Understanding Human-Induced Global Warming

by **bdewoody** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:14 pm

Well the bottom line is we do need to find better ways to do many of the things we do every day. In my opinion no matter what we do if we do not curb population growth it will not be enough.

by **cyclonebuster** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:01 pm

bdewoody wrote:Well the bottom line is we do need to find better ways to do many of the things we do every day. In my opinion no matter what we do if we do not curb population growth it will not be enough.

Well, we can have WWIII and kill off a few billion people or we can build my "Underwater Suspension Tunnel" idea and let about 10 billion more people prosper on Gods Good Earth.

by **bdewoody** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:00 pm

cyclonebuster wrote:
bdewoody wrote:Well the bottom line is we do need to find better ways to do many of the things we do every day. In my opinion no matter what we do if we do not curb population growth it will not be enough.

Well, we can have WWIII and kill off a few billion people or we can build my "Underwater Suspension Tunnel" idea and let about 10 billion more people prosper on Gods Good Earth.

I think I would rather live on the moon than one or two miles under the ocean. It will be a lot easier to establish colonies on the moon than under the ocean as the pressure differential is much smaller and at least on the moon we can't pollute the oceans.

by **cyclonebuster** » Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:03 pm

Seems no one but me understands the good that the tunnels can do for Gods Good Earth!

by **doom_shepherd** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:43 am

cyclonebuster wrote:Seems no one but me understands the good that the tunnels can do for Gods Good Earth!

Seems to me that people who overuse the phrase "God's Good Earth" may have other issues they need to address.

In any case, the environmental steps that we do need to take, we need to take for one simple reason... an intelligent animal does not foul its own nest.

The problem is that too many of us want to think globally, but not bother to act locally, or on any other scale.

I mean it says a lot when the chief political proponent of "DO SOMETHING!" had a huge, energy-inefficient mansion. I mean yeah, he buys 'carbon offsets'... from a company he owns part of. That's cool. (Thanks for telling us, Penn & Teller!)

OTOH, the guy everybody hated? his Texas ranch home was actually a model of efficiency.

Who's worse, the guy who doesn't practice what he preaches, or the guy who practices, but doesn't preach?

So, you know. Recycle. Fix your home use. Better appliances. Better insulation. Turn off the damn computer/TV/Xbox and go for a walk or read a book. Make your kids do the same. It adds up.

by **bdewoody** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:44 am

If you are talking about a tunnel that crosses the Atlantic I've seen stories about that concept for years. I just don't see where such a tunnel has many practical applications. And like I said developing an infrastructure for millions of us to live on the bottom of the oceans would be more difficult than developing the moon.

by **cyclonebuster** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:00 am

bdewoody wrote:If you are talking about a tunnel that crosses the Atlantic I've seen stories about that concept for years. I just don't see where such a tunnel has many practical applications. And like I said developing an infrastructure for millions of us to live on the bottom of the oceans would be more difficult than developing the moon.

See what I mean? No concept!

by **bdewoody** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:41 am

cyclonebuster wrote:
bdewoody wrote:If you are talking about a tunnel that crosses the Atlantic I've seen stories about that concept for years. I just don't see where such a tunnel has many practical applications. And like I said developing an infrastructure for millions of us to live on the bottom of the oceans would be more difficult than developing the moon.

See what I mean? No concept!

Well, show us some back up for your claim that undersea tunnels will solve our global warming problem.

by **MannyPim** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:48 am

I think that a discussion of underwater tunnels is off topic for this thread. Please begin or resurrect a thread on underwater tunnels if you wish to get into details. They may or may not have an impact on Global Warming but the topic at hand is far wider ranging than a single hypothetical solution... And in order to begin proposing solutions, one needs to clearly understand the problem.... understanding of the problem IS in fact the topic of discussion here.

My own contention, as detailed in a previous post, is that we are far from understanding the problem and that we are putting the cart before the horse in attempting to implement "solutions" which can potentially cause much more harm than the Climate Change itself.

by **cyclonebuster** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:25 pm

bdewoody wrote:
cyclonebuster wrote:
bdewoody wrote:If you are talking about a tunnel that crosses the Atlantic I've seen stories about that concept for years. I just don't see where such a tunnel has many practical applications. And like I said developing an infrastructure for millions of us to live on the bottom of the oceans would be more difficult than developing the moon.

See what I mean? No concept!

Well, show us some back up for your claim that undersea tunnels will solve our global warming problem.

Play and read caption on this video as to a brief explaination as to what they can do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6O6UHpKT_E

View this video to see a ~1/650 scale model that is actually working in a creek where the flow is about 20 times less than what the gulfstream actually is yet it still works perfectly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fh_RXiEinU

Become a Space Member

Curious? Join our community!