And the panacea to global warming is...

From what I understand, there is a "consensus" among just about every scientist worth their salt that global warming is about to kill us all.

No, just that there is climate change. This doesn't necessarily have to kill us.

Jaap,

Lets pretend that all out spewing of C02 and NOX and Methainoid gases into the atmosphere has zero impact as to the climate.

The CLimate is changing. Huge swaths of the world population live in border zones between forests and desert, known as savanna. That savanna will turn to very arid desert with the climate trends. all those people will be pushed north and south to more temperate areas just to survive. the influx will force countries to close orders, wars will break out.

now, aside from the population migrations that will cause havoc. lets look at the melting of the polar ice.
The north pole melting will not raise sea level because ice displaces more volume than liquid water, and the arctic ice is in open water, however, the ice is fresh water. a huge influx of arctic ice will change the density of the sea water which will cause devastating changes in the ocean currents. the Gulf stream will halt which will mean northern europe will not get the warm waters that regulate its climate, causing harsh harsh winters.

When the greenland sheet and the antarctic sheet fully melt, the ocean level will rise because it adds new water to the ocean. Costal areas will flood, further constraining the populations.

On to weather patterns. We already are seeing the change in hurricanes. More hurricanes, and more category 3 + Hurricanes are happening around the world every year. This is due to the added heat in the oceans between the tropic parallels. more heat in the water, more energy available to fuel hurricane formation, and more energy to fuel high powered hurricanes.

So, for the sake of argument, lets pretend we do not affect the climate with our activities. What are we going to do with the changes that are coming in order to survive?

So, for the sake of argument, lets pretend we do not affect the climate with our activities. What are we going to do with the changes that are coming in order to survive?

I never said we shouldn't arm ourselves against the consequences of climate change, or the same consequences from other causes. It's just that I don't think we need to apocolypsycal about it. It has been my viewing point for years that we shouldn't try to fight the causes of climate change, as we don't understand them well enough, and because it is quite hard. We should try to arm ourselves against the consequences of climate change, temperature changes, and the like instead.

Here's your panacea: reduce emissions. We already know how to do it. Plus, it will reduce our dependence on limited fossil fuels held by unstable countries.

30 years ago the argument was about global cooling. Now its about global warming. There are still too many variables to make accurate predictions on long term trends. (In geological time) There will definitely be warmer times ahead....and definitely be Ice ages ahead.

What environmental change can we not adapt to? Society may have to change dramatically for humans to survive but is that all bad. I agree that we all can benefit by being more efficient in our use of resources but not at the point of a gun, which is ultimately the result of wrapping this science with politics.(Change or else...Montreal...Kyoto)

The earth has been many degrees warmer and as I remember learning there were even lush forests in the antarctic region...Billions of years is a long time. /rambling

Noahfingway,

actually, the limit to what they could do in the 70's as to today is computing power. Our super computing clusters can spit out 60 teraflops of processing power. That is more than enough power to model the climate.

also, 30 years of study has expanded our knowledge of the variables that go into climate formation. Today's models might not be perfect, but they are certainly accurate enough to raw conclusions from them.

Here's your panacea: reduce emissions. We already know how to do it. Plus, it will reduce our dependence on limited fossil fuels held by unstable countries.

There is model based research which suggests that because of the emissions we have been able to put an ice age on hold, and as soon as we stop releasing CO₂ and the like, it will arrive. Secondly, next to biofuels, which don't decrease the release to zero, and nuclear energy, with all it's own problems, alternative energy sources such as solar energy isn't nearly efficient enough. Actually, most if not all of the solar energy systems used cost more conventional fuel to make, than the will produce in their entire lifetime.

Biofuels are a net zero emission. the carbon they release has been drawn from the atmosphere.

noahfingway said:

The earth has been many degrees warmer and as I remember learning there were even lush forests in the antarctic region...Billions of years is a long time

uhhhh.....

you are aware that the antarctic plate has not always been at the south pole, right?

Biofuels are a net zero emission. the carbon they release has been drawn from the atmosphere.

They are not, as machinery and other materials produced using conventional energy is needed to produce them. Such things are quick and often forgotten in the equations.

I think you need to update your information.

and we were talking about the BURNING of biofuels (which BTW, can be used in their production)

and we were talking about the BURNING of biofuels

You were.

which BTW, can be used in their production

Agreed. Still, that doesn't (completely) change my argument. I never doubted the need for the use of biofools.

Sorry, biofuels.

Ctrain, I don't mean this to seem dis-respectful, but do you really understand global warming? If you spend 1/2 hour in the garage with your car engine running (N.B. I do NOT recommend you do this!), you'll find there is AN EFFECT.
This is, however, a crude inexact model of what is happening. You can't dump decades of fossil fuels into the atmosphere on unprecedented scales, and assume that the fragile balance of the natural (tens of thousands of years) carbon cycle is just going to go along merrily.

You make points that, frankly, only betray your ignorance.
Are we truly facing global warming? And if so, so what?
You need to examine the relationship of the ecology (which believe it or not, YOU are a part of), and what effects temperature change will have on it. Try coral reefs dying off... that sort of thing.
You not a "nay-sayer". You are just poorly informed. There is a wealth of information on the internet. I recommend you do some more research, and then we can talk.