Global warming............?

Question

Its a fact its happening and if things dont change 1/3 of the world land is going to be flooded within 100 years killing billions of people.

Who thinks the only way to get round this is to just build thousands of windfarms and other natural sources to get energy. For example a 10 by 10 metre solar panel on a 12 hour sunny day saves 2 tonnes of carbon!!!!!! f@#>?(. We have the resources to do it.

Before long the only animals left will be dogs and cats.

Who agrees or disagrees with me?? Plus don't moan about visual pollution because before you know that place will be flooded.

Answer 1

I completely agree with you. I think that we should produce energy using windmills and solar energy. There are a lot of ways for the world to reduce the amount of CO2 and other green house gases produced, there are no action taken. Think about it, why do we need that many SUVs? Why can't we only manufacture hybrids?

But what frustrates me is that most of the people in our society won't face the fact that global warming is happening. They deny the facts and evidence of global warming. Heck, some people believe that Al Gore is a hypocrite and the only reason for alerting people of this scientific catastrophe is to benefit himself. That's bull.

For every student out there that doesn't believe in global warming, ask your science teachers.

Answer 2

Global warming is happening, there can be no question about that. The effects you describe are somewhat overdramatic and I'm not sure where you've been getting you're info from but it's unreliable.

Sea levels are rising, the rate at which they're rising is accelerating. Currently the global average sea level rise is 3.1mm a year, it's expected to rise to 6mm a year in 50 years and 12mm a year in 100 years. By the end of the century rises of 750mm (30 inches) are expected. This will have massive impacts right around the globe but it's won't flood one third of the land (far from it) and it won't kill billions of people.

In the very worst-case scenario (which is almost certain not to happen), the projection is that 4 billion people will be forced to emigrate or move, a more realistic figure is 1 billion. These are not deaths, these are people forced from their homes by any one of a number of circumstances.

There are several estimates for the number of deaths by the end of the century; the most reliable figures are probably those coming from organisations such as the World Health Organisation, United Nations and World Bank. It's expected that about 50 million people will have died by the end of the century.

Building windfarms and other renewable energy supplies will help but it won't stop global warming, merely slow it down. Power generation accounts for just under a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, if we're to stop global warming we need to reduced emissions to between 10 and 20% of their current levels - not something that is remotely possible unless we return to living in the Middle Ages.

Global warming is a serious problem, we all need to take action but we also need to keep things in perspective.

Answer 3

I've looked at the science (including An Inconvenient Truth) and the assertion that human beings are driving climate change is by no means proven.

There isn't even a consenus amongst scientists on what actually drives climate and many of the scientists who are quoted aren't even involved in climateology.

The Earth will not be flooded either. The North Pole (the Arctic) is very basically ice floating on sea water - if it melts the sea rise will be zero.

If the ice on Greenland melts the sea rise could (that's could) be between six and twenty inches.

The South Pole (Antarctica) is minus 37 degrees C and 7000 feet thick. It would take much more than the current observed warming trends to melt it.

There have been four climate scares in the last 100 years - two of global warming and two of an impending ice age.

It makes sense to look after the environment - I have no problem with that - but scare stories and bad science just do not help us at all.

Answer 4

in case you opt to acquire grant money for climate learn, do you think of which you will get a cheque in case you assert," i choose the grant, as i think of that i will teach that the figures that the present paradigm is predicated upon are incorrect" ? the great environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. there continues to be no shown causative hyperlink between the quantity of Co2 interior the ambience, and a upward push in international temperatures. The WWWF photos of the polar bears swimming have been taken interior the Arctic summer season; while the ice cap partly melts, as they could not arise to image interior the wintry climate. The ice grew to become into too thick! The East-Anglian uni learn figures. "Oh! The figures do not tournament our expectancies. Oh properly. save quiet. because of the fact all of us understand that we are actual." while the theory, and the religion is extra significant than squarely dealing with the valid doubts of lots of non grant-supported scientists, technological know-how has been superceded by religious zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully reported." I pray thee, interior the bowels of Christ, evaluate that thou mayest be incorrect."

Answer 5

Global warming is horrible..noo, people causing global warming are horrible. I hear our government spends money on some of the dumbest things while they should be saving up to spend the money on something we actually need. Like lights for the CN tower? Whats up with that? A waste of electricity and it doesnt even look so great pfft

Answer 6

I agree to an extent (except for the whole cats and dogs things, more like insects, bacteria, viruses, and other life forms that can withstand hell-like heat and/or can adapt in time. Which aren't many).

And muneca 17 17, I am a Christian (and not one of the hypocrites) but I am still very conscious of the environment and Global Warming, and about the fact that we are speeding up this natural cycle to occur in only a few decades to a century. So please don't take it upon yourself to speak on the behalf of all Christians, because not all of us think like you. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And I have a question for you and all of those who still aren’t convinced. If the world continues to think like you and decide that Global Warming is not a problem and we shouldn't do anything to stop it then what are you going to say? What are you going to say in about 30 years to your children and/or grandchildren when they ask you, "What were you thinking? Why didn't you do anything? What are you going to say?

