Why is global warming so scary?

[kpt018]

It's fucking complicated so you'll have to do more to learn about it than make threads in a karate sub-forum.

Idk, maybe read a book?

 

[Ruprecht]

This was the world just like 10,000 years ago

Everything in white melted and was swept away, causing massive floods killing everything around it. Everything in dark green was sunk.

All the coastal cities -- so virtually all early civilization cities -- were destroyed and we have no records of them anymore except via the flood myths. There were also many large islands that are now gone.

This shit happens. It's a normal part of human history that has happened many times before.

What can we do to stop it this time? And if we can't stop it, shouldn't we be focusing on preparing for what to do after it happens?

What if we spend all our energy trying to delay it by 20 years then it happens and we have no idea how to farm food, move industries, and cities 20 years later in the new conditions?

Prehistory is not "a normal part of human history" by definition, there were an estimated 2 million humans on the planet in 10,000 BC living mostly nomadic existences, the rate of change was significantly different and human activity played no role and had no capacity to effect the outcome.
There's no comparison.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

The temperature anomoly during the MWP was less than it is now.

In case you didn't pick up on that, as an aggregate, we're talking about our contribution as it relates to the natural temperature cycles of the earth. The extremes. The vast majority of that time (like, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999%) of it, we didn't exist and conditions wouldn't have been conducive for us to continue existing even if we did.

I think you are missing my point that warmer weather can have amazing benefits on societies. What are you zo afraid of?

 

[MayhemMonkey]

My point was desalination is a thing. Humans don't need to stop global warming to stop water shortages.

https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/ocean-desalination-no-solution-water-shortages

Washington, DC–Food & Water Watch today released a new report that reveals that ocean desalination, an emerging technology often promoted by private corporations as a solution to drought and water shortages, creates a myriad of environmental and social problems. Desalination: An Ocean of Problemsfinds that desalination–the process of removing salt from seawater to make it drinkable, carries a high price tag, releases unregulated chemicals into drinking water supplies, uses large amounts of energy, pollutes waterways, and threatens fisheries and marine environments, among other drawbacks.

“Private companies are marketing desalination as a long-term solution to water shortages. In reality, they are taking advantage of communities where impending water crises are leading water managers to believe they must adopt extreme measures,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director, Food & Water Watch. “Desalination is a risky water supply option that actually creates more problems than it solves.”

Desalination: An Ocean of Problems reports the following findings:

Desalination is expensive. Although the price tag varies by region and is often obscured by corporate underestimates and government subsidies, it is more often two to four times as costly as traditional options.

Desalination is bad for the environment and human health. The by-products of desalination include coagulalants, bisulfates, and chlorines. When concentrated waste is dumped into the ocean as it is with desalination, it is harmful to marine life and environments. Furthermore, power plants’ intake mechanisms, which are often teamed with desalination plants, kill at least 3.4 billion fish and other marine organisms annually. In addition to upsetting marine environments, desalination causes fishermen to lose at least 165 million pounds of fish a year today and 717.1 million pounds of potential future catch.

Desalted water also puts drinking water supplies at risk because seawater contains chemicals such as boron, that freshwater does not. Boron, only 50 to 70 percent of which is removed through the desalination process, has been found to cause reproductive problems and developmental problems in animals and irritation of the human digestive track. Current drinking water regulations do not protect the public from boron.

Desalination contributes to global warming and requires large amounts of energy. Removing salt from large volumes of water takes nine times as much energy as surface water treatment and 14 times as much energy as groundwater protection. Emissions created by desalination plants contribute to climate change, a leading factor of the droughts and water shortages the process is intended to mitigate.

Desalination turns water into a commodity. Private corporations are investing in desalination because it is a leading growth area in the global water market. As water becomes a scarcer commodity, global corporations are setting themselves up to sell water for a profit. Furthermore, private control of water makes in much harder to ensure public safety.

“Policy makers can better provide the public with safe, affordable water by implementing conservation measures to protect water supplies. It is up to the government to ensure the integrity of this vital natural resource. It should not be left to private corporations more concerned with revenue than service delivery,” said Hauter.

Read the report: Desalination: An Ocean of Problems

yeah it is, but it isnt a solution

 

[HunterSdVa29]

There are potentially other side effects too but.... wouldn't it be easier to find a solution to these people's diets then stop the planet from warming?

