According to scientists, if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions by at least 25% within the next ten years, the effects of global warming will be irreversible. Personally, I think ten years is somewhat optimistic.
Can we possibly achieve this? Let's not forget, this is a 25% reduction on what we use now, and doesn't take into account the fact that in ten years' time the world's population will be a lot closer to the 7 billion mark.
Will we have to build a huge spaceship and spend generations in space looking for a new homeworld? And what will become of the Earth? Whether we die or not, does anyone think another species will ever be able to live here again in several thousand/million years' time?
Already the UK is facing an arctic snap of up to -12 celcius, a forerunner of possible the ice age that could hit us in as little as ten years' time (due to the re-routing of the oceanic conveyor belt due to Alaska melting).
What are your collective thoughts?
2007-01-02
08:19:36
·
15 answers
·
asked by
Joker
3
in
Environment
According to scientists, if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions by at least 25% within the next ten years, the effects of global warming will be irreversible. Personally, I think ten years is somewhat optimistic.
Can we possibly achieve a 25% reduction on what we use now, not taking into account that in ten years' time the world's population will be a lot closer to the 7 billion mark?
Will we have to build a huge spaceship and spend generations in space looking for a new homeworld? And what will become of the Earth? Whether we die or not, will another species ever be able to live here again in several thousand/million years' time?
Already the UK is facing an arctic snap of up to -12 celcius, a forerunner of possible the ice age that could hit us in as little as ten years' time (due to the re-routing of the oceanic conveyor belt due to Alaska melting).
And believe it or not, there are still some skeptics.
I recommend you all watch An Inconvenient Truth.
2007-01-02
08:37:44 ·
update #1
(Sorry for repeat, wasn't sure that original material would remain).
We have seen evidence such as the additional power hurricanes now command, yet some idiots still believe global warming is made up. For those idiots: this is a GLOBAL CRISIS, YOU ARE NOT HELPING.
I recommend everyone who hasn't to replace lightbulbs with energy efficient ones. Switch off or unplug unused equipment that remains in standby. If your TV has an energy saving option, select it. Walk, don't drive. Switch off lights when not in use. Lower the heating. If you're cold, wear a jumper.
There is a small chance the we can survive. Perhaps all hope is lost, but is the Earth not worth fighting for?
I for one will not let it go quietly.
2007-01-02
08:43:02 ·
update #2
To "amancalledchuda":
Either you are trying to be "funny" or you are an uninformed idiot.
The medieval warming period is shown on a chart in An Inconvenient Truth, and it is nothing compared to where we are now.
Do not talk about this if you do not know what you are taling about.
And global warming does not cause additional hurricanes: the warmth of the water adds ferocity to them, as with Katrina, and makes them much, much worse.
And why would deforestation have anything to do with Mount Kilimanjaro's lack of snowfall if not for the fact that deforestation adds to the problem?
You sound like one of those American SUV-lovers who refuses to take responsibility for their actions.
And yes, there is evidence of the climate crisis -- it is all around you.
Fool.
2007-01-04
09:30:49 ·
update #3
Additional: an ice plane at the South Pole, that scientists assumed -- even with global warming -- would last 100 years vanished in 35 days.
It has always been said that if the South Pole starts melting, alarm bells should start ringing.
And they have.
2007-01-04
09:32:31 ·
update #4
Additional additional:
An Inconvenient Truth is not about scaring people. Al Gore speaks of hope, of having the tools to stop this. He is merely spreading the word, and my hat is off to him for his amazing efforts.
2007-01-04
09:34:02 ·
update #5
well, the earth will get over us. mankind, however, is seeing the end of his days. we'd never make it to a new world, the radiation in space will have killed us before we reach any new habitable planet. if we did something SOON, we might be able to save ourselves. unfortunately, we have to wait until 2008 (basically 2009) in America, and hope we see a change office to support it. then, everybody whines that they need ten years to implement any real changes. poo on that. stop crying and do something! you want money or life?
2007-01-02 08:24:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by izaboe 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. This question is scaremonger-city, isn't it! I bet you lot were the ones telling us that the "Millennium Bug" was going to wipe out all life seven years ago, weren't you?
Let's look at what's being said, shall we...
"the effects of global warming will be irreversible." Rubbish! Pure scaremongering.
"Already the UK is facing an arctic snap of up to -12 celcius." Based on what exactly? Again, absolute rubbish - pure scaremongering.
"the additional power hurricanes now command." This has nothing to do with global warming. Just because Katrina happened to hit New Orleans and kill loads of people does not mean that hurricanes are getting worse. If Katrina had hit an unpopulated area, we wouldn't be talking about hurricanes. You'll notice that last year was a "quiet" hurricane season.
"There is a small chance the we can survive." Oh please!
"mankind... is seeing the end of his days." Sigh
"we would need to treble the amount of the world's surface covered by forest." But wait! almost one third of the world's land surface is already covered by trees, so this would mean that almost *all* of the land surface of the Earth would have to be covered by trees! I think not!
"most of the human race will be wiped out." This one again.
"only the insects will survive." Are you getting the idea yet?
"it will displace all the oxygen." So we'll all suffocate and die, one assumes?
"mass extinction of life comparable with the Permian extinction when 98% of all life died." Oh, there you go.
And you are basing all this on a Hollywood film, are you? Now, remember that the main purpose of a Hollywood film is to MAKE MONEY!!!!!
Right, now, let's all take a deep breath and calm down, shall we?
The simple truth is, you are all being miss-lead. (As you were with the "Millennium Bug." Remember?)
