AGW/GW so what?

[Ceritus]

Ok so let’s say worst case scenario happens and AGW/GW melts a massive portion of the ice in the north and south portions of the world. Wouldn't it be similar to ice in a cup and the actual level of water would fall with the melting of the ice? Or is it feared the permafrost will tip the cup and flood the land?

Ok so why worry about emissions so much? Why worry about smog? I am being 100% serious. Isn't it our job to adapt to the environment regardless if we caused it or not? If producing said pollution helps of advance technologically could we not use those advancements to lets say build houses on the water? Perhaps cooling jackets with little built in air conditioners if the outside is going to be so hot! And if the weather becomes monstrous why not build bigger stronger shelters? Say some kind of ice age comes why not build massive heated domes for agriculture? It is not like it will hit us like a 2x4 to the back of the head like in these silly movies.

We are problem solvers and if it is like all these crazy green peace nuts say that it is too late to fix it then we better adapt and not worry about the environment any longer. Less funding into these silly environmental causes and more into education. The way I see it with what we know as a species now the laziest, dumbest, poorest child <12 right now should know more than I do at 23 than I do at 23 currently.

We have lived through so much as a species why should something as silly as this stop us or our children or their children? I will admit a smooth transition into this hell hole would be nice but even if it does hit us like a 2x4 we will adapt so who gives a damn.

[TobiasTheViking]

I'm trying to figure out how to respond.... but... :/

Yes, you do have a point.... but... :/

It would probably be cheaper to just ....

Think of all the other species that will.....


Sincerely
Tobias

Am i being ambigious.

[Roboramma]

Ok so let’s say worst case scenario happens and AGW/GW melts a massive portion of the ice in the north and south portions of the world. Wouldn't it be similar to ice in a cup and the actual level of water would fall with the melting of the ice? Or is it feared the permafrost will tip the cup and flood the land?
As for the ice, you're right about sea ice, it won't change sea level at all. Of course there are worries about the ecosystems that live on that ice. For instance, polar bears.
The problem is the ice that's on land. For instance, in antarctica, if that melts, sea levels will rise. How much of it will melt is up for debate.

Ok so why worry about emissions so much? Why worry about smog? I am being 100% serious. Isn't it our job to adapt to the environment regardless if we caused it or not?
Yes, definitely. And if reducing emissions can help us to stop global warming from continuing, then we have to concider if doing so is worthwhile. What are the costs of reducing emissions. What are the costs of not? These are important questions.

If producing said pollution helps of advance technologically could we not use those advancements to lets say build houses on the water? Perhaps cooling jackets with little built in air conditioners if the outside is going to be so hot! And if the weather becomes monstrous why not build bigger stronger shelters? Say some kind of ice age comes why not build massive heated domes for agriculture? It is not like it will hit us like a 2x4 to the back of the head like in these silly movies.
I'm sure there are some problems that could be lessened by techological advances. But is it wise to just assume that all of the problems will be? We don't know.
Who's going to pay for your air conditioned jackets? Where will the resources that manufacture them come from? How much would it cost to convert all the damaged open air agriculture to green houses?
How much will it cost to improve the structural integrity of all the buildings that need it?
Look at what happened with the recent earthquake in... where was it? pakistan? Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean it's economically, or environmentally feasable to do it.

We are problem solvers and if it is like all these crazy green peace nuts say that it is too late to fix it then we better adapt and not worry about the environment any longer. Less funding into these silly environmental causes and more into education. The way I see it with what we know as a species now the laziest, dumbest, poorest child <12 right now should know more than I do at 23 than I do at 23 currently.
Well, I doubt we're all going to die tomorrow. But there may be some negative consequences to the way we are doing things. Looking at those consequences, and trying to find ways of avoiding them seems to be exactly the kind of creative problem solving you so admire in homo sapiens.

We have lived through so much as a species why should something as silly as this stop us or our children or their children? I will admit a smooth transition into this hell hole would be nice but even if it does hit us like a 2x4 we will adapt so who gives a damn.
And how do you suggest we will adapt? By ignoring what's happening and just assuming that science will give us a magic bullet so that we don't have to adjust our way of living at all to what's happening in the world around us?
Or thinking ahead and trying to change our way of doing things to give us the best possible outcome.

I don't suggest that I know what the best course of action is. More study is a good idea. But doing nothing at all isn't the default position. It has costs as well. A decent cost/benefit analysis is needed. And for that we probably need more data.
But in the meantime, reducing emissions where possible, looking into clearer energy techology, etc. are good gambles.

I'd also suggest that we have more than just ourselves to think about. This planet isn't just ours, though we may have all the power over it.

[Ceritus]

I'd also suggest that we have more than just ourselves to think about. This planet isn't just ours, though we may have all the power over it.

Well the only reason to worry about anything else is because of the effect it may have on our lives is it not?

I mean lets say that a species died and it had no negative effect on our lives or the future lives of anyone else with the exception that future generations wouldn't be able to see said species would it matter?

I fail to understand how this world or even the universe is not ours.

[Roboramma]

Well the only reason to worry about anything else is because of the effect it may have on our lives is it not?

I mean lets say that a species died and it had no negative effect on our lives or the future lives of anyone else with the exception that future generations wouldn't be able to see said species would it matter?

I fail to understand how this world or even the universe is not ours.

Or to put it a little more blatantly:

Well the only reason to worry about anything is because of the effect it may have on my life, is it not?

Let's say someone, or some group of people, or even the entire human species except for me and those I care about died, and it had no negative effect on my life or the lives of any of my decendants with the exception that my decendants wouldn't get to see those other people. Would it matter?

I fail to understand how this world or even the universe is not mine.

Or to put it this way, why should I take into account the suffering of someone I'll never see, and whose suffering won't negatively affect me? Whose suffering in fact could positively affect me? (say for instance the slave that someone who works for me has kidnapped and sold to someone else on the other side of the world).
Personally I think I should take it into account. I think I have a moral obligation.

If you agree (I'm assuming you do, but I won't take it for granted), then our difference of opinion is that I extend that concideration to at least some other species. That doesn't mean the same degree of concideration. It means some concideration.

In what way do I have more right to life than, say, a chimpanzee? The only real difference in that regard that I see is one of power.

[Mercutio]

Something on NPR yesterday caught my ...ear, I guess... Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will also have the effect of changing the pH of the ocean waters. If they become at all acidic (currently safely basic), then the plankton that have calcium-based bodies are toast. Corals, toast. Sponges, toast. Pretty much the bottom rung of the food chain would be in danger.

But hey, it's only the bottom rung...

[fishbob]

Well the only reason to worry about anything else is because of the effect it may have on our lives is it not?

I mean lets say that a species died and it had no negative effect on our lives or the future lives of anyone else with the exception that future generations wouldn't be able to see said species would it matter?

I fail to understand how this world or even the universe is not ours.
This is a fine example of short term thinking.

Wipe out a species, change an ecosystem, and there will be an effect on your life. What you don't know is how much and how soon.

[Tez]

Ok so let’s say worst case scenario happens and AGW/GW melts a massive portion of the ice in the north and south portions of the world. Wouldn't it be similar to ice in a cup and the actual level of water would fall with the melting of the ice? Or is it feared the permafrost will tip the cup and flood the land?


Warming of the sea water will cause it to expand, and thus levels to rise. So its not simply a function of calculating the excess water due to ice melting...

[Ceritus]

This is a fine example of short term thinking.

Wipe out a species, change an ecosystem, and there will be an effect on your life. What you don't know is how much and how soon.

Why must it be assumed that any effect will end up being a bad effect? Let’s say hypothetically, that all the frogs died in an instant all over the world! Now there is an over abundance of disease carrying mosquitoes. People start dying left and right from west Nile, malaria, ect. We know these bugs are an impending doom so we work our butts off to try to come up with a perfect bug repellent. Let's say we came up with it and it could be a pill that you only have to take once who knows but now these bugs pose no threat what so ever where as before a small percentage were dying of diseases spread by these bugs.

Sure there are so many what if's, it could be on both sides. I personally have faith in our ability to solve problems even when we create them.

If every animal on the planet died over time with the exception of us of course that would be fine as well wouldn't it? During this extinction of other inhabitants of this planet why wouldn't we come up with a way to produce nutritious foods that did not involve the existence of any other species? It could even be some sort of mold for all I care, I mean sure I had beef and I enjoy it but if life were to be sustained on some sort of GE mold that always tasted the same future generations wouldn't know the difference would they? Perhaps they wouldn't even be that fat or unhealthy!

Long term thinking is all fine and dandy but you must exhibit some sort of short term thinking process as well or you will waste your time. You could plan on saving up all your life for retirement and die in a car accident tomorrow simply because you wanted to saved some money and gas by buying some small environmentally friendly vehicle.

[LTC8K6]

Why should the Earth's temperature be steady?

Everything that has ever lived on the Earth has gone extinct. This does not seem to have bothered Earth's ecosystem too much.

[Ceritus]

Everything that has ever lived on the Earth has gone extinct.

Are you sure there aren't some simple bacteria's around that have not gone extinct? I mean that is a pretty bold statement you have made.

[LTC8K6]

Well, obviously those that are still here haven't yet, but they will soon.

It's well over 99% that have already gone extinct.

What % of all the life that has ever been on Earth is still here?

[PatKelley]

Ok so let’s say worst case scenario happens and AGW/GW melts a massive portion of the ice in the north and south portions of the world. Wouldn't it be similar to ice in a cup and the actual level of water would fall with the melting of the ice? Or is it feared the permafrost will tip the cup and flood the land?

Ok so why worry about emissions so much? Why worry about smog? I am being 100% serious. Isn't it our job to adapt to the environment regardless if we caused it or not? If producing said pollution helps of advance technologically could we not use those advancements to lets say build houses on the water? Perhaps cooling jackets with little built in air conditioners if the outside is going to be so hot! And if the weather becomes monstrous why not build bigger stronger shelters? Say some kind of ice age comes why not build massive heated domes for agriculture? It is not like it will hit us like a 2x4 to the back of the head like in these silly movies.

We are problem solvers and if it is like all these crazy green peace nuts say that it is too late to fix it then we better adapt and not worry about the environment any longer. Less funding into these silly environmental causes and more into education. The way I see it with what we know as a species now the laziest, dumbest, poorest child <12 right now should know more than I do at 23 than I do at 23 currently.

We have lived through so much as a species why should something as silly as this stop us or our children or their children? I will admit a smooth transition into this hell hole would be nice but even if it does hit us like a 2x4 we will adapt so who gives a damn.

There is approximately two miles of ice in the Antarctic ice cap, covering a good portion of the continent. This will raise sea levels as well as relieving the pressure over Antarctica. The ice in Antarctica is not, as the ice in the North polar ice cap, mostly sea-ice.
What this will do if released rapidly is uncertain. Expect iceberg calving and shut-down shipping lanes above 60 degrees latitude north or south.

Increase in temperature means an increase in the amount of water vapor that can be dissolved in the air mixture, which means possibly more heating as water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Regardless, weather systems driven by ocean heat versus heat over land temperature differentials could get worse, patterns of desertification and rainfall could change drastically.

Die-off driven by the freshwater influx into normally fertile northern waters is, I think, not currently modeled. Change in long-term ocean currents could affect weather patterns as well.

Many islands that rest a meter or so above sea-level will be inundated. Coastal regions could see a several meter rise; this is enough to cause some flooding in coastal plains regions and change patterns of beach erosion.

Change in weather patterns could severely affect crops, resulting in famine in unirrigated and even some irrigated crops dependant upon rain-fed permanent rivers. The die off brought about by such a change, both in croplands and wilderness, could be enough to cause an infusion of carbon dioxide. The runoff and erosion as a result of river-feeding wilderness die-off could cause blooms and suffocation of river-living organisms, while many rivers could become severely silted while wetland absorbers of coastal and river floods could dry up enough to catch fire and/or no longer ameliorate some flooding and drought.

Changes in cold-water upwelling could compromise seasonal feeding and migration patterns, resulting in massive sea life and oceanic bird die-off.

The adaptation of organisms is longer generally than one generation. Massive die-off is the result of catastrophic change also known as an extinction event. Human survival will depend upon being well-fed, secure, and with a power source. While it is possible many and perhaps most will surivive, the earth will take a long time to recover its diversity, and until then many generalists will see population booms, such as foxes, opossums and coyotes in the United States.

The die-off could be as much as 10% of current species diversity, which while it might sound like a dismissable loss does not fall evenly. Many species once held in check by more fragile specialist predator species might proliferate in the mold of gypsy moth caterpillars or cane toads. It is likely that plagues of formerly benign foreign species will explode beyond their temperature borders; with South American fire-ants migrating to northern Canada, gypsy-moths crossing the mountain barriers to their former progress, an explosion of immigrant termite and pest species, and so on.

As famine overcomes economies, food skyrockets in cost as it falls in availability. Money and savings could become meaningless as the world economy collapses, destroying the liquid capital of many governments and forcing a worldwide recession or even depression. Without a vital economy, oil shipping falters and the United States economy grinds to a shuddering halt, the primary method of transportation and energy gone. Rolling blackouts, energy shortages, and water rationing all come into force.

Martial law is declared as refugees from now uninhabitable places such as urbanized desert terrain flood into adjoining states and cities, overburdening an already failing infrastructure. Las Vegas empties of all but hardened inhabitants. El Paso falls. Then Albequerque. Then Phoenix. Denver is overwhelmed as much of the southwest is evacuated and declared a disaster area.

Central regions of the northern midwest face increasing drought, which puts a dent in the mosquito population but results in a dried wasteland that freezes down to the water table, and a belated winter drought hits Minneapolis. The water level in the Great Lakes region begins to fall.

The spring afterward brings torrential rains to Southern California, at first viewed as a boon until the landslides and flooding expand beyond containment. Most coastal neighborhoods are destroyed by a combination of wind and mudslides, much of the 101 declared condemned and the dead numbering in the thousands, with no infrastructure remaining to save many at all.

[LTC8K6]

Isn't Greenland's ice sheet actually getting thicker?

