Rapid Global Climate Shift and its socio-economic effects

[Boston]

The question of who's responsible for the alterations in the atmospheric chemistry have been more than adequately answered on another thread in which its a common theme for deniers to distract from the scientific basis for the conclusion that mans burning of fossil fuels is entirely to blame with arguments concerning the political social and economic ramifications of taking significant action to fight the coming storm.

So I thought I'd take Bamby's suggestion and start a thread where its on topic to discuss the possible solutions. Personally I think its a bit late in the game for the easy solutions but maybe someone has some ideas that we might present to the larger community eventually.

The thing to always remember is that climate shift most definitely is having, and will continue to have a greater and greater effect on our ocean environment, which is of primary concern here at boatdesign.net.

[hoytedow]

This link will cover it all: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/ope...-13720-92.html

[michael pierzga]

Many obvious changes....the food you eat, water you drink.

Tropical diseases will move north. Agricultural pests will migrate.

Population densities in cities will increase because mega cities are efficient.



National security issues...Imagine the effects of global warming on an arid country like Mexico and its impact on the US ?

These changes will happen in this century.

[Boston]

One of the biggest problems that I see is the rapid onset of the change doesn't really allow for corrections to the infrastructure. Just think how hard it would be to move things like our developed water distribution systems. All those ditches and pump stations having to be redirected, even if it is just a short term solution.

Another big issue will be that once the organic carbons begin to release there may be no stopping it no mater what we do. And if your following the news recently there's a lot of concern thats exactly what the dramatic increase in methane seeps is pointing to

http://digitaljournal.com/article/316125

[michael pierzga]

Too much time has been spend on the causes of global warming and not enough on how to face the challenge.

Not correcting and hardening the infrastructure is a serious problem. Some of the changes needed will take decades and billions of dollars to implement.

If the west central US does indeed suffer a 30 percent decline in rainfall and frequent heat waves ,farming may be unsustainable in that region. Obviously investment in heat wave resistant crops and recycled or desalinated water will be needed.

Many hydroelectric dams may fail to generate power. Many water cooled power stations may need to shut down during droughts.

The Mississippi River and its navigation network ?

Big challenges.

[gonzo]

You imply that the cause of global warming, if it exists, can't be discussed. Then you state that there can be a solution. That assumes many things. Among them that humans have the power to change the world to a large extent. Mount St. Helen, in two days, produced as much air pollution as the whole of humanity in a decade. That is at levels before environmental controls like we have today.

[Bamby]

Yea, we can kill all the termites "they create a huge contribution"

Then Big O could spend billions covering the oceans of the world with a solar net thereby greatly reducing CO2 and also a huge potential source of "green power".

I guess maybe we're off to a good beginning. I've already solved far more of the problem than Boston has in "The Other Thread".

[Boston]

Originally Posted by gonzo

You imply that the cause of global warming, if it exists, can't be discussed. Then you state that there can be a solution. That assumes many things. Among them that humans have the power to change the world to a large extent. Mount St. Helen, in two days, produced as much air pollution as the whole of humanity in a decade. That is at levels before environmental controls like we have today.

Just trying to move forward with a constructive conversation as suggested.

The simple reality is that climate dictates many aspects of design, so how some folks can deny that climate is shifting is pretty surprising. I would think that those who plan ahead for the shifting climate in there designs will see there designs survive longer and those who refuse to acknowledge the realities of our shifting climate system.

The facts surrounding global warming and who's to blame are virtually irrefutable, but the subject does still come up from time to time among the less informed, we have a thread were those folks can post there issues and hopefully learn a few things about the basics concerning Rapid Global Climate Shift. That thread is very basic and deals with the scientific evidence supporting a scientific theory. Couldn't help but notice that most deniers are continually trying to ignore the science of a scientific theory, which I thought was kinda funny actually. But still it is what it is and some folks seemed to think that sticking to the science was ignoring the issues further implications within the socio-economic spectrum.

Seamed reasonable to have a forum where bringing up those types of issues wouldn't interrupt the scientific defense of a scientific theory which is the basics of the theory. Yes the tittle implies that we know exactly what the cause of Rapid Global Climate Shift is, we do. Some folks might be having trouble accepting that but still, its pretty well set in stone.

If anyone cares to engage in a science based discussion concerning that fact then we have a thread for that. If anyone wants to move forward and continue that discussion into what if anything we're going to do about it. Then this seems like as good a place as any as it doesn't disrupt a more rudimentary discussion of the scientific basics.

cheers and enjoy.
B

[Bamby]

Well since I've been banned "from the other thread" since our religious beliefs seem to run contradictory I've moved on first to understand our religious differences. I understanding ones differences is an important first step to any kind of meaningful compromise.

First researching and finding the religious sect that best fit in itself was time consuming. I had no idea their were so many different religions on the face of the earth!!! Let alone one that fit "Boston" but I was determined and am thinking I found his church.

A Gaian is a radical Green who views the ecology of the Earth's biosphere not only as the basis of human moral examples, but of all cognition and even sentience. Advocates of this view claim that since we live as part of one planet's photosynthesis chain and are trapped within its gravity well, we are effectively components of one large body—that being the global ecology of Earth itself.

