NationStates Jolt Archive

Since many people believe that global warming is a man made issue we have the First Annual Global Warming Challenge! Submit your plan, preferably peer reviewed on how Humanity could raise the temperature of the Earth 2 degrees INTENTIONALLY. Assume virtually unlimited resources but needs to be done with existing technology. Show with what methodology that humans would have the ability to raise the temp of the earth EVEN IF IT WANTED TO. There needs to be legitemate science to back your plan. Let the games begin!

:rolleyes:

How about you ask climatologists? Oh wait, you know that they'd manage it.

We could get Earth drunk. Then it would feel warmer. :)

1. Burn fossil fuels
2. ???
3. Profit!

1. Burn fossil fuels
2. ???
3. Profit!


Sorry we have been buring fossil fules and dumping them into the atmosphere as fast as humanly possible for nearly a century, and contributring vast precentages of all of humanitys production abilities into doing so. This has not increased the global temp 2 degrees but feel free to submit another plan that will work.

Sorry we have been buring fossil fules and dumping them into the atmosphere as fast as humanly possible for nearly a century. This has not increased the global temp 2 degrees but feel free to submit another plan that will work.

Give it another hundred years and it will.

Sorry we have been buring fossil fules and dumping them into the atmosphere as fast as humanly possible for nearly a century. This has not increased the global temp 2 degrees but feel free to submit another plan that will work.

time frame, ammounts burned, and positive reinforcements such as increased water vapor in the air.

Sorry we have been buring fossil fules and dumping them into the atmosphere as fast as humanly possible for nearly a century, and contributring vast precentages of all of humanitys production abilities into doing so. This has not increased the global temp 2 degrees but feel free to submit another plan that will work.

Actually, we've been burning them as fast as we can afford to, not as fast as we could. Given "virtually unlimited resources" raising the gobal temperature by 2 degrees shouldn't be a problem. Why we'd want to do this is beyond me, however.

Actually, we've been burning them as fast as we can afford to, not as fast as we could. Given "virtually unlimited resources" raising the gobal temperature by 2 degrees shouldn't be a problem. Why we'd want to do this is beyond me, however.

Because i think you could burn every last drop of oil and coal from the earth and not raise the earths temp 2 degrees.

I'd probably start with massive controlled burning of forests world-wide. Give every able bodied human an axe and tell them to get chopping.

Because i think you could burn every last drop of oil and coal from the earth and not raise the earths temp 2 degrees.

Why do you think this?

Drop 2000 kg of antimatter into the Pacific Ocean. That'd be about 3.6 X 10^20 Joules of energy. Should be enough to warm the Earth by 2 degrees Celsius, if only for a short while.

Why do you think this?

Probably the standard mix of not knowing what one is talking about, mixed with too much free time to think about it.

Why do you think this?

Let me rephrase, i do not believe we have the technological ability to be able to withdraw and excrete fuels from the earth and place them in particulate form in large enough amounts to completly encompass the earth to a degree that it can affect THAT huge of a temp difference. In the same way humans cant turn off volcanoes or cant untwist tornadoes they cant heat up the earth like a giant saucepan. We couldnt do it even if we tried and if for some theoretical reason our life depended on it.

Drop 2000 kg of antimatter into the Pacific Ocean. That'd be about 3.6 X 10^20 Joules of energy. Should be enough to warm the Earth by 2 degrees Celsius, if only for a short while.

Violates the using current technology clause ;)

Let me rephrase, i do not believe we have the technological ability to be able to withdraw and excrete fuels from the earth and place them in particulate form in large enough amounts to completly encompass the earth to a degree that it can affect THAT huge of a temp difference. In the same way humans cant turn off volcanoes or cant untwist tornadoes they cant heat up the earth like a giant saucepan. We couldnt do it even if we tried and if for some thoretical reason our life depended on it.

I don't believe you.

