Global Waming's Solution(ish)

[Engezerstorung]

Bull. Most modern problems could easily be solved. The real problem is almost always that it's not beneficial for the people in power to do that.

yes, and the solution is stop polution for economical (as in "we can save some bucks so yey more mony") reasons, stop overproducting when we could still be living confortably with our stuff, but not in this actual crazy way, and so on

today ive seen an article about a regulation in europe to ban plastic "one time usable stuff", like straws, plastics fork/knives, the stuff to pick your ears with a cotton head;
the argument being that its a huge portion of ocean plastic pollution
so, putting aside the fact that stopping producing those plastic products is a good idea, my question is "why doesnt they talk about not throwing plastic in the ocean in the first place" <_< because throwing your bin in the ocean is a near-to-0 cost solution and it seem invisible, except its like putting the dust under the carpet in the end...

and in the end my argumentation stand, because those dumb ideas (of throwing your waste in the ocean/lake or in the middle of a forest, and so on...) come from people not knowing about what they are saying, the kind of people who see everything as an argumentation or a negotiation, like you can negotiate with actual cause and consequence physical stuff (like 2° in 10 years? come on, give me 3)

well its kind of off topic anyway... btw, nuclear winter is exactly the "i dont want to assume or go back on what i was saying and doing until now" kind of solution. the "i will keep doing as i do now while trying to do a dumb thing to solve the problems i dont want to hear about, and when it will fail and make thing worse it will not be my fault because at least i tried something"


ps: sorry for the engrish, im not an english native speaker and long text tend to exaust my ability to make it decently structured

 

[Deleted User]

Well I can cite you a more recent study than that one. One from NASA.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/483/how-would-nuclear-war-affect-the-climate/

To qoute:

To quote:

On the ground, global temperatures would fall by a little over 1 °C (1.8 °F) over the first three years. In contrast, aerosols from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo contributed to about 0.3 °C (~ 0.5 °F) of cooling over one year. Black carbon particles are smaller than sulfate particles and can be lofted much higher by solar heating, where their influence on climate can last up to a decade.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

yes, and the solution is stop polution for economical (as in "we can save some bucks so yey more mony") reasons, stop overproducting when we could still be living confortably with our stuff, but not in this actual crazy way, and so on

today ive seen an article about a regulation in europe to ban plastic "one time usable stuff", like straws, plastics fork/knives, the stuff to pick your ears with a cotton head;
the argument being that its a huge portion of ocean plastic pollution
so, putting aside the fact that stopping producing those plastic products is a good idea, my question is "why doesnt they talk about not throwing plastic in the ocean in the first place" <_< because throwing your bin in the ocean is a near-to-0 cost solution and it seem invisible, except its like putting the dust under the carpet in the end...

and in the end my argumentation stand, because those dumb ideas (of throwing your waste in the ocean/lake or in the middle of a forest, and so on...) come from people not knowing about what they are saying, the kind of people who see everything as an argumentation or a negotiation, like you can negotiate with actual cause and consequence physical stuff (like 2° in 10 years? come on, give me 3)

well its kind of off topic anyway... btw, nuclear winter is exactly the "i dont want to assume or go back on what i was saying and doing until now" kind of solution. the "i will keep doing as i do now while trying to do a dumb thing to solve the problems i dont want to hear about, and when it will fail and make thing worse it will not be my fault because at least i tried something"


ps: sorry for the engrish, im not an english native speaker and long text tend to exaust my ability to make it decently structured

I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. On the one hand, I agree that people really should be better educated about what's going on, and so some of the blame falls on them. But on the other hand, the people in power are trying very hard to make sure that never happens.

 

[comput3rus3r]

Uh, basic logic? If nuclear fallout in the stratosphere blocks the sun and reduces heat, wouldn't it be safe to say a couple nukes would reduce global warming?

your level of stupidity is scary. Your next brilliant idea is going to be to nuke the planet in order to fix overpopulation(another myth)

 

[Deleted User]

your level of stupidity is scary. Your next brilliant idea is going to be to nuke the planet in order to fix overpopulation(another myth)

Dude, you can't just throw an ad hominem without at least explaining why it's a bad idea.

