Where Are We Taking This Planet ?

[Eddy-B]

It's no use covering our eyes anymore:
The climate is changing, RAPIDLY, and we all know it. Some try to say it's just a rough year, and it'll pass - but deep down inside they know that ain't true.

Due to global warming, which heats up the surface of the tropical waters where hurricanes form, hurricanes are becoming stronger than ever—so strong, in fact, that scientists say we need a new way to categorize them. We're not talking about naming them according to the alphabet, we're talking about Categories 1- 5. So far there is no Category 6, but if there was, it would have described Wilma, so something new is needed (....) according to climatologist Kerry Emanuel.

Are we changing this world into something else, that our children cannot live in anymore?
Is the earth crying out for a new ice age ("day after tomorrow") ?
Does the Kyoto Treaty help at all - even if we, as a world, can make it ?
Can we reverse our global warming process ?

OR.. have we passed the 'point of no return' already, and is the day after tomorrow really getting closer ?

[Sirbomber]

The thing is, most people don't care. They just say "It'll get better!" or something will happen and fix it. "The next generation can take care of it!", right? I wonder how many "next generations" it'll take though.
Just in case, can anybody here build a huge spaceship to send us all to Mars if the event arises?   (said with complete seriousness)

[spirit1flyer]

I believe that we will stay here until the earth is destoryed by fire  

[Leviathan]

we are taking it to the s***er.

[Sirbomber]

Yeah, we knew that. Clearly, we have only one option left.
We must all prepare to evacuate the planet and live on Mars. The moon would kinda suck, don't you think?
I've had this huge plan for a Mars/Moon base for a long time now. And it doesn't involve glass, like in all those crappy movies. Stupid NASA.

[Tellaris]

Let me put it this way.
We have seriously assf***ed ourselves here.

I think we probobly are past the point of no return.   And even if we some how get most developed countries to cooperate, the third world ones will probobly ignore us.

Either way, if we arn't over that limit, we will be soon enough.

Leaving Earth isn't going to fix anything, all we would do is go screw up Mars.   We would eventually run out of planets...

Evacuating Earth can best be said as infeaseable at this time.   Simply put, it'd cost too much, and nothing short of all life on Earth ending isn't going to make anyone look the other way when it comes to costs.
Additionally, it'd take quite a bit of minerals to set up a colony on Mars, and you somehow have to get those resources there, set up some kind of structure, then start dumping people.
OP2 way, the populace lived on the Conestoga while the basic seed colony was being constructed.
And for the evacuees, we arn't sure there is even water on Mars yet.   Have to bring a whole lot o water, and that weighs a lot...
Need enough water for at least crops
Need enough water for the people.
Meat can be sacrificed, don't really need animals (though they would be nice to have around)
How we would probobly do it is several runs in our crappy little shuttles carting minerals, food and water to the site, and then start setting up.   Then, several more trips, carting colonists there.... in our crappy little shuttles.

[Sirbomber]

A few things:
1) The third world countries, in general, really don't have any factories, so I don't think they have a choice in the matter.
2) We couldn't screw up Mars, it doesn't have rivers to pollute and not much of an atmosphere. Besides, the survivors would probably ban pollution since pollution destroyed/is destroying Earth.
3) It wouldn't be done in shuttles, it'd be done in unmanned rockets that would land on the planet and wait there for us.
4) Water can be produced... Somehow... We'll find a way.
5) You're talking like this is happening tomorrow.
I think what needs to be done is people need to find an alternative to gasoline (or fossil fuels for you stuck-up types). If half the people in America had cleaner cars, do you have any idea what that would do for the environment?
I also think the governments of the world have to be a part in this. I don't care if they fund all sorts of research or just give away non-gasoline cars (when they're developed) to most people, if not everyone.
People need to THINK. What's worth more, let's say $500 TRILLION developing and providing non-gas cars, or Earth?

And I don't think there is a "point of no return" aside from the atmosphere igniting and consuming the world in fire and stuff.

Edit: It seems I was thinking of hydrogen. Hydrogen sounds like a miracle drug. Looks like they have a working model, except it's ten times more expensive than gas motors. Again, people screwing the world over in the name of money.

