Why do you think Global Warming is being ignored?

[Cedars]

___Further musings:

Just as fire is required to open the cones of some trees, or a bird's heat is required to hatch an egg, maybe global warming is required to bring the Earth to its next episode of new life. :hyper:

 

Cool thought! I like that !!

[Cedars]

But isn't global warming an ongoing process? Would it actually just go up 5 degrees and then stop?

 

And what about the damage to the earth.. the beautiful sights we could lose and are losing. I saw on the news that in Italy, the glaciers on one of the poplular skiing sites will be gaone in 50 years. Doesn't anybody (besides the people who actually see them) care about these losses even a little bit?

 

No one knows when it would stop. But history indicates it will because it has in the past, several times. http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000226/bob10.asp

 

Glaciers do melt in that region. Written documents going back to the 16th century exist that describe catastrophic floods caused by the bursting of glacier-dammed lakes or arable land and farms destroyed by advancing glaciers, e.g., in 18th century Norway (Østrem et al., 1977).

 

Now this is relatively little data on the 'normal' pattern of climate of the earth. You cannot make absolute statements as to the cause of warming based on 500-1000 years of isolated glacial information. Especially when much older evidence of past warmings of this degree, and even higher degrees are evident. Warmings that absolutely had nothing to do with human activity. Along with the extreme coolings that have occured, again not via human activities.

 

Every decade we develop new technologies that aid us in gathering data. This will continue. Every decade we discover many factors never imagined before have impacts on the habitat we enjoy, wetlands comes to mind on this. What is the unknown is whether we will interpret the data correctly.

[Boerseun]

Sure - there was Ice Ages and periods of global heating in the past, and all of them have affected the human race. The last Big Freeze even made the population of the Americas possible via the Bering Strait land bridge, that was made possible by the lowered sea levels.

 

Difference is, if we help the current heating trend along, we won't be affecting a paltry few million primitive cave dwellers scattered across the globe. We'll be affecting 6.5 billion people, and millions, a few billion even, will simply have to die due to desertification in some formerly productive areas and weather patterns gone berserk in general.

 

The tendency for carbon dioxide to retain heat has been well established, and is not in question. Just take a look at Venus. Fact is, there has never been as much carbon in our atsmosphere as right now - and we are well aware of the danger. From twelve years ago, every consecutive year has been the hottest on record. 2005 has been the hottest year ever, since we've started measuring. And the recorded temperatures over the last 100 years shows an unerring parallel to the levels of carbon in the atmosphere.

Surely this correlation is not accidental?

 

Sure - there might be an underlying heating trend, ever since the last ice age. But we are acellerating it to the tune of raising temperatures in ten years that would naturally have taken a thousand.

 

We know very well what damage we're causing. We shouldn't look back at a planet suffering from severely distorted weather patterns, a planet suffering from widespread famine, droughts, floodings, weather extremities etc. in 2050 and say "Damn, maybe we should've signed that bloody Kyoto thingy..."

 

Because then it will simply be too late.

 

I honestly think people don't care, because they don't bother to think about it. You won't see the damage day to day. But year by year, you'll definitely start seeing the excreta hitting the air circulation device. And governments don't give a rip, because in the short term it will be negative to Big Business, and will cost them votes. They are willing to let the planet slip down a slope of death and famine for self-centered selfish short-term gain.

 

Carbon that have accumulated over hundreds of millions of years, are suddenly released in a matter of less than a hundred years. All that carbon is in the atmosphere now, compared to being safely buried beneath the Earth out of harm's way. Surely, even a blind man can see that doing this will throw the balance completely out of whack. And nobody knows the consequences - we can't even look at the record for previous cases of this happening, because it simply hasn't. We are sailing uncharted waters doing this, and we should be prudent and rather listen to scientists postulating the possible negatives than to politicians who are painting the whole 'global warming' picture over with a rose-coloured brush saying 'it's happened before, it's natural, we can't stop it - so let's keep on making money and destroying the planet!'. The scientists are saying what they're saying because the evidence is pointing in that direction. The politicians are saying what they're saying because they've got a collective selfish tendency to not be able to see past their terms in office.

 

Welcome to Hypo, by the way. Sorry if I rambled on a bit, but this whole issue is touching on a very, very raw nerve with me.

[CraigD]

Hi everyone! This is my first time on this site, and I was just wondering what you're thoughts are on Global Warming and why you think people (including politicians) may be ignoring this global issue. (That is if you think people ARE ignoring it).

Some people are ignoring global warming, or that human activity is significantly contributing to this warming. More precisely, they are contending that it is not happening. Others are not.

 

The reason that some people deny it is obvious: people who’s livelihoods or wealth depend directly on industries that produce greenhouse gasses – eg: oil and electricity production - have a strong interest in resisting measures to restrict these industries, and supporting elected officials who will assist them in resisting these measures.

 

A less obvious reason that people might deny it is loyalty to leaders and ideologies associated with denying it. For example, in the US, leaders who are members of the Republican party are considered by most of both their supporters and detractors to favor “trickle down economics”, while members of the Democratic party are not. They are demonstrably more opposed to the Kyoto Protocol than Democrats. So, people who understand and agree with the idea of trickle down economics may also oppose the Kyoto Protocol, without as fully understanding it.

 

Unfortunately, businesses and leaders on both sides of the debate sometimes promulgate distorted and inaccurate reports of scientific findings to sway people to agree with their position on global warming, making it difficult for non-expert people to form independent opinions.

Do you think Global Warming, Climate Change, and Natural Disasters deserve more attention?

Yes – although I think it’s important not to falsely associate natural disasters with global warming.

 

The predicted effects of global warming are complicated and not well understood. However, at least 2 are, in my opinion, sufficiently severe to warrant a very conservative, pro-Kyto position:

• Effect of sea level increase on low-elevation populated lands. As the recent events in New Orleans, USA, has demonstrated, human beings have not prepared well for temporary or persistent increases in water levels. The probability of sea level increases sufficient to cause catastrophic loss of property and displacement of people in low-elevation European and Asian countries, as well as portions of America, is not negligible. Such loss could have a destabilizing effect resulting in economic depression and increase worldwide war.
  
• Effect of changes in ocean current on climate of crop-producing land. There is credible evidence that changes in the salinity of the North Atlantic due to polar ice melting could change ocean currents in a way that would render much of the east cost of the US and the whole of England and Ireland agriculturally unproductive. While unlikely to result in worldwide food shortages, the impact on agricultural business and increased food cost in these countries could have a economically destabilizing effect as severe as one caused by flooding of low-elevation land.

Note that not all global warming effects are certain to be negative. For example, the large island of Greenland was once, very old history records, much more agriculturally productive than at present. Recent research indicates that it may, in the next few decades, become much more agriculturally productive again, creating positive economic and cultural opportunities.

If it proves that man will not be killed off, or suffer any worse than he does today, if the global temerature were to go up say 5 degrees. Then what would be the point of stopping global warming? If we can survive it, then why stop it?

While man is unlikely to be made extinct by even the worst possible global warming scenario (or, for that matter, nuclear war, disease pandemic, etc.), global warming in the near term seems likely to cause us to suffer worse than we do today. This, I think, is good reason to control it.

 

:hyper: In all this talk of possible negative consequences of man-made contributions to global warming, it’s important not to ignore the possibility that, at some point in the future, it may be beneficial for humanity to increase global temperature. Based on credible evidence, the greatest global warm periods are not as dangerous to the human population as the global cool periods (ice ages). There may come a time when on the order of half of the population’s survival depends on our ability to alter the natural cycles of Earth’s climate. I think investigation into the “extreme eco-engineering” this sort of control would require, while unpopular with people on both sides of he current global warming debate, needs serious attention.

[InfiniteNow]

Nice post Boerseun.

 

The biggest problems are the toughest to solve, and many people prefer to bury their head's in the sand and ignore problems than to live in a constant state of anxiety contemplating them. We are too busy trying to put food on the table, clothes on our back, and a roof over our head to worry too much about the foundation of all life in the future (too abstract).

 

See Maslow's Hierarchy.

