FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


A global warming cure?





ocalhoun
I just had the most wonderful idea for a cure to global warming!
Microorganisms!
A small, airborne cell that gets its energy from photosynthesis, lives high up in the atmosphere, and uses airborne pollutants for food!
Set some of these loose high up, and let them multiply. They will reduce pollution, reduce CO2, produce oxygen, and if they multiply enough, have a small, but (over time) significant sun-blocking effect.
liljp617
lol Very Happy Hell, they use them for cleaning up oil spills...we should try it!
AftershockVibe
Sadly, I think it's quite likely that swarms of floating micro-organisms will block more radiation (think light) than just transparent CO2.

Might not be a bad idea to put something like this on the big polluters though, in a similar way to how car exhausts are fitted with catalytic converters. A lot of factories have "scrubbers" like this already although in my limited knowledge, they tend to be chemistry based rather than biological.
ocalhoun
AftershockVibe wrote:
Sadly, I think it's quite likely that swarms of floating micro-organisms will block more radiation (think light) than just transparent CO2.


Wouldn't that be a good thing if we were having a problem with the Earth getting too hot?
pinkie
that's cool.
i wonder if we'll ever use it. o.o
chatrack
Global Warming is a natural phenomenon,

The thing is that it is taking place in a very rapid manner.

How ever we can make a large and lots of explotions in space in various places
which can releace O3.

Avoiding Plastic is another Practical Solution:

For that it is suggested to invent some alternative of Plastic , which is nature friendly
Afaceinthematrix
I actually just saw something similar to this on the Discovery Channel. I didn't actually watch the show, I just read the description and it talked about scientists trying to use plankton to absorb co2. I didn't watch the show because I figured I'd just be able to read an article on it and get the same information in ten minutes, rather than 1 hour with commercials. I found several sites about it on google, so you may want to check it out.
Silk2008
In the 1920's they were swearing that we were going into a new ice age. In the 1970's they swore we were going to detroy the earth with acid rain. Global warming is a false flag used by governments to scare you into submission, and take away freedoms. Research for yourself the global carbon tax, which if they have their way, will tax even the CO2 that you exhale. Yeah, global warming is rampant yet their getting hail storms in Kenya Rolling Eyes
Gagnar The Unruly
Silk2008 wrote:
In the 1920's they were swearing that we were going into a new ice age. In the 1970's they swore we were going to detroy the earth with acid rain. Global warming is a false flag used by governments to scare you into submission, and take away freedoms. Research for yourself the global carbon tax, which if they have their way, will tax even the CO2 that you exhale. Yeah, global warming is rampant yet their getting hail storms in Kenya Rolling Eyes


Now we have much more reliable data and models; global warming is happening.
HamsterMan
Gagnar The Unruly wrote:
Silk2008 wrote:
In the 1920's they were swearing that we were going into a new ice age. In the 1970's they swore we were going to detroy the earth with acid rain. Global warming is a false flag used by governments to scare you into submission, and take away freedoms. Research for yourself the global carbon tax, which if they have their way, will tax even the CO2 that you exhale. Yeah, global warming is rampant yet their getting hail storms in Kenya Rolling Eyes


Now we have much more reliable data and models; global warming is happening.

Sure it is, but the question is. Are we causing it, or is it a natural phenomenon.
And if we really are causing it after all, will it kill us. Or could it be used as a solution for... oh for example the ice age due any time now. Yeah, the ice age might actually be something to be afraid off.

And regarding the topic at hand. I hope those microorganisms wouldn't be made to consume carbon monoxide, cause releasing something like that might pretty much be suicide for the whole planet.
ocalhoun
HamsterMan wrote:
to consume carbon monoxide
releasing something like that


Uh, how does consuming it mean that they will release it?
In any case, of course, they would be designed to not create pollutants!
HamsterMan
ocalhoun wrote:
HamsterMan wrote:
to consume carbon monoxide
releasing something like that


Uh, how does consuming it mean that they will release it?
In any case, of course, they would be designed to not create pollutants!

Nono, releasing the organisms could very well start an unstoppable chain reaction that would devour essential compounds needed for this planet to substain life. Also I meant carbon dioxide. Razz

There's also the possibility of the organisms mutating that makes them just too unpredictable.
mshafiq
I wish I would be wrong but very sadly, I think it happened and going to be worse.

Although we (not all) are trying our best to keep it decelerated but a lot of people do not care.

And what will gonna happen then,

Like it has been with other stuff (wood to plastic, butter to vegi-oil ...),

Nature will overcome on it
by
ruining this and that and will lead to remaining survival .... got?

.....
BUT

We should not stop our efforts what we can do............

GoodLuck
Gagnar The Unruly
HamsterMan wrote:

Sure it is, but the question is. Are we causing it, or is it a natural phenomenon.
And if we really are causing it after all, will it kill us. Or could it be used as a solution for... oh for example the ice age due any time now. Yeah, the ice age might actually be something to be afraid off.


You're right, the question of what is causing global warming? is the important question. Fortunately, we have the answer, and it's obvious now that humans have caused it.

It is possible that another ice age could hit and the world would glaciate again. However, there are no indications that this is happening, nor are there any mechanistic reasons to think that it is about to happen. In the case of global warming, we 1) have observed the phenomenon and 2) can explain many of the mechanisms at work. It turns out that the largest factor causing the climate change is the recent anthropogenic increase in CO2 emission. No model excluding anthropogenic forcings can come close to explaining the patters we have observed.

Conversely, the idea of sudden climate cooling is completely unsupported. Your skepticism cannot compete with the skepticism of the scientific community, and that very large community of very skeptical experts has virtually unanimously decided that humans are the number one cause of the recent global climate change.
Bluedoll
We are all in this together! by Bluedoll

Shocked It may be true that mankind can no longer ask mother nature to solve all the problems and those in charge must roll up the sleeves and put on the thinking caps to solve problems and manage life support on the planet.

Who knows if a little cell could be a step in the right direction to a big problem. There may not be one single solution but an accumulation of steps and ideas to implement. A blind eye and a wish for things to be better without any action is not a solution either.

However, lets consider that in science things and in nature things sometimes because of cause and effect – rebounding calamity can occur in a way that we haven't considered yet. If experiments were made with these little cells and they seemed to work then we could proceed. We are fighting the clock and if we do something huge and it could have a side effect (who really knows what can happen) that is worse than the problem we already have. That would be cataclysmic.

Would something like cells work without harming? Not sure, God only knows! To quote bugs the bunny, “Awwww, what’s up doc?”
mk12327
Introducing new organisms is usually not a very good solutions to problems. Especially due the to fact that they are less predictable then chemicals and harder to control.

There many good examples of failures from the introduction of new species to a new location, like Australia. Because the nature system is far too complex for us humans to comprehend and by introducing new organisms might simply disrupt the entire food chain.

Reducing emission of pollutants still seems to be a more practical approach to me. However, just like microorganisms, we humans are also unpredictable and hard to control organisms. Laws can only limit actions to a certain extent. There are still poachers around the world, killing innocent animals.
HamsterMan
Gagnar The Unruly wrote:

It is possible that another ice age could hit and the world would glaciate again. However, there are no indications that this is happening, nor are there any mechanistic reasons to think that it is about to happen. In the case of global warming, we 1) have observed the phenomenon and 2) can explain many of the mechanisms at work. It turns out that the largest factor causing the climate change is the recent anthropogenic increase in CO2 emission. No model excluding anthropogenic forcings can come close to explaining the patters we have observed.

Well actually, we're due for another ice age any moment now. As far as I've understood it ice ages happens about every 10.000 years, and the last ice age ended 10.500 years ago.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html

We know that global warming is happening, but we do not know nearly enough about it to accuratly explain the mechanics and reasons for it. And the CO2 theory is anything but perfect, for example, see http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/co2-lags-temperature-how-alarmists.html .
Gagnar The Unruly
Actually, we're still in an ice age, just a warm spot in the ice age. Notice the tight correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature in the following graph:



Positive and negative feedback between atmospheric CO2 and temperature drive those occilations. A good way to think about it is that CO2 affects global temperature. Global temperature changes affect the processes that add and remove CO2 from the environment, and you get the stable limit cycle in the graph above. It's also important to note that more random factors such as volcanic activity, plate movement, and mountain-forming events also affect the cycle.

Also, notice that the climate 'plunges' into warm periods, then descends gradually into glaciation. We're at the peak of a warm spot. If the climate is going to stabilize according to the historical pattern, it will take tens of thousands of years.

Historically, atmospheric CO2 levels reached about 300 ppm relatively rapidly and took about 100,000 years to go back to 200 ppm, when they jumped up again. The recent spike in atmospheric CO2 is orders of magnitude more rapid than any historical spike that's been observed. We've jumped to almost 100 ppm in less than a century.

The effects of atmospheric CO2 on global temperature are fairly well understood, and there's also no doubt that the increased rate of CO2 emission is due to human activities.

I think you should be careful about what you use as a source. Wikipedia is a good place to start. If you're curious, read the most recent IPCC report. It is the most comprehensive report written by the largest group of climate experts on Earth, and is written for the public. Random bloggers on the internet spouting pseudoscience are not reliable sources of information. You're being duped.
HamsterMan
Gagnar The Unruly wrote:

Positive and negative feedback between atmospheric CO2 and temperature drive those occilations. A good way to think about it is that CO2 affects global temperature. Global temperature changes affect the processes that add and remove CO2 from the environment, and you get the stable limit cycle in the graph above. It's also important to note that more random factors such as volcanic activity, plate movement, and mountain-forming events also affect the cycle.

Exactly, but as you said the global temperature changes the processes that add and remove CO2 from the environment, so wouldn't using the correlation as proof that CO2 has a major impact on the warming trend be flawed, IF for example the warming was caused by something else, like other major greenhouse gases, or as some have suggested, high sunspot activity. The 800 year lag between temperature and CO2 rise would seem a lot more logical if that was the case.

Here's another graph I've seen in a few places, showing a correlation between temperature and solar cycles.



And even the martian polar caps have been melting. At least we can be sure that we didn't cause that to happen.

Now I'm not claiming that CO2 doesn't effect the global temperatures, but perhaps not by as much as we want it to.

Pardon my ignorance but I haven't really had time to read into this too much.
disvi3tphong
global climatic changes is the correct term!
go watch Al Gore's movie; it's pretty cool.
Bikerman
That sunspot graph looks highly dodgy to me.
It is correlating length of sunspot cycle with temperature using a very selective data range. The grouping of the data points in the sunspot graph looks highly suspicious to me - I would expect a fairly regular dataset at roughly 11 year intervals but there are way more data-points than this on the sunspot line...how is this possible? It looks as if arbitrary 'lengths' have been calculated at 'mid-points' of the solar-cycle.
I would want to know where that graph came from, who prepared it, and on what data it was based.
HamsterMan
Bikerman wrote:

I would want to know where that graph came from, who prepared it, and on what data it was based.

It was one that was posted in several places on google images, so I can't exactly say where it's originally from.
Another, less sketchy, one


The previous one could be based on some work like this for example
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
cause the data they've used seems very similar.

Bikerman
The one above is fine - that matches the one at the Hadley centre.


The important point, of course, is the divergence post 1970...
Gagnar The Unruly
It's obvious that changes in solar irradiance are going to affect the Earth's temperature, since the sun is what provides most of the energy that warms the atmosphere. Like Bikerman says, the important point is that, after 1970, the graphs clearly diverge.

At the risk of sounding overly technical, the way the axes on the graphs are scaled may be misleading as well. The graphs are drawn so that the lines more or less overlap, but that is totally arbitrary. To the human eye, it makes the lines look related because they are close on the graph.

