Climate Change .....if....
If it was proven without a doubt that mankind has nothing to do with the current warming of the globe (or has so little to do with it as to be statistically insignificant), would it be moral/"green" to mess with the warming in an attempt to stop it?
Would the tree huggers still embrace global warming as a cause and be openly hypocritical about what they stand for?
Would the tree huggers still embrace global warming as a cause and be openly hypocritical about what they stand for?
0
-
It is impossible to figure which way they would go, as they are driven by feelings, not logic. 0 -
global warming radiates from al gore......a hot topic 0 -
Ah but they are all flying to Bali on the public dollar in private planes for the global warming conference. I guess it is too cold in Washington for them. 0 -
No need to worry. The doom and gloomers will invent another unsolvable crisis within a few years to replace this one. 0 -
No problem when the water runs out for the city of Atlanta. 0 -
I think I saw a documentary on TV a while back that said we were due for another Ice Age in 15000 years. So why are we trying to stop global warming? If this is true would we not want to increase global warming to put off the Ice Age? Just wondering. 0 -
Personally I think (especially these days) it's a marketing ploy. Look at all the revenue the Governmant is getting from "new" jobs in the Green Taxes. It's all about consumerism (it's all hype). If we're truely worried about it when natural disasters happen kick back and do nothing. Natural Disaters will be population control (less people, less CO2 emmision). Just like there'll always be the poor, without the poor we won't strive to better our selves. Why bother since everything will be provided. That's one thing I never understood about "Star Trek" Utopian society who'll blow you out of space when pushed but will not get involved with slower tech. society.
The earth goes through cycles and when Global "Cooling" comes about we'll be using Aqua-Net hair spray full dose of Flo. Carbons[:D]. And P.E.T.A. will have a Mink Farm[:D].0 -
We can only hope they take the same path as the woman that had herself sterilized so she would not add more filthy humans to the planet.
If we can get the Al Gore types out of the gene pool things will be a lot better in a generation or two.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bayl778
So why are we trying to stop global warming? If this is true would we not want to increase global warming to put off the Ice Age? Just wondering.
You have to consider thermohaline circulation. Warm water, near the surface, travels polewards. At northern latitudes the water cools. Evaporation increases its salinity. The water is denser than the water below it, so it sinks. Of course it has to go somewhere. As new water arrives and sinks, the 'older' water is forced along the ocean bottom back down to the Tropics and the cycle continues.
Now here's the Musca domestica in the ol' unguent: If enough glaciers melt, the influx of fresh water will dilute the salinity of the ocean water. Being less saline it will not be as dense as it should be, slowing or even stopping the thermohaline circulation. If the circulation slows enough, then there won't be enough warm water arriving in the polar regions to keep them from freezing. The Younger-Dryas Event, which lasted about 1,300 years about 12,000 years ago, may have been triggered by a melting of the Laurentine ice sheet (as opposed to a shutdown of the THC).
Current theory (no pun intended) suggests that the THC will not stop; that it may slow significantly. An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report suggests that in such a slowing there will still be warming over Europe. If the THC does stop however, temperatures will drop.
So global warming might result in some wonkiness in the THC; but AFAWK at the present it won't cause an ice age. The greater problem is that global warming is likely to cause and increased number of storms, and storms of greater intensity that will have a devastating effect on many populous areas. Right now we're in a La Ni?a (cooler than normal ocean temperatures in the South Pacific). This manifests itself as increased rainfall and colder temperatures in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. (where I am), and warmer, drier weather in the U.S. Southeast (e.g., Atlanta). Global warming might cause increases in El Ni?o, which would result in increased hurricane activity around the Atlantic states. But drier winters here, and warm and sunny Springs. Of course that means less snowpack, which means less water, and less power to ship south to California.
The thing about Global Warming is that it can be good for many regions. On the other hand, it would totally suck to be living in a place that's comfortable now that suddenly gets a prolonged drought or hammered by hurricanes.0 -
quote:Originally posted by slipgate
If it was proven without a doubt that mankind has nothing to do with the current warming of the globe (or has so little to do with it as to be statistically insignificant)
It already has been shown that.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by slipgate
If it was proven without a doubt that mankind has nothing to do with the current warming of the globe (or has so little to do with it as to be statistically insignificant)
It already has been shown that.
Really?
Without a doubt?
Let's see the research0 -
I happen to think that it's real and that humans are causing a substantial portion of it, largely through our release of greenhouse gases.
That aside, would it be immoral or green to mess with the warming? I don't think it would be immoral. At least it would be no more immoral than any of the other tinkering we've done to the planet. After all, we cut mountains down so we can harvest the coal in their bellies.
Would it be green? I have no idea.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments