Global Warming

[DungeonMaster6]

Recently in the Washington Post their have been articles about global warming. Last Monday in the Science section, page A10 the caption reads: At The Poles, Melting Occurring At Alarming Rate. Maybe some of you can access it. It's a whole page with pictures of places like Greenland and Anarctica.

Yet, people like President Bush, who denies the "Greenhouse" effect, continue to stubbornly edit any reports that support it. What are we going to do? Wait until a major disaster strikes before acting!

[thrall]

DM........It's not just President Bush who is thinking this.....

I was recently having dinner and was overhearing the men in the next booth talking....and it took everything i had not to jump in and smack them around..

All they could talk about was that Global Warming was a hoax.....that there was no evidence, and it was all just a pile of crap..........that the didn't believe one word of any of it!!!

they then went on to talk about how horrible the weather around the world was........go figure....

[Pertez]

Most People think IMHO if i cant see it It isnt there ,i live in Holland and to be Honest im worried a lot about it we (Dutch) live below the sea Level so if it rises we will be some the first to Vanish :(

[ladygstar]

Most People think IMHO if i cant see it It isnt there ,i live in Holland and to be Honest im worried a lot about it we (Dutch) live below the sea Level so if it rises we will be some the first to Vanish :(

I will throw you a rubber ring and one of my duckies to keep you company hon!

[_ID_]

Not that it's related, but there are people who don't believe we went to the moon.

[Ozme52]

There's no doubt the earth is warming. We argue too much over the cause... instead of whether we can do anything to help slow it.

But there is very little proof it's mankind's fault, (it's a lot of supposition, I personally think it's more about solar activity...) but that allows the conversation to waver from the issue of what we can do to be prepared.

One issue is... will it actually help the forests and jungles. Hotter won't mean drier, it'll mean wetter, all that extra icemelt will end up in the air as the less saline ocean surfaces evaporate more readily. More rain, more humidty. The big deserts, like the Sahara, might become savannahs again.

On the other hand, the change in ocean salinity can also cause major currents, such as the gulf stream, to "stall." When that happens... we experience ice-ages. Yes my friends, global warming could lead to the next iceage.

[Alex Bragi]

Not that it's related, but there are people who don't believe we went to the moon.

Actually, I don't mind put my hand up and telling you I'm one of those sceptics. I've read many articles about it that quite simply made me question whether, or not, it actually happened.

I mean sure it's recorded as an historic event with pictures and such but a lot people, who are a whole lot smarter than me, have put some pretty convincing arguements forward that suggest is was just a giant hoax.

So, I think I prefer to keep an open mind on that one.

And, global warming I agree with Oz, I think I know gobal warming is a fact, but I don't feel certain that it's man-made greenhouse gases that are causing it. Therefor, I'm not certain how urgent, or helpful, is it s that people and goverments take action to reverse carbon emissions.

Again, I've read excellent arguments and again by people who know a whole lot more about it than I do, who say the slight global temperature change detected by scientists is part of a cyclical pattern and more to do with the sun's activities than anything happening on Earth.

[_ID_]

Alex, the same arguments about global warming are being made by the same people that make the arguments about the moon. Those same people make arguments about government involvement in 9/11, as well as the Kennedy assassination. My point is there will always be skeptics to something that happened, and they didn't witness it with their own eyes.

Is global warming a problem, who knows. Our recorded history doesn't give us enough of an accurate background to say for sure. All we can do is put forth theories with the knowledge we have learned from geology studies. Are they accurate? Who knows, but it's all we have, and there isn't anything strong enough to dispute it. So it must be true right? Well history is full of studies that were done by science that were later shown to be less than accurate once the knowledge came to light. As far as I'm concerned, what harm is there is using less of something? All good things in moderation right? Us Americans have difficulty with that concept.

[Isabelle90]

As far as I'm concerned, what harm is there is using less of something? All good things in moderation right? Us Americans have difficulty with that concept.


There are scientists from both ways of thinking on global warming. That makes it so difficult for us lay people to decide.

ID has a great point! Why not try to do something!?! Why should we sit idly by waiting the powers that be decide whether or not we need to do anything, then what exactly it is we need to do. Surely, even Americans can think for ourselves!

In my classroom I used to give each student a small piece of paper (the size of a small post-it) and had them crumble it up. The could just wad it up, tear it in smaller pieces, or whatever. I would have the first student throw their paper in the middle of the floor and ask the class if that was such a mess. Everyone would, of course, say that one small piece was no big deal. But after the entire class threw in their pieces, the mess was a big deal. It took longer to pick up the mess from everyone, with everyone helping, that it did to throw it down. If that mess would have been disposed of properly the first time, it would have saved us all time and trouble.

That is an extremely simple way of illustrating the combined effect of each of us. We would apply this to lots of different situations, as it does make quite a statement for young children.

My point is, the same is true with adults. This sort of ties in with the thread on manners. We need to set examples for children. We should expect them to demonstrate the same consideration.

[mkemse]

Recently in the Washington Post their have been articles about global warming. Last Monday in the Science section, page A10 the caption reads: At The Poles, Melting Occurring At Alarming Rate. Maybe some of you can access it. It's a whole page with pictures of places like Greenland and Anarctica.

Yet, people like President Bush, who denies the "Greenhouse" effect, continue to stubbornly edit any reports that support it. What are we going to do? Wait until a major disaster strikes before acting!

Bush denies everything

[Pertez]

I will throw you a rubber ring and one of my duckies to keep you company hon!
A Lady to the Rescue Thank you * Hugs*

[_ID_]

Bush denies everything

That's not entirely true. He doesn't deny his own greatness, he doesn't deny his ability to be 'the decider' he hasn't denied that he is the president. There are a number of half truths and make believe stories he came up with that he hasn't denied.

Denying reality, yes. Totally agree.

[mkemse]

That's not entirely true. He doesn't deny his own greatness, he doesn't deny his ability to be 'the decider' he hasn't denied that he is the president. There are a number of half truths and make believe stories he came up with that he hasn't denied.

Denying reality, yes. Totally agree.


I meant denying reality, sorry iI was not more clear on that

[Logic1]

I saw some report on global warming and the effects on economy for us Swedes. The really interesting part was that we as a country would actually GAIN from global warming in the next 100 years..
faster growing crops, trees and wine would be a bonus that would outweigh the cost of raising waterlevels and other things.

there is not doubt in my mind that man created this mess we live in right now though and we need to adress the problems now.

[Ozme52]

I saw some report on global warming and the effects on economy for us Swedes. The really interesting part was that we as a country would actually GAIN from global warming in the next 100 years..
faster growing crops, trees and wine would be a bonus that would outweigh the cost of raising waterlevels and other things.

there is not doubt in my mind that man created this mess we live in right now though and we need to adress the problems now.

You better believe it Logic. If it actually warms, you all will reap great benefits. You think Vikings viked merely to vaction in warmer climes?

Nope, they went aviking because they had plenty of liesure time. Harvested early, and went exploring, gathering trinkets (loot) and even settled the western hemisphere. Think they called Greenland green as a joke?

If it hadn't been for the following mini-ice age(s) we might all be speaking Norse in this hemisphere. But the Viking settlements were too early and too far north to flourish when it turned cold.

The earth's climate is very cyclical. Witness Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. It was so cold ice crystals literally hung in the air. Cossacks froze to death mounted on their likewise frozen horses waiting to ambush the French. It was very very cold.

We've only been keeping detailed weather measurements for a few hundred years. Everything else is anectdotal and we really don't know what to expect next, despite what anyone wishes to claim.

And what is the major concern? That the seas will rise? And what part of nature will suffer the most? Mankind of course... because that's where we build most of our biggest cities.

[/ramble]

[catsclaw-01]

There are scientists from both ways of thinking on global warming. That makes it so difficult for us lay people to decide.

ID has a great point! Why not try to do something!?! Why should we sit idly by waiting the powers that be decide whether or not we need to do anything, then what exactly it is we need to do. Surely, even Americans can think for ourselves!

In my classroom I used to give each student a small piece of paper (the size of a small post-it) and had them crumble it up. The could just wad it up, tear it in smaller pieces, or whatever. I would have the first student throw their paper in the middle of the floor and ask the class if that was such a mess. Everyone would, of course, say that one small piece was no big deal. But after the entire class threw in their pieces, the mess was a big deal. It took longer to pick up the mess from everyone, with everyone helping, that it did to throw it down. If that mess would have been disposed of properly the first time, it would have saved us all time and trouble.

That is an extremely simple way of illustrating the combined effect of each of us. We would apply this to lots of different situations, as it does make quite a statement for young children.

My point is, the same is true with adults. This sort of ties in with the thread on manners. We need to set examples for children. We should expect them to demonstrate the same consideration.
Isabelle90 what a wonderful way to demonstrate the effects we humans have on this great planet of ours. So simple and yet so graphic. I look forward to reading more about your teaching methods. Perhaps I can share my teaching methods with you.

[Isabelle90]

Just a suggestion for this thread and anyone interested. The State of Fear by Michael Crichton is an excellent book on this topic. Yes, it is fictional, but Michael Crichton does his research before he writes, and The State of Fear is no exception. This book stirred up a lot of controversy.


Isabelle90 what a wonderful way to demonstrate the effects we humans have on this great planet of ours. So simple and yet so graphic. I look forward to reading more about your teaching methods. Perhaps I can share my teaching methods with you.

Catsclaw, I've noticed you've been addressing me in a few threads....?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Isabelle, how do you think the rest of the class would feel if the child who made the most mess refused to recognise that it was a mess and declined to help clear it up?

TYWD

[Ozme52]

TYWD, You must be talking about Great Britain...

They're responsible for Australia, Canada, India, the USA, and a host of other "misfit" ex-colonials after all.

j/j of course. :rolleyes:

[Isabelle90]

Isabelle, how do you think the rest of the class would feel if the child who made the most mess refused to recognise that it was a mess and declined to help clear it up?

TYWD


TYWD, You must be talking about Great Britain...

They're responsible for Australia, Canada, India, the USA, and a host of other "misfit" ex-colonials after all.

j/j of course. :rolleyes:

TYWD, I was going to say that I would call the child an American LOL!! But then Oz chimed in before I saw.....I would not have "passed the buck." Ha! Ha!

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ozme

Ouch!

I accept what you say in the sense you said it. And I would add that we've left a far bigger mess in Africa.

But if we regard those ex-colonies as Britannia's school-age children in my analogy, then, perhaps, it is the oldest of them that misbehaves the most, environmentally speaking.

TYWD

[Ozme52]

True. I'll only suggest that it is from the momentum of the WWII industrial build-up. "We" don't want to let go of it because of the wealth it creates now.

Prior to that, the European nations were by far the biggest polluters, but the same incident... WWII, took down all that old soot-creating industry... allowing for a wave of modernization. The London Fog was downright deadly for a while there.

Everyone takes a turn. "We" are just having some trouble coming to terms with not being able to play by ourselves, in this arena, anymore.

No one is "free" of all guilt. And the USA is about to be 'put to shame' and demoted to '3rd stringer bench warmer' Newly industrializing nations such as India and China will do whatever is necessary to become world class economies. Do you think they'll set that (and everything it means to their citizenry vis-a-vis standard of living) aside because of world opinion... or even a little smog in their cities?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Strangely enough - and it may be incredibly naive of me - I do believe those eastern countries are strongly motivated to avoid shame and humiliation. But I doubt that's enough to stop their drive for industrialisation, as you say. Unless they all start dying of cancer and other pollution-linked diseases.

The world's a dead planet spinning.


<--- Smart-arse.

[Thorne]

Just to throw in my personal opinions, there is no controversy regarding global warming. Global warming is, indeed, a fact. The controversy is in the causes. The so called liberals (for lack of a better term) are quick to blame everything on mankind and the industrial nations. The conservatives (another lack) are just as quick to deny that. The truth, I believe, lies somewhere in the middle.

Let's start with the ozone layer. Heard much about that lately? I can't say that I have. Know why? When scientists found that hole in the ozone layer some immediately started screaming about chlorofluorocarbons destroying the ozone layer. Despite the fact that they had virtually no knowledge of the mechanics of the ozone layer and despite the fact that NO ONE has been able to come up with a valid method for introducing CFC's into an atmospheric level that high. The damned things are heavier than air! They drop to the ground. Then came the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. That one eruption blew a hole in the ozone layer 5 times the size of the one over Antarctica! Mankind's fault?

What about greenhouse gases? True, industry and personal uses of oil and such are contributing. But how much, really? The so-called environmentalists will readily display data showing how many TONS of CO2 and methane are dumped into the atmosphere each year by mankind. What they don't generally show you is how small that total is compared to NATURALLY occurring gases. Again, a single volcanic eruption can put out more CO2 in a single DAY than man does in a year. And a large part of that CO2 is absorbed into the ocean where it is used by marine plant life to produce ... wait for it... OXYGEN!

The planet is warming, no question about it. But the scientists haven't been studying this kind of phenomena for very long, in a geologic sense. Data they have recovered from ice cores and ocean bottom cores shows that what we are seeing now is not that uncommon. So why must we blame ourselves?

I remember when Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on New Orleans, all of the TV reporters where asking any scientists they could corner whether global warming could have caused Katrina to become so strong. EVERY weather expert they asked scoffed at the idea, saying that the increase in surface water temperature was not high enough to cause a SIGNIFICANT increase in wind speeds, not more than one or two MPH. Then someone got the brilliant idea to ask an "environmentalist" and guess what he answered? "ABSOLUTELY! There's no question that global warming made the hurricane MUCH stronger." From that point on the ONLY quote you heard on the mainstream news was that one!

The following year all the "environmental experts" were preaching doom and gloom about the monstrous hurricanes which were going to be heading our way. The weather experts hedged there bets and predicted an above average number of hurricanes. In reality, the total was significantly BELOW average. And remember, the number of hurricanes which are counted to get that average includes ONLY those which were discovered. Before satellite imaging many hurricanes which never came near land went totally unreported.

So, can we do anything about global warming? In all likelihood, damned little if anything. Sure, we can cut back on our consumption of fossil fuels. What shall we use instead? Any kind of energy manufacture is sure to upset someone. By far the cheapest and most efficient is nuclear. Just try getting THAT past the greens! Wind power can provide some energy, but it's unreliable, expensive and nowhere near capable of providing enough power for man's needs. The same goes for hydroelectric. And in the end, chances are it will do precious little good.

Mankind may be heading for it's own version of the KT boundary. Whether through his own doing or through nature's the end may be closer than we think. And to be honest, some days I believe it can't get here soon enough.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I'm left wondering how far from the right the middle is.

That sounds very well-informed, and I'm sure it is. I hesitate before commenting. In any case, I've heard that the world has got hotter than this several times before, and without any help from us.

However, the last I heard, a bunch of scientists who are, perhaps, just as well-informed, consider that mankind has done nothing but harm to planet Earth. Now if it's that's true, then it's just a question of timing; we shall either destroy the world quickly or we'll do it slowly. And if we do it by interfering with nature, it'll be quickly

Let's all sit back and see ...


TYWD

btw - by destroy the world I meant destroy it for mankind. The world will recover after we've all gone, with just a thin layer of oily (or radioactive) material separating one era from the next.

[Thorne]

However, the last I heard, a bunch of scientists who are, perhaps, just as well-informed, consider that mankind has done nothing but harm to planet Earth. Now if it's that's true, then it's just a question of timing; we shall either destroy the world quickly or we'll do it slowly. And if we do it by interfering with nature, it'll be quickly
I get very tired of hearing this kind of argument. Generally, those who put it forward forget that mankind is a part of nature. ALL life does harm in some way or another. Nature has ways of balancing things out. If a group grows beyond the capacity of its food source the weaker members of the group die off. the group gets smaller until there is once again enough food for the group. Mankind is no different, except that: #1, we eat virtually everything, not just one particular food; and #2, we have devised ways to increase our food supply to match our population growth. At least so far. It's a zero sum game, though. Eventually there won't be enough to go around. Then the weaker individuals, families, tribes, populations, will die off, reducing the demand.


btw - by destroy the world I meant destroy it for mankind. The world will recover after we've all gone, with just a thin layer of oily (or radioactive) material separating one era from the next.
This is the key thing to remember. We are not destroying the earth, we are destroying the parts of the earth where we live. We are making it less habitable for ourselves. Just as I noted above, eventually the population will decline, through famine, war, disease, those "natural" processes which have been with us for millennia. Understandably, no one wants to be part of that decline, but those who live through it will find a much different world than we live in now. Just as our world is much different from the world of the Neanderthals. Will it be better? Who knows? It WILL be different, though. That's guaranteed.

I'm reminded of a comment by George Carlin (I think): Perhaps mankind was Nature's way of getting Styrofoam. Now that she's got it she doesn't need us anymore.

[Ozme52]

I agree. The biggest negative impact of the icecaps melting is the inundation of the coastal areas where mankind lives. Forty percent of us are in coastal cities.

It'll displace all the myriad city people... where will they go. Inland... to where we tend to grow the food.

It'll be a nightmare of logistics... and we might go down in proverbial flames.

But the world will survive. It's done this before. And myriad species go down with each cycle and new ones arise. The real reason we're upset is we can see it coming and it's going to change how mankind lives.

[Alex Bragi]

I agree. The biggest negative impact of the icecaps melting is the inundation of the coastal areas where mankind lives. Forty percent of us are in coastal cities.

It'll displace all the myriad city people... where will they go. Inland... to where we tend to grow the food.

...

Well, my understanding of it, Oz, is that it's not so much ice melting and water encroaching and eventually submerging large areas of land, but the fact that it's fresh water and therefore will severely impact on everything that lives in salt water, that has scientist so concerned.

[Ozme52]

That too has happened before. We, man, seem to get in an uproar over the extinction of species... but that's a constant occurance. Yes it's a shame if we are the sole cause... but it is a fact of life (literally) on this planet.