[LTC8K6]

About 250MYA, around 95% of the species on this old rock went extinct.

[Schneibster]

Why should the Earth's temperature be steady?

Everything that has ever lived on the Earth has gone extinct. This does not seem to have bothered Earth's ecosystem too much.Could be a little tough on those doing the dying, though.

[TobiasTheViking]

Isn't Greenland's ice sheet actually getting thicker?
Yes, as is the south pole one for that matter.

[fishbob]

Sure there are so many what if's, it could be on both sides. I personally have faith in our ability to solve problems even when we create them.


Great, I had other plans but I guess I can work on the problems you created. There goes my weekend - for the rest of my life.

[Ceritus]

Great, I had other plans but I guess I can work on the problems you created. There goes my weekend - for the rest of my life.

Personally I don't litter because I don't think it looks pleasant to me however I am not going to get angry at anyone who does. As for recycling yeah.... right.....

As long as it does not waste any extra time or money I have no problem with keeping things clean and pleasant.

[Schneibster]

Isn't Greenland's ice sheet actually getting thicker?Yes, as is the south pole one for that matter.But the ice around the edges is melting faster. Nobody has a budget for it yet, to show whether the total is an increase or a decrease.

Tobias, do you have a reference for the South Pole ice sheet increasing in thickness?

[TobiasTheViking]

But the ice around the edges is melting faster. Nobody has a budget for it yet, to show whether the total is an increase or a decrease.

Tobias, do you have a reference for the South Pole ice sheet increasing in thickness?

I'll use one of the posts from the other thread here.

Lets start with some pretty pictures. What is the state of the Arctic ice


http://tobiasserver.ath.cx/blog/pictures/current.anom.jpg

Ok, we have lost 1 million sq.km since 1978

But if we take a look at http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml which i have also used as a source before we see that since 1978 the icelayer on Greenland have increased from 2.6 million sq.km to 5.5 million sq.km.

That is a + of 1.9 million sq.km for just those two.

Now, we have all seen the pictures from Iceland of the receeding glacier. The original photo is from 1918. But the picture we have of the glacier now, is how it have looked since the 1920's. So it can't really be used in comparison with the changes since the 1970's to now.

Now, lets see why the Antarctica is always melting.

http://tobiasserver.ath.cx/blog/pictures/gsfc.bootstrap.area.anomalies.Antarctic-Total.1978-2003.s.gif

Looking at this i get pesimistic and believe the media only report when the antarctic is melting, but there is another better explanation on why we always hear the antarctic is melting. We will get to that later.

And the change between 1987 and 2005 show.

http://tobiasserver.ath.cx/blog/pictures/nsidc.bootstrap.area.Total-Antarctic.1987-2005.s.gif

0.35 million sq.km icegrowth.


Source: http://nsidc.org/data/smmr_ssmi_ancillary/regions/total_antarctic.html
Source: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The ever melting Antarctic.

http://tobiasserver.ath.cx/blog/pictures/Antarctica.gif

The southpole is around 14 million sq.km's big. And if you look at the picture you can see a little piece going up towards the Falkland Islands. That part of Antarctica is melting, the rest is gaining snow.

It is currently unclear why that peninsula is melting, it may be some natural regional effect like a volcano under the peninsula, or it may be global warming, but we don't know.

But the fact is, that the rest of Antarctica is gaining ice, not losing it. We have just one little piece that is melting.

To put this in perspective, you must realize that the Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland Ice Sheets are almost twice as big as the contiguous United States. They're almost 100 times bigger than all of the rest of the world's glaciers put together. In other words, more than 99 percent of the world's glaciers are growing ... and all we hear about are the few that are melting.

Source: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Alphaba]

What I do find more and more interesting is the cascade of threshold effects reinforcing GW (whatever its cause[s]), creating positive feedback loops: reduction of sea ice surface (lowering of the albedo), thawing and melting of permafrost releasing huge amounts of methane, heat waves turning temperate zone forests into net CO2 producers (instead of being net CO2 absorbers), etc.

In a worst case scenario, one could imagine that these positive feddbacks add up to form a kind of runaway leading to a situation not unlike the one that prevailed during the late Permian mass-extinction alluded to by LCT8K6.

[Iamme]

Could it be that the creator has all the bases covered?

Example: Species have died out, but life goes on. (Horses gave way to the automobile, etc.)

Example: Arctic ice and icebergs melt and cause the sea level to drop because ice's volume is greater than water. But then when land mass ice thaws it causes the seas to rise. Maybe it all cancels out?

This is quite an interesting discussion, actually.

[Alphaba]

Arctic ice and icebergs melt and cause the sea level to drop because ice's volume is greater than water.
Ever heard of Archimedes?

[Iamme]

Ever heard of Archimedes?

Yes. Wasn't he the one who invented that big fat tendon between your heel and lower leg? :)

[Alphaba]

Heard about Archimedes' principle?

[Donks]

Heard about Archimedes' principle?
Don't you mean "Achilles' principle"?

//Just trying to translate English to Iamme.

[Schneibster]

Ever seen a floating iceberg with all that ice sticking up in the air? Gee, I wonder how it does that.

[Schneibster]

Apparently, global warming can make the ice thickness at high elevations increase, but makes the ice thickness at lower elevations decrease. See this (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/greenland_icesheet_growing.html). It states, near the end, "Modelling studies of the Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance under greenhouse global warming have shown that temperature increases up to about 3ºC lead to positive mass balance changes at high elevations – due to snow accumulation – and negative at low elevations – due to snow melt exceeding accumulation.

Such models agree with the new observational results. However after that threshold is reached, potentially within the next hundred years, losses from melting would exceed accumulation from increases in snowfall – then the meltdown of the Greenland Ice Sheet would be on."

ETA: Here (http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMILF638FE_planet_0.html) is a link to the ESA press release.

[Roboramma]

Well, obviously those that are still here haven't yet, but they will soon.

It's well over 99% that have already gone extinct.

What % of all the life that has ever been on Earth is still here?
And yet life on earth is still increadibly diverse. And that's a good thing. But for millions of years after major extintion events, the diversity of life on the planet has been much less than it was prior to those extintion events.
We rely upon the other life on this planet to an increadible degree. And personally I'd rather it stuck around. A slow trickle extintion rate similar to what has been the case through most of the earth's history doesn't bother me. A massive die off does. I think if you know what it means it should bother you too.

[LTC8K6]

Large die offs seem to be fairly common, though. Massive die offs have happened several times as well.

So far, it seems that whatever happens these days, it's due to global warming.

The Earth changes. It has always done so. Long before man arrived it was changing, and no doubt long after man has left it will continue to do so.

Species that cannot adapt to these changes cannot survive. It has always been so.

If most of them had not gone extinct, we'd likely have had to get rid of them to survive ourselves.

Personally, I would love it if saber toothed tigers were still roaming the woods. I suspect others would disagree.

[Roboramma]

Large die offs seem to be fairly common, though. Massive die offs have happened several times as well.

So far, it seems that whatever happens these days, it's due to global warming.

