I searched internet and i found something. We all know that global warming bla bla bla, but what if sea level will rise, and Gore is right?
Check this pictures and you may find many similarities with Brink island, and Brink ark.
The Botanical City Concept
We live remarkably convenient lives in cities that have developed along economic lines.
But happiness should be measured separately from material wealth.
Contact with Nature. Time passed leisurely in cultural pursuits. Healthy and comfortable living.
And blending into and living and growing harmoniously with Nature as part of the ecosystem.
We can make a city, like a single plant, that embodies these principles.
Our model of a new environmental city was born from these aspirations.
An Environmental Island Floating on the Equatorial Pacific
A city that grows just like a lily floating on the water.
A city of the equatorial region where sunlight is plentiful and the impact of typhoons is minimal.
We will build the ultra-high-rise tower with “Smart” system float-over deck marine construction, employing the unique properties of marine construction. The building is not erected above the surface. Construction of the framework is conducted above sea level, but as the structure is completed it is temporarily submerged. Once the framework is assembled, it is lifted in one movement using the buoyancy of sea water. Rather than moving people and equipment to the upper levels, we can consistently perform construction at the surface platforms, thus ensuring safe, efficient construction.
[QUOTE=Elit3s.com;249096]I searched internet and i found something. We all know that global warming bla bla bla, but what if sea level will rise, and Gore is right?
[/QUOTE]
Really cool find, i enjoy looking at those pictures and reading on it.But what would happen if they get hit by a hurricanes, or even worst a tsunami?? I think I can travel on a ship and look for land =p
Gore is not right. Science says otherwise. Global warming may be happening, but it is a normal occurrence and nature is causing it, not humans. Humans only account for around 6% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Yes 6% EXTRA to the atmosphere, the stuff we introduce to the atmosphere is carbon that has been underground for millions of years. That’s different from the natural carbon cycle which is only recycling the carbon currently present in the biosphere. We are adding while the rest of nature is only using what is already there. This means we’re now living with carbon levels that never have been this high since way before there were humans.
What’s happening now is not normal, these boosts in carbon levels in the atmosphere are very rare and have most of the time mass starvation on the planet.
And you really need to come up with something better than that video. There’s a lot of quote mining going on there. There are fragments of John Christy talking about his satellites which are really dated, his statements have proven to be down to a measuring glitch in his satellites, have since been corrected and his findings are now corresponding with the rest of the scientific consensus on global warming.
Gore can be faulted on naming a few wrong consequences (then again, you can offset this with the generally very conservative projections made by the IPCC) to global warming, but there’s not a scratch on the theory itself.
Your missing the point - the 6% , extra or not, is not enough to cause anything to fuss about. The earth naturally creates much more than this. CO2 is not the main factor in temperature and climate change, water vapor is (yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas)
The amount of CO2 (the gas that people claim is the culprit) we put into the atmosphere is not nearly enough to cause any harm to us or the environment. Simply science and common sense can confirm this, since in the past there was much more vegetation on the planet, thus a higher percentage of CO2 in the air, and humans (and the planet) were doing just fine. As far as other gases we create, like methane, these are even lower in percentages than the CO2 we create.
They also don’t tell you about the benefits of putting more CO2 in the air. Plants and vegetables would thrive, crops would yield more product, and even still, humans and the environment would be fine.
But isn’t the current speed in which we put more CO2 in the atmosphere the main concern?
Yes, it’s a cycle, but normally it takes thousands/millions of years and now it rises in a few centuries.
And yes, sea levelrise happend in the past aswell, and humans would be fine.
But these days we are economically dependent on the sea level. (People would need to relocate, industries would be gone. The consequences in the present are much higher then in the past)
(People would need to relocate, industries would be gone. The consequences in the present are much higher then in the past)
This has nothing to do with is global man made vs natural. Whether the sea levels rose naturally or because of man, everything you proposed would still happen - this is more of a location problem (building industry on coastlines, etc.) or building them not equipped to deal with natural phenomenon.
This isn’t addressing Toka’s point about the gases being in addition to the natural ones.
CO2 is not the main factor in temperature and climate change, water vapor is (yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas)
Which means carbon can be ignored why?
The amount of CO2 (the gas that people claim is the culprit) we put into the atmosphere is not nearly enough to cause any harm to us or the environment.
Do mainstream scientists claim it is the culprit or one of a variety of causes? Are you arguing against the scientific or the popular position?
Simply science and common sense can confirm this, since in the past there was much more vegetation on the planet, thus a higher percentage of CO2 in the air,
When was this?
and humans (and the planet) were doing just fine.
Are you saying your immediately previous claim was simultaneous with this one?
As far as other gases we create, like methane, these are even lower in percentages than the CO2 we create.
This is your chance to own up and say why you’ve just made a wholly disingenuous point before I do it for you.
They also don’t tell you about the benefits of putting more CO2 in the air. Plants and vegetables would thrive, crops would yield more product, and even still, humans and the environment would be fine.
Benefits for the equator or the temperate zone? For coasts or interiors?
Look, you’re confusing the natural greenhouse gasses, responsible for a stable climate, to the gasses we add to it. Before we arrived on the scene, the carbon cycle was pretty much closed for millions of years. The emissions we put in our atmosphere aren’t going anywhere, they are taken up in the cycle and the overall greenhouse gasses, are increased.
Yes water vapour is a great contributor of this. But water vapour isn’t directly added to the atmosphere, it can be seen as a stable factor. Scientists aren’t warning for the greenhouse effect itself, there wouldn’t be life without the greenhouse effect. They’re warning for the shift in the balance we’re causing.