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

[Wondering]

Well, if regular people are too busy to worry about it, shouldn't we be at least pressuring our politicians to worry about it more? Who do you think should be worrying about it? If it were in the news more often, would you care more? :hyper:

[TheBigDog]

Well, if regular people are too busy to worry about it, shouldn't we be at least pressuring our politicians to worry about it more? Who do you think should be worrying about it? If it were in the news more often, would you care more? :shrug:

You are jumping to a dangerous conclusion. If global warming cannot be slowed down or stopped then all of this stuff about emissions is useless. If you want to do something productive about global warming look at it from this perspective.

 

1. Is global warming happening?
   
2. What, if anything, can be done to slow, stop or reverse the process?
   
3. What preparations does mankind need to make to deal with the results of warming to prevent human catastophy?
   

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Quote from Wondering:

 

Well, if regular people are too busy to worry about it, shouldn't we be at least pressuring our politicians to worry about it more? YES

 

Who do you think should be worrying about it? ALL OF US

 

If it were in the news more often, would you care more? :hyper: NOPE

 

 

 

Cheers. :shrug:

[InfiniteNow]

Quote from TheBigDog:

 

1. Is global warming happening? YES
    
   
2. What, if anything, can be done to slow, stop or reverse the process? LESSEN EACH OF OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL IMPACTS AND SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY THAT IS LESS CAUSTIC TO THE ENVIRONMENT
    
   
3. What preparations does mankind need to make to deal with the results of warming to prevent human catastophy? FIND INTERNAL PEACE BEFORE THE FINAL DAY ARRIVES AND LIVE EACH DAY LIKE IT WAS OUR LAST... :shrug:
   

 

 

 

Cheers. :hyper:

[Turtle]

Well, if regular people are too busy to worry about it, shouldn't we be at least pressuring our politicians to worry about it more? Who do you think should be worrying about it? If it were in the news more often, would you care more? :hyper:

 

worry v. To feel uneasy about some uncertain or threatening matter.

 

___My doctors tell me all my worrying is unhealthy, not only because of the time it takes away from 'healthy' pursuits, but because it is irrational in the face of the uncertainty it is based on. Do I believe them, or jump in on your enjoinder?

___I care about my home planet whether it's in the news or not, but if I start worrying about it I may miss the point entirely. Don't worry; be happy.:shrug:

[InfiniteNow]

Worrying doesn't solve any problems. It is how we channel and focus that worry that assists us in finding solutions.

[Wondering]

worry v. To feel uneasy about some uncertain or threatening matter.

 

___My doctors tell me all my worrying is unhealthy, not only because of the time it takes away from 'healthy' pursuits, but because it is irrational in the face of the uncertainty it is based on. Do I believe them, or jump in on your enjoinder?

___I care about my home planet whether it's in the news or not, but if I start worrying about it I may miss the point entirely. Don't worry; be happy.:hyper:

 

Sorry, I should've said "pay attention to" instead of worry. Or maybe "focus on".

[Queso]

global warming is Earth's way of saying,

Hey you stupid humans,

there are too many of you.

Time to burn you all to a crisp. (or...most, not all)

Let it come.

Let's screw ourselves, It'll feel so good.

[InfiniteNow]

global warming is Earth's way of saying,

Hey you stupid humans,

there are too many of you.

Time to burn you all to a crisp. (or...most, not all)

Let it come.

Let's screw ourselves, It'll feel so good.

You are a bright shining beacon of hope Orby... It's optimism like that which has allowed us to fly to other worlds.

[Cedars]

Heres a really easy to understand history of temperatures on the earth over the last million years.

 

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_dayafter_en2.html

[Queso]

You are a bright shining beacon of hope Orby... It's optimism like that which has allowed us to fly to other worlds.

 

i am no hope,

Observing and converting.

My love for all is,

and will always be just a balance of chemicals.

an Imbalance of chemicals.

[Qfwfq]

It is quite certain that we aren't the only cause but we're sure doing our best and we should cut down as much as possible. Earth is our only home and space travel ain't gonna save us, it sure won't reduce the population down here.

 

If you discover that your house has rising damp from the land it's built on, is that an excuse not to fix your leaking water pipes and to maybe even go on flooding the ground floors more and more?