Amazon River Disaster & Global Warming Facts

[happypoet]

Well, these issues are separate, and the solution is different depending.
If the climate change IS caused by human activity, we can change the outcome based on changing our activity. Furthermore, there are likely steps (Carbon sequestering, for instance) we can take to try to reverse the process. Furthermore, it's important that we do so, as the timeline for change is relatively rapid.

If the climate change is due to geologic shifts, we, as you said need to figure out how to adapt, and likely over a longer time-frame.

If it's both, then we will need to do both.

I haven't seen much research showing it's ONLY the latter, so it seems reasonable to act under the assumption it's the former. This does not preclude us from also preparing in the longer term as a species for the latter.

 

[SubRosa]

Except that I have never heard anyone even mention in passing that we should learn to deal with it. The issue has become a polarizing one of politics and economics instead of one of science, even amongst scientists. People either deny it's happening or blame it all on humans, neither of which is accurate. Either nothing will happen or life as we know it will be destroyed. The fact is that the planet will get warmer than many people want it to and we will have to deal with it or perish. And that is a point that is lost on the overwhelming majority of people who learn about the world through sound bites.

 

[happypoet]

People either deny it's happening or blame it all on humans, neither of which is accurate.

But if the part that is not caused by humans (and again, I'm not admitting this. I don't know about it. I'd like to see your articles) is slow, and the part that is caused by humans is fast, then we still need to address the part we're causing, even if adaptations will be necessary in the future regardless.

I don't know if I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Are you saying that the world is slowly warming, and it might be no big deal, but we might all be screwed, and if it's the latter, there's nothing we can/should do about it?

 

[platytudes]

Our resources would be better spent preparing for the inevitable than trying to prevent it.

And how do you propose we do that? Evacuate California?

I just don't see how we are better served to come up with a long range emergency management plan, than we are to lobby for political change and make personal lifestyle changes. It's a little too sci-fi for me to wrap my head around.

It's like saying - eventually all bodies of fresh water will no longer be potable, so we need to perfect a purification and desalination process rather than try to address the issues of pollution and saltwater intrusion. A nuclear war is inevitable, so let's build bunkers instead of working towards disarmament...

 

[SubRosa]

And how do you propose we do that? Evacuate California?

I just don't see how we are better served to come up with a long range emergency management plan, than we are to lobby for political change and make personal lifestyle changes. It's a little too sci-fi for me to wrap my head around.

It's like saying - eventually all bodies of fresh water will no longer be potable, so we need to perfect a purification and desalination process rather than try to address the issues of pollution and saltwater intrusion. A nuclear war is inevitable, so let's build bunkers instead of working towards disarmament...

You have no talent for analogy! Both of your examples are situations created by humans. Whether or not there is global warming created by humans, there is most definitely natural climate change. Aaron I don't know the speed at which natural processes change the climate. There is in the not too distant past the so called "Little Ice Age" which occurred in recorded history but long before even the most ardent supporter of a human cause for gw could claim that we did it. In the matter of a few hundred years the climate radically changed twice, first cooling and then warming. And btw there are those who think that the warm-up we are experiencing is a part of this change that is still ongoing. I don't deny that manmade CO2 and methane are part of the problem, but anyone who tells you that they know how much is caused by man and how much is a natural process is lying. And not enough people ask "why are they lying?"

 

[Fishfriend1]

You have no talent for analogy! Both of your examples are situations created by humans. Whether or not there is global warming created by humans, there is most definitely natural climate change. Aaron I don't know the speed at which natural processes change the climate. There is in the not too distant past the so called "Little Ice Age" which occurred in recorded history but long before even the most ardent supporter of a human cause for gw could claim that we did it. In the matter of a few hundred years the climate radically changed twice, first cooling and then warming. And btw there are those who think that the warm-up we are experiencing is a part of this change that is still ongoing. I don't deny that manmade CO2 and methane are part of the problem, but anyone who tells you that they know how much is caused by man and how much is a natural process is lying. And not enough people ask "why are they lying?"

