YellowFever

I've read the few global warming threads in this forum and although I find it very entertaining, I've refrained from joining in since I'm not as well informed about it as I should be.

Assuming the "Global warming is caused by humans" advocates are 100% correct, and it is indeed caused by us, what is your worst case scenario in, let's say, 75-100 years if we do nothing to "prevent" it?

This is not a sarcastic question.

I just wanted to promotoe debate on this matter and thought it might be entertaining.

From everything I read (granted it's not as much as I should be reading), it sounds like the "worst case scenario".......isn't that bad.

__________________
"If you're not living on the edge....you're taking up too much space."

Ramo

YellowFever,

I agree, this is an interesting thread and could be quite entertaining.

But for the moment, if I may be bold enough to give you warning; I don't think this notion of a hypothetical will go down too well with some of the members of this forum.

...But I remain positive!

Parihaka

Assuming it's real, the primary factor is feeding populations. Identifying areas of improved agricultural prospects is paramount, along with treaty negotiations for mass movement of populations with appropriate global-based funding to minimise the impact on the host countries.

gunnut

The worst case scenario can be really bad.

The majority of human population lives along the coast line. Many islands, the habitable parts are just a few feet about sea level. If the oceans rise just a foot, a lot of habitable land today will be under water. We're not going to have Waterworld, but millions will have to move.

What the global warming cult don't tell you is warming actually will open up more land in the higher latitudes to farming. This change will happen over decades, maybe a century or two, at current pace, if the pace holds for a century (which I doubt).

Basically it comes down to this. The global warming cult fears change. They want this planet to freeze (no pun intended) at this moment in time. This is perfect. Where as we non-believers doubt their doom-and-gloom predictions and also we don't mind adapting to a changing world. If the place we live at gets too warm? Move. We don't have to stay here.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Wooglin

Ok...If we are using advocates worst case scenarios then we're all going to die. But before that, the planet will burn and the seas will rise 50 feet. Humans will have resorted to cannibalism for lack of food. There will be mass extinctions on an unprecedented scale. Afterwards, the Earth will resemble Venus.

There's your worst case according to the advocates. I am not making any of them up either.

You could have asked what would we do if the planet is attacked by giant mutant roaches from space, as it's about as likely to happen as anything above. It's why I prefer to follow the science and ignore the advocates.

gunnut

Wow, your worst case scenario is way worse than my worst case scenario. I have much to learn.

YellowFever

This is what I mean by it not being "that bad".
The worst case scenario, if it is true, will take decades, if not centuries...no?

These people can be slowly re-located and like you said, the earth heating up a few degrees will actually create better farmlands.

The more I read the more I come to the realization that this is not such a big deal.
Certainly not big enough to invest billions upon billions that we seem to be spending to confront this problem.

Grees

...or deserts. Just imagine the places where it's hot right now, how it will look then?

But I'm sure people in Alaska or Syberia wont mind about a little more warmth.

Wooglin

Places where it's already hot and dry are going to be hot and dry. Places where it's already hot and humid are going to be hot and humid. The rainforests are not going to become deserts and deserts are going to remain deserts.

If we're worried about people starving from lack of fertile land, then perhaps we should be doing something about that problem right now, as it's been a problem since well before the global warming fad. I know where we can find billions upon billions of dollars we can pour into that problem right now.

gunnut

I still have the same question for the global warming cult: what is their end goal?

Follow me on this. Notice everything has to do with "limiting carbon." The farce at Kyoto; the cap and trade scam; fuel efficient cars; blah blah blah. Everything is about reducing the so-called CO2 emission.

What is the goal?

There is no goal.

The cult does not have a target set in their sights as in "if we observe the earth to stay at x temperature for a duration of y years, then we have achieved our goal."

The target is "we have to reduce x% emission by 20xx."

It doesn't make sense.

astralis

gunnut,

i think for them the end goal is stabilizing carbon dioxide at so much ppm. of course, the interesting thing is if this ever does happen and the globe continues to warm up anyway.

__________________
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"

-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace

Wooglin

Just as interesting would be if they don't and it doesn't... like the last decade and counting.

dalem

It's already far more interesting than that because CO2 emissions have NOT decreased and the planet has been cooling for almost a decade.

If we only knew of something that was big and hot and close by. If only...

-dale