Why is global warming a bad thing?

[Gunner]

There are enough threads with political, conspiracy and skeptical content - let's let this one continue with the discussion of the OP's questions and keep the opinionizing out of it. Hmmm?

[computerworks]

Mod Note...did a quicky purge of the political posts...let's keep it on science as Tommy asked.

[Ron61]

Tommy,

I wonder about just what we can accomplish with all we are going to spend and give up. We can't stop the climate changes as the Earth has a long history of them. Some take thousands of years and others in the hundreds of years, so what we put in the air probably is speeding up a normal warming cycle by some years, but no one knows how many, and it may even slow down the cooling cycle that will follow. I watch and read all I can about it and they were showing rocks in Manhattan that were gouged by the last ice age that covered there and it wasn't that long ago in the time frame of the universe. I would like to see some of the junk out of the air for health reasons more than the climate change as I doubt if even I will be around in another 70 to 150 years when they say it will reach the warmest point. It would be interesting and as one of you mentined a rapid warming would really devastate some of the coastal areas. Some scientists want to focus on getting people away from what will be covered in water and making arrangements for a new way of farming and raising food because much of the land now used will be under water. To me that makes more sense than trying to stop what is going to happen.

Ron

[Tommy]

There's a pretty good and concise article on global warming on Wikipedia (click here to see it). It makes a good case for those who believe atmospheric warming is occuring and it correlates with increases in human population and industrial activity. But it is very uncertain regarding the effects of future warming on people who don't live near a glacier, the sea shore or very arid lands. Lots of people have presented their predictions, but I didn't see that there was a consensus of agreement within the scientific community.

The article mentions that there are three broad approaches that could be taken to deal with global warming: mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering. Mitigation includes actions to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (e.g., taxing gasoline an extra $2 a gallon to discourage burning of fossil fuels). Adaptation includes actions to minimize the negative effects of warming on people (e.g., moving people who live in low lying areas near the sea). Geoengineering includes actions to keep greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere (e.g., storing carbon dioxide from power plants in underground chambers). Of these three approaches, my intuition tells me that adaptation is both the least expensive and the approach most likely to be required regardless of our efforts at mitigation and geoengineering.

Fortunately, homo sapiens is a very adaptable species. In fact, the ability of an infant human to adapt to whatever environment it is born is one of our greatest strengths. Raise a baby in an igloo above the arctic circle, in a rain forest near the equator, or in inner city Chicago and it will quickly adapt to its surroundings. I believe many of the people who will have to change their lives to cope with global warming will find it a traumatic experience. But their children will grow up thinking that is the way it has always been. I believe the effort to significantly change the pattern of global warming will diminish as soon as the real world cost of fighting it becomes more apparent. And 10,000 years from now when the next ice age is underway, no one will remember these lively discussions.

[Jamo]

Y'all seem real concerned about whether beachfront properties or polar bears will be lost, but nobody seems to spend much time thinking about agriculture.

Farmers deal with the climate changes (short and long term) every day...deciding what crop to plant next season, or whether to plant trees or vines that will produce for decades. The first effects of climate change happen in ag first, whether natural or man-made.

The Aral Sea in Central Asia is a perfect example. The Soviets cut off the inflow by building canals to carry all the water elsewhere. As the Sea retreated, it changed the climate of Central Asia, making it hotter and dryer and killing off important graineries within a few decades. The essential fishery was killed off in less time than that. An area visited by Alexander and conquered later by the Khan's offspring...gone within the era of a failed political experiment.

In California, we deal with the effects of El Nino on a periodic basis, most recently with a drought in important growing areas. Flat crop production is moving to Mexico. So you say, California's loss is Mexico's gain...it all evens out. Sure, unless you consider what else is at stake, such as food safety. If you don't mind your lettuce, broccoli or tomatoes grown with sewage water and sprayed with chemicals y'all thought were bad when they got banned here, well...eat up.

