New study shows humans have little effect on environment

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

no; that's an experiment for idiots that don't believe we're contributing. the intelligent ones already know that.

as far as research goes; do you think this knowledge just comes to me in the night?

i rather suspect it does, actually. thus why i am curious what "research" you refer to... unless you've got a state of the art biochemical climatology research facility hidden in between the buffalo?

onelongsong wrote:

1/3 already live on high ground. but i'm glad you don't believe it. just look at the other posts and your questions will be answered. many have already answered your questions. i'd only be repeating them.

and this water thing is going to come overnight in a cataclysmic biblical style flood that wipes out the other 2/3?

this will be fun. as the waters rise and people move back, we'll see how well your polite and crimeless society's gun stats respond to increased poverty and population density.

polaris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

the logical approach would be to move to higher ground but that is easier said then done ... many island countries cannot just simply move up ... and those that live in high population countries such as bangladesh cannot just easily pack up their lives and move ...

the impacts of climate change will first and foremost affect the poor in this world first ... it already has ...

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

the logical approach would be to move to higher ground but that is easier said then done ...

Of course it's easier said than done! Now, does that mean it can't or won't be done?

many island countries cannot just simply move up ... and those that live in high population countries such as bangladesh cannot just easily pack up their lives and move ...

the impacts of climate change will first and foremost affect the poor in this world first ... it already has ...

The two populations you list have been at the mercy of their enivornment for centuries. Suddenly Bangladesh and island nations where idyllic edens until global warming came along?

However, your points here, at the surface, are quite valid. Certainly poorer and low-lying communities will be hit hard and hit first. However, this does not a crisis make. People need to stop freaking out about this issue. No wonder nothing ever gets done.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

i rather suspect it does, actually. thus why i am curious what "research" you refer to... unless you've got a state of the art biochemical climatology research facility hidden in between the buffalo?



and this water thing is going to come overnight in a cataclysmic biblical style flood that wipes out the other 2/3?

this will be fun. as the waters rise and people move back, we'll see how well your polite and crimeless society's gun stats respond to increased poverty and population density.

and people protecting their property will cause a lot of deaths. that's a given.

onelongsong

polaris wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

the logical approach would be to move to higher ground but that is easier said then done ... many island countries cannot just simply move up ... and those that live in high population countries such as bangladesh cannot just easily pack up their lives and move ...

the impacts of climate change will first and foremost affect the poor in this world first ... it already has ...

exactly. the indian islands are preparing to evacuate now because of the 8" rise and those islands contain millions of people. to top that off; they're too poor (the country as a whole) to evacuate these people in a proper fashion. food must be supplied. many have to evacuate on foot. the islands off new guinea are evacuating as we speak. we don't look at the rest of the world. when we refuse to look past our picket fences; we only see what's in our own backyard.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

i rather suspect it does, actually. thus why i am curious what "research" you refer to... unless you've got a state of the art biochemical climatology research facility hidden in between the buffalo?



and this water thing is going to come overnight in a cataclysmic biblical style flood that wipes out the other 2/3?

this will be fun. as the waters rise and people move back, we'll see how well your polite and crimeless society's gun stats respond to increased poverty and population density.

nasa is a great site for research. so are the science journals. the science channel also presents some good information. you must sort it and make an opinion on your own. but that takes a background is science.

IF; a large piece of glacier falls into the ocean; yes; you'll see a rapid rise.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course it's easier said than done! Now, does that mean it can't or won't be done?

The two populations you list have been at the mercy of their enivornment for centuries. Suddenly Bangladesh and island nations where idyllic edens until global warming came along?

However, your points here, at the surface, are quite valid. Certainly poorer and low-lying communities will be hit hard and hit first. However, this does not a crisis make. People need to stop freaking out about this issue. No wonder nothing ever gets done.

it doesn't mean anything more then we are fucking things up ... for the over 3,000 dead from last month's storm - it already is too late ...

yes - they have been vulnerable in the past but we are making them that much more vulnerable ...

nothing gets done because of a lack of political will - the groups aforementioned are already suffering the impacts - it's too late for many ... we are definitely in a crisis mode - any solution to this problem will take years to implement while all the while the problems will only get worse ...

we here in the west with the wealth to deal with these impacts take for granted our ability to adapt ... if you took the ice storm in the midwest or the drought in georgia or the crazy storms out on the west coast to some of the poorer countries and those impacts will result in deaths on a far greater scale ...

