In terms of species, who benefits from global warming?

Fun article.

http://io9.com/5960812/which-species-stand-to-benefit-the-most-from-global-warming?tag=environment

So it's not all bad.

More snakes.

Thanks, republicans!

 

More speculative fear-mongering from the warming cult. Why didn't he mention the longer growing seasons and more drought-resistant crops?

 

Thanks, republicans?

You guys are in charge. Just use the EPA to shut down every power plant and factory. Problem solved.

And don't forget to complain that manufacturing jobs left the US.

 

Surely there's a more reasonable answer than an absolute. Does the existence of global warming really mean that, to you? That we have to shut everything down? If so, I can see why people pretend it doesn't exist. That certainly would make things easier. But I don't think absolutes make good plans.

I won't!

 

What if its nature warming the earth?

You know its done it before, long before humans were here.

You think we should build giant snow machines to keep the planet at an optimal temperature?

What is your optimal temperature because the earth itself doesn't seem to have one. It fluctuates between hot and cold on its own so when you start tampering with nature what temperature do you want?

 

If you're interested in this issue than you know the UN goal for the reduction of man made carbon dioxide by 2050. I don't think it's possible to achieve those goals without shutting down industrial civilization. If memory serves, the US has to revert to the carbon output that we had in the 1890's. With the population that we will have in 2050, we won't even be able to enjoy the fancy life style Americans had in the 1890's. If there is another way to do it without making up magical tech advances, I'm all ears.

In the meantime, the people who bleat about this issue the most are the ones who generate more carbon in a year than I will in a lifetime. So if they are not taking this issue seriously, I'm not going to.

And neither are you since you are on the internet, so you are using electricity.

 

What if? That's a little like putting your ice cream next to a heater and then pondering, "What if it's just a natural change in room temperature that's making my ice cream melt, and not the blazing thermal-radiation-producing device that I just deliberately set it next to?"

Yep! I think everybody knows that. Well. Maybe not the people that think that the planet is only as old as the human species (give or take a few days). But the rest of us.

I don't think that would work.

It's not tampering with nature to reduce pollution to survivable levels -- it's the opposite of that. As you say, the temperature fluctuates naturally, so let's stop polluting so much that we alter that natural fluctuation.

 

Speculative fear-mongering! I think we'll be able to use electricity without destroying the ecosystem.

 

Nobody has definitive numbers on how much humans are altering the natural course of events.

Wouldn't you like to know the exact problem before you start trying to figure out solutions?

 

Ideally, yes. But circumstances aren't always ideal. Sometimes you have to start solving problems before you have perfect data, in order to avoid the extinction of your loved ones. You can always start with the easy, obvious stuff -- like industrial-scale pollution!

 

In that case, you guys are in charge, make it so!

 

Homo Statist Governmentous

 

Easily avoidable situations.. Just dont go walking around in a heavily forested area, or into waters filled with jellyfish.

 

Nothing wrong with combating pollution but to assume its going to reverse global warming or climate change is nothing but guesswork until you have data.

For all you know we could cut every single emission and it wouldn't change a single thing.

 

Preferring to ignore the predictable silliness of the denial crowd, that was a interesting artical. It gave me an appreciation of how difficult and complex the prediction of follow on effects will be. While its easy to guess and/or observe what the first order effects may be, it's the next wave of reactions to the first set of changes that will really tell the tale. If you are a fan of a neat orderly world that is easy to predict what tomorrow will bring, it looks to be a wild ride. But for those who prefer chaos and want each day to be a surprise, you're about to get your wish. Hope we can handle it.

 

Now if one is approaching this from a logical stand point they know that if your goal is to "save" humanity from global warming and you honestly believe our CO2 production is the largest threat then there is two things we must realize.

Reducing industrial scale pollution has to start with China as they produce close to a quarter of the world's CO2. If you cant make them change, anything you do here is in vain. India is also quickly growing and I imagine they will become third sometime in the next decade or maybe even surpass us for the #2 spot. So without a worldwide consensus where all leaders force their people to cut CO2 production anything we do will most likely be in vain. Even cutting our emissions by 30% will only decrease worldwide emissions by a few percentage points.

Now forcing businesses to deal with tighter pollution standards here will just encourage companies to move overseas where there are lower standards and they would likely pollute more then they do now, effectively you have done nothing. Fact is demand for goods continue to grow, so you have to get rid of the demand for manufactured goods. Only way to do that is get rid of the people demanding them. Any other solution really won't do much of any good.

Just the facts of the matter, worldwide consensus and agreement to cut emissions, or mass whole sale slaughter of a majority of humans on this planet. Anything else is likely pissing in the wind. Seeing as how you will never get a consensus to cut emissions, I rather wait and see what mother nature has in store for us, we will either adapt or perish as most species that have existed on this planet have.

 

Cockroaches..

 

Silly. The snakes will have to learn to eat jellyfish, or they too will die..

When species start dying off en masse, it will cause a cascade of die-offs. In a situation like that, we'd need lots of AC and a means of producing a lot of food independent of fields, gathering and hunting, whether that means greenhouses or growing edible tissues by even more artificial means. This is all doable, of course, and it would mean a very big change in how we live on this planet.

 

We fantasy-loving geeks will be ready for adventures.

 

I voted green party. Total representation in government: Zero.

EDIT: Wait. To be more accurate, I should say that green party representation in government above the level of mayor: Zero.

 

Sure, but it's educated guesswork, which is different than just guesswork.

 

I disagree -- I think that getting rid of slavery was a lot more difficult than cutting back on pollution will be. It happened, though.

 

OR the fact that the tropics might end up being all desert

Or is that where the mythical drought resistant crops come in?

 

You are more then welcome to disagree and I respect your opinion, I just don't see it being backed by anything logical, factual or by any historical precedence. You are never going to get all the countries of the world to agree to cutting their emissions by anything significant. You are essentially asking growing economies to stop growing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/22/china-defends-carbon-emissions-growth

And when China hits the point talked about, and if they start to aggressively target co2 producers they will move onto another country with low per capita GDP with lax laws they can use to continue to produce. Probably Africa or some other south asia country. Face it you can't go to these countries and tell them that they have to deal with the standard of living they are used to right now. They will tell you to (*)(*)(*)(*) off, you live better then 99% of the people in the world in America, you have no right to tell them they should be stuck in poverty because you are afraid of warmer temps. You might as well make them slaves if you want them to live in the current conditions of worldwide poverty.

 

Right. Our system fails hard in the representative government dept. That's just how they like it, of course.