[spirit1flyer]

And for the evacuees, we arn't sure there is even water on Mars yet. Have to bring a whole lot o water, and that weighs a lot...

the landers did find trace amounts of water and every report shows that the icecaps are water

And I don't think there is a "point of no return" aside from the atmosphere igniting and consuming the world in fire and stuff.

I was talking about my belief, Christianity and what the bible says  

[Sirbomber]

Oooh, I didn't even notice that you posted here. So, err... eheh...
I was kinda thinking about how atomic bombs have a 2% chance of igniting the entire world's atmosphere or something.

Anyways, I could write all about hydrogen and it's pros and cons, but why when you could look here?
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view....le_id=218392247

[CK9]

We already can produce water and store it in a lighter fashion.  You split the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, transport them (much easier to compact the gas than the liquid) then reverse the process by changing which charde you used on what side.

as for a point of no return, we crossed that when the whole thing started.  The damage is done, and it is very unlikely we can fix it.  The only thing that I know that produces ozone is the little motor they put in remote control cars, and with how big the hole in the ozone layer is, it could never be enough using those.

Cost of evacuation?  well people would find a way to make it happen anyway, for what good is money if you aren't going to live long enough to enjoy it?

I believe that, if there was no source of polution, the earth would eventually return to the balanced state at which it was at.

[Betaray]

you all should really read some books by robert zubrin, he has all the details for a martian coloney worked out, including how to grow crops, get water, process ore, everthing

I suggest his book "The Case for Mars"

[OP2Patriot]

Global warming is a myth that is based on thirty year old computer models proven to be false. The ozone is/may rebound(ing).

http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/ozneheel.htm ("Ozone Layer could heal by 2050")
http://www.cnsnews.com/dtSearch/dtisapi6.d...h%5fform%2ehtml ("There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming")
http://www.cnsnews.com/dtSearch/dtisapi6.d...h%5fform%2ehtml ("Dispelling the Carbon Dioxide Myth")

Oceans put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of mankind's factories combined.

Ultimately, global warming is propaganda from environmentalist extremists. Too many environmental regulations are to blame for the high prices at the gas pumps, no business wants to set up a new refinery in America because of the cost to comply with environmental regulations. California's blackouts are caused by lack of new power plants in California, because the hippies don't want them anywhere in the state. In the long run, the myth of global warming as long as it is believe will be an impediment to human progress in the fields of science.

*waits for angry replies* ... I will only respond to something backed by facts, not weak emotionalism.

[Sirbomber]

Those little remote control cars make o-zone, do they? How? We must build a massive army of massive remote control cars!
No, because some retard would want to put real motors in them and then we're back at step -5.

Anyways, I don't think anything really has a "point of no return", except in movies amd games, because that makes it more exciting. The Earth will be fixed, one way or another...

I have a great idea though. Rather than debate what other people could do, we debate what we can do as a community or whatever you want to call it. Probably not much, but you never know what a little group effort can do.

At the very least, we could all drive hundreds of remote control cars for the rest of eternity.

Patriot, you get angry responses (from me anyways) because of your "I'm right, you're wrong, a****le" attitude...
Everybody else has said "I think", "I believe", "you should"; they recommend. My point of view, you come out and tell us all we're friggin' idiots. Thanks loads.

[OP2Patriot]

I only believe that you all (or most) are misinformed. So, let's say there is an absolute truth, then what if one person knew it (I'm not saying that is me). Shouldn't that person then try to spread the truth?

Besides, if you are really interested in knowing what the truth really is, then what could hurt one by just looking at my viewpoint?

Anyway, if you knew me from real life, you'd know that I speak with a different tone than, "I'm right, you're wrong, moron!" As articulate as text could be, tones cannot really be transferred into what is typed. Well, unless you are a really good writer. I am just trying to be friendly and introduce into the discussion a viewpoint I believe to be true and I believe that many do not know.

[Eddy-B]

okay, 1 thing about the ozone: it is created by electric discharge. This occurs in badly designed 'little motor they put in remote control cars' (they spark), photo-copiers, and not to forget: LIGHTNING is the biggest ozone creator we know off. But still - this isn't enough to undo the damage that we did. It's a natural balance between green-house gasses and the natural production of ozone by lightning.