Species come and species go. The freshwater will only impact the ocean surfaces and probably only near the poles. Most of it will evaporate into the atmosphere and become distributed around the globe as precipitation. So there will be some species "making" adjustments or dieing off... but others will emerge from new opportunities the changed environment will bring.

We just get very centric about it... as if the whole world revolves around our needs.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thrall says: I get very tired of hearing this kind of argument [Man has done only harm to the planet]. Generally, those who put it forward forget that mankind is a part of nature. ALL life does harm in some way or another.

I'm sorry to be so tiring, but I doubt your generalisation is true: I'm sure the people I referred to were aware of their place in Nature and the planet's evolution. That is the assumption one has to make in the absence of evidence to the contrary, anyway.

And as for ALL life doing harm - maybe by eating other plants and animals, or building nests - but no other species that I'm aware of has industrialised the way mankind has, nor has any other species changed the face of the planet the way we have. And you admit this when you say that man is destroying the parts of Earth where we live (pretty much everywhere except the deserts).

I would go so far as to say (as pure conjecture, mind) that the degree of harm caused by mankind is far beyond that caused by all other species (including all human species before homo sapiens), past and present, put together.

But after disagreeing on where the blame lies or how much of it, Thrall and I do seem to have a similar outlook on where it'll all end if it carries on the way it is going. And as for blame? What does that matter - what's done is done. The thing is, must we carry on doing it? Is there another way for China to develop?



Ozme says: Species come and species go.

How indifferent is that? OK I guess a few -raptors polished off several different kinds of -suaruses. And maybe an unheard of breed of antelope is beyond our ken because the sabre-toothed tiger got to it first. And I've heard of an incident where a single cat was responsible for wiping our the entire population of (unique?) birds on a small island. But I think no other breed of animal is responsible for the extermination of so many other species as is mankind. (I suspect we were even responsible for the extermination of the neandthals, our cousins.)

Man comes and species go is perhaps a better way of putting it.


Now I know it's easy for us wishy washy western liberals to get all consciencious and say that we're burning too much fuel and we're eating way too much, and I recognise the inclination of the conservatives to believe in the law of "the survival of the fittest" (notwithstanding their hatred of Darwinism). But self-destruction ... how does that fit in? Are we truly going to throw ourselves over the cliff like so many lemmings (which really don't do that anyway)?

I suppose we can relax to some extent in the knowledge that, when you do look at things dispassionately, it'll be the Africans and South East Asians who will suffer most, and the profligate developed countries will then have plenty more room to expand into.

As we used to say in Britain, "I'm alright, Jack."


TYWD

[Thorne]

I agree. The biggest negative impact of the icecaps melting is the inundation of the coastal areas where mankind lives. Forty percent of us are in coastal cities.

Actually, I think the biggest impact is what the fresh water will do to the oceans currents. This was poorly explained in the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" with Dennis Quade. As I understand it, the flow of the major oceanic currents, particularly the Gulf Stream, depend upon the temperature and salinity of the water at the poles. As the ice melts the salinity drops. This could cause the Gulf Stream, among others, to stop flowing. This will cause much of northwestern Europe, in particular, to experience MUCH colder temperatures than they are used to.

[Thorne]

Thrall says: I get very tired of hearing this kind of argument [Man has done only harm to the planet]. Generally, those who put it forward forget that mankind is a part of nature. ALL life does harm in some way or another.
Actually, it was I who said that. Please don't blame Thrall for my opinions. She's far to sweet a person to have that inflicted upon her.


And as for ALL life doing harm - maybe by eating other plants and animals, or building nests - but no other species that I'm aware of has industrialised the way mankind has, nor has any other species changed the face of the planet the way we have. And you admit this when you say that man is destroying the parts of Earth where we live (pretty much everywhere except the deserts).
I would go so far as to say (as pure conjecture, mind) that the degree of harm caused by mankind is far beyond that caused by all other species (including all human species before homo sapiens), past and present, put together.
Yes, it is probably true that mankind's effects on the ecosystem is much more far-reaching than any other species. This is primarily because of industrialization and because mankind is one of the most successful (in terms of survival) species ever to inhabit the planet. Aside from some insect species (and discounting microscopic life) NO other species has managed to inhabit virtually every climate and condition.
But there are other species which can be nearly as devastating as man. Army ants come to mind. They can devastate a tremendous (for their size) swath of territory, eating virtually everything in their path. Most grazing animals will practically denude the lands they graze on, moving to new feeding grounds when the old are used up. They rely on nature to regrow the feed behind them, but if something prevents that from happening they will die off in droves. As will those species which depend upon what the grazers leave behind. As will those predator species which prey on the grazers. It's the law of nature at its harshest, and it's been happening since the beginnings of life.


Ozme says: Species come and species go.
How indifferent is that? OK I guess a few -raptors polished off several different kinds of -suaruses. And maybe an unheard of breed of antelope is beyond our ken because the sabre-toothed tiger got to it first. And I've heard of an incident where a single cat was responsible for wiping our the entire population of (unique?) birds on a small island. But I think no other breed of animal is responsible for the extermination of so many other species as is mankind. (I suspect we were even responsible for the extermination of the neandthals, our cousins.)
Man comes and species go is perhaps a better way of putting it.
No, I think Oz has it right. While man has, indeed been directly or indirectly responsible for the destruction of many species, far more have been wiped out through natural occurrences than mankind could ever hope to destroy. A single asteroid strike 65 million years ago wiped out 95% of all species on the earth in a geological eyeblink. Should we bemoan the potential loss of all those beautiful animals? I think not. Chances are, without that particular event mankind would never have developed.
During each of several ice ages, brought about without any assist from humanity, hundreds and thousands of species were destroyed, and probably billions of life forms. And when the ice ages ended and more temperate climates came, thousands more species died off.
The problem we have today is that it becomes difficult to determine whether species are dying off because of natural forces or, if you divorce humanity from Nature, through man's actions.


I suppose we can relax to some extent in the knowledge that, when you do look at things dispassionately, it'll be the Africans and South East Asians who will suffer most, and the profligate developed countries will then have plenty more room to expand into.
Actually, when you think about it, in the event of a major environmental shift, I believe the less developed populations would be more able to survive than the developed ones. They are more used to living on the edge, making do with what they can get and not depending on others to get it for them. One of the lessons to be learned from disasters like Katrina and earthquakes is that people who have spent their whole lives depending upon society for everything they consume are lost when that society breaks down. Aside from scavenging for leftovers (as opposed to looting for luxuries which may not have any real use any more) many of those people where not able to provide even simple food for themselves. Those who know how to gather food and find shelter in nature are much better equipped to survive.

The thing to remember is, barring a catastrophe which sterilizes or even destroys the entire planet, chances are that pockets of humanity will survive. We are like that. We can acclimate ourselves to harsh environments. We can survive in places where more specialized creatures cannot. That is our greatest achievement.

[ThisYouWillDo]

1. Apologies to Thrall - sincerely meant. And to you, too, Thorne. An inexcusable lapse on my part.

2. You have a point about ants and grazing herds, and the consequent effect upon the food chain. At least, at first sight you do. As you say, grass grows again after the herds move on. So no harm done there. But if it doesn't, what would stop grass growing? Drought? Not an animal. Asteroids? Not animals. An Ice Age? Inanimate.

Predatory action? Possible - occasionally, and as you have pointed out, Nature will balance that out pretty quickly. Mankind? Ahhh ... there you go.

Ant colonies are outwith my firm knowledge and experience, apart from a nest beneath my patio. They are certainly undermining that. Eventually, I suppose they could undermine my whole house. However, I venture to suggest that whatever they get up to, it does not leave a permanent scar on the face of the planet, and even if it does, it pales into insignificance compared to what just one industrialised city ... no, even that comparison is pointless. I think ants are way behind mankind when it comes to planet destruction.

3. Yes, I concede, Ozme was right - species do come and go. But that misses the point. Just because it happens for other reasons does not ameliorate mankind's negligent or wilful destruction of the many, many known species and untold numbers of unknown ones. As noted above, asteroids, ice ages and other natural disaters are not animal. Mankind is animal, and sentient, and. most importantly, conscious of the effects of what he does. Furthermore he is not instictively compelled to destroy his environment. He is just out of control. So, although Ozme was right, I was righter.

4. I cannot believe that we, who are talking of and preparing ourselves (however inadequately) for whatever comes, will be unable and unwilling to take advantage of the poverty and weakness of the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with a final catastrophe. Do you really believe that millions and millions of bemused and half-starved, AIDS-ridden wretches with no resources, no life expectancy and no protection can outlive us who are far fewer in number, calculating, plump, long-lived and healthy people who already control all the resources that matter? They can barely survive when we do throw a few crumbs their way? Surely, those closest to the edge will be the first to go over it.

It's a dreadful thought, but maybe that's why Western governments are so mean with international aid ... No - they wouldn't be that callous, would they?

But don't run away with the idea that Westerners can't live of the land - they can, or they will quickly learn. Homo sapiens is and always has been a scavenger par excellence and has thriven on being one.

The thing to remember is, barring a catastrophe which sterilizes or even destroys the entire planet, chances are that pockets of humanity will survive. We are like that. We can acclimate ourselves to harsh environments. We can survive in places where more specialized creatures cannot. That is our greatest achievement. Agreed. And we shall do so, even at the expense of others of our own kind, the planet, and everything in it.


TYWD

[Ozme52]

Actually, I think the biggest impact is what the fresh water will do to the oceans currents. This was poorly explained in the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" with Dennis Quade. As I understand it, the flow of the major oceanic currents, particularly the Gulf Stream, depend upon the temperature and salinity of the water at the poles. As the ice melts the salinity drops. This could cause the Gulf Stream, among others, to stop flowing. This will cause much of northwestern Europe, in particular, to experience MUCH colder temperatures than they are used to.

Yes. Something I mentioned myself earlier up above. My comments about salinity and how it will affect species was only to that point. The far larger issue is if the Gulf Stream and other warm water currents "stall" or change course. Then we will likely experience another northern hemisphere ice age.

[Ozme52]

Ozme says: Species come and species go.

How indifferent is that? OK I guess a few -raptors polished off several different kinds of -suaruses. And maybe an unheard of breed of antelope is beyond our ken because the sabre-toothed tiger got to it first. And I've heard of an incident where a single cat was responsible for wiping our the entire population of (unique?) birds on a small island. But I think no other breed of animal is responsible for the extermination of so many other species as is mankind. (I suspect we were even responsible for the extermination of the neandthals, our cousins.)

Man comes and species go is perhaps a better way of putting it.




3. Yes, I concede, Ozme was right - species do come and go. But that misses the point. Just because it happens for other reasons does not ameliorate mankind's negligent or wilful destruction of the many, many known species and untold numbers of unknown ones. As noted above, asteroids, ice ages and other natural disaters are not animal. Mankind is animal, and sentient, and. most importantly, conscious of the effects of what he does. Furthermore he is not instictively compelled to destroy his environment. He is just out of control. So, although Ozme was right, I was righter.


Right. I wasn't even referring to species impacted since the advent of mankind. Literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of species have "walked" the earth and disappeared long before man appeared.

In fact, we are the only species to ever actually go out if its way to save another species. Quite a few in fact. Some, in huge numbers if you consider certain botanical varieties.

We are also the only species to create new species, (or at least varients.) Domestication of certain animals and the hybridization of many food plants.

So while we have been all together too efficient as predators and consumers of biomass... does that make us villians? We are just as natural and just as entitled to be here as any other species. If, by our actions, we make ourselves unviable, then we too will pass as a species... and the specie(s) that descend from us will comment on and possibly lament our passing.

[Thorne]

2. You have a point about ants and grazing herds, and the consequent effect upon the food chain. At least, at first sight you do. As you say, grass grows again after the herds move on. So no harm done there. But if it doesn't, what would stop grass growing? Drought? Not an animal. Asteroids? Not animals. An Ice Age? Inanimate.

Predatory action? Possible - occasionally, and as you have pointed out, Nature will balance that out pretty quickly. Mankind? Ahhh ... there you go.
My point is that any group of animals will utilize their resources to as great an extent as possible. And it may not even be that group which will suffer, but those groups who follow behind.
Let's postulate a large herd of herbivores, say zebras, feeding in a rich, but relatively small grassland area. After a period of time they have devoured all the food in the area and move on to another site. Next comes a herd of, say, gazelles, moving on from their last feeding grounds and moving into this currently devastated area. There's not enough food for them here so they must keep moving. But how many will die because of the lack of food. And if they happen to keep following the herd of zebras they could really be in trouble. True, it's not exactly an extinction, but that kind of environmental pressure can, and does, lead to natural extinctions.


3. Yes, I concede, Ozme was right - species do come and go. But that misses the point. Just because it happens for other reasons does not ameliorate mankind's negligent or wilful destruction of the many, many known species and untold numbers of unknown ones. As noted above, asteroids, ice ages and other natural disaters are not animal. Mankind is animal, and sentient, and. most importantly, conscious of the effects of what he does. Furthermore he is not instictively compelled to destroy his environment. He is just out of control. So, although Ozme was right, I was righter.
It's not a question of whether species are destroyed by other animals or by natural disasters. Sure, mankind is prolific in his destruction of animal and plant life. But it's my contention that the vast majority of those species were so specialized and so dependent upon a very narrow ecological niche that they would die off sooner or later anyway. And if we can improve the lives of millions of people by destroying the habitat of a small, almost extinct species, then I say, go to it!
Panda's are a good example. They are so specialized that they can only survive on ONE kind of food. Over the centuries mankind has encroached upon their territory for his own needs. Now the panda's are on the verge of extinction. Setting aside their apparent cuteness, what loss to the world if they are gone? Of course, if we can come up with some good recipes, maybe we can use them as a food source. That would pretty much guarantee their survival as a species. Not too good for the individuals, but the species goes on!


4. I cannot believe that we, who are talking of and preparing ourselves (however inadequately) for whatever comes, will be unable and unwilling to take advantage of the poverty and weakness of the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with a final catastrophe. Do you really believe that millions and millions of bemused and half-starved, AIDS-ridden wretches with no resources, no life expectancy and no protection can outlive us who are far fewer in number, calculating, plump, long-lived and healthy people who already control all the resources that matter? They can barely survive when we do throw a few crumbs their way? Surely, those closest to the edge will be the first to go over it.
Oh, certainly. They won't be a bit of trouble. Just look how well we did in Viet Nam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. They don't stand a chance against us. The problem is that we "calculating, plump, long-lived and healthy people" are not likely to get up off our asses until it's far too late.


But don't run away with the idea that Westerners can't live of the land - they can, or they will quickly learn. Homo sapiens is and always has been a scavenger par excellence and has thriven on being one.
I didn't mean to imply that Westerners can't live off the land. Some can, undoubtedly. Most can't, at least not easily. Some will learn, no question. Most will not, at least not in time. Many will survive, for a time, by stealing what they can from those who have what they want. Soon, though, that supply will run out, too. Then those scavengers will die as well. Or they will die trying to steal, killed by others protecting what they have.

For my own part, I don't see any of these major changes happening within the next 20 years or so. Chances are I'll be long gone by the time they happen. If not, then chances are I'll be one of the first casualties, because I doubt that I could "scavenge" enough to survive. I don't know that I'd want to.

As for my kids, I've done what I could do to get them through childhood. My life has not been difficult, I know, but I like to think that their's was somewhat easier. They will get whatever is left over when I'm gone and I hope it helps them. But the future belongs to them, now. They must deal with it as best they can. Virtually every generation since the dawn of time has concluded that their children were out of control, a menace to civilization. I hope I've taught mine better than that. They're good kids. I think they'll do well.

As for the rest of the world, and all those endangered species that 90% of the world never heard of, the hell with 'em if they can't take a joke.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ozme. : I didn't say you were wrong about the fact that whole rafts of animal life have become extinct for reasons with nothing to do with mankind. I said you were indifferent. It seems to me that what went on before the advent of man isn't really helpful to a discussion about man's contribution to global warming, even if I am blaming him for things you don't agree with. In the context of the discussion at the point it had reached (I had suggested mankind was doing only harm), you appeared to say, So what? Shit happens to justify mankind's indifference. If you were simply stating that more species have died out since life began on the planet than have died as a result of mankind's activities, I have already conceded the point, and do so again. Mankind was not to blame for that.

My point is, we know better, or should know better, than to allow it where we can stop it. Out of self-interest if not compassion

And you have pointed out some instances where we have done good to the world. That does weaken my case, but I don't think it's enough to defeat it. Most developments were for mankind's benefit, and any improvement to the planet was incidental.

Thorne: My point is ...

... that kind of environmental pressure can, and does, lead to natural extinctions.

Of course that happens. You are quite right. But since mankind has come along, in fact, since industrialisation, he has extinguished them far more efficiently.


... if we can improve the lives of millions of people by destroying the habitat of a small, almost extinct species, then I say, go to it!

Panda's are a good example ...

Just because we are at the top of the evolutionary tree, so to speak, does not mean we have more right to be here than those lower down. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. That includes cute pandas. Because we are aware of their plight, and if it is within our power to do so, we have a duty to save them by not destroying their natural habitat. Even if that means foregoing ... um ... foregoing bamboo shoots.

The way you speak makes me think of a plague of humanity spreading over the planet destroying or subsuming all in its path. Just think of it. Mankind, a pestilence of greater than biblical proportions! If your attitude is prevalent (as I fear it might be) then the future you described in an earlier post - of the planet surviving after mankind has gone - is a bleak one. The only life to linger on after mankind's passing might be bacteria.


... look how well we did in Viet Nam ...

