who thinks its to late to fix global warming !!?

Question

... and we are screwed personally I don't mind we had it coming so I can't wait for mass floods and super cataclizems and then the mini ice age <3 snow enjoy oil companies (fuc.... shi.... hea....s) :(

Answer 1

Our planet is experiencing extremes in climate change because of increased atmospheric carbon, but based on looking back a few billion years ago we can easily discover that the earth has had atmospheric carbon as high as we have made it and even higher. The problem with these high levels of atmospheric carbon was that during these past times in our earth’s history, tidal levels and temperature changes were much more extreme! Our more recent ice ages have been short affairs. So climate change is already happening and will continue to happen to a degree, therefore we are not able to prevent it, but still our preventative efforts would actually be efforts to reduce it to being as stable and static as possible while we learn how to act as responsible stewards for our planet in order to promote a continued climate stability. An attempt to “fix” it versus allowing it to occur and then dealing with it when we are forced to, are actually one and the same. Let me explain. If we decided not to try and “fix” the problem now with whatever means that we have then we would have to react when the time came by modifying our environment and technology such that the effects of global climate change are not as devastating to us as a species but by this time we as a species would be acting in a reactionary fashion and not a proactive one. So what is the difference between how you deal with these two scenarios?

To react to the effects of global climate change we would need to eventually reduce our emissions of greenhouse gasses so as not to continue to escalate this rate of change, develop technologies that would replace those lost by reducing greenhouse emissions such as hydrogen engines, and renewable energy sources like those from windmills, solar, tidal generators and even nuclear energy. We would also need to develop agricultural and agroforestry practices that will continue to see a continued food production within this new environment in order to provide for our 6-billion+ individuals.

To "fix" or reduce the effects of global climate change we would need to immediately reduce our emissions of greenhouse gasses so as not to continue to escalate this rate of change, develop technologies that would replace those lost by reducing greenhouse emissions such as hydrogen engines, and renewable energy sources like those from windmills, solar, tidal generators and even nuclear energy. We would also need to develop agricultural and agroforestry practices that will continue to see a continued food production within this new environment in order to provide for our 6-billion+ individuals.

Sorry for being repetitive (I hope you noticed the slight differences) but the point is that the solutions are the same and the only major difference is in the rate of application. To try and hold the climate to being less drastic then these choices would have to be implemented immediately and in full force, where as if we wanted to take a reactionary “the earth’s climate is cyclical and we can adapt” approach then we could implement these same policies at a slower rate, but by doing this climate change would continue to be more dramatic and the future planet would still be livable albeit less hospitable.

Really this comes down to a question of economics. To implement adjustments NOW (fix) would require a lot of investment and a lot of individual sacrifice, although if it was implemented globally then those countries which choose to take the lead would actually make great profits as they will be the ones providing the expertise and technology to those who have lagged further behind. To take the "lets adapt slowly" approach (react) would require less personal sacrifice as we could continue to use oil combustion as a crutch for some time during this adaptive approach. Severe weather patterns would be held less static and would continue to cause much devastation at the local level. It would become more difficult for farmers to continue to reap reliable harvests and the food supply would become less predictable and commodities would jump all over the place in value year in year out. I'm not sure if increasing tidal levels could be stopped by acting now in the preventative/reducing (fix) model, but to follow the reactionary model would definitely result in a melting of the polar caps that would flood a lot of arable land and would reduce the salinity level of the oceans such that precipitation levels would increase drastically causing much flooding and erosion all over the remaining terrestrial portions of the planet. There is also a good chance that the melting of the polar ice caps will actually disrupt the ocean currents which warm the northern hemisphere and reverse global warming and actually result in an elongated ice age (ice age length is typically dictated by both atmoshperic contaminants, like carbon, and the salinity level of the ocean, more carbon & lower ocean salinity = longer ice age.) The last large influx of atmospheric contaminants, the mega eruption of the Toba super volcano resulted in an ice age, which was of the magnitude of 10-000-12,000 years in duration depending on where on the planet you are measuring its effects. Undoubtedly from the amount of carbon that we have emitted the magnitude of this ice age coupled with the reduced ocean salinity from polar melting, we will likely be looking at an ice age of at least 3 times the magnitude of that caused by the Toba eruption. This will have drastic effects on our human food supply and the likely adaptation to this would require us to start farming seaweed and aquaculture to make up for our great loss of arable land. To apply a “fix” in the here and now may be costly at the front end, but the investment seems much cheaper then the alternatives of being forced into drastic changes at a latter date. Plus, if our changes are successful then some forward thinking countries do stand to come out of this global event with a lot of economic gains.

