<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Aug 25 2004, 01:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Aug 25 2004, 01:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You have computer bugs on one hand(which can be fixed easily) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited August 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Aug 25 2004, 01:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Aug 25 2004, 01:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 24 2004, 10:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 24 2004, 10:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those of you who think we are going to run out of oil ought to read up on <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization' target='_blank'>Thermal Depolymerization</a> which allows fossil fuel to be made from any organic waste. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can make oil, its just that its VERY expensive and its not worth the cost to do it. Its much easier to drill a bunch of holes in the ground and just suck it out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> you might want to read a little more about it. Changing World Technologies is currently making a good amount of money turning turkey guts into fuel.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 25 2004, 01:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 25 2004, 01:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Aug 25 2004, 01:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Aug 25 2004, 01:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 24 2004, 10:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 24 2004, 10:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those of you who think we are going to run out of oil ought to read up on <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization' target='_blank'>Thermal Depolymerization</a> which allows fossil fuel to be made from any organic waste. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can make oil, its just that its VERY expensive and its not worth the cost to do it. Its much easier to drill a bunch of holes in the ground and just suck it out.
As for the possibility of this happening, it could very much happen. This isn't the same thing as the Y2K scare. You have computer bugs on one hand(which can be fixed easily), and you have oil which is scarce and finite for the most part. You can't compare the two.
Do I think that this will happen within a year or so? No but its going to happen eventually and this is why Bush should be spending more money on technology for alternative sources for energy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> you might want to read a little more about it. Changing World Technologies is currently making a good amount of money turning turkey guts into fuel. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And as soon as we loose full, the turkeys population will soon plummet into extinction.
<!--QuoteBegin-2_of_8+Aug 24 2004, 11:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (2_of_8 @ Aug 24 2004, 11:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Gadzuko+Aug 25 2004, 12:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gadzuko @ Aug 25 2004, 12:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Meh. I'm not a scientist, nothing I can do about it. No point worrying about it if there's nothing I can change, now is there? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can use public transport instead of driving your car. You can carpool when possible. You can install solar panels at your home. You can conserve electricity (after all, it's generated from (mainly) fossil fuels). More? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My friends and I always carpool, my house has solar panels, there is virtually no public transit where I live and I prefer fresh air to A/C anyway.
Like I said, no point worrying about it if there's nothing I can change.
Powered by love. Man, we're going to have the fastest ship in the sea. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Oo! We get to say argh! ARGH!! I call captain.
<b>Summary:</b> Current oil techniques are able to extract only 30% of the total oil out of a well. New techniques are being developed that would bring this number up significantly, and deep sea explorations are finding billions of barrels of oil underwater in regions we can now drill with new technology.
<b>Second</b>, A process has been developed to turn organic matter into oil. Currently a test facility has been built in Missouri.
<b>Summary:</b> Waste can now be turned into oil. It literaly eats organic garbage and outputs oil.
<b>Finaly</b>, unfortunatly the continued use of oil could lead to an enviromental catastrophe, putting large parts of the world underwater and killing hundreds of millions from lack of food (climate change and rising sea levels destroying farmland) or lack of anywhere to go (overcrowding as costal populations push inland). Maby it would be better if the oil ran out, leading to an economic collapse, rather then an enviromental one. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It's because if you burn oil in REAL masses and KEEP BURNING it, in connection with the destructiong of the planet's lungs one day the air might (will) become toxic. Living underwater and extracting oxigen from the water would help <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I know what you're saying, but seeing "the planet's lungs" made me pause. Besides that, man only accounts for a small portion of the toxins released into the air. Natural occurrences account for a far greater percentage - and it's some nasty toxins (but are removed naturally).
Nature all alone keeps the toxid levels in the air at a breathable level, otherwise man would not have ben able to develope over such a long timespan. So it's man's fault to poison himself, not nature.
<!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Aug 24 2004, 09:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Aug 24 2004, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I quite like hydroelectricity, though it's hard to generate in the US. (Go Canada! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> We store electricity and sell it to the US, and we still have enough stored to power Quebec and Ontario for 15 years if we can suddenly generate no more power.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> cows dont need electricity. there are more cows than people in canada <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Aug 25 2004, 02:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Aug 25 2004, 02:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nuclear energy is an excellent solution to tide us over after oil, it's reliable, it's clean -in its own way, and due to modern safety procedures it's pretty safe.
The only draw back is the waste, which will practically NEVER go away, the only answer for this I can think of is to jettison the waste into space. It's just not good for us to be putting it into the ground as it is, and if we were to rely on it much more heavily we would have to get ride of the waste this way.
I can't think of anything else? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ever heard of Chenobyl?
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 25 2004, 02:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 25 2004, 02:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How would oil put the world underwater? It's certainly not through global warming. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you have any sourses to prove that the melting of the polar caps will not increase the water levels? Just out of curiosity?
Personally I am hoping we can find a way to get as much friggin oil as possible out of the earth and then be able to burn it all up. As of now we have sped the rates of global cycles up exponentially with the increasing polutants we have spewn into the air. Global warming is very much a fact, so let me outline how it will look.
1) CO2 and what not gets spewn into the air by factories and cows and other human byproducts
2) Ice caps and permfrost melts, increasing water levels in the world, spewing out more CO2 (like 50% more than we currently have) and heating is also further increased by the lack of white ice to reflect sunlight back into space.
3) More water + More heat + More CO2 = alot more humid global climates and alot more plantlife (think dinosaur era tropical jungles, all over the place, and more so then there really was then)
4) 1 of three things happens next, either a commet hits earth, yellow stone erupts, or so much heat enters the atmosphere that global cloud cover becomes so dence from increased evaporation that the sunlight can barely peirce through (clouds = white = sunlight get reflected, just like off of ice caps
5) global temperatures drop dramaticly, and all the icy goodness that we have in the world right now comes back, just like 25 times worse than we have right now (read ice age)
6) hopefully we have the technology to heat up the earth signifigantly at this point, otherwize there is a good chance that all the water on the planet will freeze up (due to the rapidly sped up global cycles potentially creating a much more violent ice age than natural, this is just theory craft, but is possible)
7) if 6 doesn't pan out we may be looking at a shortened 50-80 thousand year ice age (increased global cycles, the positive side). Not exacly the most plesant experiance ever, but mamals survived the ice age last time, and eskamo's lived in the ice for a long long time ok, so our chances aren't terrible there, expecially if we can find alternitive energy sourses to heat us up nice and dandy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Thursday-+Aug 25 2004, 02:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thursday- @ Aug 25 2004, 02:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Aug 25 2004, 02:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Aug 25 2004, 02:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nuclear energy is an excellent solution to tide us over after oil, it's reliable, it's clean -in its own way, and due to modern safety procedures it's pretty safe.
The only draw back is the waste, which will practically NEVER go away, the only answer for this I can think of is to jettison the waste into space. It's just not good for us to be putting it into the ground as it is, and if we were to rely on it much more heavily we would have to get ride of the waste this way.
I can't think of anything else? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ever heard of Chenobyl? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That was due to crimianlly neglagent upkeeping processes. Basicly they just started the plant up and let it run itself until it exploded.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 24 2004, 10:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 24 2004, 10:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Aug 25 2004, 01:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Aug 25 2004, 01:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You have computer bugs on one hand(which can be fixed easily) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I meant easily relative to fixing the oil problem. But bugs are really more annoying then hard, it just takes time to find the little buggers.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Aug 25 2004, 08:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Aug 25 2004, 08:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 25 2004, 02:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 25 2004, 02:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How would oil put the world underwater? It's certainly not through global warming. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you have any sourses to prove that the melting of the polar caps will not increase the water levels? Just out of curiosity?
Personally I am hoping we can find a way to get as much friggin oil as possible out of the earth and then be able to burn it all up. As of now we have sped the rates of global cycles up exponentially with the increasing polutants we have spewn into the air. Global warming is very much a fact, so let me outline how it will look.
1) CO2 and what not gets spewn into the air by factories and cows and other human byproducts
2) Ice caps and permfrost melts, increasing water levels in the world, spewing out more CO2 (like 50% more than we currently have) and heating is also further increased by the lack of white ice to reflect sunlight back into space.
