Curse

ensoriki · Dec 15, 2007, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

Methane contributes to the hole in the O-Zone layer. Cows fart methane. Seriously.

http://www.show.me.uk/site/news/STO873.html

Down with cows!

Yes Methane is more hazardous to the Ozone than normal natural gases.
IN ITS NORMAL FORM.
Burning it however, creates water and carbon dioxide.
You also create Methane, down with you.

Methane also naturally declines in its O-zone/global warming issues.
Every 7 years or so it declines.
and its total affect can be up to 72 years, other gases can have effects for 100 years.
Also that stuff is BS

Cows can be allowed along with other animals (like humans) to produce large amounts of methane a year.

Methane is controlled by plants, and so that 10kg they say is actually reduced by a large amount.
Methane also doesn't last as long some other gases do, and so while its a strong global warming contributor.

Its a strong effect that doesnt last long

While others are small effects that last long.

If you want to take this from a GW perspective.

The earth has 3k health (and its a boss with +3 regen and does double damage cus it pwns)
Methane is a spiker, it deals 2k hp (which means 2/3rd health) and then it waits for its skill to recharge (it goes away/becomes less of a threat because its auto attacking... for 2 damage) and its skills all have 30 recharge, his spike takes 5 seconds

Other gases deals 200 hp, but deal this constantly and does 200 damage per second in 30 seconds (the time it takes methane to recharge its spike)
Other gases have done 6000 damage, in comparison to Methanes 2k damage.

This is just an example of course (and far from truly accurate)++++

wetsparks · Dec 15, 2007, 03:48 AM // 03:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onarik Amrak

So instead millions more Iraqis would die.

Are American lives that much more important?

Millions of Iraqi's might die because of the civil war that we have almost caused (as still might cause) because of the route that we did take. Saddam was a tyrant, killing thousands of people who didn't agree with his vision for the future. Something was going to happen and we accelerated it. (And just because there is a civil war doesn't mean millions would die. They need lots of people on farms growing food or else there is no fighting because there is no food, troops go AWOL because they can only tighten the belts so far and they wouldn't have the money to buy weapons, pay troops and buy food.)

EDIT: And about methane, I live in a methane rich state. They used to push methane really hard here as a cheap alternate way to heat your house and run your appliances. They stopped running those commercials a few years ago because they worked to well. The demand for methane went up, and so did the price.

ensoriki · Dec 15, 2007, 04:21 AM // 04:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetsparks

EDIT: And about methane, I live in a methane rich state. They used to push methane really hard here as a cheap alternate way to heat your house and run your appliances. They stopped running those commercials a few years ago because they worked to well. The demand for methane went up, and so did the price.

methane is bountiful, jacking up the price for no reason...now they dont use it in your state much do they?

Pfft ....theres a huge amount of methane on earth.
And its pretty much a renewable resource >.>

The only problem is containing it,

wetsparks · Dec 15, 2007, 04:32 AM // 04:32

maybe I'm getting methane and propane mixed up....

all I know is they were pushing it and then they jacked the price up after people went and bought a lot of appliances for it and were stuck with them for a while. and just because there is a large supply doesn't mean that we have access to it all. can only pump out so much at a time, you can only transport so much at a time is how they are able to justify jacking prices up.

Onarik Amrak · Dec 15, 2007, 12:21 PM // 12:21

Propane is pretty common. The taxis in Australia run off it, as well as various heating and cooking devices.

ensoriki · Dec 17, 2007, 04:04 AM // 04:04

Propane is a byproduct from stuff as far as I know.
Meaning you only have propane if you have something else that creates it as a byproduct.

Onarik Amrak · Dec 17, 2007, 04:21 AM // 04:21

Yeah, it's a by-product of oil refineries.

You get all sorts of stuff when you process crude oil.

poobert · Dec 17, 2007, 01:32 PM // 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensoriki

Do you not see the awesome ness of that?
It creates freaking water!

Burning pretty much all hydrocarbons yields some amount of water. The problem is the other crap it makes. Burning methane is exactly the same as burning petrol (gasoline). There is also not an infinite supply of the stuff. In pretty much every way it is the same as oil... except it is a gas. Methane is not the solution to the problem.

Also technically speaking propane is more of a direct product as opposed to a by product of refineries. When you distill crude oil, you get a whole load of stuff including petrol (gasoline). Heck you ever wondered where petrolium jelly comes from? yeh thats right the stuff people rub on their lips, use a lubricants etc.

Finally some of you seem to be confusing terms. Global warming is not the same as the problem with the ozone layer. Stuff that affects one doesnt neccessarly affect the other. CO2 =>global warming : CFC's =>ozone layer. Also global warming is not debatable. It is a fact(ish). MAN MADE global warming however is where the media like to create an argument.

*minor edit* the effects of a gas on global warming doesnt have to last long to be a problem. It can cause a cascade effect. Consider it to be a mesmer using shatter enchantment on a 55. If you manage to get rid of protective spirit, the mesmer can just sit back and do nothing because the 55 is screwed.

ensoriki · Dec 17, 2007, 02:10 PM // 14:10

Varesh Ossa's enchantment collapse is a better example poobert >.>

Global warming could be mitigated/reduced had we taken care of/planted more vegetation.
Plants are able to suck up a decent amount of pollutants.
If we replenished some of the forest to their original size, there may be less problems..

freaky naughty · Dec 18, 2007, 12:22 AM // 00:22

Someone said that global warming will hit us in 5-50 years and I just have to say that that's very unlikely, and I'd put it at around 200-300 years when our descendants will see huge climate change and drastically rising sea levels and all of that stuff.

The best thing we can do to stop Global Warming is to plant more vegetation and find other energy resources. Gasoline has a way too strong hold in our lives. The faster gas is replaced the better. I'm no pessimist but I doubt that ethanol is a good alternative, too reliant on crops, one bad season and ethanol prices skyrocket. I'd say converting hydrogen is the best future means of energy. Right now though the conversion process is too expensive to be practical.

I'm not worried about China's act, I'm more worried about the U.S.A's (I'm American). Whoever finds an alternative to gas is going to become very very rich.

lakatz · Dec 18, 2007, 04:07 AM // 04:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by freaky naughty

I'm not worried about China's act, I'm more worried about the U.S.A's (I'm American). Whoever finds an alternative to gas is going to become very very rich.

Interesting. The richest self-made woman in the world, richer than Oprah and Queen Elizabeth is this tiny adorable little woman in Beijing who laughs a lot... all the way to the bank I suppose. She arranges for ships that take Chinese exports to other countries to bring back all their paper trash designated for recycling. And she makes recycled paper with it. Her company is The Nine Dragons Paper Company, and she's worth $1.5 billion. Her name is Yan Cheung.

Edge Martinez · Dec 18, 2007, 10:24 AM // 10:24

As someone who just played golf in December... I'm all for global warming! Someone find me an aerosol quick!

Muspellsheimr · Dec 18, 2007, 11:22 PM // 23:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy Untouchable

Are you saying stupid people shouldnt be allowed to breed?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onarik Amrak

Eliminating stupid people would be good for humanity.

There's a difference between uneducated (not by choice) and idiocy.

Has anyone seen the movie Idiocracy with Luke Wilson?

Terrible movie, but if it keeps going as it currently is, that is probably alarmingly close to a true prediction.

Honestly, I think (assuming proper implementation and enforcement) a limit on reproduction rates of human beings is necessary, at least as much as war. Yes, I am saying war is a very good thing. A significant amount of advancements in technology are made during times of war, because of the war. Also, think of what the population would be like if there was no war for the last millennium. Or even century.

