What if the 'Man Made' GW Scientists are Right

Westcountryman · 19-01-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zbrahead

Maybe so..

Maybe i could establish a force field tunnel between earth and moon, thuis sharing the atmosphere and solving our wind problem at the same time, apart from noticible thinning of our atmosphere. :P

Take a hosepipe, it'd be cheaper. You'd also encounter the same problem though - a) I doubt the moon has enough gravity to hold an atmosphere b) even if it did, you'd be taking the same polluted atmosphere from Earth that created the global warming situation in the first place, and you'd be back at square one.

If the moon could hold an atmosphere, it'd be better to just create a nitrogen/oxygen mix from pure gases.

Millennium3 · 19-01-2007, 08:33 PM

No problem. Arnie could probably throw each shovelful far enough to escape the Earth's gravitational pull - why didn't they come to us with the problem in the first place?

Millennium3 · 19-01-2007, 08:34 PM

Actually I was trying to find out if members would choose to engage in international agreements or for Britain to 'go it alone' and see if we could find a way to live satisfactorally without consuming vast quantities of fossil fuels.

Feldoon · 19-01-2007, 08:55 PM

Not burn fossil fuels? Go nuclear.

Millennium3 · 19-01-2007, 09:17 PM

Yes - this has been pretty much agreed by those considering this option.

24% of greenhouse gases are produced by power stations - this presumably could steadily be reduced to close to zero.

The others being Transport [24%] much of which could be reduced with a electric [nuclear] powered rail service - electric cars are being developed beyond what we presently have - although they haven't found a way of hurling giant chunks of metal with people inside [aircraft] into the air without fossil fuel, I don't think.

Agriculture 14%, Industry 14%, Land Use 14%, Buildings 8% and other 5% the remaining elements.

kernow · 19-01-2007, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

for those who do believe that mankind's activities has been the major cause and for those who can put aside their true convictions for a while - what [then] should be Britains response?

Pray that a bloody great asteriod hits us before life gets unbearable :shock:

Millennium3 · 19-01-2007, 10:38 PM

The Stern Report [which suggest we should save the planet because it makes good economic sense!] does work from the premise that, if we do reduce the greenhouse gases significantly, the world could be inhabitable for some millions of year - but if we continue as we are risk a far less certain future.

What should be Britain's response?

Westcountryman · 19-01-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

What should be Britain's response?

Well by the looks of things, rather than ruling the waves we'd have sunk beneath them.

John Youles · 20-01-2007, 01:10 PM

Greenhouse gases are only one part of global warming. The other is the sun. Now obviously we cannot reduce the sun's output, but would it be possible to deflect some of the radiation ?

After all, we all know that cloud reduces the heat of the sun at ground level, and that during a solar eclipse, observers report a marked drop in temperature. So would it be feasible to construct artificial clouds, or even to put large satellites into orbit (perhaps gas-filled balloons) to cause artificial solar eclipses ?

I don't like the idea of having to live on an ark.

mkpdavies · 20-01-2007, 01:17 PM

Thinking outside of the box eh.

Or you could unleash thousands of small mirrored objects to deflect a certain amount.

Personally I would screwing around, unless it really starts to look bad.

20-01-2007, 01:10 PM	#19 (permalink)
John Youles Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norwich Posts: 154	Greenhouse gases are only one part of global warming. The other is the sun. Now obviously we cannot reduce the sun's output, but would it be possible to deflect some of the radiation ? After all, we all know that cloud reduces the heat of the sun at ground level, and that during a solar eclipse, observers report a marked drop in temperature. So would it be feasible to construct artificial clouds, or even to put large satellites into orbit (perhaps gas-filled balloons) to cause artificial solar eclipses ? I don't like the idea of having to live on an ark. __________________ John Youles http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ind-uk/ - the discussion list exclusive to UKIP members.

20-01-2007, 01:17 PM	#20 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	Thinking outside of the box eh. Or you could unleash thousands of small mirrored objects to deflect a certain amount. Personally I would screwing around, unless it really starts to look bad. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

19-01-2007, 08:33 PM	#12 (permalink)
Millennium3 Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 3,754	No problem. Arnie could probably throw each shovelful far enough to escape the Earth's gravitational pull - why didn't they come to us with the problem in the first place?

19-01-2007, 08:34 PM	#13 (permalink)
Millennium3 Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 3,754	Actually I was trying to find out if members would choose to engage in international agreements or for Britain to 'go it alone' and see if we could find a way to live satisfactorally without consuming vast quantities of fossil fuels.

19-01-2007, 08:55 PM	#14 (permalink)
Feldoon Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,003	Not burn fossil fuels? Go nuclear.

19-01-2007, 09:17 PM	#15 (permalink)
Millennium3 Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 3,754	Yes - this has been pretty much agreed by those considering this option. 24% of greenhouse gases are produced by power stations - this presumably could steadily be reduced to close to zero. The others being Transport [24%] much of which could be reduced with a electric [nuclear] powered rail service - electric cars are being developed beyond what we presently have - although they haven't found a way of hurling giant chunks of metal with people inside [aircraft] into the air without fossil fuel, I don't think. Agriculture 14%, Industry 14%, Land Use 14%, Buildings 8% and other 5% the remaining elements.

19-01-2007, 10:38 PM	#17 (permalink)
Millennium3 Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 3,754	The Stern Report [which suggest we should save the planet because it makes good economic sense!] does work from the premise that, if we do reduce the greenhouse gases significantly, the world could be inhabitable for some millions of year - but if we continue as we are risk a far less certain future. What should be Britain's response?