3) More water + More heat + More CO2 = alot more humid global climates and alot more plantlife (think dinosaur era tropical jungles, all over the place, and more so then there really was then)
4) 1 of three things happens next, either a commet hits earth, yellow stone erupts, or so much heat enters the atmosphere that global cloud cover becomes so dence from increased evaporation that the sunlight can barely peirce through (clouds = white = sunlight get reflected, just like off of ice caps
5) global temperatures drop dramaticly, and all the icy goodness that we have in the world right now comes back, just like 25 times worse than we have right now (read ice age)
6) hopefully we have the technology to heat up the earth signifigantly at this point, otherwize there is a good chance that all the water on the planet will freeze up (due to the rapidly sped up global cycles potentially creating a much more violent ice age than natural, this is just theory craft, but is possible)
7) if 6 doesn't pan out we may be looking at a shortened 50-80 thousand year ice age (increased global cycles, the positive side). Not exacly the most plesant experiance ever, but mamals survived the ice age last time, and eskamo's lived in the ice for a long long time ok, so our chances aren't terrible there, expecially if we can find alternitive energy sourses to heat us up nice and dandy.
[edit] added spacing for ease of reading <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The Arctic will not but Antarctica will, why you say? The Arctic ice is floating on water, and if you melt ice in to a full glass of water you will realise that the ice does not increase the water level. However if you put a full glass of water with say a floating dish and you let the ice melt in to the glass of water it will over flow.
<!--QuoteBegin-Thursday-+Aug 25 2004, 03:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thursday- @ Aug 25 2004, 03:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ::my quoted post removed to save space::
The Arctic will not but Antarctica will, why you say? The Arctic ice is floating on water, and if you melt ice in to a full glass of water you will realise that the ice does not increase the water level. However if you put a full glass of water with say a floating dish and you let the ice melt in to the glass of water it will over flow. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And Antartica will most likely melt at some point as well. In all likely hood we will see a signifigant drop in the water tables before that point though... The perma frost area's (roughtly half the world has a perma frost layer) are capable of retaining alot more water then they currenty are after they defrost. So there will be tonnes of warning on that front which area's are liquifying. With greater heat there will most likely be massive levels of water retention in the atmosphere as vapor and clouds, and finally increasing CO2 and atmospheric water levels will mean alot more trees and plants pretty much everywhere (good bye deserts, plains and grasslands), and standing plants retain alot of water...
There's a kind of layer on the seabed, I forget what it's called but at a certain critical temperature they melt and spew out loads of methane.
Methane is extremely effective as a greenhouse gas, moreso then CO2, which may trigger a runaway effect. It's theorised that the combined effects of a massive volcanic eruption (somewhere in the region of russia if memory serves) and the the subsequent 5 degree temperature rise caused this methane layer in the seabed to melt, making the temperature rise another 5 degrees.
The result was a 10 degree rise in temperature and 99.99% of all life on the planet exterminated. It was called the permian extinction and makes the extinction of the dinosaurs look like so much pance in comparison.
The main stumbling block when it comes to simulated global warming though is clouds. Like it or not different types of clouds have different effects on temperature.
Bear in mind this is from memory, so forgive me if I get pertinent details wrong.
Cumulus clouds tend to reflect light away and are "good" in that they reduce the effect of warming. Cirrus clouds are "bad" in that they trap heat in and contribute. So far we've been lucky and have been having a good bout with cumulus clouds but if cirrus clouds start popping up more and more often we may be sold up the river as, in the worst case scenario when clouds are factored in, we could be heading for a 12 degree temperature jump (though 6 - 8 degrees is more likely).
Well, all we need is another 56 years, the invention of cryosleep, fusion drives and computer systems that can pilot a ship autonomously for 40 years and we can build ourselves the UNS Unity and fight the fungus. We can forge ourselves a new faction, one based on gaming and the celebration of being the best computer geeks we can be! Who's with me?!
<!--QuoteBegin-Cronos+Aug 25 2004, 04:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos @ Aug 25 2004, 04:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There's a kind of layer on the seabed, I forget what it's called but at a certain critical temperature they melt and spew out loads of methane.
Methane is extremely effective as a greenhouse gas, moreso then CO2, which may trigger a runaway effect. It's theorised that the combined effects of a massive volcanic eruption (somewhere in the region of russia if memory serves) and the the subsequent 5 degree temperature rise caused this methane layer in the seabed to melt, making the temperature rise another 5 degrees.
The result was a 10 degree rise in temperature and 99.99% of all life on the planet exterminated. It was called the permian extinction and makes the extinction of the dinosaurs look like so much pance in comparison.
The main stumbling block when it comes to simulated global warming though is clouds. Like it or not different types of clouds have different effects on temperature.
Bear in mind this is from memory, so forgive me if I get pertinent details wrong.
Cumulus clouds tend to reflect light away and are "good" in that they reduce the effect of warming. Cirrus clouds are "bad" in that they trap heat in and contribute. So far we've been lucky and have been having a good bout with cumulus clouds but if cirrus clouds start popping up more and more often we may be sold up the river as, in the worst case scenario when clouds are factored in, we could be heading for a 12 degree temperature jump (though 6 - 8 degrees is more likely).
Well, all we need is another 56 years, the invention of cryosleep, fusion drives and computer systems that can pilot a ship autonomously for 40 years and we can build ourselves the UNS Unity and fight the fungus. We can forge ourselves a new faction, one based on gaming and the celebration of being the best computer geeks we can be! Who's with me?! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A ten degree rize in temperature is a major distructive factor to planet life such as lizards, coral and mamals, but it would also basicly mean a complete melting of all the planet's permafrost, spewing out about 75% more CO2 into the atmosphere than currently exists, and a massive jump in water evaporation on a global scale. Basicly we would see a global forest bloom of inimaginable preportions. More forest means more life, although many species would have to migrate and reevolve to properly suit thier environment.
Cirrus clouds form thinly (the reason they trap light is that they are thin enough for most light rays to pass through on the first pass, but too thick for diminished light reflecting off the earths surface to pass through), cumulus clouds are thick due to fast evaporation and low winds. With a ten degree increase in temperature and the destruction of the polar caps you can bet there will be TONNES of evaporation, and probably not a whole lot of wind to push it around to much (no zones with large temperature differences means no large winds, as planetary movements and temperature variations cause the vast majority of winds). Most likey you would see a giant cloud belt thick around the equator to the point that a there is a visable decrease in light density in that region pretty much year round, also that region (due to knowticable temperature variations at the top of the cloud cover compared to the bottom) would probably be partial to violent thunder storms and constant rainfall. There would really be no reagion on earth that wasn't experiancing some sort of radical cloud cover, and because of the slow winds most likely it would almost all be cumulus (acctaully it would mostly be clouds alot bigger than your average cumulus cloud).
Worst case scenario would have to be that we get such a violent bout of cloud cover, plants sucking up CO2 and methane (and depositing it into the soil) and a rapid general planetary decrease in temperature, that we have so much ice forming globaly that it covers the entire surface of the ocean compleatly reflecting sun light on a global scale, this combined with the low sunlight permeation levels on a planet that is exorbidantly thick with oxygen could potentially create an unstoppable vicious cooling cycle. Potentially we could see a billion year ice age, or in other words, future earth = mars.
Like I said in the post before though, that's all theory craft though. Enough isn't know about how a superheated planet cools to accurately predict the effect of a massive cloud cover. For all we know the clouds could rapidly dissapate as the ice rapidly forms (or also possible, they could get blown to shreds by new storms caused by new and violent global cooling patterns) and offset ice reflection with greater global water coverage and an increase of cirrus cloud formation.
One way or another, its fairly safe to assume that temperature sensitive species on earth are most likey going the way of the dinosaur within the next few thousand years. Quick someone console the environmentalists!!!
[edit] obvious spelling errors I caught first readthrough.