Another name for this value theory is "radical values environmentalism," which holds that individuals and societies are ways to create such a thriving ecosystem, but cannot be considered as being ends in themselves.

Source

But personally I'm liking this definition of the cult better

From a Gaian activist's perspective the theory of Global Warming presents a dream scenario. It strikes at the very heart of 'Gaias greatest threat' - capitalism and modern industrial society. According to them without fossil fuels the world will be transformed into the Gaian's ecotopian vision of small sustainable human settlements, surrounded by protected wild-lands, and governed by some sort of United Earth Council. Global Warming provides a clarion call to which the 'environmentally aware' masses can rally. Skeptics are now commonly labelled as climate change-deniers, insinuating that they should be treated with the same contempt that holocaust-deniers deserve.

While those who embrace Gaia-worship may represent a small minority of the Green Movement they are often the most driven, active and influential members. I have been astounded to find that many of the most vocal politicians and scientists currently raising alarms about Global Warming, are also actively involved in the Gaia Cult and Deep Ecology. I had assumed that professional politicians and scientists would give little credence to the extreme views of these neopagan philosophies but, as I will demonstrate shortly, many of them actively and vocally espouse them.

This begs the question, is the real threat of Global Warming being used by Gaians to further their stated agenda of global transformation in which 'nature is sacred', or more deviously, has the theory of man-made Global Warming been fabricated as a tool to implement their earth-worship agenda? Based on my many hours of research I have concluded that the second scenario is the most likely. Once you had read enough eco-religious texts it becomes easy to spot Gaian terms and references in the speeches and statements of many prominent Global Warming activists. I am continually amazed at the language that these devout Gaians use to describe themselves and their 'mission'. And remember these are not the members of some fringe green New Age cult. These are people in positions of significant power and leadership. So lets take a close look at these leaders of the Global Green Agenda:

Source and continuation here: http://green-agenda.com/gaians.html

Have I found the right religion or should I keep looking

[Boston]

what in the world makes you think you were banned from "any" thread. All I suggest is that we stick to the thread subjects.

The other is concerning if man is the cause of climate shift. This one is concerning the social, political and economical issues involved

seems reasonable to me

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Bamby

Well since I've been banned "from the other thread" since our religious beliefs seem to run contradictory I've moved on first to understand our religious differences. I'm positive you don't have any idea what my religious beliefs are simply because my personal belief system does not include discussing it much. I'm also positive that your insinuating that a scientific standing can be likened to a religious one. In which case you'd be miles off. Religion is a mater of faith, science is a mater of fact. Since your very first premise is so wildly incorect I'd have to stop right there and suggest we clear this up before its going to be productive to move forward. So I'll delay further comment until we can at least agree on the difference between science and religion


I understanding ones differences is an important first step to any kind of meaningful compromise.

I'd be happy to discuss the issue of religion VS science and I think its a key element to finding some form of middle ground however the two concepts have wildly differing methodologies that are diametrically apposed to one another

One would be the belief in something intangible and as an act of "faith" its not considered "good" religion to question those intangibles.
The other absolutely requires tangibles and laboratory recreatable tangibles at that in order to "prove' scientific principals

They are completely opposite of one another

[CatBuilder]

Interesting post, Bamby. Was just reading about Gaia since I wasn't well aquatinted with the theory and it didn't read like your post.

In fact, the entire premise of the theory is that the whole biosphere is self regulating - meaning - if there is global warming and humans cause it, the biosphere will work things out by achieving a balance all on its own. (ie: maybe humans die off)

"The originality of the Gaia theory relies on the assessment that such homeostatic balance is actively pursued with the goal of keeping the optimal conditions for life, even when terrestrial or external events menace them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

From what I read in Wikipedia, Gaia theory is most closely related to the philosophy of the people who do not believe climate change is a big deal - the main message of Gaia being that things will all work out automatically.

[Submarine Tom]

The "science" is completely contradictory, therefore, it must all be dismissed.

Next, society has to want to make a change so the solutions are mute.

So, in the mean time, "Think globally, act locally".

Do your part.

-Tom

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Submarine Tom

The "science" is completely contradictory, therefore, it must all be dismissed.

The science it hardly contradictory, CO2 was one of the first gasses discovered way back in the 1500s, it was defined as a greenhouse gas way back in about 1830, this is extremely well established science. Combustion produces CO2, that's very well established basic chemistry. The CO2 produced has an isotopic signature, also basic grade school chemistry. The excess CO2 in the atmosphere can be identified as having been produced thought the combustion of fossil fuels using its isotopic signature. There is no contradiction. Mans burning of fossil fuels has increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere enough to raise average global temp, and is continuing to do so.

can you identify what part of the science you think is contradictory ?

Next, society has to want to make a change so the solutions are mute.

So, in the mean time, "Think globally, act locally".

Do your part.

-Tom

Cheers
B

[Submarine Tom]

Boston wrote: "can you identify what part of the science you think is contradictory ?"

I most certainly can, and thank you for asking, ALL OF IT!

Cheers right back at 'ya old man, and Happy Holidays my friend.

Remember: Do your part (actions that is, not just words...)

-Tom