I have yet to see "An Inconvenient Truth", but I've seen the trailer and was picking holes in that. For example; Mount Kilimanjaro's snow-cap is melting due to global warming. Actually, it's not. Mount Kilimanjaro is losing its snow-cap due to deforestation of its foothills.
So why did Al Gore get this wrong in his film? Either...
A) He made a genuine mistake. In which case he's an idiot and we should ignore him.
B) He knew this but decided to lie about it. In which case he's a liar and we should ignore him.
In either case, we should ignore him. (Unless you're happy to follow idiots or liars?)
Most of the things you lot are saying on here is wild speculation.
The truth is, that even the global warming alarmist's Holy Grail - that rising CO2 levels are the main cause of global warming - has *NOT* yet been proved. No, really! It's true. Historical evidence (from air bubbles trapped in ice cores) show that rising CO2 *follows* rises in temperature. And for the 30 years between the mid-40's and the mid-70's CO2 levels continued to rise, while global temperatures *fell*!
And please, please, remember, that during the Medieval Warm Period (that most of you don't know about because Al Gore and friends are trying to pretend it never happened) it was 3°C warmer than it is today. Think about that for a moment. In the last 100 years the Earth has warmed by a little over 0.5°C, but 800 years ago it was a *whole* 3°C warmer. And there were no catastrophes. Life as we know it did not end. Everybody lived quite happily, thank-you very much.
Let's just calm down shall we? Yes, the planet is warming up - a little bit, but it's not going to cause the end of the world.
2007-01-02 22:47:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by amancalledchuda 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think that even though there are people out there trying to change this problem and find a solution to it, the earth isnt always going to be able to sustain life. I dont think though that we will reach the point of having to build a huge spaceship and spend generations in space looking for a new homeworld. I don't know how long it will take for us humans to use up every natural resource on Earth to the point that we will have to look for another planet to live on. At the rate that we are going, another species will never be able to live here again in several thousand/million years' time.
2007-01-02 08:41:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by hafsa z 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I really don't believe the world is in jepoardy yet. We have only recorded so much information show us the past. Maybe before the first real ice age the planet was extreamly hot. It is definately like what The Day After Tomorrow was...Stronger Storms leading to stronger winters. Look now at the mid west. They are getting hammered with storms. 3 in the past 3 weeks. Do I think global warming is because of us....yes but we have sped up the ice age process.
-Cr98
2007-01-06 06:14:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by coasterrider1998 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Reducing our emissions by 25% is just sticking plaster. The only way to reverse global warming is to capture carbon. Trees do this rather efficiently, but we would need to treble the amount of the world's surface covered by forest. There's no chance of getting sufficient agreement for humans to achieve this.
It's not all gloom, in geological terms, the problem is self-limiting. If carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, the earth will warm up, sea levels will rise, economies will crash and most of the human race will be wiped out by drowning, starvation or wars over the high ground. Trees will flourish in the hot wet climate and eventually carbon dioxide levels will fall, the earth will cool and the sea levels will fall.
What's left of the human race can then foul it up again, assuming another species hasn't out-evolved us in the mean time.
2007-01-02 08:33:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Two days ago even George Bush admitted there is a problem. That means it is getting very serious, he would not have dared upset the oil barons without a strong case.
I personally think it is too late to gain a turnaround in thinking. Is it possible that industry, commerce and businesses of the hole world would ever put the planet before profit? It took the tobacco industry 50 years to admit smoking causes health problems in spite of overwhelming evidence. We can’t wait 50 years to save the planet. If Kyoto is anything to go by it’s a case of “ So long good buddy its been good to know you” and only the insects will survive.
2007-01-02 09:12:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by wizatronic 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Basically we have screwed the environment. Life will continue, we will probably survive it. The question is whether we would be comfortable with the changes we have caused.
As to a cold snap there is one theory that we are in a temperate period in the middle of an ice age anyway.
There are so many theories about what climate change will do but most aren't good
2007-01-02 08:54:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Gordon B 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are right, we are f*cked. Another 1.3 C degree rise in temp and the siberian permafrost will melt and release quintillions of tons of methane into the atmosphere. When that happens, it will displace all the oxygen. Coupled with all the CO2 we are already pumping into the air, there will be mass extinction of life comparable with the Permian extinction when 98% of all life died. The methane/CO2 mix in the atmosphere wiil soak into the oceans and kill most of the life there as well. This is what has happened at least 3 times in our planets history. In all probability, we are already too late. Who can tell?
2007-01-02 09:39:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
this arctic snap may be absolutely nothing to do with global warming... the polar ice caps have been expanding and retreating for millions of years...
there is little or no proof that the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pollution is going to cause climate change... we are due for another ice age, global warming or not, basically because that's just how this planet works.
the increase in temperature may not be a bad thing... the earth's temperature has been fluctuating for as long as the planet has been in existence...
if global warming happens as planned, the UK will be one of the few hospitable places left on earth, with a climate similar to that of Hawaii... so i'm not complaining!!!
Oh, and in another few million years we'll have to find another home world anyway because the earth is gradually being dragged in by the sun's gravitational field... so eventually mercury, venus, earth and mars will be completely burned up by the sun as it expands into a red giant... so yeah, the planet is doomed anyway...
2007-01-02 08:32:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by ani 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
The earth is fine and will be unless WE blow it up. We are skrewed. Global warming is rife (scotland hasnt had a white christmas properly for a long time. Just think of the earth being a dog and we are the water. Its shakes itself dry. Unless the water is acid then the water destroys the dog. Poor doggie. Mwahahahaha my new plan for world domination is here.
Im bored can you tell?
2007-01-02 22:38:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by roujinz3 4
·
0⤊
0⤋