Just face it. Eventually we will all be sea people, with myself, Davis, whats his face and CWAG sailing around on the surface making tons of hot man secks.
crossing your fingers and hoping "they" come up with something is about the worst thing you can do. americans need to stop depending on "them" and start realizing that "we" are, at the same time, both the problem and the solution. "they" will probably come up with a better, cheaper form of energy sometime in the near future, but even such a omnipotent force as "they" require time and resources to come up with a solution. conservation on our part is the best way to provide "them" with these essentials.
as completely incompetent at supporting his argument as medhead is, he does have a point. the site does hype up the fact a lot, but you're a moron if you don't think oil depletion is a problem.
ps any pirate ship with CWAG on it is doomed to sink under its own weight.
<!--QuoteBegin-Thursday-+Aug 25 2004, 06:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thursday- @ Aug 25 2004, 06:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oil runs out you won't have new pcs. Oil makes plastics, it makes 90% of household items in actualy fact. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ya, but that is just a fraction of its use compared to the ammount we burn for no reason other than that we want to make electricity. And even so, its not like the oil is dissapearing compleatly, we could still synth it for making plastics, or drill at a slower rate with more efficiant extraction methods (as said before, were only getting about 30% out at the moment). Oil based products will be around for a long time, the real threat here is the potential dissapearance of our current most used power sourse...
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Aug 25 2004, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Aug 25 2004, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Thursday-+Aug 25 2004, 06:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thursday- @ Aug 25 2004, 06:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oil runs out you won't have new pcs. Oil makes plastics, it makes 90% of household items in actualy fact. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ya, but that is just a fraction of its use compared to the ammount we burn for no reason other than that we want to make electricity. And even so, its not like the oil is dissapearing compleatly, we could still synth it for making plastics, or drill at a slower rate with more efficiant extraction methods (as said before, were only getting about 30% out at the moment). Oil based products will be around for a long time, the real threat here is the potential dissapearance of our current most used power sourse... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well then why don't we conserve some of this energy by not replying in this post? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Answer that one. lol <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Thursday-+Aug 25 2004, 06:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thursday- @ Aug 25 2004, 06:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oil runs out you won't have new pcs. Oil makes plastics, it makes 90% of household items in actualy fact. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Recyclez!!
But seriously, this year has been colder than before. So global warming is more like global cooling! ha! lozers.
Comments
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
You can make oil, its just that its VERY expensive and its not worth the cost to do it. Its much easier to drill a bunch of holes in the ground and just suck it out.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you might want to read a little more about it. Changing World Technologies is currently making a good amount of money turning turkey guts into fuel.
You can make oil, its just that its VERY expensive and its not worth the cost to do it. Its much easier to drill a bunch of holes in the ground and just suck it out.
As for the possibility of this happening, it could very much happen. This isn't the same thing as the Y2K scare. You have computer bugs on one hand(which can be fixed easily), and you have oil which is scarce and finite for the most part. You can't compare the two.
Do I think that this will happen within a year or so? No but its going to happen eventually and this is why Bush should be spending more money on technology for alternative sources for energy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you might want to read a little more about it. Changing World Technologies is currently making a good amount of money turning turkey guts into fuel. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And as soon as we loose full, the turkeys population will soon plummet into extinction.
You can use public transport instead of driving your car.
You can carpool when possible.
You can install solar panels at your home.
You can conserve electricity (after all, it's generated from (mainly) fossil fuels).
More? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My friends and I always carpool, my house has solar panels, there is virtually no public transit where I live and I prefer fresh air to A/C anyway.
Like I said, no point worrying about it if there's nothing I can change.
<b>Linkage:</b> <a href='http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_6_20/ai_55926786' target='_blank'>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._20/ai_55926786</a>
<b>Summary:</b> Current oil techniques are able to extract only 30% of the total oil out of a well. New techniques are being developed that would bring this number up significantly, and deep sea explorations are finding billions of barrels of oil underwater in regions we can now drill with new technology.
<b>Second</b>, A process has been developed to turn organic matter into oil. Currently a test facility has been built in Missouri.
<b>Linkage:</b> <a href='http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-04/features/anything-into-oil/' target='_blank'>http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-04/feat...thing-into-oil/</a>
<b>Summary:</b> Waste can now be turned into oil. It literaly eats organic garbage and outputs oil.
