I agree Eversmallx, the world will always live on, dont worry about that, instead worry about the human specie, our so called civilisation will most likely not live on if the polution and global warming and consumption keeps its curve.
).
It's simply a case of being more restrictive over the use of fossil fuels and to slowly introduce secondary methods of providing electricity. Unfortunately, unless governments dedicate big big money (for nuclear power stations & nuclear fission - and possibly a way to find SAFER ways of conducting nuclear fission - not to mention other methods) then we are set for a temperature increase.
That said, alot of the problems in the upper atmosphere is natural too. That is why ice ages HAVE existed in the past. CO2 rates increase in the atmopshere with or without human interference. Water vapour is the main issue that is caused by natural sources. it accounts for the most problems in the upper atmosphere (iirc). Sure, changing our ways will slow it down but we're due for the problems of this situation soon anyway (perhaps not 'soon' in human years
Don't forget about the processes that occur in the earth's oceans that release a heck of a lot of pollution into the atmosphere. Volcanoes too and the decaying of land plants over time.
Finally, I don't know how it is best to tackle this issue but the Kyoto agreement and other such things will not be taken seriously by some countries. They are not likely to adheer to it's rules and even so, the effects will be minimal. I'd take a more natural approach and try to minimize deforestation (the respiration cycle takes up CO2 - getting rid of large amounts of forestry severely hurts this process). Perhaps even plant more trees in large amounts.
Not to mention, when the sea levels do rise, the sea will simply contain more CO2 - which should reduce the problem somewhat.
Ahh the joys of discussions in Biology!
Note: Methane gas is not really a problem as it can be burnt to provide energy if used in the right conditions. If it was controlled, it would be quite an efficient source. Not to mention that methane isn't that big a contribute to global warming as CO2 and gas-contained water vapour. I'm pretty sure rural Chinese farmers use anaerobic (or is it aerobic) respiration in their own sewage to allow the bacteria to break down the organic matter - producing methane.
It's simply a case of being more restrictive over the use of fossil fuels and to slowly introduce secondary methods of providing electricity. Unfortunately, unless governments dedicate big big money (for nuclear power stations & nuclear fission - and possibly a way to find SAFER ways of conducting nuclear fission - not to mention other methods) then we are set for a temperature increase.
That said, alot of the problems in the upper atmosphere is natural too. That is why ice ages HAVE existed in the past. CO2 rates increase in the atmopshere with or without human interference. Water vapour is the main issue that is caused by natural sources. it accounts for the most problems in the upper atmosphere (iirc). Sure, changing our ways will slow it down but we're due for the problems of this situation soon anyway (perhaps not 'soon' in human years
Don't forget about the processes that occur in the earth's oceans that release a heck of a lot of pollution into the atmosphere. Volcanoes too and the decaying of land plants over time.
Finally, I don't know how it is best to tackle this issue but the Kyoto agreement and other such things will not be taken seriously by some countries. They are not likely to adheer to it's rules and even so, the effects will be minimal. I'd take a more natural approach and try to minimize deforestation (the respiration cycle takes up CO2 - getting rid of large amounts of forestry severely hurts this process). Perhaps even plant more trees in large amounts.
Not to mention, when the sea levels do rise, the sea will simply contain more CO2 - which should reduce the problem somewhat.
Ahh the joys of discussions in Biology!
Note: Methane gas is not really a problem as it can be burnt to provide energy if used in the right conditions. If it was controlled, it would be quite an efficient source. Not to mention that methane isn't that big a contribute to global warming as CO2 and gas-contained water vapour. I'm pretty sure rural Chinese farmers use anaerobic (or is it aerobic) respiration in their own sewage to allow the bacteria to break down the organic matter - producing methane.
There's also the option of being economical with your energy-use. It's not a choice between using all energy you can or not using energy at all. I agree that "save the planet" is a silly thing to say though. It should be about saving the humans who will suffer the effects of the climate changes.