Let me rephrase, i do not believe we have the technological ability to be able to withdraw and excrete fuels from the earth and place them in particulate form in large enough amounts to completly encompass the earth to a degree that it can affect THAT huge of a temp difference. In the same way humans cant turn off volcanoes or cant untwist tornadoes they cant heat up the earth like a giant saucepan. We couldnt do it even if we tried and if for some thoretical reason our life depended on it.

Actually, we could effectively turn off a volcano, with controlled nuclear blasts in the crust.

Violates the using current technology clause ;)

You specified unlimited resources. We can produce antimatter now.

I don't believe you.\

Fine then show me how humans do have this ability. Its certainly never happened in the history of humanity so id be interested in your source.

\

Fine then show me how humans do have this ability. Its certainly never happened in the history of humanity so id be interested in your source.

We've also never killed the entire population of humanity, but no one would claim that we don't have that ability.

\

Fine then show me how humans do have this ability. Its certainly never happened in the history of humanity so id be interested in your source.
Burden of proof is on you. You made the claim that we couldn't do it, you have to defend it.

Also, just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't. Prior to 1969, man hadn't walked on the moon. And I swear, if anyone goes off on a conspiracy theory, I'll deck them.

You specified unlimited resources. We can produce antimatter now.

Not in usable quanities, nor for longer than the tiniest nanoseconds of existence, so unless you figure out how to produce and transport it with current technology then good luck with that.

Burden of proof is on you. You made the claim that we couldn't do it, you have to defend it.

Also, just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't. Prior to 1969, man hadn't walked on the moon. And I swear, if anyone goes off on a conspiracy theory, I'll deck them.

You're Buzz Aldrin?

Not in usable quanities, nor for longer than the tiniest nanoseconds of existence, so unless you figure out how to produce and transport it with current technology then good luck with that.

We've only made small quantities due to the lack of money. And we've kept antimatter around for longer than a nanosecond. We could keep it indefinitely, but there's no point to doing so.

We've also never killed the entire population of humanity, but no one would claim that we don't have that ability.

I have very serious doubts that humanity could be entirely eliminated by humans even if they wanted to. Some would survive soemwhere somehow. In some shelter in some hole in some out of the way jungle or society or in some mountian. Humanity would survive in some form even in the worst planetwide nuclear winter you could imagine. So yes i claim we dont have that ability.

You're Buzz Aldrin?

Nope...Michael Collins.

you know, the other guy? The one who didn't get to actually walk on the moon? Yes. There were three.

I hate you all.

I have very serious doubts that humanity could be entirely eliminated by humans even if they wanted to. Some would survive soemwhere somehow. In some shelter in some hole in some out of the way jungle or society or in some mountian. Humanity would survive in some form even in the worst planetwide nuclear winter you could imagine. So yes i claim we dont have that ability.

You overestimate the survival capabilities of humanity.

Let me rephrase, i do not believe we have the technological ability to be able to withdraw and excrete fuels from the earth and place them in particulate form in large enough amounts to completly encompass the earth to a degree that it can affect THAT huge of a temp difference. In the same way humans cant turn off volcanoes or cant untwist tornadoes they cant heat up the earth like a giant saucepan. We couldnt do it even if we tried and if for some theoretical reason our life depended on it.

Proof?

All we need to do is burn more fossil fuels. We could drill down into coal seems and then set the alight. We could seed the atmosphere with suped green-hose gasses like CFC's (they don't just kill ozone (w00t! free radicals) they are teh potent green house gasses). We could destabalise reserves of methane chelate on the sea ben with nukes. We could expose and ignite tar sand deposits. We could teh p00n the world!

You overestimate the survival capabilities of humanity.

And the Darwin Award for "Top Of the Food Chain"......the winner is... for the 54 Millionth* consecutive year in a row, Homo Sapiens!!!

*this number is made up but i kill the person who points out the exact year humans came into existence.

Hell, we could detonate nuclear warheads in sleeping volcanoes to wake them up. Burn down cities. Dump enough toxic wastes into the ocean to make plankton populations plummet, thus causing the CO2 in the atmosphere to skyrocket. If we wanted to, we could raise the planet's temperature by two degrees easily.