One thing we lost when we stopped hunting and gathering and laid down roots to grow things or pipes to build things is that we lost our unique ability to pick up and move easily...it's no longer a matter of folding up the teepee.

We should be planning on how to cope with climate change rather than being hoodwinked into thinking we can stop it.

Just my opinion, but this global warming fad has created it's own socio-economic fiascos...corn grown for fuel is but one assample.

[fastd]

By the way, I just read in the Wall Street Journal today: even if they get everything they want at the Copenhagen conference including the US reducing its greenhouse emissions by 80%, total emissions is still projected to increase by 2.6x (I think it was) because China and emerging countries aren't participating...

[Excaliber]

China and emerging countries aren't participating...

Uh, neither is America at this point! Negotiations continue of course, but it's pretty clear NOBODY is anywhere NEAR the goals that were established early on.

China and the US are the largest "polluters", the pressure is on for both countries to do more. Won't be easy getting concessions from either country.

[Bill Bess]

Dirt floors are great if you don't wear shoes, and windows just require cleaning..sounds like the country life is good.

[Tommy]

I have one more thought on this topic. I recently heard a radio interveiw with a controversial Danish economist named Bjorn Lomborg. He attended the UN climate conference to espouse his view that climate change is not the most pressing international challenge facing the world. In his view, if you rank ordered all the challenges to human life (e.g., malaria, AIDS, malnutrition, etc.) the effects of global warming would fall way down at the bottom of the list. So, if the world wants to address its most pressing problems, it should spend its money first on those challenges at the top of its list. He suggested world governments spend the relatively small amount of $100 billion per year on R&D in an effort to find a technological break through that would replace the use of fossil fuel. Interestingly enough, that's the exact same amount being proposed by US Secretary of State Clinton.

[Ron61]

Tommy,

That is logical and therefore not going to happen. The first thing they consider is what will get all of them the most votes or make the most money for them. Right now the climate change is the big thing and therefore worth more than trying to cure illnesses and other things. The world food supply is going to be short in a matter of time and they aren't worrying about that either.

Ron

[Ron61]

Latest report from the World Climate meetings. Doesn't sound as if they can agree on much of anything.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p....wegLncA&pos=9

Ron

[Bobcat]

Ron .... have to disagree . They all agree they hate the US , but want our money !!

Bob

[lnfletcher]

Things change and man adapts. The world is a much different place now than when I was younger, and I have only been alive an extremely small percentage of the time in the scheme of things! We do not have the ability to control any other country much less the environment. Those that believe we do are naive! Over population is self correcting. If there is not a real solution, there is no problem, so as an example I don't worry about the sun going out because there is absolutely nothing I or anyone else can do about it. I recycle because I can, I don't have a windmill or solar panels because they don't work in a real way to solve a problem. Certain people want to do away with oil, coal and even natural gas to produce energy, but if they do not produce energy, what are they good for? They want to use our food supply to burn for energy and leave the "old" fuels in the ground.
We could always go back in time and burn dung for warmth! Man can do what he can in his own little sphere but beyond that, it is not within man to direct his steps!


Boy, now I need to go out for a Cobra run to calm down but it's too freekin cold!

[Excaliber]

Mexico is having a similiar problem as Canada, it sounds like. To many Americans retiring there and signing up for the very nice Gov health plan they have. Which is now going broke.

HAS the climate been cooling for the past decade? So many voices...

[Ron61]

I don't know if this is fact, but I used to have some distant relatives that went to Mexico every summer but they said they would never buy a place there. From what I understood, even if you buy a place the Mexican Govt. can take it back any time they want and kick you out. This was a cheap way to get nice houses and actually make money at the same time as you paid for the land, built the house, paid all the fees and then they could just take it .

Now as I said, I don't know if there is any truth to this at all.

Ron

[Tommy]

Mexico went through a period several decades ago when they nationalized (i.e., took without paying for) some large businesses. That and the general lack of trust in Mexican politicians may account for stories of them taking private homes.