Global warming?

Question

With the currant level of global warming if man reverted to using only primative technology how long would it take for the poles to refreeze and the planet to heal itself

some excellent answers very informative thanks to everyone who participated

Answer 1

Um? If man reverted to primitive technology, it would make things *worse*! (Worse by the global warming alarmists' standards)

We would be forced to go back to heating and cooking by burning wood - and *that* would release *much* more CO2 into the atmosphere than our current technology does.

Why? Because Natural Gas has 1 atom of carbon for 4 atoms of hydrogen. Oil has 1 carbon for 2 hydrogen. Coal has 1-2 carbon for 1 hydrogen. But wood had 10 atoms of carbon for 1 atom of hydrogen. So, burning vast quantities of wood, would pump far more CO2 into the atmosphere.

But, your question is largely moot. You ask how long the planet will take to refreeze the poles and heal itself. But, what would you consider to be "healed"? Planet Earth is a constantly changing environment - it has been much colder, but also much warmer, than it is today, in the past. So what do you take as being "normal" for planet Earth?

The truth is, planet Earth is not ill, it is perfectly fine. If it could speak, it would be laughing at the suggestion that us puny humans could make it sick.

:::edit:::

2 bad answer ratings?? You people just don't get it.

Let me put it this way...

We live on an active planet. Earthquakes are continuous, a million and a half of them every year, or three every minute. A Richter 5 quake every six hours, a major quake every 3 weeks. A quake as destructive as the one in Pakistan every 8 months. It’s nothing new, it’s right on schedule.

At any moment there are 1,500 electrical storms on the planet. A tornado touches down every six hours. We have ninety hurricanes a year, or one every four days. Again, right on schedule. Violent, disruptive, chaotic activity is a constant feature of our globe.

Is planet Earth sick? No, this is completely normal.

Answer 2

If you look back through history, there has always been global warming, its the planets way of healing/regenerating itself. Back to the triassic and jurassic period there was global warming at a much higher level than today. Its in debate by some scientists as to whether or not we have caused this. The fact is we havnt! Global warming has been around for millions of years before man, so how could we have caused this? The ice age was due to global warming along with the small ice age which happend after the ice age killing many species who were unable to adapt to the environment. So why are the government making such a fuss? Well either the government are keeping the true facts and figures from us as they have made it worse, with space travel and nuclear bombs or they cant accept the fact that its a natural thing and it will happen anyway, theres no stopping the force of nature. Man needs something to believe in and find the cause, and because there is no cause they believe its man. When will they wake up and realise its natural.

Answer 3

Actually the temperature of the earth has increased less than 7/10 of 1 degree (C) from 1880 to 2005. That is an increase of about 1 degree (F) in 125 years. You may choose to believe that is global warming or you may not. Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif There are numerous charts all over the internet showing the same. Some say that 1 degree is enough to impact the global climate, others say it's not. Most proponents of global warming think the earth's temperature has risen much more than that and don't even know that it has only risen by 1 degree. But the charts do not lie as do the proponents on both sides of this issue. The average temperature in the Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Climate It seems to me 108 below (one degree warmer) is still pretty cold and not enough to melt anything. But there are those that say it will.

Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING and another ice age was coming. I remember that they blamed pollution for that too. They said that all the pollution was darkening the skies and not as much sun was coming through so the earth was cooling off. It took many years to discover that they were mistaken and it was all just hype. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling So when someone says, "the sky is falling" don't believe everything you hear on either side of the issue. There are Spin Doctors galore out there.

Most of the time people will form an opinion and not really be informed about the subject with which they become so opinionated about. So it's best that you not form your opinions from other's opinions, (as in this forum) but on the facts presented. (Many do not provide any proof or links to prove their point, just their opinion.) With that said we do have a responsibility to do our part by doing whatever is within your power to keep our planet alive and well.

I hope that helps...

Answer 4

The planet is not under risk and primitive forms of life are not under risk.
The word "heal" suggests to drop any danger of disappearing for humankind and stop disappearing of other species. If that your question, we must be cautious. There are two different opinions among scientific community.

One is based in the fact that many species have already disapperaed and many other have already evolved toward survival in different environments. Specially r-species (such as bacteria). Food chains and ecologic balances are extremely fragile, and many are broken, maybe forever. Some cann t be reversed and consequences are unknown. Therefore, even if we stop all emissions it could be too late. This is what 2500 scientists (the climate change scientific group) among others think.

For example avian flu affects birds and other species, it is transmitted only by birds, yet. But sooner or later it will evolve specially if evironment changes. Its consequences cann t be foreseen. Humankind needs a lot of time to determine agents that cause deseases, then isolate genetic causes and then prepare the right drugs and vacunes against them. We have seen more and more in the last few years, and we will see more in the near future as environment changes. Will human kindbe able to win over them at the necesary speed? Those scientists think that the explosion of new mortal agents is becoming so large than we will not have budget enough, sooner or later.

Others are more optimistic, at least regarding humankind and its food chain. They think that mortal agents can still be stopped and normal global temperature can be restored.

Anyway as someone told here, the timeframe is over 200 years if we stop today all emissions (not only if we reduce them). But we all know that we will not stop all emissions, governments are talking about reductions. Then it depends on how fast and how much they will reduce.

Answer 5

It would probably make no difference whatsoever.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle. In the past, the earth has been hotter than it is now. And it has most certainly been colder, during the ice ages for example.

Some western governments have climbed on the band wagon, and are using global warming as an excuse to raise taxes. For example, the UK government recently increase gasoline taxes - to "help save the planet".

There is an excellent discussion on this subject at:
http://www.friendsofscience.org

Answer 6

I have to agree with Amancalledchuda...going back to "primitive" technology would probably make things worse. There are simply too many people for everyone to huddle around a fire with candlelight.

When you look at the lifestyles of those who "live greenly", most do not live in a hobbit hole or teepee. They use modern technology to create the most insulated form of housing possible and to provide electricity for themselves. (i.e. making an earthship from recycled tires and having a solar array).

Of course, many use older "technology" that does not require power in order to be used...bicycles or equines, hand-cranked items, washing dishes by hand rather than using a dishwashwer, using a clothes line instead of an electric or gas dryer.

Whether you are out to save the planet from Global Warming, or out to clean up the air so people can breath more easily, or you are simply wanting to save a few bucks by using less energy, the choices you make need to be made from an educated point of view. For instance: Is a coat made from an animals hide or a coat manufactured from fossil-fuel-based materials more ecological? Which uses less fossil-fuels: eating organic or eating locally? Is it really more ecological to eat vegetarian, or does free-range beef provide for more open green space for wild species than vegetable farms?

It really is a grand undertaking, and requires a lot of study and thought, but the only thing more annoying than a person who pollutes just to "stick it" to the dirty hippies is an uniformed greenie that simply jumps on the bandwagon without understanding what they are talking about. You wouldn't want to be the idiot who ends up signing a petition to ban Dihydrogen monoxide, otherwise known as water.

Answer 7

The just as many experts that don't believe in global warming but we never hear their views. Two reason, firstly, to be "ungreen" i.e not reclycle or drive a big car is now seen as a heenious crime secondly, what excuse would the government come up with to take as much money from us in the name of saving the planet - it's all about money

Answer 8

It is cold enough here now. Look for the CO2 there in lies the secrete. Study photosynthesis and how the plants take in the CO2 and feed them selves .

Answer 9

First, the poles are already frozen and will probably remain so for quite some time.

Answer 10

A long time.