Climate Change and Civilisation

[[AOD]]

From a blog post I wrote today:

I'd have to say that it was reading Neil Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" which did it for me. That book outlined the reason for the dominance of European culture over all others in today's world was not due to any inherent racial superiority, nor the fortune of 'great leaders', but due simply to the favourable geography of Europe which led to the historical developments that it did, or at least favoured them -- such as the development of firearms and the creation of the capitalist economic system.

But this idea led me to take it one step further. If the success of European culture could have been attributable to a favourable geographic placement, then what was it that ultimately determined the shape and nature of human history? It was, of course, the nature of the global climate. Allow me to give an example: the global climate sets the initial geographic conditions -- such as rainfall, temperature means, plant types, distribution of animal species, biodiversity, &c. -- which must in turn, lead to some human populations favouring a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, while others favour an agricultural civilisation. It's the same ethos which has caused the rise of many, say, river-based empires in which social hierarchies are determined by control of river floods and agricultural organisation -- examples are ancient China and Egypt.

If we look at numerous historical patterns, we can see the influence of the prevailing climate. For example, the Little Ice Age -- from about the 13th - 17th centuries, corresponds with the complete dissociation of what remained of the Roman Empire (including the Byzantine Empire) -- which itself may have been on decline due to an incapacity to grow sufficient agricultural crops to feed its population. It corresponds with an increase of feudalism, regionalism, the spread of warlordism and banditry, Viking invasions, Mongol migrations, the Black Plague, and the entrapment of society in a superstitious religious paroxym that saw demons, witches and ghosts in all corners. That is, while specific events in human history have many, complex causes, the harsher global climate set the tone of human society -- harsher, grimmer, and more desperate in response to the greater difficulty of making a living.

Looking further backwards, we see the beginnings of human agricultural civilisation around 10,000 BC. Why 10,000 BC? Because this date corresponds with the end of the last glacial epoch -- the Younger Dryas. The warming climate would have made hunting and gathering based upon following large animal migrations (in combination with overhunting) less efficient for many peoples, especially those around the middle east, where the earliest records of human agriculture exist, since large animal migrations are usually triggered by large seasonal variations in temperature and plant cover. Contrarily, agriculture based upon arid-tolerant semiannual grains such as barley, millet and wheat, would have become more important to increasingly sedentary peoples. Now, agriculture must needs require a substantial organisation of human society -- there must be coordinated labour efforts during the growing seasons, the construction of communal granaries, and efforts at providing crops with required irrigation. It is these primaeval driving forces which prompted most agricultural civilisations to develop as they did, and we do not see evidence in the paeleontological record of human beings having done so before, during the Ice Age -- we instead see a wide diversity of hunter-gatherer cultures across the world.

Well, given such knowledge, what can we say for our present civilisation? It is characterised by growth during a period of very favourable climatic stability; the agricultural successes made in the last two hundred years have contributed to a massive explosion of human population. This increase in a global labour force has corresponded with higher demand, and an increase in the tempo of economic activity in order to fulfill the needs of 6.3 billion individuals. Yet, for every economic, scientific, and social advance brings a rise in human populations -- fewer people are dying early, more people are becoming affluent, more children are born. This population is set to double by mid-century at latest.

And all these changes are attributable to a favourable climate. I would even venture to say that the present climate is the reason why technology has progressed the way it did.

However, human civilisation as it is, is teetering on the edge of a knife, juggled by a wily and capricious juggler. We know from geological records that the climate has changed abruptly before, and that it can do so again. It is a scientific fact that human beings are changing the climate. We know from our knowledge of meteorology that any perturbation of a dynamical, chaotic system such as the global atmospheric patterns, can lead to drastic and unpredictable changes. And, most worrisome of all, evidence that these changes are already well underway is coming up all the time.

Here is the dire conclusion to which I have come: that the climate is posed to change abruptly within the next century. History has shown us that climatic changes -- often those for the harsher -- tend to correspond to declines in civilisation. And I am terrified to imagine what will happen when these two forces: a ballooning human population, effulgent upon its own economic inertia, and a collapsing global ecosystem incident upon a drastically changing climate, come into intersection. An ecological and social crisis is fast approaching, one which will set the tone for all life on earth for next million years or so.

These forces have such inertia, are so massive, that it is nearly impossible for a single person to comprehend them all at once -- the burden is immense. We are being swept away in a tidal wave of change. But the burden is upon US to make the decisions that determine whether or not life survives on this planet.

I am desperate to find an answer to this question, this most fundamental question of all time: how can human civilisation reconcile itself with a climate that is fast becoming inhospitable to all life? How can human civilisation survive the coming century? Or does it deserve to survive at all?

Say civilisation collapses at the mercy of the climate. Then we shall start all over at the beginning again, and in a world of a much harsher climate, what shall be the tone of the civilisations which develop ten thousand years hence? Will we end up making the same mistakes, unto an already-deprived world? Might that not shatter a fragile, recovering ecosystem forever?

Here we come to the central tenet of my thoughts nowadays: How can the Ecocide be averted?

This question fills the core of my being. Every day I am searching for a way to answer it.

I am open to suggestions.

@!~AOD

[Perk_daddy]

That's a tough one. As far as global climate change is concerned, I just can't trust any of the information I dig up because it's become such a political issue; any info you can get is just going to be biased to suit the agenda of one group or another.

From what I can gather, though:

1- I'm willing to accept the reality of global warming, and the fact that spewing gunk into the air is bad. However;
-I would like more data that shows that mankind is responsible for it.
-I would like more data that shows that global warming is actually bad. Thirty years ago we were being told that the next ice age was coming; so didn't global warming prevent a disaster if that's true? (which I doubt it was anyway). How do we know global warming is as bad as we're being told?

2- Every future prediction of doom I've seen doesn't account for the facts that a) human beings are resourceful and we keep coming up with handy new scientific achievements that change the face of our society. Alternative energy sources are being discovered as we speak; they just need to be developed to the point where they're realistically usable. Also, b) some problems (like overpopulation) take care of themselves naturally without someone trying to bilk you into their cause.

[War]

If we look at numerous historical patterns, we can see the influence of the prevailing climate. For example, the Little Ice Age -- from about the 13th - 17th centuries, corresponds with the complete dissociation of what remained of the Roman Empire (including the Byzantine Empire) -- which itself may have been on decline due to an incapacity to grow sufficient agricultural crops to feed its population. It corresponds with an increase of feudalism, regionalism, the spread of warlordism and banditry, Viking invasions, Mongol migrations, the Black Plague, and the entrapment of society in a superstitious religious paroxym that saw demons, witches and ghosts in all corners.

I don't quite see how the little ice age corresponds with the Byzantine Empire, the Roman Empire or the Vikings. These all predate the little ice age by up to half a millenia (depending on the dates used). Feudalism was in decline at the start of the little ice age, not on the increase. Because you didn't throw out the term 'Dark Ages', I'll assume you were refering to the general religious paroxysm of the times (the Dark Ages also predate the little Ice Age).

1- I'm willing to accept the reality of global warming, and the fact that spewing gunk into the air is bad. However;
-I would like more data that shows that mankind is responsible for it.

It's been known for a long time that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (chemical fact, it absorbs infrared). All the oil, coal and gas we burn has been locked underground for millions of years. So we released CO2 that has been safely stored away. Because there's now extra CO2, the greenhouse effect is a little stronger (the greenhouse effect isn't a bad thing, it's only bad when you start heading the way of Venus). An increased greenhouse effect means a warmer Earth.
The controversial bit is just how much of an effect we're having, and what the long term effects could be. Can't really deny that we're doing something.

[Grabmygoblin]

I keep telling myself to read Guns Germs and Steel. the basic theory has been incorporated into many of my classes so I'm familiar with it, but actually reading it for myself would probably help me.

is global warming a bad thing? depends on your point of view- do you like your current lifestyle? I believe we will survive it, but we're going to see our current way of life disappear- it's just not sustainable. and I'm ansty about some of the predictions- the Northeast US is not used to hurricanes, and third world nations are already hurting from the climate change... we're going to see a lot of death from natural disasters in this new century... not to mention lose most of the current biodiversity. poor bumblebee bats...

but it's not all bad news. change can be a good thing. we will accomidate to the changes, and maybe work to make a better way of life. my ultimate dream is that with such a worldwide-felt disaster, we will unite, maybe bringing a new era about... but then my realism kicks in and I get all dour.

edit: oh yeah, one other thought- we need to get over our refusal to use nuclear power. we're way too dependent on coal still, and if we want to slow global warming at all, we need to stop using it. at least with nuclear power the waste is condensed into one small gob of extremely dangerous stuff, whereas with coal we're just spewing tons and tons of pollution and ultimately hurting ourselves far more.

[MixedMyth]

<tangent>
Heh. Here I am an anthro student, an I haven't read it. I even own a copy. I did see the series that Jared Diamond did, though. It was a mixed bag. To be honest, he overemphasized guns, germs, and steel. There's no doubt that all these things had a huge impact on history, but to focus solely on them is to oversimplify things.

For example, the Spanish invasion of the Inca. There is NO doubt that plague had a huge impact. It decimated populations, even before the Spanish themselves arrived. It traveled ahead of them through other peoples. However, he greatly overemphasized the role of guns and steel. If it hadn't been for the plague and several other points, there is no way a handful of Pizaro's men would have gotten as far as they did. You see, what he fails to mention is that the Inca were sort of in the middle of a civil war...sort of. There were two brothers in line for the throne, both paranoid beyond belief and engaged in all sorts of intrigue and backstabbing. Not only that, but the Incan army was exhausted from fighting a campaign at one of the borders. There's also the fact that the Inca were actually a small ruling group who dominated other surrounding cultures, much the way Rome did...so these peoples found it easy to ally with the Spanish as they were none to pleased at being under Incan control.

So you see what I mean about oversimplification. Hell, when Euopeans came to Mexico an Aztec sword could behead a freakin' horse.
</tangent>

As for global warming...I wish I knew. We need alternative, clean burning fuel, and badly. However, I think that there needs to be fundimental changes in our society in the way we prioritize the environment and activly measure our impact on it. THIS is going to be just as hard, in my opinion, particularly coming from a very consumerist culture where our impulse is to use things up and then toss them.

I will say one thing, though...I'm very surprised that nothign in the news has ever mentioned the impact that jets have, as it is quite significant.

[Dutch!]

Australia really probably can't use nuclear power in any substantial way, unfortunately, no matter what side of the debate you are on. I think it would be a good option to replace the dirtier power supplies, but that's beside the point. We couldn't have major nuclear power because it requires so much water. We just don't really have enough.

That first 50 years of the 20th Century were the wettest recorded. The last 50 were a fair bit drier. The last 50 of the 19th Century were actually drier still (at least, according to the records I read through). Based on that, seems that we're going through another cyclic dry period, although it's a little tough with the droughts down here at the moment. The data doesn't go back further though.

A bloke in the paper wrote in with his argument. He has the average rainfall for his district (about the size of one of the smaller American states) since 1869. Yes, at the moment this is a dry period, but it's nowhere near as bad as it was several times over that 137 year period.

I'm with Perk Daddy. All depends on the way people use the data and for what agenda they have with it.

I'm undecided, but don't want to jump to conclusions.

[War]

Australia really probably can't use nuclear power in any substantial way, unfortunately, no matter what side of the debate you are on.

Why not? Yes, Australia does have other options open to it, solar and wind could both be very effective, but why rule out nuclear power completely?

[SergeXIII]

Sorry for the tiny post in comparison to the others, but I tend to answer such things through smaller questions.

Does Man and Society desire the same thing? Does Civilization wish for survival, or immortality/perfection?

[RemusShepherd]

When I was a kid, I was intensely worried about the heat death of the universe. If it's all going to end like that, what's the point? Of anything?

Some things are going to happen, and there's not a thing we can do to stop them.

You should also be aware of Toffler's rule of paradigm shifts: Whatever problems we have today will be completely overshadowed by the problems we will have tomorrow. War ravaged the 19th century; nuclear war threatened the 20th. Epidemics of known diseases are passe; now we worry about resistant pandemics. Illegal immigrants today; robot uprisings tomorrow. Drought and famine yesterday; global climate catastrophe on its way. It's all part of the same theme.

The good news is that the old problems become old problems because we solve them. We just have to keep solving the problems we're faced with as soon as we recognize them. As long as we keep up with our escalating disasters we'll be fine.

[Dracomax]

I am not entirely sure that we are having a real time effect on the environment. GLobal warming, we know is real, because we can measure temperatures. HOwever, We also know that for all of human history, we have been more or less in an ice age. Geologocally speaking, it's incredibly rare to have large quantities of ice, if any, at the caps, or to have snow fall over large parts of the world.

Not only that, but each year, volcanoes pump millions of tons of greenhouse gasses and ash and such into the atmosphere. Much more than humans do.

However, Chaos theory tells us that complex systems react unpredictably. We are just as likely to end up triggering a reocurrence of the ice age as unending heat. There is science that shows that it could happen over the course of a couple hundred years.

The problem that people worry about with global warming is related to computer models. Every computer model keeps saying that warming is not only going to accelerate, but spiral towards infinite.

Even though I am not convinced that human contributions to global warming are significant enough to matter, however, I do agree with most of the things brought up to stop it. Polution needs to be brought down(incidentally, recycly causes as much if not more polution than trashing it) The polution in the oceans are killing off bacteria that produce most of the oxygen in the air. It also leades to serious health issues and porrer food sources.

Reducing the amount we use, of electricity, waste, and other things will help recources to last longer. using cleaner technologies can't help but help us in the long run.

It just goes on and on.

So yeah, climate change is imminent and unstoppable, but it's also natural. We do need to do what we can to keep other problems from compounding, and to deal with reality.

[Grabmygoblin]

Not only that, but each year, volcanoes pump millions of tons of greenhouse gasses and ash and such into the atmosphere. Much more than humans do.

I'm not sure about that... I think volcanoes can pump much more into the atmosphere than humans currently produce, but for the moment, unless the supervolcano beneath Yellowstone goes while I'm typing this, I'm pretty sure we're the number one contributor.

[MixedMyth]

While it is true that we have been in colder than normal climates for most of human history, with mini to large ice ages here and there, what we have to look at isn't whether or not it's warming up, but the comparative rate at which warming is increasing. If it is now suddenly warming at such an accelerated rate that is unequaled during any other part of HUMAN history, then it is pretty suspect. See, we can take into account the gradual warming, but if it suddenly spikes during recent years...that's something else again.

[Dracomax]

Not only that, but each year, volcanoes pump millions of tons of greenhouse gasses and ash and such into the atmosphere. Much more than humans do.

I'm not sure about that... I think volcanoes can pump much more into the atmosphere than humans currently produce, but for the moment, unless the supervolcano beneath Yellowstone goes while I'm typing this, I'm pretty sure we're the number one contributor.

\
i actually got it out of a geology book. volcanoes beat us handily.

[Grabmygoblin]

However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcano ... fects.html

Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

wait, here:

The 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines was one of the largest in the past 100 years. The injection into the stratosphere of 14-26 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide led to a global surface cooling of 0.5°C a year after the eruption. The climatic impact of the Pinatubo aerosol was stronger than the warming effects of either El Niño or human-induced greenhouse gas changes during 1991-93.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/g ... _2000e.htm

so kinda what I was thinking- one big release by a volcano can contribute far more than humans do, but those volcanoes only go every few millenia, whereas we're constantly pumping it.

[[AOD]]

That's a tough one. As far as global climate change is concerned, I just can't trust any of the information I dig up because it's become such a political issue; any info you can get is just going to be biased to suit the agenda of one group or another.

From what I can gather, though:

1- I'm willing to accept the reality of global warming, and the fact that spewing gunk into the air is bad. However;
-I would like more data that shows that mankind is responsible for it.
-I would like more data that shows that global warming is actually bad. Thirty years ago we were being told that the next ice age was coming; so didn't global warming prevent a disaster if that's true? (which I doubt it was anyway). How do we know global warming is as bad as we're being told?

2- Every future prediction of doom I've seen doesn't account for the facts that a) human beings are resourceful and we keep coming up with handy new scientific achievements that change the face of our society. Alternative energy sources are being discovered as we speak; they just need to be developed to the point where they're realistically usable. Also, b) some problems (like overpopulation) take care of themselves naturally without someone trying to bilk you into their cause.

Well, if you'd like more data, I'd try for starters to go to Wikipedia for a good primer on the subject, peer-reviewed by many users (many of whom are, in fact, atmospheric scientists -- check out the 'history' page on that article). But if you really want to cut your teeth, try going to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for some in-depth (and very technical) information on the science of climate change. Bear in mind that these are government agencies with staffs of literally thousands of scientists. You must ask yourself if you want to read political editorials in newspapers or actual science -- if you're interested in the science, by all means educate yourself. In addition, here's a blog written by climatologists, for climatologists (also rather technical): Real Climate

To address your question of 'how do we know global warming is really real if [you atmospheric scientists] were predicting global cooling 30 years ago? Well, to put it bluntly, it's because computer models have become increasingly reliable in the last 30 years. In fact, the actual science of climatology has only taken off in the last 20 years, much of it enabled by the development of modern supercomputers. From what I've learned in atmospheric science, the ability of modern forecasters to predict the WEATHER -- which changes on the order of hours to days, far more quickly than climate -- has more than doubled since thirty years past. Modern simulations are far, far more accurate than the computers available to forecasters and climatologists 30 years ago.

My concern with climate change lies chiefly in positive feedback. That is -- global warming could accelerate climatic processes which reinforce existing warming. One good example is methane-induced global warming from the release of methane and other hydrocarbons locked in permafrost in sub-Arctic soils and at the ocean floor. (1). That is, methane is a greenhouse gas that is about 23 times more effective at absorbing infra-red (or heat) radiation, than carbon dioxide -- methane, per unit mass, warms the earth 23 times more than an equivalent unit mass of carbon dioxide. Permafrost, a stable layer of frozen soil which contains large quantities of plant matter trapped since the last Ice Age, should it melt, facilitates microbial decomposition of the plant matter. Now, recent research shows that methane is being released from arctic permafrost, at such a rate that it prevents winterly re-freezing. That is: the arctic permafrost is melting and releasing methane gas due to decomposition, and it is doing so throughout the year. As it is pointed out in the article, there are vast quantities of such methane in Alaskan and Siberian permafrosts.

Sudden release of methane would increase global temperatures, thereby catalyzing the further release of methane.

My interest in positive-feedback processes such as this, is one of the reasons why I've decided to study atmospheric science. Part of me simply enjoys the physics of meteorology -- predicting and observing the titanic energies which go into, for example, the creation of a thundercloud; or the vast atmospheric patterns which lead to a massive mid-latitude storm that stretches over half a continent. But another part is intensely interested in learning about climate change, and in seeing how the effects of global warming may reinforce and amplify themselves.

@~AOD

[Jesusabdullah]

Hmm.

For now, I'm going to assume that what [AOD] says is mostly true, or as true as such theories can be. Part of me, though, either tries to ignore it or debate it. I think specifically of the volcano argument.I've also heard that cows make more greenhouse gasses than we do (though, by raising them, I suppose it really is us), as well as the argument that it's "just a phase." Further, in my experience, it usually seems that scientists that study anything natural tend to say, "this needs more study." I have noticed that this usually applies more to scientists studying the long term effects of what we're doing now (for example, the effects ANWR drilling would have on the refuge) than what has happened (like, the warming of the Earth and Man's activity on said warming). Plus, I've seen some of the graphs myself, and have heard a lot more smart people claiming global warming/humanity's causing of it than for the opposing case.

This is somewhat interesting to me because I do live somewhat North. Like, in [AOD]'s comic, I noticed discussion of the spruce beetles. I remember that! It was a big deal here. I've also heard a lot of people talking about how the elders in the native villages say that they've seen warmer winters lately. But maybe that's part of why I rebel at the thought. See, the town in which I grew up had a very high concentration of hippies. Along with the rest of their very liberal agenda (which they pushed without mercy through my schooling), they also brought along the idea of global warming. That's not to say that liberals are bad and/or wrong, it's just to say that the ones I grew up around may have been overzealous, or at least just came on too strong. At any rate, perhaps I'm just rebelling against the atmosphere in which I grew up. Also, I think part of me wants to say that those elders are just doing the whole "Back in my day" bit, where they exaggerate everything.

Back to politics: In general, it seems the issue of global warming has been politicized in a bad way, with democrats arguing for protective measures while the republicans argue its irrelevancy. This irritates me because I am generally conservative (fiscally anyway), but that doesn't mean I want everything else in the Republican platform associated with that (because, you know, in America you're either Democrat or Republican. ) The point though is that I think a lot of conservatives/Republicans (even me, to an extent) probably ignore/disbelieve global warming only because of the party stances.

But to answer [AOD]'s question at the end: How do we fix it? Even if global warming is a scam, I think that undoing and/or staving off human polution is still something worth persuing. I've already heard of plenty of technologies/solutions--putting the gasses back in the ground where the oil came from, pumping it into the deep oceans where it won't bother our atmosphere so much, planting vast forests to soak up the carbon dioxide, seeding massive algae blooms to soak up some of the CO2, converting to fuel cells/a hydrogen economy, cranking up our use of solar panels, using less power in general, etc., etc. Certainly staving off our polution is possible, if not undoing our earlier damage. The problem, then, isn't how to fix the problem, but in how to convince society as a whole that it's worthwhile.

(This probably seems obvious.)

So, I suppose, convince us all that without a doubt that there will be serious consequences. I'd imagine this is tough--I mean, I know the facts, and I still don't take it seriously. Saying that the entire world will be damaged by our cars' exhausts sounds kind of radical (nevermind that cars are only a small contributor). Plus, even though I am personally at least half-heartedly convinced, I'm still not worried enough to do my part. I'm still keeping my computer on all the time, not turning off lights when I should, buying things regardless of the pollution associated with them*, etc. (And, by a free market model, if people cared enough then suppliers would pollute less so that people would buy their stuff, etc.You laugh? I do too. >_> )

Then, I guess that all that is left is getting the governments/businesses to work together to make less carbon dioxide. (I'd suppose too, that the government could throw money at it too--that is, subsidies/tax cuts for those that pollute less, funding for projects that try to make "alternate energies" affordable, that sort of thing.)

Anyhow. Apologies for the rambling nature of this post. I'm kind of tired.

*That'd be interesting, to see how much pollution was caused when the things I buy were made. Like, CO2 emmissions per box of pop tarts I buy, or whatever. Anybody know if there is data on that?

EDIT: Shit! I forgot to ask about your opinion on that one Crichton book. I may have mentioned it before, I don't remember.

[Grabmygoblin]

from what I've read about State of Fear, Crichton basically took single factoids out of pages and pages of scientific research and ignored whether the rest of the paper supported the theory of global warming or not.

there's a lot of articles availible online that tear apart Crichton's "research", but few are unslanted. still, here's a few links, the first from groups which generally do not align themselves politically.

Popular Science
NPR- Science Friday edit: I should note I have not listened to this one yet.
Boston Globe
NYT Book Review

NRDC
Real Climate
Union of Concerned Scientists

look, even the Bush Administration has acknowledged that global warming is a real event that humans have a hand in and is causing problems. the question is not "is global warming real?" any more, it's "what are we going to do about it?" and "how bad will it be?"

[Jesusabdullah]

You're probably right about State of Fear. Has anyone actually read it though?

I did, and I thought that while it was interesting, it felt like he was rationalizing what he wanted to believe. Like, I would have thought the argument a lot stronger if he acknowledged global warming but claimed that its effect would be weak--instead, he pretty much outright dismissed the claim. Also, his characterization was weak. Everybody felt like mouthpieces for his claims. In other words, the Pop Sci article (the one I looked at) is pretty much spot on.

[MixedMyth]

No, I havn't read it. Despite liking the first Jurassic Park movie and reading the book, I can't get into his novels very much. His characters drive me crazy...they're always self righteous super genius asses. ;D Or just plain annoying.

I remember in high school biology we had to write an epilogue to the book...GREAT assignment....but we had sort of an informal running competition for the most creative way to kill the girl. I think I had her preserved in amber.

The two biggest problems I see with global warming both have to do with time. That being 1. can we inovate fast enough and change out the current systems safely and quickly? And 2. are the people in charge going to get up off their asses quickly enough to do it?

[Kisai]

As far as I'm concerned Global Warming IS happening, but I also believe that we should have done something 15 years ago. It's not too late, but it's also too late to get get governements to do anything because of bloody Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. One of the crackpots in Iran or North Korea launches a nuke and hits someone, global warming becomes moot as nuclear winter sets in and/or we all die from the radiation.

But as to the argument of "oh noes, sea level rise", that IMO is mostly fiction, most of the surface is not going under the sea. The western coast of north america is rising from the glaciers melting, but at the same time it's human arrogance that builds in parts of the contenant that is sinking and eroding (Lousiana, Florida are sinking.) If all the glaciers melt, chances are some parts of the eastern seaboard in the americas and western europe are going under, and significant parts of south asia.


Also to the nuclear plant issue in Australia. Australia exports uranium. I don't see why they can't build them, but maybe they just don't want to. It could be like BC, Canada, no nuclear plants here, nearly all hydro electric. (There are only so many rivers, and you sink fertile land by building dams.)