US Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans ...

Post by jshen » Wed, Jun 17, 2009, 4:48 PM UTC

pj wrote: post #19

jshen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanting to avoid death, disease, and destruction is not the same as a general fear of change.

I read the post you are replying to as a jab at those who believe change leads to death and destruction. We could move the cities inland. We could optimize buildings to keep people cooler. We could find more efficient forms of energy to enable more indoor climate control. The current stress right now is to stop climate control. We humans believe we can stop climate control, but what if we can't? What if it actually i…

Post by philwelch » Wed, Jun 17, 2009, 5:26 PM UTC

lilsis wrote: post #15

pragmatic wrote: post #8

Just in time for one of the coldest summers on record. It's hard for people to fathom the thought of global warming while their local weather is in fact colder. Jared Diamond's Collapse is a good reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree and doom the island think as he used his stone axe? While I remain skeptical about global climate change, I can…

I do not believe that human contribution to global warming is significant. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, yet somehow it is never brought up in global warming discussions. Why is this? We've raised CO2 concentrations 100 ppm to 370 ppm... a concentration that's tiny in comparison to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... after all, we're on a giant ball of water. I subscribe to t…

Post by jshen » Wed, Jun 17, 2009, 5:52 PM UTC

pj wrote: post #32

jshen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, had to reply again. "I read the post you are replying to as a jab at those who believe change leads to death and destruction." What I was saying is that global warming will lead to death and destruction. "We could move the cities inland. " I love how people say this like it's no biggie. Let's hire some contractors and bam, city moved. LOL. I'm guessing it's a lot easier to reduce are use of fossil fuels than i…

China moved hundreds of millions of people away from the lake formed behind the three gorges dam. That's ultimately what will happen. Either we'll build levies around the whole continent to protect coastal areas or the people will move. It'll probably be a combination of both.

Post by jshen » Thu, Jun 18, 2009, 5:21 PM UTC

pj wrote: post #36

jshen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China doesn't have the same level of infrastructure as we do. Imagine trying to move large chunks of Los Angeles. That's a completely different animal isn't it? Doesn't it seem easier and cheaper to reduce our energy use than to move multiple cities like Los Angeles? I personally think it's a better idea to avoid serious problems than to accept the enormous pain that will come with ideas like "hey, change is normal".

I don't believe reducing our energy consumption is going to have much effect on global warming. I think the sun is way more powerful an influence on our climate than humans.