The reason the Western forces aren't doing too well in Asia is (a) because we are fighting against well-armed groups of terrorists/freedom fighters (we armed them while they were freedom fighteres) and (b) because we know the rest of the world is watching, and we don't want to be seen "digging the knife in." (In Viet Nam, for example, USA could have won at any time it liked, but for its fear of the consequences, and eventually, it simply gave up fighting.) But when push comes to shove and when the end justifies the means, I have absolute faith in the ability of the USA, UK, and even Canada and Australia (not to mention Russia and China) to fight dirty to ensure they come out on top. Hiroshima will look like a trial run. And even if nations have disintegrated into cities or tribes, the ones in the west will be best equipped to survive. It doesn't matter how slow to get of their arses they are, they will prevail by fair means or foul.

Good luck to you and your kids, and to me and mine if and when it happens. No-one will be laughing then.


TYWD

[Ozme52]

Ozme. : I didn't say you were wrong about the fact that whole rafts of animal life have become extinct for reasons with nothing to do with mankind. I said you were indifferent.

Hardly indifferent. You really can't label me that way just because I don't happen to think we're the cause of global warming.

I'm hardly indifferent because I do happen to believe there are things we should be doing to ameliorate whatever impact we have on the speed at which it is coming. I'm hardly indifferent because even before "global warming" was the issue, I've been an ardent supporter of environmentalism.

But... I am also not an 'extremist' on the environmental front. I don't have the kneejerk reaction, for example, of the locals who delayed a highway widening & interchange project for 13 years because of the meadowfoam flower. "It only grows along this one road." Bullshit. It grows there because the road exists. The fences keep the cattle from grazing along the roadside. For that reason it actually happens to be where the meadowfoam blooms in large numbers... but it blooms everywhere in small numbers over many square miles of the local cattle pastures. We'd do a lot better job of being environmentally conscious if the two extremes could meet in the middle.

I guess I'm of that opinion on a lot of topics.


It seems to me that what went on before the advent of man isn't really helpful to a discussion about man's contribution to global warming, even if I am blaming him for things you don't agree with. In the context of the discussion at the point it had reached (I had suggested mankind was doing only harm), you appeared to say, So what? Shit happens to justify mankind's indifference. If you were simply stating that more species have died out since life began on the planet than have died as a result of mankind's activities, I have already conceded the point, and do so again. Mankind was not to blame for that.

I'd have to do some research to prove this... but I also happen to think that more species have died between the advent of man and the beginning of the industrial revolution than since the industrial revolution. Part of the problem I see is that there is this belief that we, today, are to blame for all this. Herbivores create more methane gas than man does, and I believe the total biomass of wild herbivores outweighs the total biomass of domesticated herbivores. Yes we contribute... but we also try to ameliorate the problem. Cape Buffalo don't. They just keep on farting. (Methane btw, is 10x more 'effective' than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.)


My point is, we know better, or should know better, than to allow it where we can stop it. Out of self-interest if not compassion

I think we do... but there will always be people who see their 'self-interest' in different areas. Can't blame everyone... and certainly not me, for that. Regardless of how I view the issue.


And you have pointed out some instances where we have done good to the world. That does weaken my case, but I don't think it's enough to defeat it. Most developments were for mankind's benefit, and any improvement to the planet was incidental.

So? Of course it is. That's the point of life. To perpetuate your species. We just happen to be blessed as tool users. Think of how bad it would be if we were unintelligent tool users. Then we wouldn't even be having this conversation... and wouldn't care.


Thorne: My point is ...

... that kind of environmental pressure can, and does, lead to natural extinctions.

Of course that happens. You are quite right. But since mankind has come along, in fact, since industrialisation, he has extinguished them far more efficiently. I disagree about the industrialization issue. Most of the damage mankind did was pre-industrial... possibly even pre-agricultural.



... if we can improve the lives of millions of people by destroying the habitat of a small, almost extinct species, then I say, go to it!

Panda's are a good example ...

Just because we are at the top of the evolutionary tree, so to speak, does not mean we have more right to be here than those lower down. Actually, it probably does. You anthropormorphize the issue by assuming there is a right or wrong. Just because we're efficient and adaptable and most importantly, just because we can think about the impacts, doesn't mean it's our responsibility to curb ourselves from taking advantage of our abilities.

Now that said, I think we should be considering the issue of lost resources. Cutting the rain forests, for example... who knows how many valuable resources are extinct and gone... that we could have used if the non-industrial farmers hadn't been clear-cutting for the last 60 or so centuries.


Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. That includes cute pandas. Because we are aware of their plight, and if it is within our power to do so, we have a duty to save them by not destroying their natural habitat. Even if that means foregoing ... um ... foregoing bamboo shoots.

The way you speak makes me think of a plague of humanity spreading over the planet destroying or subsuming all in its path. Just think of it. Mankind, a pestilence of greater than biblical proportions! If your attitude is prevalent (as I fear it might be) then the future you described in an earlier post - of the planet surviving after mankind has gone - is a bleak one. The only life to linger on after mankind's passing might be bacteria.

Okay. This will probably amuse you. I'm having an argument/debate with a fellow on another forum... about DDT v. malaria (and the death toll among humans since it was abolished.) It's actually a science v. religion debate and I don't know why it got side-tracked... but I'm the anti-DDT debater and he's the pro-DDT debater. Because I believe in preserving the environment... but not because I'm an altruist. Because it's my damned food chain. And we have to protect those cute malarial parasites and the mosquitos that carry them. LOL. Sorry. Blowing off steam from that other thread.




... look how well we did in Viet Nam ...

The reason the Western forces aren't doing too well in Asia is (a) because we are fighting against well-armed groups of terrorists/freedom fighters (we armed them while they were freedom fighteres) and (b) because we know the rest of the world is watching, and we don't want to be seen "digging the knife in." (In Viet Nam, for example, USA could have won at any time it liked, but for its fear of the consequences, and eventually, it simply gave up fighting.) But when push comes to shove and when the end justifies the means, I have absolute faith in the ability of the USA, UK, and even Canada and Australia (not to mention Russia and China) to fight dirty to ensure they come out on top. Hiroshima will look like a trial run. And even if nations have disintegrated into cities or tribes, the ones in the west will be best equipped to survive. It doesn't matter how slow to get of their arses they are, they will prevail by fair means or foul.

Different topic... worthy of a different thread... but not, imo, about global warming or environmentalism. Except... perhaps... to say,

Only mankind worries about whether a fight is fair or not. No other species cares.


Good luck to you and your kids, and to me and mine if and when it happens. No-one will be laughing then.


TYWD

[Thorne]

Oh, shit. I'm agreeing with Oz. It's the end of the world for sure!:)

Really, though, you make some good points, Oz. (Of course they're good: I agree with 'em.) The only difference is that I've never really been an environmentalist or a conservationist. I'm totally into conspicuous, wasteful consumption. And I don't care how many cute little animals have to die for it. As long as there's plenty of cows for my T-bones, pigs for my BBQ'd ribs and chickens for my KFC, I'm happy!

Your comment about DDT brought something to mind, as well. Many years ago I read an article about PCB's. Nasty stuff, without question. It seems that some inspectors discovered PCB's in some cat litter and immediately came down full bore on the manufacturer. Well, he naturally put the blame on his supplier, the company that got the clay from the swamps to use in the cat litter. A full blown investigation was started to find out who dumped toxic chemicals into the swamp and contaminated the clay. Nothing was found! Finally, after years of wrangling and name calling someone finally got the bright idea to actually study the problem and determined that, under the right conditions, PCB's can occur naturally in just that kind of swamp!

Just goes to prove that what we think we know today can be turned on its head tomorrow. Next time you find PCB's in your cat litter, blame it on Mother Nature.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ozme, you know why I gave you that lable. But as you object to it, I withdraw it.


... on the Road to Damascus

OK - how can I take the next step gracefully? Well, I can admit right now - in fact I already have - that I dont know anything about global warming. I believed what I have been told by those I thought most credible.

So I decided to find out something about it and, quite frankly, I have become quite disillusioned. A plague on both houses! It's just two sets of vested interests competing against each other, one for profit and one for funding. The planet is no more than a political football.

There does seem to be agreement, however, that global warming is happening, and no-one knows where it will stop, or how dire the conseqences might be.

So I shall carry on doing my "bit", just in case it helps. I shall continue to sort my refuse for recycling, I will prefer green products. I will try to reduce my carbon footprint because it just seems a responsible thing to do.

And I shall carry on caring about endangered species, and resist the temptation to wipe them out to obtain some small advantage or trivial comfort. I do believe strongly that the only supportable reason for destroying life can be for self-preservation.


TYWD

[Thorne]

So I decided to find out something about it and, quite frankly, I have become quite disillusioned. A plague on both houses! It's just two sets of vested interests competing against each other, one for profit and one for funding. The planet is no more than a political football.

Disillusionment can be tough. I'm sorry you have to experience it. I had the same unfortunate occurrence many years ago. All you can do is trust your instincts. Doubt everyone, especially those who holler the loudest. The squeaky wheel may get the grease but that doesn't necessarily mean it should.

Unfortunately, many of those who are most vocal about global warming are in the same boat you were in. They think they know what's happening but generally are only listening to one side of the story. It's not the scientific approach, but it is human.

For my part, I tend to doubt most things, especially when they are espoused by politicians or religions. To my mind neither of those institutions can be trusted. Science, in general, should be trustworthy, but scientists are human as well, and as such are subject to the same foibles and failings as anyone else. Only when multiple sources can agree on a piece of data should you believe that it is probably right. But even then, something we learn tomorrow may toss everything we know today into the trash.

As for conserving species, I applaud your dedication. As long as it doesn't cost HUMAN lives, I see nothing wrong with it. As I've said, though, I personally don't feel the necessity. What will be will be, and the strong will survive, whether they are human, or insect or some nasty fungus. I just wish someone could explain to me why, if man is so good at destroying species, the cockroach is still driving us nuts!

[Ozme52]

As for conserving species, I applaud your dedication. As long as it doesn't cost HUMAN lives, I see nothing wrong with it. As I've said, though, I personally don't feel the necessity. What will be will be, and the strong will survive, whether they are human, or insect or some nasty fungus. I just wish someone could explain to me why, if man is so good at destroying species, the cockroach is still driving us nuts!

The only problem with that equation is that we often have to make a judgement call without sufficient information. Look at the DDT issue. It's pretty well accepted that millions have died because of the resurgence of malaria. What we don't know is if that's a larger or smaller number than if we continued using DDT. Most think the costs were outweighed by the benefits. But the short term view would have beem keep using the DDT.

And TYWD, this is a perfect example of man trying to do the right thing. It just doesn't get enough play because it's old news and 'global warming' is this decade's "buzz."

[Isabelle90]

I believed what I have been told by those I thought most credible.

So I decided to find out something about it and, quite frankly, I have become quite disillusioned. A plague on both houses! It's just two sets of vested interests competing against each other, one for profit and one for funding. The planet is no more than a political football.

If only more people would investigate for themselves! The issue of global warming is not presented to the public in terms of monetary value or political football (love that phrase), but, in essence, that is what it has become.




So I shall carry on doing my "bit", just in case it helps. I shall continue to sort my refuse for recycling, I will prefer green products. I will try to reduce my carbon footprint because it just seems a responsible thing to do.

That was the point I made earlier. There is no reason we cannot all do our "bit." If nothing else than to consider it maintenance of the planet for our children.



I've throroughly enjoyed reading this thread as posts are made. How can one tire of such a friendly debate?

[rce]

I agree. The biggest negative impact of the icecaps melting is the inundation of the coastal areas where mankind lives. Forty percent of us are in coastal cities.

It'll displace all the myriad city people... where will they go. Inland... to where we tend to grow the food.

It'll be a nightmare of logistics... and we might go down in proverbial flames.

But the world will survive. It's done this before. And myriad species go down with each cycle and new ones arise. The real reason we're upset is we can see it coming and it's going to change how mankind lives.

Whether it will be a logistic nightmare or not depends on how fast the melting will happen. This we do not know. So far, we have not seen any rise in the average sea level (which does not mean there must not be any).

[rce]

Global warming is certainly a threat to civilisation as we know it, but hardly the worst threat there is.

Humans still possess nuclear arms in such a large numbers that there can be a nuclear holocaust many times over. The immediate threat of a nuclear war ended with the fall of the Soviet Union (thank God), but we cannot rule the possibility out. As long as humans know how to make them, nuclear arms will be a fact. Some people have even suggested that there will be conflicts because of global warming so bad that some nations will resot to nuclear war.

At any time, a devastating plague can reappear, just like the Black Death in the 1300's. More and more bacteria evolve multi resistance against antibiotics, what if the medical industry researching for new antibiotics turn out to fail? Sure, mankind survived without antibiotics for millenia, but an airborne disease can spread very fast in this day and age.

There is also a risk of Earth being hit by a large meteorite. It has happened before and may happen again. Astronomers try to chart every object in the Solar System, but are far from finished. Consider if the Tunguska meteorite would have hit a big city instead of the unpopulated reaches of Siberia in 1908? That was not a big meteorite.

There may be other threats as well. It just seems fashionable to speak of global warming right now.

[Thorne]

Humans still possess nuclear arms in such a large numbers that there can be a nuclear holocaust many times over. The immediate threat of a nuclear war ended with the fall of the Soviet Union (thank God), but we cannot rule the possibility out. As long as humans know how to make them, nuclear arms will be a fact. Some people have even suggested that there will be conflicts because of global warming so bad that some nations will resot to nuclear war.
I think the threat of an actual nuclear war is pretty small, and always has been. Even politicians were pretty quick to realize that nobody wins a nuclear exchange. Even if you were able to wipe out your enemy their territory would be useless for millions of years, and the damage to your own population, land and infrastructure would be catastrophic.
The real threat in modern society is the whacko with a backpack nuke who has nothing to lose, nothing to live for and is only interested in taking as many people with him as he can. Whether a religious fundamentalist (any flavor) racial bigot (also, any flavor) or simply a nutjob going postal, they can cause a significant amount of damage and are almost impossible to stop.
Of course, there are nut job national leaders (see North Korea or Iran) who could possibly launch nuclear warheads against their neighbors, but that would be a relatively small exchange and not likely to destroy much beyond their own general area.


At any time, a devastating plague can reappear, just like the Black Death in the 1300's. More and more bacteria evolve multi resistance against antibiotics, what if the medical industry researching for new antibiotics turn out to fail? Sure, mankind survived without antibiotics for millenia, but an airborne disease can spread very fast in this day and age.
Yes, disease can be a problem. But even the most virulent of plagues rarely has a death rate exceeding about 75%. Even if you postulate a 90% mortality rate, with a current world population of about 8 billion people the survivors would still number around 800 million! Hardly a wipe out! Of course, they would be spread out across the globe and civilization as we know it would probably be destroyed, or at least set back quite a ways. But with that many survivors, and with all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity still available, recovery would be steady, if not necessarily rapid.

In fact, ANY kind of major catastrophe, other than the complete destruction of the planet or the destruction of the Sun, would invariably leave survivors, and in generally large numbers. Some of them, like nuclear holocaust or plague, would also have significant impacts on other species. But over all, the biggest threat is to our way of life, our civilization. And even then it's mostly a matter of a change in how we must live rather than complete destruction.

[Ozme52]

Some historians think the European Dark Ages were called that because they were... dark.

Shorter growing season, dimly lit skies, colder weather. All caused by a confluence of volcanic activity that filled the skies with dust and ash that lowered the albedo of the earth, thereby cooling it.

Our concerns over global warming could turn in a second if the Pacific Rim, for example, began to pop a large number of eruptions... not to mention old favorites like Stromboli, Vesuvius, Etna, and others.

Man survives because he is in fact, highly adaptible. Many many life forms do too, but because man is (supposedly) intelligent and self aware, one of the things we do is "categorize" everything, including life. If we didn't differentiate between species then there would not be any extinctions... just life as it was "before" and life as it is "now" and life as it may be in the"future"

[rce]

I think the threat of an actual nuclear war is pretty small, and always has been. Even politicians were pretty quick to realize that nobody wins a nuclear exchange. Even if you were able to wipe out your enemy their territory would be useless for millions of years, and the damage to your own population, land and infrastructure would be catastrophic.
The real threat in modern society is the whacko with a backpack nuke who has nothing to lose, nothing to live for and is only interested in taking as many people with him as he can. Whether a religious fundamentalist (any flavor) racial bigot (also, any flavor) or simply a nutjob going postal, they can cause a significant amount of damage and are almost impossible to stop.
Of course, there are nut job national leaders (see North Korea or Iran) who could possibly launch nuclear warheads against their neighbors, but that would be a relatively small exchange and not likely to destroy much beyond their own general area.

I agree, it is a small risk, has always been small, and smaller yet after the end of the Cold War. However, the threat is there as long as the weapons are there. A complete nuclear holocaust would probably be one scenario where mankind as a whole could be wiped out.



Yes, disease can be a problem. But even the most virulent of plagues rarely has a death rate exceeding about 75%. Even if you postulate a 90% mortality rate, with a current world population of about 8 billion people the survivors would still number around 800 million! Hardly a wipe out! Of course, they would be spread out across the globe and civilization as we know it would probably be destroyed, or at least set back quite a ways. But with that many survivors, and with all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity still available, recovery would be steady, if not necessarily rapid.

In fact, ANY kind of major catastrophe, other than the complete destruction of the planet or the destruction of the Sun, would invariably leave survivors, and in generally large numbers. Some of them, like nuclear holocaust or plague, would also have significant impacts on other species. But over all, the biggest threat is to our way of life, our civilization. And even then it's mostly a matter of a change in how we must live rather than complete destruction.

What I wished to point out was that there are scenarios that are, potentially, much worse than global warming. Sure, there is a smaller risk for them to happen, but we shall not neglect the risk because it is small.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Having re-positioned myself with regard to the who’s responsible argument concerning global warning, I wonder what people’s reaction is to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s challeng to act on the findings of the latest report on climate change: “Real and affordable ways to deal with the problem exist.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that climate change is "unequivocal" and may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impacts, per BBC News. Mr Ban said, "Today the world's scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice. In Bali I expect the world's policymakers to do the same. I come to you humbled after seeing some of the most precious treasures of our planet threatened by humanity's own hand. All humanity must assume responsibility for these treasures."

Is this as more mumbo-jumbo designed to scare us and distract us from the real problems of the world, or, this time, has he highlighted the fact that we have a real and pressing problem?

"Approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5C,” per IPCC. But then, increased risk? What does that mean?

[Thorne]

Is this as more mumbo-jumbo designed to scare us and distract us from the real problems of the world, or, this time, has he highlighted the fact that we have a real and pressing problem?

Actually, few intelligent people can deny that there is, most definately, a problem. The Earth is growing warmer. The question is, how much of that warming is caused by man's activities? In my opinion, very little. Sure there is a lot of localized effects of industry, smog and acid rains among others, but global effects? I've seen no definitive proof of it.

The article I saw today about the UN's statement also said that the earth is now the warmest it's been for the last 12,000 years. And we are only 1.8 degrees cooler than the highest temperature in the last million years. This clearly points to the fact that the Earth has undergone these kinds of warming cycles in the past. What makes us think it's our actions that are causing it this time?

Scientists have shown that the planet has undergone several periods of glaciation over its lifetime. To my knowledge there is no definitive understanding of what caused the glaciers to grow out of control, nor any understanding of why they stopped. But it wasn't mankind's doing, that's certain.

There is even one area of thought which hypothesizes that global warming can trigger an ice age. I don't know if this is true or not, but one thing I do know. The future will be different. Maybe worse, maybe better, but certainly different. And regardless of what you believe, I suggest you sell that beachfront property and move inland a good ways. About five feet higher up, if that UN report is accurate. Looks like Venice isn't going to be the only canal city anymore.

[Captain]

I couldn't agree more Thorne!

I think Global Warming is overstated in order to strike fear in people, so that in turn they will give more power to the government. The government wants people to believe that they are the only ones that can protect us....from everything. I, for one, am not convinced!

[Ozme52]

So... the question remains... should we attempt to modify our behavior to alleviate the impacts of the globe potentially warming.

I say, not only "sure, why not" but "yes, absolutely!"

One: It couldn't hurt.
Two: The easiest things we could do are also things we should be doing to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons. More solar, hydro, wind, geothermal... and yes, more nuclear power.

My problem with things such as hybrid and electric cars... is that the electricity also comes, primarily, from hydrocarbons... and usually much dirtier hydrocarbons at that. Sulfated coal for example. Get us off of coal fired power plants and I'd be all over a hybrid or electric car. In fact, I believe that cars that are purely electric happen be the worst polluters if you count the pollution created making the electricity. At least hybrids use gasoline to generate their electricity... Cleaner still would be methane powered hybrids.

One day, if we can get off of coal, hydrogen, which creates nothing but water when it burns, would be the cleanest.

That aside, you actually make a bigger difference if you reduce your electricity consumption in your home. That's one of the things that really annoys me about Al Gore. He is the worst kind of band-wagon wannabe. Al Gore has a $30,000 per year electric bill. (http://http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659)

[ThisYouWillDo]

Al Gore has a $30,000 per year electric bill. Jesus!!!! And just how many 60 watt light bulbs does that pay for?

So... the question remains... should we attempt to modify our behavior to alleviate the impacts of the globe potentially warming. 'Sright, Ozme. I'm past caring who's fault it was, or is, or will be. But if it's in our power to do something worthwhile about it at any level - individual to supra-national, then we will be to blame if we fail to do so.

The worst-case scenario is the collapse of civilisation as a result of severe climatic change, at some time in the near future (2nd worst scenario is if it's a long time off). We'll lose everything.

Why not, then, invest some of what we have but don't need into the environment in the hope of averting or reducing the impact? Perhaps we could start by moderating our use of power resources, as Ozme suggests. Perhaps we could share our resources more evenly, so that we don't think in terms of national wealth, but global wealth. Maybe we could help the emergent "locomotive" economies develop cleanly. After all, we will stand to benefit when those economies are pulling ours along with them.

Perhaps we could also stop enveloping everything new we manufacture in useless plastic bubbles.

As for electric/hybrid cars - if Ozme says they're rubbish, then I'll accept his word. So why don't we try walking? We could even use horse and cart a bit more, and use the additional manure to fertilise our vegetable gardens so we eat more fresh food and require less to be proceesed and packaged and transported to Supermarkets ... or am I just letting my imagination run wild now?

TYWD

[Thorne]

We could even use horse and cart a bit more, and use the additional manure to fertilise our vegetable gardens so we eat more fresh food and require less to be proceesed and packaged and transported to Supermarkets ... or am I just letting my imagination run wild now?
TYWD

Problem is, if you use a horse you have to have something to feed it. So a lot of your new garden is going to be used up by growing feed for the horse. If you have to buy the feed, then other farmland will be used to grow the feed, instead of growing food for people. Plus, horses are herbivores and, like any other herbivore, produce large quantities of methane. Adding to the problem rather than helping.

[rce]

Perhaps we could also stop enveloping everything new we manufacture in useless plastic bubbles.


Yep, and if it is popping the bubble wrap we miss, we can do that on line (http://www.virtual-bubblewrap.com/popnow.shtml).

;che

[ThisYouWillDo]

I understand the average cow produces somewhere between half the amount of pollution that the average car produces in a day, and the same amount (UK statistics). We have many many more cars in the UK than we have cows and horses, so it'd be a good trade-off.

[Ozme52]

LOL, I didn't exactly say rubbish.

Pure electic cars... yeah, so long as our electricity comes from coal, are no better than gas drive vehicles. Both from a carbon footprint perspective and from a pollution perstpective.

Hybrids are okay... because they still burn the cleaner of the two hydrocarbons... but if a hybrid SUV gets 30 mpg, and you could get the job done with a pure gasoline guzzling Metro that gets 50 mpg, then you're just pretending to be green.

[rce]

Some says that electrified railways are the most environmental friendly ways to travel, but you have to know where that electricity comes from as well. It is easy in Norway and Sweden, where most electricity comes from hydro power or (in Sweden) nuclear power, but in Germany, a lot of electric power comes from coal.

[yullie]

well it's already happen in here... in indonesia jakarta city.. the sea level is up and already flooded in some area... every afternoon and night... it's said because of the global warming... i can see the sea is really up than before since my place is near to the sea :(

[rce]

well it's already happen in here... in indonesia jakarta city.. the sea level is up and already flooded in some area... every afternoon and night... it's said because of the global warming... i can see the sea is really up than before since my place is near to the sea :(

Are there any measurements on the average sea level supporting this?

[Thorne]

well it's already happen in here... in indonesia jakarta city.. the sea level is up and already flooded in some area... every afternoon and night... it's said because of the global warming... i can see the sea is really up than before since my place is near to the sea :(

Are you sure it's from the sea rising and not from the land sinking? I only ask because it is my understanding that there are some islands in the Pacific which, if the kind of rise you are talking about was happening, they would already be underwater. Yet they are not, or were not last time I checked. Some coastal areas can be extremely unstable and slowly sink over time, such as Venice, Italy. Even simple erosion can make it seem as though the sea level is rising when in actuality the land is being washed away. This is especially prevalent around barrier islands. Also, that area is very active geologically: lots of volcanoes and earthquakes, all of which can cause settlement of the land masses.

I'm not disputing your observations, but I should think that rising sea levels of the magnitude you are indicating would be observable worldwide and not just locally. As far as I have been able to find out there is no real evidence of any major increase in sea level. I don't deny the possibility, I just haven't seen any indisputable proof.

[Guest 91108]

a few links i have..

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2785477.ece


http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSeaLevelRiseIndex.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html :

Sea level is rising along most of the U.S. coast, and around the world. In the last century, sea level rose 5 to 6 inches more than the global average along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, because coastal lands there are subsiding.

The IPCC found significant uncertainty in the analysis of 20th century sea level change. Also, there is little knowledge about the regional pattern of sea level change. IPCC identified a number of recommendations for reducing uncertainties (IPCC, 2001).

EPA, in coordination with other agencies, is leading the development of a federal study titled “Coastal Elevations and Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise.” The study is one of 21 such studies being conducted by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. The study will include maps and other information useful for community and environmental planning. The prospectus for the report, which will be completed in late 2007, can be found at the CCSP Web site.

Higher temperatures are expected to further raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers and small ice caps, and causing portions of Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets to melt. The IPCC estimates that the global average sea level will rise between 0.3 and 2.9 feet (0.09 to 0.88 meters) in the next century (IPCC, 2001 ).

[Thorne]

In the last century, sea level rose 5 to 6 inches more than the global average along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, because coastal lands there are subsiding.

This is what I was saying. Subsidence is causing more of the rise than actual increases in sea level.

All three of those source you linked to seemed to be saying the same things: future rises in sea level; sea levels may rise; potential increase in sea level. While I do not doubt that global warming is occurring, and that the sea levels may rise, there does not seem to be, as yet, any conclusive evidence that it's occurring yet, at least not to any significant degree.

Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear" is a fictionalized account of the politics of environmental terror. I have checked on several of his sources and found his basic premise to be fairly accurate. Environmentalists in particular, and even some governments, are using the potential for environmental catastrophe as a lever to raise the level of fear in the general population. This allows them to siphon more and more funds into their own pockets.

And even conceding that global warming is occurring, which I do believe, there does not seem to be any scientifically valid evidence to determine just how much of it is of natural origin and how much is caused by humanity.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I know I tend to go off at irrelevant tangents in these discussions, but I do wonder just how many subscribers to the Ptolemaic theory of the solar system visit this site, and if they are also members of the Flat Earth Society.

Global warming is as certain a fact as natural evolution is (well, if I'm going to be controversial, why stop at global warming?). Actually, global warming isn't controversial: all the major and respectable scientific academies and institutions agree. It's controversial to deny it - just like denying the holocaust. This summer, the Arctic ice cap was the smallest it's ever been since records began, and the North West Passage was open for the first time; Greenland will soon be able to live up to its name; and Antarctica is sloughing off icebergs as large as countries. All that melted water has to go somewhere, and consequently, Tuvalu faces total submersion as the sea levels rise, despite the fact that that poor nation produces virtually no pollution at all - less than the pollution produced by a small American town.

I also understand that Indonesia is one of the places suffering already from rising sea levels. And so far as land falling into the sea is concerned, land erosion is speeded up by rising sea levels and harsher weather conditions. Weather conditions are changing noticeably – or maybe you hadn’t noticed? Look at Bangladesh, then. That might not be due to global warming, but, hey, who are you fooling if you say it isn’t?

Earth is now 9 degrees warmer than it was in the depths of the last ice age, and in 100 years time, it's expected to be us much as 6 degrees warmer still. Unless, of course, someone has evidence to prove those projections wrong. Ther is a long-term trend towards higher temperatures. I don't know whose fault that is: Nature's or mankind's, but it is within our power to influence it.

We must all wake up and smell the coffee ...yuck - it's tainted with salt water! I do detect an "I'm OK, so the rest of the world can f*** itself attitude emanating from the west.” Fortunately, it’s the poorer and least influential countries that will suffer the most, so why worry? Certainly not politicians. (By west, I am don’t mean USA alone, although USA is probably the most blatant, I mean ALL developed countries.). We have a duty to ourselves, and to the whole world to minimise the adverse consequences of global warming – and to take advantage of any beneficial windfalls – maybe English wine will replace Californian. But burying our heads in the sand isn’t a viable option.

We can't shoot the sea as it breaks into our homes and washes away our property and drowns our loved ones, can we? So what are we waiting for? Why aren’t we “shooting” the intruder now before it gets us, by taking serious steps to mitigate the potential damage? We all have an inalienable right to keep our feet dry, and God help the bastards who try to take it away from us!

[Thorne]

Greenland will soon be able to live up to its name;
Earth is now 9 degrees warmer than it was in the depths of the last ice age, and in 100 years time, it's expected to be us much as 6 degrees warmer still. Unless, of course, someone has evidence to prove those projections wrong.

Just remember, Greenland was named so about 1000 years ago, when it was green. Was humanity responsible for that bit of warming?

It would be hard to understand if the world today were NOT somewhat warmer than it was in the depths of the last ice age. That's why we're not in an ice age now, isn't it? And projections for future temperature increases are just that: projections. They are based on statistical models and the models are constantly changing, being refined, as our data collection improves. The problem is that the ways we collect that data are so much improved within the last 20 - 30 years, with the advent of satellite weather monitoring, that much of the data we are trying to compare it to from prior times is unreliable. How can we know what kind of evolution the Greenland ice sheets have undergone in the last 10,000 years or so? Sure, there's ice core sampling, but that's like looking at an elephant through a microscope and trying to decipher its shape with only a handful of views. Possible? Perhaps, but it's unlikely you'll get it exactly right.

As you noted, it would be foolish in the extreme to deny the existence of global warming, just as it would be foolish to deny that the earth is round. The big question is how much of that warming is caused by man's actions? If it's a lot, then yes, we should be able to have a large impact by reducing our carbon footprint. If it's only a little, than any attempt we make to mitigate it will also be quite minor.

[yullie]

well support by generator pumped the water...(sorry didn't know the english word for that) but if the sea level going up well it's flooded but until now it's safe :) hope it's gonna be like that forever...

[Guest 91108]

as the sea level rises the salinity actually will decrease. think...

also the temp rising will eventually cause a rubberband effect actually snapping back to a another iceage "at a future point" much as in the past cycles. a geological event that is repeated just as the climate is to change.

We may contribute to speeding it up but I seriously doubt we are going to change it or hinder it at this point perhaps a couple decades agao our influence to speed it up would have been possible.. now I think that choice and it's impact is inconsequential.

[Ozme52]

There's no evidence that the rise in temperature creates a 'rubberband' effect per se. Some believe that the (modest) desalinization of the Arctic Ocean, as it spreads into the North Atlantic, can stall the Gulf Stream and THAT would cause an iceage... but there is no historical evidence that this is what causes iceages... or even that the mini-iceages that have occurred in (relatively) recent times, over the last 1300 years. No one had measured these currents before the last century.

We just don't know. Nor do we know if all this worry will be offset by a huge series of volcanoes throwing ash into the air... and creating a 'shadecloud' that cools the planet... (maybe the cause of the Dark Ages?) and we'll be scrambing to increase the greenhouse gas effect.

It's the world... and the solar system. It's been around for a long long time and we haven't... and don't really know how it all works.

Where's that hole in the ozone? Oh yeah... went away on its own. Turned out to be a cyclic phenomenon... we just jumped to conclusions... because it was the FIRST time we happened to be able to measure it.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne says: Just remember, Greenland was named so about 1000 years ago, when it was green. Was humanity responsible for that bit of warming?

Was that a slip? Greenland got colder after its original discovery.

Anyway, I looked it up and it seems most likely that it was called Greenland by Erik the Red or some other Norse character to make other settlers think it was a pleasant place to live, rather than because it really was green and lush, although it might have been in a very few places in the extreme south: this was during the Mediaeval Warm Period, as I'm sure you are aware. (I didn't know that myself, however, and was just making a play on the country's name to emphasise my own arguments.)

I have already conceded the point regarding whose fault global warming is. I don't necessarily blame mankind for it now. But that's not my argument now.

Wolfscout: It would be utterly selfish and grossly inhumane to sit back and do nothing to avert the worst consequences of global warming if it is within our power to mitigate it. On an individual level we should do all we can to minimise our own effect on the planet - to reduce our carbon footprint as it is quaintly called. And on a global level, we should be taking steps now to protect those at greatest risk by helping build flood defences, reclaiming land and, where necessary, relocating whole communities.

We're not defeatists, are we? I'm sure we can find a way if we want to. See below.

Ozme: Good point about the hole in the ozone layer. The hole fluctuates in size according to the season. In 2006, the hole over Antarctica was the biggest ever due to tropospheric ozone depletion (am I convincing you that I know what I'm talking about?). The stratospheric ozone layer - which does more to protect us from the sun's radiation than it affects global warming - is/was slowly diminishing, by about 4% every decade.

It was thought that the reduction of ozone was due to the emission of CFC's at ground level. I wouldn't dare to suggest who or what was emitting them, or how long for, but as soon as international resolutions to replace CFC's with something not quite as bad (HFC's) were implemented due to the Montreal Protocal (yay Canada!) in 1987 things started getting better, or at least, stopped getting worse.

This demonstrates mankind's ability to influence natural events.

However, the hole over Antarctica is still there and, provided global warming doesn't slow its repair, it will remain until somewhere around 2024, while the hole over the Arctic is likely to be there much longer: possibly until 2075. So make sure you're using factor 40+ sun lotion for quite a while yet.

TYWD

[GregortT]

We should keep in mind that the Earth's warmth is almost completely dependent upon the Sun (other than geo-thermal heating, which is not used very much, and the heat humanity itself creates, which is pretty small as well). If the Sun increased its output by only 1%, the Earth would (within the span of several months to a year or two) become completely uninhabitable. Luckily, the Sun is a very stable fusion engine - it's been going for billions of years, and it will continue to go for several billion more. However, all these temperature fluctuations on Earth could be due simply to the Sun changing its output by a fraction of a percent. That does not mean that humans are completely innocent (I'm sure all these greenhouse gasses don't help the situation any), and it doesn't imply that humans should throw up our hands and say that there's nothing we can do.

