Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It may suggest that it was warmer in the past in the Alps. It says little about the global effect.
👆
I'm still not convinced global warming is a, one the whole, a bad thing.
If we move to temperatures that are much closer to what they were in the past, why is that bad?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's considered bad because of the potential disruption of human settlement/life in certain areas. I recall the underwater signing of a climate change commitment by an island nation somewhere. They're worried about flooding from melted ice caps.
Found a list:
5. Spread of disease As northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them. Indeed some scientists believe that in some countries thanks to global warming, malaria has not been fully eradicated.
Disease
4. Warmer waters and more hurricanes As the temperature of oceans rises, so will the probability of more frequent and stronger hurricanes. We saw in this in 2004 and 2005.
hurricanes, an effect of global warming
3. Increased probability and intensity of droughts and heat waves Although some areas of Earth will become wetter due to global warming, other areas will suffer serious droughts and heat waves. Africa will receive the worst of it, with more severe droughts also expected in Europe. Water is already a dangerously rare commodity in Africa, and according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global warming will exacerbate the conditions and could lead to conflicts and war.
Droughts are an effect of global warming
2. Economic consequences Most of the effects of anthropogenic global warming won’t be good. And these effects spell one thing for the countries of the world: economic consequences. Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all of these.
Economic consequences of global warming
1. Polar ice caps melting The ice caps melting is a four-pronged danger.
First, it will raise sea levels. There are 5,773,000 cubic miles of water in ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if all glaciers melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet. Luckily, that’s not going to happen all in one go! But sea levels will rise.
Second, melting ice caps will throw the global ecosystem out of balance. The ice caps are fresh water, and when they melt they will desalinate the ocean, or in plain English - make it less salty. The desalinization of the gulf current will "screw up" ocean currents, which regulate temperatures. The stream shutdown or irregularity would cool the area around north-east America and Western Europe. Luckily, that will slow some of the other effects of global warming in that area!
Third, temperature rises and changing landscapes in the artic circle will endanger several species of animals. Only the most adaptable will survive.
Fourth, global warming could snowball with the ice caps gone. Ice caps are white, and reflect sunlight, much of which is relected back into space, further cooling Earth. If the ice caps melt, the only reflector is the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the Earth.
Down the list: the Disease "myth" is complete bullshit. It has been destroyed long ago. I don't understand why they keep harping on this malaria bullshit. Where was the most destructive malaria epidemic? Do mosquitos live in the arctic? The answers to those two questions make the malaria disease argument complete shit. And, if it were that big of a deal, people living in the tropical zones would be dying at extreme rates.
Melting of the icecaps destroying the ocean currents and desalinating the oceans. I'm not even an oceanographer and I even facepalmed. The thermohaline current will definitely be affected...but has earth-life been completely destroyed by a chance in the currents? Uh...no. How about not even a little? How about life being even more abundant and diverse in both the oceans and the land during "tropical" periods?
Droughts: More droughts and more tropical areas, as well. If our ancestors can walk thousands of miles to "better lands", why the **** can't we do it, now? Have we grown that stupid as a species that we can't migrate any more? Also, if droughts were a problem, then tell the millions of people living in deserts that they can't live where they live. ALSO, the increased tropical areas will greatly outweigh the droughts. We will have an increase "arable" lands. Like...a huge increase. The growing seasons will be longer and the chance that a freeze will destroy early planting will also decrease. Let's not forget that more global warming means more availability of arable lands...you know, the way poor people can increase their ability to survive.
Also, many more people die each year from the cold than they do the heat.
Hurricanes: Okay, this is the stupidest argument ever made. When it was colder in America, we experienced "super-hurricanes". Hurricanes that make any hurricane we've seen look like a little b*tch. This was a little as 200-300 years ago that we had supercanes. We need to get colder to see those hurricanes again. Yes, I know, odd that. However, if we do see more superhuricanes or an increase in hurricane frequency due to the warmer oceans, oh well. As if we could make a large enough impact on the warming to stop global warming entirely.
Seas rising 230 feet? hahahahahahaha. Oh man...nice joke.
Darker colors absorbing more sunlight? lol! So the times that the earth had no icecaps made the Earth turn into Venus with no hope of return, right?
Bottom line: a warmer Earth would be better for humans. Less death, more food, more "easily" livable areas.
Originally posted by dadudemonBottom line: a warmer Earth would be better for humans. Less death, more food, more "easily" livable areas.
There's a balance that must be kept and while a warming Earth isn't bad in of itself(as your points dictate), the rate of warming can be a problem, which is what I believe is a key argument of the GW nuts.
E.G. Earth heats up too fast and ahead of schedule, a mass death of bees could happen; if that happens, there goes the "more food" argument.
Originally posted by dadudemonSmallpox is the only human infection to have been destroyed.
Down the list: the Disease "myth" is complete bullshit. It has been destroyed long ago. I don't understand why they keep harping on this malaria bullshit. Where was the most destructive malaria epidemic? Do mosquitos live in the arctic? The answers to those two questions make the malaria disease argument complete shit. And, if it were that big of a deal, people living in the tropical zones would be dying at extreme rates.
According to Wikipedia's entry on malaria: "Each year, there are more than 250 million cases of malaria, killing between one and three million people, the majority of whom are young children in sub-Saharan Africa."
Global warming is not the issue. I mean 12,000 years ago, were I am at, would have been very near the edge of a glacier a mile think. The Earth has been getting warmer. The law of nature says, adapt of die. I don't believe global warming is caused by humans, so what are we going to do? Adapt or die...
Originally posted by dadudemon
If we move to temperatures that are much closer to what they were in the past, why is that bad?
it depends on where you live
if you are a rancher in Arizona, or depend on the sea, especially in poor areas, you are ****ed. If you run a ski resort on the West coast of Canada, you are ****ed.
If you are a farmer in Saskatchewan, things are probably going to be ok
wait... do you really think there are no negative consequences to serious climate change.
Like, forget the question of why it is happening, you see absolutly no reason to be alarmed?
Originally posted by King Kandy
So basically, the whole substance of your argument is that because the norse called it "greenland", it obviously must have had no ice? That doesn't seem very sound.
or as if it isn't actually predicted by models of climate change
god, I'm sure I'm going to get sucked into it, but I HATE this debate. Even more than creationism, its a debate that is entirely of a scientific nature (maybe not the "what to do about it" question) that is almost entirely discussed by people with a near hostility toward the scientists involved...
Originally posted by inimalist
wait... do you really think there are no negative consequences to serious climate change.Like, forget the question of why it is happening, you see absolutly no reason to be alarmed?
I didn't say that, at all.
There are going to be lots of deaths due to climate change. That's just the sad state of man: some have and some have not. The have nots will see more deaths due to climate change and almost everyone else will be fine. Lots of species will die out, lots of humans will die. But everything will be better, on the whole.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Smallpox is the only human infection to have been destroyed.According to Wikipedia's entry on malaria: "Each year, there are more than 250 million cases of malaria, killing between one and three million people, the majority of whom are young children in sub-Saharan Africa."
No, the ARGUMENT was destroyed, NOT diseases.
And, yeah, the most destructive epidemic was in Russia, which was supposed to be a "rhetorical" question, hoping someone else around here would remember that from a history class.
And, thanks for helping my point by pointing out that the poor die from diseases much more often than those of higher income classes. That's one of the reasons the point was utterly destroyed from the GW tards.
Yes, there are GW tards. There are also anti-GW tards.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't say that, at all.There are going to be lots of deaths due to climate change. That's just the sad state of man: some have and some have not. The have nots will see more deaths due to climate change and almost everyone else will be fine. Lots of species will die out, lots of humans will die. But everything will be better, on the whole.
so, you are saying something more like: whenever we adapt to the current climate trends, things will be better than they are now?
again, I'd say that is entirely relative to what it is you do and who you are. Farming and fishing communities are going to be the hardest hit. In fact, given how sensitive the seas are to even modest changes in climate/environment, it can't help but impact even you or I, who have almost no connection to the water in terms of our everyday survival.
I do sort of agree, if we can discover a way for society to be adaptable to climate change, that will be a positive, I just have a hard time saying we will be better, considering even you admit lots of people are going to suffer due to climate alone.
Though, I'm sure we'd agree, as Bjorn Lumburg points out, that money spent directly on the local infrastructure of developing nations will do more to combat the negative effects of climate change than will these "anti-oil" and "anti-corporate" measures that the green movement loves. That "corporations are the evil assholes destroying the planet" narrative is so appealing to people though, its got everything, heros, villians, etc.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, you are saying something more like: whenever we adapt to the current climate trends, things will be better than they are now?
No, I'm saying that we are already adapted to the "new" climate, but some of the changes will adversely affect some settlements. On the whole, though, it will be better.
Consider that more people die from cold than hot weather, greater "arable" climes, and more plant and animal life (humans need that shit, yo, lol) then it looks like a more positive future for my children.
I'm not very worried about global warming. I'm worried about pollution. If my grandchildren inherit an Earth that is warmer, that's great...but if it's too polluted to be livable in many places, WTF did I do to my children's children and why did I do it?
Global warming is the mistaken identification of the natural cooling/warming phases that the earth has always gone through.
The required green-house gases to create a noticeable climate effect would be astronomically greater than we produce now. Aside from that, it's been proven that c02, while having a long lifetime as a GHG is the least dangerous GHG, and it would take even larger quantities than even possible to create a difference that is as dramatic as some would have you believe.
enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Global_warming_potential
replace "dot" with ".", please.
The main problem with all of this is that people forget that the earth is comming out of a mini ice age, so it´s normal that the ice is melting.
Not to mention other things like the suns cycles causing various warm an cold periods.
Nevertheless, even if man is only contributing a small ammount to global warming. Pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every day is not a good thing, not to mention all the other chemical crap industry is poisoning the world with.
Ok the earth can regenerate itself to a certain extent, but it takes a long time. Do we have that time is the big question, will we find a solution before we poisen ourselfes into extinction?