My personal view on the subject of population control (bullets are population reduction, not control, unfortunately), would limit the birth rate to birth’s per person (not couple). Please note I said birth, not children, to take into account possible complications to the system with twins/triplets ect. Promote adoption heavily. Speed up the process of looking into how to teraform (or similar) another planet, and transportation to the new “earth” for colonization.

Birth limit rate should probably be two, at least until the population is reduced sufficiently. Then increased to three or four. I suspect, after taking into account those that simply do not reproduce at all, or only once, three to four per person would even out to roughly maintain a population.

I would also personally reduce the maximum for the idiots to zero. How to measure who is an idiot or not, however, would need to be addressed, as the IQ system has a significant number of flaws. If this is done, and honestly even if it is not, the quality of education programs available should be drastically increased and heavily promoted. The current standard (in America anyways, and I suspect throughout most/all of the world) is pathetic. Most high-school graduates, at least where I live, would not be able to even pass the test required for a GED, which is itself very easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OI-812

And then we have brainless idiots - erm, I'm sorry, "good Samaritans" who are wasting who-knows-how-much time and money trying to make sure that these children in these third world countries get to have lives as long as ours. Would be fine, except the people who are making all those kids in those third world countries aren't going to slow down their reproduction rate.

That seems to be a serious problem with the human race in general - most of us have an "aww, that's so unfair, I'll make it better" disease that compels us to do stupid shit like increase longevity in the populations of these third-world countries

A country providing large quantities of help to third-world countries is actually becoming a major problem. I am not against helping someone get on their feet, but how it is currently being done is creating a reliance on the helping countries.

When someone provides $10 million to assist a country, what happens is they use the funds to feed themselves and whatever else is required, instead of using it to create a means to continue to feed themselves. Therefore, the problem remains exactly the same, except the next year, they need $11 million, $12 the next, and so on. Now, the supporting countries end up not being able to afford/keep this up, and for good reason cut off the funding. As the problem is still their, and quite possibly worse than before due to increasing population, the receiving peoples are going to be f***ed, and start complaining about the “you have extra, we need it” bullshit again.

The problem could be solved, but no-one seems to put in the time & effort required to do so. Those that are actually willing to put in what is required typically lack the necessary funds & backing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OI-812

as well as waste huge amounts of time and money taking care of the seriously mentally infirm and such - human beings that will NEVER be able to offer any kind of contribution to the human race, human beings that are just sitting there, taking up space, crapping themselves and bathing in their own drool. To be fair to the spineless big-hearted morons out there, there are new advances in the medical field that have shown promise in treating and possibly curing things like autism - but there are a lot of cases where medicine can't help, and won't help.

I say, anyone who cannot support themselves should simply not be allowed to continue living, as they essentially become a parasite. I am more than willing to allow those who are supported directly by family or friends continue their lives, as it is up to their supporters if they want to deal with the parasitic nature, and not affecting the community.

On the aspect of medical advances, there are a few interesting things going on at the moment, the primary one (in my opinion), is aging is quite possibly going to be removed. While it has not been proven possible, there was a large reward to anyone who could prove it was not possible. The reward was not collected. As such, it seems likely that in the near future, genetic modifications to reverse and eliminate the effects of age, and continued aging, will become available. This will create significant problems with population issues, but if an adequate solution can be found, will overall be a significant advancement.

More on this particular subject can be read here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...002222_pf.html

In addition, with other advances in genetics, I believe it possible that in the near future, a “genetic restoration” will become available, essentially eliminating the threat of disease, along with other things, for those who can afford it. How I believe this would work, the treatment would restore the recipient to a state of perfect “genetic” health, removing all external illness, and any disfiguration they where not born with, including such things as missing limbs.