Potentially, although it's generally poorer, third world island nations that fall into this category...

of which they also have to deal w/ eroding coastlines and other issues, so the costs would presumably be patently absurd

I don't think the goal is to 'stop warming' but rather limit any contributory aspects that Mankind is responsible for. Which makes sense, b/c if even if you only believe we're BARELY responsible for this, it's still going to occur if we don't take measures to address it, if not worsen exponentially as population expands especially in the third world.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Prehistory is not "a normal part of human history" by definition, there were an estimated 2 million humans on the planet in 10,000 BC living mostly nomadic existences, the rate of change was significantly different and human activity played no role and had no capacity to effect the outcome.
There's no comparison.

I think his point was humans survived and adapted. People had to move inland etc.

 

[Falsedawn]

I think you are missing my point that warmer weather can have amazing benefits on societies. What are you zo afraid of?

Full retard.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Potentially, although it's generally poorer, third world island nations that fall into this category...

of which they also have to deal w/ eroding coastlines and other issues, so the costs would presumably be patently absurd

I don't think the goal is to 'stop warming' but rather limit any contributory aspects that Mankind is responsible for. Which makes sense, b/c if even if you only believe we're BARELY responsible for this, it's still going to occur if we don't take measures to address it, if not worsen exponentially as population expands especially in the third world.

Coastlines will erode regardless. It's kinda what they do.

Many of the things that "contributed"to global warming have had a tremendous impact in furthering human capabilities and quality of life.

What are we getting in return for giving these things up?

 

[kpt018]

Coastlines will erode regardless. It's kinda what they do.

Many of the things that "contributed"to global warming have had a tremendous impact in furthering human capabilities and quality of life.

What are we getting in return for giving these things up?

People are not arguing we give these things up.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Full retard.

Way to use your big boy words.

 

[Ruprecht]

I think his point was humans survived and adapted. People had to move inland etc.

There's no comparison. There were an estimated 2 million people living a nomadic existence and their activity played no role in the changes which too place over a much longer timeframe.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

People are not arguing we give these things up.

Uhh... that's exactly what people are arguing

 

[JosephDredd]

You are the only one trolling this thread up. He's asking questions you are refusing to answer. Instead you are trying your hardest to make this about the topic of climate change denial.

It's so damn transparent. It's easier to demonize the people asking questions instead of actually answering them huh?

The answers have been provided to him in his previous threads. Like i said: he's doing your shtick, but badly.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

There's no comparison. There were an estimated 2 million people living a nomadic existence and their activity played no role in the changes.

Who said their existence played a roll? That isn't even what we are discussing. We are discussing that events happened forcing humans to change the way they did things to survive. Entire coastal areas were heavily effected (much like what people are so afraid of happening today) , yet here we are as humans in 2018

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

The answers have been provided to him in his previous threads. Like i said: he's doing your shtick, but badly.

Then dont participate in the thread? You are trying to derail the topic to be about climate change denial. @Limbo Pete really hates that kinda thing

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Coastlines will erode regardless. It's kinda what they do.

Many of the things that "contributed"to global warming have had a tremendous impact in furthering human capabilities and quality of life.

What are we getting in return for giving these things up?

I just said 'coastlines eroding' to encapsulate everything w/ rising water levels

It's actually much worse than that, the Island Nation of Kiribati is literally disappearing as we type this now

 

[Ruprecht]

Who said their existence played a roll? That isn't even what we are discussing. We are discussing that events happened forcing humans to change the way they did things to survive. Entire coastal areas were heavily effected (much like what people are so afraid of happening today) , yet here we are as humans in 2018

Things didn't change as quickly, and these days people are concerned about things besides the basic survival of the species.
It's a mindless comparison, or worse, mindless propaganda.
"Oh the earth has experienced sudden climactic change in the past, and massive extinction events... why the concern?"

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I just said 'coastlines eroding' to encapsulate everything w/ rising water levels

It's actually much worse than that, the Island Nation of Kiribati is literally disappearing as we type this now

Land has disappeared before yet humans thrive regardless.

 

[kpt018]

Uhh... that's exactly what people are arguing

No it isn't.

For example, some people want to continue to improve on car emissions standards. This technology seems to actually improve the cars but certainly no one is saying we shouldn't drive cars.

Some want a carbon tax. That doesn't mean we shut down factories.

Some want increased investment and use in solar and wind. If the technologies provide what we need at an affordable cost no sacrifices necessary.

If you have examples of people claiming we need to give things up you can certainly bring those up and argue they're wrong. But the main ideas on how to approach the problem are not in line with what you're claiming.

 

[kpt018]

Land has disappeared before yet humans thrive regardless.

Stop with these arguments. There was a time when humans didn't exist either, so it's a bad argument to bring up stuff like this since we obviously want to stick around for a long time.