A statistical analysis of similarity wouldn't care about the values of the points on the graph, but how they change. In other words, for the sake of visualization, we're free to move the lines up and down on the y-axes and also to change their scale.

On the temp/irradiance graph, if you moved the surface temperature line up so that both lines started at the same point, I think you would see that temperature steadily increases with time, but that fluctuations in solar irradiance affect the rate of increase.

What you need to understand is that the scientists working on these systems are aware of the importance of solar inputs (after all, light from the sun is half of the greenhouse gas equation). They understand the degree of variation in temperature that can be explained by solar cycles, and also understand the limitations of its effects on global temperature. The message from the scientists is that solar cycles are important, but they don't reduce our responsibility for the changes in climate that are being observed. I think it's also safe to assume that all of the models predicting future climate change include effects solar cycles in the most accurate way currently possible.
kristi01
ocalhoun wrote:
I just had the most wonderful idea for a cure to global warming!
Microorganisms!
A small, airborne cell that gets its energy from photosynthesis, lives high up in the atmosphere, and uses airborne pollutants for food!
Set some of these loose high up, and let them multiply. They will reduce pollution, reduce CO2, produce oxygen, and if they multiply enough, have a small, but (over time) significant sun-blocking effect.


This can be used in the ocean "fertilizing" the ocean in a sense. though there are consequences.
1. organic rich matter will sink to the bottom of the ocean.
2. if there's too much organics, the water at the bottom would become void of oxygen.
3. if theres no oxygen the organics (CO2) would go back into the atmosphere (10x)


another option like this is releasing dust into the atmosphere. golbal warming was ironically triggered by "the clean air act" by taking away the dust which was reflecting UVAs and UVBs, we made the earth warmer.

however! there are also consequences to undoing this deed. We could likely make some parts of the earth warmer, and some colder.. in a "the rich get richer the poor get poorer" sense.
mshafiq
Today I found one more website regarding Golobal Warming
"www.climateark.org"

They stat..

What is this site's purpose?

Ecological Internet's environmental portals are a tool to be used by conservationists to better protect, conserve and restore the Earth's ecosystem processes. Our target audience is working environmental conservation professionals and the general public that are intensely interested in protecting the environment. These sites seek to educate users about why and how to reduce environmental damage - providing specific opportunities and suggestions to do so.



My question is what/where is best forum to raise awareness of global warming among ourselves (public)..

-- Regards
metalfreek
The only way to stop global warming is by controlling pollution. CO2 pollution must be stopped in order to achieve this.
kody
metalfreek wrote:
The only way to stop global warming is by controlling pollution. CO2 pollution must be stopped in order to achieve this.


Exactly. Carbon tax is the best solution to this.
SBCBC33
In my opinion, blocking the sun would eventually be counterproductive, particularly if we lose the capability of controlling the growth of these microorganisms.
Solon_Poledourus
Unfortunately, alot of the Earth warming is a natural process.We happen to be speeding it up at a dangerous rate, but these things tend to go in cycles, like everything else in Nature; warming-cooling-warming-cooling-etc. Could this spell our extinction? Sure. If we are not careful.
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Could this spell our extinction? Sure. If we are not careful.

How?

Do you really think that humans cant survive a temperature change of a few degrees? Their ancestors survived an ice age! And I'd like to think that they've progressed somewhat since then...
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
How?

Do you really think that humans cant survive a temperature change of a few degrees? Their ancestors survived an ice age! And I'd like to think that they've progressed somewhat since then...

I think we can survive it, but I don't think survival is guaranteed. Like any other dangerous situation, it depends on how we handle it. That's why I used the term "could" rather than "it will", in regards to climate change being our end.
ocalhoun
Humans are like cockroaches, you can squish a few, but there are always more.

Reasons why climate change can't cause human extinction:

1- The number of them. There's just so many, that odds are, some of them would be in a safe place and survive to repopulate.

2- Adaptability. With advances in technology, they can change faster than the climate can, remaining well adapted to changing conditions.


