Climate change- Man vs Nature?

[Astral Omega]

From the Official rants thread.

Mainly so we can free up the Rants thread for actual rants and because it was such a popular topic that I thought it deserved It's own thread.

Basically we asked the question: Are humans causing global warming? and that lead to a discussion on clean energy.

So let the debate begin!

[Astral Omega]

The story so far...

Fwee, watching VP debate. 90 minutes of politicians pretending to answer questions and evading giving real answers... Ooh, global warming, something to argue about that makes sense.

Arguing about global warming does not make sense. Global warming is a natural occurance and arguing who's got the best way to stop it is... well it's like 2 ants arguing over who's dam is going to stop the tsunami.
POINT
IS
MOOT!

Personally I'd rather like my climate stable, thank you very much.
Also, we're not ants, we can modify our environment, usually for the worse but...the fact is that we can do it, we have the technology...but for some reason elect not to. lolprofits

Yay, Astral agrees with me. I was saying that in contrast the previous rants made no sense. But why wouldn't you want the climate to stop just for you? I mean our county won't let us build stores close to home to preserve the area like it is. So why can't we do it to the world? Don't you want your kids to grow up like yours?
Sarcasm aside, the least we can do is maintain the CO2 levels which actually have taken an abnormal rise according to scientists. But sadly, alternative fuels are inefficient and the process of making them cause more pollution than gas. They estimated that they wouldn't have efficient alternative fuels for a couple decades last year. So why is everyone putting all the stress on them? As we do, the gas mileage gets lower and lower. My dad owned two cars in a row that would get 50 miles a gallon when I was young, a Geo Metro and a Diesel VW Beetle (which has a smaller carbon footprint than the Prius). So why can't we strive for something better than 40? There has been 6 cars as of last year that were still being made with greater than 40 MPG, three hybrids, three diesel. Looking through the list, (as I was researching for a project in school) I found that most hybrids didn't get more than my manual Corolla. So what's the point? Their more expensive and less efficient, and researchers found that they create more pollution inadvertently because of the battery

Personally I'd rather like my climate stable, thank you very much.
Also, we're not ants, we can modify our environment, usually for the worse but...the fact is that we can do it, we have the technology...but for some reason elect not to.

Awww... isn't that sweet? He listens to the propaganda spouted by the world government.

Now listen, I'm all for cleaning up the environment, that's fantastic, but the burning of fossil fuels etc. is NOT changing our environment.

Would you like some proof? You know you do! Linked for size

As you can see here, the climate has changed drastically throughout time and has spent most of it's time in a much hotter climate. (This explains why they have found the fossils of PLANTS in ANTARCTICA!) We are, in fact still in an ice age. If you like it now and don't want it to change then TOUGH!

It's going to happen. People will die but that's life. The human race will still survive, however. We are a hardy race. In fact this 'global warming' might be good for human's quality of life all over the world. Warmer climates will allow plants to grow in places that have not had plants for millions of years, creating more food.

The population will diminish slightly, allowing more space for the survivors to spread out. (It may seem harsh but it’s true)

Yes, the ice caps are melting- but they are SUPPOSED to melt!

The sea level will rise slightly (but personally I don’t think it will be as drastic as they say due to the displacement of water caused by the density of the ice. I have no hard scientific evidence to back that up, that’s just my personal opinion.)

Now, back to the graph! They say it’s because we’re burning fossil fuels (mostly)… Notice that the hottest part of the earth’s climate is when the dinosaurs were around.

Were THEY burning fossil fuels?... Oh no wait, they ARE the fossil fuels!

So there you have it. The scientists are giving all this ‘proof’ that we are causing it, but it’s all about their interpretation. They are using the whole ‘we are destroying the world’ angle to get people to help clean up the environment. Mostly because our society can’t be bothered doing anything if it doesn’t impact us directly.

So sure, clean up the pollution. Find a cleaner way of doing things. But it’s not because we are causing the temperature to rise, it’s because we don’t want to live in a dump.

World government? What world government? And space will diminish, yet you say there'll be more of it for survivors. Que?

Also Sahara, a huge expanse of land that can't be inhabited due to lack of water. If you want more space, then try to terraform that to a better living quarter or at least arrange to make import of food and water easier.

