Global Warming

[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.

[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.

[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?