Doom monster
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > One benefit of global warming
Pages (2): [1] 2 »  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:43. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
DoomUK
Forum Spammer


Posts: 3838
Registered: 04-04


If you've got a gigantic gas tanker and you've always wanted to take a shortcut across the Arctic, worry no longer:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20454757

Old Post 11-26-12 16:13 #
DoomUK is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7304
Registered: 07-00


So the advantage is that it's easier to deliver fossil fuels?

Old Post 11-26-12 16:48 #
fraggle is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Technician
Still no custom title


Posts: 7618
Registered: 08-04


This is pretty much the main reason the right completely denies global warming. We're going to see a oil boom up there soon.

Old Post 11-26-12 16:52 #
Technician is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quasar
Moderator


Posts: 5763
Registered: 08-00


So we can accelerate it even further. Yay.

Old Post 11-26-12 16:59 #
Quasar is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
j4rio
Forum Staple


Posts: 2401
Registered: 07-10


Guess what? Even cracked predicted it.

http://www.cracked.com/article_1856...rt-awesome.html

Old Post 11-26-12 18:23 #
j4rio is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Stygian
Member


Posts: 317
Registered: 09-05


"I say let the world warm up... we'll grow oranges in Alaska."

Old Post 11-26-12 19:15 #
Stygian is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Technician
Still no custom title


Posts: 7618
Registered: 08-04


America better start getting used to having hurricanes yearly and droughts annually.

Old Post 11-26-12 21:00 #
Technician is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
CorSair
Member


Posts: 563
Registered: 11-12


Heh. In Europe, we already had enough rains. If this rate continues, I think we could grow rice, since there's more than enough water flooding on the fields, than they can drain.

On the other hand, it is quite cool that there are now faster routes. Though...

Old Post 11-26-12 21:16 #
CorSair is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Clonehunter
Forum Spammer


Posts: 3206
Registered: 03-10


Fuck yah, Global Warming.

Old Post 11-26-12 21:18 #
Clonehunter is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Rayzik
Member


Posts: 363
Registered: 10-11


Oh yeah, you know. This is totally all conservative americans fault.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...-green-policies

Old Post 11-26-12 21:25 #
Rayzik is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quast
insert title here


Posts: 2557
Registered: 09-02



Rayzik said:
Oh yeah, you know. This is totally all conservative americans fault.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...-green-policies


The entire western industrialized world, but yes particularly the united states, has been playing this game for 200 years, china has been for about 50, but only in earnest for the past 10.

Chinese co2 emissions per capita are still waaay below that of the us.

Old Post 11-26-12 23:11 #
Quast is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7304
Registered: 07-00



Rayzik said:
Oh yeah, you know. This is totally all conservative americans fault.
The fact that China is #1 in carbon emissions doesn't change the fact that the US is #2.

But the fact that the American right wing will happily tell outright lies is actively harmful to tackling the problem.

Old Post 11-26-12 23:25 #
fraggle is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
GreyGhost
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 8154
Registered: 01-08



Quasar said:
So we can accelerate it even further. Yay.
Yep, once that pesky ice is out of the way we can start tapping the layers of methane on the sea floor. Next stop - runaway greenhouse. Yay!

Old Post 11-27-12 00:42 #
GreyGhost is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Olympus
Member


Posts: 349
Registered: 12-10



Technician said:
America better start getting used to having hurricanes yearly and droughts annually.


Knock on wood but down here in sunny south florida we havent had a major hurricane since i think 2005, when we were hit by hurricane wilma.

Old Post 11-27-12 02:22 #
Olympus is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Rayzik
Member


Posts: 363
Registered: 10-11


Although I do believe that fossil fuel dependence is going to be an issue and that nuclear power should become the new standard, I cannot believe how many people believe global warming will be as extreme as they say it will be. I'll believe it when I see it.

I'll just leave this here.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/o.../fallacies.html

Old Post 11-27-12 02:54 #
Rayzik is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
eargosedown
Forum Regular


Posts: 913
Registered: 12-04



Rayzik said:
I'll believe it when I see it.


......



See this right here is why we're totally fucked.

Old Post 11-27-12 04:48 #
eargosedown is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Technician
Still no custom title


Posts: 7618
Registered: 08-04



eargosedown said:


......



See this right here is why we're totally fucked.

We don't need the ecosystem to provide for us. As long as we have enough fresh water to frack with, we'll be fine.

Old Post 11-27-12 04:52 #
Technician is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Doom Marine
Senior Member


Posts: 1612
Registered: 09-03



Rayzik said:
I'll just leave this here.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/o.../fallacies.html

Um... no, you will not leave it here:


RationalWiki said:
The SPPI states it is "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party." It does not reveal its funding sources; however, it shares a building and personnel with the Centre for Science and Public Policy, a project of Frontiers of Freedom, which gets its money from the oil industry (a million from ExxonMobil for a start).
So you inadvertently decided to cite an Exxon-funded think tank dedicated to debunking global warming as your research?

