|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 12/17/2004 : 15:29:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[quote]Originally posted by chaloobi
What about the question: Should something be done about it?
I'm of the opinion we should. Human lives as well as large economic impacts are at stake here.
First off, global warming also triggers a greater occurrence of extreme weather events such as heat waves, cyclones and hurricanes.
Heat waves might not be a direct problem for us (it is relatively easy to counter with preventive measures such as air conditioning and shade targeted at specific vulnerable groups). However, more frequent droughts could also impact on agriculture, especially in tropical countries.
Furthermore, an increased temperature will also cause an increased spreading of vector-borne diseases such as malaria. Countering this might be more costly and not always possible.
The cost of hurricanes and cyclones speaks for itself. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2004 : 04:49:55 [Permalink]
|
With regards to this topic there was an interesting article in the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/science/19climate.html
Again, the US is failing in every aspect in efforts to combat climate change, even as insurance companies over the world are already preparing for the effects of it. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 06:39:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Well of course and eventually there will be dramatic steps, It just may take far too long for them to come. Long story short, we are f^cked, but how f^cked is still up to us at this point.
The reason I ask should is because according to what I've read we were in a long term gradual cooling trend before it was abruptly interrupted in the second half of the last century. These cooling trends apparently end in ice ages after a few thousand years or whatever. I don't think an ice age is good for civilization and I'd like to see it avoided at all cost. And you have to admit that a longer growing season is good for just about everybody too. And I know the climate here in MI has been a lot better in the last 10 years than it was in the '80s.
Now, consider the potential downsides - rising sea level, greater ranges for disease, the interruption of the mid-atlantic currents, dessertification . . . . yeah, those are pretty bad. From what I understand, the greater disease range thing is not that big a deal. The sea level one could be dealt with, but the mid-atlantic current one would be devastating for Europe especially. Desertification . . . who knows if it would happen and if it wouldn't be alterable. . .
It's a complicated question. But just the fact that our world goes through periodic ice ages means that at some point we have to consider, and engage in, climate engineering. We could not sustain 6 billion people on an ice age earth. It would not be good for humanity by any stretch of the imagination. Now if we begin to correct the apparent causes for climate warming, what will the effect be? Is it at all possible we might over-correct and cause a rapid cooling into an ice age (no, not like hollywood, but rapid as in over a period of centuries)? We better be damn sure something like that can't possibly happen before we start fooling around. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 06:42:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
First, I must confess I have yet to read any of the links provided. But I just wanted to point out that there has been no evidence citied in this forum which shows humans have caused global warming.
It has been shown that the climate is changing
It has been shown that humans release CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere
It has been shown that CO2 and other gases can change the climate
However, what has not been shown is that the climate change that is occuring is a direct result of CO2 increase. While this does seem the most likely and probable, you need to show something that CO2 is the cause of the global warming. What if this change is just part of a natural climate change, as is always occuring? Is there any evidence against this?
Just providing an alternate hypothesis.
Note that strictly speaking it is impossible to show direct cause and effect with anything. The best you can do is show a strong statistical correlation. And there IS a strong statistical correllation between global average temperature rise and the increase concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here's an excellant link to the American Institute of Physics that details the issue, culminating in the famous 'hockey stick' chart.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 06:44:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
<snip>The only questions are; how much are our activities affecting it, and what can be done about it, assuming the polititions actually begin to care about anything beyond sucking up to the money.
What about the question: Should something be done about it?
Why not? It might not change anything -- probably won't change anything, but we'd be a lot more comfortable in the heat if a large portion of pollutant emmisions were eliminated.
See my reply above. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 06:46:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
<snip>The only questions are; how much are our activities affecting it, and what can be done about it, assuming the polititions actually begin to care about anything beyond sucking up to the money.
What about the question: Should something be done about it?
Why not? It might not change anything -- probably won't change anything, but we'd be a lot more comfortable in the heat if a large portion of pollutant emmisions were eliminated.
If only for our lungs' sake, it's worth it, don't you think?
For the record, CO2 does not hurt your lungs. It can be a deadly gas at high enough concentrations, but only, essentially, by suffocation. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 06:51:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
[quote]Originally posted by chaloobi
What about the question: Should something be done about it?
I'm of the opinion we should. Human lives as well as large economic impacts are at stake here.
First off, global warming also triggers a greater occurrence of extreme weather events such as heat waves, cyclones and hurricanes.
