Global Warming Theory: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Global Warming Theory » Global Warming Theory

Global Warming Theory
Could this be a solution??

Page: 1 2

Global Warming Theory

boron
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 21, 2005
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 4

Posted 10/10/05 - 02:35 PM: Subject: Global Warming Theory	#1
Right, so the end result of global warming is that the ice caps melt and flood most of the world and whatnot, also droughts, heatwaves and whatever. So, what if we took huge chunks of the polar ice caps NOW and used electrolysis to convert them into loads of hydrogen and oxygen? Use the hydrogen to destroy say, France, and release the oxygen into the atmosphere thereby stopping any ice caps from melting because we would already have used them! Any MAJOR problems except killing all the animals on the poles? Oh yeah and France...

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11799

Last Blog: Blog welcomes giant check in Happy Dry Spot

Posted 10/10/05 - 04:46 PM:	#2
I expect it'd be more expensive than just relocating everyone inland. The melting of the northern ice cap should actually reduce the water level, I'd think, since there's no land there and ice takes more space than water. The problem (for costal cities that is, ignoring the problems for the Inuit and polar bears) is Antarctica's ice shelves, which are on land but are slowly sliding off of that land into the ocean. So, as long as we're looking for expensive solutions, we could just wall off Antarctica with a system of levies that make it into a high elevation lake.

weqweq
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Location: england
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 579

Posted 10/18/05 - 11:47 AM:	#3
How about we just stop poluting the enviroment. It is just as practical, and on the pluss side would have other advantages (such as cleaner air). And we can always destroy France some other way.
"The idea is like grass. It craves light, likes crowds, thrives on crossbreeding, grows better for being stepped on" - Ursla K. LeGuin, The dispossessed "The most accurate map possible would be the territory, and thus would be perfectly accurate and perfectly useless." - Neil Gaiman, American Gods

Melm0
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 18, 2005
Location: Leeds, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 6

Posted 10/18/05 - 12:11 PM:	#4
Can't really just "stop polluting". As humans, we've become so dependant on using something and just getting an inconvenient side-effect -> pollution. Hasn't become a problem really until recently, if we did try cut down on pollution it's supposed to be "too late to make a (significant) difference" anyway. If we hadn't altered the environment to suit us, we'd have probably evolved to survive easier. And i'm really not sure about the ideas above - who would be willing to fund something that could potentially save the human race. I'll tell you - no-one. They can't even be bothered funding disasters properly, which seems a rather small scale comparing to saving the entire human race. ANYHOO... bird flu & AIDS will probably kill us all soon anyway when they become airbourne/can travel from human to human. Yay the future looks so purty
[IMG]http://img91.echo.cx/img91/5715/melm06cz.jpg[/IMG]

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11799

Last Blog: Blog welcomes giant check in Happy Dry Spot

Posted 10/18/05 - 01:10 PM:	#5
Melm0 wrote: If we hadn't altered the environment to suit us, we'd have probably evolved to survive easier. In a few million years, possibly (though we could also have just gone extinct as a failed experimental primate, as various other primates have). Sadly, given a choice between altering the environment to suit them or leading a miserable short life to ensure that evolutionary pressures can weed them out of the gene pool if they're not ideally adapted, most people choose the former. Of course, there are plenty of ideally adapted species already (cockroaches survive anything we can throw at them, various forms of bacteria will always be around) so it's unclear what the purpose is of humanity evolving into another. They can't even be bothered funding disasters properly, which seems a rather small scale comparing to saving the entire human race. It's actually much easier to accomplish something (saving the human race) where the goal is to have some of the six billion people on the planet have descendants, rather than accomplish something (disaster response) where the goal is to have large numbers of people actually remain alive for a significant period of time. No global warming or disease is capable of making the species fully extinct. Nuclear war, dumb luck (asteroids, etc) or patience (no species lasts forever, and complex species tend to go quicker) are still our best options. weqweq wrote: And we can always destroy France some other way. Sure, but where else are you going to find a good excuse where we can say France had to be destroyed to save the world, such that no one can complain? Edited by Paul on 10/18/05 - 01:21 PM

grand_illusion
Sophist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2005
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 82

Posted 10/18/05 - 08:19 PM:	#6
boron wrote: Right, so the end result of global warming is that the ice caps melt and flood most of the world and whatnot, also droughts, heatwaves and whatever. So, what if we took huge chunks of the polar ice caps NOW and used electrolysis to convert them into loads of hydrogen and oxygen? Use the hydrogen to destroy say, France, and release the oxygen into the atmosphere thereby stopping any ice caps from melting because we would already have used them! Any MAJOR problems except killing all the animals on the poles? Oh yeah and France... I hope your post is a joke. Don't take the liberal idea of global warming seriously, the earth's wheather goes in cycles; the earth can handle itself. Don't fear any disaster that global warming might create. What you have proposed is just silly.
"Let us put our trust in the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unsearchable and eternally creative source of all."

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land
Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 10/18/05 - 10:44 PM:	#7
grand_illusion wrote: I hope your post is a joke. Don't take the liberal idea of global warming seriously, the earth's wheather goes in cycles; the earth can handle itself. Don't fear any disaster that global warming might create. What you have proposed is just silly. I hope your post is a joke. Don't take the conservative idea of there not being global warming seriously, just because earth's weather (without the h) goes in cycles; the earth may be able to handle itself if the system is not disturbed too much too quickly. You should fear more those disasters that global warming will create. What you have proposed is just plain ignorance. ~M~
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

Melm0
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 18, 2005
Location: Leeds, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 6

Posted 10/18/05 - 11:19 PM:	#8
Morrandir wrote: I hope your post is a joke. Don't take the conservative idea of there not being global warming seriously, just because earth's weather (without the h) goes in cycles; the earth may be able to handle itself if the system is not disturbed too much too quickly. You should fear more those disasters that global warming will create. What you have proposed is just plain ignorance. ~M~ teeheehee well said - i totally agree
[IMG]http://img91.echo.cx/img91/5715/melm06cz.jpg[/IMG]

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11799

Last Blog: Blog welcomes giant check in Happy Dry Spot

Posted 10/19/05 - 10:22 AM:	#9
Actually, now that they're agreeing the earth is warming (seems most of them have given up on arguing the stats), conservatives are by definition not denying that there is global warming. They're just refusing to take credit for it. Ironically, recent studies have indicated that if we wanted a short term fix we could pollute more -- in order to contribute to global dimming, pollution in the atmosphere which had been cutting off some of the sun's heat but is rapidly going away due to improved pollution control (and thus removing a counterbalance to warming). A more reliable long term method of preparation, though, is to just live on a hill well above sea level. Only thing that could get me, I suppose, is if the weather patterns somehow made tornadoes occur around here. grand_illusion wrote: the earth can handle itself Let's just go ahead with the nuclear war as well then -- the earth can handle that easily, so it's no big deal eliminating a few species of life.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 10/19/05 - 10:52 AM:	#10
We can expect, I guess, extremes of temperature, pressure differentials, and storms. I suggest that the most extreme effect will be the gradient between cold and hot climates. Previous ice ages have stimulated people to become nomadic, searching for something more comfortable. With more of us around, that is likely to be complicated.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.