The Earth changes. It has always done so. Long before man arrived it was changing, and no doubt long after man has left it will continue to do so.

Species that cannot adapt to these changes cannot survive. It has always been so.

If most of them had not gone extinct, we'd likely have had to get rid of them to survive ourselves.

Personally, I would love it if saber toothed tigers were still roaming the woods. I suspect others would disagree.
I really don't know what you're trying to say with this. We live in a time long after the last massive extiction event. And we are the better for it.
Why would you want to encourage more extinctions now? Because they've happened in the past and we're still okay?

World War I happened, but look, we're still around and the world population of homo sapiens is much much larger than it was before the war. Quality of life in many parts of the world has increased. Does that mean that it was a good thing?

If there was a large asteroid headed toward the earth that we could with monumental expense push aside so that it didn't collide with us, would you say, "Oh, why bother, it's happened before, and we're still here. In fact, if it hadn't happened in the past, we might not be here at all, so why worry about it?"

No, I don't think that every bad thing that happens is a result of global warming, or that it will cause another K/T event (Though I wouldn't be surprised if the sum of human influence on this planet, if it goes unchecked, could - but I'm not ready to debate that point right now).

But even if we're not talking about a massive die-off, the repercussions could be very serious. Why is it a bad idea to look at what those repercussions are and see what we can do to avoid them?

[Schneibster]

I don't think s/he got it that there's a significant possibility that WE'RE whose gonna be doin the dyin. Like I said, could be a bit rough on those doin the dyin. But hey, it's all nature's way, right? Suuuuure. You betcha.

[LTC8K6]

Of course we will be one of the species likely to go extinct soon. It makes no difference what anyone wants.

Relative to the age of the Earth, the last extinction event wasn't all that long ago.

If humans do not soon figure out a way to establish themselves elsewhere, they will certainly face extinction. Humans are certainly better able to cope with events that might lead to extinction, but something will likely get us. We haven't been on this rock all that long at all.

Hopefully we will have established a colony elsewhere that can reestablish itself on Earth.

Several varieties of bipedal primates have already gone extinct, of course.

This is like the folks living near a volcano who think volcanoes "never" erupt because the one near them "never" has in anyone's memory. Actually, relative to the Earth's lifetime, they erupt all the time all over the place and kill everything anywhere near them.

If the whole population of a species happens to be in the area. Oh well.

Large metorites almost never hit the Earth.....

[LTC8K6]

Why would you want to encourage more extinctions now? Because they've happened in the past and we're still okay?

Huh? Encouraging extinctions? Where?

Extinctions are continuously happening, btw. No encouragement needed.

There just isn't room for "everything" on Earth, and there never was.

Even if man had never shown up, extinctions would still be common on Earth. They would have to be. After all, 99+% of all extinctions occurred before man arrived on Earth.

[Ceritus]

If humans do not soon figure out a way to establish themselves elsewhere, they will certainly face extinction.

I agree with this full heartedly. If we could establish a hospitable environment in other parts of the universe and multiply it would ensure our survival to last much longer.

Imagine what we can do with just 6 billion people if we just got our heads out of our asses and stopped wasting time doing menial **** and then imagine numerous planets with 6+ billion people on them all with a similar goal. After a while I don't see why there couldn't literally be a googolplex human beings inhabiting the entire universe sharing their ideas and their talents all striving to make the human race better. Sure we can not do the impossible like flap our arms and fly but we sure as hell can imagine and build things to allow us to fly.

[Roboramma]

Huh? Encouraging extinctions? Where?

Extinctions are continuously happening, btw. No encouragement needed.

There just isn't room for "everything" on Earth, and there never was.

Even if man had never shown up, extinctions would still be common on Earth. They would have to be. After all, 99+% of all extinctions occurred before man arrived on Earth.
I'm still not clear on what you're getting at. Yes extinctions are always happening. But the extinction rate can vary tremendously from one period to another. It usually kicks up quite a bit when the earth's environments become more unstable.
Doing nothing about global warming means doing nothing about accelerating extinction.
It's like saying, well, gee, people are dying all the time. It's inevitable. There just isn't enough for everyone. So what's the point of medicine?

Unless I misread you and you weren't saying that there's no reason to be concerned with global warming. If so, I apologize for mis-characterizing your argument, but then, what were you trying to say?

If I didn't misread you, what exactly are you getting at?

[sphenisc]

Ok so let’s say worst case scenario happens and AGW/GW melts a massive portion of the ice in the north and south portions of the world. Wouldn't it be similar to ice in a cup and the actual level of water would fall with the melting of the ice? Or is it feared the permafrost will tip the cup and flood the land?

Ok so why worry about emissions so much? Why worry about smog? I am being 100% serious. Isn't it our job to adapt to the environment regardless if we caused it or not? If producing said pollution helps of advance technologically could we not use those advancements to lets say build houses on the water? Perhaps cooling jackets with little built in air conditioners if the outside is going to be so hot! And if the weather becomes monstrous why not build bigger stronger shelters? Say some kind of ice age comes why not build massive heated domes for agriculture? It is not like it will hit us like a 2x4 to the back of the head like in these silly movies.

We are problem solvers and if it is like all these crazy green peace nuts say that it is too late to fix it then we better adapt and not worry about the environment any longer. Less funding into these silly environmental causes and more into education. The way I see it with what we know as a species now the laziest, dumbest, poorest child <12 right now should know more than I do at 23 than I do at 23 currently.

We have lived through so much as a species why should something as silly as this stop us or our children or their children? I will admit a smooth transition into this hell hole would be nice but even if it does hit us like a 2x4 we will adapt so who gives a damn.

If I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, is it your responsibility to adapt to the environment regardless of if you caused it or not? Or do I bear some responsibility to not put you in that position in the first place?

It is unfortunately the case that the people who are most likely to suffer the greatest hardship, are not the same people who contributed most to the problem in the first place.

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_tht.htm
"According to an Australian government financed study (circa May, 2003) the largely poor and low-lying islands of the South Pacific will be hardest hit with flooding. Most affected would be the Papua New Guinea islands, Micronesia and Kiribati. If sea levels rise by 32 inches by 2085 as some scientific models predict, 170,000 people across the South Pacific could be exposed annually to flooding compared with around 5,000 now."

[LTC8K6]

GW and it's possible accelerated extinctions may just be another of Earth's many and constant changes.

The little ice age comes to mind.

I cannot fathom why the Earth's temperature* should remain steady, so it is difficult to get worried about the fact that it is changing.

* or it's populations of various species of plants and animals

[LTC8K6]

If I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, is it your responsibility to adapt to the environment regardless of if you caused it or not? Or do I bear some responsibility to not put you in that position in the first place?

It is unfortunately the case that the people who are most likely to suffer the greatest hardship, are not the same people who contributed most to the problem in the first place.

This effect is not limited to humans and it happened before humans were here. One species encountered another and caused it's extinction.

These island nations would have either risen up or gone under anyway. New islands are forming as we write, and old ones are sinking or rising. Everything on Earth is moving all around the globe.

When you read about the effect a single volcanic eruption has on the Earth's climate, it's difficult to get excited about my car's exhaust gases.

