1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

global warming? or global cooling?!

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Warm Pudgy, Mar 16, 2006.

  1. W0RF

    W0RF BuF Greeter, News Bagger

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    0
    When the population increases 2% and the emissions increase 1%, that is a net decrease per capita.
     
  2. SlipStreams_65

    SlipStreams_65 User Titles are Useless.

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    0
    And a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
     
  3. das_ben

    das_ben Concerned.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2000
    Messages:
    5,878
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I'm an advocate of nuclear energy myself, building a lot more nuclear plants to replace coal and oil power plants isn't really an option. Based on today's known uranium reserves, any new modern nuclear plant wouldn't even be able to operate for its projected lifespan - uranium is just as limited as fossil fuels.

    Biodiesel is largely overrated. The amount of land needed to operate a significant number of vehicles is enormous. Statistics from this article in the German Zeit: At most 3.7% of Germany's demand for gasoline could be provided by biofuels. Furthermore, hydrogene fuel is projected to only account for 2%, at best 5%, of all fuel usage by 2020.

    At this time, none of the alternative energy source projects has results nearly as positive as increasing energy efficiency, both when producing power (power plants) and in consumption (cars, household electricity, factories). Most of the short-term investments should be directed into projects doing exactly that, long-term financing should focus on developing new technology and making existing technology such as solar power or wind energy economically feasible.
     
  4. Selerox

    Selerox COR AD COR LOQVITVR

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 1999
    Messages:
    6,583
    Likes Received:
    35
    Lead The Way

    You're missing the whole point. Again.

    As SlipStreams_65 correctly pointed out, it's still a net CO2 increase. Which means we're still going to hell in a handcart. Please stop trying to convince yourself that it's acceptable to have an increase in CO2 emmissions, because it isn't.

    Also, I'm just going to mention this in a US-style pre-emptive strike just in case you do decide to bring it up. Don't try to use the "Third Worlds countries don't care about CO2 emmisions etc so why should we?". Answer? You should, because it affects everyone. The US is keen to become a leader of the world, and it can start off by actually leading the world in the right direction.
     
  5. Shroom-FX

    Shroom-FX Basshead

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    0
    The way I understand it is, man is polluting the air, sea and ground. Much of the air pollution is trapping in heat from the sun. This extra heat is slowing melting the north pole, which will dilute the salty sea water with fresh water. When this process reaches a certain point the gulf stream will shut down because the warm water isn't sinking underneath the north pole anymore. When the warm water stops flowing the ice will spread over the now cooler waters and engulf much of the Uk. An Ice age.

    Also about the Jet engines, I saw something on TV about this. After 9/11 when all the planes shut down a few days, the average temp across the United States rose something like a couple degrees c. The heat reflected from clouds they leave behind is huge, but in the long term i guess they add to problem of air pollution.

    Man, its been ages since ive done this. GCSE geog blew so much.
     
  6. W0RF

    W0RF BuF Greeter, News Bagger

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    0
    But there's also a net increase in our POPULATION. That's the whole POINT. If our increase in emissions is not matching our population growth, then the people that ARE here are emitting LESS. By contrast, Australia's population has increased by about 12% in the 90s, but their emissions increased by over 14%. That's a net INcrease per capita, and not just due to population increase. The population of Greece increased only 7% in the 90s but their emissions increased by 18%. Japan had a 2% population growth but nearly 10% in emissions. Ireland's population has remained relatively stagnant but their emissions have increased 19%! The US is emitting more than before, yes, but we have more PEOPLE who are emitting LESS material, and the trend is heading in the direction of a net change of zero regardless of population increase, and from there, a net decrease. Our emissions are GOING DOWN.

    China and Russia blow us away, by a factor of 4 and 5, in CO2 emissions by GDP, which means we are getting MORE ENERGY out of the emissions we create. Energy efficiency doesn't count for anything?

    And Selerox, I don't appreciate you misrepresenting my point as saying that polluting the air is good, and I will thank you to stop. I also don't appreciate you assuming that I plan on bringing third world countries into the picture. I have not done so to this point, and I have no plans to do so going forward, as they are not central to my point, and as I stated before, nowhere did I say that we should not care. So knock it off.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2006
  7. Fuzzle

    Fuzzle spam noob

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm under the impression that nobody can agree on wether humans are responsible for the warming or not. It's proven that there is a natural warming and cooling cycle, yet the warming that's happening now is apparently the most rapid and most severe in measurable history according to some people.
    But even if it is completely natural, it will still have profound effects on the world climate. I saw a documentary where they mentioned it would be completely realistic to have a hurricane katrina twice a week for thousands of years.

    What I am pretty convinced of is that it is happening and it is pretty serious. The more I read about what's possible by just a couple of degrees warming, the melting of the poles really just seems like the tip of the icebergs (ha, I made teh pun!).
    The scariest theories are how little warming is needed to alter the flows of the ocean which would have substantial effects on our climate.

    Alas, I am no scientist, I like many others am doomed to go by hearsay and obviously am unable to make any conclusions.
     
  8. Selerox

    Selerox COR AD COR LOQVITVR

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 1999
    Messages:
    6,583
    Likes Received:
    35
    Throwing the fast-depleting oil on the fire...

    I never said you though polluting the air was good, I just though you missed the point by the fact that you assert that an increase in CO2 emmisions is acceptable as long as it's lower than population growth. Wether it matches population growth is not the the point. The fact that any net increase in CO2 is bad for the planet, and therefore for the human species as a whole. The fact that it's higher or lower than population growth is irrelevant, because any net CO2 increase is catastrophic.

    As for the Third World, you're right, I worded that wrongly. I should have written it as "other countries". I would have edited my post to correct that but sadly, you beat me to it. The fact that other countries don't have a great record for emmisions isn't acceptable, agreed. But the fact that you instantly used other countires as a basis for comparison to defend the US. Which means that you yet again missed the point. The fact is that the US - along with many, many other countries - has an appalling record on emmisons. The fact that you're not as bad as some doesn't mean that you're any good. The fact is, no matter what basis of comparison you use, or what claims of innocence you want to use, the US is a massive polluter. Accept that and deal with it, because the excuse of "We're bad, but at least we're not as bad as<insert nation here>" simply doesn't fly. Also, I meant the term "you" as a collective, I wasn't just referring to you personally.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2006
  9. Bean 3:16

    Bean 3:16 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2000
    Messages:
    3,615
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't argue that towards that particular goal, there is still much work to be done. But you make it sound like this is some bone-crushing task that is insurmountable by the current populace.

    The fact is, in the past 100 years, life has been completely revolutionized MULTIPLE times, in a relatively short amount of time. Humans have learned to accept cars, planes, computers, etc, in a wildly short amount of time. I think we're just one critical innovation way from just another revolution in the way humans consume energy. I'm not saying the issue you're bringing up isn't serious. You just make it sound like people haven't been solving similar caliber problems for the past 5000 years.
     
  10. W0RF

    W0RF BuF Greeter, News Bagger

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    0
    At what point did I say that made pollution acceptable?
    Yes it is, it means the people that ARE here are emitting FEWER pollutants. A downward trend will inevitably result in a net decrease.
    Not if you're trying to demonstrate that we are capable of reducing our emissions with or without Kyoto protocols. Which we are.
    Incorrect. I used other countries to demonstrate the difference. We have more people in our country, which is why we have a net increase in emissions. But those people are EMITTING LESS. A downward trend will inevitably result in a net decrease. By contrast, pollution that outpaces growth cannot. It was a mathematical contrast. THAT'S ALL.
    And you have missed the point, that this shows we are IMPROVING.
    No, but it means we're IMPROVING.
    I didn't say we were innocent, I SAID WE WERE IMPROVING.
    Good thing I wasn't using it as an excuse, but a comparative example to show we're IMPROVING. We have more people who are emitting fewer pollutants. A downward trend will inevitably result in a net decrease.

    Have you understood yet what I am saying? I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it beyond this.
     
  11. Cap'n Beeb

    Cap'n Beeb Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    8,106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey I know, let's ban breathing! [​IMG]
     
  12. Selerox

    Selerox COR AD COR LOQVITVR

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 1999
    Messages:
    6,583
    Likes Received:
    35
    I'm so glad I don't have to resort to quoting every individual line...

    I understood your point. You're improving, it's about time. My point is it's still unnacceptable because you still have a net increase. Fair enough, eventually, reducing the emmisions per capita may result in a net decrease which is the goal (the goal is zero emissions, but that's not realistic right now). But it hasn't yet.

    The US has improved in terms of per-capita, but it still has increasing net emissions. Which means you're still not good enough. Which is the same story for pretty much every country. When it comes to the planet, any emmisions are too much, and on this issue I don't see why anyone should have the right to slap themselves on the back in congratulations purely on the basis that they're slightly less crap than they were a little while ago. Yes, it's a start, but that's all it is.
     
  13. W0RF

    W0RF BuF Greeter, News Bagger

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm so glad I don't use my title line for sarcastic retorts

    Well, wtf do you want from us? We're ALREADY emitting FEWER pollutants, and it's trending downward. But in the end there's only so much that you can do, EVERYTHING has some sort of exhaust. As long as people are breathing, CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere. As long as we have cows, we will have methane emissions. There's no such thing as zero emission. And I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities, but I have to get to work every day, one job is 10 miles away, the other requires me to drive, so until you can invent a teleporter and deliver it to my doorstep, I'm going to have to keep driving my internal-combustion automobile. That's something I call reality. My car gets 30mpg in the city, 42 on the highway. That's what I call being mindful of the problem and minimizing my impact.

    The only thing I said coming in here is that our emissions are GOING DOWN, and they will CONTINUE to go down, our air pollution is at its lowest point in 35 years, and we did all this without signing on to Kyoto. As opposed to other countries who are spending ten times the projected cost and getting no results.

    I honestly have no idea what would be good enough for you. Reducing emissions isn't good enough, getting several times the energy efficiency from our emissions isn't good enough, moving to alternate energy sources isn't good enough.... so... WHAT? Aside from your repeated mischaracterization that somehow improvement is the same thing as congratulating ourselves on conquering pollution forever and celebrating by setting our oil fields aflame, I'm looking at your constant unwavering criticism and wondering if anything short of living in mud huts and living off twigs and berries will satisfy your need to completely disregard all the advancements of the last 15 years and proclaim America the most horrible, nature-hating monster on planet earth.

    Or can we just get rid of the hyperbole, acknowledge there's an issue, acknowledge we are in the process of addressing it, acknowledge that these things take time, and acknowledge that we don't need Kyoto, we just need to continue to clean up our own house? How about that?
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2006
  14. BobCobb

    BobCobb Society is a leech on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yea, that won't solve anything worf. We need that oil to fuel the nuclear missles that will someday save our planet.

    Nope, won't solve much either. Mud huts are few and far between nowadays, and extremely energy inefficient.

    There we go, much better. While we're at it, we should disregard that whole industrial revolution thing. That sucked. While we're at it, lets reinstate feudalism. That seemed like a good idea.
     
  15. W0RF

    W0RF BuF Greeter, News Bagger

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    0
    Congratulations, Cobb. You have graduated from annoying snot to someone whose posts I have no capacity to comprehend.
     
  16. Traxis

    Traxis Waiting for the deathblow

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's St. Patrick's day, he's probably drunk.
     
  17. BobCobb

    BobCobb Society is a leech on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a little ;)

    Don't tell the bossman. :)

    And Worf, I was just taking what you said completely out of context. I just wanted to see if I could make you look like a eco-terrorist loon. I failed...
     
  18. W0RF

    W0RF BuF Greeter, News Bagger

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    8,731
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can't imagine why.

    Have someone call you a cab.
     
  19. Emotionless Ice

    Emotionless Ice Banned: <a href=/showthread.php?t=171372>attemptin

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Worf I think you are wrong he was just trying to cover up being annoying he'll always be annoying no matter what.
     
  20. BobCobb

    BobCobb Society is a leech on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    0
    He buddy, don't flame me. Worf can, because he is a badass. But not you. So bugger off with the comments or I'll bitch slap yea!

    :flame: :2thumb:
     

Share This Page