We have a lot of leverage on the global temperature. The natural greenhouse effect keeps the earth twenty degrees warmer than it would otherwise be. Depending on our actions, the temperature will rise between two and six degrees Celsius this century. That’s choosing between mildly disastrous and catastrophic.
The amount of CO2 (the gas that people claim is the culprit).we put into the atmosphere is not nearly enough to cause any harm to us or the environment.
Again, we’re talking about a climb of several degrees within one century here. That’s a huge change which will impact the lives of almost everyone on the planet.
Simply science and common sense can confirm this, since in the past there was much more vegetation on the planet, thus a higher percentage of CO2 in the air, and humans (and the planet) were doing just fine.
Humans have never encountered these levels of carbon dioxide before. Nor did we ever have such a huge population dependant on such an integral global distribution network for just about everything we need. You can’t **** with that too much, we’ve already seen the chaos that erupts if the food prices rise by a few percentages.
As far as other gases we create, like methane, these are even lower in percentages than the CO2 we create.
Yes but methane has a much higher radiative forcing than carbon-dioxide. 25 times to be precise. It’s been increasing since 1750 and is now responsible for about 20% of the greenhouse effect. This due to our livestock converting carbon within the biosphere into methane and fossil methane leaking from the permafrost, acting like a catalyst in the cycle. Definitely something to be wary off.
They also don’t tell you about the benefits of putting more CO2 in the air. Plants and vegetables would thrive, crops would yield more product, and even still, humans and the environment would be fine.
Yes plants and vegetables tend to grow larger with higher CO2 levels, this often means they become less nutritious as well as requiring more water to grow. Hardly a benefit.
And then let’s not forget that a changing climate is a huge threat to our food production. Extreme weather and more dhrought means more destruction of arable land and less food. We noticed this last year with Russia’s drought and wildfires destroying large parts of the grain harvest prompting putin to halt grain export so the national foodprices would remain stable.
Hm, an authorative establishment holding resources for it’s own population, that sounds familiar. Brink touches upon reality in other areas than just climate change.
Because 1) we simply do not produce enough and 2) it is not proven that CO2 drives climate change.
his isn’t addressing Toka’s point about the gases being in addition to the natural ones.
Which means carbon can be ignored why?
The “extra” that we produce isn’t catastrophic or even a problem, since the natural CO2 that is produced isn’t tat high to begin with. It’s like pouring a a glass full of fuel into a half full gas tank - the tank still isn’t full. Water vapor comprises about 97% of all greenhouse gases in the air. CO2 produces around 2%, with the rest being CFC’s, N2O and methane. There just simply isn’t enough.
And most of the world’s carbon is trapped in sedimentary rock, not the atmosphere.
When was this?
If I need to explain to you that at one time plants and other vegetation were more plentiful then they are now, you are a lost cause.
Benefits for the equator or the temperate zone? For coasts or interiors?
They currently have greenhouses producing plants and vegetables, with elevated levels of CO2, that are still not harmful to humans and/or the environment, and elevated CO2 levels in the natural environment would do the same. I really don’t think it matters where.
Again, we’re talking about a climb of several degrees within one century here. That’s a huge change which will impact the lives of almost everyone on the planet.
But it is not proven to be directly connected to man made CO2 emissions. There have been several “extreme” hot and cold periods throughout time that occurred naturally.
Humans have never encountered these levels of carbon dioxide before. Nor did we ever have such a huge population dependant on such an integral global distribution network for just about everything we need. You can’t **** with that too much, we’ve already seen the chaos that erupts if the food prices rise by a few percentages.
Again, this isn’t climate concern it is a culture concern. If the population is so dependent on a global distribution network, then maybe it’s time to change the system.
Yes plants and vegetables tend to grow larger with higher CO2 levels, this often means they become less nutritious as well as requiring more water to grow. Hardly a benefit.
Actually, you’re completely wrong. More CO2 means less water to grow, since it is getting the elevated amounts of CO2. It’s comparable to Humans using pure oxygen to heal faster.
Hm, an authorative establishment holding resources for it’s own population, that sounds familiar. Brink touches upon reality in other areas than just climate change.
This is what the current “alarmists” (like Al Gore) are in it for. Spreading fear and concern (falsely) to persuade congress to pass legislature that appears to be good for the environment, but really only benefits the elite.
Horse isn’t being disingenuous, it’s the disinformation that looks legit and misdirecting many people who are genuinely interested in this subject that is disingenuous. There’s tremendous effort being thrown into causing doubt and confusion and you can blame people for hitting on the wrong sources of information.
Yes it’s definitely been proven. We know the radiative forcing of carbondioxide and we know the amount we put into the atmosphere. The only uncertain factor is us and how our emissions will look like in the future. As I said, it’s up to us to say whether we climb between two and six degrees.
Nope, worldwide, volcanoes contribute on a yearly basis 500 times less carbon to the atmosphere than we do. Volcanoes do have a huge effect on the climate when it comes to aerosols which can cool us down significantly.
Again, this isn’t climate concern it is a culture concern. If the population is so dependent on a global distribution network, then maybe it’s time to change the system.
By all means, climate change is mainly a problem for us humans. Our own planet can deal with it just fine. The problem is that climate change makes the planet a much less habitable place just when our population is about to peak. These two events combined means there will be tremendous amounts of human suffering which is what we’re so concerned about.