I have very serious doubts that humanity could be entirely eliminated by humans even if they wanted to. Some would survive soemwhere somehow. In some shelter in some hole in some out of the way jungle or society or in some mountian. Humanity would survive in some form even in the worst planetwide nuclear winter you could imagine. So yes i claim we dont have that ability.

Of course we could if we wanted to. First get everybody in a circle with a gun. Then they all put the gun against the head of the person on the left, or right, as long as everybody is aiming in the same direction. And shoot!

Sure, there'd be some logistical problems, but nothing that can be overcome if we wanted to.

And the Darwin Award for "Top Of the Food Chain"......the winner is... for the 54 Millionth* consecutive year in a row, Homo Sapiens!!!

*this number is made up but i kill the person who points out the exact year humans came into existence.

Homo sapiens has been around for 100,000 years at most, and the most dangerous thing they ever experienced was a volcanic eruption, and that nearly wiped us out. And the higher something is on the food chain, the more vulnerable it is to environmental pressures.

And the Darwin Award for "Top Of the Food Chain"......the winner is... for the 54 Millionth* consecutive year in a row, Homo Sapiens!!!

*this number is made up but i kill the person who points out the exact year humans came into existence.

Amazing how fast that collapses when people no longer have the ability to perform basic tasks for survival such as how to make clothing out of animal hides, or even kill and prepare those animals.

What about 'could we raze a quarter of the Earth's rainforest' or 'could we raise carbon levels at a rate 50 times faster than anything that's occured naturally in the past 800,000 years'? Oh yeah, we're already doing that...and that has a delayed effect on temperature.

Actually, we've been burning them as fast as we can afford to, not as fast as we could. Given "virtually unlimited resources" raising the gobal temperature by 2 degrees shouldn't be a problem. Why we'd want to do this is beyond me, however.

You clearly are not in Canada ;)

Sorry we have been buring fossil fules and dumping them into the atmosphere as fast as humanly possible for nearly a century, and contributring vast precentages of all of humanitys production abilities into doing so. This has not increased the global temp 2 degrees but feel free to submit another plan that will work.

it's an accumulation, what we pumped into the atmosphere in the first 50 yrs of the last century was nothing compared to what we are doing now, China and India are only just beginning to add to the total, 2/5's of humanity is just getting started........think of the oceans as a huge water tank, it takes time to heat the entire tank to even reach a point that you notice it's warming(a century?) once you notice it's finally warming it's to late that's when the damage done....

It is a proven fact that in the past 150 years the Earth's temperature has only risen by .6 degrees Celsius. To raise it two whole degrees in a short enough time for our generation to see it would probably be impossible, but if it is, here is the only way that I see the possibility of it happening.

The system that regularly keeps the Earth at habitable temperatures is the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt. This system of currents in the oceans brings cool and warm air to regions of the world. This system is controlled by the sinking of different density waters. The saltier water is denser and will therefore sink to the bottom of the ocean resulting in a reversal of the currents. Without this sinking and rising of salt and fresh water the system could not function. Here is what I propose:

The nations of the world need to devise a system whereby they could fracture a large portion of the Artic Ice. As this ice sheet melts, the Earth's oceans will become saturated with fresh water, greatly reducing the salinity as well as the Conveyor Belt's ability to sink. If this system were to fail, the nations of the world would experience abrupt climate change. the Southern Hemisphere will see a rise potentially up to 4 degrees Celsius. This would result in widescale drought and a loss of productivity in agriculture.

But I must say after here, that I do not believe that Global Warming is going to be a potential problem for the countries of the world. The Earth is a self-sustaining system and Abrupt Climate Change is its restart button. Usually, a small Ice Age will follow Abrupt Climate Change.

Hope this works.

\

Fine then show me how humans do have this ability. Its certainly never happened in the history of humanity so id be interested in your source.

