The Future of the planet.

[JoeRoccoCassara]

If our economy continued to produce increasing amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations despite the warnings, what would the weather be like in the near future, do you believe that there could be category 6 and 7 hurricanes? How would the weather effect our economy? And what moral issues would it have on the people of civilized world?

[Buffy]

The physics of weather make "extreme" hurricanes highly unlikely unless the global climate were to change past the point of being hospitible to many current species, but its hardly a requirement for being extremely worried: You can get far more damage from simply more frequent 5's--and this year was the first year in modern weather records that we've had two 5's in one season (and the season is barely half over yet!)--than you would from a "7" (which doesn't exist by the way: the scale only goes up to 5).

 

What's needed is a change in emphasis: instead of framing climate change as simply a debate about whether it is "anthropogenic" or not, it would be good to consider that no matter what the cause, we should do something about it because the consequences are so dire.

 

Just this week there was a report that took a new angle: its not that "global warming" will melt the ice caps or make some low lying islands in the Indian Ocean go underwater, its that climate change is a global security threat:

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) security think-tank said global warming would hit crop yields and water availability everywhere, causing great human suffering and leading to regional strife.

 

While everyone had now started to recognise the threat posed by climate change, no one was taking effective leadership to tackle it and no one could tell precisely when and where it would hit hardest, it added.

 

"The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war," the IISS report said.

 

"Even if the international community succeeds in adopting comprehensive and effective measures to mitigate climate change, there will still be unavoidable impacts from global warming on the environment, economies and human security," it added.

 

No one really has any tremendously rosy scenarios: regardless of the causes, we're in deep unga if the climate changes significantly.

 

The only question now is really, do we try to save ourselves, or do we simply say, "well, if it gets bad, humanity will disappear, but I'll be dead by then and I don't want to spend any money on it now, because I don't give a darn."

 

It does not matter really if we "caused" it or if its simply due to natural forces: we have to decide whether or not we even *try* to counter it.

 

Its getting hot in here,

Buffy

[Queso]

i hear maynard screaming "learn to swim, learn to swim, learn to swim"

[Zythryn]

... what would the weather be like in the near future...

 

Very difficult to say, weather, especially localized or specific dates are very difficult to predict. Global averages (barring other unusual events such as extremely large volcanic erruptions and such) are easier to predict. However that doesn't really qualify as weather.

 

do you believe that there could be category 6 and 7 hurricanes?

 

Until category 6 or 7 hurricanes are defined, no, they couldn't happen;) Studies currently indicate global warming has little effect on the severity, although it may have a greater effect on the number of hurricanes produced. La Nino still has a greater affect than the damage we have done so far.

 

How would the weather effect our economy?

 

Now THAT is an excellent question!

Current models show that changing rainfall patterns may be the single biggest issue we will have to face. And yet it is the one most people pay the least attention to. In addition, it appears that weather will become more 'energetic'. Which more water vapor and warmth/energy in the air weather can be more extreme as well.

The droughts are predicted to become more severe and last longer in those areas that don't get rain. And the places that do get rain are shown (in models) to get more sever downpours (especially in south-east Asia).

IF these tendancies are correct, it may have drastic effects on economies as food production is affected. In addition, strife tends to erupt in areas where resources get scarce. If water becomes more scarce, friction is sure to increase (Africa and Middle East most likely I would guess).

 

And what moral issues would it have on the people of civilized world?

 

The moral issues are there already. If you believe that we can lessen the impact through our behavior (such as burning less fossil fuels) then the moral choice would be to help prevent pain and suffering.

 

Regarding the title of the thread though, the planet's future is in no danger, it is OUR future that is in danger. And no, I don't think it would cause our extinction. I do believe GW will cause great hardship and some loss of life and that is what I am hoping to help prevent. Even if I can only prevent a little bit of either hardship or loss of life, I feel it is my duty to do so.

[chlotilde]

i hear maynard screaming "learn to swim, learn to swim, learn to swim"

 

that's funny...I hope those in New Orleans, and Florida coast... take heed though. Miami will be under water in 100 years, or so they predict. Move! I say, unless you're over the age of 50.

 

but hey, we gotta evolve. Why is everyone trying to conserve and keep things the same? (It defies the "laws " of science??)

 

chlo

 

ps...i don't subscribe to it being "all" anthropogenic

[Michaelangelica]

One big problem is what global warming is doing to the seas especially off the Australian East coast.

Temps are up nearly 3degrees C, wheras they are only 1C elsewhere

The Barrier reef is doomed.

See "The Science Show"

Saturday 15 December 2007

 

Listen Now - 15122007 | Download Audio - 15122007

 

* 00:00: Corals and crustaceans in distress

* 07:10: Changes in the ocean as waters warm

* 14:30: Antarctic ice cores

* 21:40: The Unnatural History of the Sea

* 32:15: Tips to convince younger people to alter their behaviour

* 37:48: Voyager 2 - way beyond Pluto, and still going

* 40:08: Lobsters on the increase in Tasmania

* 40:32: Otiliths reveal where fish have been

 

Science Show

[HydrogenBond]

If CO2 is really as big a problem as they think, then the idea of carbon offsets is defeating the purpose. It amounts to less reduction. It allows one group to work hard so another group can keep adding CO2, it all cancels out. Some of the strongest advocates of CO2 reduction also want the offsets. If it was really as bad as they say, they would eliminate the offsets. Since Gore likes the offsets, his actions demonstrate that he doesn't really think the problem is that bad, since canceling out net gain is part of his plan.

[InfiniteNow]

If CO2 is really as big a problem as they think, then the idea of carbon offsets is defeating the purpose. It amounts to less reduction. It allows one group to work hard so another group can keep adding CO2, it all cancels out. Some of the strongest advocates of CO2 reduction also want the offsets. If it was really as bad as they say, they would eliminate the offsets. Since Gore likes the offsets, his actions demonstrate that he doesn't really think the problem is that bad, since canceling out net gain is part of his plan.

 

Wow! I cannot even name all of the logical fallacies in that post.

 

First: Both the current amount and the rate of increase of atmospheric CO₂ ARE a problem. If you feel otherwise, support your assertion with actual data, not speculation grounded in false premises.

 

Two: Carbon offsets were never intended to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. They are designed on the premise that money makes the world go round, and that by putting a financial incentives on reducing CO₂ emissions companies and governments would be both more willing and more motivated to do so.

 

Three: Offsets are not the only thing being implemented. They must be considered in context of the scores of other mitigating actions.

 

 

 

Pull your cranium out of our colon, HydrogenBond. Just because you make up a bunch of hogwash slandering people trying to make positive changes does not mean that the risk they are trying to minimize is not real.

[questor]

The best methods for saving the planet:

1. drastically curb the birthrate

2. return to agrarian society, no pesticides

curb illegal immigration into the US. each new person adds 4.6 pounds of waste to our waste removal capability Municipal Solid Waste 2005 Pie Charts - Text Version

we act as if our physical assets are infinite. without population control, our resources will disappear much faster. we may have already exceeded the number of people our country can support.