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

and people protecting their property will cause a lot of deaths. that's a given.

so will people with no other recourse trying to take what they need to survive. there's your city answer.

now, how about telling me more about this biblical flood that is certain to kill everyone who does not currently live on high ground in the near future.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

nasa is a great site for research. so are the science journals. the science channel also presents some good information. you must sort it and make an opinion on your own. but that takes a background is science.

IF; a large piece of glacier falls into the ocean; yes; you'll see a rapid rise.

so rapid it will kill 2/3 of the entire human population with no warning?

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

so rapid it will kill 2/3 of the entire human population with no warning?

there'll be plenty of warning. i'm warning you now. scientists have been warning you for years. i don't think the water will kill anyone. starvation; lack of medical necessities; poor sewage facilities; the governments inability to act; disease; fighting; and my list goes on.

onelongsong

polaris wrote:

it doesn't mean anything more then we are fucking things up ... for the over 3,000 dead from last month's storm - it already is too late ...

yes - they have been vulnerable in the past but we are making them that much more vulnerable ...

nothing gets done because of a lack of political will - the groups aforementioned are already suffering the impacts - it's too late for many ... we are definitely in a crisis mode - any solution to this problem will take years to implement while all the while the problems will only get worse ...

we here in the west with the wealth to deal with these impacts take for granted our ability to adapt ... if you took the ice storm in the midwest or the drought in georgia or the crazy storms out on the west coast to some of the poorer countries and those impacts will result in deaths on a far greater scale ...

see; you know. but we in the west are in for a shock. if you have stocks; what good are they. people are leaving the factories etc to evacuate. the stock market will be gone. wall street will be one of the first to start flooding. if you want to get into it; what good will money be? washington will be evacuating too. i certainly won't take paper as any worth. will people learn to hunt for food again? i've asked a lot of questions and then sought answers to them. looks like you have too.
polaris; you know i respect you but i want to make it public.

chopitdown

soulsinging wrote:

what's the difference? i honestly didn't know there was a distinction. don't the actions plans for both look pretty much the same?

that's my point.

chopitdown

onelongsong wrote:

because the last 4 times there was a reason for the greenhouse gasses (ie: siberian trapps; etc) and the earth followed it's natural course to correct it. we could have stopped it.

pure speculation. Prove that we could have stopped it. I would hope that as a scientist / lawyer / you would realize that there is no way to know if we could have stopped it. Saying we could stop it is pure speculation and saying we have the capacity to change it is pure speculation. The only thing we can say in hindsight is that a)it happened and b) we may have been able to do something about it if we were able to "x". So now since we know about it and if we're able to reverse it we can say that we stopped this one. If we cant stop it, we'll find that out too.

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

it doesn't mean anything more then we are fucking things up ... for the over 3,000 dead from last month's storm - it already is too late ...

Ok, not to be an uncaring ass, but people died from storms before global warming came along. Can you prove that, absent global warming, that storm wouldn't have happened?

yes - they have been vulnerable in the past but we are making them that much more vulnerable ...

Fair enough. However, every time a flood hits Bangladesh, people will scream "global warming". Yet floods would have happened regardless.

The key word in your post is vulnerable. We, in much of the Western world, are far less vulnerable to weather than the poor. There is a reason for that. The reason is technology. If we want people to be less vulnerable to weather in general, and not just global warming, we will find answers in embracing technology, not damning it or limiting it.

nothing gets done because of a lack of political will - the groups aforementioned are already suffering the impacts - it's too late for many ... we are definitely in a crisis mode - any solution to this problem will take years to implement while all the while the problems will only get worse ...

Nothing gets done because people are, as you say, in crisis mode. When people are in crisis mode, they don't think, they simply become paralyzed or lash out in foolish directions.

we here in the west with the wealth to deal with these impacts take for granted our ability to adapt ...

Hehe...yes, we do. To the point that we forget to ask how we adapt.

if you took the ice storm in the midwest or the drought in georgia or the crazy storms out on the west coast to some of the poorer countries and those impacts will result in deaths on a far greater scale ...

A far greater scale than what??? Our deaths in the West? Of course. Their previous deaths? Not particularly. Ice storms, wildfires, floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes...these things aren't new. Fossil fuels didn't invent them. People have been dying from them in great numbers since there were people. Stop blaming every weather event that comes along on global warming, and start looking at the conditions that have prevented people from dealing with weather aberrations since the dawn of time. Look at ways for people to get better shelters, to expand their infrastructure, and to have more reliable access to food and water. Face that facts that, regardless of mankind's influence on climate, climate will change. The things that help us adapt will help others adapt. It's not complicated.

