Ah, I think I got it now. Previous changes were benevolent, because they were natural. Because the current change is not natural, it must therefore bear the most disastrous of consequences. A reflection of the evil heart of Man, I suppose.
Nor that they will occur at all?
It is conductive to more insects too.
I don’t agree much with Der Thris regarding an end to human civilization, however I do think that there is evidence that if nothing is done we could be headed to localized human disasters.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
It only depends if nothing is done.
Again, it depends on what we do.
Well, instead of rolling your eyes, could you address the point? What difference does it make that previous changes were “natural” and upcoming changes are supposedly not “natural”? Why does that have any bearing on the consequences?
I think his point is that it’s not the degree of change but the speed at which it’s happening that makes it worse.
I’ll take your word for it.
-XT
Wait, what percentage of California is going to be underwater now? The highest estimate I found (I believe it was from the Pacific Institute) said 550 square miles worst-case, with perhaps 41 additional square miles of erosion - assuming that no seawalls or buildup was done, which would be sort of stupid - after all, we’re only talking about a 1.4 meter rise.
Given that California has 163,696 square miles of land, I wouldn’t call less than one-half of one percent “major.” But perhaps you can provide us with a scientific cite that shows this major amount of California that’s supposed to be underwater.
I heard Lovelock on the radio. He has a theory that Gaia/Earth has decided that humanity is a pestilence and is actively (by global warming) working to rid itself of the disease. It seems an exceptional unconstructive theory. Even if we cut down on co2 emissions, temperature would still rise since it is driven by Gaia’s wish to exterminate humanity. And if we accept the theory as true, where does that leave us? In a hostile environment we should take every step to tame and remove as a threat. How do you tame Gaia? By destroying wildlife I suppose and supplant it with controlled gardens. A theory that makes heroes of Brazilian slash and burn soybean plantation owners sucks.
Umm…
One cold summer does not an ice age make. Nor do two. That said, if we continue to have cold summers - and by that I mean a decade or more - then I think the theory that CO2 emissions as a primary driver of global warming will be discredited.
China’s CO2 emissions: 4.6 metric tons per capita
US CO2 emissions: 18.6 metric tons per capita
Not to mention that much of China’s CO2 output goes into making stuff for the US, so it hardly seems appropriate that we outsource our stuff-production and then blame them for creating environmental garbage.
The problem with all AGW threads on this board, including this one, is wading past the stupidity. It is well beyond stupid to assign national CO2 emission totals without taking into account the size of the population or for whose benefit their CO2 production accrues. I was not surprised Copenhagen was such a laughable failure.
As to the OP: When we decided we could have all the people we wanted on earth and that it was politically incorrect to put population control ahead of all other problems, we doomed the environment. Our problem is not CO2; it’s the volume of people. 9 billion people creating 25% less CO2 per capita than the wealthy nations create now will still create a doomsday AGW scenario. And the goal of every poor nation is to get rich, so guess which (growing) population is about to contribute mightily to total CO2 production while the developed countries simply level off their current massive outputs…
Doomed, I say. We’re doomed. I’d promote condoms, but of course they are one of the non-greenest things, and even treehuggers.com recommends land-filling them.
Has that not what has actually happened over the past decade. Wasn’t there a peak in 1998?
So does the US also get a free pass for all its emissions because all the garbage it produces in the form of music, movies, medicine and food is consumed by other nations.
By this reasoning no nation in the entire world has significant carbon emissions because they are all ultimately the result of people producing things to be consumed elsewhere.
Yes. Or the stupidity of assigning national CO2 emission totals without taking into account the worth of the resulting produce or for whose benefit their CO2 production accrues.
And once again, by following such reasoning the US appears to be streets ahead of China.
Nonsense.
Even worse nonsense.
Doesn’t the fact that the same population bomb hysteria was proved comprehensively wrong 30 years ago worry you in the slightest?
Perhaps I can simplify it for you with an example so you are more easily able to grasp the argument.
A filthy rich guy lives in an enormous energy-efficient house filled with stuff including a stable of 50 cars. A thousand people around the world work in various factories at $2/hr to support his lifestyle. To whom should we assign the larger CO2 footprint? The guy making $2/hr, barely consuming anything, or the rich guy living large?