[Thorne]

We should keep in mind that the Earth's warmth is almost completely dependent upon the Sun (other than geo-thermal heating, which is not used very much, and the heat humanity itself creates, which is pretty small as well). If the Sun increased its output by only 1%, the Earth would (within the span of several months to a year or two) become completely uninhabitable. Luckily, the Sun is a very stable fusion engine - it's been going for billions of years, and it will continue to go for several billion more. However, all these temperature fluctuations on Earth could be due simply to the Sun changing its output by a fraction of a percent. That does not mean that humans are completely innocent (I'm sure all these greenhouse gasses don't help the situation any), and it doesn't imply that humans should throw up our hands and say that there's nothing we can do.

While it is very stable, by comparison to some variable stars, the Sun does have some variability of its own. The sunspot cycle runs 11 years from maximum to maximum, and their is a slight increase in luminosity at the peak of the cycle. The sunspot cycle has been shown to have an effect on global temperatures.

There is also a study here (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html) which indicates that the Sun's radiation has increased by .05% over the last decade. Though they've only been able to monitor it since the advent of satellite technology, there seems to be some evidence that the increase has been occurring over the last century and may be a significant factor in the current global warming scenarios.

[GregortT]

Sunspot do go in cycles, but since they're cyclical they are not a cause of global warming (at least not the global warming that we are talking about) because the duration of the cycle is only 11 years, while the warming that is generally discussed is over the course of the last century or so. As was stated above, such global temperature phenomina have occured in the past over several centuries (if not millenia), so you could argue that even an entire century is simply too short a time-scale to tell. Remember: a century may seem like a long time to us, but it's almost negligible compared to the age of the Sun or the Earth. On those scales, an 11 year sunspot cycle is practically the blink of an eye.

[Thorne]

Sunspot do go in cycles, but since they're cyclical they are not a cause of global warming (at least not the global warming that we are talking about) because the duration of the cycle is only 11 years, while the warming that is generally discussed is over the course of the last century or so. As was stated above, such global temperature phenomina have occured in the past over several centuries (if not millenia), so you could argue that even an entire century is simply too short a time-scale to tell. Remember: a century may seem like a long time to us, but it's almost negligible compared to the age of the Sun or the Earth. On those scales, an 11 year sunspot cycle is practically the blink of an eye.

True, the sunspot cycle itself, while contributing to fluctuations in weather, do not directly affect climate, as far as we know. What they are showing at that link is different. I quote:
"The recent trend of a .05 percent per decade increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in watts per meter squared, or the amount of solar energy that falls upon a square meter outside the Earths atmosphere. The trend was measured between successive solar minima that occur approximately every 11 years." (Bold emphasis is mine.)

It's my understanding that these kinds of measurements have only been available for the last 30 years or so, but that IF this kind of trend has been going on for the last century then it very well could be affecting our climate.

This site (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/cycle.html) states that during the period between 1645 to 1715 there was virtually no sunspot activity and the climate here on Earth was "unusually cold."

The point I'm trying to make is that, while there is no question of mankind having SOME influence on global warming, there is so much else happening that it is impossible to truly understand exactly how large an influence that is. The solar cycle is only one of the possible culprits. Tectonic activity within the Earth also plays a major role. Scientists have also recently (within the past 20 years) discovered huge deposits of methane ice buried under the sea bed. Disturbances, such as undersea mudslides and earthquakes, can uncover enormous quantities of this ice which then sublimates, releasing methane gas, a major greenhouse gas. All of these things seem to have a far greater influence on the global climate than anything we can do.

Sure, reducing our "carbon footprint" can reduce greenhouse gases somewhat. How much good it will do is questionable. One thing is practically certain. Any changes we make will be far less effective, and far more expensive, than politicians and conservationists want you to believe.

[ThisYouWillDo]

GregortT says: We should keep in mind that the Earth's warmth is almost completely dependent upon the Sun ... [That] doesn't imply that humans should throw up our hands and say that there's nothing we can do.

Quite right. My point of view exactly.

Thorne says: Sure, reducing our "carbon footprint" can reduce greenhouse gases somewhat. How much good it will do is questionable. One thing is practically certain. Any changes we make will be far less effective, and far more expensive, than politicians and conservationists want you to believe.

Sounds defeatist to me. We all know that politicians and activitists tell lies, but that shouldn't divert us from what we believe to be a sensible course of action.

TYWD

[ThisYouWillDo]

This should settle the Global Warming question once and for all!

TYWD

[Thorne]

Sounds defeatist to me. We all know that politicians and activitists tell lies, but that shouldn't divert us from what we believe to be a sensible course of action.

The key word there is, "sensible." In any group of ten people, you are liable to have 12 different ideas of just what "sensible" means. For myself, it's a matter of convenience. If it's easy and cheap, it's sensible. If it's a pain in the ass and expensive, it's crazy.

What the hell, we're all going to be killed by a rogue asteroid anyway. Or by super-volcanoes. Or by plagues from outer space. Or some whacko religious freak is going to "save" our souls by incinerating our flesh in a nuclear holocaust. Defeatist? You bet! I can't do anything about those things. In my opinion, I can't do anything worthwhile about global warming, either.

And like religion, I don't really care if other people believe in global warming and conservation and all that stuff. What pisses me off is those who want to force me to adhere to their rules for making this a better world. Where I live the city pays a "recycling" company to transport trash from "recycling centers" to the dumps. Fine, no problem. But then that company decrees that I must SEPARATE my trash into recyclable and non-recyclable items. Then I must deposit my trash into the appropriate containers. Wait a minute! Isn't that what we're paying them to do, through taxes? It is! So I dump ALL of my trash into one container. Let THEM separate them out if it means that much to them.

It's the same thing with global warming. Al Gore (among many others) tells me I MUST reduce my "carbon footprint" (I hate that term! Makes me want to take a nice, hot bath!) while his own "footprint" grows ever larger. Why should I do what he wants me to do when he isn't even willing to follow his own advice?

It's all a shell game. People will use whatever means possible to try to control other people. Whether it's environmental fanatics, or religious fanatics, or any other kinds of fanatics, they want to keep your attention focused on things which cannot be helped in order to divert your attention from their inability to correct those problems which CAN be helped.

[ThisYouWillDo]

10 people; 12 "sensible" ideas; and at least one loony one - and a conspiracy plot into the bargain.

I certainly don't want to "control" you, even though I do advocate you sorting your rubbish. It must be twice as expensive, and half as effective to sort it out after it's all been mixed up with everyone else's crap. But I'm a liberal, as you know, and I can only point out what I think is the right way forward.

You admit you're a defeatist, so what more is there to say?

[Ozme52]

In my opinion, the biggest reason for reducing our carbon footprint is to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

That it 'kills two birds with one stone' is just gravy.

[Guest 91108]

I prefer to say realist when someone mentions defeatist.
It Tells me their ideas are only ideas or theories being bantered about and not actually in place.
Most liberal ideas don't come into fruitation because for the most part their ideas are expensive and there's no way to fund them.
Many great ideas , aye and most any thing put forth by .gov , take away from personal freedom. Trying to impose their idea of a utopian society that if enacted would be so screwed that it would be no better than what is here now.

[Thorne]

In my opinion, the biggest reason for reducing our carbon footprint is to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

That it 'kills two birds with one stone' is just gravy.

On the other hand, the sooner we use up the fossil fuels, the sooner governments will have to turn to alternative, cleaner energy sources. We can't keep stretching out the oil and coal without seriously considering something else. But don't anyone tell that to the oil companies!

[Thorne]

I prefer to say realist when someone mentions defeatist.
It Tells me their ideas are only ideas or theories being bantered about and not actually in place.
Most liberal ideas don't come into fruitation because for the most part their ideas are expensive and there's no way to fund them.
Many great ideas , aye and most any thing put forth by .gov , take away from personal freedom. Trying to impose their idea of a utopian society that if enacted would be so screwed that it would be no better than what is here now.

<Thorne bows to a fellow Carolinian.>

The original idea of government was to protect the people and maintain a secure life style. But now it seems that politicians only want to control their people and to use government to promote big business so they can really profit from it when they leave public office.

As for a Utopian society, I can't think of anything more boring.

[Guest 91108]

<Thorne bows to a fellow Carolinian.>

The original idea of government was to protect the people and maintain a secure life style. But now it seems that politicians only want to control their people and to use government to promote big business so they can really profit from it when they leave public office.

As for a Utopian society, I can't think of anything more boring.

exactly.. any other viewpoint of what governemnt is presently is a very narrowed view that isn't open to the reality that is just waiting to smack them on their collective *ok fine* silly asses.

[Ozme52]

I prefer to say realist when someone mentions defeatist.
It Tells me their ideas are only ideas or theories being bantered about and not actually in place.
Most liberal ideas don't come into fruitation because for the most part their ideas are expensive and there's no way to fund them.
Many great ideas , aye and most any thing put forth by .gov , take away from personal freedom. Trying to impose their idea of a utopian society that if enacted would be so screwed that it would be no better than what is here now.

I'll agree with a lot of that.

A side note as to the cost of some of these 'solutions' is that money (mostly) doesn't grow on trees. It's mined out of the earth and smelted into useful items. Manufactering creates wealth. Manufacturing creates greenhouse gases. So in order to fund solutions, one must realize one is adding to the problem. No one has determined the cost of some of these 'solutions' in terms of the offset to the carbon footprint. It does no good to reduce greenhouse gases on one front if it increases them on another. One needs to understand the "balance sheet" of gains and losses.

It goes to my issue with all electric cars. You offset clean(er) burning hydrocarbons with electricity produced by coal burning plants.

Another example. Aluminum is not the great 'green' metal everyone presumes it to be. Aluminum requires huge huge amounts of electricity to smelt the ore into useful metal. Yep, all that nice recyclable aluminum creates a huge carbon footprint. We don't recycle aluminum out of altruism or a love of the earth... we do it so we can have aluminum, light, strong, non-oxidizing. Without recycling the cost of making it in the first place would be prohibitive.

It happens to cost less to smelt new iron than to recycle and resmelt old iron/steel. So the carbon footprint of new iron is less than that of recycled iron. Each item has to be measured independently. An all inclusive recycling mandate could make things worse.

[Ozme52]

On the other hand, the sooner we use up the fossil fuels, the sooner governments will have to turn to alternative, cleaner energy sources. We can't keep stretching out the oil and coal without seriously considering something else. But don't anyone tell that to the oil companies!


I would hate to see us follow that policy. Once we have eliminated the need for using fossil hydrocarbons as fuel, it can all go to other uses. Plastics and dyes and petrochemicals, medicines, shelters, and clothing.

The oil companies won't suffer. They'll become more efficient. Did you know for all the money they make, it's all in volume. Their profit margins are a low single digit percentage. Any other major corporate would be crucified in the market for single digit profit margins. Get them out of the fuel business and get them focused on the other uses for hydrocarbons and the profit margins and overall profits will likely go up...

[Ozme52]

Wolf,

"Reason: "so.cial.ist" is a word not allowed?"

No, "so- c.i.a.l.i.s. -t" is the word not allowed. LMAO.
Neither is "so- v.i.a.g.r.a. -t" but I've never seen anyone spell it that way.

[Thorne]

I would hate to see us follow that policy. Once we have eliminated the need for using fossil hydrocarbons as fuel, it can all go to other uses. Plastics and dyes and petrochemicals, medicines, shelters, and clothing.

The oil companies won't suffer. They'll become more efficient. Did you know for all the money they make, it's all in volume. Their profit margins are a low single digit percentage. Any other major corporate would be crucified in the market for single digit profit margins. Get them out of the fuel business and get them focused on the other uses for hydrocarbons and the profit margins and overall profits will likely go up...

I would hate to follow that policy myself. My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek for that one. (I can think of better places to plant it, for sure.)

True, the oil company profits are a low percentage of their costs. But they have consistently fought against conversion to other methods of producing energy. It's only relatively recently that they, like the tobacco companies, are starting to expand their interests, mostly to offset the loss of profits from their mainstay products.

[Guest 91108]

so******t.



Edit ok i posted "so.cial.ist" again take out the " . . " from it and that word is not allowed. stupid programing like it doesn't exist.

here it is again look
so******tso·cial·ist [sṓshəlist]
or So·cial·ist [sṓshəlist]
n (plural so·cial·ists) (plural So·cial·ists)
believer in so******m: somebody who believes in and supports so******m or a so******t party

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Guest 91108]

Lmao

Communism

well hell it likes communism
LMAO again

[TomOfSweden]

I had dinner with a environmental journalist a few weeks ago who explained it all to me.

1) We're heading out of an ice-age. It should get warmer no matter what. It has to do with our distance from the sun.
2) We're taking fossil fuels that have been locked up into the ground and releasing them. This is an unnatural state which will increase global warming more than it would otherwise.
3) The release of volcanoes isn't that big of a deal since it's always been like this.

We don't know how much of the global warming is our fault. All we know is that we're adding to global warming, but not how much. With or without our help coast line property is not a good long time investment. No matter what we'll do we will not be able to stabilize the temperature. It's supposed to get warmer.

The latest IPCC report managed to show that our impact was greater than what was previous thought. But it's not all our fault, and above all we're still mostly just guessing.

He said more stuff that for some reason I can't remember. But it was a very enlightening conversation, putting things very much in perspective for me.

Never forget that newspapers sell news. Scientific reports that aren't alarming will either not get coverage or angled in a way to make it worse than they are.

edit: there's also the issue of that we cannot cut down our emissions to zero impact. We can't even get close to denting the rate we burn without severely damaging our economy. It's not doable. It's easy to sit here in the west and have opinions on what poor people in the developing world should do when they're on the brink of starvation. Whether we eat more local produce won't really help much at all.

In my humble opinion we should put our money into research. It's worked in the past for all kinds of problems.

Right now money is being moved from research into all kinds of stupid ass environmental projects which don't do anything except alleviate peoples guilty conscience. That I think is cause for alarm.

[Ozme52]

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) That's an assumption for which there is no real proof. Some think the European Dark Ages were called that because it was 'dark' from large amounts of ash in the sky creating shorter growing seasons, a harder life with less leisure time, and no time to do science... until the 'renaissance.'

I agree with most of the rest of your comments.

[Thorne]

3) The release of volcanoes isn't that big of a deal since it's always been like this.

I have to disagree with you on this one. True, the volcanic activity may tend to average out over time, but one very large eruption can have devastating effects. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted several years ago it blew a massive hole in the ozone layer. Scientists were shocked by this, of course, since none of them had predicted it. But they really haven't been studying the ozone layer for all that long, so nobody knows how often this happens. According to the USGS at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html -
"It injected a 20- million ton sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere to an altitude of more than 20 miles. The climactic Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere this century, although smaller than the estimated disturbances from the eruptions of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatau in 1883. Sulfate aerosol formed in the stratosphere from sulfur dioxide in the Pinatubo cloud increased the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space. Consequently, the Earth's surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of the effect. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from man-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led to the lowest ozone levels ever recorded to date in the stratosphere. Scientists now know that the "smoke" from volcanoes, once attributed by poets to be from Vulcan's forge, is actually volcanic gas, and an important agent of global change."

When Krakatoa exploded in 1883 it sent up such a large ash cloud that it circled the globe. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa -
"In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfurous acid (H2SO3) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation."

These kinds of major eruptions, though not as common as the normal eruptions happening every day, add significantly to global climate change.

[Guest 91108]

Do not forget Yellowstone is a Supervolcano that is expected to go at some unknown near time....

Eruptions of the Yellowstone volcanic system have included the two largest volcanic eruptions in North America in the past few million years; the third largest was at Long Valley in California and produced the Bishop ash bed. The biggest of the Yellowstone eruptions occurred 2.1 million years ago, depositing the Huckleberry Ridge ash bed. These eruptions left behind huge volcanic depressions called “calderas” and spread volcanic ash over large parts of North America (see map). If another large caldera-forming eruption were to occur at Yellowstone, its effects would be worldwide. Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States, and injection of huge volumes of volcanic gases into the atmosphere could drastically affect global climate http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm

http://www.earthmountainview.com/yellowstone/yellowstone.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/supervolcanoes.shtml

It is little known that lying underneath one of America's areas of outstanding natural beauty - Yellowstone Park - is one of the largest supervolcanoes in the world. Scientists have revealed that it has been on a regular eruption cycle of 600,000 years. The last eruption was 640,000 years ago... so the next is overdue.

[TomOfSweden]

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) That's an assumption for which there is no real proof. Some think the European Dark Ages were called that because it was 'dark' from large amounts of ash in the sky creating shorter growing seasons, a harder life with less leisure time, and no time to do science... until the 'renaissance.'

I agree with most of the rest of your comments.

Nobody is saying that the volcanoes don't have an impact, but the more data is being collected it's impact seems to be getting less and less. Now they're down to just a few percent.

And they need more to account for the rise of temperature as we see today.

This is just one of those "dammit, the tree hugger's were right moments". At least it was for me.

[Ozme52]

Nobody is saying that the volcanoes don't have an impact, but the more data is being collected it's impact seems to be getting less and less. Now they're down to just a few percent.

And they need more to account for the rise of temperature as we see today.

This is just one of those "dammit, the tree hugger's were right moments". At least it was for me.


Oh. You misunderstood my intent or perhaps I wasn't clear... I meant that they add to global cooling due to creating clouds that shade the surface of the earth. How much is unknown because it's only been this last century that we can measure changes that may have been influenced by volcanic activity AND it's generally agreed that in terms of geologic time... the last century, has been volcanically quiet.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I still think that none of the above justifies the complancency espoused by the majority of posters here.

Global warming is a fact. We have the ability to mitigate some of its effects, but it might cost the rich nations a bit of money. So that's a non-starter.