I love genetics : )

Quote:

Originally Posted by OI-812

....anyways, there's also the issue of "peak oil" which may or may not be a myth (I'm inclined to think the latter is the case). A worldwide oil shortage on an even larger scale than the one we are currently in (which is being artificially induced by the damn greedy Arabs/OPEC partially) will crank international tensions up a few more notches, and even as it encourages us to find cleaner alternative fuels the catastrophic effect it could have on the world's economy is a little scary, especially when you consider the side effects from such a situation - clearcutting forests in a desperate effort to wring resources from the land, etc. People are wonderfully panicky animals, and it really won't take much to send us into a downward spiral, right back into the Dark Ages...

Unless there is a way to artificially speed up the process of creating oil, there will be a time in the near future that oil will run out, as the rate it is being consumed far exceeds that of it’s natural creation time, and has been for nearly all of the “modern” age. However, I seriously doubt it will come to us destroying the worlds forests for energy (although for other reasons, it seems possible). There have been quite a few advancements in Solar and Wind energy technology, and they are actually becoming a very viable alternative as an easily renewable resource. There are likely to be more significant advances in the future that will increase their efficiency.

Thermal energy is another very effective and, once established, efficient naturally occurring renewable source. Probably the single best source of energy at the moment however, is Nuclear. As long as it is properly safeguarded, nuclear plants are by far the most efficient source of energy available – even more so than the fossil fuels.

The main problem with all of the above, however, is that they are not an effective source for anything “off the grid”, primarily of note, transportation vehicles. This is the primary concern for finding an alternate source. Currently, I believe hydrogen to be the best alternative, as it can easily be manufactured using water and electricity, and the only (as far as I am aware) byproduct of manufacturing & using it is water. I forget which country it is, but this particular island (nearly limitless supply of water) is also very thermally active (nearly limitless supply of electricity), and will likely become one of the major producers of hydrogen, if it is selected as the dominate alternate fuel. Already, they have hydrogen vehicles and stations there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

In the United Kingdom, off the Eastern coast of Scotland there are BP, Shell and other companies drilling crude oil which is notorius for its carbon emissions when processed in to energy.

If I am not mistaken, BP has officially changed their name from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum, and is putting significant resources into renewable energy sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

Let's go solar, hydro and wind-powered. The initial costs are high but they are easily maintained, renewal sources of energy and environmentally friendly. Private Finance Initiatives [PFIs] help to span the high, initial development costs by collaborating with the Private Sector who use their expertise, finance and resources to ease the burden on the Government.

As I have stated above, the most effective form of renewable energy is coming from nuclear, and if handled properly, can be considered “clean”. However, it does come with risks. One leak, and there are major consequences. One meltdown…

Fusion will likely become the energy source of the future, once it is figured out how it works / how to duplicate it (nuclear is currently fission), as it supposedly does not have a radioactive byproduct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

Terrible system.

There is quite a bit in the current world that is, for lack of a better word, f***ing retarded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freaky naughty

Someone said that global warming will hit us in 5-50 years and I just have to say that that's very unlikely, and I'd put it at around 200-300 years when our descendants will see huge climate change and drastically rising sea levels and all of that stuff.

5-50 years. Yea…

Pay attention, look around a bit, then come back and talk. There is already SIGNIFICANT changes to the weather and sea levels worldwide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freaky naughty

The best thing we can do to stop Global Warming is to plant more vegetation and find other energy resources. Gasoline has a way too strong hold in our lives. The faster gas is replaced the better. I'm no pessimist but I doubt that ethanol is a good alternative, too reliant on crops, one bad season and ethanol prices skyrocket. I'd say converting hydrogen is the best future means of energy.

At least we agree on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freaky naughty

Right now though the conversion process is too expensive to be practical.

I don’t think so. It is nothing more than the influence of major oil/gas companies that keeps us from converting. The conversion is already happening in other places.

On a side note, I am fine with the concept of global warming. I have an abnormally high heat tolerance, and despise cold weather (anything below 75 F is freezing). It is all of the pesky side-effects of the warming that I don’t like.

wetsparks · Dec 18, 2007, 11:57 PM // 23:57

Problem with nuclear power plants is that you have to find a place to store the waste for ~1000 years so that the nuclear radiation with dissipate and not contaminate anything.

