I met a group of scientists from Roma last night who had come to shanghai espcially to study the greenhouse effect and global warming. They laughed when I told them in America there is still debate as to if global warming is real or not. Right now besides the most obvious solution of finding a new energy source, there is a method of taking CO2 from the atmosphere and burying it in the ground. However inevitably, the effects of global warming will begin affecting human life, much more than it is right now, in about 8 years. The Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, two of the most devastating natural disasters in history, all have undeniable relation to the direct effects of global warming on the ocean. Eventually most of the world will have to live in the north, in countries such as Canada, Russia or in Scandanavia. Like what is said in "The Inconvenient Truth", earth's temperature occilates, and we're at an absolute maximum compared to previous history. If following Earth's natural climate pattern of the previous tens of thousands of years, it is obvious we are at the doorsteps of another ice age. We, all the people who are alive right now, will experience it in our lifetimes, it is much much closer than we think. In countries where the greenhouse effect is most visible, it is impossible to slow the damage that is being done down to a degree where it would make a big difference. For example in China, right now, we have to use AC, we have to have millions of cars, the scientists said even wearing wool is more damaging than wearing cotton. In an almost existential way, mankind embraces its own demise. It is impossible that during the industrial revolution or without it, we would have the same awarnesss as we do now. As individuals, most of us who have the motivation to do something already live in countries that are causing the msot damage, we can recyle, use cars less, most importantly use less energy, but on a global scale, a new energy source needs to replace the old ones, and however despite man's exponential scientific advancements in the past centuries, we are still far away from a usable solution. Next time you use energy, think: if I use less, I will die later. There should be nothing truer to you.

zulu_nation8

China26351 Posts

September 05 2007 02:57 GMT

wtf as soon as i post i see two global warming threads in the general forum

Sigrun

United States1654 Posts

September 05 2007 05:52 GMT

Truth.

XCetron

5226 Posts

September 05 2007 06:23 GMT

the sooner globalization is here the sooner these problems will be fixed.

KaasZerg

Netherlands927 Posts

September 05 2007 13:48 GMT

The Tsunami are caused by earthquackes and not related to global warming. Unless rising temparature causes rock to expand and increase geological tension.. Global warming can cause local cooling. Areas becomming wetter/dryer can be much more devestating then Huricanes in the long run.

Superiorwolf

United States5509 Posts

September 06 2007 03:47 GMT

On September 05 2007 22:48 KaasZerg wrote:
Global warming can cause local cooling. Areas becomming wetter/dryer can be much more devestating then Huricanes in the long run.

Uh... no?

Physician

United States4146 Posts

September 06 2007 03:50 GMT

On September 06 2007 12:47 Superiorwolf wrote:

Show nested quote +

Uh... no?

Actually, the answer seems to be yes, but I understand your doubt. Hurricanes scare me far more that floods or droughts.. but then I am not a farmer, and whether I live or die, i.e. my livelihood, does not depend on it directly.

Physician

United States4146 Posts

September 06 2007 03:54 GMT

On September 05 2007 11:54 zulu_nation8 wrote: there is a method of taking CO2 from the atmosphere and burying it in the ground.

problem is when you contemplate the scales i.e. quantities involved.. its discouraging : (

+ Show Spoiler +

Each year we are adding around 16,000,000,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere; and this quantity is on the raise every year so far. Anyway one year would be around 8,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide. Where does the energy come to move this extract and move humongous weight from the atmosphere to the earth? Burn more diesel? Artificial sequestration into the ground might be solution within a set of solutions but on its own its not feasible with our current technology. The people who are aggressively promoting sequestering co2 into the have not bothered to calculate, or don't want to share it given that they would lose possible funding, how much space one year's supply of 8,000,000,000 tons would occupy: roughly a sphere around 40 miles in diameter would just about hold one year's worth, that would be 30,000 cubic miles. Pumping that underground, and creating the storage space even if we use old oil reservoirs would take astronomical amounts of energy - catch 22

zulu_nation8

China26351 Posts

September 06 2007 07:51 GMT

hmm but considering all the other alternatives, is burying CO2 still the most realistic? as overwhelming of an operation as it seems

Physician

United States4146 Posts

September 06 2007 11:40 GMT

#10

co2 sequestration is feasible if one integrates it to current & future coal mine/coal energy plants i.e. it would be way of reducing co2 emissions from this industry that happens to be responsible for more than >45% of all human co2 production. One could also adapt it to oil based electricity plants. It would double energy costs though. It would help curb future production but unfortunately it would not do much to the damage we have already done or co2 from other industries. I''ll see if I can find you a good podcast on the subject of coal industry co2 sequestration.

To be honest there are not many good solutions for removing atmospheric co2. It is kind of depressing. If we did a lot of everything, both in reducing co2 production and removing it from the atmosphere, globally, i.e. with collective human consensus (pretty much a pipe dream at this stage), all we would be doing is curbing the problem, not stopping it or eliminating it. We really do need urgently a new cheap source of energy other that fossil fuels.