It’s not clear to me where I said anyone gets a free pass for anything. The core concept, which you have such trouble grasping, is actually quite simple:
Exactly. We must assign the CO2 produced in China to the countries using their products, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. You don’t get to be clean in your own backyard if what it takes to support you produces garbage elsewhere. In the case of the AGW construct, that embedded carbon output should get assigned to you. If I get new golf clubs made in China, the CO2 used to produce them is a result of my consumption.
Perhaps, once again, I can help you with your arithmetic:
.25 x 6B = 1.5B etc. and,
Fewer people = less impact
The “population bomb” you are so fond of imploding is an argument around how many peeps the world can “support.”
The question is not how many humans it can support; the question is how many people it can support without consuming the environment. We are chewing our way through the land and the oceans (and in the AGW construct, the air), and our incredible success as a species has come at a cost for almost every other species and natural process. There is a proportionate relationship between the total size of that cost and the number of people on the planet. With decent science, maybe we could get to 25B–100B?–or more; I don’t know. There won’t be much earth left, though.
Presumably, this 550 square miles is all coastal areas, which is of course where the majority of the people live. So that makes it worse in terms of economic impact, no? It’s not like you can just move major coastal cities.
So they say. My confidence in the validity of the data and the analysis thereof is currently significantly diminished. Besides, there’s a lag in temperature changes because of the heat stored in the oceans. Anyway, we continued to have hot summers until 2006, and 2007 wasn’t too bad. Unlike 2008 and 2009. I predict that if the summer of 2010 is similar there will be considerable mutterings and a significant increase in AGW scepticism.
Nope. It’s worse than that. A 1.4 meter rise would scarcely flood the streets of Santa Monica, much less cause LA to have to move. But that much of a sea rise will flood the Imperial Valley, which is below sea level already. This would have a substantial impact on California’s food production.
“Major chunks” to most folks would mean “major chunks,” not “tiny but inconvenient portions.”
Seawalls have been built in other cities for centuries, or longer, in places such as the Netherlands, New Orleans, etc. California can’t afford to make a 2-meter seawall, given that it could have a half a century to spend the money over?
No citation yet on where the flooding would actually occur, other than some wetlands near San Francisco - it’s highly possible than many cities would see little difference, while others more. The entirety of Los Angeles and San Francisco is typically more than 1.4 meters above sea level; I’ve been to both cities and seen the elevation there myself. So I hardly think we need to stampeded towards “mov(ing) major coastal cities.”
FWIW, the Pacific Institute paper that all the eco-warriors are quoting from online does not mention the Imperial Valley once in its 115 pages. They do say that the maximum rise will put 480,000 people at risk of a 100-year flooding event, and cost $100B - but seawalls could be put into place at $14B + 10% annual maintenance (this could be alleviated by, surprise, not developing in threatened areas). IIRC the population of California, 480,000 is a very small percentage of the total.
I have forgotten the exact source and quote, but it goes something like this:
“We aren’t sure if the planet can handle 7 billion people, but we already know it can’t handle 300 million Americans.”
And clearly, our excess (success?) is having a negative impact on the planet. But now what? Being doomed is one thing, but is there any action as an individual that can be taken? Are we at the mercy of events beyond our scope to deal with, or is there something to do?
The Reduce, Reuse, Recycle acts certainly feels good, but it is clearly not enough.
I’m dubious of any protest and writing letters to the editor seems like a waste of time. At one point, I actually considered getting land in Canada as a place to head to if the bottom fell out, but that too seems like a dumb idea. That Canada is becoming increasingly thugish isn’t a good sign either. The money from oil tar sands and diamonds seems to be corrupting and twisting their government with increadible ease.
I’m too old and cowardly to engage in terrorism. but sitting back in despair while the planet gets murdered is highly untasteful too. What to do?
Buildings, roads and bridges and infrastructure only last so long.
At some point, you just prohibit any new construction in areas that are going to flood in the long term from Global warming. By the time the flooding actually happens, most of the stuff will have served its useful lifespan.
And this is indeed a problem: people are confusing local weather with global warming. Big winter storm hits US, therefore no global warming.
There is also reason to believe that the cool summers you’re experience are a result of the warming of the Arctic. The average temp for the planet is still going up – it is still warming up above the Arctic Circle; Greenland is still melting at alarming rates. Extremes in climate – hot and cold – are expected in a system being pushed out of whack.
In a dramatic acceleration of forecasts for global warming, UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C (7.2F) as early as 2060.