Anyway: about the point of no return... we have indeed passed it, not recently, but long, LONG ago. About a century i'd say: we use more fossil fuel now in 1 year, then in the *entire* 19th century. As for OP2Patriots remark: oceans as well as any other living animal, produces carbon dioxide, a green-house gas. Yes .. "A" greenhouse gas. There are several.  Any gas that is capable of trapping heat beneath it, is considered a greenhouse gas.

I KNOW we are not only passed the point-of-no-return, but also VERY close to 'the day after tomorrow'.  You should of course not take it that literally. I myself believe it'll happen over the course of a couple years, althou the instantly frozen mammoths as well as other animals, including some prehistoric humans, have been instantly frozen during the last Ice Age. And as the movie puts it so well in the end: we managed to survive the last one, we will sure survive the next one. And so will plenty of other species.

--------------------------------

When is this going to happen?  .. pretty soon.. i'm expecting a few years from now. We are seeing some pretty amazing weather this year, and i believe this is the start. Warm weather is causing an unusual amount of tropical storms turning into hurricanes. We've had the first time EVER not enough names for 1 storm-season. And that's not just it:  after the 22 names were exhausted with Wilma, 2 more tropical storms emerged, and there could still be more, because ocean temperatures are still high enough to create more.

In Europe we're seeing late-autumn highs of over 22 degrees Celcius (70 Farenheit), about 10 more then they should be this time of year. Also, for the very first time, Spain has seen a tropical storm (Vince). This never happened before. Also hurricane Maria hit the coast of Norway. This is no longer a USA-alone issue.

I don't want to alarm anyone, but the Gulf Stream ... it IS slowing. Scientists are constantly monitoring it, and found a 75% drop this year.

In siberia, a HUGE amount of methane gas was released from a perma-frost region this summer. Methane is 20 times as good at holding heat close to the earth as carbon dioxide. It had been trapped there for thousands of years, when the ice covering it melted. History shows a dramtic increase in this gas also happened just before the last Ice Age started. The sudden release of billions of tons of methane throws off all calculations made by climate experts. It greatly increases the global heating process!

In Brazil, extreme drought is threatening to create widespread fires in the Amazon rainforest.

--------------------------------

These are just a few examples about what is happening to our planet. And thats only THIS year. It is my expectation that the European winter will be as cold as -15 to -25 Celcius (close to 0 Farenheit). Not an ice age, just a cold winter. But it will be very unfortunate for the thousands of homeless people. And it will be difficult for the poor, with fuel prices as high as they are now..


"The day after tomorrow" isn't just a fictional movie - it is based on the book "The coming global superstorm" describing what will happen, according to what we now know about the last Ice Age. Whitley Strieber and Art Bell were laughed at when they published it in 1999. Nobody is laughing now.

[spirit1flyer]

If I were to talk from a Christian point of veiw. All of this is nothing compared to what we will see in the end times. "These are but birth pains" to quote the christian bible

I have always thought the earth is on a major clock one side being cold and on side being hot. I think the earth is going through a change of sides

[Hooman]

First of all, splitting water into hydrogen and water doesn't make it lighter. It's still the same elements with the same mass. It also doesn't make it any smaller. Gasses take far more space than liquids or solids do. Yes, you can compress gas, but by how much? And what happens when you compress it enough? It turns back into a liquid. I'd be quite surprised if you managed to compress a gas to become smaller than it's liquid form. So, this doesn't seem to be the way to transport water.

I'd also like to point out that hydrogen fuel is generally considered a little more dangerous than gasoline. It's a little easier to ignite, and somewhat more explosive from what I hear (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Granted, I've also heard of work being done on fuel tanks that can store the hydrogen in a safer way. So maybe this is a non issue by now.

As for this point of no return business, I guess it all depends on what you're talking about returning from. Some damage has been done, and perhaps some of it might be undoable, but I doubt it'll lead to the end of life on earth. Change is inevitable, and isn't always man made. Species can become extinct for reasons other than us killing them. Of course that's not to say we don't do bad things to the planet.

