The Big Question: Is there a technological solution to the problem of global warming?

[BigAl]

There is no simpler answer to this question. It's like answering the Q, 'When will there be a cure for cancer?'. In the case of cancer there are many types/causes all requiring different approaches. In the case of GW, most people now agree that there is one major cause, anthropomorphic carbon dioxide emission. There are several technological approaches to this: nuclear power, solar energy, other 'alternative energy' supplies (wind power, wave energy,... carbon sequestering, etc etc. These will all help to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but no single 'cure-all'. I am with the others who've said that there needs to be a reduction in global human population.

David Atenborough has just become patron of the 'Optimum Population Trust'.

BBC NEWS | UK | Attenborough warns on population

On BBC radio this morning he said something like,

'There is no major world problem that is not due to human overpopulation, and no major world problem that can't be ameliorated by reducing the human population'

A

[deancorleone]

That is verging on new age Eugenics, a very dangerous concept, and has been creeping back into modern day science with orgs like Planned Parenting, who was donated just over $50 M by the Gates family & Warren Buffett.

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels" - Prince Philip

a very scary topic !!!

[BigAl]

Well, I almost put into my last posting the rhetorical question that 'when will the global human population density be sufficient to sustain a global epidemic that will significantly reduce the population'. It will probably be a virus, unlike the 14th Century bubonic plague.

[MrLouKnee]

Originally Posted by eeyore

climate change deniers .

the eco fascists started to use that phrase in order to equate non believers of global warming with holocaust deniers

[Unit]

Considering that ICE at the poles is relatively new occurance at arround 32million years and that global warming is a cyclic phenominon proven to have occured throughout this planets history, governed by many different factors outside of our arrogant control, you'd have thought that governments would have found better things to do with their time.

We are still some 6deg cooler than the average mean temp for the planet as a whole since data can be calculated.

Would I mourn the loss of polar bears - yes, would New York and Holland sinking into the rising sea's be a shame - possibly !!, but lets not be so arrogant as to think that we have complete understanding or control of this planets complex processes.

The changes that we can affect are to prevent habitation loss, pollution and species persecution - other than that we are at the whim of mother nature and will probably suffer the same fate as the other 99.9% of all species that no longer exist on this planet.

Unit - sorry about the rant GW winds me right up

[almostnormal]

ummm....so coming into this late, climate change and global warming are two superficially similar but actually different things. global warming may or may not occur if we keep pumping unnaturally high levels of CO2 into our atmosphere (and indeed unnaturally high levels of methane and nitrogen based gases) but climate change is definately an issue. we can't control what will happen naturally (we see cyclical warming and cooling periods over the past few millions of years) what we can control is our effects on the speed at which the levels of CO2 etc are going up - something we definitely effect. as to the original post - what technologies are out there? we currently do not have the technology to reverse what we've already done (eg destroy areas of the ozone layer) but we possess the technology to significantly reduce the carbon footprint we all have...current renewable energy sources such as off shore and inland wind farms, solar power, hyrdro and geothermal energy can all be used to create part of the power we all use. i'm not sure about seeding oceans with iron but there are other ways of reducing CO2 emissions (and storing it). One big way the UK and Eire can do this is by sustainably managing peat bogs - peat stores masses of CO2 if its forming properly - by draining and harvesting it we cause serious damage to ecosystems and releases tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. we ould also look to capture methane emissions from all landfills, from agriculture and we can do those things now.

that being said - does it matter whether climate change is real (i believe it is) or not? many of the things we would propose to at least minimise the effects make sound environmental and economic sense as they push us to become a more sustainable society. without these changes we're going to be unable to cope when we do run out of fossil fuels - on which we are far to dependent. we need to seek sustainable alternatives as a matter of course - and its important to look at technologies which allow us to do this - whatever that technology is.

as an aside - the building trade is all for making the buildign regs much more stringent - solar panels, grey water systems etc in every build - but the government will not pass this through as yet, which is whats holding greener builds.

sorry for all the waffle

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by MrLouKnee

the eco fascists started to use that phrase in order to equate non believers of global warming with holocaust deniers

I'm sorry but that is rubbish - if you dont believe in a theory then you are denying that it is correct

QED those who dont believe in climate change are denying its existence and are thus climate change deniers - it is a simple descriptive term and nothing to do with linkage to the holocaust.

unlike "ecofacist" which is an insulting and abusive turn of phrase which has no place in this discussion or indeed on this forum.

[Digit]

I note that this week both Dimbleby and Attenborough have come down on the side of overpopulation being the major cause of problems, wait for the flak!

Roy.

[BigAl]

i.e. See my post at 0916 yesterday.

A

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I'm sorry but that is rubbish - if you dont believe in a theory then you are denying that it is correct

QED those who dont believe in climate change are denying its existence and are thus climate change deniers - it is a simple descriptive term and nothing to do with linkage to the holocaust.

Without getting too much into tautology and pedantry,you cannot deny a theory,as it is just that,a theory,you can disagree with it certainly.And in the "Modern World", yes Denier does have conatations to the Holocaust,which is why it has started to be used in this context,I've been watching it happen.Interestingly,someone started a Group (meant to be in fun) saying "AGW Deniers should be considered insane" (or somesuch),most people who joined it knew it was just humour,BUT some joined it in all seriousness !!!.Did'nt save it,but if you Google it I'm sure you'll find it,and probably a few more !.

ps, The Hockey Stick ?,your believeing the BBC !!!!, I said RIP to the most impartial news service a few years back,sorry.