Could it cause billions of deaths? I suppose so. Could it succeed in getting rid of every last one? No.
Solon_Poledourus
I don't think it's likely either. In fact, I tend to agree with you, for the most part. But I also think there is a chance that a climate change, drastic enough and at the right time, could put an end to us. It's a far off chance, but I don't think there are any total guarantees of survival.
Actually, I think our biggest threat is ourselves. Or some strange disease floating out of a rain forest. Or aliens.
Insanity
ocalhoun wrote:
Humans are like cockroaches, you can squish a few, but there are always more.

Reasons why climate change can't cause human extinction:

1- The number of them. There's just so many, that odds are, some of them would be in a safe place and survive to repopulate.

2- Adaptability. With advances in technology, they can change faster than the climate can, remaining well adapted to changing conditions.


Could it cause billions of deaths? I suppose so. Could it succeed in getting rid of every last one? No.


I suppose that may be true, but it's still a disheartening thought. Billions of deaths? Maybe, maybe not. It's also a bit narrow minded to think of just humans' survival. Climate change would also greatly affect the flora and fauna on earth, and would no doubt damage habitats for many species. Also, the predicted sea level rise would destroy a lot of coastal property, and displace many people. Climate change might not cause an extinction, but there are many other factors that should be taken into account.
ocalhoun
Insanity wrote:


I suppose that may be true, but it's still a disheartening thought. Billions of deaths? Maybe, maybe not. It's also a bit narrow minded to think of just humans' survival. Climate change would also greatly affect the flora and fauna on earth, and would no doubt damage habitats for many species. Also, the predicted sea level rise would destroy a lot of coastal property, and displace many people. Climate change might not cause an extinction, but there are many other factors that should be taken into account.

Climate change is just a symptom of a larger underlying problem though. It is that problem that will cause billions of deaths.
What is that underlying problem? Overpopulation. We see it often in animals: a given species will do well for a while, and grow in population. Then, there are too many of them. Resources get scarce, disease spreads, animals die. Eventually, enough die that the population is again low enough to support them.

Humans are now experiencing the problems of overpopulation. We see evidence of this all over the place: third-world disease epidemics, AIDS, pollution, world hunger/thirst, overfishing, wilderness destruction, global warming... The solution, of course, is for the human population to go down, and it surely will sooner or later. Either by strict, universal birth control, or by billions of deaths. The only unfortunate thing is that we're likely to take many other species out with us.
mshafiq
I found an article "Present Danger of Global Warming" at "http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_dgr.htm"
and here is its little excerpt.

"Deaths Due to Climate Change
A study, by scientists at the World Health Organization (WHO) determined that 154,000 people die every year from the effects of global warming, from malaria to malnutrition, children in developing nations seemingly the most vulnerable. These numbers could almost double by 2020.
"We estimate that climate change may already be causing in the region of 154,000 deaths...a year," Professor Andrew Haines of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine told a climate change conference in Moscow. Haines said the study suggested climate change could "bring some health benefits, such as lower cold-related mortality and greater crop yields in temperate zones, but these will be greatly outweighed by increased rates of other diseases." Haines mentioned that small shifts in temperatures, for instance, could extend the range of mosquitoes that spread malaria. Water supplies could be contaminated by floods, for instance, which could also wash away crops. (The World Health Report 2002: Reducing Risks and Promoting Healthy Life, Chapter 4, Identifying Major Risks to Health, p.26) (Also See Planet Ark Story) Also Killer Heat Waves & WHO Website: Climate Change and Human Health - Risks and Responses..............."
mshafiq
Here is one more article

Whether its a joke or reality, you may have look on it

The danger is hot air, not global warming

Here is the source of it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3614545/The-danger-is-hot-air-not-global-warming.html

And here is its little excerpt.

"The danger is hot air, not global warming


By Ross Clark
Last Updated: 11:12PM GMT 29 Jan 2005

To lift Africa from the ravages of poverty and Aids would to most world leaders seem a big enough topic to fill a single speech. But not Tony Blair. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, the Prime Minister moved swiftly between the subjects of Africa and climate change. "On both," he said, "there are differences which need to be reconciled. If they could be reconciled or at least moved forward, it would make a huge difference to the prospects of international unity, as well as to people's lives and our future survival."

The implication was that anyone who supports development in Africa ought also to support measures to combat global warming. It is a link unlikely to be shared by African nations themselves, who made it clear at the 2002 Earth Summit in Johannesburg that they are more concerned with trade and economic growth than with climate change........"
ocalhoun
mshafiq wrote:

they are more concerned with trade and economic growth than with climate change........"

As well they should be.

Climate change is NOT their problem; a few degrees of temperature change is not going to significantly change disease spread and crop growth.

The real problem is simple overpopulation, which can be combated with trade and economic growth.
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
The real problem is simple overpopulation, which can be combated with trade and economic growth.

I was thinking about this... and I thought it would be interesting if climate change induced a sudden burst of a new virus which sterilized peoples' ability to reproduce, in overpopulated contries(where disease tends to spread faster). If I was mother nature, that's what I'd do. Very Happy
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The real problem is simple overpopulation, which can be combated with trade and economic growth.

I was thinking about this... and I thought it would be interesting if climate change induced a sudden burst of a new virus which sterilized peoples' ability to reproduce, in overpopulated contries(where disease tends to spread faster). If I was mother nature, that's what I'd do. Very Happy

Why wait for nature? Twisted Evil
To the laboratory!
Does anybody know a virus that results in sterility, but few other effects?
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
Why wait for nature?
To the laboratory!
Does anybody know a virus that results in sterility, but few other effects?

You know... I'm gonna research this as soon as I finish this drink of whiskey.
OK, so I couldn't find much on Google about a virus that would do the trick, but it seems reasonable that it could be engineered. Crossbred with a common cold virus, it could potentially spread very widely. The question is, which nations get nailed with it? I would say there would have to be a standard of birthrate/population used as a guideline on where to implement this kind of thing. Also, would you have a vaccine or cure handy ahead of time, in case it gets out of control? If so, you would have people everywhere clamoring to make one or steal one from those who have it.
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Why wait for nature?
To the laboratory!
Does anybody know a virus that results in sterility, but few other effects?

You know... I'm gonna research this as soon as I finish this drink of whiskey.
OK, so I couldn't find much on Google about a virus that would do the trick, but it seems reasonable that it could be engineered. Crossbred with a common cold virus, it could potentially spread very widely. The question is, which nations get nailed with it? I would say there would have to be a standard of birthrate/population used as a guideline on where to implement this kind of thing. Also, would you have a vaccine or cure handy ahead of time, in case it gets out of control? If so, you would have people everywhere clamoring to make one or steal one from those who have it.



All nations should 'get nailed' with it. If the only effect was sterility, it would be quite a while before it was discovered, and longer still before it was known to have spread widely. My best bet would be to spread it initially in the international departures lounge of the busiest international airport. Within a day, it would have spread to major airports worldwide. Within a week, every airport. Within a month, the area surrounding every airport, and beginning to spread evenly all over the place.
No, of course there would be no vaccine. It would be intended to get out of control. There will of course be a few who happen to be immune for some reason, some who get it, but don't become sterile, and some who are isolated enough never to get it at all. It wouldn't result in extinction, and the likelihood of it causing sterility could be tailored to the percentage of sterile people you wanted in society.
mshafiq
- Europe’s Ban on Old-Style Bulbs Begins -

In Europe, ban started on 100 watt old fashioned bulbs.
This kind of ban will expand on bulbs with lower watts as well gradually.

I think they doing less for environment but more to save their energy(resources).

Anyway, I would like to appreciate it.