 

[comput3rus3r]

Dude, you can't just throw an ad hominem without at least explaining why it's a bad idea.

lol. do i really need to explain to you the effects of nuclear bombs? Did the word radiation cross your mind while you were hatching up your plot to nuke the sky? lol

 

[Deleted User]

lol. do i really need to explain to you the effects of nuclear bombs? Did the word radiation cross your mind while you were hatching up your plot to nuke the sky? lol

If it's being detonated in the stratosphere, all of the radioactive particles would just fly off into space. If you're that worried we could just do it way above Antarctica.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Ok who the hell changed warming to waming

 

[Engezerstorung]

about argument against:
even if it was actually a solution without downfall to cool down the earth it wouldnt solve the issue about the production of the gases (co2 and stuff), it could even worsen it since the geniuses at the top would think that since we now have a solution to cool the earth we dont need to be carefull anymore
and global warming asside those gases are still an issue, because you change the composition of the air, wich have an effect on the biosphere
and oceans would still keep absorbing too much co2, wich is, if my non expert knowledge on the matter is right, is acidizing them, killing life, and destabilizing those deep ocean floor methane crystals stuff, wich could cause an apocalyptical cascade reaction releasing it all in the athmosphere and all the consequences... (someone talked about Venus earlier?)

 

[Arcanuskun]

To quote:

Spoiler: the same paper you cited *facepalm*

On the ground, global temperatures would fall by a little over 1 °C (1.8 °F) over the first three years. In contrast, aerosols from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo contributed to about 0.3 °C (~ 0.5 °F) of cooling over one year. Black carbon particles are smaller than sulfate particles and can be lofted much higher by solar heating, where their influence on climate can last up to a decade.

You didn't read the whole paper do you? That's only the short term effect.

We also saw that two to four years after the event, rainfall would decrease globally by an average of about 10 percent.

Long term would be the precipitation rates will be lowered. Climate change concerns are not only in heating up the planet. As you can see its name "climate change." Agriculture will be affected by the cooler climate, low precipatation, and lower solar radiation. Wireless communications(microwave communications and skywave) will also be affected as it relies on solar radiation as well.

To further reiterate the point of others as well, we can approach it on a more philosophical level.

Let's say we do your proposed solution, we cooled the climate by a degree, what then? Will people stop doing things that increase greenhouse gasses? What if people don't? Should we fire another nuclear warhead to cool the climate? What will its effects after then?
Next, what if it fails, by some unknown factor, what are the after effects? Can we still survive by with the said effects on the environment?

If we can answer it by now and if the answers will result in more pros than cons, then good. This is a proper solution. But if not, well we should further research on this matter.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of limited nuclear war in theory. That's why I am asking for some scientific proof if you have researched it in the first place. But since I have researched it also before, and all I can see was that the pros doesn't outweigh the cons, I am against with your said solution.

Lastly, you are free to change my mind. This is science of course, even laws can be broken.

 

[Engezerstorung]

Ok who the hell changed warming to waming

global whamming sound scary!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Let's say we do your proposed solution, we cooled the climate by a degree, what then? Will people stop doing things that increase greenhouse gasses? What if people don't? Should we fire another nuclear warhead to cool the climate? What will its effects after then?
Next, what if it fails, by some unknown factor, what are the after effects? Can we still survive by with the said effects on the environment?

and yeah, thats why i was trying to come to earlier : before talking about reverting the damages we need to stop causing them in the first place or we are going to go nowhere (or thing that we solved it when we didnt, basically deluding ourselves with false safety)

 

[dpad_5678]

Global Warming is a myth

Wouldn't it be great if it was?

