[davoid]

I don't know if you've heard of this, but some climate change activists occupied some common land in South East London, UK, to raise awareness of the global issue.

Climate Camp | Environment | guardian.co.uk

What are your thoughts - both on the protest itself, and the issue of climate change and possible solutions?

I thought that as a community that values communication so much, maybe we can solve all the world's problems

[Archangel00195]

Nope. We can't solve anything. Because some. People can't admit its happening.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[BergerKing]

Until you can regulate the temperature of the sun, you'll have absolutely no chance of regulating the temperature of the planet.

But I'd love to watch you try.

Thanks, Ed!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Archangel00195]

See? Told you. Like **** if I give up my SUV!
Or my methane.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[the_sandman_454]

Kind of neat where I read an article recently about Mars warming up while we are also. I wish we could make those dang Martians trade their SUV's for Priuses. They're going to ruin their climate.

Who's to say what the optimal temperature for the planet is? The temperature of this planet has never been particularly steady.

The climate models they're basing their scare tactics on can't properly go backwards in time when data is plugged in, telling us that these models are not accurate. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument. :d

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[davoid]

Who's to say what the optimal temperature for the planet is? The temperature of this planet has never been particularly steady.

Yeah but we're pumping unnatural quantities of Carbon into the atmosphere, which will eventually raise it to temperatures it cannot have seen since life began on Earth. If you think about what a greenhouse is, it traps heat and doesn't let it out again, and the sun doesn't stop sending us more. If Earth had ever had a greenhouse in the past, it would still have one now, and we wouldn't exist. So this is something new, it's something we're creating, and we should...stop

If you look at the graph on this page of the temperatures of the Solar System planets, note how much hotter Venus is than Mercury - even though Mercury is really close to the sun. This is because Venus has a greenhouse effect. All the other planets appear to decrease in temperature in relation to their distance from the sun.

[Archangel00195]

Kind of neat where I read an article recently about Mars warming up while we are also. I wish we could make those dang Martians trade their SUV's for Priuses. They're going to ruin their climate.

Who's to say what the optimal temperature for the planet is? The temperature of this planet has never been particularly steady.

The climate models they're basing their scare tactics on can't properly go backwards in time when data is plugged in, telling us that these models are not accurate. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument. :d

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

You mean in February of 2007?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html
Maybe if I was on my pc I'd pull something newer

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[the_sandman_454]

Actually, there is a bunch of carbon that naturally occurs and decomposition of natural materials including fossil fuels yields carbon dioxide naturally.

And carbon has existed in large quantities in the atmosphere in the past, per ice cores they've taken. Interestingly enough as I recall, increased Carbon dioxide lagged temperature change.

Let's ban forest fires and volcanoes and swamps and carbonic acid naturally occurring in the oceans, since they are larger sources than us.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[davoid]

And carbon has existed in large quantities in the atmosphere in the past, per ice cores they've taken.

Maybe, but not in quantities to produce a greenhouse effect. Otherwise it would still be here. Greenhouse effects don't go away of their own accord, they get increasingly hotter.

[the_sandman_454]

Uh. Yes, the levels of CO2 do vary in the atmosphere. Do you disagree with that statement? There aren't any CO2 sinks on other planets to adsorb/process the CO2. We have those in the form of plants, which thrive in CO2 enriched environments.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Archangel00195]

So your logic is...

You can't prove without a shadow of a doubt I'm hurting it so I'm not gonna stop? Things like decomposition forest fires and such don't count. Know your laws of matter please.

Burning of methane, oil, etc. Doesn't happen naturally on the scale we do it

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[the_sandman_454]

Ok, so please, show me the current replacement for fossil fuels? We can't use hydroelectric because it harms/interferes with fish. Can't use wind turbines because it harms/interferes with birds. Can't use solar because it takes up lots of space and only works truly efficiently in bright sunlight. Can't use nuclear because it produces radioactive waste and could be dangerous. Can't use fossil fuels for "carbon" reasons.

So please enlighten me, what sort of power generation is the "green" movement going to approve of? Even electric cars rely on fossil fuels burned in powerplants, so fossil fuels being removed from cars still need to get burned to supply power to electric cars via the grid.