Well, IMO, it doesn't matter how much something is causing it, what matters is that we are PART of the problem, and IMO, we have done so much damage to earth besides Global Warming that it may not come out as intact as it used to. Yes, global warming is a natural cycle, but this time humans are here to ruin everything, as we so often do. We have wiped out forests hat would slow this down, we have destroyed ecosystems that could have survived, we have cut off migration paths for animals trying to escape the dangers of global warming, we have nuclear weapons, so when we go to war over water and oil we will be able to completely destroy life on earth. If we didn't have those things, and hadn't done what we've done then i would say "let it come, we can take it!" (it being global warming) but we have done those things, so now we have to try and undo all the damage we have done. We can't stop global warming, thatsa fact, but we CAN reduce the damage it does by stabilize ecosystems and reuniting different areas of the world so that animals can migrate away from the danger. Thats my solution to the problem: reduce the damage by saving and rebuilding the environment as best we can. So, what do you have to say to that idea?

 

[happypoet]

I don't deny that manmade CO2 and methane are part of the problem, but anyone who tells you that they know how much is caused by man and how much is a natural process is lying. And not enough people ask "why are they lying?"

Well, the vast majority of the scientists in the poll I posted at Bishop's request (that he apparently didn't read?) think that human activity is a significant contributing factor. You're correct that they don't quantify what percent is human-caused, and what percent isn't. They don't claim to know. But they do think that what we're doing is a big part of it.

If we go off of this, even if longer-term climate change is unavoidable, I don't see how it wouldn't be prudent to try to stop or reverse what we're contributing, while also planning for the future. This is not an either/or proposition.

Let's see how this analogy works for you.
If a bus is bearing down on us from 200 feet away, and a tank is coming at us from 200 miles away, we should still jump out of the way of the bus, even if we're still going to have to build a tank-proof bunker when we're done.

Maybe my numbers are wrong. Maybe the tank is closer than that and bus is further than what I said, but I don't think anyone is claiming that the tank is closer than the bus.

I think we should work on reducing emissions, put resources into scrub and sequester research (which seems to have a lot of promise), and ALSO continue trying to research climate change that is happening not due to human activity, and figure out what the best reactions to it will be.

Personally, I'm buying vineyard land in Greenland. The apocalypse won't be much fun without good wine.


Now as far as "why are they lying?" Well, people have predispositions and agenda, particularly politicians (who have industries to pay off!) and the media (who want stories!). Are there scientists with agendas? Sure! Some have emotional connections with certain outcomes, some (many of the prominent climate-change deniers) are on the payroll of industry that stands to lose money if certain legislation passes, but many scientists do not have agendas, which is why the overwhelming numbers of the poll are worthwhile.

Furthermore, Science, as a whole, attempts to eliminate bias with things like peer-reviews, the insistence on reporting not just results, but methodology, and the reliance on data even over observation.

 

[platytudes]

You have no talent for analogy!

You have no human feelings! :crazy:
Just kidding

Ok, but seriously, how can we really adapt to icecaps melting and flooding our most populated cities?

Perhaps delaying the inevitable is not the best thing we can do, in theory, but what if it's the only thing we can do, in practice?

 

[JustinakaFatty]

I stopped reading after "global warming" in the title.

 

[SubRosa]

Well, IMO, it doesn't matter how much something is causing it, what matters is that we are PART of the problem, and IMO, we have done so much damage to earth besides Global Warming that it may not come out as intact as it used to. Yes, global warming is a natural cycle, but this time humans are here to ruin everything, as we so often do. We have wiped out forests hat would slow this down, we have destroyed ecosystems that could have survived, we have cut off migration paths for animals trying to escape the dangers of global warming, we have nuclear weapons, so when we go to war over water and oil we will be able to completely destroy life on earth. If we didn't have those things, and hadn't done what we've done then i would say "let it come, we can take it!" (it being global warming) but we have done those things, so now we have to try and undo all the damage we have done. We can't stop global warming, thatsa fact, but we CAN reduce the damage it does by stabilize ecosystems and reuniting different areas of the world so that animals can migrate away from the danger. Thats my solution to the problem: reduce the damage by saving and rebuilding the environment as best we can. So, what do you have to say to that idea?

Travis this post shows a complete lack of integrity. Although judging from the uncharateristically bad typing and spelling he was not in top form when he posted it, the last post by Inka on this subject has alot of merit to it. If I was as concerned as you claim to be about the damage caused by man, and had the evidence that you accept as proof I'd kill as many people as I could to help the world. If you accept the standard that man is destroying the planet then the more people you destroy the more you're helping the planet. I guess Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Ami, and Slobodan Milosevic were just misunderstood defenders of nature. If you accept something as fact be prepared to see it through to its logical conclusion.