Ice once covered New York City in a mile thick layer of ice. It wasn't until man hunted the Mastodons to the brink of extinction that the ice caps started to recede and they are STILL RECEDING to this very day!
Should we work to restore the ice caps to their natural position, before man appeared on this continent, where New York is under mile thick ice along wit the rest of New England?
Or to what point do you think they should be brought back to? How far is good enough for the polar ice caps? Is your information based on objective facts, or subjective based on your emotions, and how much you care about the planet?
2007-08-03 08:01:10 · 8 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
thank you for illustrating the absurdity of some environmental campaigns so well. They seem to forget that things on this planet are constantly changing and there is no "normal constant" for the Earth over long periods of time, i.e. temperature, gases, icecaps, forest coverage or desert area. All they think is acceptable for them is from their own limited experience, you can't say this is how it is now and always should be since that is how I remember it. The Earth has changed a lot over the last several millions of years and will continue to do so regardless of what we would like.
2007-08-03 08:19:59 · answer #1 · answered by scorpio 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
An interesting consequence of restoring the ice caps to the levels pre the last glacial retreat would be a significant fall in sea levels - some 150 metres. Coastal cities would become landlocked and harbours, marinas etc would be miles from the sea.
The worry about the ice caps isn't so much about how nature has affected them but more about how we've affected them, notably the Arctic Ice Cap, Antractica is pretty much safe for the time being.
The speed at which they retreated naturally is much slower than the rate at which they're currently receding and this doesn't provide time for affected speices to adapt or evolve (not all will adapt or evolve even if the retreat was entirely natural).
The planet goes through all sorts of changes, glacial advance and retreat being just one of them. Some changes are cyclical, others are irregular and less predictable but they all happen within naturally defined limits. Unfortunately now, may of these changes are occuring outside the natural boundaries and are upsetting the natural balance of the planet. many of these changes have knock on effects, if they happen slow enough nature can adapt but by accelerating the rate of change we're effectively pushing nature beyond it's limit.
If the rate of change were brough back within natural limits I think a lot of people would be much happier. There would still be all manner of consequences but at least they'd happen much slower giving life on the planet more time to adapt and mitigate.
2007-08-03 15:18:06 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
According to the IPCC reports we must reduce the world wide amount of carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere to less than one tenth of what is emitted to the atmosphere today if we are to have any chance of stopping Global Warming.
Even that probably would not stop Global Warming even if we could achieve that kind of a reduction in world wide carbon dioxide emissions..
I do not see how we could achieve that size reduction without destroying the economies of the world, plunging the world into a massive depression and creating poverty and misery on a scale that we have not seen in modern times.
We must accept the fact that Global Warming is something that we cannot stop.
We must be prepared to mitigate the effects of Global Warming.
Fortunately coastal areas can be protected by the use of dikes similar to those used in Holland to hold back the sea.
Hurricanes will become stronger and more frequent. We must upgrade our disaster preparedness for hurricanes.
Drought will become more frequent. We must be prepared to help out with supplemental water supplies and desalination plants when necessary.
2007-08-03 15:23:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO, the ice caps have not been steadily receding since the ice age. They receded back to a certain point and then advanced and retreated a little seasonally, until QUITE RECENTLY (last 10 years roughly) Glaciers advanced continuously regardless of season. Now they have retreated miles, and continue to do so.
2007-08-03 15:41:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, we really don't need them. And Polar Bears are expendable too. If there were none of them left life would go on just the same. Global warming will make it possible to grow food crops in the arctic regions, where only tundra grows now. This will be a vast improvement in the worlds food supply. If a few species of animals and birds can't handle the heat, well....thats too bad. It will be a spectacular sight to see cornfields in Greenland.
2007-08-03 15:14:12 · answer #5 · answered by I.H.N. 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we should create a mini ice age in Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Kansas. We'll just super cool those states down and build mile high glaciers on them. Then we'll have a big 'ol snowball fight and celebrate!!!
2007-08-03 15:13:37 · answer #6 · answered by xxx 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, if we let the ice have it's way it would cover everything. And then polar bears, who once ruled the earth with an iron claw, would use us as farm animals.
2007-08-03 15:14:04 · answer #7 · answered by naaman_7x 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Once the poles shift the ice caps will take care of themselves..
2007-08-03 15:27:54 · answer #8 · answered by Sophie B 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