows for example so we should all go vege or attach a lighter to there rears & burn it, good for entertainment value me thinks.
Forrest fires or worse peat burning are another area that gives off huge amounts so boost the firefighters allocated. Of course we could stop setting them on purpose to clear land which also reduces your Co2 converters as in trees & grass being the major 2 I think so plant more not deplete them.
What about other plausable things man has done to heat up the planet.
A bomb tests probably did not help plus the hole in the ozone layer.
Why not paint all roads white so instead of absorbing heat reflect it, black soaks up the most & might sound silly but just how much tarmac is there. Thats why buildings in hot countries are painted white keeps them cooler.
Sure there are lots more things we do that have an impact but none of it is addressed nor other ways of reducing Co2 which makes the cynic in me think its just a way to make us become more energy efficient because we are in the S$%£ as the oil is getting a tad low along with quite a few other minerals.
Back to the oceans a minute the other camp says it works like this, temp goes up they give off Co2 as an effect not a cause. This rises & helps with cloud formation causing a blanket from that big radiator in the sky the Sun. Its not perfect it reacts after not before but the Earth shields its self by producing clouds cutting sunlight & hence heat entering the atmosphere. Clever eco system says its getting hotter need more clouds so need more water melt the ice so there is more surface area to create Co2 & hence clouds. Now I think we have a big problem man has meddled in a way that effects the process drasticly. Remember its the surace area thats important extra depth makes no diffrence but in this modern age far more ice has to be melted to increase it. Why any low lying land that would have flooded is now sitting behind dams & dykes so the ice keeps melting but little gain is made in surface area the seas just get deeper not bigger. Mother nature is in crisis it cant achieve what it used to so it will keep melting ice in the hopes of flooding somewhere.
This seems more tenable to me than most of the stuff put out there I can understand the logic & we could do something about it, of course a fair few citys & farmland would vanish till the earth is happy its back on track.
Theres other things that sound far more logical to me also not to mention of course arent we still coming out of an ice age. Does that not mean when it gets to hot the trend will reverse & we will start heading back towards one.
The other argument the anti Co2 lobby seems to give is the Sun has been very active of late meaning more heat coming our way, that combined with the previous problem would I have thought means its getting hotter. Turn up your radiator & that tends to happen. I am hoping to hell these guys are the right ones because there is no way we are going to effect Co2 emmisions in a way that is noticable by the eco system judged on the recent meeting. In fact & I will let you look Co2 is avery small part of the atmosphere but far more importantly the amount created by man is small compared to the overall output so even if we did cut it by 50% cant see it making any diffrence, maybe a couple of years at best.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old December 19th, 2009, 08:43 PM
Gandalf Parker's Avatar

Gandalf Parker Gandalf Parker is offline
Shrapnel Fanatic
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vacaville, CA, USA
Posts: 13,736
Thanks: 341
Thanked 479 Times in 326 Posts
Gandalf Parker is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Climate Change

Generally most of the arguments about global warming try to force it into whether or not man caused it. But most of the scientific papers Ive seen dont do that. Rather than some extreme position they just say that both are true. Sounds reasonable to me. There are natural reasons for global warming, and man probably pushed it beyond the point it would naturally swing in and out of.

You ideas arent bad. Ive heard worse. But the one I really liked involved automated ships that wandered the ocean and thru water into the air. They were fairly self-sufficient powered.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old December 19th, 2009, 09:09 PM
Imp's Avatar

Imp Imp is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Uk
Posts: 2,726
Thanks: 60
Thanked 296 Times in 252 Posts
Imp is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Climate Change

Yes I have read some schemes for controlling thermal currents in the ocean among others, not entirely sure we know what were doing mucking about with how temp is distributed. Going on past form if we meddle with nature normally cause at least as many probs as we fix.

Funny thing I read recently was alternative power sources & hybrid cars saying its not eco friendly.
Turns out Lithiun or Nickel/Nickel Cadmium is a terrible pollutant both mining & smelting. Think one mine is even used by the army to simulate a nuclear battlefield due to the devastation it causes. If you take into account recharging is not efficent power is lost & you are still producing it just at a powerplant instead of localy unless you go nuclear & ignore the waste or wind etc you are probably causing a lot more harm to the enviroment than a standard car.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2017, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.