TYWD

[Sea_Hunter]

OK, I believe the world is flat. The whole global warming thing is an absolute hoax. Those that say that no scientest has ever come out against global warming - lie. That is simply not true. Not one single computer model has ever predicted the climate accurately. When measuring devices are put in asphalt parking lots, under air conditioner exhausts, and next to BBQ pits, their results are somewhat suspect. Nobody who says climate change is man made wants to talk about the Medevil warming period, where CO2 levils were just as high as they are now. What, did the horses the knights rode use fossle fules? Does anyone bother to look at the Crustatious Period, where the global warming was at the highest, and CO2 levils peaked? Perhaps old T Rex used fossel fule instead of becoming fossel fuel? It goes on and on. Not one single "fact" presented by any climate change "scientest" has withstood testing, or review on the issue of man caused climate change. No one can show me a single expierment that proves scientifically that CO2 emmisions cause an increase in troposphereic tempiture. I suggest that before you jump on that climate change caused by man bandwagon you read the article written by a 15 yo girl on Al Gore's movie. Look under Global Warming Hoax. Her name is Kristen Barynes I believe. She absolutely trashes Gore with the facts. She demolishes the man caused global climate myth. If a 15yo student in Main can do the homework, perhaps we as adults owe it to ourselves to do the same. The biggest embarassment of this entire issue is how easily we as adults in America are being led around by the nose on this without ever, once, doing the homework ourselves and looking for the truth. We are indeed, becoming a nation of sheep.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Sea Hunter, rather than asking "whose fault is it?" we have now moved on to "can we be bothered to try to put things right, or is it a waste of time?"

[TomOfSweden]

Crustatious = http://fimbulvinter.blogsome.com/wp-admin/images/dr_zoidberg.JPG

[Ozme52]

Can't really trust dr. z.

He just wants our jelly. g*

[js207]

Sea Hunter, rather than asking "whose fault is it?" we have now moved on to "can we be bothered to try to put things right, or is it a waste of time?"

Before asking about trying to "put things right", you would have to define "right". Are you going to try to impose a completely unnatural stasis, somehow negating every force of nature and ending cycles which have existed for millennia? Cancel out the known effects of humans, trying to restore your extrapolation of the previous cycles?

Right now, we know the planet's a little bit warmer than it was a few decades ago. We also know CO2 levels are up. There's a theory that the two are connected to some extent, since increased CO2 levels tend to follow increased temperatures quite closely in historical data. The only thing we know for sure, however, is that increased CO2 levels are not entirely to blame (since other, entirely natural, factors are known to have made some contribution there, both on the Earth and on Mars, a planet not yet noted for heavy industry).

There are some sensible steps we could and should take, like phasing out fossil fuel electricity generation and trying to reduce road congestion - but blowing trillions on quick-fix political "solutions" without properly considering reality or defining a sensible goal is counterproductive at best. If you're using sea levels to justify this expenditure, just tell me: how many trillion dollars are you prepared to pay per inch of sea level? How much do you think installing an extra inch of sea wall where necessary, given almost an entire century in which to do so, would cost? Now compare those two figures, and think about the implications.

[Ozme52]

I just remembered...

How far is Harlech Castle from the ocean? Seemed a mighty long way when I visited in 1983. I remember a painting of it from long before, waves crashing up on the cliffs below.

The ocean has been higher. We've moved onto lands that were previously submerged and now we're going to pay for it... and I doubt that a) we can do anything about it and b) that we were the cause of previously higher sea levels nor are the cause of future sea levels.

TW, the issue is that this is about politics and power. Not about saving the world from... nature.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Oh well - if money's the problem, that's an end to it!

Or if it's politics and power, then let the people without a vote die.

Mind you, Holland managed to reclaim hundreds of square miles from the sea. They could afford to do that. They decided it was a good idea, allocated funds to the project(s) and went ahead and did it. Now they stand to lose it because a small but vocal group of people are in denial. What concern are Holland's problems to them?

Global warming IS happening, and it IS possible to mitigate the effects. I can't say if we can do enough, but if we do nothing they'll be worse than they have to be.

But we don't have to build sea walls everywhere, we can - and will have to - move inland. Massive population shifts will have far-reaching consequences and no matter how deep you bury your head in the sand, everyone, everywhere will be affected to some degree or other. So a good plan would be to work out where displaced people should go and how to get them there without wars and without causing greater hardship.

Sounds like a job for a good politician with lots of money to me.

TYWD

[Guest 91108]

The smart thing is to inform the population. That is not being done.
Then.. those in the effected areas should start to move themselves.
The .gov isn't going to move such mass amounts of people prior to the event.
They have to move themselves just as in any other hurricane or similiar natural disaster/situation.

And like they have always done in the past .. They ( being the government) comes in afterwards to do what they can if anything.
It's how they have shown us they wish to work in past and how I expect them to now.
I do not see where any .gov is going to allocate moving for the masses to such areas. They are not going to fund it. It's unrealistic to expect them to.

I think such talk is more time and bandwidth wasting than doing anything about it.

People's survival has been and is now .. probably willl always be in the hands of the populace at large.

To remain apathetic to the situation is to spell your own woes in future.
It's that simple.

All the talk of the World's leading countries should this and that is pure BS.
What of individual responsiblity?
What of individual taking initiative to protect themselves and family?
I take it for mine.
I expect others to do the same. Again it's all very simple.
We are making things seem much harder than they are.
There will be loss and casualites and such, kinda silly it seems to me to think it can be prevented.. Mainly because we are not nearly intelligent enough to see the obvious. This thread shows that in the kinds of things being put forward.
ie .. Let the nanny .gov protect us.. Do they really? Look at the news media for your answers.

I've said it I don't know how many times on this forum and others.
Humanity has not progressed to a level where it will think ahead enough to out maneuver greed and and ego/power stroking self importance to do such things.
If you don't beleive that.. cut on the TV and watch an hour news cast any day of the week.
you'll only see maybe a few minutes if that much devoted to any one single individual's attempt at being a noble creature.
We as a whole are not.
It is a sad commentary / opinion.
Yes, it is just an opinion .. but it is one that is very evident.

Makes me wonder who is truly in denial ...

What it is .. is time for people to take responsiblity for themselves in all ways and stop wanting/expecting and waiting on someone else to do it for them.

[Thorne]

those in the effected areas should start to move themselves.
The .gov isn't going to move such mass amounts of people prior to the event.
They have to move themselves just as in any other hurricane or similiar natural disaster/situation.
...
All the talk of the World's leading countries should this and that is pure BS.
What of individual responsiblity?
What of individual taking initiative to protect themselves and family?
...
What it is .. is time for people to take responsiblity for themselves in all ways and stop wanting/expecting and waiting on someone else to do it for them.

I have to agree with you here. How many people have been killed in hurricanes, fires and other natural disasters because the were too stubborn (or too stupid) to evacuate when told that they should? And how many more have been killed because they were never informed of a disaster on the horizon?

But asking people to accept individual responsibility? What a bizarre concept! So politically incorrect of you! It's much easier to blame your problems on the government, or on the industrialized nations, or on any other scapegoat you can find.

Government's job is to maintain the status quo, keep the peace. Moving large segments of population around goes against the grain. How can you control a population on the move? Don't rely on them to help you!

In my opinion, if you think you can do something to reduce the effects of global warming, and if you have the desire and the resources to do it, then by all means, go ahead. But do it because you think it's right and necessary, not because some politician or whack-job ecoterrorist tells you to do it. Meanwhile, I'll keep building my fortress of solitude, somewhere in the mountains.

[Guest 91108]

Smiles a lot.

Oh well .. I live to be politically incorrect. I get all warm and fuzzy when I rub those who expect things the wrong way.

[Thorne]

Smiles a lot.

Oh well .. I live to be politically incorrect. I get all warm and fuzzy when I rub those who expect things the wrong way.

Funny! I get all warm and fuzzy when my wife rubs things the RIGHT way!

[ThisYouWillDo]

I don't think we're talking about individuals here, nor a few thousand people in the path of a huricane; not even a few million in a city that's facing destruction by earthquakes. We're talking about 5 .. 10 .. 15 percent of many different nations' populations moving en masse to the nearest place of refuge. Uncountable numbers. Where are they going to go? There will be hordes moving back from rising sea levels, and masses moving away from newly arid farmlands. Converging on inland cities to look for food and shelter, which, of course, they won't get without a fight. Then they will spread further inland to find somewhere else to settle. They will be resisted by people who are already very comfortable in their retreats in the mountains - NIMBY's if you like ... the "we don't want no intruders around here" brigade ... people who justify their selfishness by calling it self preservation ... people who would glady take aid if they needed it themselves ... who would steal if if they had to, and let the original owner go hang.

How well did the wealthiest nation in the world cope with Hurricane Katrina? Even with the massive aid provided by almost every other country in the world. I think it's generally accepted that it didn't cope at all well. It couldn't even distribute relief properly. (How dare the west criticise the Africans in future!) Inadequate preparations were made by the people responsible. Now who would that be? The Government? The City authorities? Individual people?

That's when politicians would earn their bread, by thinking ahead and planning for disaster. Building new inland towns, not holding camps. The days are long past when a government's job was just to keep the peace and to protect the land from invasion by foreign princes. Now they have a greater duty: to the global village they belong to.

Governments that neglect to make adequate provision for the population movements they face are going to have to deal with the breakdown of law and order that will be certain to follow any significant land loss, whether to the sea or to the weather. They can anticipate likely effects. If your government is pretending nothing's going to happen, then you should kick it up the arse, or take personal blame (same thing as personal responsibility) for the loss of life that will surely follow.

To me, an eco-terrorist would be someone who causes innocent deaths by wilfully neglecting to provide necessary protection when he could have. Who do you have in mind, Thorne? I would suggest the World leaders that are DUCKING THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES because they are to concerned about their own vested interest. I can think of two major nations: USA and Canada who are clearly neglecting their duty to their population, not by showing that global warming isn't happening, but by saying, if the poor nations don't do more than us to stop polluting, then we shall do nothing at all. Luckily for them, their populations don't seem to care much.

TYWD

[Thorne]

The definition of ECO-TERRORIST I was thinking of is one who attempts to panic people by proclaiming the end of the world as we know it due to ecological disasters, in this case a disaster supposedly caused by mankind.

For as long as mankind has had language there have been those doom criers who predict the end of civilization, or the end of life as we know it, or the end of the world. Civilization, life and the world are still here. But they have changed, and ultimately that is what those "prophets" feared: change. The world is going to change, whether we like it or not. To survive, an individual, a nation, must adapt. Trying to hold it back will only lead to extinction, for the individual, the nation and the human race.
*****
Something I just thought of, though. It would be interesting to find out whether any individuals or corporations are trying to acquire large tracts of land in areas of the world which are currently not usable as farm land. As the world grows warmer the best farm land will move north and south, farther from the equator.

[Bonnie]

Nobody who says climate change is man made wants to talk about the Medieval warming period, where CO2 levels were just as high as they are now. What, did the horses the knights rode use fossil fuels?

This is a good point. Plus, I reviewed while back an article on measurements of the temperature deviations on Mars- turns out lately the temperature on Mars has risen with three degrees also. Global warming is a result of the solar activity more than anything else, yet we should still be concerned about pollution, not because of the ice melting but because of all of the health problems it brings to us.

Climate change is inevitable. I hope it's a kind that we will be able to adapt to.

But, if I ever get trapped in a climate disaster, I hope I am in a cave with my Master. Him and I can keep the fire and procreation going for the whole mankind....lol ;-)

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne: The definition of ECO-TERRORIST I was thinking of is one who attempts to panic people by proclaiming the end of the world as we know it due to ecological disasters, in this case a disaster supposedly caused by mankind.

OK - I can accept that: I'll settle for environmental terrorism to cover my concept.


Thorne: For as long as mankind has had language there have been those doom criers who predict the end of civilization, or the end of life as we know it, or the end of the world. Civilization, life and the world are still here.

This is true: Look at Christianity: Armageddon hasn't yet happened, and who's to say it ever will? But Cassandra also springs to mind. Her predictions were always right, but no-one ever believed them.

Or to be more realistic, it's possible that those forecasting global extinction due to a collision with an asteroid/comet/giant meteorite will be proved correct before global warming has a chance to affect us. Or that a rampant epidemic will wipe out half the population. Or a psychopathic terrorist will palnt dirty nuclear bombs in every capital city in the world. The thing is, all these predicitions are likely to happen (OK, maybe not the terrorist bombing EVERY capital). Do these possibilities - no, probabilities - justify doing nothing about global warming?


Thorne: But they have changed, and ultimately that is what those "prophets" feared: change. The world is going to change, whether we like it or not. To survive, an individual, a nation, must adapt. Trying to hold it back will only lead to extinction, for the individual, the nation and the human race. (Emphasis supplied.)

Precisely! And wouldn't it be wiser for everyone to combine resources when taking on something as massive as climate change? An individual nation can do little. An individual person can probably do nothing except trust to luck. If he happens to live in a place that will not be too badly affected, he will be luckier than most.


Thorne: Something I just thought of, though. It would be interesting to find out whether any individuals or corporations are trying to acquire large tracts of land in areas of the world which are currently not usable as farm land. As the world grows warmer the best farm land will move north and south, farther from the equator.

That would be interesting to find out! Wouldn't it be even more interesting if any of them turned out to be publicly suggesting there is no need to fear global warming?


TYWD

PS - I know Cassandra was mythological, but the point is, her warnings were right but were disbelieved.

[Thorne]

And wouldn't it be wiser for everyone to combine resources when taking on something as massive as climate change? An individual nation can do little. An individual person can probably do nothing except trust to luck. If he happens to live in a place that will not be too badly affected, he will be luckier than most.
Yes, it would be wiser. Would it be likely? You can't get most nations to agree that the sky is blue or that water is wet. But who knows, maybe after the NEXT War To End All Wars.


That would be interesting to find out! Wouldn't it be even more interesting if any of them turned out to be publicly suggesting there is no need to fear global warming?
LOL! I can assure you, I'm not one of them!


PS - I know Cassandra was mythological, but the point is, her warnings were right but were disbelieved.
And, like most prophets, her warnings and pronouncements were cryptic. If memory serves (too lazy to look it up) she was asked by the Persian king about the outcome of an upcoming battle. She dutifully informed him that the battle would result in the fall of a kingdom. He naturally assumed it was the enemy kingdom which would fall. Silly king!

[js207]

Mind you, Holland managed to reclaim hundreds of square miles from the sea. They could afford to do that. They decided it was a good idea, allocated funds to the project(s) and went ahead and did it. Now they stand to lose it because a small but vocal group of people are in denial. What concern are Holland's problems to them?

Nope - at most, they stand to need to build an extra foot (OK, in the worst case scenario, it could be nearly two feet) or so of wall over the course of the next century. If they ask nicely, I'll even donate them a brick to help. Do you really think they'll abandon the entire country rather than raise the wall a foot?!


Global warming IS happening, and it IS possible to mitigate the effects. I can't say if we can do enough, but if we do nothing they'll be worse than they have to be.

The question is how much to do - how much to spend for how much gain. Supposing I had a device which would cut the rise by 10% (i.e. around an inch) - how much money would that be worth? A billion? A hundred billion? More?


But we don't have to build sea walls everywhere, we can - and will have to - move inland. Massive population shifts will have far-reaching consequences and no matter how deep you bury your head in the sand, everyone, everywhere will be affected to some degree or other. So a good plan would be to work out where displaced people should go and how to get them there without wars and without causing greater hardship.

Sounds like a job for a good politician with lots of money to me.

TYWD

Just how much "massive population" do you think lives within a foot of sea level at present, in circumstances which somehow preclude any option other than abandoning that location - over a timescale in which most current houses will be replaced anyway? I know my own house is well above sea level, and hardly alone in that - and even if 10% of the population will have to escape the extra foot of water, spread over that century it's a trivial 0.1% annual shift - completely dwarfed by routing population shifts anyway!

[ThisYouWillDo]

Now somebody here - it wasn't you, was it, js207? - said that the cost of building massive defences would be exorbitant and possibly counter-productive. Something about an inch or two more on sea walls over the next hundred years would be unmanageable. Ah! Yes it was.

Maybe in America, but the Dutch, you allow, might want to build an extra foot or two on their existing defences rather than surrrender 12.5% of their country back to the sea. That's one eighth of their land, for those who like fractions. I agree, they very well might want to do that.

I acknowledge, and as it has been asserted so many times already on this thread, global warming is probably a natural phenomenon, and I agree that about 125,000 years ago the planet underwent a similar warming process to the present warm period (which started about 10,000 years ago). That period was warmer than this one has reached by a degree or so.

These warm/cold cycles are surprisingly regular and it's obvious that there's nothing we can do to stop it happening again if it's going to - and, with the greatest possible respect to young Ms Kristen Barynes, it is. But we should use our intelligence rather than our stubborness to deal with the situation. Last time, sea levels are supposed to have risen by between 4 and 6 metres and, according to the American University, Washington DC, "global warming has the potential to increase sea levels by as much as 20 feet (6.1 metres)." Bearing in mind that Holland's lowest city lies at 7 metres below sea level (that's 23 feet - much lower than New Orleans) and the sea defences would have to be at least 43 feet higher than that. Holland would be in the shadow of the sea wall until after midday! Obviously, not even the plucky Dutch could not possibly maintain sea defences on that scale. So they would have to move inland. Holland is, by the way, one of the world's most densely populated countries, with a propulation of 16 million or so. Where would they go? Germany? Denmark? Belgium? Britain? Well, if Holland is losing land to the sea, so too will those other countries be. They'll have less room to receive them and accomodate their own displaced population too. And something makes me suspect they'll be less than welcome if they try to settle in USA.

OK 43 feet is extreme. And it would probably take a very long time for sea levels to rise that far. But, according to the American University's figures, an 8 or 9 foot rise by 2100 is the best we can hope for. Even that will cause the Dutch (and the rest of the world) significant problems which must be planned for. The alternative is international conflict, and everyone will lose if that happens.

So, I've thought about the impliactions, js207, and I'm more convinced than before that political agreement at an international level, where global interests are put ahead of national ones - especially by those who can most easily afford to make sacrifices, is already overdue and is becoming more urgent by the hour.