Add this to the fact that when I was a kid, the Earth was about to freeze over solid and starve us all, and it gets even more difficult to take GW doom and gloomers seriously.

[Roboramma]

GW and it's possible accelerated extinctions may just be another of Earth's many and constant changes.

The little ice age comes to mind.

I cannot fathom why the Earth's temperature* should remain steady, so it is difficult to get worried about the fact that it is changing.

* or it's populations of various species of plants and animals
Now that you've admitted that GW might accelerate the extinction rate, maybe you can respond to this post again:

I really don't know what you're trying to say with this. We live in a time long after the last massive extinction event. And we are the better for it.
Why would you want to encourage more extinctions now? Because they've happened in the past and we're still okay?

World War I happened, but look, we're still around and the world population of homo sapiens is much much larger than it was before the war. Quality of life in many parts of the world has increased. Does that mean that it was a good thing?

If there was a large asteroid headed toward the earth that we could with monumental expense push aside so that it didn't collide with us, would you say, "Oh, why bother, it's happened before, and we're still here. In fact, if it hadn't happened in the past, we might not be here at all, so why worry about it?"

No, I don't think that every bad thing that happens is a result of global warming, or that it will cause another K/T event (Though I wouldn't be surprised if the sum of human influence on this planet, if it goes unchecked, could - but I'm not ready to debate that point right now).

But even if we're not talking about a massive die-off, the repercussions could be very serious. Why is it a bad idea to look at what those repercussions are and see what we can do to avoid them?

To add to this, would you also say I cannot fathom why the Earth's temperature* should remain steady, so it is difficult to get worried about the fact that it is changing. if you were alive during the Permian extinction?

[LTC8K6]

Many species actually deliberately kill competing species. Lions kill cheetahs and hyenas, for example. There are plants that do the same thing.

[LTC8K6]

I already responded to the previous post.

If I were alive during the Permian extinction I would either adapt or die.

I think we've been over that already.

[Gurdur]

Why should the Earth's temperature be steady?
see below.....
Everything that has ever lived on the Earth has gone extinct. This does not seem to have bothered Earth's ecosystem too much.
No, but I betcha it will bother those shortsighted humans a hell of a lot to have to live first in concrete cages as a result of their destruction of the enviroment, and then to go extinct.

[LTC8K6]

You assume our extinction will be the result of our own actions. What if it's because of a large impact of a meteorite, asteroid, or comet?

What if it's because Yellowstone erupts?

What if it's due to an ice age and we simply aren't able to hang on long enough to come back?

Should we try to do something about the Earth's natural cycles? Can we? Aren't we just interefering when we try to save a species that has failed to adapt? Might we do more harm than good?

Certainly as an individual species we will try to survive if we can.

[Roboramma]

I already responded to the previous post.

If I were alive during the Permian extinction I would either adapt or die.

I think we've been over that already.
Okay, since you really aren't responding to anything I'm saying I'll ask three simple questions and see if you will answer them:
1. If global warming is caused by humans, do you think it's in our interests to do something about it?

Please note, I'm not saying that bad things have never happened before. I'm saying something is happening now, and asking, "is it a good idea to do something about it?" (that's not one of the questions for you, rather it's a clarification).

2. If global warming is not caused by humans, but we have the power to do something about it, should we?

The point of the post you say you responded to (but I don't see any response to the points made in it), was simply this: whether or not this sort of thing has happened before doesn't tell us anything about whether or not we want it to happen again. Part of the adapting your talking about is looking ahead and doing what we can to affect the future.

3. This is a slightly more philosophical question. If our actions cause the extinction of a large number of species, and a degradation of the diversity of life on this planet that would not otherwise have occurred at this time, is that a good thing?

[Schneibster]

I agree with this full heartedly. If we could establish a hospitable environment in other parts of the universe and multiply it would ensure our survival to last much longer.

Imagine what we can do with just 6 billion people if we just got our heads out of our asses and stopped wasting time doing menial **** and then imagine numerous planets with 6+ billion people on them all with a similar goal. After a while I don't see why there couldn't literally be a googolplex human beings inhabiting the entire universe sharing their ideas and their talents all striving to make the human race better. Sure we can not do the impossible like flap our arms and fly but we sure as hell can imagine and build things to allow us to fly.Pretty good agenda there from our point of view. Main lesson: don't crap in the nest when you can't get out of it.

[Roboramma]

Many species actually deliberately kill competing species. Lions kill cheetahs and hyenas, for example. There are plants that do the same thing.
Of course nature isn't all rainbows and kittens. Everyone doesn't just play nice.
Though I quibble somewhat with the word "deliberately". A lion will kill a hyena that has food that it wants if the hyena doesn't get out of the way first. It's not doing it for any reason but to get the food. And they don't go chasing after hyenas because they compete for the same resource. They might steal a kill, but they don't go on raids.
It does happen, however. Chimpanzees raid neighboring chimps and kill them. Ant colonies go to war.
But most of the time when one animal kills another it's because it wants to eat it. Sometimes two animals competing for a resource - food, sex, territory, whatever - will get into a confrontation that ends in the death of one, but more often one of them will back down first.

Anyway, this is just a nitpick. I understand your point that non-human animals don't have any great moral authority.

But that doesn't mean they're worthless. Nor does it in any way bear on the question of whether or not it is a good thing if they go extinct.

[Ceritus]

Well I will agree that there should be some heavy analysis on the pros and cons of trying to clean up the environment vs. continuing on with what we are doing.

Does it cost more to "clean up" our act or would it cost more to predict various problems not cleaning up would impose and establish an agenda to offset these problems for example making up plans to build floating houses.

All I know is that I do not share the same sentiments for non human entities. I would sacrifice every single panda in the world to save the life of a single crack whore who is dying of aids even if it meant this crack whore could live for an additional 1 or 2 more months.

[Roboramma]

All I know is that I do not share the same sentiments for non human entities. I would sacrifice every single panda in the world to save the life of a single crack whore who is dying of aids even if it meant this crack whore could live for an additional 1 or 2 more months.
Why?

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by Ceritus :
All I know is that I do not share the same sentiments for non human entities. I would sacrifice every single panda in the world to save the life of a single crack whore who is dying of aids even if it meant this crack whore could live for an additional 1 or 2 more months.


Why?


Speciesism.

[LTC8K6]

Lions will kill cheetah cubs whenever they find them. They won't eat them, they will just kill them. It is to eliminate competition.

1. Maybe. I need more info. Increased CO2 could be a good thing.

2. Maybe. Again I need more info. Will our solution be worse than the problem? Will those in charge simply waste the money and achieve nothing?

3. A large number of species compared to what? Natural extinctions?

Man is a natural part of the Earth just like all of the other living things.

Man's previous attempts to "help out" nature have not exactly been inspiring. Why should we risk a massive attempt before we are sure of the problem and the solution?

We are much more likely to screw up, imo.

[Ceritus]

Why?

Why not?

I could understand if the panda contained some sort of medical substance that could not be synthesized that benefited us in some important way but other than that it is just a bear is it not?