Hydrogen cars rely on hydrogen obviously, which can be gathered through electrolysis which consumes significant energy. Producing hydrogen from fossil fuels will still likely yield carbon as a waste byproduct.

So please, what's the soution?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[davoid]

Uh. Yes, the levels of CO2 do vary in the atmosphere. Do you disagree with that statement? There aren't any CO2 sinks on other planets to adsorb/process the CO2. We have those in the form of plants, which thrive in CO2 enriched environments.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Yes, but those sinks you're talking about are diminishing as the rainforests are being systematically destroyed. Also, we're bringing up carbon that was 'sinked' long ago and then buried, only to burn it and re-introduce it into the atmosphere instead of leaving it where it belongs - under the earth's surface.

[davoid]

So please, what's the soution?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

This is the question we should all be working to answer. We need a global brainstorming session on this - and the thing about brainstorming is to allow all possible suggestions to be collated before dismissing them - to encourage involvement without prejudice, however absurd they might sound on first hearing.

So, how about electric cars for which you charge up the batteries by working out on your home gym exercise machine?

[the_sandman_454]

This is the question we should all be working to answer. We need a global brainstorming session on this - and the thing about brainstorming is to allow all possible suggestions to be collated before dismissing them - to encourage involvement without prejudice, however absurd they might sound on first hearing.

So, how about electric cars for which you charge up the batteries by working out on your home gym exercise machine?

Won't work, because of conservation of energy. It takes a ton of power to move a car down the road. A human feels an immense load while powering even a 100w lightbulb. A human in top shape can only make 1/3hp or so. Not to mention said human will be huffing and puffing and emitting a terrible amount of CO2.

The other thing to be leery about so-called "green energy" is where the power comes from and what happens when we pull dozens and thousands of megawatts of power from the wind, the oceans by wave action, and so forth? That could change the climate by itself, and in unpleasant and unforseen ways.

My problem is everybody wants to have a big knee-**** reaction to the "problem" and could very easily make things worse or create other severe problems.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Archangel00195]

Ok, so please, show me the current replacement for fossil fuels? We can't use hydroelectric because it harms/interferes with fish. Can't use wind turbines because it harms/interferes with birds. Can't use solar because it takes up lots of space and only works truly efficiently in bright sunlight. Can't use nuclear because it produces radioactive waste and could be dangerous. Can't use fossil fuels for "carbon" reasons.

So please enlighten me, what sort of power generation is the "green" movement going to approve of? Even electric cars rely on fossil fuels burned in powerplants, so fossil fuels being removed from cars still need to get burned to supply power to electric cars via the grid.

Hydrogen cars rely on hydrogen obviously, which can be gathered through electrolysis which consumes significant energy. Producing hydrogen from fossil fuels will still likely yield carbon as a waste byproduct.

So please, what's the soution?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Proof wind farms harm birds? Also you don't understand now modern power plants work. They work in two plants. The first with nuclear matteral then the second off the waste from the first plant. This reduces half life by half.
The real problem with nuclear is the limited fuels.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[davoid]

Let's burn the fat from liposuction operations. Oh, no. Carbon...

No, let's feed the fat to rats who run in cages, charging the batteries...

[the_sandman_454]

Proof wind farms harm birds? Also you don't understand now modern power plants work. They work in two plants. The first with nuclear matteral then the second off the waste from the first plant. This reduces half life by half.
The real problem with nuclear is the limited fuels.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Should have been more clear. I like nuclear and the idea behind it. The dangerous/radioactive waste aspects I referred to are touted by persons opposed to nuclear and help prevent more plants from being built.

My point in the entire prior post was to help illustrate some of the many arguments against different energy sources I've heard over the years from the "green weenies" who apparently don't approve of any power source until they think they won't have any power for themselves. Many of these individuals are hypocrites.

That was my point.

There has been some doccumentation for bird-kills by the wind turbines. I have heard from some friends in TX that some people are noticing a bit of a shift in humidity and dryness in fields near the turbines. As I said, there may be unforseen consequences from pulling energy from the environment.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com