Thread: Three-Quarters of Climate Change is Man-Made

Not entirely, I realise I went a bit too extremist there.
Mostly, countries should be self-sustaining.
For example, there's nothing wrong with transporting some mobile phones or something to another country.
As long as it's not depleting one countries resources.
There is something wrong with continually transporting animals or fruit to another country.

If it is done in a sustainable and equitable manner, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Originally Posted by Xei

If it is done in a sustainable and equitable manner, I don't see anything wrong with it.

But it's not sustainable.

And what about transporting things like oil?
We should be using the resources our countries have.

If you really look into the studies and stuff, you would realize that we are already screwed. Global temperature would keep increasing even if we stopped all emissions because their is a lagging effect from when we pollute until we see the effects. Also as the earth gets warmer, there is gas trapped in the oceans that gets released. Which also increases warming.

So if we stopped all pollution on earth, and cut back to 0 emissions the planets temperature would still increase, the gas would release from the sea at a high rate, causing the warming to continue on at an increasing rate. Realistically we already passed the point where we will suffer large consequences for it. What people are trying to do now, is trying to avoid the catastrophic consequences.

I honestly don't think there is any will to change anything, and I think we are right on path to hit the catastrophic consequences that will probably result in billions of people dying. I think the only hope we really have is if we discover advance technology to help correct the stuff we already screwed up. Though I am hopeful on the technology side.

Originally Posted by Alric

If you really look into the studies and stuff, you would realize that we are already screwed. Global temperature would keep increasing even if we stopped all emissions because their is a lagging effect from when we pollute until we see the effects. Also as the earth gets warmer, there is gas trapped in the oceans that gets released. Which also increases warming.

So if we stopped all pollution on earth, and cut back to 0 emissions the planets temperature would still increase, the gas would release from the sea at a high rate, causing the warming to continue on at an increasing rate. Realistically we already passed the point where we will suffer large consequences for it. What people are trying to do now, is trying to avoid the catastrophic consequences.

I honestly don't think there is any will to change anything, and I think we are right on path to hit the catastrophic consequences that will probably result in billions of people dying. I think the only hope we really have is if we discover advance technology to help correct the stuff we already screwed up. Though I am hopeful on the technology side.

The tipping point is the 3.0c change. We're almost at 1.0c now. You think it's gonna lag that much?
Still, even if not, I agree with you because nothing is being done basically, and we are going to keep polluting and emitting greenhouse gases for the next 50 years at the least.
So, yeah, we're fucked.

The tipping point is basically you are screwed and we are all going to die if we go over it. We could all die even if we don't reach it. It is generally consider bad to get any where near the tipping point. They say if we want to be safe we need to make something like an 80% cut within 10 years. That is very unlikely to say the least.

There will never be 'catastrophic' consequences as is commonly portrayed, in the sense of ecological collapse or something; the planet has previously had ten times the CO2 concentration but only been about a degree warmer. So don't worry about an apocalypse.

Originally Posted by tommo

But it's not sustainable.

Why? What's inherently unsustainable about globalisation? The Earth isn't an isolated system.

I am not worried about an apocalypse per say but some people are more screwed than others. For example a place that gets all of its water from glacier run off wont have water anymore if they all melt. And people on the coast in low lying areas wont have land anymore if the sea level raises. Our water supply will get all messed up, but better water filtration systems and desalination plants will help. Instead of being basically free water will start having an actual cost for people, even in modern places like the US. A ton of animal species will die off and it will really suck, but some will adapt. They think like a third of them will die off though.

We will probably lose a few billion people, and there will be mass migrations across the earth to get out of the basically unlivable areas, but humans will still be alive.

Originally Posted by Alric

I am not worried about an apocalypse per say but some people are more screwed than others. For example a place that gets all of its water from glacier run off wont have water anymore if they all melt. And people on the coast in low lying areas wont have land anymore if the sea level raises..[snip]

These types of things are only problems if they happen overnight. If they happen over several generations (as your own IPCC says), then people can easily adjust.

A generation being 20 years, and not how long someone lives for which some people tend to think when generation is said. So 40-50 years, that sounds about right. It already started though, and people are trying to adapt. We will probably have fairly good luck with it until the more severe stuff starts happening. Some countries are still going to be screwed though. The US has a lot of land mass, and a lot of money. People here can move around, and try to use technology to adapt. In some smaller countries options are limited.

How does countries like China or India adapt to no longer having water? When I say a few billion people are going to die, I am mostly talking about the middle east which already has water issues, Africa which has bad development issues, India and China specifically for overpopulation issues. I doubt they are going to be able to adjust. US and Canada people should be able to adjust, and if parts of the US get really bad some might move up into Canada. So tons of people dying off here isn't as likely, but tons of people dying in other countries around the world is pretty much a given.

Originally Posted by Xei

There will never be 'catastrophic' consequences as is commonly portrayed, in the sense of ecological collapse or something; the planet has previously had ten times the CO2 concentration but only been about a degree warmer. So don't worry about an apocalypse.