There is no precedent in history. I don't understand why you want me to look to history to somehow prove that we have this capability now.

Assume virtually unlimited resources but needs to be done with existing technology.

give everyone on earth a hummer to drive, burn the rainforests in furnaces that capture the particulate matter but release the co2 and use the heat to thaw the tundra in order to release a whole pile of methane. wait a decade.

Since many people believe that global warming is a man made issue we have the First Annual Global Warming Challenge! Submit your plan, preferably peer reviewed on how Humanity could raise the temperature of the Earth 2 degrees INTENTIONALLY. Assume virtually unlimited resources but needs to be done with existing technology. Show with what methodology that humans would have the ability to raise the temp of the earth EVEN IF IT WANTED TO. There needs to be legitemate science to back your plan. Let the games begin!

Easy

We could get it done quicker if we do away with global dimming
but even so
Keep doing what we're doing
get china and India to join in wholeheartedly and
I'll see your 2 degrees and raise up to another 8.


See this is the discussion that tipping point needed to be used in.

Since many people believe that global warming is a man made issue we have the First Annual Global Warming Challenge! Submit your plan, preferably peer reviewed on how Humanity could raise the temperature of the Earth 2 degrees INTENTIONALLY. Assume virtually unlimited resources but needs to be done with existing technology. Show with what methodology that humans would have the ability to raise the temp of the earth EVEN IF IT WANTED TO. There needs to be legitemate science to back your plan. Let the games begin!

Just carry on doing what we're doing at the moment and wait. That should work.

Drop 2000 kg of antimatter into the Pacific Ocean. That'd be about 3.6 X 10^20 Joules of energy. Should be enough to warm the Earth by 2 degrees Celsius, if only for a short while.
Yeah, I was going to say nuke the oceans as well, in order to make them boil, but this sounds very good too.

It will heat up the earth, and provide ready-to-eat fish meals for all immediately.

Yeah, I was going to say nuke the oceans as well, in order to make them boil, but this sounds very good too.

It will heat up the earth, and provide ready-to-eat fish meals for all immediately.

Assuming the fish themselves don't get annihilated.

so now that we've established a few trivially easy ways to meet the challenge, do we get prizes?

so now that we've established a few trivially easy ways to meet the challenge, do we get prizes?

Maybe we have to do more challenges of increasing difficulty, and the prizes we get are determined by how far we get?

Maybe we have to do more challenges of increasing difficulty, and the prizes we get are determined by how far we get?

like bozo buckets!

Since many people believe that global warming is a man made issue we have the First Annual Global Warming Challenge! Submit your plan, preferably peer reviewed on how Humanity could raise the temperature of the Earth 2 degrees INTENTIONALLY. Assume virtually unlimited resources but needs to be done with existing technology. Show with what methodology that humans would have the ability to raise the temp of the earth EVEN IF IT WANTED TO. There needs to be legitemate science to back your plan. Let the games begin!

1) Get several tons of flammable substances, preferably oil.
2) Gather them at the tip of the Antarctic coast
3) BURN IT
4) Continue burning stuff until the time runs out

Easy. Force (Insert name of hot actor/actress here) to have kids with every person on earth. Wait nine months. Then everyone would be hotter! Even the ugly people!

It is a proven fact that in the past 150 years the Earth's temperature has only risen by .6 degrees Celsius. To raise it two whole degrees in a short enough time for our generation to see it would probably be impossible, but if it is, here is the only way that I see the possibility of it happening.

The system that regularly keeps the Earth at habitable temperatures is the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt. This system of currents in the oceans brings cool and warm air to regions of the world. This system is controlled by the sinking of different density waters. The saltier water is denser and will therefore sink to the bottom of the ocean resulting in a reversal of the currents. Without this sinking and rising of salt and fresh water the system could not function. Here is what I propose:

The nations of the world need to devise a system whereby they could fracture a large portion of the Artic Ice. As this ice sheet melts, the Earth's oceans will become saturated with fresh water, greatly reducing the salinity as well as the Conveyor Belt's ability to sink. If this system were to fail, the nations of the world would experience abrupt climate change. the Southern Hemisphere will see a rise potentially up to 4 degrees Celsius. This would result in widescale drought and a loss of productivity in agriculture.

