Is global warming all that bad? (gallon, Canada, Miami, retired)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO it's important to be good stewards of our environment and resources, just because it's the right thing to do and it'd be a shame to ruin such beauty. But the climate will do what the climate will do, and it's been volatile since the dawn of the earth.
As sea level rises, costal regions will recede and this can do a great deal of harm to cities in those low altitude areas. The people there will be in a horrible position. Louisiana is especially vulnerable (however, this would possibly be the case anyway; living in the southern most parts of Louisiana was a terrible idea regardless of global warming). It will also effect agriculture and ecosystems, especially marine life.
However, the Earth has been through worse. The question is this though: how will humans react. We've lived in both cold and heat. We evolved in Africa, losing much of our body hair. But we also survived during extremely cold periods, learning many methods of creating shelter and agriculture that we still use today.
All in all, climate change is a natural process. There is no other possibility. However, saying it's man made can still be a natural process. Humans are not separate from nature. Us burning fossil fuels to keep warm or transport materials is not an unnatural process. Is it unethical? That's a separate discussion.
This i thread represents phase three of climate change denialism.
Phase 1: "Pfffft! The Earth is not warming, you wild-eyed liberals!"
Phase 2: "Okay, the Earth is warming. But it's certainly not due to anything caused by man, you crazy leftists!"
Phase 3: "Fine, the planet is getting hotter and humans are the obvious cause. But... that's a good thing, you negative libs!"
On an evidentiary basis, what do these stances have to do with each other? Nothing. The first is a statistical measurement argument, the second is a modelling debate, and the third is a costs/benefits assessment. Yet members of the same group routinely glom onto this chain of excuses, in this order, for no logical reason.
What does this tell us?
It tells us that a certain group is resolutely against dealing with climate change, and they'll embrace any and all excuses not to do so. These excuses are not evidence based. There is no logical coherence between shifting from one of those positions to the next. It is nothing but rank opportunism.
Well, it wasn't bad for HUMANS back then, but a lot of species became extinct whether due to extreme warming or cooling. I think right now we want to avoid extremes just in case it is HUMANS that become extinct because of it this time!
I'm not sure if I'd call it global warming. We have destroyed earth. What is coming is not merely global warming, we could basically fry. Actually we will probably fry and it may not be gradual. When I first heard the term global warming, I'd misunderstood it too. Which is what happens when you let newscasters interpret scientific findings.
While the scientists COULD be wrong, what it seems has been going on is that we have taken carbon from under the earth. We turned it into a gas by using it for fuel etc. The earth has an important balance that keeps it cool enough for human beings to live on it. We have messed up the balance. It is hard to predict what will happen, but the most likely result is that we could basically fry. Not be on vacation in a tropical place, but fry like steaks on a grill.
There have been news stories, and the excess greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere (seems more accurate a term than global warming to me) has been politicized. The situation seems dire. What worries me a bit, is that the fix for all the extra carbon, methane etc. that we are putting in the air could be really expensive and would take people working together very hard to fix. That seems unlikely.
Well, it wasn't bad for HUMANS back then, but a lot of species became extinct whether due to extreme warming or cooling. I think right now we want to avoid extremes just in case it is HUMANS that become extinct because of it this time!
That is my take on it too. When there are broad changes in climate, with increases in drought and ability to do agriculture (upon which man depends for his nourishment) there may be areas with famine. The oceans may also lose life forms that help to remove carbon dioxide from the air, thus increasing the negative effects of global warming.
The fact that the earth gets a degree or two warmer doesn't mean that you will just become a little more uncomfortable in the summer. It means that humans potentially will have difficulty living in marginal areas of the earth which are already not that great in providing an environment where people can thrive. You might wonder why those people just don't move if that happens, but there is that little problem of static borders of countries and so on.
If global warming occurs very slowly there will be time to adapt.
What Global Warming? I don't see any Global Warming? Besides, man is far too small an influence on the weather to affect the weather. See the big ball in the sky that is so bright that you can't look at it. Its called the sun. Notice how it warms up the day, and when it goes down it gets cooler. It fluctuates in the amount of energy it puts out, affecting the weather and climate here on earth, far more than us puny people.
If the earth was getting colder, would the believers in global warming be equally upset or is it just the warming that they worry about? Because we know that the temperature changes up and down over time and has never been constant.
So just bear with me here for a minute. The Earth long ago was warmer, and supported an abundance of life that lived in tropical climates. It is in the tropical climates today that we find the greatest diversity, and abundance of life. The oil that we have today was caused by the accumulation of biomass that settled and turned to fossil fuels. This resulted in a significant amount of "carbon energy" that left the surface, and the Earth itself has cooled. Now that we are extracting the fossil fuels and burning them we are in effect re-releasing this carbon energy back into the surface environment, and this is warming the Earth, in effect, back to a tropical environment. Is that all that bad really?
"Tropical" Do you see "tropical" happening as a result of warming? Does California going up in smoke and drying up look "tropical" to you???????????? Massive forest fires in British Columbia for several summers straight--is that what you call "tropical"?
Moderator cut: Off Topic
Last edited by Jeo123; 02-24-2016 at 09:12 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