... unless we're hit by an asteroid first.

TYWD

[Thorne]

Holland would be in the shadow of the sea wall until after midday!
Hate to tell you this, TYWD, but Hollands sea wall is generally on the WEST side of the country. They would get plenty of morning sun. Sunset, on the other hand, would tend to come rather early. ;)


according to the American University's figures, an 8 or 9 foot rise by 2100 is the best we can hope for.
Then we don't have anything to worry about. The Mayan calender says that the world will end in the year 2012, less than five years from now.

On a more serious note, though, there's been some talk here about the costs of mitigating the rising sea levels, such as building sea walls. But aside from the financial costs involved, which I agree would be prohibitive, the energy costs would do even more damage. All those construction materials which will have to be manufactured, then transported, and all the tools which will have to be built to construct these structures, will all add to the problem, don't you think?

[Guest 91108]

...
Then we don't have anything to worry about. The Mayan calender says that the world will end in the year 2012, less than five years from now.
...


hrm food for thought.

Actually 2012 is more representative of the end of a time period that was within their understanding .. not the end of the world but the end of a cycle of time.
2012 is also when we will begin to pass through the galactic spiral as a planetary system. They expect all kinds of "side effects" from that.

2012 is theorized to be the end of many changes that will be the start of that "new time period" ( a Golden Age).
see http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/goldenage.htm

[Thorne]

hrm food for thought.

Actually 2012 is more representative of the end of a time period that was within their understanding .. not the end of the world but the end of a cycle of time.
2012 is also when we will begin to pass through the galactic spiral as a planetary system. They expect all kinds of "side effects" from that.

2012 is theorized to be the end of many changes that will be the start of that "new time period" ( a Golden Age).
see http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/goldenage.htm

Yes, I'm familiar with the concepts and it's mostly a matter of interpretation. There are no Mayan left to ask, are there? My own take is that the Mayan who was doing the calculations died before training his replacement.

[js207]

Now somebody here - it wasn't you, was it, js207? - said that the cost of building massive defences would be exorbitant and possibly counter-productive. Something about an inch or two more on sea walls over the next hundred years would be unmanageable. Ah! Yes it was.

Nope. Read again. It's the cost of delaying the rise by a trivial amount which I think is prohibitive, compared to the cost of dealing with a rise in a rational way.


Maybe in America, but the Dutch, you allow, might want to build an extra foot or two on their existing defences rather than surrrender 12.5% of their country back to the sea. That's one eighth of their land, for those who like fractions. I agree, they very well might want to do that.


It's not the cost of a few inches of brick where needed which is prohibitive, it's the economic dislocation an enlarged Kyoto would require to make a trivial different to sea level which is. You say the Dutch already have 23 foot sea walls; I can hardly imagine they'd balk at making that 24 or 25 feet in the year 2100. Remember, according to the IPCC, that 'extra foot or two' is the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the year 2100.


according to the American University, Washington DC, "global warming has the potential to increase sea levels by as much as 20 feet (6.1 metres)."

Where on earth did they get that figure, and over what timescale? Perhaps extrapolating the IPCC worst case scenario into the year 3000 would give that kind of rise, but that's just silly.


Bearing in mind that Holland's lowest city lies at 7 metres below sea level (that's 23 feet - much lower than New Orleans) and the sea defences would have to be at least 43 feet higher than that. Holland would be in the shadow of the sea wall until after midday! Obviously, not even the plucky Dutch could not possibly maintain sea defences on that scale. So they would have to move inland. Holland is, by the way, one of the world's most densely populated countries, with a propulation of 16 million or so. Where would they go? Germany? Denmark? Belgium? Britain? Well, if Holland is losing land to the sea, so too will those other countries be. They'll have less room to receive them and accomodate their own displaced population too. And something makes me suspect they'll be less than welcome if they try to settle in USA.

Correct that to the actual worst case scenario for the year 2100, 2 feet higher instead of 43, and your scenario becomes very different. They'll probably be able to find the necessary two feet of bricks, meaning they lose no land at all and nobody is displaced. End of problem.


OK 43 feet is extreme. And it would probably take a very long time for sea levels to rise that far. But, according to the American University's figures, an 8 or 9 foot rise by 2100 is the best we can hope for.

Any reason even to take those figures seriously, when they are so far different from the IPCC consensus that's supposed to be the best available? You say they are claiming the "best we can hope for" is 4-5 times worse than the "worst case scenario" assembled by the world's experts in the subject?



So, I've thought about the impliactions, js207, and I'm more convinced than before that political agreement at an international level, where global interests are put ahead of national ones - especially by those who can most easily afford to make sacrifices, is already overdue and is becoming more urgent by the hour.

... unless we're hit by an asteroid first.

TYWD

Looking at this, I'm still convinced that developing sensible measures to deal with the extra foot or so of water over the course of this century is the rational thing to do. Forget "political agreement" - what on earth is that supposed to achieve? The best they've managed so far is a scheme to make a trivial difference at astronomical cost, without the slightest attempt to deal with the sea level rise which would happen anyway!

The Dutch will, in the worst case, need to upgrade their 23 foot walls into 25 foot walls. That doesn't need international anything or the involvement of a single politician, just some more bricks and cement. Meanwhile, your preferred strategy has delivered an idea which might reduce that to a 24 foot 11 and a bit inch wall in the year 2100, at a cost of trillions of dollars. I know which horse I'm backing there.

[Ozme52]

Yes, I'm familiar with the concepts and it's mostly a matter of interpretation. There are no Mayan left to ask, are there? My own take is that the Mayan who was doing the calculations died before training his replacement.

The Mayan calendar is very complex because it was important to them to know and understand a tremendous number of cyclic events. Their calendar 'starts' and 'ends' at a confluence of all those cycles.

My cut at it is they figured why do "page" 2 if "page" 1 is exactly the same.

If it mattered to us enough, we would have a seven year calendar... where the date and day matched. Or a lunar calendar that was 33-34 years long, matchng a date to a particular phase of the moon, or a 210+/- year calendar matching date-day-and lunar phases... But those things don't matter to us, so we have a one year calendar.

Here's a great wikipedia explanation.
(http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayan_calendar)
BTW, the source of the end of the world theory is a New Age concept... If someone were to offer it today for the first time and you'd label it cultist. From the wikipedia article: "The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar forms the basis for a New Age belief, first forecast by José Argüelles, that a cataclysm will take place on or about 21 December 2012."



All that aside...

[Ozme52]

Define 'sensible measures'.

After all, what is sensible for Holland may not be sensible for Tibet or Mongolia or Switzerland.

If they get none of the advantages why should they want to pay any of the costs when their money might be better spent on other endeavors.

There is nothing wrong with the sea levels rising save that it impacts how and where humans will live.

If TWYD were 100% altruistic in his outlook (as he wishes all of us were...) he would be happy to let the sea rise and watch the new niches fill with new species taking advantage of new resources. It's very selfish to deny them opportunities by trying to maintain the status quo just to alleviate a little human suffering.

(Obviously I'm being fascetious... just amused that the pro-ecology stance has changed to a 'save the human habitat' stance.)

[ThisYouWillDo]

Bloody hell! I'm getting you all riled, aren't I! You have consciences?

Ok - I can only deal with you all one by one, and some responses might have to be deferred.


Ozme52: Define 'sensible measures'.

After all, what is sensible for Holland may not be sensible for Tibet or Mongolia or Switzerland.

If they get none of the advantages why should they want to pay any of the costs when their money might be better spent on other endeavors.

There is nothing wrong with the sea levels rising save that it impacts how and where humans will live.

If TWYD were 100% altruistic in his outlook (as he wishes all of us were...) he would be happy to let the sea rise and watch the new niches fill with new species taking advantage of new resources. It's very selfish to deny them opportunities by trying to maintain the status quo just to alleviate a little human suffering.

(Obviously I'm being fascetious... just amused that the pro-ecology stance has changed to a 'save the human habitat' stance.)

Of course different nations will need to take different measures. In all probablility, inland contries will be faced with an influx of people from the "old" coasts. Should they receive them into their country as citizens, or put them in transit camps until somewhere else is found for them (or they die of disease), or should they just shoot them as their heads appear over the hills?

Sensible measure, then, are chosing between maintaining sea defences or migrating large populations for one country, and maintaining armed defences or accomodating large influxes of people in another country. Sensible measures include international co-operation on a significant scale. Sensible measures include a choice of Peace over War. That means the strongest nations taking part rather than leaving the weak to cope by carrying the whole burden themselves. I used the phrase "I'm alright, Jack" earlier in this thread. It's a badge of shame, but USA and Canada seem to wear it with pride.

I'll treat your faseciousness with the contempt it deserves, but I would point out that I am prepared to change my position publicly, as I have already done earlier in this thread: openly and honestly. However, I fail to see why wanting to save the human habitat is different from being pro-ecology. I don't recall ever saying that humanity must sacrifice its own existence for the benefit of other species, although I might have advocated that humanity make some sacrifices for their benefit.

----------------


js207:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
Now somebody here - it wasn't you, was it, js207? - said that the cost of building massive defences would be exorbitant and possibly counter-productive. Something about an inch or two more on sea walls over the next hundred years would be unmanageable. Ah! Yes it was.

Nope. Read again. It's the cost of delaying the rise by a trivial amount which I think is prohibitive, compared to the cost of dealing with a rise in a rational way.


Quote:
Maybe in America, but the Dutch, you allow, might want to build an extra foot or two on their existing defences rather than surrrender 12.5% of their country back to the sea. That's one eighth of their land, for those who like fractions. I agree, they very well might want to do that.

It's not the cost of a few inches of brick where needed which is prohibitive, it's the economic dislocation an enlarged Kyoto would require to make a trivial different to sea level which is. You say the Dutch already have 23 foot sea walls; I can hardly imagine they'd balk at making that 24 or 25 feet in the year 2100. Remember, according to the IPCC, that 'extra foot or two' is the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the year 2100.


Quote:
according to the American University, Washington DC, "global warming has the potential to increase sea levels by as much as 20 feet (6.1 metres)."

Where on earth did they get that figure, and over what timescale? Perhaps extrapolating the IPCC worst case scenario into the year 3000 would give that kind of rise, but that's just silly.


Quote:
Bearing in mind that Holland's lowest city lies at 7 metres below sea level (that's 23 feet - much lower than New Orleans) and the sea defences would have to be at least 43 feet higher than that. Holland would be in the shadow of the sea wall until after midday! Obviously, not even the plucky Dutch could not possibly maintain sea defences on that scale. So they would have to move inland. Holland is, by the way, one of the world's most densely populated countries, with a propulation of 16 million or so. Where would they go? Germany? Denmark? Belgium? Britain? Well, if Holland is losing land to the sea, so too will those other countries be. They'll have less room to receive them and accomodate their own displaced population too. And something makes me suspect they'll be less than welcome if they try to settle in USA.

Correct that to the actual worst case scenario for the year 2100, 2 feet higher instead of 43, and your scenario becomes very different. They'll probably be able to find the necessary two feet of bricks, meaning they lose no land at all and nobody is displaced. End of problem.


Quote:
OK 43 feet is extreme. And it would probably take a very long time for sea levels to rise that far. But, according to the American University's figures, an 8 or 9 foot rise by 2100 is the best we can hope for.

Any reason even to take those figures seriously, when they are so far different from the IPCC consensus that's supposed to be the best available? You say they are claiming the "best we can hope for" is 4-5 times worse than the "worst case scenario" assembled by the world's experts in the subject?


Quote:
So, I've thought about the impliactions, js207, and I'm more convinced than before that political agreement at an international level, where global interests are put ahead of national ones - especially by those who can most easily afford to make sacrifices, is already overdue and is becoming more urgent by the hour.

... unless we're hit by an asteroid first.

TYWD

Looking at this, I'm still convinced that developing sensible measures to deal with the extra foot or so of water over the course of this century is the rational thing to do. Forget "political agreement" - what on earth is that supposed to achieve? The best they've managed so far is a scheme to make a trivial difference at astronomical cost, without the slightest attempt to deal with the sea level rise which would happen anyway!

The Dutch will, in the worst case, need to upgrade their 23 foot walls into 25 foot walls. That doesn't need international anything or the involvement of a single politician, just some more bricks and cement. Meanwhile, your preferred strategy has delivered an idea which might reduce that to a 24 foot 11 and a bit inch wall in the year 2100, at a cost of trillions of dollars. I know which horse I'm backing there.


The first thing to do is to correct your misconception that the Dutch have 23 foot sea walls already. The truth is, I don't know how high those walls are right now, but 23 feet is a helluva wall. Besides, I was being disingenuous by suggesting that a 40-50 fooot wall would be needed at any time. After all, it doesn't really matter how far below sea level a city is, if the sea walls can contain the sea in all weathers. It is enough to build walls high enough and strong enough to hold back the North Sea (which has very powerful storms for a large part of the year, and mountainous waves comparable to all but the largest ocean waves). So the sea walls will only have to be as high as the highest waves after the sea level has risen to the greatest height Dutch technology can stretch to in order to contain the sea. That WILL be high, and that WILL be strong. Therefore, it WILL be expensive, and the Dutch could well be forgiven for deciding to move back inland instead ... to where? Remember, I pointed out that 1/8th of Holland lies below sea level. Over half the country lies at less than 3 feet above sea level, and the remainder's not much higher.



Strangely, Kyoto seems to be prohibitive to the most wealthy nation there is, but not to poorer ones. A nation that is already noted for its frugality in its foreign aid. A nation that seems to have adopted an nineteenth century attitude of "glorious isolationism" to run its twenty-first century international relations - where every nation is left to its own devices unless US interests are prejudiced. (Actually, you'd better know now that it isn't glorious, as Britain found out to its cost.)

As for where the American University got its figures from, how am I to know? Reliable sources I'm sure. I quoted them because I thought you'd trust figures presented by an American Institution. However, I would again confess that you have uncovered another little misdirection on my part. The potential sea rise is over the entire warm period that we have just entered. I have no idea how long it will last - 10-20,000 years? More? Less? Anyway, I suspect the changes will accelerate as we reach the peak of warmth. The last warm period produced sea level changes of a similar magnitude.

The next confession is not to a misdirection, but to an error. By 2100 sea levels are predicted to rise by 0.4 metres (16 inches) at best, not the 8 or 9 feet I claimed (http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/dutch-sea.htm). The mistake was mine; I don't know how I reached that figure and I apologise. But that's still a significant rise, and you cannot just dismiss the situation as "no problem" - it's a severe problem. It's just a problem you don't want to know about. I suspect it will be enough to cause huge population shifts if it isn't managed properly; or maybe that's how it will be managed. "Managed" being the key word. I trust there will be enough co-operation within the EU to allow that to happen.



I agree that, by correcting my 2100 figures the situation seems less severe, but, really, it isn't. First, Holland isn't the only low-lying country in the world. What happens to Holland will happen to every costal region, Canadian and American ones included. And those places aren't nearly as well prepared as the Dutch already are. I suppose the USA thinks, well, we've got plenty of land, we can afford to lose some. And so can the Canadians, our near neighbours. And it won't be hard to keep the Mexicans out (oh really?). So it's a problem we can contain: so no problem at all!

Political agreement is meant to do precisely what it says. Mind you, agreement is only possible if the parties are willing to reach an agreement. So far, the majority of countries in the world have reached an agreement, including, now, Australia (welcome to the club, Bruce). America is staying out for reasons of self-interest alone (I've no idea what Canada's reasons are, unless it's just copying USA). The USA only attends the conference to maintain face, and it only consented to participate in trying to reach an agreement what the next stages will be so that its own conference on climate change later this year won't be boycotted.


Oh - and referring back to an earlier post (not that it matters anymore), I would mention here that he first house I attempted to buy was well over 100 years old - and that was 35 years ago. The same house is still lived in and is likely to remain so for at least another 50 years. 100+ year old houses are not uncommon over here. What time scale did you have in mind for housing stock to be turned over?




Thorne: Hate to tell you this, TYWD, but Hollands sea wall is generally on the WEST side of the country. They would get plenty of morning sun. Sunset, on the other hand, would tend to come rather early.

You are right, of course. But that comment was made humorously. And as you will realise from the comments above, there never would have been a wall that high anyway.

Do you analyse all jokes the same way?

TYWD

[mkemse]

I recently emailes a Local Meteorologist on this subject, and her thouhts and feeling were that "Weather, and Meterology, is NOT an exact Sience anymre then Any Science is exact, it all speculative and everyone will have their own onpion, a great example ofthis is John Coleman Founder Of The Weather Channel amd Former Vice Prsident Al Gore, Gore as it is know firmily believes in Global Warming, Coleman on the other hand has state he seems no specific data inidcating that Golbal Warming Exists.
I am NOT taking side on this, but there remarks and what our local Meterologist told me, make me believe that everyonei n the world has their views on the subject, but until this secience becomes exact, all opnions are just those, opnion,s and everyo e is going to have their own, which I repsect

[Ozme52]

16 inches will hurt, but it's not going to cause a major relocation that will displace nations... more likely nationally internal migrations. But very few nations will be asked to absorb another nation's population. Maybe a few small islands.

This Google Sea Levels Map (http://http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=53.4194,8.4705&z=9) is slick... Reset it to 1 meter (appr 39 inches) and watch how small the impact is likely to be. Then set it to 1/2 meter.