<b>Finaly</b>, unfortunatly the continued use of oil could lead to an enviromental catastrophe, putting large parts of the world underwater and killing hundreds of millions from lack of food (climate change and rising sea levels destroying farmland) or lack of anywhere to go (overcrowding as costal populations push inland). Maby it would be better if the oil ran out, leading to an economic collapse, rather then an enviromental one. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
cows dont need electricity. there are more cows than people in canada <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The only draw back is the waste, which will practically NEVER go away, the only answer for this I can think of is to jettison the waste into space.
It's just not good for us to be putting it into the ground as it is, and if we were to rely on it much more heavily we would have to get ride of the waste this way.
I can't think of anything else? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever heard of Chenobyl?
Do you have any sourses to prove that the melting of the polar caps will not increase the water levels? Just out of curiosity?
Personally I am hoping we can find a way to get as much friggin oil as possible out of the earth and then be able to burn it all up. As of now we have sped the rates of global cycles up exponentially with the increasing polutants we have spewn into the air. Global warming is very much a fact, so let me outline how it will look.
1) CO2 and what not gets spewn into the air by factories and cows and other human byproducts
2) Ice caps and permfrost melts, increasing water levels in the world, spewing out more CO2 (like 50% more than we currently have) and heating is also further increased by the lack of white ice to reflect sunlight back into space.
3) More water + More heat + More CO2 = alot more humid global climates and alot more plantlife (think dinosaur era tropical jungles, all over the place, and more so then there really was then)
4) 1 of three things happens next, either a commet hits earth, yellow stone erupts, or so much heat enters the atmosphere that global cloud cover becomes so dence from increased evaporation that the sunlight can barely peirce through (clouds = white = sunlight get reflected, just like off of ice caps
5) global temperatures drop dramaticly, and all the icy goodness that we have in the world right now comes back, just like 25 times worse than we have right now (read ice age)
6) hopefully we have the technology to heat up the earth signifigantly at this point, otherwize there is a good chance that all the water on the planet will freeze up (due to the rapidly sped up global cycles potentially creating a much more violent ice age than natural, this is just theory craft, but is possible)
7) if 6 doesn't pan out we may be looking at a shortened 50-80 thousand year ice age (increased global cycles, the positive side). Not exacly the most plesant experiance ever, but mamals survived the ice age last time, and eskamo's lived in the ice for a long long time ok, so our chances aren't terrible there, expecially if we can find alternitive energy sourses to heat us up nice and dandy.
[edit] added spacing for ease of reading
The only draw back is the waste, which will practically NEVER go away, the only answer for this I can think of is to jettison the waste into space.
It's just not good for us to be putting it into the ground as it is, and if we were to rely on it much more heavily we would have to get ride of the waste this way.
I can't think of anything else? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever heard of Chenobyl? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was due to crimianlly neglagent upkeeping processes. Basicly they just started the plant up and let it run itself until it exploded.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I meant easily relative to fixing the oil problem. But bugs are really more annoying then hard, it just takes time to find the little buggers.
Do you have any sourses to prove that the melting of the polar caps will not increase the water levels? Just out of curiosity?
Personally I am hoping we can find a way to get as much friggin oil as possible out of the earth and then be able to burn it all up. As of now we have sped the rates of global cycles up exponentially with the increasing polutants we have spewn into the air. Global warming is very much a fact, so let me outline how it will look.
1) CO2 and what not gets spewn into the air by factories and cows and other human byproducts
2) Ice caps and permfrost melts, increasing water levels in the world, spewing out more CO2 (like 50% more than we currently have) and heating is also further increased by the lack of white ice to reflect sunlight back into space.