But I must say after here, that I do not believe that Global Warming is going to be a potential problem for the countries of the world. The Earth is a self-sustaining system and Abrupt Climate Change is its restart button. Usually, a small Ice Age will follow Abrupt Climate Change.

Hope this works.

Here's the problem: that system can only handle what the Earth itself puts into it. Coal and oil were trapped beneath the surface and wouldn't naturally burn on their own if there was nothing to bring them up to the surface. We're adding more to the system than the system can cope with, which is the problem. It's not that we're adding more than Earth puts in, or even anywhere near. It's that we're adding more than it can cope with, and THAT is why it's such a problem. It's a tricky situation though. Obviously we can't just stop burning fossil fuels because we have nothing that can replace them successfully as of yet. We can and should move to generating power with a combination of alternatives--focusing mainly on nuclear fission, of course, then solar and wind--but that's only part of the problem. We still won't be able to solve the transportation problems, the production problems--plastic, anyone?--or any of the other mind-boggling advances the use of fossil fuels has provided.

We should, however, do more than we are. I strongly urge the world to--at the very LEAST--stop generating power with oil and coal fired plants and start using nuclear fission and solar/wind/geothermal/other such power sources immediately. It won't solve everything. It will take a while to perform the shift. But it's a start, and one that won't hurt the economy anywhere near as some might have you believe.

And the Darwin Award for "Top Of the Food Chain"......the winner is... for the 54 Millionth* consecutive year in a row, Homo Sapiens!!!

*this number is made up but i kill the person who points out the exact year humans came into existence.

Before I get to your first statement, but I have a reason to die.

Well, depends on what you call "human". Our last branch off with other primates was around 6-8 million years ago. However, as these are not humans, an earlier date is necessary. If you apply "human" to the genus "homo", then Homo Habilis is the first known species, which rose up around 2.5 million years ago. However, they were very uncharacteristic of modern humans, so we may instead go for something a bit more modern, such as Erectus, which arived around 2 million-ish years ago. However, once again, they were rather uncharacteristic of modder humans, so some may not consider them "human". Le'ts just skip the next few iteration, and go to Neanderthals, which is what is considered to most human, which arose only a few hundred thousand years ago. Now then, if you want modern man, you're looking at a much younger age, only about 130,000 years.

Now then, humans actually have not been "on top" for very long, really. Only until VERY recently, has man been able to actually have a profound effect on the environment in such a way. Throughout most of man's span, humans have be subject to hardship and nearly dying off on many occassion(Sometimes getting down to at most 1,000 breeding pairs). So really, humans haven't been dominant for that long.

SOOOO...

You know nothing of humans.

Yeah, I was going to say nuke the oceans as well, in order to make them boil, but this sounds very good too.

It will heat up the earth, and provide ready-to-eat fish meals for all immediately.

Humans dont remotely have this ability. You couldnt raise the temp of the ocean a degree if you multiplied the worlds nukes by 100,000 Xs. In fact i doubt there is enough fissionable material in existence inside the entire earth that would allow enough calories to measurably increase the oceans tempeture any measurable amount.

1) Get several tons of flammable substances, preferably oil.
2) Gather them at the tip of the Antarctic coast
3) BURN IT
4) Continue burning stuff until the time runs out

I fail to see how this would raise the earths temp 2 degrees. Please explain.

give everyone on earth a hummer to drive, burn the rainforests in furnaces that capture the particulate matter but release the co2 and use the heat to thaw the tundra in order to release a whole pile of methane. wait a decade.

There is no amount of pollution that can come out of cars or anything else for that matter that can cause global warming in a decade . Period. Next.

so now that we've established a few trivially easy ways to meet the challenge, do we get prizes?

