User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 263

  1. #121
    ¡MI TORTA! Amethyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 so/sx
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    2,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    Currently we don't even have a method to convert CO2 into something useful in any kind of meaningful way.. we can't really convert it all to oxygen even if we could find a way to do it efficiently and quickly since too much oxygen would also be bad.
    Plants do that job pretty well, the CO2 -> O2 conversion.

    I think planet Earth's a tough girl, more tougher than we give her credit for.

    Although, if mankind pushes her too far, she might not handle it well. The steps we're taking environmentally are good starts, but things should improve.

  2. #122
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    That's not really accurate.. it's vastly more complicated than that. Currently we don't even have a method to convert CO2 into something useful in any kind of meaningful way.. we can't really convert it all to oxygen even if we could find a way to do it efficiently and quickly since too much oxygen would also be bad. There have been suggestions to store it in the ground in deep wells or drop it deep into the ocean, but natural disasters could easily result in more CO2 getting released at one time than our atmosphere can realistically absorb. This problem is extremely complicated and there are no ideal numbers that will work for every situation at every time...

    What we need to do is return the earth to levels where it can monitor itself as was always intended... Thus the emissions etc that we might be able to live with right now will not be the same amount of emissions that could be dealt with in the very very distant future when the earth has actually returned to a more ideal equilibrium..

    At this stage we are far far far from anything like that... even if we get awesome technologies tomorrow we still have to deal with all of the CO2 and other shit that we already have on this planet...
    Didn't I just said that ?


    But of course that it is more complicated that this. It is just that I am try to give people the a simplistic view. Since the thing is that the biosphere is closed system and we are putting additional carbon atoms in it.

  3. #123
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tawanda View Post
    Plants do that job pretty well, the CO2 -> O2 conversion.

    I think planet Earth's a tough girl, more tougher than we give her credit for.

    Although, if mankind pushes her too far, she might not handle it well. The steps we're taking environmentally are good starts, but things should improve.
    Are you serious? I know plants convert CO2 to oxygen, but what plant based machine can take the amount of CO2 we have and convert it to oxygen in a meaningful way? How many plants will we need to convert the current amount of excess CO2 we have into something useful... at what point will the excess oxygen in the atmosphere begin to ignite? What percentage of our current CO2 will be converted before we hit that critical oxygen level where fires start every time there is a lightening storm and what will we do with the rest of the CO2 after that...

    oh and where do you plan to put all of this plant material.. what will we do with the glucose.. matter cannot be created or destroyed bitches..

    Think before you type people.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  4. #124
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Didn't I just said that ?


    But of course that it is more complicated that this. It is just that I am try to give people the a simplistic view. Since the thing is that the biosphere is closed system and we are putting additional carbon atoms in it.
    Oh if you did then I apologize.. it might have been a language barrier. Sorry about that, I must have misunderstood you.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  5. #125
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    so let's say that there is a 50% chance that man's use of fossil fuels and synthetic chemicals at an ever increasing rate (due to lack of population control) will result in global climate change and catastrophic events... Why not take steps to reduce these things in the environment?
    Because the soft sciences trump the hard sciences on this one; look up the terms "collective action problem" and "tragedy of the commons." Also consider what would happen if countries which produce relatively few greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production (i.e. the West) enact onerous and expensive regulations; production would shift to countries which produce more greenhouse gasses for the same unit of production (such as China). Also consider the social welfare consequences of having extremely sub-replacement fertility levels; that's no small sacrifice down the road for all of society (not to mention the emotional sacrifice for families which want several children).

    That said, the preponderance of evidence supports some degree of man-made climate-change; increasing research and investment in alternate energy/carbon efficiency technology is a good idea, but virtually everything else suggested by politicized scientists is futile at best, counter-productive at worst.
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 06-19-2010 at 05:13 PM. Reason: spelling

  6. #126
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Because the soft sciences trump the hard sciences on this one; look up the terms "collective action problem" and "tragedy of the commons." Also consider what would happen if countries which produce relatively few greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production (i.e. the West) enact onerous and expensive regulations; production would shift to countries which produce more greenhouse gasses for the same unit of production (such as China). Also consider the social welfare consequences of having extremely sub-replacement fertility levels; that's no small sacrifice down the road for all of society (not to mention the emotional sacrifice for families which want several children).

    That said, the preponderance of evidence supports some degree of man-made climate-change; increasing research and investment in alternate energy/carbon efficiency technology is a good idea, but virtually everything else suggested by politicized scientists is futile at best, counter-productive at worst.
    if you say so.. maybe the economy will convert CO2 to breathable air for us. That sounds like a great idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  7. #127
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    if you say so.. maybe the economy will convert CO2 to breathable air for us.
    Nope, that would be up to the hard sciences; ya'll had best get crackin'.

  8. #128
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Nope, that would be up to the hard sciences; ya'll had best get crackin'.
    Can't get "crackin" with no funding.. ya'll gonna have to change them damn laws before we can do anything of the sorts.. dang hard to get people to fund something that nobody believes exist thanks to corporate lobbyist and corrupt politicians. So no I think we'll all either get a clue or perish.. that's basically what it comes down to.. The economy is a lot more adjustable than the resources we need to survive... it'll be a lot easier to make the economy work around regulations and harsh penalties etc than it will be to find a way for humans to breath in CO2 and survive harsh temperatures, famine, etc, etc... It's really that simple.. the economy is a figment of our imagination that if we must we can alter... our bodies unfortunately are not easy to reason with.. you need air, water, and food to survive. It's just true.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  9. #129
    I am Sofa King!!! kendoiwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    *fawning*
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526

    "They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"

  10. #130
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    the economy is a figment of our imagination that if we must we can alter...
    So how do we go about altering the international economy in such a way that it results in fewer greenhouse gasses, rather than increased poverty, more greenhouse gasses, and decreased discretionary funds for possible use by scientists such as yourself? As for increasing the funds, in your haste to dismiss my questions you must have skipped over the part where I agreed with you that more research and investment was a good idea. It also might be easier to raise public acceptance if scientists did not go around diminishing their credibility in their area of competency by stepping outside that area of competency and proposing solutions which essentially assume that individuals and societies are cogs in a machine that they posses the blueprints for.

    Greenhouse gasses are a problem (of uncertain magnitude), so go about researching technologies that make current energy sources economically more efficient or obsolete.

Similar Threads

  1. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  2. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  3. Heat Wave Blamed On Global Warming
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 04:57 PM
  4. Current update on Global Warming!
    By swordpath in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 12-21-2008, 02:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO