Political implications of global warming

deanhills · Apr 9, 2009

curious said:
Because the Great Depression was very, very bad and it is the only real reference point we have. I agree that what is being done will have a big impact, and my argument is that doing nothing, as some people are arguing here, had bad consequences in the past. The past is important because it gives us a chance to stop doing the same stupid things over and over again.

I think the Depression is perhaps used for the purposes of fearmongering and also to get US citizens to part with 1.2-trillion. Hopefully this reference to the Depression will burn out at some or other point in time, as I doubt that it is an accurate reference point.

The Parakeet · Apr 9, 2009

Yeah. Once we buoyed the banks up there was no real threat of a depression. We were really just in danger of "The Lost Decade" that Japan had.

Then again, most people didn't know about that, so the Great Depression was a better reference.

curious · Apr 13, 2009

I've been reading articles that refer to the current situaton as the Great Recession. I think that's a good name for it. Or I would if I didn't think there's a chance we'll still end up with a depression.

deanhills · Apr 14, 2009

curious said:
I've been reading articles that refer to the current situaton as the Great Recession. I think that's a good name for it. Or I would if I didn't think there's a chance we'll still end up with a depression.

All of it is with so little actual factual content. We still do not have a list of the major banks who needed to be bailed out, exactly what the value of the toxic debts are in a detailed account, and how the bail-out is being administered. All of it vague. We also do not have specific figures on defaulters of loans. I'm very cynical about the information that is presented to the media at those famous Government press conferences and all of these labels are serving specific purpose of manipulating and persuading in order to convince.

curious · Apr 17, 2009

Well, to get back to the original topic, which was the political implications of global warming...do you think it is possible to prepare, or at least game, some of the things that might happen if, say, the Greenland ice sheet comes off and the Gulf Stream stops, and we go into an ice age? Or is it all too fantastic and farfetched to even be worth thinking about?

Delta · Apr 17, 2009

curious said:
Well, to get back to the original topic, which was the political implications of global warming...do you think it is possible to prepare, or at least game, some of the things that might happen if, say, the Greenland ice sheet comes off and the Gulf Stream stops, and we go into an ice age? Or is it all too fantastic and farfetched to even be worth thinking about?

I think at the state we are in now, we are thinking of ways to stop the ice age, rather than prepare for it... so I'm guessing the threat is there, but not close enough to warrant emergency plans. For instance, there're talks of building a dam at the straight of gibraltar. I learned about it in a geology course - but here is a link to something that might explain it: http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let32.html

The Parakeet · Apr 17, 2009

It seems somewhat unlikely that it would ever get that bad. From what I remember, if the gulf stream stopped, then there'd be a 10 degree drop in temperature. We could survive that. The farming ranges would change and we'd have to adapt, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

That would even be unlikely to last. The beauty of global warming is that it generally self corrects. The heat would restore the status quo at some point. A warmer planet would cause more water to evaporate and fall as snow (rebuilding the ice caps).

The bigger problem would be the acid rain that those levels of pollution would cause. That would definitely wreck us.

curious · Apr 18, 2009

The Parakeet said:
It seems somewhat unlikely that it would ever get that bad. From what I remember, if the gulf stream stopped, then there'd be a 10 degree drop in temperature. We could survive that.

Well the human race would survive, but none of us would be living above the parallel of say, New York City, though more probably Philadelphia. It's hard to live on top of a mile of ice. A one degree average rise in temperature means that some places stay the same, and some places get warmer, and some may even be colder. A one degree (F) rise in temperature over the last century included a more than four degree rise in the Arctic. If that were a linear trend (I doubt it, but), that would mean a ten degree drop in average global temperature would mean a 40 degree drop in the Arctic. That means ice, and lots of it.

If there is lots of ice, the water has to come from somewhere, and we would have a lot less available in the rest of the world.

Even if the ice were minimal a ten degree drop in temperature would mean that we would not be able to grow crops in Canada, the Northern United States, and northern Europe and Asia (including all of Russia). That would mean that the world's population would be dependent on the areas close to or in the tropics. In case you haven't noticed, there really isn't much land there, it's mostly water.

The Parakeet · Apr 18, 2009

We could still survive though. We'd just have to convert a lot of infrastructure. That's why it's a really good thing that it would probably not happen.

The temp will go up a bit while we work out a good solution. There are natural ways to remove CO2 from the air. I hope that someone is trying to figure out a way to manipulate that and figure out a better way to handle it.

GekiDan · Apr 18, 2009

The Parakeet said:
We could still survive though. We'd just have to convert a lot of infrastructure. That's why it's a really good thing that it would probably not happen.

You mean we need to go underground to survive this natural phenomenon? Like the one we always see on disaster movies. When the Earth become deserted, most people build their homes underground to protect themselves in the very hot sunlight.

The Parakeet said:
The temp will go up a bit while we work out a good solution. There are natural ways to remove CO2 from the air. I hope that someone is trying to figure out a way to manipulate that and figure out a better way to handle it.