I agree that global warming in overrated. I think we might be causing some of it, but I can't see it every becoming the huge disaster that some people (mainly people trying to prove a political or super eco friendly agenda) do. Actually... I'm not even entirely sure global warming is happening. Seems everywhere I've lived recently has been having cooler than average temperatures... But anyway, even if it gets a couple degrees warming everywhere, it's not the end of the world. I mean, I'm living in Phoenix AZ, it can get up to like 120 degrees F here in the summer and people get by ok so everyone is not going to die off if their temps go up a couple degrees (I mean, most of them will still be way cooler than if they were here). And on the whole melting ice caps thing... I can't imagine the catastrophic flooding that some people are predicting. All that ice displaces a lot of water so it shouldn't make that big of a difference if it melts. Heck, if you take a glass or bowl of water, put in a bunch of ice cubes, measure the water later, then wait around for the ice to melt, the water level will actually drop a bit.

But where did the water go? Exactly, it evaporated, so it's like this, the amount of water on the Earth will be the same unless taken out of Earth. And ice counts as water so you're flawed

That's true too Josiah. No, Kisori, they did not evaporate, at least not considerably. Perform the experiment with plastic wrap over the bowl and you'll find the results nearly the same. But it doesn't account for glaciers. Then again, the fact that ice shrinks when it melts makes me wonder how much they thought over their hypothesis.
That's nice Shadowman, but a recent study which I used in a research project, but I lost the project so I'll have to post a link later, states that the electricity used is made with more polution than a gas car equivalently makes.

To Astral: World government? What world government? And space will diminish, yet you say there'll be more of it for survivors. Que?

Also Sahara, a huge expanse of land that can't be inhabited due to lack of water. If you want more space, then try to terraform that to a better living quarter or at least arrange to make import of food and water easier.

By world government I mean all the governments in the world that are all saying the same thing: "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIIEEE!!! SNARFLEGARBLEAAARGGHHG"

The space will not diminish by much, and as NabMaster said we're almost up to seven million people. a lot of people will die due to Weather effects, the raise in temperature causing raise in population of disease-carrying animals (rats, mosquitoes etc) and ll sorts of other disasters.

Less people means that there will be more space because more space that people take up will be freed than space taken up by a slight raise in sea levels. The over-population crisis may be averted.

Yes, there may be more deserts, but how many people live in deserts now? HUMANS ARE ADAPTABLE. Sure, there may not be much water in the Sahara, but we are currently (due to the whole 'clean up the planet' stuff) finding new ways of using our resources.

They already have Huge desalination Plants in some parts of the world. (Dubai for example) Desalination plants may be expensive, but when crisis strikes the world will be more inclined to put their money towards things like that.

Also, the weather patterns are changing, who’s to say there won’t be more rain in the Sahara? Perhaps it could turn into a new Rainforest or something… We have no Idea what nature has in store for us; we just have to go with the flow and try to survive.

And Kisori: nobody’s saying there will be less water. They’re saying that the Sea Levels will change. They’re saying that it will rise dramatically and we’re all gonna DROWN! But I highly doubt it.

but a recent study which I used in a research project, but I lost the project so I'll have to post a link later, states that the electricity used is made with more polution than a gas car equivalently makes.

INCORRECT! (Didn't want to use WROOOONG!)
At least here, most of our electricity is made with dams.

How exactly can hydroelectricity pollute?

Killing fish. That's about it I guess. Meh. Who needs fish.

[quote="Astral Omega]Electricity in some places is created using hydroelectricity, but I have a big power station near where I live that uses Coal. In fact it's in my city.

and who needs fish? TRY THE ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM![/quote]

All the sushi restaurants of course.

I don't eat fish, so what do I care. *sarcasm*

My dad works in a coal power plant. It would be a clean coal power plant, but no one in our state will let them build. And they wonder why the price of electricity is high. Nuclear is the most efficient and least polluting energy source we can make. Not to mention we have the technology to reduce the half-life of radioactive substances by around half. There's only been two meltdowns ever recorded Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island, both were simple to avoid human errors, and now we know better.

And dead fish decompose and create methane.

Cows crap and the crap makes methane too, OMG KILL THE COWS! </sarcasm>

And personally, from best to medium, here's my suggested order of electricity making:
1)Nuclear Fusion (Like fission but better though I don't think we can do it yet)
2)Hydroelectricity (If you can power a whole province with it then it can't be that bad)
3)Nuclear Fission (With adequate safeguards of course, the only pollutant is radioactive refuse...and steam)
4)Wind power (Rather inefficient, big)
5)Solar power (Quite inefficient)

Did I miss anything?

Damn, I forgot that gas( mainly air) gets trapped in ice...