Anyways, I prefer the idea of applying a “fix” even if it does not actually mean that we are stopping climate change. Hopefully at the very least if we could avoid the continued melting of our polar ice caps. Even if our attempt to “fix” the planet failed and the polar caps were to eventually melt anyways hastening in a great climatological change in our planet, at least the fact that the fixing process would have reduced our atmospheric carbon would have provided an essential benefit to reducing the length and severity of the impending ice age that our offspring, and their offspring... etc will have to live through for many generations. The nice thing about doing what we can now, in my opinion, is that the “sit and wait” approach is actually a cop-out and would leave our species stricken during times of great climate change with far fewer resources at our disposal for future “reactions” that may become necessary for our continued success as a species. So even if we are not stopping it, it is still good to “fix” what we can!

PS, I don't believe in Trevor's "tipping point". The Earth has had far more atmospheric pollutants in the past then it currently has and has always found away to heal itself to become more stabalised again. But, I'm not a "Earth is in cycles" fanatic either and I do believe that our efforts can have a positive effect on the stability of our planet's climate rather then pushing these cycles to their limits..

Answer 2

I think that's a matter of conscience for every individual. The question is whether in a matter of public safety the will of EVERYONE must be accomodated?

Suppose the taxpayers had built and paid for a public swimming pool. Suppose also they took all the proper precautions to make sure the water was clean and safe for people's children. Suppose then a few people came along and started peeing in the pool. When told it's time to stop, suppose they said "We think you and your rules are stupid. We don't feel that peeing in the pool does any harm at all. We feel like it is our right and people who claim it affects them are stupid or lying. Until the taxpayers can prove to us that peeing in the pool is bad, we're going to go right on peeing in the pool."

This is the type of situation we are facing. Would we allow that, or do something? I think it's time to realize this isn't just random skinheads with too much time on their hands. It is people responding to an organized propaganda campaign by the current Administration.

In Missouri, we had a brave young congressman leave the Republican party yesterday. His stated reason was the Bush Administrations "anti-science" policies. Back in the 1970's we had a mass exodus from the Democratic party when the political pendulum swung too far to the left. I was part of it, so was Ronald Reagan. We were raised on the philosophy of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, not Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. These people are not Republicans or Conservatives, they are Fascists. I predict we'll be seeing a mass exodus in the other direction now, because the pendulum has swung too far to the right. Go back about 6 months, and start counting.

This brave young man objects to the government's policies on stem cell research, but he mentions all of the others. The government says stem cell research is cloning, or involves cloning, or could lead to cloning; cloning is bad; therefore stem cell research is bad. That's the same kind of hogwash as we don't know if global warming is normal, we don't know if people cause it, and even if the scientists say it is, they predicted an ice age in the 1970's. It's the same thing, a lie from beginning to end. Have you ever seen one of their presentations on family planning? They have the same kind of made up statistics showing that birth control doesn't work at all. Their policy is we cut all funding for sex education and birth control, and we just tell people not to have sex, and they will obey, and there'll be no problems. A lie from beginning to end. They are trying to replace science in the schools with "Creationism". We have no idea how the world came into existence. We know nothing about the nature of life, how it grows and changes over time, so we need to teach the regligious traditions of one segment of the population instead. This sounds laughable, but I live right next door to a State where it's happening. They've finally got "Creationism" into the schools, and they are working hard to get the science thrown out entirely.

Joseph Goebbels wrote the book on all this. I think Carl Rowe must be a devout desciple. Goebbels said that people will believe ANYTHING if they see it or hear it often enough. He also said a big lie is more likely to be believed than a little one. And he said lying is just fine, in fact necessary. Some of his finest work was Germany did not lose WWI. Even if it did, it was because it was betrayed by the Jews and the Communists.

Here's a few quotes

"Propaganda must be creative. It is by no means a matter for the bureaucracy or official administration, but rather it is a matter of productive fantasy. The genuine propagandist must be a true artist."

"Understood in this sense, propaganda has long since lost its odium of inferiority inherited from the past. It holds first rank among the arts with which one leads a nation, It is indispensable in building a modern state."

I doubt that the people who post the government's disinformation here realize how they're being used, any more than the Germans did. People like Goebbels believed that the leader needed to be made one with the Nation, and the will of the people needed to be made one with the leader. That's what we're seeing.