Answer 7

First off, I understand that there is not enough water to flood the earth out even if ALL the icecaps completely melted.

Secondly, the melting will not produce a wall of water, but a very slow rise, over thousands of years, and if people are interested, there will be plenty of time to scavenge the old coastal cities and build new ones according to sound city planning for everybody, inland from the new ocean lines.

Furthermore, as the ice melts off Greenland and Antarctia, and parts of the most northerly extensions of North America. the land will rise from the removal of the weight, and we will have lots and lots of new land to put people on, build upon, grow crops or open mines on. Billions will not die, but have more room and more resources and an easier climate to live in.

And if we plan, we can use the new warm, shallow seas, for aquaculture, or even living below the surface as aqua farmers. Lots more luscious foodstuffs when we have lots more shallow water areas and a warm climate suited to the growth of marine organisms.

History ALSO points out that the times the ice melts and the global warms is a time of MORE FOOD, room to spread people out for lower impact on land areas, and a growth in the arts and sciences as people have time and resources to work in these areas. It is a good time to be alive. So says history. Do you deny history, or feel that this time will somehow be the exception?

I do find the wind farms already to be bad visual pollution, plus did you know they take energy from the earth;'s rotation and so make the days progressively longer, and the nights too? Plus as your hypothetical catastrophic flooding happens, your solar arrays and wind farms will be washed out to sea!! Oops?

And just FYI, it is likely the cockroaches would be the last to go in any catastrophe. Dogs and cats depend a lot on man, so would die out in great measure if man ceased to exist. More likely to see large grazing animals return along with the very large carnivores. Wolves and bison! Saber-toothed Tigers and Mammoths!

Now, given the 100 years you postulate, and given the will to do it, we could have space travel, colonies on the moon and at the L5 and L4 points housing large populations, and be feeding the earth resources mined off passing asteroids. Plus having the resources to deflect any asteroids that might be headed inbound to destroy the earth!

I believe it was Winston Churchill who reportedly said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." A lot of those who are promoting the fight on Global Warming are fearmongers, and make loads of money off raising the fear level worldwide. One way is with fearsome visual images on film. Another is with the ads to invoke fear of endless pollution harming children, or death from tidal waves, or mass extinctions, and so on. All hypothesized and worst cases on still unproven new theories and dubious computer results.

You DID notice that the computers have just been found in error, along with the data gathering equipment and procedures, and new data and programming has put Global Warming back many years farther! I recall reading a year ago of dissident scientists who were then suppressed, lost their jobs, etc., saying these very things that now are putting the lie to the rapid rise predictions.

You need to remember also that there have been many many global warmings found by scientists, and yet we still have animals, we still have people, we still have plants, and even an Earth. We are, if you look, in a cycle of 90,000 years of deep ice age, and then 10,000 years of global warmings and coolings, followed by another plunge into the deep freeze for 90,000 years.

Do you have evidence that THIS one alone will be totally unique?

Now as to solar panels...please check your catalogs and see what a 10 meter x 10 meter solar panel costs, and how much energy it will return for the investment, and how many sunny days there will really be to supply energy., and noting it only supplies maximum energy when the light hits it square on, so a fixed panel supplies less energy when the light hits it obliquely...factor that in, along with the blocking of light from the ground and killing off the plants under it so less CO2 is used by the plants, and less O2 produced by them.

That panel would, i believe, be larger than the roof on my house! If I mounted it on my roof, and the wind blows, I might find my house in the next county!!

Now if we move such a panel to space, where it can be made to face the full sun all the time, the FULL sun, not losing the UV and other radiation in the atmosphere, and we microwave the energy to a receptor array out on some unusable ground area, we would have far more energy for the cost of the panels. And they could be manufactured in space so none of the dangerous chemicals used in making them would pollute the earth at all!!

Does any of this make sense to you, or do you prefer to ignore history, ignore science, and let the panic-mongers destroy your ability to think, act, or do anything but huddle in a corner and moan? And make them rich.

Answer 8

OK, Yes the world is heating up at the moment. That's undeniable, but the cause is still open to debate. Don't get me wrong, the greenhouse effect theory is valid, though not necessarily correct. It is the most popular theory but that does not make it any more correct. There is also the valid argument that Global Warming is a natural phenomenon which cannot be disproven or investigated.
Secondly, to dismiss issues of visual pollution so flippantly shows a shocking level of immaturity and ideological bias. This is a valid argument for the people who have to live with them. Everyone is very quick to suggest building wind farms but not on their doorstep devaluing their property and area.
However I do believe it is in people's interest to take action to reduce their carbon emissions through their own motivation. It is not the role of government or the local authority to force such measures upon us.

Answer 9

I disagree. You only have one life to live, live it without fear! Even if you are one of the few people on earth who are supposedly stopping global warming, what about all the billions of people who live life without caring about global warming? Will you, one person in billions stop this "disaster"? Good luck! Heh heh.

Answer 10

Yes, you're right, we need to convert to more renewable energy sources. But that's not going to save the billions of people who are going to die in the floods that we can't stop. We need to move people inland and streamline rescue processes. And plant tons and tons of trees.