I hope the could manage to manipulate it soon. I'd like to see a machine that can absorb large amounts of CO2 in the air. That would be awesome.

The Parakeet · Apr 18, 2009

Well, if it ever got so hot that we couldn't live outside, then the rocks would crack and release a ton of CO2 and turn our planet into Venus.

GekiDan · Apr 18, 2009

The Parakeet said:
Well, if it ever got so hot that we couldn't live outside, then the rocks would crack and release a ton of CO2 and turn our planet into Venus.

That's a disaster. If that will happen, most people would just like to die instead of living in a hellish like planet.
What is needed to do now is prevent that from happening.

The Parakeet · Apr 18, 2009

The chances of that happening are probably less than us getting hit by the big asteroid in 50 years. Don't worry about it.

deanhills · Apr 19, 2009

Delta said:
I think at the state we are in now, we are thinking of ways to stop the ice age, rather than prepare for it... so I'm guessing the threat is there, but not close enough to warrant emergency plans. For instance, there're talks of building a dam at the straight of gibraltar. I learned about it in a geology course - but here is a link to something that might explain it: http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let32.html

I thought there was a movie about the eventuality of this happening: "The day after tomorrow" (2004). The Northern parts of North America shifted down to the south and Mexico took pity on the US and helped people who were fleeing ahead of the "freezing":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/plotsummary

The Parakeet · Apr 19, 2009

Yeah. It was very exaggerated though, so don't take that as your model

.

curious · Apr 19, 2009

I've just read a couple of interesting things.

One of the problems with warming in the north are the feedback effects. The smaller the ice cap gets (another record low minimum last summer), the more heat is absorbed instead of reflected (albedo effect - white reflects, dark water absorbs), which makes the ice cap melt faster, etc. If it gets warm enough to start melting the permafrost in Siberia, a lot of the greenhouse gas methane will be released into the air, setting up another accelerating feedback mechanism.

Some scientists think that we can handle another one or two degrees Farhenheit without disastrous consequences but that anything above that will be catastrophic.

The more I write and think about this the more any efforts to slow or stop global warming seem puny. And perhaps planning for the consequences of something with so many possible outcomes is perhaps too complex.

Delta · Apr 19, 2009

curious said:
I've just read a couple of interesting things.

One of the problems with warming in the north are the feedback effects. The smaller the ice cap gets (another record low minimum last summer), the more heat is absorbed instead of reflected (albedo effect - white reflects, dark water absorbs), which makes the ice cap melt faster, etc. If it gets warm enough to start melting the permafrost in Siberia, a lot of the greenhouse gas methane will be released into the air, setting up another accelerating feedback mechanism.

Some scientists think that we can handle another one or two degrees Farhenheit without disastrous consequences but that anything above that will be catastrophic.

The more I write and think about this the more any efforts to slow or stop global warming seem puny. And perhaps planning for the consequences of something with so many possible outcomes is perhaps too complex.

Haha, yea I'm studying for my geology exam as I type this and reading the chapter on global warming. There are predictions of major changes by 2050. Nothing that seems extremely catastrophic though, maybe some costal communities having to move inland and some islands being completely submerged.

CO2 emissions and clearcutting seem to be the main problem - and I don't see us stopping either of those any time soon - too much money in both.

curious · Apr 19, 2009

Delta said:
There are predictions of major changes by 2050.

The expectations are that the Arctic could be ice free in the summer by 2030. That's pretty soon.

Delta said:
Nothing that seems extremely catastrophic though, maybe some costal communities having to move inland and some islands being completely submerged.

The problem with moving 'a few coastal communities' is which ones. While many won't be affected by a small rise in sea level (probably caused by the expansion of ocean volume due to rising sea temperatures), it won't take much to put some into a world of hurt. A significant part of Boston, for instance, is built on landfill and is barely above sea level. Wahington DC has the same problem. And in Florida, along the coast, anything that is five or six feet above sea level is considered to be high.

Even if the cities are safe from flooding for normal levels, tides will be higher, and the effects of storm surges will be greater because the surge will be starting at a higher base.

Delta · Apr 20, 2009

curious said:
The problem with moving 'a few coastal communities' is which ones.

Well, pretty much all of the east coast of North and Central America will be effected. North Coast of South America, pretty much all coastal regions of Africa, all of Japans coasts, and most of the south and south-eastern side of Asia, all of the countries and islands between China and Australia and finally northern and southern parts of Europe (especially every country on the Mediterranean Sea.

deanhills · Apr 20, 2009

Delta said:
Well, pretty much all of the east coast of North and Central America will be effected. North Coast of South America, pretty much all coastal regions of Africa, all of Japans coasts, and most of the south and south-eastern side of Asia, all of the countries and islands between China and Australia and finally northern and southern parts of Europe (especially every country on the Mediterranean Sea.

I find this very interesting. I believe some of the islands such as in the Maldives will be disappearing too. How about Hawai? Do you think this will be gradually? One day we will wake up and the President will do another fear call to everyone for a 1.2-trillion bail-out package to sort out all the cities on the coast lines?

Political implications of global warming

Similar threads