Heat waves might not be a direct problem for us (it is relatively easy to counter with preventive measures such as air conditioning and shade targeted at specific vulnerable groups). However, more frequent droughts could also impact on agriculture, especially in tropical countries.
Furthermore, an increased temperature will also cause an increased spreading of vector-borne diseases such as malaria. Countering this might be more costly and not always possible.
The cost of hurricanes and cyclones speaks for itself.
I agree with you on the storm issue. It's a definite concern - but couldn't that be countered by hardening the coastal communities and moving housing off the beaches? I've always thought the coasts should be left more pristine anyway so the general public could enjoy them more. And about the diseases, from what I understand, malaria is kept out of the US and Europe more from mosquito control than by temperature. Wetlands destruction is chiefly the method of malaria control.... I recall hearing someone talk about this issue on NPR but I can't recall the details. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 08:08:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
I agree with you on the storm issue. It's a definite concern - but couldn't that be countered by hardening the coastal communities and moving housing off the beaches? I've always thought the coasts should be left more pristine anyway so the general public could enjoy them more.
I think you have a valid point here with regards to the US and Europe. People have always had the crazy notion of living close to water and somehow not having to counter the effects of that. However, the storms also have a large impact on the islands near the US, and here such measures might not be possible. From what I've seen, there not much you can do against the forces involved in hurricanes, which can turn almost anything into dangerous projectiles.
quote:
And about the diseases, from what I understand, malaria is kept out of the US and Europe more from mosquito control than by temperature. Wetlands destruction is chiefly the method of malaria control.... I recall hearing someone talk about this issue on NPR but I can't recall the details.
This is indeed a hard issue and the control issue is indeed important. For example, malaria in the Netherlands has mainly vanished because of the destruction of the swamps originally in the Netherlands. It is very hard to correctly esitmate these effects. For example, a raised sealevel will also widen the amount of wetland. Raised temperatures will take the vector borne diseases further north. Wetland destruction might be a good method for control of the diseases, but might also be removing some natural barriers against the raised sealevels. The interplay is very complicated.
However, it is less complicated in poorer countries, where such preventive measures aren't always possible. We should not only look at our own circumstances, we also have the duty of looking at the impact of our actions on the lives of others, and this is one of the main reasons I think we should take action.
Raised temperatures not only impact us. They also impact mountain regions. People living in these regions (in for example Africa) have been safe from malaria for hundreds of years, since the temperatures are cooler in higher areas. With raising temperatures, these populations are threatened.
Raised sea levels not only impact us. In the Netherlands, we might very well be able to protect ourselves against the effects, and make a handsome sum of money in helping other rich countries protecting themselves also. We have already done so for many hundreds of years. However, raised sea levels also impact on coastal populations in third world countries, who do not have the money or the ability to protect themselves.
Very likely, we (the developed world) are causing these effects. On the other hand, the efforts we take to protect those who are most harmed by these effects (either by curving our production of greenhouse gasses or by helping those countries most affected by the consequences of it) are at best inadequate. IMO, we refuse to take our responsibility in this.
edited to fix quotes |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 12/20/2004 08:09:53 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 08:27:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
<snip>The only questions are; how much are our activities affecting it, and what can be done about it, assuming the polititions actually begin to care about anything beyond sucking up to the money.
What about the question: Should something be done about it?
Why not? It might not change anything -- probably won't change anything, but we'd be a lot more comfortable in the heat if a large portion of pollutant emmisions were eliminated.
If only for our lungs' sake, it's worth it, don't you think?
For the record, CO2 does not hurt your lungs. It can be a deadly gas at high enough concentrations, but only, essentially, by suffocation.
Erm, I did not mention CO/2. I was thinking more along the lines of hydrogen sulphide, sulpher dioxide, carbon monoxide, and the like. The really nasty stuff.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 09:12:18 [Permalink]
|
| Yep, that's what I was thinking of when I said the thing about the lungs. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 09:56:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Erm, I did not mention CO/2. I was thinking more along the lines of hydrogen sulphide, sulpher dioxide, carbon monoxide, and the like. The really nasty stuff.
Fine and course particle matter, (ie hydrocarbons with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers and below) for the really nice pulmonary and cardiovascular effects. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 20:19:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
I agree with you on the storm issue. It's a definite concern - but couldn't that be countered by hardening the coastal communities and moving housing off the beaches? I've always thought the coasts should be left more pristine anyway so the general public could enjoy them more.
