[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
In article <4ui4cq$k7n@igc.apc.org>, tomgray
<tomgray@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>> [me]
>>>Global warming is going to happen over one or two
lifetimes.
>>>If it occurs as predicted, it's simply the equivalent of a
>>>Pinatubo on the plus side, happening a couple of times per
>>>decade, and cumulative instead of a one-time event.
>>
>>Admittedly, there are events which have altered the
>>atmosphere's temperature. However, if the probability is
>>almost nil over one lifetime, I do not consider these
events
>>to be particularly relevant.
>
>They are not particularly relevant to real-world scientific
findings
>concerning global warming. They simply show that your
statement that
>whether the atmosphere is too big a system to be altered in
a short time
>is a matter of opinion--is mistaken.
OK. Where is your proof that I am wrong on this one?
>
>>Regarding your statement that
>>global warming is going to happen over one or two
lifetimes,
>>there are a couple of questions that may impact what we
want
>>to do about it.
>>
>>How much warming will occur?
>
>Meaningless without a time period specified. The answer is,
lots.
>
>>How much will occur over a specified time period?
>
>The IPCC's Second Assessment Report, issued last fall,
predicts
>warming of 1 C to 3.5 C (1.8 F to 6.3 F) by the year 2100.
>
Assume the average of 4 deg F. Do you really think that the
earth, its inhabitants, its ecosystems, etc., cannot adapt to
a rate of change of 0.04 deg F per year? Let's get real
here.
>>Is this change so fast that nature cannot adapt to it?
>
>Think hard about this question, Charlie. What does it tell
>you? Nature will adapt to any warming, no matter how fast.
>What are you really trying to ask here? So fast that nature
>where you live won't be the same? So fast that some species
>will die? Figure out what you really want to ask and I'll
>try to comment.
I know perfectly well what I wanted to ask. Since adaptation
of species is well demonstrated, can you seriously expect
that species will go extinct from this rate of change? If
the affected species are that "wimpy", how did they manage to
survive this long? Again, let's get real here. Mankind has
never had the power or wealth to completely stabilize
something the size of this planet's climate. Worrying about
it and basing our efforts on our present meager understanding
is not going to have significant impact.
>
>>Is this change so fast that man cannot adapt to it?
>
>Almost certainly not.
I'm glad to see that you have some confidence in the
robustness of humans.
>
>But you are leaving out some other important questions:
>
>What is the likelihood that nature's adaptations to the
change
>will be harmful to flora and fauna? To humanity?
>
>What will be the cost to humanity of adapting to this
change?
>
>Is it more expensive to adapt to the change, or to try to
>slow or eliminate the change instead?
>
>>One pattern I have noticed in these postings is that people
>>seem to insist that no environmental impact whatsoever
occur
>>as a result of human activities.
Wrong. I admit that EVERY human activity has an
environmental impact. However, in many cases the impact may
minimal, or it may even be beneficial to some plants and
animals. Admittedly, some of our impact has been bad. But
this doesn't mean that all human impact is bad.
>
>I think this is a pattern that is in your own mind. One
reason
>may be that it is particularly easy to shoot down and so
makes
>an appealing target.
>
>>There is even an
>>implication that humans intervene in a way that we keep
>>everything constant where it is.
>
>This seems amusing. Since it is our intervention that is
>causing things to change, is it intervening to stop?
>Or is it ceasing our existing and unplanned intervention?
>
>>These implications do not
>>seem reasonable to me. In other words, if you want to
lessen
>>the impact that humans have on this planet, a good place to
>>start is with the number of humans on this planet. Some of
>>the posters in this group may be addressing the symptom,
>>rather than the problem.
>
>Certainly population growth is a major issue. But at the
>moment, here, we've been debating "human versus natural
>influences on the environment." Climate change seems like
>a perfectly natural area to be addressed by that debate.
The best way to decrease the human influence on the
environment is to decrease the size of the human population.
Period!
Follow-Ups:
References: