• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate change thought experiment.

CLAX1911

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
82,031
Reaction score
19,724
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I want to propose a thought experiment. For this to work we have to assume that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and that it is detrimental to the globe. If you can't accept that, than this thought experiment isn't for you.

So human activity is causing a climate change. And in a hundred years there will be a significant shift in climate.

In order to avoid this catastrophe what do we do? If you have a thought please explain how it will be implemented realistically.
 
Develop high capacity batteries and power everything through nuclear/hydro power. Remove, or drastically reduce, the need for carbon-based fuels.
 
Become less populace.
 
Learn to fiddle?
 
CLAX1911 said:
I want to propose a thought experiment. For this to work we have to assume that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and that it is detrimental to the globe. If you can't accept that, than this thought experiment isn't for you.

So human activity is causing a climate change. And in a hundred years there will be a significant shift in climate.

In order to avoid this catastrophe what do we do? If you have a thought please explain how it will be implemented realistically.
Click to expand...
While not acknowledging that AGW is detrimental, I agree that we have an energy problem.

Most of the alternative energies are only beginning to be suitable replacements for our energy requirements.
Solar, wind, tidal, ect, produce energy, but not necessarily when and where it is needed.
The density of the energy is also a factor.
We can likely do electric cars, but Ships, Trackers, and Jets, are still a long way off.
Storage is the answer, and hydrocarbon storage is currently the best looking.
Audi just created diesel fuel from air and water
Currently the cost of man made fuels, is about the same as $100 a barrel oil.
The price of oil is much lower than that now, but will come back up.
Since most modern refineries could make their own feedstock, the price of the energy
for that feedstock will set the price ceiling for oil.
We will transition to these alternatives, but when the people choosing them, do so because
it is organically the lower price.
The market will work, it just needs time.
The real advantage to this approach is that CO2 emission will almost stop completely,
and the fuel will be compatible with existing distribution infrastructure and needs.
It could almost be transparent to the end user!
 
CLAX1911 said:
I want to propose a thought experiment. For this to work we have to assume that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and that it is detrimental to the globe. If you can't accept that, than this thought experiment isn't for you.

So human activity is causing a climate change. And in a hundred years there will be a significant shift in climate.

In order to avoid this catastrophe what do we do? If you have a thought please explain how it will be implemented realistically.
Click to expand...

Put your finger on the bugle: TrumpDonald.org
 
First let me thank you fit actually following the parameters of the thought experiment. I appreciate that.


digsbe said:
Develop high capacity batteries and power everything through nuclear/hydro power. Remove, or drastically reduce, the need for carbon-based fuels.
Click to expand...

Well, I like the solution of using more nuclear and hydro electric power, but there are costs with that.

First I'll talk about nuclear since it's low hanging fruit. However miniscule it is, there is always a threat of meltdown. It's happened in the passed. There is threat of natural disasters cracking the casing that protects the fuel. We can't guarantee against these. It could be devastating. There are cooling ponds that are necessary they produce thermal pollution. You also have to mine and enrich uranium. You also have to dispose of spent radioactive fuel rods. So you have a significant environmental impact.

For what it's worth I agree that nuclear power is the cleanest and it's absolutely worth the risk and the damage to the environment, but I don't think my sentiment is shared by most people

So how do you implement this?

Hydroelectric power which I absolutely support does also drastically effect the environment. They effect river flow and wild life. They also drastically change landscape. So there is a cost not just basic environmental costs but there is also the loss of landscapes.

Battery powered vehicles have a couple of large hurdles to clear before you can get people to purchase them instead of a conventional vehicle. The future is promising but I don't think we are there yet.

I want to know how we should go about implementing these changes, they are quite drastic and require time commitment and really the hearts and minds of the people.
 
Build more levees, move inland.
 
KevinKohler said:
Become less populace.
Click to expand...

I set a time frame of 100 years. Keep in mind one of the biggest producers of so called "green house gasses" is China and they have been working for years to reduce populace. So I think you are either going to ruin into some ethical issues or you are going to miss the mark.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I set a time frame of 100 years. Keep in mind one of the biggest producers of so called "green house gasses" is China and they have been working for years to reduce populace. So I think you are either going to ruin into some ethical issues or you are going to miss the mark.
Click to expand...

