A non-political thread on the warming of the planet

[BlindBoo]

It's obvious that man is not going to stop burning fossil fuels and it is a scientific fact that by burning the sequestered hydrocarbons man is increasing the CO2 concentration, I think we need to find a way to capture and sequester that CO2.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Thanks. I have to admit I was thinking/assuming that people would remain where they are and would have to find ways to deal with it.

I can see migration and technology playing a huge role.
.

migration will be key, i think. I think its also possible we could do this without losing knowledge. There is no telling what we have lost when our ancestors had to do things like this and similar..
This could possibly open an entire new continent to search, learn from and thrive on. There is no telling what is under all that ice.

What is interesting is they are finding stuff, like bodies, that was lost under the ice centuries ago. That to means that the Earth was this warm then or at least the ice sheets were not as large.

There is no telling the history of our unsearched lands. Hek, look at TN. We used to be under an ocean. Now look.

We'd have to look at the various options for the easiest migration possible, i.e., planning ahead for people to go to the nearest appropriate area rather than letting it happen and later regretting it.

That's a mind-blower. This would involve cooperation (uh oh) between governments.
.

If we started now, we could possibly come up with a plan. But that would involve dropping partisan nonsense. Which, i doubt would happen until its too late.

 

[Mac1958]

Thanks. I have to admit I was thinking/assuming that people would remain where they are and would have to find ways to deal with it.

I can see migration and technology playing a huge role.
.

migration will be key, i think. I think its also possible we could do this without losing knowledge. There is no telling what we have lost when our ancestors had to do things like this and similar..
This could possibly open an entire new continent to search, learn from and thrive on. There is no telling what is under all that ice.

What is interesting is they are finding stuff, like bodies, that was lost under the ice centuries ago. That to means that the Earth was this warm then or at least the ice sheets were not as large.

There is no telling the history of our unsearched lands. Hek, look at TN. We used to be under an ocean. Now look.

We'd have to look at the various options for the easiest migration possible, i.e., planning ahead for people to go to the nearest appropriate area rather than letting it happen and later regretting it.

That's a mind-blower. This would involve cooperation (uh oh) between governments.
.

If we started now, we could possibly come up with a plan. But that would involve dropping partisan nonsense. Which, i doubt would happen until its too late.

Yeah. Imagine such a conversation between states, between governments. It could even ultimately involve re-drawing maps.

We would be our own undoing, and that wouldn't exactly be a shock.
.

 

[TNHarley]

migration will be key, i think. I think its also possible we could do this without losing knowledge. There is no telling what we have lost when our ancestors had to do things like this and similar..
This could possibly open an entire new continent to search, learn from and thrive on. There is no telling what is under all that ice.

What is interesting is they are finding stuff, like bodies, that was lost under the ice centuries ago. That to means that the Earth was this warm then or at least the ice sheets were not as large.

There is no telling the history of our unsearched lands. Hek, look at TN. We used to be under an ocean. Now look.

We'd have to look at the various options for the easiest migration possible, i.e., planning ahead for people to go to the nearest appropriate area rather than letting it happen and later regretting it.

That's a mind-blower. This would involve cooperation (uh oh) between governments.
.

If we started now, we could possibly come up with a plan. But that would involve dropping partisan nonsense. Which, i doubt would happen until its too late.

Yeah. Imagine such a conversation between states, between governments. It could even ultimately involve re-drawing maps.

We would be our own undoing, and that wouldn't exactly be a shock.
.

Of course it wouldnt. And its only getting worse. We cant agree on things that come out of peoples mouths. Much less how to solve actual problems without the lazy band-aids.
Its so sad.

 

[Mac1958]

What is interesting is they are finding stuff, like bodies, that was lost under the ice centuries ago. That to means that the Earth was this warm then or at least the ice sheets were not as large.

There is no telling the history of our unsearched lands. Hek, look at TN. We used to be under an ocean. Now look.

We'd have to look at the various options for the easiest migration possible, i.e., planning ahead for people to go to the nearest appropriate area rather than letting it happen and later regretting it.

That's a mind-blower. This would involve cooperation (uh oh) between governments.
.

If we started now, we could possibly come up with a plan. But that would involve dropping partisan nonsense. Which, i doubt would happen until its too late.

Yeah. Imagine such a conversation between states, between governments. It could even ultimately involve re-drawing maps.

We would be our own undoing, and that wouldn't exactly be a shock.
.

Of course it wouldnt. And its only getting worse. We cant agree on things that come out of peoples mouths. Much less how to solve actual problems without the lazy band-aids.
Its so sad.

The potential good here is that this won't happen overnight. We'll be able to see what's happening, it will unfold over years, and perhaps we can make incremental moves as things evolve.

But you're right, we're starting from a hole. It's often asked "what would bring us together" around here, maybe mass extinction might wake people up.
.

 

[JoeB131]

We'd have to look at the various options for the easiest migration possible, i.e., planning ahead for people to go to the nearest appropriate area rather than letting it happen and later regretting it.

That's a mind-blower. This would involve cooperation (uh oh) between governments.

well, that would be a problem, but let's look at that.

In the Land Distribution thing, the big winners of gaining new land due to Global Warming would be Russia and Canada, both of whom have lots of land which isn't terribly useful because they are so cold. Even if they get warmer, they aren't goign to be terribly useful because you'll have very long days and very short nights in the summer and the converse in the winter.