I think you have a valid point here with regards to the US and Europe. People have always had the crazy notion of living close to water and somehow not having to counter the effects of that. However, the storms also have a large impact on the islands near the US, and here such measures might not be possible. From what I've seen, there not much you can do against the forces involved in hurricanes, which can turn almost anything into dangerous projectiles.
quote:
And about the diseases, from what I understand, malaria is kept out of the US and Europe more from mosquito control than by temperature. Wetlands destruction is chiefly the method of malaria control.... I recall hearing someone talk about this issue on NPR but I can't recall the details.
This is indeed a hard issue and the control issue is indeed important. For example, malaria in the Netherlands has mainly vanished because of the destruction of the swamps originally in the Netherlands. It is very hard to correctly esitmate these effects. For example, a raised sealevel will also widen the amount of wetland. Raised temperatures will take the vector borne diseases further north. Wetland destruction might be a good method for control of the diseases, but might also be removing some natural barriers against the raised sealevels. The interplay is very complicated.
However, it is less complicated in poorer countries, where such preventive measures aren't always possible. We should not only look at our own circumstances, we also have the duty of looking at the impact of our actions on the lives of others, and this is one of the main reasons I think we should take action.
Raised temperatures not only impact us. They also impact mountain regions. People living in these regions (in for example Africa) have been safe from malaria for hundreds of years, since the temperatures are cooler in higher areas. With raising temperatures, these populations are threatened.
Raised sea levels not only impact us. In the Netherlands, we might very well be able to protect ourselves against the effects, and make a handsome sum of money in helping other rich countries protecting themselves also. We have already done so for many hundreds of years. However, raised sea levels also impact on coastal populations in third world countries, who do not have the money or the ability to protect themselves.
Very likely, we (the developed world) are causing these effects. On the other hand, the efforts we take to protect those who are most harmed by these effects (either by curving our production of greenhouse gasses or by helping those countries most affected by the consequences of it) are at best inadequate. IMO, we refuse to take our responsibility in this.
edited to fix quotes
Here I think you touch on what will be the true tragedy of global warming. Basically, the economies upon which wealthy countries became wealthy are causing the world to warm. The wealthy countries will likely have the resources to counter most of the negative effects of the warming. The poorer countries, which haven't even caused the warming, will bear the brunt of the negative effects because they have no resources to counter them. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 20:20:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
<snip>The only questions are; how much are our activities affecting it, and what can be done about it, assuming the polititions actually begin to care about anything beyond sucking up to the money.
What about the question: Should something be done about it?
Why not? It might not change anything -- probably won't change anything, but we'd be a lot more comfortable in the heat if a large portion of pollutant emmisions were eliminated.
If only for our lungs' sake, it's worth it, don't you think?
For the record, CO2 does not hurt your lungs. It can be a deadly gas at high enough concentrations, but only, essentially, by suffocation.
Erm, I did not mention CO/2. I was thinking more along the lines of hydrogen sulphide, sulpher dioxide, carbon monoxide, and the like. The really nasty stuff.
But those arn't greenhouse gases and this thread is about climate change... |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 02:48:06 [Permalink]
|
CNN:U.S. states consider European carbon controls.quote:
For one thing, New York is seeing London take the lead in "carbon trading," which may balloon into a multibillion-dollar market. "We're missing out on this economic opportunity," he said.
The 25-nation European Union launches its own carbon-trading system on January 1, and it has left the door open for outside participants, a possibility the U.S. states are examining.
Back door for kyoto in the US?
Mmmmmmm...greed.....
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 07:08:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
CNN:U.S. states consider European carbon controls.quote:
For one thing, New York is seeing London take the lead in "carbon trading," which may balloon into a multibillion-dollar
market. "We're missing out on this economic opportunity," he said.
The 25-nation European Union launches its own carbon-trading system on January 1, and it has left the door open for outside participants, a possibility the U.S. states are examining.
Back door for kyoto in the US?
Mmmmmmm...greed.....
Greed seems to be the primary motivator in the US. I'm sure it is with all of humanity, but in the US, it seems to be less a the white elephant in the room that no one talks about and more the white elephant that we have our boots propped up on while watching the tv and having a beer.
I sincerely believe that the greatest economic opportunity in the next 50 years will be oil-alternatives. Or, better expressed, fossil fuel alternatives. Whoever develops the first viable, cheap fuel cell that can run on ethanol or methanol or natural gas etc will make piles of money. The change in our economic energy basis to something more efficient and renewable will create enormous economic opportunity. And the US has turned it's back on the effort because our leaders, in more ways than one, have invested in oil beyond the point of no return. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