You did not say ethics was a consideration.


Ignoring global warming for a moment, and looking only at advances in medical science, and the subsequent increases to human lifespans, one can only come to one conclusion concerning the health of our global Eco system. If we reproduce at the same rate, but live twice as long, it will only take a couple generations before we are completely unsustainable.

So, yeah. Become less populace. Plague, war....something.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I want to propose a thought experiment. For this to work we have to assume that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and that it is detrimental to the globe. If you can't accept that, than this thought experiment isn't for you.

So human activity is causing a climate change. And in a hundred years there will be a significant shift in climate.

In order to avoid this catastrophe what do we do? If you have a thought please explain how it will be implemented realistically.
Click to expand...

How amount just cutting back on particulate pollution like we've been doing since the 70s? We cleaned up our roads and rivers; (remember the crying Indian?), Los Angeles got serious and clean up it's own air: years ago you almost couldn't see across the street. Electric cars and wind power will cut down quite a bit if followed through on.

The majority of humans live a climate belt around the world that makes life easy for us: that's where all of the "anthropogenic pollution" rides with the heavy material migrating to the polls: that's the UV oven we've created. Last September has been recorded as the hottest on record, so science has no reason to lie about all this. A manufacturing shift for our own economy is how we make it work.
 
KevinKohler said:
So, yeah. Become less populace. Plague, war....something.
Click to expand...

I no longer have any doubt that global warming alarmists are anti-human..


I hope they start drilling in a town near me soon :)
 
CLAX1911 said:
I'm not incredibly worried about encroaching waters, I've done some math and if every bit of ice were to melt the level of the ocean would only go up about 6 feet.
Click to expand...

I think you need to recalculate. Last I read if all ice on earth melted, it would raise sea levels about 250 feet.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I was pretty solid in my math.
Click to expand...
I doubt it.

If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet)...

OLogy
Click to expand...

Another source says maybe 15 less feet or so.

Rising Seas - Interactive: If All The Ice Melted
The maps here show the world as it is now, with only one difference: All the ice on land has melted and drained into the sea, raising it 216 feet...
Click to expand...
 
CLAX1911 said:
I want to propose a thought experiment. For this to work we have to assume that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and that it is detrimental to the globe. If you can't accept that, than this thought experiment isn't for you.

So human activity is causing a climate change. And in a hundred years there will be a significant shift in climate.

In order to avoid this catastrophe what do we do? If you have a thought please explain how it will be implemented realistically.
Click to expand...

Reduce fossil fuel use.

Prioritize conservation, encourage research into alternative energy sources, and spur this innovation by implementing a carbon tax, or for those who freak out about taxes, a revenue neutral carbon tax.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I want to propose a thought experiment. For this to work we have to assume that
anthropogenic climate change is occurring and that it is detrimental to the globe.
If you can't accept that, than this thought experiment isn't for you.

So human activity is causing a climate change. And in a hundred years there will
be a significant shift in climate.

In order to avoid this catastrophe what do we do? If you have a thought please
explain how it will be implemented realistically.
Click to expand...

I'll rephrase your question:

"If it became necessary to drastically reduce anthropogenic emissions of CO2?
How would you do it"

Atomic power, and electric - heating, cars, trucks, trains, tractors etc. Hmmm looks
like air travel would have to be done away with.

I assume CO2 is your boogey man in this exercise, if not what are you trying to say?
 
KevinKohler said:
You did not say ethics was a consideration.


Ignoring global warming for a moment, and looking only at advances in medical science, and the subsequent increases to human lifespans, one can only come to one conclusion concerning the health of our global Eco system. If we reproduce at the same rate, but live twice as long, it will only take a couple generations before we are completely unsustainable.

So, yeah. Become less populace. Plague, war....something.
Click to expand...

So, engineer a plague?
 
Threegoofs said:
Reduce fossil fuel use.

Prioritize conservation, encourage research into alternative energy sources, and spur this innovation by implementing a carbon tax, or for those who freak out about taxes, a revenue neutral carbon tax.
Click to expand...

So this requires politicians to get involved? I only see one problem with that. Energy businesses are the most wealthy groups of people and they can afford to lobby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom