A non-political thread on the warming of the planet

[martybegan]

Let's (try to) have a discussion that avoids the standard partisan finger-pointing that always pollutes (no pun intended) this topic and instead focuses on the logistics & realities we'll deal with if the planet is actually warming.

So, for the purposes of this thread, let's stipulate to the following:

• The planet is warming, for whatever reason.
• Given the scope and momentum of the warming, it's going to continue warming, as we squabble, and we need to look at how that affects our lives
• We need to look ahead at how the changes can either be mitigated OR how to take advantage of them

So my first question is this: What positives could come from this change? I'm wondering about areas of the planet that might un-freeze and allow for more crops, for example.

Any constructive questions or ideas on how we could deal with this in a positive way?
.

It would be a question of migration. People would have to move to where the land becomes more arable from where the land becomes less arable.

As for rising sea levels, if they are truly occurring and at a level that can threaten some cities, then they will have to either build sea walls or again, re-locate the lower affected neighborhoods.

Adapt or die.

As can we see by Harvey, people in the Midwest will be bailing out those who chose to live by the ocean.

There is a concept of shared risk. I do think the Feds need to step in when disasters of this magnitude occur. However any relief bill should be about relief, not pork.

They need to do an amendment if we want to do federal aid. Which, i am down for.

Why is an amendment needed?

 

[TNHarley]

Let's (try to) have a discussion that avoids the standard partisan finger-pointing that always pollutes (no pun intended) this topic and instead focuses on the logistics & realities we'll deal with if the planet is actually warming.

So, for the purposes of this thread, let's stipulate to the following:

• The planet is warming, for whatever reason.
• Given the scope and momentum of the warming, it's going to continue warming, as we squabble, and we need to look at how that affects our lives
• We need to look ahead at how the changes can either be mitigated OR how to take advantage of them

So my first question is this: What positives could come from this change? I'm wondering about areas of the planet that might un-freeze and allow for more crops, for example.

Any constructive questions or ideas on how we could deal with this in a positive way?
.

It would be a question of migration. People would have to move to where the land becomes more arable from where the land becomes less arable.

As for rising sea levels, if they are truly occurring and at a level that can threaten some cities, then they will have to either build sea walls or again, re-locate the lower affected neighborhoods.

Adapt or die.

As can we see by Harvey, people in the Midwest will be bailing out those who chose to live by the ocean.

There is a concept of shared risk. I do think the Feds need to step in when disasters of this magnitude occur. However any relief bill should be about relief, not pork.

They need to do an amendment if we want to do federal aid. Which, i am down for.

Why is an amendment needed?

federal aid is unconstitutional
I started a thread about this yesterday

 

[martybegan]

Let's (try to) have a discussion that avoids the standard partisan finger-pointing that always pollutes (no pun intended) this topic and instead focuses on the logistics & realities we'll deal with if the planet is actually warming.

So, for the purposes of this thread, let's stipulate to the following:

• The planet is warming, for whatever reason.
• Given the scope and momentum of the warming, it's going to continue warming, as we squabble, and we need to look at how that affects our lives
• We need to look ahead at how the changes can either be mitigated OR how to take advantage of them

So my first question is this: What positives could come from this change? I'm wondering about areas of the planet that might un-freeze and allow for more crops, for example.

Any constructive questions or ideas on how we could deal with this in a positive way?
.

It would be a question of migration. People would have to move to where the land becomes more arable from where the land becomes less arable.

As for rising sea levels, if they are truly occurring and at a level that can threaten some cities, then they will have to either build sea walls or again, re-locate the lower affected neighborhoods.

Adapt or die.

As can we see by Harvey, people in the Midwest will be bailing out those who chose to live by the ocean.

There is a concept of shared risk. I do think the Feds need to step in when disasters of this magnitude occur. However any relief bill should be about relief, not pork.

They need to do an amendment if we want to do federal aid. Which, i am down for.

Why is an amendment needed?

While I am a strict constructionist, I tend to go more for things forbidden explicitly as opposed to things allowed explicitly. I don't see the feds forbidden from legislating aid to States, so I would see it passing constitutional muster.

 

[LittleNipper]

The truth is that we are living in the end on the Age, just prior to the TRIBULATION Period. It would be a total waste of money to try to stop the inevitable. What is needed is prayer.. .

 

[TNHarley]

The truth is that we are living in the end on the Age, just prior to the TRIBULATION Period. It would be a total waste of money to try to stop the inevitable. What is needed is prayer.. .

People have been saying that since 50AD

 

[BlindBoo]

The truth is that we are living in the end on the Age, just prior to the TRIBULATION Period. It would be a total waste of money to try to stop the inevitable. What is needed is prayer.. .

Earth's geologic epochs—time periods defined by evidence in rock layers—typically last more than three million years.

We're barely 11,500 years into the current epoch, the Holocene. But a new paper argues that we've already entered a new one—the Anthropocene, or "new man," epoch.

The name isn't brand-new. Nobel Prize-winner Paul Crutzen, a co-author of the paper, coined it in 2002 to reflect the unprecedented changes humans have wrought in the roughly 200 years since the industrial revolution.

The report, however, is part of new push to formalize the Anthropocene epoch.

New Earth Epoch Has Begun, Scientists Say

 

[Freewill]

The truth is that we are living in the end on the Age, just prior to the TRIBULATION Period. It would be a total waste of money to try to stop the inevitable. What is needed is prayer.. .

What would you be praying for?

 

[Freewill]

It would be a question of migration. People would have to move to where the land becomes more arable from where the land becomes less arable.

As for rising sea levels, if they are truly occurring and at a level that can threaten some cities, then they will have to either build sea walls or again, re-locate the lower affected neighborhoods.

Adapt or die.

As can we see by Harvey, people in the Midwest will be bailing out those who chose to live by the ocean.

There is a concept of shared risk. I do think the Feds need to step in when disasters of this magnitude occur. However any relief bill should be about relief, not pork.

They need to do an amendment if we want to do federal aid. Which, i am down for.

Why is an amendment needed?

federal aid is unconstitutional
I started a thread about this yesterday

When was it declared unconstitutional?

What part of the COTUS do you believe it is in violation?

 

[JoeB131]

Its assumption. It fills in the holes with "man" like religion does with "god"
Climate change is fact.
This thread isnt about partisan politics and made up stats so i will stop it here. Good day.
Good luck stopping natural earth evolution by eating more squash.

again, no point wasting time talking to denialists.

95% of scientists. What's your degree in?

 

[LittleNipper]

The truth is that we are living in the end on the Age, just prior to the TRIBULATION Period. It would be a total waste of money to try to stop the inevitable. What is needed is prayer.. .

What would you be praying for?

GOD's help, guidance and direction!

 

[LittleNipper]

Its assumption. It fills in the holes with "man" like religion does with "god"
Climate change is fact.
This thread isnt about partisan politics and made up stats so i will stop it here. Good day.
Good luck stopping natural earth evolution by eating more squash.

again, no point wasting time talking to denialists.

95% of scientists. What's your degree in?

90% of these scientist were trained by atheists.

 

[LittleNipper]

The truth is that we are living in the end on the Age, just prior to the TRIBULATION Period. It would be a total waste of money to try to stop the inevitable. What is needed is prayer.. .

People have been saying that since 50AD

They didn't understand all the data...

 

[Freewill]

The truth is that we are living in the end on the Age, just prior to the TRIBULATION Period. It would be a total waste of money to try to stop the inevitable. What is needed is prayer.. .

What would you be praying for?

GOD's help, guidance and direction!

Good answer. What kind of help do you think God would offer?

 

[LittleNipper]

The truth is that we are living in the end on the Age, just prior to the TRIBULATION Period. It would be a total waste of money to try to stop the inevitable. What is needed is prayer.. .

What would you be praying for?

GOD's help, guidance and direction!

Good answer. What kind of help do you think God would offer?

Eternal.

 

[PredFan]

Many scientists point to another ice age coming.

The main problem is that we cannot predict what will happen with even a moderate degree of certainty.

 

[JoeB131]

90% of these scientist were trained by atheists.

Well, it is hard to teach the scientific method to people who think snakes can talk.

BUt you do hit on a problem. The objection you guys have to AGW has nothing to with actual science. It's a matter of faith to you.

The thing about science is, it continues to be true whether you believe in it or not.

 

[LittleNipper]

90% of these scientist were trained by atheists.

Well, it is hard to teach the scientific method to people who think snakes can talk.

BUt you do hit on a problem. The objection you guys have to AGW has nothing to with actual science. It's a matter of faith to you.

The thing about science is, it continues to be true whether you believe in it or not.

It is all about unfaithfulness to atheists. Science can reveal truth; however, what is revealed can also be error.

 

[JoeB131]

It is all about unfaithfulness to atheists. Science can reveal truth; however, what is revealed can also be error.

are you some kind of fucking retard?

Hey, what are you going to deny next, gravity? If I throw a bible thumper off a tall building, there is exactly a ZERO percent chance God will catch him on the way down.

He's too busy not existing.

 

[LittleNipper]

It is all about unfaithfulness to atheists. Science can reveal truth; however, what is revealed can also be error.

are you some kind of f-----g r----d?

Hey, what are you going to deny next, gravity? If I throw a bible thumper off a tall building, there is exactly a ZERO percent chance God will catch him on the way down.

He's too busy not existing.

Sorry, but I cannot compete with your scientific terminology. However, scientists are not really positive they fully understand gravity. A planet spinning at thousands of miles an hour, whizzing about the Sun, and yet here we are not flying off into space --- a miracle.

 

[Old Rocks]

Given that 'progress' is so misunderstood, there is little hope of constructive discussion. People would have to be capable of considering serious alternatives, and interests vested in the status quo prevent that.

Can't argue, but you would think that SOME people have spent at least a LITTLE time thinking about this.
.

Spent a lot of time considering this. First was alerted to the fact that man is altering the climate in a geology class in the mid-60"s. Yes, the climatic zone for growing things will move north as the planet warms. So, no problem, eh? Except much of the northland is either rock scraped bare by the continental glaciers, or peat land that will take a long time to become productive farmland. And will be burning in major fires during that time. The southern hemisphere has little land to the south, save Antarctica, and that will not be available for centuries. Second, were it just an even warming, with the same weather patterns, only move north a bit, it wouldn't be that bad. But that is not what is going to happen. There will be many surprises, areas that go barren, areas submerged, refugees being killed crossing borders.

And then there is the possibility of a shutdown of the Atlantic overturning current.

The Atlantic Ocean and an Actual Debate in Climate Science
Scientists have recently begun to re-examine a scary question: Will a crucial ocean current shut down?
The Scary Question That Climate Scientists Are Now Debating

There are huge unknowns, and very few positives that I can see. While Hurricane Harvey is just another hurricane, the amount of precipitation is a foretaste of things to come. We are seeing this;

Hundreds dead, thousands at risk after massive flooding in South Asia
South Asia floods: Hundreds dead, thousands at risk. - CNN

HEATWAVE FROM HELL
What is the ‘Lucifer’ heatwave in Europe, which countries have had the highest temperatures and what’s the latest forecast?


The blistering surge in temperatures has seen the mercury reach highs of 44C in the south of Spain.

It is not just one place or one event this summer, we are seeing the predictions of the scientists come to pass. What can we do about it?

1. It is far too late to avoid many of the consequences, but we need to better understand what those consequences are going to be. Fund intensive study of the climate, working with the other nations.
2. We know that sea level is going to rise. And that storm surges will go further inland if we do not take measures. Decide what infrastructure is valuable enough the protect and what would be wiser to simply move.
3. The less GHGs we add to the atmosphere, the less damage we do to the environment that our grandchildren inherit. The renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels, and grid scale storage is already being installed. And it will rapidly decline in price as different types compete for business. No reason not to rapidly move into no pollution electrical generation.