As for OP2Patriot's post.... Well. I must say I question your sources greatly. You claimed we needed to backup our claims with scientific facts and not weak emotionalism, but a good part of your sources are exactly that. Weak emotionalism.

They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of the KGB and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.

School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction. Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold, all of it for a lie about something man has nothing to do with.

So environmentalists are all communists now? Pesticides helped make us healthier? Why is he even talking about pesticides in an article about global warming? Think for just a minute why pesticides might be banned. I wouldn't expect global warming to be an issue here.

Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, would devastate this nation.

Speaking of polictial agendas....

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme. Cars banned. Industry curtailed. Housing smaller. Family size controlled.

Umm.... Do I really have to state what's wrong with this one? How the heck did he ever come to this conclusion over implementing the kyoto protocol. I don't see much more than weak emotionalism here. I mean, common, family size controlled?

Global raid on American wealth

Interesting section title. Again, political agenda....

The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth. The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

Don't think this devastation can't happen. The U.N. and the European Union have exposed their hatred for the United States. They envy our wealth and think that legalized theft, rather than sound economic policy, is the way to obtain it.

Hmm, politcal agenda or paranoia? Maybe I was wrong before. This just sounds outright paranoid.

The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity: George W. Bush. Will he stand firm in his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? Or will he capitulate to massive international pressure and sell America's soul?

And back to political agenda.

It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups that have an agenda.

So.... I checked the link given at the bottom of the article to find out more about the author and his organization. It's titled "American Policy Center". Here's the opening paragraph on that page, with the author's name clearly associated with it.

Max Keiser is a new kind of terrorist. He uses the Internet and boycotts to manipulate stock prices. In that way he forces corporations to comply with his brand of radical environmentalism and Sustainable Development. He puts his hands around corporate throats and squeezes until they comply with his demands. Max Keiser and his ilk hate business and they hate free enterprise and are using these tactics to redistribute wealth and cause chaos in the market place.

A quick glance at the titles of articles present, and a read through an article on immigration (also by the above author) thuroughly destroyed any hope of finding credibility there. All the headlines are packed full of emotional words. Lots of touting of freedom and free enterprise, which on it's own isn't so bad, everyone has their own opinion (but remember the political agenda part here), and anti-communist/socialist sentiment that brings back memories of the Salem witch trials (<- the bad part). It seems all the bad in the world are caused by socialists, and anyone who is against their pattern of tough is clearly a socialist. I see little to no foundation for many of his claims, and certainly no coherent thought or form of reasoning.


Also, I'm curious to know if you even read the article "Ozone layer could heal by 2050". It seems to support the side that people are heavily responsible for the damage that was done.

Based on the maximum predicted emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals allowed under the Montreal Protocol, it will be at least the year 2050 before the ozone layer recovers. Global warming may further delay recovery by 10 to 20 years," said Fraser.

This is talking about the ozone layer "healing" after that protocol is implemented and followed.


I'd say more, but I feel I've already wasted enough time on that nonsense.
 

[Sirbomber]

And the scariest thing is, nobody knows when or if any of this will happen.

But, technically, if o-zone is created by electrical discharge, why not make...
...a huge electrical discharge generator.
Yes, I know some of you were thinking of an artificial lightning generator...

I still think there's no such thing as a "point of no return". I just don't think it's possible. Plus, it's a really... crappy... name.... yeah...
Besides, there's already too many irreversible things that could destroy the planet! I hear the sun goes nuclear, but I prefer not to think about that. People have faced world-threatening problems before and solved them just fine, (nuclear war) and people can fix o-zone and global warming!
*Bonus semi-relevant quote:

He walked to join them.  Perhaps to lead them.  The Blight might be as unstoppable as they thought, but while there was life, there was hope.  Now that the survival of humanity was ensured, it was all they had.

They would never give up.

They were only human.

Let's try to have some optimism people, hm? This is a serious problem facing the modern world, but it's not like half the world is underwater or whatever. Well... technically it is, but you know what I mean.


It's times like these I feel some strange reason to start a revolution and take over Walmart. I have no idea why.