Show me a source debunking climate-change and I'll show you the oil fueling it.

...And what about the rest of the scientific community, what do they think about climate change?


Scientific opinion on climate change said:
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[20] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

2009 In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change".

So in the face of that overwhelming consensus on human-based climate change, by the most brilliant minds in the world, as posing an issue to the future of humanity, what do you have to say about that?

Old Post 11-27-12 05:12 #
Doom Marine is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
j4rio
Forum Staple


Posts: 2401
Registered: 07-10



Rayzik said:
I'll believe it when I see it.



We have only one atmosphere. Experimenting with it without being certain about outcome is out of question. Attitude like that will lead humanity to its doom.

Old Post 11-27-12 09:22 #
j4rio is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
DoomUK
Forum Spammer


Posts: 3838
Registered: 04-04



Rayzik said:
I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't think there can be any debate over whether the planet is getting warmer or not. Even if you're unconvinced by the evidence of human influence on climate change, there's far too much patently obvious evidence that things are changing.


Doom Marine said:
Show me a source debunking climate-change and I'll show you the oil fueling it.

The problem with fossil fuels is that they're a very effective way of making things work that are crucial to modern civilisation's requirements and comfort (which, in my opinion, has to be prioritised so that we're able to look after the very planet we live on). I can't condone any misinformation and lies being propagated by people with purely monetary interests, but I think we should be mindful of the elephant in the room: how are we going to power the world we've built in an equally efficient yet environmentally-friendly way?

I'm all in favour of nuclear power stations but their track record for safety isn't immaculately flawless. When something goes wrong, something really bad goes wrong. Besides, they don't cover everything; such as transport. Battery-powered cars are improving, but it's still an impractical way of getting from A to B compared to a car which runs on gasoline or diesel.

Last edited by DoomUK on 11-27-12 at 11:27

Old Post 11-27-12 10:24 #
DoomUK is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quast
insert title here


Posts: 2557
Registered: 09-02



DoomUK said:
but I think we should be mindful of the elephant in the room: how are we going to power the world we've built in an equally efficient yet environmentally-friendly way?

You can't, human growth and progress in the world we've created is antithesis to 'environmentally-friendly' regardless of how we derive our energy.

Old Post 11-27-12 13:05 #
Quast is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
eargosedown
Forum Regular


Posts: 913
Registered: 12-04



DoomUK said:
I'm all in favour of nuclear power stations but their track record for safety isn't immaculately flawless.


No, but it's not too bad either. As it stands, I think oil spills are just as disastrous.

Old Post 11-27-12 15:55 #
eargosedown is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Caffeine Freak
black and shiny


Posts: 654
Registered: 05-10



Doom Marine said:


So you inadvertently decided to cite an Exxon-funded think tank dedicated to debunking global warming as your research?

Show me a source debunking climate-change and I'll show you the oil fueling it.



I'm not taking the stance as a climate change skeptic, but I'd like to point out that the RationalWiki page you quoted cites this link (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24) as the reference for the claim that SPPI gets it's money from the oil industry, including a million from Exxon. The discrepancy is, that Exxonsecrets link documents a sum total of $100,000 in donations from Exxon between 1998-2006. $100,000 spread over eight years is quite different from getting a $1,000,000 donation all at once, which is essentially what the RationalWiki page implies.

I'm perfectly open to the possibility that SPPI is an oil-funded think tank, but $100,000 over eight years is rather insignificant in terms of the funds organizations generally require.



DoomUK said:

The problem with fossil fuels is that they're a very effective way of making things work that are crucial to modern civilisation's requirements and comfort (which, in my opinion, has to be prioritised so that we're able to look after the very planet we live on). I can't condone any misinformation and lies being propagated by people with purely monetary interests, but I think we should be mindful of the elephant in the room: how are we going to power the world we've built in an equally efficient yet environmentally-friendly way?



With the world we've built, I'm not convinced it's possible to get cheap, efficient energy without having *any* negative effect on the environment. Part of the issue (from what I've read in sources like this http://www.futurescenarios.org/content/view/24/37/) is also that you get a pretty high energy return from fossil fuels in comparison with other types of energy. Admittedly though, I'd need to do more research on that.


DoomUK said:
I'm all in favour of nuclear power stations but their track record for safety isn't immaculately flawless. When something goes wrong, something really bad goes wrong. Besides, they don't cover everything; such as transport. Battery-powered cars are improving, but it's still an impractical way of getting from A to B compared to a car which runs on gasoline or diesel.


The price of electric cars is also considerably higher(at least for the time being) than traditional gas cars. So another factor would be a possible price hike on them, even if their practicality increases.

Last edited by Caffeine Freak on 11-27-12 at 19:07

Old Post 11-27-12 18:03 #
Caffeine Freak is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Enjay
ASK ME ABOUT FOOTBALL / STEAM / DEAD CELEBRITIES / THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT


Posts: 6316
Registered: 12-00


Some of the views expressed here reminded me of...

http://i.imgur.com/YWUfp.jpg

Old Post 11-27-12 19:36 #
Enjay is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
CorSair
Member


Posts: 563
Registered: 11-12


You can't be serious.
:P

Also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
Long ago, I read an article about this being built somewhere in Pacific side of USA. And it should be working in about four years.
Anyone knows more about this?

Old Post 11-27-12 20:03 #
CorSair is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Aliotroph?
postCount++


Posts: 2474
Registered: 03-02


Sounds like you were reading one of the newspaper headlines from Sim City 2000. I've never heard any guess that was less than 20 years in the future. Like fusion, it always seems to be 20 years in the future.

Old Post 11-27-12 20:25 #
Aliotroph? is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Technician
Still no custom title


Posts: 7618
Registered: 08-04


Space-based solar panels really are our safest and most green alternative energy source, and I had great expectations for it a few years ago when I heard Howard Bloom mention it. Sadly, getting the material into space is currently difficult and resource heavy, and America has already pretty much expressed it's intentions when it cut-down it's space program to a skeleton crew.

With the increase coil mining, hydraulic fraking (this scares the shit out of me), and the upcoming oil boom in the arctic, I think fossil fuels are hear to stay. Or as long as the environmental damage isn't so severe that we can't ignore it any longer.

Old Post 11-27-12 20:28 #
Technician is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
eargosedown
Forum Regular


Posts: 913
Registered: 12-04


Is that basically like a space-ladder tether deal, but using it for power instead of ship construction/launch?

Cool idea.

Old Post 11-27-12 20:45 #
eargosedown is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Doom Marine
Senior Member


Posts: 1612
Registered: 09-03



Caffeine Freak said:
I'm not taking the stance as a climate change skeptic, but I'd like to point out that the RationalWiki page you quoted cites this link (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24) as the reference for the claim that SPPI gets it's money from the oil industry, including a million from Exxon. The discrepancy is, that Exxonsecrets link documents a sum total of $100,000 in donations from Exxon between 1998-2006. $100,000 spread over eight years is quite different from getting a $1,000,000 donation all at once, which is essentially what the RationalWiki page implies.
The question remains: why are they so secretive about their funding source? SPPI does not reveal its funding source. The lack of transparency combined with the information that we get from the fringes, of which implicate oil interests, is plenty of grounds for suspicion.

It looks like there is an additional zero. RationalWiki may have misquoted the figures.


Caffeine Freak said:
I'm perfectly open to the possibility that SPPI is an oil-funded think tank, but $100,000 over eight years is rather insignificant in terms of the funds organizations generally require.

$100,000 from Exxon alone, but do we know who else is funding this organization? What about Chevron? BP? Shell? This non-transparency raises even more questions about the agenda of SPPI.


Caffeine Freak said:
With the world we've built, I'm not convinced it's possible to get cheap, efficient energy without having *any* negative effect on the environment. Part of the issue (from what I've read in sources like this http://www.futurescenarios.org/content/view/24/37/) is also that you get a pretty high energy return from fossil fuels in comparison with other types of energy. Admittedly though, I'd need to do more research on that.

The price of electric cars is also considerably higher(at least for the time being) than traditional gas cars. So another factor would be a possible price hike on them, even if their practicality increases.

Basically, any time humans build something that generates heat, it has a negative effect on the environment. What we can do is choose the pathway that minimizes environmental impact.

A look into energy produced versus energy invested shows that while coal has a return index of 80, solar and wind has 18 and 1.6 respectively.

The return versus initial investment is dependent on several variables including infrastructure, material, and labor costs, all of which favor the established non-renewable energy infrastructure. Now if mass production of solar and wind devices increase, the cost of production will be driven down, and EROEI goes up.

As far as availability of renewable energy goes, elementary mathematical and physics calculation show that solar and wind availability greatly exceed that of coal, gas, and other non-renewables. All we have to do is build structures that take advantage of them.

It's a simple idea: mass produce solar panels and windmills and put non-arable deserts to good use (and we have plenty of them), but the real challenge is to make it viable in the face of non-renewable energy, with its established infrastructure and lobbyists. This is where politics is important. The government is currently subsidizing solar panels with 30% tax credit right now, that's a first step.

Old Post 11-27-12 20:46 #
Doom Marine is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Technician
Still no custom title


Posts: 7618
Registered: 08-04



eargosedown said:
Is that basically like a space-ladder tether deal, but using it for power instead of ship construction/launch?

Cool idea.

I hope to see such advances, but It seems no one is interested at all anymore in the government about progressing science.

Old Post 11-27-12 20:48 #
Technician is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:43. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (2): [1] 2 »  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > One benefit of global warming

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

Message Board Statistics