But let's say a billion Indians want to relocate to Siberia because India is under water or too hot. They'd quickly outnumber the 160 million Russians, and pretty soon, Russia wouldn't be Russia anymore. It'd be India North.

Probably easier to knock off what we are currently doing before it becomes a problem.

 

[TNHarley]

There is no telling the history of our unsearched lands. Hek, look at TN. We used to be under an ocean. Now look.

We'd have to look at the various options for the easiest migration possible, i.e., planning ahead for people to go to the nearest appropriate area rather than letting it happen and later regretting it.

That's a mind-blower. This would involve cooperation (uh oh) between governments.
.

If we started now, we could possibly come up with a plan. But that would involve dropping partisan nonsense. Which, i doubt would happen until its too late.

Yeah. Imagine such a conversation between states, between governments. It could even ultimately involve re-drawing maps.

We would be our own undoing, and that wouldn't exactly be a shock.
.

Of course it wouldnt. And its only getting worse. We cant agree on things that come out of peoples mouths. Much less how to solve actual problems without the lazy band-aids.
Its so sad.

The potential good here is that this won't happen overnight. We'll be able to see what's happening, it will unfold over years, and perhaps we can make incremental moves as things evolve.

But you're right, we're starting from a hole. It's often asked "what would bring us together" around here, maybe mass extinction might wake people up.
.

I think that would bring us together, but i also understand this isnt a movie. So, i still have my doubts. But you never know! I like to think humanity can still surprise me!

 

[TNHarley]

We'd have to look at the various options for the easiest migration possible, i.e., planning ahead for people to go to the nearest appropriate area rather than letting it happen and later regretting it.

That's a mind-blower. This would involve cooperation (uh oh) between governments.

well, that would be a problem, but let's look at that.

In the Land Distribution thing, the big winners of gaining new land due to Global Warming would be Russia and Canada, both of whom have lots of land which isn't terribly useful because they are so cold. Even if they get warmer, they aren't goign to be terribly useful because you'll have very long days and very short nights in the summer and the converse in the winter.

But let's say a billion Indians want to relocate to Siberia because India is under water or too hot. They'd quickly outnumber the 160 million Russians, and pretty soon, Russia wouldn't be Russia anymore. It'd be India North.

Probably easier to knock off what we are currently doing before it becomes a problem.

I just dont understand how not having as many children, turning to vegans and walking will stop natural earth evolution. I mean, our species is only so old...

 

[Mac1958]

It's obvious that man is not going to stop burning fossil fuels and it is a scientific fact that by burning the sequestered hydrocarbons man is increasing the CO2 concentration, I think we need to find a way to capture and sequester that CO2.

Yep, find an efficient (that's the key) way to recycle and re-purpose it.
.

 

[gipper]

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?
.

Not possible. AGW is politics.

Well, we've already had some interesting responses.
.

So what? Mine doesn't count?

 

[JoeB131]

I just dont understand how not having as many children, turning to vegans and walking will stop natural earth evolution. I mean, our species is only so old...

I'm getting the feeling there's a lot of things you don't understand.

Okay- less children. Less people using less resources. The industrialized world has already figured this out.

Turning into vegans- um, yeah. that would use less carbon.

not having a society built around cars... yes, that would reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere.

 

[TNHarley]

I just dont understand how not having as many children, turning to vegans and walking will stop natural earth evolution. I mean, our species is only so old...

I'm getting the feeling there's a lot of things you don't understand.

Okay- less children. Less people using less resources. The industrialized world has already figured this out.

Turning into vegans- um, yeah. that would use less carbon.

not having a society built around cars... yes, that would reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere.

No, you dont get it. You are arguing AGW, I am arguing the facts. How can AGW "solutions" stop natural earth evolution?

 

[Mac1958]

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?
.

Not possible. AGW is politics.

Well, we've already had some interesting responses.
.

So what? Mine doesn't count?

Sure, it just doesn't address the question.
.

 

[JoeB131]

No, you dont get it. You are arguing AGW, I am arguing the facts. How can AGW "solutions" stop natural earth evolution?

Okay, if you are going to pretend AGW isn't a thing, there's no point in talking to you.

If you think 95% of the scientists are wrong and you are right, what's the point?

 

[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.

 

[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.

Thanks. I have to admit I was thinking/assuming that people would remain where they are and would have to find ways to deal with it.

I can see migration and technology playing a huge role.
.

It would be a very gradual change, despite the doom and gloom predictions ones sees. Changes on a planetary scale don't happen rapidly, unless you are talking about impact events or massive volcanic activity.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

If conditions change to the point that they're permanent, some permanent changes will need to be made. As I mentioned above, we could see maps needing to be re-drawn, governments needing to work together, if things changed enough.
.

 

[martybegan]

Please don't feed the trolls, folks, this has been interesting so far.

JoeBlow couldn't follow the directions out of a 3 sided box.

 

[TNHarley]

Joe

No, you dont get it. You are arguing AGW, I am arguing the facts. How can AGW "solutions" stop natural earth evolution?

Okay, if you are going to pretend AGW isn't a thing, there's no point in talking to you.

If you think 95% of the scientists are wrong and you are right, what's the point?

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.

 

[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.