3) More water + More heat + More CO2 = alot more humid global climates and alot more plantlife (think dinosaur era tropical jungles, all over the place, and more so then there really was then)
4) 1 of three things happens next, either a commet hits earth, yellow stone erupts, or so much heat enters the atmosphere that global cloud cover becomes so dence from increased evaporation that the sunlight can barely peirce through (clouds = white = sunlight get reflected, just like off of ice caps
5) global temperatures drop dramaticly, and all the icy goodness that we have in the world right now comes back, just like 25 times worse than we have right now (read ice age)
6) hopefully we have the technology to heat up the earth signifigantly at this point, otherwize there is a good chance that all the water on the planet will freeze up (due to the rapidly sped up global cycles potentially creating a much more violent ice age than natural, this is just theory craft, but is possible)
7) if 6 doesn't pan out we may be looking at a shortened 50-80 thousand year ice age (increased global cycles, the positive side). Not exacly the most plesant experiance ever, but mamals survived the ice age last time, and eskamo's lived in the ice for a long long time ok, so our chances aren't terrible there, expecially if we can find alternitive energy sourses to heat us up nice and dandy.
[edit] added spacing for ease of reading <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Arctic will not but Antarctica will, why you say? The Arctic ice is floating on water, and if you melt ice in to a full glass of water you will realise that the ice does not increase the water level. However if you put a full glass of water with say a floating dish and you let the ice melt in to the glass of water it will over flow.
No. Its ARGH!!!!!
The Arctic will not but Antarctica will, why you say? The Arctic ice is floating on water, and if you melt ice in to a full glass of water you will realise that the ice does not increase the water level. However if you put a full glass of water with say a floating dish and you let the ice melt in to the glass of water it will over flow. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Antartica will most likely melt at some point as well. In all likely hood we will see a signifigant drop in the water tables before that point though... The perma frost area's (roughtly half the world has a perma frost layer) are capable of retaining alot more water then they currenty are after they defrost. So there will be tonnes of warning on that front which area's are liquifying. With greater heat there will most likely be massive levels of water retention in the atmosphere as vapor and clouds, and finally increasing CO2 and atmospheric water levels will mean alot more trees and plants pretty much everywhere (good bye deserts, plains and grasslands), and standing plants retain alot of water...
Methane is extremely effective as a greenhouse gas, moreso then CO2, which may trigger a runaway effect. It's theorised that the combined effects of a massive volcanic eruption (somewhere in the region of russia if memory serves) and the the subsequent 5 degree temperature rise caused this methane layer in the seabed to melt, making the temperature rise another 5 degrees.
The result was a 10 degree rise in temperature and 99.99% of all life on the planet exterminated. It was called the permian extinction and makes the extinction of the dinosaurs look like so much pance in comparison.
The main stumbling block when it comes to simulated global warming though is clouds. Like it or not different types of clouds have different effects on temperature.
Bear in mind this is from memory, so forgive me if I get pertinent details wrong.
Cumulus clouds tend to reflect light away and are "good" in that they reduce the effect of warming. Cirrus clouds are "bad" in that they trap heat in and contribute. So far we've been lucky and have been having a good bout with cumulus clouds but if cirrus clouds start popping up more and more often we may be sold up the river as, in the worst case scenario when clouds are factored in, we could be heading for a 12 degree temperature jump (though 6 - 8 degrees is more likely).
Well, all we need is another 56 years, the invention of cryosleep, fusion drives and computer systems that can pilot a ship autonomously for 40 years and we can build ourselves the UNS Unity and fight the fungus. We can forge ourselves a new faction, one based on gaming and the celebration of being the best computer geeks we can be! Who's with me?!
Methane is extremely effective as a greenhouse gas, moreso then CO2, which may trigger a runaway effect. It's theorised that the combined effects of a massive volcanic eruption (somewhere in the region of russia if memory serves) and the the subsequent 5 degree temperature rise caused this methane layer in the seabed to melt, making the temperature rise another 5 degrees.
The result was a 10 degree rise in temperature and 99.99% of all life on the planet exterminated. It was called the permian extinction and makes the extinction of the dinosaurs look like so much pance in comparison.
The main stumbling block when it comes to simulated global warming though is clouds. Like it or not different types of clouds have different effects on temperature.
Bear in mind this is from memory, so forgive me if I get pertinent details wrong.
Cumulus clouds tend to reflect light away and are "good" in that they reduce the effect of warming. Cirrus clouds are "bad" in that they trap heat in and contribute. So far we've been lucky and have been having a good bout with cumulus clouds but if cirrus clouds start popping up more and more often we may be sold up the river as, in the worst case scenario when clouds are factored in, we could be heading for a 12 degree temperature jump (though 6 - 8 degrees is more likely).