While in those one to two months that crack whore may have an idea or a story that could positively impact those who surround her which could inspire another idea by one of her audiences that could positively impact the entire human race.

Then again she could spread her disease make horrible suggestions that ruin other people's lives and be a complete waste of space.

But that glimmer of hope that tiny chance that she could start a domino effect that could impact us all in a great way is enough reason to sacrifice any amount of pandas.

To that crack whores family she could be the only crack whore in the world that matters while a panda is just a panda even if we attributed feelings to it that slightly mimic those of the crack whores family.

I will admit looking at animals to learn more about ourselves is very meaningful and not a waste of time. I am also thankful that someone had the insight to test things on animals instead of human beings incase of negative side effects. As cruel as it sounds I would much rather have a monkey or a rat live their entire life in pain and suffering than a human being having an irritating rash.

As for intentionally killing animals for no reason I am against that because those animals could have been used as test subjects in some lab that could benefit us as well. But if we have the resources and time to breed or create enough animals for testing then by all means kill whatever animal you like if it brings you pleasure. Better that animal than another human being.

I do realize this is my opinion and I in no way believe everyone should agree with it.

[Roboramma]

Why not?

I could understand if the panda contained some sort of medical substance that could not be synthesized that benefited us in some important way but other than that it is just a bear is it not?
And you are just a human. What's so special about that? And by this I mean, in a morally significant way.

What is it that is inherently more meaningful about human life than that of a bear?
What is it that makes a bear's suffering less important than that of a human?
What justification can you offer for extending sympathy to another human being, but none to any non-human animal?

You say you extend sympathy to a crack whore because she can do good for other humans. But that argument is circular - it's good to care about humans because it does good for humans. Why doesn't this apply to pandas? "It's good to care about pandas because it does good to pandas?" You need to show what about humans makes doing good to them a good thing. And then you need to show that pandas don't share that quality.

Basically, I'm saying, what makes humans morally significant, and in what way does a panda, or a whale, or a gorilla, or a shark or an eagle not share that quality?
Do none of them share those qualities? To any extent?

Here's an interesting article by Richard Dawkins that considers this point: http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/mind_gap.html

I also have a problem with destroying something beautiful, even if that thing doesn't have any inherent moral significance of it's own, but that's another discussion.

[Roboramma]

Lions will kill cheetah cubs whenever they find them. They won't eat them, they will just kill them. It is to eliminate competition.

1. Maybe. I need more info. Increased CO2 could be a good thing.
Fair enough. It doesn't look that way to me, but at this point we'd have to get into the science of it, and I'm no expert on that. I've formed an opinion on what seems to be the case to me. I'm willing to change it if it looks like I'm wrong.
But I would suggest it's a good idea to continue to study the problem. I'd also suggest that there comes a point where if it looks likely that this will cause a problem, it's a good idea to do something about it, even if we aren't absolutely sure yet.
Just as it's a good idea to back up your hard drive even if you're not sure you're computer's going to go on the fritz. Especially when you've got a lot of important data there.

2. Maybe. Again I need more info. Will our solution be worse than the problem? Will those in charge simply waste the money and achieve nothing?
Those are good questions. I think we should approach them with an open mind. Maybe I do my accounting differently than you do. But it seems to me that the solutoin is unlikely to be worse than the problem.
Especially if the solution of decreasing emissions is a valid and useful one. There might be some economic impact, though I can't see that'd be all that horrible, but I can't see any other negative impact of it.

3. A large number of species compared to what? Natural extinctions?
"that would not otherwise have occurred at this time"
By which I meant, a large number of extinctions compared to the number that would have occured had we not undertaken those actions.
We are in a unique situation in nature in which we have the ability to see the consequences of our actions. I think there is some responsibility that goes along with that. Especially considering how much power we now have over this world.

Man is a natural part of the Earth just like all of the other living things. I know that. I think it's a very important point. And one of the reasons that I think we all need to remember - we're not above nature, we're a part of it.

Man's previous attempts to "help out" nature have not exactly been inspiring. Why should we risk a massive attempt before we are sure of the problem and the solution?
Well, what I'm suggesting is more of limiting our own impact that making massive changes to otherwise functioning eco systems.
It's more along the lines of the way austrailia tries to limit the foriegn species that get into the country than along the lines of introducing carnivorous snails to combat other introduced snails(one of those attempts that didn't go very well).

The most important thing is accurate knowledge of the problems and of the consequences of the solutions.

[Ceritus]

What is it that is inherently more meaningful about human life than that of a bear?
What is it that makes a bear's suffering less important than that of a human?
What justification can you offer for extending sympathy to another human being, but none to any non-human animal?

Probably the fact that I am a human? Would a bear think twice about killing a human if it pissed it off? How about if the bears cubs pissed it off?

[Ceritus]

Like I said though it is simply my opinion. As your opinion is yours however delluded it may seem. Next time you post do it after you have had an interesting intellectual conversation with a bear or at the very least after you have made sweet passionate love with a bear.

[Roboramma]

Probably the fact that I am a human? Would a bear think twice about killing a human if it pissed it off? How about if the bears cubs pissed it off?
The same could be said of any group you are a part of. Why do I think Russians aren't worthy of moral consideration? Because I'm not Russian.
If my actions cause extinction of muslims, in what is that bad? After all, I'm not Muslim.

Try again.

[Roboramma]

Like I said though it is simply my opinion. As your opinion is yours however delluded it may seem. Ceritus, it's certainly your opinion, and you have a right to it. I'm sure you're not going around killng cats in back alleys. My objection is only an intellectual one.

But I find it worthwhile to get into these discussions. If I seem a little adversarial, well, it's something I feel strongly about. But I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong.

At the least, talking about it can help both of us clarify our positions. For that, anyway, I'm grateful to you for taking the time to post.

Next time you post do it after you have had an interesting intellectual conversation with a bear or at the very least after you have made sweet passionate love with a bear.
Hmm, no I think I'll pass on that. Besides, wasn't there a guy in the news recently who got killed trying the same thing with a horse?

But to try to respond intelligently, before you extend moral consideration to a baby, do you need to show that it can have an interesting intellectual conversatation? How about the mentally ill? Killik?
Before you extend moral consideration to your brother do you need to make sweet love to him?

[sphenisc]

The same could be said of any group you are a part of. Why do I think Russians aren't worthy of moral consideration? Because I'm not Russian.
If my actions cause extinction of muslims, in what is that bad? After all, I'm not Muslim.

Try again.

I think I get your point..... Can we conclude that Ceritus is a single crack whore who is dying of aids?

[Roboramma]

Lions will kill cheetah cubs whenever they find them. They won't eat them, they will just kill them. It is to eliminate competition.
I didn't know that. Neat. I tried to look it up before posting (in my copy of "Sociobiology", I figured it'd be in there). But of course the book's 25 years out of date.
Thanks for calling me on it. Do you have a reference for that? I don't doubt that it's true, just think it'd be cool to learn more about.

Anyway, as I said, that sort of thing does happen in nature, it's just not the norm. Nor does it say anything about how we should behave.