For detail, please visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/energy-environment/01iht-bulb.html

-- Thanks

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
By the way (yesterday [on 03-Sep-2009]), my company gave every employee a mug
and mentioned that they are going to remove disposable cups from cafeteria.
-- That is great, I liked it
--- Please spread it in your companies too.
mshafiq
I wondered when I first listened on CJAD radio [AM 800, Montreal based] as strange advertisement

that (I forgot original words but something like)

There is no global warming rather recent years have more cooler than before.
etc. etc ....

Can someone please comment on it?

Is there anyone who listened this kind of matter/ad.?

Next time I would like to remember more what they say.

Comments please !!!

[This post is not being appended to my any of the previous post as it is strangely differnt]
ocalhoun
mshafiq wrote:

There is no global warming rather recent years have more cooler than before.

Global warming has been going on for 50 years or so. A down trend of a few years doesn't mean it has ended; there may be many such short downturn periods on a general pattern of getting warmer.

I argue, rather, that 50 years is too short of a term to predict climate change with. Even the fastest changes in known history take hundreds of years... most significant, long-term changes take thousands of years.
It's like we're trying to predict the weather for next week solely based upon the weather of the last 5 minutes.
mshafiq
Quote:
Global warming has been going on for 50 years or so. A down trend of a few years doesn't mean it has ended


Yes, You are right.

I tried to indulge more on this topic and found that overall there is lot of change already happened.

For example land near sea shores of many countries have been eaten up by sea.

Anyway, I will continue my support to deter the global warming at my extent.

-- Thanks !
mshafiq
I think people are selfish.
Everybody thinks 'why I' except some.

So I guess we can just reduce its speed but can not deter it completely.

Anyway, Let us try what we could and try not to take effect from 'Not Doing' people.

This is at least our contribution we can feel ourselves at least.
mshafiq
Last week-end I watched 'The Day after Tomorrow' (imdb link is given below).
Is is just a idea and is very away from reality or did they make this movie upon some truth (although they exaggerated a lot).

imdb link is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/
ocalhoun
mshafiq wrote:
Last week-end I watched 'The Day after Tomorrow' (imdb link is given below).
Is is just a idea and is very away from reality or did they make this movie upon some truth (although they exaggerated a lot).


The list of scientific inaccuracies of that movie is quite long.
Could a huge chunk of ice break off, disrupt the gulf stream, and lower temperatures in Europe and North America? Maybe. That's as far as the accuracy goes though. (And that would probably be a temporary effect, even if it did happen- once the iceberg's effect wears off, the gulf stream would probably start flowing again.)
mshafiq
What do you think about too much snow we got in "US and Canada.
I live in Montreal and it is still half of the winter remaining.
I got tired cleaning my car and parking space from snow.
ocalhoun
mshafiq wrote:
What do you think about too much snow we got in "US and Canada.
I live in Montreal and it is still half of the winter remaining.
I got tired cleaning my car and parking space from snow.

Warmer temperatures can cause more snow, as long as the temperature is still around freezing.
It can be too cold to snow.

Don't confuse precipitation changes with temperature changes.
lovescience
Maybe reduce the producing of greenhouse gas and plant more tree?

I read about greenhouse gas. There are several major gas that affect atmosphere.

Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone, Chloroflorocarbons, and water.
Spatulax9
The airborne microorganism plan has a number of problems, but in general I'm in favor of trying to 'engineer' a solution. Without big developments in alternative energy, controlling global warming the old fashion way (by not emitting carbon dioxide) is going to require a lot of sacrifice. I can't imagine a day where this will be politically feasible. The changes might be livable in wealthy nations, but in poorer nations they will squeeze millions of people out of existence. Those people will be especially vulnerable to the effects of global warming anyway.

Tinkering with the global ecosystem will be very risky but doing nothing, which I believe is our only alternative, is equally so.
Related topics
"global warming" questions... please share your an
Cow-Made Global Warming
Global Warming Source..
Global Warming
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
Global Warming
Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)
What did Jesus do to cause global warming??
Global warming... Is it a problem?
Global Warming
Global Warming
Apocalypse Now? Global Warming Hotspots
Global Warming
GLOBAL WARMING
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Earth

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.