Global Warming

[Ephiza]

???

I meant Bitobain ;p BitoBain but please discuss!

 

[Miner9823]

I do indeed wonder what BitoBain will say. C:

 

[Ephiza]

I do indeed wonder what BitoBain will say. C:

Probably typing a 8 page essay at the moment.

 

[Avesu]

"Why didn't you just go and look it up on Wikipedia?"

"Mooclan is more reliable."

 

[Col_StaR]

My brother in law had a great story that shows some peoples' short sightedness in regards to climate change.

He was working as a grad student in Supply Chain Management at MIT when the Vice President of one of the world's largest shipping companies in Asia came into class to talk about the business. After giving a little speech about the importance of supply chain management (with plenty of product placement throughout), the professor opened the floor for students to ask questions to the speaker.
My brother in law put up his hand and asked, "What is your opinion on Global Warming? How much does it hurt your business?"
The man calmly answered, "Global Warming doesn't have any impact. Climate change has not changed our business, whatsoever." And then a moment later he says, "But you know has hurt our business? The increase in natural disasters recently."
In his mind, the two events were totally unrelated.

 

[Mooclan]

My brother in law had a great story that shows some peoples' short sightedness in regards to climate change.

He was working as a grad student in Supply Chain Management at MIT when the Vice President of one of the world's largest shipping companies in Asia came into class to talk about the business. After giving a little speech about the importance of supply chain management (with plenty of product placement throughout), the professor opened the floor for students to ask questions to the speaker.
My brother in law put up his hand and asked, "What is your opinion on Global Warming? How much does it hurt your business?"
The man calmly answered, "Global Warming doesn't have any impact. Climate change has not changed our business, whatsoever." And then a moment later he says, "But you know has hurt our business? The increase in natural disasters recently."
In his mind, the two events were totally unrelated.

Ah, true. This does bring up the fact that global warming doesn't affect only sea levels and temperatures...


As many of you may know, the last winter in North America was extremely unusual, with snow lasting into what should have been late spring (And even a bit in summer!)
My question is, if the weather is supposed to be getting warmer, why was it colder?
I think that it could have something to do with the recent major earthquakes, such as the one in Japan which rotated the Earth's axis by a surprisingly large amount.

My brother in law had a great story that shows some peoples' short sightedness in regards to climate change.

...WAIT A SECOND
ARE YOU MARRIED?
...or is it a sister that is married? >_>

*Plot twist*

 

[Blazerboy | Noah]

our pollution problem and the amount of heat that comes off the sun isn't the problem, really humans as a whole don't actually produce as much Co2 emissions as you think. most of that comes from natural occurrences. however, its started to become a problem only because we take out the plants and trees that convert the Co2. if we still had the lush forests that we always had, we could manage with our emissions. but that's not the case.
realistically i'm glad i won't live to see what can happen to the world when it gets truly bad. i'm glad i don't live in shanghai or beijing where the problems are so bad that you have to wear masks just to walk around.

 

[Joel/MadDawg]

My question is, if the weather is supposed to be getting warmer, why was it colder?

A better word for this situation is climate change, not global warming. While in general the average temperature of the Earth is going up, the immense stress our planet is going through will lead to more extremes in weather. What you mentioned about snow lasting very late into the season is a great example of unusual weather brought on by climate change. There will be more days with extreme heat, but the storms and snow brought on by other seasons will get crazier too. Basically the intense weather of today will slowly become normal.

 

[Ephiza]

http://gyazo.com/a56ba2375c6221e7a40aa99d3cda2439 Col_StaR replied to my thread

 

[xGtZz]

...WAIT A SECOND
ARE YOU MARRIED?
...or is it a sister that is married? >_>

*Plot twist*

Pff MooMoo, Assumptions, assumptions.
Maybe he has a homosexual brother who is married, why does it have to be his sister.
Omg disappoint

 

[BitoBain]

I guess I'm kinda late to the party, but here it goes.

I wanted a thread like this to discuss because climate change is at the top of the list of mankind's problems if we want to continue existing for longer than a few more centuries. What's worse is that many people are awfully ignorant about climate change, and think that it is either not a problem or that we can do nothing about it. Indeed people hold regular debates between skeptics and the climate change activists. The fact that these debates exist is misleading. The problem is that people talk about climate change like it's something you can "believe" in. Those who say that the earth is not warming up, the climate is not changing, we are not causing it, or that it is not a problem are blatantly wrong.