[chipmunk stew]

Ok so let’s say worst case scenario happens and AGW/GW melts a massive portion of the ice in the north and south portions of the world. Wouldn't it be similar to ice in a cup and the actual level of water would fall with the melting of the ice? Or is it feared the permafrost will tip the cup and flood the land?

Ok so why worry about emissions so much? Why worry about smog? I am being 100% serious. Isn't it our job to adapt to the environment regardless if we caused it or not? If producing said pollution helps of advance technologically could we not use those advancements to lets say build houses on the water? Perhaps cooling jackets with little built in air conditioners if the outside is going to be so hot! And if the weather becomes monstrous why not build bigger stronger shelters? Say some kind of ice age comes why not build massive heated domes for agriculture? It is not like it will hit us like a 2x4 to the back of the head like in these silly movies.

We are problem solvers and if it is like all these crazy green peace nuts say that it is too late to fix it then we better adapt and not worry about the environment any longer. Less funding into these silly environmental causes and more into education. The way I see it with what we know as a species now the laziest, dumbest, poorest child <12 right now should know more than I do at 23 than I do at 23 currently.

We have lived through so much as a species why should something as silly as this stop us or our children or their children? I will admit a smooth transition into this hell hole would be nice but even if it does hit us like a 2x4 we will adapt so who gives a damn.Ah, yes, as long as Technology is there to keep us alive, who the hell cares if we're a species all alone, on a hostile, ugly hellscape of a planet? I see no problem with that.

[Roboramma]

I think I get your point..... Can we conclude that Ceritus is a single crack whore who is dying of aids?
Well, we can't rule it out anyway. ;)

To try to clarify for others (I think you see what I'm getting at sphenisc):

The point is that the decision to extend moral consideration to only the group that you are a part of should not be arbitrary. It should be based on something. It makes as much sense to extend only moral consideration to other humans simply because they are human as to extend only moral consideration to other Mormons (if you are one), because they're Mormon.

That doesn't mean that we have to extend it to all other animals, or life forms, or even inanimate objects. It just means that there should be some meaningful justification for not. I think that justification exists for ants, for instance, but not for gorillas.
Though I also don't think Gorillas should be treated as though they were human. There are differences. But that doesn't make their lives meaningless, any more than the fact that I like steamed broccoli makes my life meaningless.

Wow, I only meant to write a one line response to that...

[chipmunk stew]

If every animal on the planet died over time with the exception of us of course that would be fine as well wouldn't it? During this extinction of other inhabitants of this planet why wouldn't we come up with a way to produce nutritious foods that did not involve the existence of any other species? It could even be some sort of mold for all I care, I mean sure I had beef and I enjoy it but if life were to be sustained on some sort of GE mold that always tasted the same future generations wouldn't know the difference would they? Perhaps they wouldn't even be that fat or unhealthy!:tr:

[chipmunk stew]

Hopefully we will have established a colony elsewhere that can reestablish itself on Earth.To dreeeeam...the impossible dreeeam...

[Ceritus]

I think I get your point..... Can we conclude that Ceritus is a single crack whore who is dying of aids?

Rofl I wish!~

[Ceritus]

:tr:

Depends on what your definition of troll is. Because it very well could be true and I just do not know it yet!

[LTC8K6]

Lions kill an enormous number of cheetah cubs, and I found countless sources of info via google. Up to 80%, depending on who you believe.

I have also seen the behavior on many different wildlife shows.

Since we know that male lions will kill other lion cubs to ensure that their own offspring have less competition in the pride, it should not be much of a surprise that they kill their competition's cubs as well.

The idea that only humans behave in these ways is slowly being countered. When you see killer whales playing with and torturing their prey, you wonder why they are seen as so noble. Same with porpoises. Vicious, murderous, bloodthirsty, cruel predators. They look cute, though....so they get a pass. Save the pretty dolphin, to hell with the ugly tuna. :D

I would guess that Lions might have driven Cheetahs extinct by now if it weren't for human conservation efforts.

[Ceritus]

Pretty good agenda there from our point of view. Main lesson: don't crap in the nest when you can't get out of it.

But crap has to be made, I prefer to do it in the corner and maybe if the pile gets to high it will force us to leave the nest.

[a_unique_person]

We have lived through so much as a species why should something as silly as this stop us or our children or their children? I will admit a smooth transition into this hell hole would be nice but even if it does hit us like a 2x4 we will adapt so who gives a damn.

Humans have around for something like 1,000,000 years, but it's only in the last few thousand we have manged to make such amazing leaps forward. Tim Flannery believes that is because it is only in the last few thousand years that the climate has been stable enough to allow us to indulge ourselves in agriculture and cities, the requisites for advancement.

[Roboramma]

Just saw this:

The idea that only humans behave in these ways is slowly being countered.
It's funny, but I don't know who suggests that only humans behave in these ways.
Of course, no other animals have the power that we have, so the repercussions of their actions are very much less than ours.

When you see killer whales playing with and torturing their prey, you wonder why they are seen as so noble.
When you see humans playing with and torturing their prey, you wonder why they are seen as so noble. Perhaps it's because as a species we have other qualities and behaviors as well? Some of the things that chimpanzees do horrify me. Other things are awe inspiring. But I'm not going to say that chimpanzees can be summed up as either horrifying or inspiring. They are complex living creatures just like we are.
And just as I find some human behaviors (genocide, torture, war, slavery) to be horrifying, I also find some of our behaviors to be wonderful and amazing. I'd be sad to see humans go extinct for very similar reasons that I'd be sad to see chimpanzees go extinct.

I would guess that Lions might have driven Cheetahs extinct by now if it weren't for human conservation efforts.
Obviously. It's not as though the two coexisted for hundreds of thousands of years before we entered the scene...

[varwoche]

Isn't Greenland's ice sheet actually getting thicker? Though there are areas that have predictably thickened, overall ice mass is being lost according to recent studies: Water from melting ice sheets and glaciers is gushing into the world's oceans much faster than previously thought possible
article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0323_060323_global_warming.html)
Yes, as is the south pole one for that matter. Ditto:
Antarctica's ice sheet lost a significant amount of mass since the launch of GRACE in 2002. The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters
article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0323_060323_global_warming.html)

[casebro]

SOoo, estimate of the AGW caused rise on sea level vary by a factor of 10- from 1.2mm(Total SO FAR, over 3 years+/-) to 1 meter/century, or 10mm/year. Why don't I take these estimates as fact?

Keeping in mind that AGW is a based on a model- models are not even theories, they are only "Possible Scenarios".

[a_unique_person]

NASA models the course of everything it sends up into space, and they seem to get to where they were supposed to. "Folding at home" is modelling molecules, and it is being used to cure health problems. Engineers model bridges and planes, and they don't collapse or fall out of the sky. The latest Airbus is a monster, and it flew pretty well on it's maiden voyage.

[Ceritus]

SOoo, estimate of the AGW caused rise on sea level vary by a factor of 10- from 1.2mm(Total SO FAR, over 3 years+/-) to 1 meter/century, or 10mm/year. Why don't I take these estimates as fact?

Keeping in mind that AGW is a based on a model- models are not even theories, they are only "Possible Scenarios".

I agree!