Ive yet to see you state one let alone a few trivial ways. Giantsfan has come closest i think.

Get everyone to do a mega crazy dance. If any god exists, they will laugh, and their breath will push the Earth at least 2 degrees closer to the sun.

Result!

There is no amount of pollution that can come out of cars or anything else for that matter that can cause global warming in a decade . Period. Next.

yes there is. if we released the stored carbon in carbon sinks in a way that prevented global dimming and used that heat to directly release the massive amounts of methane stored in the tundra, we sure as fuck could. especially if we also brought everyone on the planet up to a united states level of per person emissions.

Climate science is not a political belief. If you wanted a real answer, you'd have to ask real scientists, not just posters on a political forum.

However, since you don't want a real answer (i.e. you want people to fail to prove climate change), you are going about it the right way. And what's more, even though the posters aren't climate scientists, their failure to prove the science may still convince some people that climate change is a myth. Nice work.

Humans dont remotely have this ability. You couldnt raise the temp of the ocean a degree if you multiplied the worlds nukes by 100,000 Xs. In fact i doubt there is enough fissionable material in existence inside the entire earth that would allow enough calories to measurably increase the oceans tempeture any measurable amount.

:D

Assuming the fish themselves don't get annihilated.
Many would, though those far enough from the explosions would merely be boiled alive.

yes there is. if we released the stored carbon in carbon sinks in a way that prevented global dimming and used that heat to directly release the massive amounts of methane stored in the tundra, we sure as fuck could. especially if we also brought everyone on the planet up to a united states level of per person emissions.

once the enormous amounts of greenhouse gases in the tundra are released the increase may be enough to raise the temp of the oceans sufficiently to release another massive amount of methane frozen in the sea floor....and with that we may see the end of civilization as we know it......certainly a mass extinction of many lifeforms, which we may or may not survive......

Humans dont remotely have this ability. You couldnt raise the temp of the ocean a degree if you multiplied the worlds nukes by 100,000 Xs. In fact i doubt there is enough fissionable material in existence inside the entire earth that would allow enough calories to measurably increase the oceans tempeture any measurable amount.

but the French did it!

It is a proven fact that in the past 150 years the Earth's temperature has only risen by .6 degrees Celsius. To raise it two whole degrees in a short enough time for our generation to see it would probably be impossible, but if it is, here is the only way that I see the possibility of it happening.

The system that regularly keeps the Earth at habitable temperatures is the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt. This system of currents in the oceans brings cool and warm air to regions of the world. This system is controlled by the sinking of different density waters. The saltier water is denser and will therefore sink to the bottom of the ocean resulting in a reversal of the currents. Without this sinking and rising of salt and fresh water the system could not function. Here is what I propose:

The nations of the world need to devise a system whereby they could fracture a large portion of the Artic Ice. As this ice sheet melts, the Earth's oceans will become saturated with fresh water, greatly reducing the salinity as well as the Conveyor Belt's ability to sink. If this system were to fail, the nations of the world would experience abrupt climate change. the Southern Hemisphere will see a rise potentially up to 4 degrees Celsius. This would result in widescale drought and a loss of productivity in agriculture.

But I must say after here, that I do not believe that Global Warming is going to be a potential problem for the countries of the world. The Earth is a self-sustaining system and Abrupt Climate Change is its restart button. Usually, a small Ice Age will follow Abrupt Climate Change.

Hope this works.


I agree. I doubt humans would be able to "destroy" the earth through our actions.

But I do believe we are capable of doing enough to create changes that will make us suffer in the end. Not only in the agriculture, but also in the increase of atmosferic events and disasters.

Not to mention any sudden change in the atmosfere is going to kill a lot of species, and will produce unforeseen consequences.

I doubt humans would be able to "destroy" the earth through our actions.

if we put our minds to it, we could probably work out a way to slam a big enough asteroid into the place to wipe out all life.