Certainly as a society we can make better choices to affect others less, but the fact that a few degrees increase in temperature sends the world into panic makes me really doubt our abliity to meet an actual catastrophe.

even flow?

They choose to call it "global warming" because if they called it by the true name "global poisoning" then everybody would be right except the companies doing the poisoning. And you can't argue that fact.

onelongsong

chopitdown wrote:

pure speculation. Prove that we could have stopped it. I would hope that as a scientist / lawyer / you would realize that there is no way to know if we could have stopped it. Saying we could stop it is pure speculation and saying we have the capacity to change it is pure speculation. The only thing we can say in hindsight is that a)it happened and b) we may have been able to do something about it if we were able to "x". So now since we know about it and if we're able to reverse it we can say that we stopped this one. If we cant stop it, we'll find that out too.

i've been saying we've past the point of no return. we can't stop it. the last 4 times we weren't around to stop it. decades ago we could have drastically reduced greenhouse gasses and slowed or maybe stopped this. the key is to find the reason this is happening. we don't have drastic volcanic activity so we can't blame it on that. find the source of the current greenhouse gasses. if you can illiminate the source; AT AN EARLY ENOUGH TIME; of cource you can stop it. a string of volcanic eruptions or a nuclear winter is about the only things that will stop it now.

onelongsong

even flow? wrote:

They choose to call it "global warming" because if they called it by the true name "global poisoning" then everybody would be right except the companies doing the poisoning. And you can't argue that fact.

i've been saying that for years. nobody listens though.

NoK

soulsinging wrote:

so rapid it will kill 2/3 of the entire human population with no warning?

I believe there are two theories on that. Some believe it can cause tidal waves, others believe the ocean is vast enough to absorb it and not show a drastic change spontaneously. I guess we'll know when it happens!

There is also the problem of massive amounts of fresh water dumping into the ocean. There is already evidence that the largest rivers in Europe and Asia are dumping more and more fresh water in the ocean and that will have a major impact on the ocean's circulation patterns.

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

i've been saying that for years. nobody listens though.

...
Do you ever stop to wonder... why no one listens to you?
I mean... in a previous discussion, you were the one who adamantly told me the Earth revolves around the Sun every several thousand years, which accounts for the previous mass extinctions... even when I provided information clearly stating it takes one year.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok, not to be an uncaring ass, but people died from storms before global warming came along. Can you prove that, absent global warming, that storm wouldn't have happened?



Fair enough. However, every time a flood hits Bangladesh, people will scream "global warming". Yet floods would have happened regardless.

The key word in your post is vulnerable. We, in much of the Western world, are far less vulnerable to weather than the poor. There is a reason for that. The reason is technology. If we want people to be less vulnerable to weather in general, and not just global warming, we will find answers in embracing technology, not damning it or limiting it.



Nothing gets done because people are, as you say, in crisis mode. When people are in crisis mode, they don't think, they simply become paralyzed or lash out in foolish directions.



Hehe...yes, we do. To the point that we forget to ask how we adapt.



A far greater scale than what??? Our deaths in the West? Of course. Their previous deaths? Not particularly. Ice storms, wildfires, floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes...these things aren't new. Fossil fuels didn't invent them. People have been dying from them in great numbers since there were people. Stop blaming every weather event that comes along on global warming, and start looking at the conditions that have prevented people from dealing with weather aberrations since the dawn of time. Look at ways for people to get better shelters, to expand their infrastructure, and to have more reliable access to food and water. Face that facts that, regardless of mankind's influence on climate, climate will change. The things that help us adapt will help others adapt. It's not complicated.

Certainly as a society we can make better choices to affect others less, but the fact that a few degrees increase in temperature sends the world into panic makes me really doubt our abliity to meet an actual catastrophe.

the proof is in the science ... do you understand what people are talking about when they say climate change? ... if so - you wouldn't be asking me these questions ...

it's easy to say - oh this storm might have happened even if we didn't do what we are doing ... but how many times are you gonna say that as each subsequent event happens?

right now - inaction in bali is happening because our world leaders are useless ... it isn't because people are in crisis ...

your last point already indicates to me that you don't fully understand what it is our scientists are telling us ... let's raise your body temperature a few degrees constantly and see if your body changes ...