We don't know if our latter day fascists in this country can be stopped. We'll never know unless we try.

Answer 3

Good question and one which has had scientists scratching their heads for a long time.

There's a point in time known as the Tipping Point, effectively the point of no return. Once crossed the damage and consequences are irreversible. The problem is that no-one knows where this point is. Some think we've already crossed it and it's downhill all the way from here, others think it could be as much as 50 years away, the general feeling within the scientific community is that it's 20 something years away.

The more time we can buy now by reducing greenhouse gas emissions the more time we have to come up with solutions.

No solution is easy, the scale of the potential problems are enormous and it would be highly impractical to attempt to mitigate the effects by resettling those most at risk, building flood protection measures, planting crops in areas not adversely affected etc.

It's also impractical to expect (in the short term at least) that we can sufficiently reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to within a naturally sustainable level. To do so would be like turning the clock back 200 years and would mean giving up much of our communication, power, transportation, technology etc.

The alternative would be a scientific one designed to remove excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or limit the amount of solar radiation entering our atmosphere. Such chemes are being investigated and have been successfully trialed at small scale level. None are near to being implemented as much more research is needed.

Answer 4

"God's gonna fix it all soon, God's gonna blink and put it back the way it oughta be..." -Tool

Yeah, humanity is an endangered species. But...I see it going down like this. Long before the ice age kicks in, we will have had a world war over the limited resources. So, the kicker is, by that time people will of woken up and realized how previous generations (ours being a major contributor) ruined everything for them. Then, the ice age, everything wiped clean, start from scratch. We can only hope that no one survives to mess it all up again.

Answer 5

Personally i think its not to late to fix global warming simply because theres nothing to fix. Its my opinion that the warming we are currently experiencing can be attributed to one of the following causes: an increase in solar activity (apparently mars is heating up to and lets face it there arent too many SUV's over there!) , the urban heat island effect (in which case global warming it would be non-existant), or just some other natural cause that we do not yet fully understand.

I would also like to point out the advantages of being a global warming skeptic :)!. If global warming turns out to be a big hoax then we get to say "I Told u so!" and laugh at the communist treehuggers. if in the unlikely event that global warming happens to be real, no one remembers us as we are all dead anyway! So whatever happens its a win-win situation!

Answer 6

Yes, it is too late to fix Global Warming.
However, we are not screwed. One doesn't know Nature.
So, we must stop harming Earth; Nature will play a grand role in restoring the climate to its original place.

Answer 7

I don't believe we can "fix" global warming - the damage has already been done. We can however, prevent things from getting worse!

Answer 8

I bet you will be shocked from what I will say... but if you will start to read it... I want you to read it all... World is a BIG PERFECT mechanism... We all should give thanks to God for what we have got... It dont crank when it is going to *die*... becose its only a change for world... Disaster is like arrow going straight at you... if you will do nothing... it will kill you... you can move (if you can) to avoid it... or if you are perfect well trained warrior... then you can CATCH it... eh... but whole humanity is like a weak person... and we cant escape from our planet... (like some people die on volcanos)... maybe... maybe not... Anyway... We were *working* for decades to led world in current situation of dengerous pollution and its effect... and we earned a lot of bad habits... life in rush... in easy way... adiction to technology... chemistry and all kinds of pollution... and the capitalism... hehe... its a torn... in my ***... Yeah... So now... to save world (all that we can) we would have to become one PERFECT mechanism working against pollution... with no excuses... like it cost too much... or that we have time (for what???... it started before scientists saw it)... or pesimistic idea that we cant do nothing... You know what?... God wants from us at least to try to earn redemption... simply to never give up... And we dont have to give up from our current achievements... we only have to adapt them to stop rise in pollution... and we should keep care to make everything safe for enviroment... (In my opinion colonisation of Space would give a lot of enviromental profit... but... whatever... you have warlike nature... but I can honestly say... You can be pathetic with fighting with your own goo... have fun... I am going to see it all... or God will decide diffrent way... My life in His hands... but I am not going to ruin it by turning into careless being...)... Hold strong... I know you are still on good side...

Answer 9

I think that argument is mostly an excuse from people who doesn't want to do anything about it.

Answer 10

It's NOT too "late" to "fix" it...

But I fear it might be too "early" to be able to "repair" the human heart...

(A huge SIGH from Mother Earth gently stirs the thinning air...)

Answer 11

You are assuming there is a problem to fix, there is the problem with your question.