 

[Deleted User]

about argument against:
even if it was actually a solution without downfall to cool down the earth it wouldnt solve the issue about the production of the gases (co2 and stuff), it could even worsen it since the geniuses at the top would think that since we now have a solution to cool the earth we dont need to be carefull anymore
and global warming asside those gases are still an issue, because you change the composition of the air, wich have an effect on the biosphere
and oceans would still keep absorbing too much co2, wich is, if my non expert knowledge on the matter is right, is acidizing them, killing life, and destabilizing those deep ocean floor methane crystals stuff, wich could cause an apocalyptical cascade reaction releasing it all in the athmosphere and all the consequences... (someone talked about Venus earlier?)

You didn't read the whole paper do you? That's only the short term effect.


Long term would be the precipitation rates will be lowered. Climate change concerns are not only in heating up the planet. As you can see its name "climate change." Agriculture will be affected by the cooler climate, low precipatation, and lower solar radiation. Wireless communications(microwave communications and skywave) will also be affected as it relies on solar radiation as well.

To further reiterate the point of others as well, we can approach it on a more philosophical level.

Let's say we do your proposed solution, we cooled the climate by a degree, what then? Will people stop doing things that increase greenhouse gasses? What if people don't? Should we fire another nuclear warhead to cool the climate? What will its effects after then?
Next, what if it fails, by some unknown factor, what are the after effects? Can we still survive by with the said effects on the environment?

If we can answer it by now and if the answers will result in more pros than cons, then good. This is a proper solution. But if not, well we should further research on this matter.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of limited nuclear war in theory. That's why I am asking for some scientific proof if you have researched it in the first place. But since I have researched it also before, and all I can see was that the pros doesn't outweigh the cons, I am against with your said solution.

Lastly, you are free to change my mind. This is science of course, even laws can be broken.

I don't see it as a permanent solution at all. But espescially with the near catastrophic level we're reaching...

I see this as delaying, or stalling for time. So that eventually science can progress to the point where we have some kind of hypereffective co2 sucking plant. Or something. Idk. Who knows what solution could finally pop up.

I really wish we could say that we have the time to come up with a way to stop us from making those gasses, or something, literally anything. But we don't. It's either something massive like this, or apocalypse.

 

[dAVID_]

The only real solution is to stop consuming fossil fuels.

 

[Engezerstorung]

I don't see it as a permanent solution at all. But espescially with the near catastrophic level we're reaching...

I see this as delaying, or stalling for time. So that eventually science can progress to the point where we have some kind of hypereffective co2 sucking plant. Or something. Idk. Who knows what solution could finally pop up.

temporary band-aid tend to end up as final solution at a political level "if we do that, and it seem to work, why try to do other costly things, IT WORK, we will discuss other solution if the need come at the time"

 

[dpad_5678]

The only real solution is to stop consuming fossil fuels.

You don't support the usage of fossil fuels to profit large corporations, and give them an incentive to destroy the planet?
Hippie liberal snowflake communist scum.

/s

 

[comput3rus3r]

Wouldn't it be great if it was?

It is.

 

[dpad_5678]

It is.

The same people who deny climate change are the same people that believe the Earth is 6000 years old and that there's a dude in the sky with magical lightning powers that hates gay dudes.
That's why climate change deniers are laughed at.

 

[Deleted User]

temporary band-aid tend to end up as final solution at a political level "if we do that, and it seem to work, why try to do other costly things, IT WORK, we will discuss other solution if the need come at the time"

True, but when the alternative is uhhh... Really bad, to put it mildly, I don't see a lot of options.

 

[comput3rus3r]

The same people who deny climate change are the same people that believe the Earth is 6000 years old and that there's a dude in the sky with magical lightning powers that hates gay dudes.
That's why climate change deniers are laughed at.

I laugh at you for eating up the propaganda. I could care less if you want to get sodomized and end your family tree. You have free will that was given to you by.. oh wait I guess you don't have free will.

 

[dpad_5678]

I laugh at you for eating up the propaganda.

*believes the fucking bible*

 

[Engezerstorung]

well, i personnaly dont think that stopping putting 3x more food in super market than people eat, eating big meat 2 time a day all days and needing a new iphone every 6 monthes is really a bad alternative
(i dont imply that tis is a exhaustive list of problems, i just selected them to illustrate the general issue : waste, hyper consuming, economical greed, and so on...)