Unless that apocalypse comes from destroying biodiversity. This is the first extinction cycle that is primarily caused by a single species, us. Life will continue, but it's going to seriously impact our ability to produce foods and continue to consume resources. (Plants need pollination, yet we're helping to endanger various pollinating species... that means less food for us.) But once our population starts thinning out (hopefully we won't have completely lost the rainforest) we can withdraw some of our wasteful misuse of land and natural resources.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Unless that apocalypse comes from destroying biodiversity.

You really don't want to be bringing ecology into this. You'll lose. Ecology says that the apex predator always goes extinct first in a mass extinction. Who's the apex predator? Humans, of course. So if we were in a mass extinction right now, us humans would already be extinct, or moving in that direction. However, human population seems to be increasing monotonically for the foreseeable future. But even if we were going extinct, you say that humans are the cause of the extinction. If this is true, then nature would start to recover immediately after we go extinct.

No matter how you look at it, there's no rational way to assign eco-guilt to the human race.

Originally Posted by cmind

No matter how you look at it, there's no rational way to assign eco-guilt to the human race.

I would have to disagree... I think we have cause an undue influence on natural cycles (for the lack of a better word, we've fucked up a lot of ecosystems for reasons unrelated to survival.)

I think you can assign a little guilt to using the majority of our land for farming non-native species not for survival, but for comfort. We're definitely guilty of damage to ecosystems and the environment, and I'm willing to take initiative to turn it around. People can choose to convince themselves that they aren't influencing things negatively; that's their own problem.

It won't hurt to stop increasing our carbon emissions, nor will it hurt to let certain ecosystems exist without us selectively removing species for our own use... so I don't see the big deal with taking a preservationist viewpoint, at least somewhat.

We KNOW some of the consequences of our actions, and we KNOW that we can prevent it. By ignoring our knowledge and acting regardless, we are guilty... (If a bank robber KNOWS it's illegal to rob a bank, and does it anyways... he's guilty.)

You can't really apply that to humans, who are far beyond all other animals on earth. If all our food sources died off we would just get new food sources, or even create artificial ones. It is easy to assign guilt to humans since there are things we known died off specifically because of us. Either we hunted them all to death, or destroyed their land so they had no where to go. You probably can't blame everything on humans, but you sure can blame some of it on us.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I would have to disagree... I think we have cause an undue influence on natural cycles (for the lack of a better word, we've fucked up a lot of ecosystems for reasons unrelated to survival.)

I think you can assign a little guilt to using the majority of our land for farming non-native species not for survival, but for comfort. We're definitely guilty of damage to ecosystems and the environment, and I'm willing to take initiative to turn it around. People can choose to convince themselves that they aren't influencing things negatively; that's their own problem.

It won't hurt to stop increasing our carbon emissions, nor will it hurt to let certain ecosystems exist without us selectively removing species for our own use... so I don't see the big deal with taking a preservationist viewpoint, at least somewhat.

We KNOW some of the consequences of our actions, and we KNOW that we can prevent it. By ignoring our knowledge and acting regardless, we are guilty... (If a bank robber KNOWS it's illegal to rob a bank, and does it anyways... he's guilty.)

This is called "Pascal's Wager". It downplays the costs of trying to reduce CO2 and exaggerates the costs of not doing it. It also introduces the false dichotomy of either having a state of pollution gone wild, or the government solving everything. It's sophistry and I won't engage with you.

Originally Posted by cmind

This is called "Pascal's Wager". It downplays the costs of trying to reduce CO2 and exaggerates the costs of not doing it. It also introduces the false dichotomy of either having a state of pollution gone wild, or the government solving everything. It's sophistry and I won't engage with you.

I didn't say it would be awful to do nothing, I just said it wouldn't be awful to do something... Where is my exaggeration of the costs of not doing it? I simply mention that we're guilty of not taking action when we've caused some of the problems...

Originally Posted by Xei

Why? What's inherently unsustainable about globalisation? The Earth isn't an isolated system.

Oh god .... Not this again....

No you're right, Earth is an isolated system and renewable energy doesn't actually function.

Originally Posted by Xei

No you're right, Earth is an isolated system and renewable energy doesn't actually function.

Until we can travel to other planets, Earth is an isolated system.

An isolated system is one which doesn't interact via mass or energy with its surroundings.

You are forgetting about the sun which is constantly bombarding the earth with its energy.

I think you guys know what he MEANT, but in scientific terms it's incorrect.

Earth's LIFE is restricted to Earth for now... we're stuck here and have to make the best of it for quite some time.

Wouldn't make any sense in the context, though; which was that there is nothing inherently unsustainable about the transportation of resources (i.e. globalisation).

Originally Posted by Xei

Wouldn't make any sense in the context, though; which was that there is nothing inherently unsustainable about the transportation of resources (i.e. globalisation).

Do we have infinite resources on Earth?