[Ozme52]

I recently emailes a Local Meteorologist on this subject, and her thouhts and feeling were that "Weather, and Meterology, is NOT an exact Sience anymre then Any Science is exact, it all speculative and everyone will have their own onpion, a great example ofthis is John Coleman Founder Of The Weather Channel amd Former Vice Prsident Al Gore, Gore as it is know firmily believes in Global Warming, Coleman on the other hand has state he seems no specific data inidcating that Golbal Warming Exists.
I am NOT taking side on this, but there remarks and what our local Meterologist told me, make me believe that everyonei n the world has their views on the subject, but until this secience becomes exact, all opnions are just those, opnion,s and everyo e is going to have their own, which I repsect


Do you mean a meteorologist or the weather girl? Because the newscasters are just about the least well informed on the topic of weather. They read what the national services send them and most would switch to the news or entertainment desks in a flash if asked. :rolleyes:

[mkemse]

the person I spoke with is a Meteorologist and is certified by the AMS she is not just a weather lady reading the weather, as a matter of fact she also has a Master Megree in Meteorolgy
I also spoke with Another Lady, same respone and she in only 1 off 11 woman in the world Certified by the AMS to Broadcast WEather as a Meteorolgist on TV, so to answer you question both I spoke to are certified by the AMs and not just Weather Women reading reports given, but like they both said it is NOT an exact Science and those who say this or that about Global Warminig are simply expressiing their views til more specific Scientific Data is available on the Subject. As they bith said "No Science is exact as of now"

[mkemse]

Do you mean a meteorologist or the weather girl? Because the newscasters are just about the least well informed on the topic of weather. They read what the national services send them and most would switch to the news or entertainment desks in a flash if asked. :rolleyes:


No, The Lady I spoke with is a Meteorologist and is certified by the AMS she is not just a weather lady reading the weather, as a matter of fact she also has a Master Megree in Meteorolgy
I also spoke with Another Lady, same respone and she in only 1 off 11 woman in the world Certified by the AMS to Broadcast Weather as a Meteorolgist on TV, so to answer you question both I spoke to are certified by the AMs and not just Weather Women reading reports given, but like they both said it is NOT an exact Science and those who say this or that about Global Warminig are simply expressiing their views til more specific Scientific Data is available on the Subject. As they bith said "No Science is exact as of now"

[mkemse]

Do you mean a meteorologist or the weather girl? Because the newscasters are just about the least well informed on the topic of weather. They read what the national services send them and most would switch to the news or entertainment desks in a flash if asked. :rolleyes:

This was her reply to me on the subject as a Meteorologist Cerified by the AMS

Global Warming is still a theory.

My personal opinion (and that is all it can be, because we do not know enough to call anyone's opinion fact) is that humans have changed our world. Of course. My scientific knowledge tells me however that the sun controls our earth no matter what. We have had warming trends between ice ages before - but we don't know how warm it got...we only have detailed climatologically records for the last 120 years. We are so tiny in the big scheme of things. To think that the universe and whatever may be beyond that is going to change because of our actions is odd.

That being said, conservation and sustainability is incredibly important - and that is something no one can debate.

[ThisYouWillDo]

16 inches will hurt, but it's not going to cause a major relocation that will displace nations... more likely nationally internal migrations. But very few nations will be asked to absorb another nation's population. Maybe a few small islands.

This Google Sea Levels Map (http://http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=53.4194,8.4705&z=9) is slick... Reset it to 1 meter (appr 39 inches) and watch how small the impact is likely to be. Then set it to 1/2 meter.

If we look at (say) 5 cities that will be flooded by a 1 metre rise: Groningen, Leuuwarde, Alkmaar, Lelystad and Westland, they will by themselves produce a population of 540,000 that will have to be relocated. In addition, there will be hundreds of other cities, towns and villages needing to be looked after.

Furthermore, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Den Haag (combined population of 1,807,000 - over 10% of the country's total population) will have become low-lying offshore islands. They will lose their inhabitants rapidly.

Even places like Antwerp (population 461,000) will have become costal towns, possibly liable to flooding.

Just taking those places into account and disreagrding the rest, we are looking at the need to relocate almost 20% of the population: 2,808,000 people. That's using today's population figures, not projected populations in 2100

However, it must be borne in mind that the Google map does not appear to account for sea defences, which are bound to have a mitigating effect, but I still think the best option for the Dutch would be to move inland.

Even if they tried to contain the migration within their own borders, without proper control and planning, civil strife is sure to erupt.

Am I being so outrageous to call for people to take control of their own destiny? They won't be able to do it by themselves.

TYWD.

[tired.of.vanilla{DJ}]

Okay so late into this disscusstion, but here is my two cents.
My father is a retired meteorologist from the US Air Force. He says and has shown me great examples that basically, we can't say what is causing the icecaps to melt. We can't say it's cars or factories or any of the other big pollutions, because we have just plain not be studying it long enough. They just plain have not been recording weather for very long...So how can we say it is human's fault.
For example...last summer tickled me. They had a bit on the news about global warming and how horriblely dry and hot it was. Then the weather came up and it showed that we did not quite beat the old reacord in the 40's. HA! So what happened then? What about the dust bowl of the 30's here in the US and Canada? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl for those who might not remember this from school. That was a horrific hot dry period in our history. Was it caused by pollution, well no of course not. There was not even as much as there was in the 80s....and yet we had no repeat of a dust bowl then.
And yes...the earth cycles. Hot, temprate, cold, over and over again. Quite frankly the earth is not here for our Pleasure. She is not our submissive to be whipped into serving us best. She will do as she pleases. We are not her prioirty. She will one day kill us like the dinosaurs, like the creatures of the IceAge, and like the first buggies to crawl on her shores. That is her option.
*oooo sorta dips it's toes into my religion really*
So yes, stopping polution and the rape of natural resourses is good, and we need to do it. It's only respectful and right. But will that make a difference...not to the warming of the earth no. We can either adjust as a race, or we can die. I suggest we stop breeding so many mouths to feed, protect and charish what we have, and start being more flexible.

[js207]

If we look at (say) 5 cities that will be flooded by a 1 metre rise

Now try with less exaggerated estimates (or tell me why you think I, or anyone else, should take your 'American University' figures over the IPCC's; I suspect their only appeal is that they make for a nastier Doomsday scenario for those of a Chicken Little persuasion) and factoring in at least a token effort at mitigation over the next century: it beggars belief for you to assert the Dutch will simply sit on their hands until they drown or get displaced! Say, a 30cm rise, with a 30cm increase in sea wall height ... oops, bang goes your disaster movie.

Your "misdirections" really aren't a positive contribution to anything. Nor is flapping about what might theoretically happen a few thousand years from now, since none of us will ever know that or be affected by it in any way! If reality and plausibility don't fit your scenario, it's pretty clear that one of them is defective and needs to be revised.

[TomOfSweden]

Oz, I'm with you on polution should lead to global cooling. I'm not claiming this. I'm on this assuming that there's some critical bit of information I'm missing. If people who've dedicated their lives to this don't believe it any more, (it was abandoned in the 70'ies) then I'm sure it's my info that is faulty, and not the global warming theory.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Now try with less exaggerated estimates (or tell me why you think I, or anyone else, should take your 'American University' figures over the IPCC's; I suspect their only appeal is that they make for a nastier Doomsday scenario for those of a Chicken Little persuasion) and factoring in at least a token effort at mitigation over the next century: it beggars belief for you to assert the Dutch will simply sit on their hands until they drown or get displaced! Say, a 30cm rise, with a 30cm increase in sea wall height ... oops, bang goes your disaster movie.




1. Not a film producer. But remember that 12.5% of Holland is already below sea level - some of it 20 feet below sea level (I've checked my figures). So if existing sea defences are breached by even half a centimetre for any significant time, the consequences could be profound.

2. Do what you like with American University's data, it's your university - you'll know what its academic standards are like better than I would.

3. The estimates I gave in my last post were based on a 1 metre rise. I cannot vouch for their accuracy, and I can find no data on a smaller rise.

I did point out that the predicted population shifts paid no attention to existing sea defences, let alone future ones. But Holland is already pushing its luck and has been flooded several times where existing defences were breached. There's a limit to what can be done, and the North Sea is not a calm lake - it's a wild sea.

4.
Your "misdirections" really aren't a positive contribution to anything. Nor is flapping about what might theoretically happen a few thousand years from now, since none of us will ever know that or be affected by it in any way! If reality and plausibility don't fit your scenario, it's pretty clear that one of them is defective and needs to be revised

Whatever.

So far as I'm aware, no-one here is an expert on global warming (or cooling). So we use the opinions and data we come across that we feel support our arguments. I do - you do - Ozme does - we all do. Those figures have all been put in the public domain by people who (should) know better than us, and we are entitled to rely on them until they are proved wrong.

And we can be fairly certain about what will happen in a few thousand years by what has happened before. Whether that's relevant or not is a moot point.

But my mistakes are mine, and I acknowledge them when I make them.

=========


tired.of.vanilla: So yes, stopping polution and the rape of natural resourses is good, and we need to do it. It's only respectful and right. But will that make a difference...not to the warming of the earth no. We can either adjust as a race, or we can die.

This is all I'm trying to say: why does everyone over there prefer to die rather than co-operate?

TYWD

[Thorne]

I found an item in this mornings paper which is pertinent to this. I can't find the exact item online for some reason, but it says:

"There's a natural cause that might account for much of the Arctic warming, which has melted sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers ... a natural and cyclical increase in the amount of energy in the atmosphere that moves from south to north around the Arctic Circle."

While trying to find this online I came across this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318686,00.html

What I found particularly interesting was #10: "In a report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed greenhouse gas regulation to be quite the fool’s errand. In estimating the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases 90 years from now under both a scenario where no action is taken to reduce manmade emissions and a scenario where maximum regulation is implemented, the estimated difference in average global temperature between the two scenarios is 0.17 degrees Centigrade.
For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius."

The general theme seems to be that nobody really knows what the hell is going to happen. You'd do just as well with Nostradamus or Revelations as your climate forecaster as you would with Al Gore and his cronies.

[DungeonMaster6]

There's an article in the Jan 14 addition of the Washington Post, front page:

Head line; ESCALATING ICE LOSS FOUND IN ANTARCTICA

First paragraph: Climactic changes appear to be destablizing vast sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.

The article is too long to print it all out, but if this is true along with what's happening in Greenland, the earth could be in for a vast change, maybe not in our lifetime, but at some point our world could be inundated. This is not a myth or a government conspiracy.

[ThisYouWillDo]

A propos Dungeon Master's posting, and earlier discussion about the fate of low-lying countries such as the Netherlands as a result of global warming, I was watching a light satire programme on TV last night. It was a repeat from a long time ago: several years. In it, the announcer said something to the effect that global warming is happening. We don't know quite what will happen, nor when. The only thing we know for sure is Holland's gonna get f^cked!

TYWD

[TomOfSweden]

I got this e-mailed to me by a friend, (guy I know) who's a researcher at Oxford university. This site, which is run by climate researchers at Oxford is leading a rebellion among researchers there and around the globe.

http://climateprediction.net/

Their claim is that researchers are now being steam-rolled by politicians into uncritically accepting the IPCC report as gospel, no matter what. Dissent is growing and a large number of researchers reject parts of it.

It's as if our two options on this are ...:

1) to latch onto one climate Bible at a time and brand non-believers has heretics/multinational corporations/ignorant

or

2) reject any environmental policies, on the grounds that scientists can't agree about everything.

Granted that tax payers money is used to implement environmental policies and the average voter is a moron who cannot understand issues not dealing with absolutes...but to take the reality of politics and pretend like it makes sense in the real world... and on top of that force it on researchers...is according to the researchers at Oxford..what is happening.

Just because there is disagreement about details doesn't mean global warming isn't happening. Their point is that if we don't grant researchers money to attack the IPCC report, we won't know how accurate it is. Above all, they think it is wrong scaring people about stuff we aren't sure about.

The fact that releasing carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will in some way shift the balance and is best avoided, is a no brainer. But from that infer that we need to live in fear of the coming tsunamis and dramatically rising sea levels ... is a bit premature.

People like drama so news is dramatic ... but it's always good to know that a drama ... is only partly reality.

It's a very educational site...and don't forget that its written by real climate researchers.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Absolutely ...

Hey ... what am I saying? I'm no moron - I just don't have the time or the specia1ist knowledge to understand all issues completely. So I trust the sources that make sense to me, and (God help me!) the politicians who run this world.

If I get whipped up into a frenzy about something, then at least the exercise will do me good.

TYWD

[TomOfSweden]

he he. Well I've been swaying to and fro in this issue this last year. I've gone from claiming ignorance, to fully accepting the IPCC report, to now, with accepting most of the IPCC report. For me this is exciting times. The fog of ignorance still lies thick on the battlefield of research.

But no matter what the outcome, there's still things we can do. Like shift to nuclear power which is both good for the environment, global warming and industry. So while we're waiting for a final result, we can at least urge our politicians to push ahead with what we do know is a positive initiative. So we're not completely lost out here.

[Thorne]

But no matter what the outcome, there's still things we can do. Like shift to nuclear power which is both good for the environment, global warming and industry. So while we're waiting for a final result, we can at least urge our politicians to push ahead with what we do know is a positive initiative. So we're not completely lost out here.

The only problem with this is that a large percentage of voters, at least in the US, are dead set against nuclear power, and the politicians are more concerned about appeasing them and garnering their votes than they are in actually DOING something about the issue.
Sure, big business and corporate hacks don't like making changes, especially if they might affect the bottom line. So you can't entirely trust them. And politicians will say whatever the polls agree is the right thing to say, regardless of what the truth is. And let's be honest: a lot of them are bought and paid for before they ever get into office. So, while there's no guarantee that any particular scientist might not have an agenda, when a large number of apparently unrelated scientists tell you that things are not necessarily what they seem to be, you have to at least admit that they might be right!
Let's face it, you would have to be a fool not to admit that global warming is occurring. But there is far to much uncertainty out there to determine how much of it is caused by man. Some of it, certainly. But there have been warming cycles in the past which were definitely NOT caused by man. There have also been ice ages, also not caused by man. There are natural processes out there which we are barely beginning to recognize, much less understand, which tend to counterbalance much of the changes which are occurring.
So do what you feel is right. Promote nuclear power, drive cleaner vehicles, turn off your air conditioner. Just don't do it because some numbnuts politician is trying to scare you to death.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Numbnuts says, "Do this ..."

Dickhead says, "Do that ..."

Ordinary blokes like you and me don't know who's right of wrong. So we're paralysed by ignorance, or we support one or the other on gut feeling. We might try to understand the issues, and debate them in the pub or on these boards, but, no matter how sensible we try to be, it's all flatulence, supported by flimsy evidence in the latest edition of the Washington Post, or Panorama, or some website we've just found (no offence intended, Tom).

We worry over whose fault global warming is. What difference does it make? We wonder if we can stop it, or slow it, but all we really know is that we don't have a clue; and we won't be helped by those in control, partly, because they have been "bought" or they put party loyalty before true national interest, and partly because they don't know any more than we do. They are told what to do by "experts" from industry and academia whose priorities are profit and reputation. Truth, when it arrives, comes a poor 3rd - if that.











o0O0o

I find it hard to accept that nuclear energy is good for the environment when you look at what happened at Three Mile Island, or at Chernobyl, where, over 20 years later, there's still an exclusion zone of hundreds of square kilometres where wildlife is still being damaged by the effects of contamination, and is apparently spreading up the food chain. Animals are being poached within the zone and consumed by humans.

When you consider how many countries there are now using nuclear power and the others which are contemplating it, and you compare their safety standards with those of USA and Russia, which are both demonstrably capable of failure, one wonders where and when the next "Chernobyl" will be and how much damage it will cause. What can go wrong inevitably will go wrong, and Chernobyl ain't as bad as it can get.


TYWD

Sorry bout that, but I'm listening to Leonard Cohen ...


Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died

[Thorne]

I find it hard to accept that nuclear energy is good for the environment when you look at what happened at Three Mile Island, or at Chernobyl, where, over 20 years later, there's still an exclusion zone of hundreds of square kilometres where wildlife is still being damaged by the effects of contamination, and is apparently spreading up the food chain. Animals are being poached within the zone and consumed by humans.

When you consider how many countries there are now using nuclear power and the others which are contemplating it, and you compare their safety standards with those of USA and Russia, which are both demonstrably capable of failure, one wonders where and when the next "Chernobyl" will be and how much damage it will cause. What can go wrong inevitably will go wrong, and Chernobyl ain't as bad as it can get.

Chernobyl was a major disaster, no question, and it was pretty close to as bad as it can get. Not really surprising when you consider that it was engineered by the Soviet Union, a system not noted for its concern for the people.

But 3 Mile Island, while scary, was NOT a disaster. The system worked there, the leakage was absolutely minimal and the safeties stopped any real problems. I read somewhere once that the exposure received by those who worked at the facility and those who lived nearby, was actually less than the average normal exposure that citizens of Denver receive from solar radiation. Yes, it could have been worse, and mistakes were made. But it was far from cataclysmic.

[TomOfSweden]

I find it hard to accept that nuclear energy is good for the environment when you look at what happened at Three Mile Island, or at Chernobyl, where, over 20 years later, there's still an exclusion zone of hundreds of square kilometres where wildlife is still being damaged by the effects of contamination, and is apparently spreading up the food chain. Animals are being poached within the zone and consumed by humans.


Let's stop all use of pesticides just because DDT proved to be bad? Three Mile Island belongs to the group of reactors known as Generation I, Chernobyl belongs to Generation II, and is more specifically known as a CANDU reactor. Guess how many is in use today? All nuclear rectors in use in the west are Generation III and are far more safe. There have been no incidents with any of them. The worst that has happened is a controlled shut down because of a faulty indicator. But many new advances have come, and any new reactors will be labelled generation IV and are even safer than the safe ones we have today. They only thing that is different between the generations is the safety. Output is the same.

There's always the same deal with technology. It only develops if it's being used. If we are to be free from accidents we'll also be free from progress. This will be more pronounced and accidents will be more serious as energy technology gets more efficient. It's in the nature of the business.

There's also positive effects of Chernobyl. It's aided archaeology, carbon dating techniques and ecology research very much. There's some good with the bad.