Jeremy Untouchable · Dec 19, 2007, 02:01 AM // 02:01

Warning: real thought and Ideas present on this thread.

ensoriki · Dec 19, 2007, 02:39 AM // 02:39

If you cannot support yourself, or be supported.
You serve only as a dependency load to your country, perhaps the world.

People who cannot support themselves will still offer to the good of the world.
As food for lions,tigers and bears.
This may seem harsh, but human's die, just because we have a Half-ass utopia now, then from what we had thousands of years ago...doesn't mean you have to help everybody.

Fact is, the more you help countries with high dependency loads, the more strain you put on the ecology. Those people will consume food, want goods, want entertainment, these things cost money and resources.
If you cannot support yourself, or be supported.
Your Food for the environment, to quote the lion king
"It's the circle of life" =P

Quote:

Problem with nuclear power plants is that you have to find a place to store the waste for ~1000 years so that the nuclear radiation with dissipate and not contaminate anything.

We only have so much space for that waste.
1000 years is also a tremendously long time, for things to BUILD up >.<.

Also someone has posted that Canada has a lot of fresh water, and I said they are false.

I am Canadian and I can vouch for this, Canada has a lot of water, however quite a lot of that water is unhealthy and undrinkable.

Moriz, last time I checked that little side bar thingy, is also from Canada.
He can probably tell you the exact same thing.

lakatz · Dec 19, 2007, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Somewhat favorable outcome at the climate change conference in Bali. Japan, Canada and the US were trying to block the UN resolution to reduce carbon emissions 25-40% by 2020. After much pressure, Japan caved. Canada followed, and the US finally caved after an extension of the conference and an attempt by the other nations to reach a compromise. There's still much more to be accomplished.

Details here --->http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php

But I don't know... Jeremy, do you think we should get in touch with the delegates and tell them the real answers lie here in this forum?

Jeremy Untouchable · Dec 19, 2007, 10:36 PM // 22:36

yeah, this untapped gold mine of "knoweledgedable" in OT&A (don't fuss that's my new word.)

freaky naughty · Dec 19, 2007, 11:15 PM // 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakatz

Interesting. The richest self-made woman in the world, richer than Oprah and Queen Elizabeth is this tiny adorable little woman in Beijing who laughs a lot... all the way to the bank I suppose. She arranges for ships that take Chinese exports to other countries to bring back all their paper trash designated for recycling. And she makes recycled paper with it. Her company is The Nine Dragons Paper Company, and she's worth $1.5 billion. Her name is Yan Cheung.

Interesting as well. I'm sure that this lady is pretty brilliant and that what she does is profitable, but I don't think you know how rich the people who exploited oil became. You know that guy John D Rockefeller? Yeah he founded Standard Oil, and you know how much that guy was worth? In his time he was worth 900 million which converted to todays dollar value was estimated at several hundred BILLION yes billion. His company was so monopolistic that it was split into 34 different companies by the Supreme Court. Even though Standard Oil was split so destructively, one of the companies made from this split (Exxon Mobil) is now the world's largest supplier of gasoline (let me add that Exxon Mobil is worth 500 billion right now). Trust me, whoever finds the new gasoline is the new richest monopolostic billionaire that we'll ever see. Yan Cheung could have been John D Rockefellers maid.

Unreal Havoc · Dec 20, 2007, 02:36 AM // 02:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensoriki

Im in a mood for entertainment and want a debate >.<
Or at least to read one.
So I have chosen the environment as a topic.
topic can go from anywhere as long as it stays environmental

So the opening question is.

Some countries believe they can go through polluting, because they did not industrialize before. As these countries did not industrialize and make the mistake of polluting earlier, they believe they can do it now, when everyone is trying to patch the mistakes of the past.
Would you see these countries as foolish, or give them leeway.

Foolish. They should learn from other peoples mistakes before making the same mistake themselves.