Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 73 of 73

Thread: Anti Global Warming Tech?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,151

    Default

    After seeing Spiderman 2 last night I'm feeling slightly more cautious about the fusion thing.

    Good job for Alfred Molina though, unconvincing American accent aside.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,151

    Default

    Wait a minute. Hollywood, big business, fascist superheros, anti sustainable energy propaganda. I sense a way to wind up those pesky conspiracy deniers.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    There are certain aspects of climate change that MIGHT be ameliorated by economic growth - namely through the invention of cleaner technologies* - but I hope you're not blinding yourself to the fact that this is going to be vastly exceeded by the *acceleration* in climate change, caused by that very same growth!
    I'm thinking more of the effects than the actual change in termperature, as in my malaria example where it would be more efficient to be more developed and able to cure the disaease than less developed and have to deal with it less.

    Ultimately, it's all about effects, right? I mean, who cares what the mean temp of the earth is? It's the falling crop yields and islands disappearing into the sea that are the worry.

  4. #64

    Default

    So the question is: Will human health and well-being and enviromental quality be better under richer but warmer scenarios than under poorer but cooler scenarios, or vice versa?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    17,765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    So the question is: Will human health and well-being and enviromental quality be better under richer but warmer scenarios than under poorer but cooler scenarios, or vice versa?
    I think it would be *very* unwise to bank on the former. Technology can do many wonderful things, but it can't, for instance, simply conjour water out of thin air; so what about areas that are facing massive droughts as a result of climate change? It can't re-invent species that have become extinct, it can't indefinitely reclaim land from ever-rising sea levels, and it can't prevent hurricanes or extreme flooding due to huge rainstorms.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    I think it would be *very* unwise to bank on the former. Technology can do many wonderful things, but it can't, for instance, simply conjour water out of thin air; so what about areas that are facing massive droughts as a result of climate change? It can't re-invent species that have become extinct, it can't indefinitely reclaim land from ever-rising sea levels, and it can't prevent hurricanes or extreme flooding due to huge rainstorms.
    But those are more along the lines of the "anti global warming tech" that I was responding to at the start of the thread.

    I'm talking about adapting to climate change, not being able to reverse it.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grievous Angel View Post
    Why is every climate-change denier a thread-rotting cunt?
    Because Cnuts like to think they can turn back the rising tide?*



    * May contain historical inaccuracies.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    17,765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    But those are more along the lines of the "anti global warming tech" that I was responding to at the start of the thread.
    Yeah, I hear ya. I think developing technologies to produce clean(er) energy and make the most of the oil that's still left is a much better bet than letting massive climate change happen unchecked on the basis that we'll somehow "cross that bridge when we come to it". Could be a pretty fucking long bridge.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    32

    Default

    When did mass extinction become 'reversible'?
    I like the cur of yr jib.

    thermohaline conveyor,
    somebody care to explain what this is????????????

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    32

    Default

    I'm afraid my grasp of science is not discernibly distinctive.

    enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.

    also my inactivity on the board has been due to a recent spate of horrendous news, which has resulted in several severe headaches and achingly bad moods.

    so just to reiterate chaps,

    my bad.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    NYC , Tokyo
    Posts
    1,914

  12. #72

    Default

    Climate Change and Economic Growth: Evidence from the Last Half Century

    This paper uses annual variation in temperature and precipitation over the past 50 years to examine the impact of climatic changes on economic activity throughout the world. We find three primary results. First, higher temperatures substantially reduce economic growth in poor countries but have little effect in rich countries. Second, higher temperatures appear to reduce growth rates in poor countries, rather than just the level of output. Third, higher temperatures have wide-ranging effects in poor nations, reducing agricultural output, industrial output, and aggregate investment, and increasing political instability. Analysis of decade or longer climate shifts also shows substantial negative effects on growth in poor countries. Should future impacts of climate change mirror these historical effects, the negative impact on poor countries may be substantial.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,151

    Default

    Something?

    http://www.cquestrate.com/

    The idea works like this:

    * First, you heat limestone to a very high temperature, until it breaks down into lime and carbon dioxide.
    * Then you put the lime into the sea, where it reacts with carbon dioxide dissolved in the seawater.

    The important point is that when you put lime into seawater it absorbs almost twice as much carbon dioxide as is produced by the breaking down of the limestone in the first place.

    This has the effect of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It also helps to prevent ocean acidification, another problem caused by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    If done on a large enough scale it would be possible to reduce carbon dioxide levels back to what they were before the Industrial Revolution.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •