Global warming is not that bad

[Mr. Scott]

Cold adaptation is more damning than heat adaptation though.

Yes, global warming has less negatives than global cooling. But the point is that change, regardless of its form, is happening faster than many species can handle.

[Aanker]

Don't worry Mr. Scott (I rejoyce, a good username to address!), in the future we will be able to artificially produce species that can fill the slots left open by the extinct animals. Imagine that - I would personally want to see a four-legged chicken.

[Denny Crane!]

Of course it is not the exact same thing. What I am getting at as that we are aware of the mechanism of a "if this happens, then this happens" scenario yet the public is still uber skeptical. As I said, known exactly what is going to happen or what should be done is a complicated subject, but debating the mechanics (which many people do) is completely pointless; we know that, given all other things equal, disrupting the carbon cycle as we are will effect how the greenhouse gas system works and having a good chance of altering the climate.



What is this about planetary systems? Solar output is normal, I don't know what you are getting at.

Well yes if you say if you set something on fire it will get hot then you will be right but the exact mechanics of what where and why and how fast and what the effects will be is a lot more complicated and in particulary the last one is just at best fuzzy thinking fortune telling, the truth is we simply don't know. Other areas involve modelling which is inherently complicated. And there are so many areas for the rabid skeptics to call climate scientists on (we have pretty shoddy understanding of the Arctic areas and the science and causation of currents and the heating and cooling.

I'm not saying you can't say the mechanics are obvious but what I am saying is that the Proof behind the cause, the effect and everything imbetween is almost exclusively a debate for scientists. The skeptics, how many of them are scientists or statisticians? How many of the people who refute them are either? For the most part I suspect that the science should be left to the scientists, the presentation and decisions should be made by statisticians/scientists and the rest of us should abide by the results and if we're worried hope to god the peer review process is adequate (it quite clearly isn't always but...)

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

Well yes if you say if you set something on fire it will get hot then you will be right but the exact mechanics of what where and why and how fast and what the effects will be is a lot more complicated and in particulary the last one is just at best fuzzy thinking fortune telling, the truth is we simply don't know. Other areas involve modelling which is inherently complicated. And there are so many areas for the rabid skeptics to call climate scientists on (we have pretty shoddy understanding of the Arctic areas and the science and causation of currents and the heating and cooling.

I'm not saying you can't say the mechanics are obvious but what I am saying is that the Proof behind the cause, the effect and everything imbetween is almost exclusively a debate for scientists. The skeptics, how many of them are scientists or statisticians? How many of the people who refute them are either? For the most part I suspect that the science should be left to the scientists, the presentation and decisions should be made by statisticians/scientists and the rest of us should abide by the results and if we're worried hope to god the peer review process is adequate (it quite clearly isn't always but...)

problem is, this sciense IS statistics, how can we deduce climatological chage if not by comparing the data of several years?
A bigger problem, in my view, is selecting the data to review: the planet is such a complex, dynamic thing that it's really hard to get all the necessary data involved, which would also include events in the whole solar system (solar waves, for example).
It is this subjective selection of data by lobbyists (on both sides) which has dragged us in the mudpit we are in now, and why the predictions for upcoming events are so scattered. Global change has become a trademark, and because scientists are funded by companies, I pretty much gave up hope for decent predictions, and fear we'll only know the consequences by finding out in person.

Also, on the original topic: I don't think the founder of this thread has an idea what 2 to 8°C extra can do to an ecosystem...
e.g. a lot of plants, trees and crops have temperature dependant reproductive sytem, synched with several animal activities (pollinators mostly), think about it what happens when your apple trees are fertile 2 months before or after the bees actually come for them

[Visna]

History has shown that species adapt to climate change or die out. So not a big deal.

You forgot the third option; relocate. And an already existing crisis will only intensify, as hundreds of millions of people will be displaced by conflict over dwindling ressources, worsening climate, coastal flooding, water scarsity etc etc over the next 50 years or so. If the trend continues, current migration patterns, which are already threatening social stability in some places, will be like a trickle compared to a tidal wave.

And that's just for us humans. The sad fact is that we have no idea about the possible consequences for something like ocean currents or other forms of life like plankton or plants. Those small, seemingly insignificant things which keep the foodchain running. We're obsessing over polar bears because, if we manage to disregard that it must be one of the most ferocious predators ever, they do look sort of cute. They certainly make better ambassadors for a cause than some leaf of grass or a single celled marine organism, but just a single year without the bottom links in the food chain (or just a few months change in either direction) will have far more catastrophic consequences than the abscence of cute polar bears in the wild. And pandas too for that matter.

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

You forgot the third option; relocate. And an already existing crisis will only intensify, as hundreds of millions of people will be displaced by conflict over dwindling ressources, worsening climate, coastal flooding, water scarsity etc etc over the next 50 years or so. If the trend continues, current migration patterns, which are already threatening social stability in some places, will be like a trickle compared to a tidal wave.

And that's just for us humans. The sad fact is that we have no idea about the possible consequences for something like ocean currents or other forms of life like plankton or plants. Those small, seemingly insignificant things which keep the foodchain running. We're obsessing over polar bears because, if we manage to disregard that it must be one of the most ferocious predators ever, they do look sort of cute. They certainly make better ambassadors for a cause than some leaf of grass or a single celled marine organism, but just a single year without the bottom links in the food chain (or just a few months change in either direction) will have far more catastrophic consequences than the abscence of cute polar bears in the wild. And pandas too for that matter.

agreed, also, those first 2 options are in natural climate change, which takes place over a waaaaay longer period than what we are facing with this type of global change. It probably won't be mass extinction like at the end of cretaceous era, but we don't know how bad it will actually be (with bad => unnaturalistic)

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

"Some animals might go extinct" - not to mention crops failing in poor countries, mass migrations, resource wars.... And if a small Pacific island slips under the water, you can best coastline in other places will too. I won't miss Florida, but I'm sure all those displaced people won't be happy.

Unfortunately it's a lot more complex than wanting palm trees somewhere.

[NRohirrim]

mass migrations

There's such thing like boundaries.

And if a small Pacific island slips under the water

OMG, they will be flooded anyway sooner or later. And not many people live there.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

There's such thing like boundaries.


OMG, they will be flooded anyway sooner or later. And not many people live there.

Yes, sorry, I had forgotten.

[Engie]

Climate change is happening, no doubt about it, the climate changes all the time and you'd be mad to argue that it doesn't.

But is it a threat to our continued existence? I don't think so, I'm quite sceptical of some of the doom laden predictions that have been offered by some people.

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

There's such thing like boundaries.


OMG, they will be flooded anyway sooner or later. And not many people live there.

boundaries... I don't think insects and the like will give a damn about customs officers, and for natural boundaries, they have been crossed before, and those that won't will probably suffer the consequences.

and the second one...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Climate change is happening, no doubt about it, the climate changes all the time and you'd be mad to argue that it doesn't.

But is it a threat to our continued existence? I don't think so, I'm quite sceptical of some of the doom laden predictions that have been offered by some people.

our existance? not directly, no. But we are still part of the food chain, even though we're at the top:
as previously mentioned, there might be changes like rises in temperature at a 2 to 8°C range, which isn't much, we'd just wear T-shirts for longer periods of the year.
But the bugs and plants who determine parts of their life cycle on temperature have now distorted life sequences. Either they migrate, die or adapt, but on short-term changes that 3rd one is a real tricky one.
no bugs => no plants => no food for the rest of living things. the cycles that have been built up during the past 10.000 years will be broken way quicker than they can adapt themselves, which is, as mentioned NOT GOOD

[Ummagumma]

We need to engineer some green goop that is an efficient atmosphere processor and nutritionally viable (and tastes like sirloin). That, or just Soylent Green!

Pass the HP sauce..

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

We need to engineer some green goop that is an efficient atmosphere processor and nutritionally viable (and tastes like sirloin). That, or just Soylent Green!

Pass the HP sauce..

I, personally, would rather go extinct, enjoying a nice strip of bacon and a good scotch (not necessarily together) than to turn vegan...

or maybe we can combine your and my idea's...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Ummagumma]

I, personally, would rather go extinct, enjoying a nice strip of bacon and a good scotch (not necessarily together) than to turn vegan...

or maybe we can combine your and my idea's...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You mean: Soylent Green.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Soylent Green is people.

Odd you would rather go extinct than go vegan. Especially as the hypothetical engineered goop could taste just like sirloin, or bacon. Or Scotch. And presumably come in a variety of textures. Or is it just the comforting thought of chewing dead animal flesh?

Anyway, this is all rather silly. We should stop before Graham Chapman jumps in on the thread.

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

You mean: Soylent Green.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Soylent Green is people.

Odd you would rather go extinct than go vegan. Especially as the hypothetical engineered goop could taste just like sirloin, or bacon. Or Scotch. And presumably come in a variety of textures. Or is it just the comforting thought of chewing dead animal flesh?

Anyway, this is all rather silly. We should stop before Graham Chapman jumps in on the thread.

too late!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

edit: I dare you to look for this picture with google, and then click it...

[OCWife]

If humans or other species die out as a result of climate change, then so be it. That's just the natural cycle of things. I don't see the big deal. You can't live forever.

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

If humans or other species die out as a result of climate change, then so be it. That's just the natural cycle of things. I don't see the big deal. You can't live forever.

I agree that we have an inevitable fate of taking our place in the history of planet's species. but this one is a bit diffrent cause it's all our own fault, and were this the ethos and mores forum section, I would suggest that in that case, we have our responsibility not to drag everything down with us.

the titel implies 'Global warming is not that bad', on one side: yes, it's very bad, because it will kill a of the planet's species. On the other side: that will indeed happen eventually.
but by that reason, you'll be dead in about 70 years or so: why bother not ending it now, or following the rules?

[OCWife]

I agree that we have an inevitable fate of taking our place in the history of planet's species. but this one is a bit diffrent cause it's all our own fault, and were this the ethos and mores forum section, I would suggest that in that case, we have our responsibility not to drag everything down with us.

I don't see the big deal in dragging everything down with us.

yes, it's very bad, because it will kill a of the planet's species.

Why is that bad?

If humans exploded the Earth today and all species died. Why is it a bad thing?

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

I don't see the big deal in dragging everything down with us.



Why is that bad?

If humans exploded the Earth today and all species died. Why is it a bad thing?

because we killed them? especially if we could have prevented that.

so, do you believe that if you kill yourself in the process, murder doesn't matter?
guess what, so did this guy:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[OCWife]

because we killed them? especially if we could have prevented that.

so, do you believe that if you kill yourself in the process, murder doesn't matter?
guess what, so did this guy:

I do not have the same definition of murder as you. We will agree to disagree.