[YoPopa]

Hurricane forecasters drop numbers (http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060901/WEATHER01/60901020/1075). Second time in one month! How good are their models?

[a_unique_person]

I agree!

Models are based on theories.

[a_unique_person]

Hurricane forecasters drop numbers (http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060901/WEATHER01/60901020/1075). Second time in one month! How good are their models?

Hurricane forecasters are not doing climate change modelling. The US has been lucky, wind shear has torn up just about everything, when last year it wasn't there. Also, when Ernesto turned up , it tracked across a lot of land.

[Ceritus]

The same could be said of any group you are a part of. Why do I think Russians aren't worthy of moral consideration? Because I'm not Russian.
If my actions cause extinction of muslims, in what is that bad? After all, I'm not Muslim.

Try again.


Sorry to bump but that whole AGW thread is really pissing me off.


As a reply to Rob on this subject. Russian's are still human so are muslim's and they are both mostly a product of their geographic location. There is hope for russian's and muslims as they can learn the things a human being can learn. While a bear can only learn a very small amount of things a human can learn.

[a_unique_person]

First they came for the orangutans, and I said nothing.
Then, they came for the pandas, and I said nothing.
Now all thats left is me.

[Schneibster]

Ok so let’s say worst case scenario happens and AGW/GW melts a massive portion of the ice in the north and south portions of the world. Wouldn't it be similar to ice in a cup and the actual level of water would fall with the melting of the ice? Or is it feared the permafrost will tip the cup and flood the land?A great deal of the ice isn't floating in the water. Antarctica is a continent. Also, water expands when it gets warmer. The rising sea is a combination of those two effects.

Ok so why worry about emissions so much? Why worry about smog? Because we have to breathe.

Isn't it our job to adapt to the environment regardless if we caused it or not? If producing said pollution helps of advance technologically could we not use those advancements to lets say build houses on the water? Perhaps cooling jackets with little built in air conditioners if the outside is going to be so hot! And if the weather becomes monstrous why not build bigger stronger shelters? Say some kind of ice age comes why not build massive heated domes for agriculture? It is not like it will hit us like a 2x4 to the back of the head like in these silly movies.You could s#@t in every room in your house, too, and adapt to the smell. Why don't you? (That's not meant to be denigrating; I assume you don't. There's a reason. It's the same reason.)

We are problem solvers and if it is like all these crazy green peace nuts say that it is too late to fix it then we better adapt and not worry about the environment any longer. If we're problem solvers, what makes AGW so insoluable? The point is not that it's insoluable; the point is, it's expensive. We'll be fighting AGW instead of using our resources to do something more productive.

Less funding into these silly environmental causes and more into education. The way I see it with what we know as a species now the laziest, dumbest, poorest child <12 right now should know more than I do at 23 than I do at 23 currently.I agree; if they did, we would already have AGW under control.

We have lived through so much as a species why should something as silly as this stop us or our children or their children? I will admit a smooth transition into this hell hole would be nice but even if it does hit us like a 2x4 we will adapt so who gives a damn.Adaptation happens to survivors; the others die. When the survivors have finished adapting, they aren't the same species any more. Think about it.

[Ceritus]

First they came for the orangutans, and I said nothing.
Then, they came for the pandas, and I said nothing.
Now all thats left is me.


What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that police officers are going to relocate you because you are the last person in a closed zoo?

Unless you are refering to a futuristic world where only you and I exist and a couple of oragnutans and pandas managed to survive at least long enough for me to make stew out of them and with me being out of food and hungry I would be obliged to devour you without incident.

But I digress we shouldn't be taking pandas and orangutans anywhere unless they are encroaching on land we claimed, when that happens I suggest we only relocate there corpses. They have failed to adapt, they will die. It kind of makes me want to buy a panda fur coat and hope they go extinct within the next 50 years. People would pay oodles for it then!

[Ceritus]

How hot could it possibly get? Are you talking Venus hot or a measly 10C hotter? Could this life ending hotness happen to my childrens child? or are we talking thousands of years? If it is in the next 200-300 years we better put more funding into space habitats.

[bobdroege7]

How hot could it possibly get? Are you talking Venus hot or a measly 10C hotter? Could this life ending hotness happen to my childrens child? or are we talking thousands of years? If it is in the next 200-300 years we better put more funding into space habitats.




measly 10C

That would be enough to make a desert out of most of north america.

If my location was 10C warmer, highs in the summer would hit 120 F.

Assuming an average 10 C increase everywhere all the time

Smoking hot lets move north

[Ceritus]

measly 10C

That would be enough to make a desert out of most of north america.

If my location was 10C warmer, highs in the summer would hit 120 F.

Assuming an average 10 C increase everywhere all the time

Smoking hot lets move north

hits 120F all the time here, it is rather nice, because I have central air. if it hit 140F I would consider moving north or underground if I were still alive. How long would it take to raise 10C? and wouldnt the increase in temp increase the moisture in the atmosphere immensly? It is only dry here because of the location of the mountains so other than raised temps the moisture shouldn't increase by much.

All in all I am unafraid. Enjoy the warmth, because everything will die eventually when the universe experiences heat death.

I am so cranky this morning.

Anyhow if there are rampant deserts being created then that should end up cooling the earth should it not? Water Vapor is by far the worst greenhouse gas.

[chipmunk stew]

"Are these the Nazis, Walter?"
"No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of."

[Complexity]

I agree with this full heartedly. If we could establish a hospitable environment in other parts of the universe and multiply it would ensure our survival to last much longer.

Imagine what we can do with just 6 billion people if we just got our heads out of our asses and stopped wasting time doing menial **** and then imagine numerous planets with 6+ billion people on them all with a similar goal. After a while I don't see why there couldn't literally be a googolplex human beings inhabiting the entire universe sharing their ideas and their talents all striving to make the human race better. Sure we can not do the impossible like flap our arms and fly but we sure as hell can imagine and build things to allow us to fly.


Er, a googolplex is truly a very large number. Actually, a googol is overkill.

Estimates are that there are from 10^78 to just under 10^81 atoms in the universe.

Hi, Ceritus. Can't follow you too far down this road - I'll take the pandas over a lot of people I know. Looking forward to agreeing with you again soon.

[Ceritus]

Er, a googolplex is truly a very large number. Actually, a googol is overkill.

Estimates are that there are from 10^78 to just under 10^81 atoms in the universe.

Hi, Ceritus. Can't follow you too far down this road - I'll take the pandas over a lot of people I know. Looking forward to agreeing with you again soon.


Fair enough ;)

To each his or her own.

[Schneibster]

Sigh. How many times do people have to say, "weather != climate," before you start to get it?

[Ceritus]

Er, a googolplex is truly a very large number. Actually, a googol is overkill.

Estimates are that there are from 10^78 to just under 10^81 atoms in the universe.

Hi, Ceritus. Can't follow you too far down this road - I'll take the pandas over a lot of people I know. Looking forward to agreeing with you again soon.

We will just have to devise a way to create more atoms!

[Ceritus]

We will just have to devise a way to create more atoms!

I know I know it is not really possible......

How was that estimate devised btw I am curious.