4)Wind power (Rather inefficient, big)

Ugh, these things are way too big for the small amount of juice they get. I've passed by fields which literally have hundreds of [definitely forgot the name, something like windmill i guess], and its incredible to think of all the space each one takes up.

Also, the reason that ice takes up more space than liquid water is because water is polar - it has a negative side and a positive side. When it freezes, the water collects into these crystal shapes, which end up having a lot of empty space. When it melts, all the water in the ice fills the empty space back up.

I've passed by fields which literally have hundreds of [definitely forgot the name, something like windmill i guess]

Are they called Turbines?

Behold the Wall-o-text.

[Shadowman]

A turbine is something you make spin to create electricity, so no, they're not turbines...can't help about the actual name of the "windmills" though >_<

[NabMaster]

I think it might be wind turbines actually, or maybe they are just windmills. Either way, they're big spinny things that run on wind power, and I don't think they are space-effective in comparison to solar (or most other) power.

[Astral Omega]

Um.. lets think about this logically. What does a wind make a windmill do?
Oh, that's rigt... SPIN! Then these 'windmills' create electricity... Sorry, that sounded mean... I'm looking it up.

Wind turbines, which are also known as wind generators, produce electricity from the wind. Wind turbines come in many shapes and sizes, and range from those that can produce small amounts of electricity for small power demands like keeping boat batteries topped up, right up to huge machines that can run hundreds of homes. Choosing the best site for a wind turbine is important. You need an area with relatively high average wind speeds, with little or no turbulence. To achieve this, the turbine is normally mounted on a high tower well above all obstructions. Tower height ranges from 12 metres to 30 metres or more, depending on the site. A tower that is too short will provide disappointing results.

http://www.renewablestore.com.au/catalo ... ex&cPath=3

They are caled Turbines.

[NabMaster]

Yeah, that's the one.

[Astral Omega]

But on the topic of cleaner energy production and whatnot: Ethanol.

It's a fuel made from sugar cane so it's a renewable resource. It's energy efficient and becasue it's more readily avaliable it stands to reason that it would eb cheaper.

Brazil is using it now. So why can't everyone else?

I already know Australia has a lot of sugar cane! Especially near Bundaberg (Mm syrup^^... and rum yuk.)

Oh lookies. Something that involves America and ethanol: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Business/Stor ... 047&page=1
But wait...

This site gives the fuel price as $2.90/gal... Convert US$ to A$... That's $3.73.. convert Gallons to litres... that's $3.79... divide to find price per litre... THAT'S 98c PER LITRE!!

Oh yes, at $1.50 per litre here, we definitely need to increase the use of ethanol...

[Shadowman]

Beer-powered cars?

DO WANT!

[Giga-Gar]

The thing about that is that it takes a lot of farm land to grow the sugar cane crops. That farm land could be used for growing food. There's already farmland in america reserved for growing corn for ethonol. Beef, milk, chicken, pork, and most of all, corn, is going up because most of the corn being grown is reserved for ethonol. Weird thing is, we arn't using it!? So what's the deal?

[Josiah]

Gar has a point, Ethanol is nice but, with the amount of space required to grow all the neccessary crops, it serious cuts back on farm land for food.

[Astral Omega]

The great thing about sugar cane is it's used for both! I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it's actualy the unused portions that are converted into fuel, but don't quote me on that.

Beer-powered cars?

DO WANT!

Nobody said anything about Beer powered cars. Where did you get that idea from?
If you're referring to the fact that alcohol can also be made from sugar cane then that's Rum, not beer. Beer is Barley, water, hops and yeast. Not sugar cane.
Rum is made form sugar cane (molasses, water and yeast)

(But to be honest the darker rums don't taste any better than beer. All is yuk.)

[PoikSpirit]

Erg, hold on! Ethanol. Dang it, I need to find my research project! It produces pollutions that are nearly unfilterable because of how fine the soot is. That doesn't even take into account that most farms use gas to power the tractors which wastes more energy than is made. Though that is on corn, I'd have to look up sugar cane's efficiency. Also, I'm not entirely sure on this, but one of the factors in the food shortage that was in the newspapers recently was ethanol. Well, it was in the newspaper by us and they seemed to make a big deal of it.

[NabMaster]

Mythbusters proved that french fry grease works fine in an engine, and people are literally tossing the stuff. If I were them, my eyes would be

[Astral Omega]

Awesome fact, Nadb. Mythbusters are always awesome!

Mythbusters facts = win.

[Cheezdude]

MYTH BUSTED!