Debating whether the Earth is warming up as a whole is like debating if llamas exist. Debating if we are contributing to climate change is like asking if we are contributing to deforestation. We have pictures of melting ice caps, several decades of weather pattern statistics, aquatic life surveys, carbon dioxide measurements as well as their correlation with human emissions, and more evidence than you can imagine. Regardless of your sources, well over 95% of scientists agree that climate change is a problem. However, commoners often find simple scapegoat phrases to make themselves think that climate change is either not happening or is not a problem, etc... so that they don't have to worry about something they don't know what to do about. Some I have heard include "I haven't noticed the Earth warming up", "Earth's warming is part of a natural cycle", or "Climate change won't cause any problems".

So there you go: Humans are the main contributors to climate destabilization. (which is a more politically correct term than climate change) The effects of it are no longer something to worry about for the future; the effects of climate change are now part of the present. We now have to deal with a mess that our ancestors left us simply because it wasn't a problem for them.

So what do we do about emissions of green house gases? There have been many solutions presented, but no single idea needs to be the solution to the problem. Part of the problem is that fossil fuels power our factories and cars. However, if we were able to take better advantage of alternate fuels sources, such as wind turbines, dams, geothermal energy, solar power, green organic fuels, etc... then we would eventually be able to make up for our current fossil fuel consumption.

Some countries have already demonstrated remarkable changes in becoming greener. Iceland, for example, emits less than 5 million cubic tons of carbon dioxide per year, while the US and China each emit over 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. Iceland takes excellent advantage of geothermal energy and water because of their presence of geothermal features (volcanoes) and impressive coastline. They're not just lucky, though. The US, Russia, China, and India all have massive land areas while still being the largest contributors to CO2 in the world. Any country with a large coastline and land area has massive opportunities for natural energy.

The sad fact is that fossil fuels are currently the cheapest source of energy for many countries. In a capitalist world, businesses will only stop using fossil fuels once another source becomes more economically feasible. They will only adopt green policies when forced to. For example, cars that run on pressurized hydrogen have been developed; these cars are amazing because they have excellent fuel mileage, they are cheaper to build, pressurized hydrogen is cheap, (hydrogen makes up 73.9% of all matter in the universe) and most importantly, pressurized hydrogen is infinitely renewable. A few people in the US run these cars, but they are not useful without accessible pumps. There are only a few pumps for pressurized hydrogen cars in the US. The government sees no reason to add these if they will not be used. (Installing these pumps will also be an investment that few are interested in.) People don't see a reason to buy these cars unless there are adequate pumps. It's a sad stalemate.

So what should we do to force governments to adopt more green policies? The simple answers are to alert them of the consequences of continuing to use fuel in the way that they are. Making new fuel sources cheaper will also encourage government globally to become greener. But if we really want to force governments to use filters on their factories, then it has to be done through a larger organization, such as the UN or EU. Neither currently has a whole lot of power to force policies upon their countries, but were a dire situation to occur, they might do so anyways. In a less dire situation, the UN or EU could offer benefits to companies avoiding greenhouse gases in manufacturing,etc... Until then, continued research in alternative fuels sources, architecture, and biology will have to do.

But lessening emissions now is only part of the problem. The US, China, India, and Russia are the largest contributors to climate destabilization, and reducing their emissions could be very plausible. But with developing countries around the world beginning to industrialize, what are they going to do? Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are often very poor, and will not be able to afford solar panels, geothermal plants, and other such things. Offering benefits and materials to companies in developing and undeveloped countries would have to take place in order to keep them from becoming the next gas guzzling 'Murica. Many countries in Africa are already emitting more CO2 annually than Iceland, though they have practically no industrialized areas. This is often due to rich oil reserves. This phenomenon of getting temporarily rich has already occurred in the middle east in places like Dubai. It is clear that this is not stable for economies or the environment, though. This behavior of guzzling oil till it runs out will likely have a similar effect as the silver trade during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had on Spain.

Other Contributors to Climate Destabilization​

After talking about energy, let's talk about other things that contribute to climate destabilization. The main ones that come to my mind are livestock, (yeah, right?) volcanic eruptions, and perhaps the sun itself. Humans are still unsure what percentage of climate change comes from livestock, though some estimate it could be a percentage in the dozens. One study conducted by the FAO stated that agriculture is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, agriculture grows along with human population, which grows very quickly. If we wanted to cut back on emissions from agriculture, (mainly cows, pigs, sheep, and chicken) then we would have to either capture the gases before they escaped animal houses or have more vegetarian diets globally.

Some say volcanoes are a major contributor to greenhouse gases, but we have little control over them. Some volcanoes may even have a "global cooling" effect. I don't have much to say about this, other than the fact that climate destabilization isn't totally our fault. There are also some who say that Earth's natural cycles and the sun are the main contributors to climate change, but these are arguments made mainly by skeptics. I haven't researched into either of these, but I don't the sun argument has much credibility.