[Eddy-B]

SirBomber: FYI: the sun is 1 big nuclear reactor, that's been burning (=having a nuclear reaction) for at least 6 billion years, and will still continue to do so for at least another 6 billion years.

But who cares what happens billions of years from now? I am 100% convinced we are no longer a Terran civilization by then.. we will have spread our DNA across the galaxy.


What i AM concerned about is the things that lie ahead, in our near future. The coming Ice Age, that we will all see happening right in front of our eyes. If not us, our children will sure see it happen.

The name "point-of-no-return" is a classical name, but what i mean to say is: there's too much greenhouse gas iun the atmosphere we can no longer reverse the process in time, before the next Ice Age starts. I think a few decades ago we had already passed it, but thats just speculation...

For myself: i am no longer concerend with saving the environment, coz i believe we no longer can save it. So now it's just 'save as many souls as we can'. The time has come to inform the world.

Denying that the climate is changing, sorry OP2Patriot, but i won't accept that. OPEN YOUR EYES!  don't things like "the hottest month on record",  "the strongest hurricane ever seen",  "the most rainfall in 1 season", "dramatic increase in seismic activities", etc etc etc ..  mean anything to you ?  Are they just things we shuld ignore ?

We've screwed up our planet far to long, and IT IS NO LONGER taking it !!  It's fighting back, and with no surprise for me: it IS going to win. It always has and it always will!  Nature always resists change.

> Well, we've changed the world, and it'll resist <


 

[Sirbomber]

And for the evacuees, we arn't sure there is even water on Mars yet.   Have to bring a whole lot o water, and that weighs a lot...

No, they don't need to bring water. I think the shuttle generator or something produces water as a byproduct.

[Eddy-B]

And for the evacuees, we arn't sure there is even water on Mars yet.   Have to bring a whole lot o water, and that weighs a lot...

No, they don't need to bring water. I think the shuttle generator or something produces water as a byproduct.

yes ,it does: the engines of the shuttle (or most other spacecraft we have today) work on Hydrogen and Oxygen. These 2 combined form water, which is expelled at the exhaust of the engines, into SPACE.

Unless you want to start up those jet engines on the Mars surface, JUST for the purpose of creating water, it be pretty useless; not to mention you still need to bring the extra hydrogen and oxygen along, so why not just bring the water then?

But more to the point: if there is any Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms on mars, we need to create a chemical process that will extract those atoms and combine them into water. Then we only need to bring the apparatus that does that, which is a considerable better solution.

[Sirbomber]

Besides air, water is the most important quantity aboard the orbiter. Water is made from liquid oxygen and hydrogen in the space shuttle's fuel cells (the fuel cells can make 25 lb (11 kg) of water per hour). The water passes through a hydrogen separator to eliminate any trapped hydrogen gas (excess hydrogen gas is dumped overboard). The water is then stored in four water storage tanks located in the lower deck. Each tank can hold 165 lb (75 kg). The water tanks are pressurized by nitrogen so that water can flow to the mid-deck for use by the crew. Drinkable water is then filtered to remove microbes and can be warmed or chilled through various heat exchangers depending upon the use (food preparation, consumption, personal hygiene). Excess water produced by the fuel cells gets routed to a wastewater tank and subsequently dumped overboard.

They make plenty of water, and only the waste is is ejected into space.

[Eddy-B]

this is way (OT) , but okay.. i guess u can make water from hydrogen and oxigen. So, 25lbs of water per hour.. good - did you know this needs 25lbs of oxygen and hydrogen, so why not bring the water itself (see also hooman's post on this). They just use up the unused fuel, in a controlled reaction.  2H + O -> H2O

[Sirbomber]

Because if they brought the water AND the fuel, that'd weigh even more, right?
25 + 25 = 50 weighs less then 25 + 25 + 25 = 75.
This way, there's less weight and more... stuff...
Say this happened, the unmanned rockets to Mars would also produce water, so there would be water waiting on Mars alrady.
Or, they could leak the water and hope it somehow made Mars waterier.

[Leviathan]

anyone seen the recycling ep on penn and teller bulls***

recyling is bad, landfills are good!