Well, all we need is another 56 years, the invention of cryosleep, fusion drives and computer systems that can pilot a ship autonomously for 40 years and we can build ourselves the UNS Unity and fight the fungus. We can forge ourselves a new faction, one based on gaming and the celebration of being the best computer geeks we can be! Who's with me?! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A ten degree rize in temperature is a major distructive factor to planet life such as lizards, coral and mamals, but it would also basicly mean a complete melting of all the planet's permafrost, spewing out about 75% more CO2 into the atmosphere than currently exists, and a massive jump in water evaporation on a global scale. Basicly we would see a global forest bloom of inimaginable preportions. More forest means more life, although many species would have to migrate and reevolve to properly suit thier environment.
Cirrus clouds form thinly (the reason they trap light is that they are thin enough for most light rays to pass through on the first pass, but too thick for diminished light reflecting off the earths surface to pass through), cumulus clouds are thick due to fast evaporation and low winds. With a ten degree increase in temperature and the destruction of the polar caps you can bet there will be TONNES of evaporation, and probably not a whole lot of wind to push it around to much (no zones with large temperature differences means no large winds, as planetary movements and temperature variations cause the vast majority of winds). Most likey you would see a giant cloud belt thick around the equator to the point that a there is a visable decrease in light density in that region pretty much year round, also that region (due to knowticable temperature variations at the top of the cloud cover compared to the bottom) would probably be partial to violent thunder storms and constant rainfall. There would really be no reagion on earth that wasn't experiancing some sort of radical cloud cover, and because of the slow winds most likely it would almost all be cumulus (acctaully it would mostly be clouds alot bigger than your average cumulus cloud).
Worst case scenario would have to be that we get such a violent bout of cloud cover, plants sucking up CO2 and methane (and depositing it into the soil) and a rapid general planetary decrease in temperature, that we have so much ice forming globaly that it covers the entire surface of the ocean compleatly reflecting sun light on a global scale, this combined with the low sunlight permeation levels on a planet that is exorbidantly thick with oxygen could potentially create an unstoppable vicious cooling cycle. Potentially we could see a billion year ice age, or in other words, future earth = mars.
Like I said in the post before though, that's all theory craft though. Enough isn't know about how a superheated planet cools to accurately predict the effect of a massive cloud cover. For all we know the clouds could rapidly dissapate as the ice rapidly forms (or also possible, they could get blown to shreds by new storms caused by new and violent global cooling patterns) and offset ice reflection with greater global water coverage and an increase of cirrus cloud formation.
One way or another, its fairly safe to assume that temperature sensitive species on earth are most likey going the way of the dinosaur within the next few thousand years. Quick someone console the environmentalists!!!
[edit] obvious spelling errors I caught first readthrough.
<b>Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</b>
as completely incompetent at supporting his argument as medhead is, he does have a point. the site does hype up the fact a lot, but you're a moron if you don't think oil depletion is a problem.
ps any pirate ship with CWAG on it is doomed to sink under its own weight.
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Ya, but that is just a fraction of its use compared to the ammount we burn for no reason other than that we want to make electricity. And even so, its not like the oil is dissapearing compleatly, we could still synth it for making plastics, or drill at a slower rate with more efficiant extraction methods (as said before, were only getting about 30% out at the moment). Oil based products will be around for a long time, the real threat here is the potential dissapearance of our current most used power sourse...
Ya, but that is just a fraction of its use compared to the ammount we burn for no reason other than that we want to make electricity. And even so, its not like the oil is dissapearing compleatly, we could still synth it for making plastics, or drill at a slower rate with more efficiant extraction methods (as said before, were only getting about 30% out at the moment). Oil based products will be around for a long time, the real threat here is the potential dissapearance of our current most used power sourse... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well then why don't we conserve some of this energy by not replying in this post? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Answer that one. lol <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Recyclez!!
But seriously, this year has been colder than before. So global warming is more like global cooling! ha! lozers.