Adapting to Climate Destabilization​

Many former skeptics now take the side of adapting to climate destabilization rather than trying to stop it in its tracks. They generally say that we should simply take what comes and adapt to our changing planet. The main actions included in this involve no enforcement; it's every country for itself. Coastal cities will have to put up seawalls if they don't want to be displaced. Simply letting the food chain collapse and adopting our environments and diets is also an option.

What is at Stake?​

We don't know what climate destabilization will cause. In a best case scenario, our planet suffers from a few extra rays from our lack of ozone, our ice caps melt off a little more, our food chains are a little disrupted, and we continue using fossil fuels until they run out. In a worse case scenario, the Earth's temperature rises 5-10 degrees Celsius in the coming century, our polar ice caps melt entirely, causing global sea levels to rise up to seventy feet, engulfing a wide margin of Earth's population in water. (80% of earth's population lives within 96 kilometers of the coast.) This could destroy major coastal cities such as New York and Amsterdam. Several countries would be wiped off of the map entirely. (Tuvalu, French Polynesia, Nauru, Micronesia, Kiribati, etc...) Much of our ocean biomes would collapse due to minor increase in temperature. Mass extinction would be caused by the destabilization of the food web. We could get stuck in a massive energy and agricultural crisis and our economies could cripple, causing global starvation, rebellions, and wars.

We may think we have big problems, but climate destabilization could accelerate or cause the destruction of our own planet and the human race. Not many other problems we have have consequences like that; not our economies, energy sources, or politics. So do you want to risk losing something that we have yet to find elsewhere in the seemingly endless space of the universe or across any other point in time across history?

 

[Joel/MadDawg]

I guess I'm kinda late to the party, but here it goes.

I wanted a thread like this to discuss because climate change is at the top of the list of mankind's problems if we want to continue existing for longer than a few more centuries. What's worse is that many people are awfully ignorant about climate change, and think that it is either not a problem or that we can do nothing about it. Indeed people hold regular debates between skeptics and the climate change activists. The fact that these debates exist is misleading. The problem is that people talk about climate change like it's something you can "believe" in. Those who say that the earth is not warming up, the climate is not changing, we are not causing it, or that it is not a problem are blatantly wrong.

Debating whether the Earth is warming up as a whole is like debating if llamas exist. Debating if we are contributing to climate change is like asking if we are contributing to deforestation. We have pictures of melting ice caps, several decades of weather pattern statistics, aquatic life surveys, carbon dioxide measurements as well as their correlation with human emissions, and more evidence than you can imagine. Regardless of your sources, well over 95% of scientists agree that climate change is a problem. However, commoners often find simple scapegoat phrases to make themselves think that climate change is either not happening or is not a problem, etc... so that they don't have to worry about something they don't know what to do about. Some I have heard include "I haven't noticed the Earth warming up", "Earth's warming is part of a natural cycle", or "Climate change won't cause any problems".

So there you go: Humans are the main contributors to climate destabilization. (which is a more politically correct term than climate change) The effects of it are no longer something to worry about for the future; the effects of climate change are now part of the present. We now have to deal with a mess that our ancestors left us simply because it wasn't a problem for them.

So what do we do about emissions of green house gases? There have been many solutions presented, but no single idea needs to be the solution to the problem. Part of the problem is that fossil fuels power our factories and cars. However, if we were able to take better advantage of alternate fuels sources, such as wind turbines, dams, geothermal energy, solar power, green organic fuels, etc... then we would eventually be able to make up for our current fossil fuel consumption.

Some countries have already demonstrated remarkable changes in becoming greener. Iceland, for example, emits less than 5 million cubic tons of carbon dioxide per year, while the US and China each emit over 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. Iceland takes excellent advantage of geothermal energy and water because of their presence of geothermal features (volcanoes) and impressive coastline. They're not just lucky, though. The US, Russia, China, and India all have massive land areas while still being the largest contributors to CO2 in the world. Any country with a large coastline and land area has massive opportunities for natural energy.

The sad fact is that fossil fuels are currently the cheapest source of energy for many countries. In a capitalist world, businesses will only stop using fossil fuels once another source becomes more economically feasible. They will only adopt green policies when forced to. For example, cars that run on pressurized hydrogen have been developed; these cars are amazing because they have excellent fuel mileage, they are cheaper to build, pressurized hydrogen is cheap, (hydrogen makes up 73.9% of all matter in the universe) and most importantly, pressurized hydrogen is infinitely renewable. A few people in the US run these cars, but they are not useful without accessible pumps. There are only a few pumps for pressurized hydrogen cars in the US. The government sees no reason to add these if they will not be used. (Installing these pumps will also be an investment that few are interested in.) People don't see a reason to buy these cars unless there are adequate pumps. It's a sad stalemate.

So what should we do to force governments to adopt more green policies? The simple answers are to alert them of the consequences of continuing to use fuel in the way that they are. Making new fuel sources cheaper will also encourage government globally to become greener. But if we really want to force governments to use filters on their factories, then it has to be done through a larger organization, such as the UN or EU. Neither currently has a whole lot of power to force policies upon their countries, but were a dire situation to occur, they might do so anyways. In a less dire situation, the UN or EU could offer benefits to companies avoiding greenhouse gases in manufacturing,etc... Until then, continued research in alternative fuels sources, architecture, and biology will have to do.

But lessening emissions now is only part of the problem. The US, China, India, and Russia are the largest contributors to climate destabilization, and reducing their emissions could be very plausible. But with developing countries around the world beginning to industrialize, what are they going to do? Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are often very poor, and will not be able to afford solar panels, geothermal plants, and other such things. Offering benefits and materials to companies in developing and undeveloped countries would have to take place in order to keep them from becoming the next gas guzzling 'Murica. Many countries in Africa are already emitting more CO2 annually than Iceland, though they have practically no industrialized areas. This is often due to rich oil reserves. This phenomenon of getting temporarily rich has already occurred in the middle east in places like Dubai. It is clear that this is not stable for economies or the environment, though. This behavior of guzzling oil till it runs out will likely have a similar effect as the silver trade during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had on Spain.

Other Contributors to Climate Destabilization​

After talking about energy, let's talk about other things that contribute to climate destabilization. The main ones that come to my mind are livestock, (yeah, right?) volcanic eruptions, and perhaps the sun itself. Humans are still unsure what percentage of climate change comes from livestock, though some estimate it could be a percentage in the dozens. One study conducted by the FAO stated that agriculture is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, agriculture grows along with human population, which grows very quickly. If we wanted to cut back on emissions from agriculture, (mainly cows, pigs, sheep, and chicken) then we would have to either capture the gases before they escaped animal houses or have more vegetarian diets globally.

Some say volcanoes are a major contributor to greenhouse gases, but we have little control over them. Some volcanoes may even have a "global cooling" effect. I don't have much to say about this, other than the fact that climate destabilization isn't totally our fault. There are also some who say that Earth's natural cycles and the sun are the main contributors to climate change, but these are arguments made mainly by skeptics. I haven't researched into either of these, but I don't the sun argument has much credibility.

Adapting to Climate Destabilization​

Many former skeptics now take the side of adapting to climate destabilization rather than trying to stop it in its tracks. They generally say that we should simply take what comes and adapt to our changing planet. The main actions included in this involve no enforcement; it's every country for itself. Coastal cities will have to put up seawalls if they don't want to be displaced. Simply letting the food chain collapse and adopting our environments and diets is also an option.

What is at Stake?​

We don't know what climate destabilization will cause. In a best case scenario, our planet suffers from a few extra rays from our lack of ozone, our ice caps melt off a little more, our food chains are a little disrupted, and we continue using fossil fuels until they run out. In a worse case scenario, the Earth's temperature rises 5-10 degrees Celsius in the coming century, our polar ice caps melt entirely, causing global sea levels to rise up to seventy feet, engulfing a wide margin of Earth's population in water. (80% of earth's population lives within 96 kilometers of the coast.) This could destroy major coastal cities such as New York and Amsterdam. Several countries would be wiped off of the map entirely. (Tuvalu, French Polynesia, Nauru, Micronesia, Kiribati, etc...) Much of our ocean biomes would collapse due to minor increase in temperature. Mass extinction would be caused by the destabilization of the food web. We could get stuck in a massive energy and agricultural crisis and our economies could cripple, causing global starvation, rebellions, and wars.

We may think we have big problems, but climate destabilization could accelerate or cause the destruction of our own planet and the human race. Not many other problems we have have consequences like that; not our economies, energy sources, or politics. So do you want to risk losing something that we have yet to find elsewhere in the seemingly endless space of the universe or across any other point in time across history?

Wow. This might be the best forum post I have ever seen. I can easily imagine reading this is in a major news outlet as a lengthy description of what climate destabilization (nice phrase) is. This is a stunning piece of writing and I am quite frankly blown away that someone would spend the time to write something like this on a video game forum where it will receive a minuscule portion of the attention it deserves. If I where you I would highly consider emailing this to your local newspaper or at least your teachers so it can recieve more recognition. Because quite frankly this is the best written article addressing our planet's condition I've seen anywhere.