What do you think will be the consequences of the oil disaster?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is, when people say we are "using it all up", we aren't really. We are turning tons of hydrocarbons into water and the greenhouse gas, CO2. If we used it all up there would be no air left to breathe, or, at the very least, become somewhat like Venus. Also you have a point, it won't really destroy the planet, but it will change it enough where it might destroy us.
 
Funnily enough, there are a lot of big misconceptions about global warming. It's definitely happening, but there are many facts about it that the media totally ignores because it's against the public mood. And scientists are afraid to go forward with them because they would lose funding if they did. It's gotten to the point where most people, even experts, are rejecting the real facts in favor of shock-and-awe doomsday scenarios. Here are some lesser-known facts about the heating of the planet.

1. CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas; methane is much stronger, and water vapor even more so. In fact, throughout most of Earth's history, there was much, much more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now. Also, more CO2 means plants will require less water and grow faster. The real problem with it is not how much there is, but how fast it's growing.

2. Even though the ice caps are definitely melting, that's not what's making the oceans rise. The oceans are rising as the result of thermal expansion...in other words, the water expanding as it gets warmer.

3. Although the oceans have risen 465 feet since the end of the last ice age, most of that occurred directly after the ice age ended. In the past century, the oceans only rose eight inches. At that rate, then in the year 2100, the oceans will only be about as high as they are today when the tide comes in...noticeable, but far from catastrophic.

4. There is significant evidence that heavy particulate pollution actualls COOLS the Earth by dimming the sun. Obviously these pollutants are bad for many other reasons, but this means that by removing them from the atmosphere we are actually accelerating global warming!

5. There have been many cases in Earth's past in which greenhouse gases skyrocketed, just like we fear will happen soon. It caused problems, but it wasn't the Apocalypse, and it always went back to normal on its own.

6. While reducing carbon consumption is good for conservation, it won't do a thing to solve global warming, or even to lessen it that much. First, much of the rising CO2 levels are not caused by human activity. Second, even if we could stop all carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, we cannot remove what is already there, which would hang around for centuries and trap heat all the while (though not that efficiently--see my first point).

Personally, I am a supporter of geoengineering...the science of modifying Earth's processes through human ingenuity. Sound reckless? Not if we devote enough funding to it to do loads of research and calculate the exact consequences before actually trying anything. New studies have shown that there are lots of radical geoengineering solutions that will reverse global warming, do little else to the environment, and be pretty easy to reverse should something go wrong. Lots of them are really cheap, too...it would be easy for a moderately wealthy nation to implement them unilaterally. They include the controlled release of tiny amounts of sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, the launching of satellites that feature reflective "sails" to block sunlight, and a fleet of boats which kick up ocean spray into the lower atmosphere and form more clouds. They need more research and testing, but it looks as though they could be the answer.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I am a supporter of geoengineering...the science of modifying Earth's processes through human ingenuity. Sound reckless? Not if we devote enough funding to it to do loads of research and calculate the exact consequences before actually trying anything. New studies have shown that there are lots of radical geoengineering solutions that will reverse global warming, do little else to the environment, and be pretty easy to reverse should something go wrong. Lots of them are really cheap, too...it would be easy for a moderately wealthy nation to implement them unilaterally. They include the controlled release of tiny amounts of sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, the launching of satellites that feature reflective "sails" to block sunlight, and a fleet of boats which kick up ocean spray into the lower atmosphere and form more clouds. They need more research and testing, but it looks as though they could be the answer.

And how much funding did BP put into research, hmm?(yay back on topic)
The thing is research often is not funded enough because funding=giving money away, and companies try to make money. Anyway, even if you poured billions into research of one thing, it will still take time for everything to be calculated. And do you think companies or the goverment is patient with research? Here is a hint: if they was, we be driving at the very least hybrids right now.(overall, not just a % of our driving population)
 
And how much funding did BP put into research, hmm?

Except that BP wasn't trying to come up with ways to use technology to better human living conditions on Earth, but to extract oil for profit. And because they're doing so for profit, that makes them more likely to cut costs, discourage regulation, and make conditions more likely to spark accidents, their severity and duration. I'd like to think that if some government or international body was planning to modify the atmosphere on a massive scale, it'd be much more careful considering the implications and possible consequences of doing so.

That isn't to say I support geoengineering. I honestly don't know enough about the subject to make an informed opinion on it. Gotta read more about that.
 
Last edited:
They make an extremely good case for geoengineering in SuperFreakonomics. It seriously addresses all the potential fears about the technology, and describes how it would work and how much it would cost and how much it would benefit us, and even offers empirical evidence that it would work. I recommend you check it out.
 
Post deleted

Aw. I was going to gear up for a flamewar :3

In all seriousness though, I suspect that the net outcome will be that the Gulf of Mexico will be even deader than normal, offshore oil drilling will be taboo for the next 10 years at least, and BP's stock will go down the crapper.
 
Except that BP wasn't trying to come up with ways to use technology to better human living conditions on Earth, but to extract oil for profit. And because they're doing so for profit, that makes them more likely to cut costs, discourage regulation, and make conditions more likely to spark accidents, their severity and duration. I'd like to think that if some government or international body was planning to modify the atmosphere on a massive scale, it'd be much more careful considering the implications and possible consequences of doing so.

That isn't to say I support geoengineering. I honestly don't know enough about the subject to make an informed opinion on it. Gotta read more about that.

Thats kinda what I meant
 
Yes, oil does leak naturally. But if you have, say, 100 small leaks in an area, that would be a lot less than 100 leaks + 1 major channeled and funneled super-pouring tube coming out of the ground. The bacteria can handle 100 small leaks, but not 1 major leak equivalent to, like, 1000+ small leaks.

If you were to look at a graph of it:

co2Temperature.gif


stupidgraph.bmp


The first one is a graph of temperature-CO2 during a period of the Earth's history. The second one is a crude Paint drawing to represent what it would look like zoomed in on the Industrial Revolution, when coal-burning and polluting industry took off. Notice how it, and we, broke the pattern. =/

Yes, I drew that picture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Who is viewing this thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Back
Top