[Byte1]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So, we essentially stated the same thing. You agree that human activity did not create our current global warming, which has been going on for 20,000 years. The only point of debate is whether, and to what extent we have "sped up the process". At the extreme, some say not at all, and others cite 5 years. Both are highly unlikely, in fact, since the polar ice caps did not disappear in 2010 as predicted in 2001, the 5 year hypothesis can be chucked in the trash where it belongs. Probably thousands of years, but that guess is just that----a guess

Some would call that "common sense."

[JMintzer]

This flies in the face of our resident "Chicken Little"...

🌍 NASA: The Earth is greener now than it was 20 years ago

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So, we essentially stated the same thing. You agree that human activity did not create our current global warming, which has been going on for 20,000 years. The only point of debate is whether, and to what extent we have "sped up the process". At the extreme, some say not at all, and others cite 5 years. Both are highly unlikely, in fact, since the polar ice caps did not disappear in 2010 as predicted in 2001, the 5 year hypothesis can be chucked in the trash where it belongs. Probably thousands of years, but that guess is just that----a guess

Our difference, indeed, seems to be the time factor to eco-disaster for human kind. You seem to believe it is nothing to be concerned about. I think it is a problem that is already making itself known, and the sooner we begin to address it, the sooner we can correct it. Like a car accelerating downhill, the faster it goes, the more ground it will cover and it will take longer and be harder to stop. We are "oiloholics", and the first step is acknowledging that we have a problem.
If we don't begin soon, then I can imagine coastal cities where, instead of taxi's, people will get around in gondolas, like in Venice, Italy.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Our difference, indeed, seems to be the time factor to eco-disaster for human kind. You seem to believe it is nothing to be concerned about. I think it is a problem that is already making itself known, and the sooner we begin to address it, the sooner we can correct it. Like a car accelerating downhill, the faster it goes, the more ground it will cover and it will take longer and be harder to stop. We are "oiloholics", and the first step is acknowledging that we have a problem.
If we don't begin soon, then I can imagine coastal cities where, instead of taxi's, people will get around in gondolas, like in Venice, Italy.

I think you’re focusing on the wrong catastrophe, you’re not tuned in to what really is happening. Potential, determined terroists are a far bigger threat now than any global warming threat.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Our difference, indeed, seems to be the time factor to eco-disaster for human kind. You seem to believe it is nothing to be concerned about. I think it is a problem that is already making itself known, and the sooner we begin to address it, the sooner we can correct it. Like a car accelerating downhill, the faster it goes, the more ground it will cover and it will take longer and be harder to stop. We are "oiloholics", and the first step is acknowledging that we have a problem.
If we don't begin soon, then I can imagine coastal cities where, instead of taxi's, people will get around in gondolas, like in Venice, Italy.

Here's the problem with that reasoning:

Even if there wasn't a single human, or cow fart on Earth, in 20-25,000 years all that "eco-disaster" flooding of coastal cities and global temperatures of 4-6 degrees higher would occur ANYWAY. It has happened dozens of times in the last 4 million years without any help from humanity, and it will happen again. The last time it happened was about 15,000 years ago----and the evidence is cities off the coast of India and Japan, and possibly in the Caribbean and Mediterranean that predate the start of the latest warming cycle and are now under 200 feet of water since they were built on the coastline of the time.

So, even given the chicken little scenarios, all we could do is reduce/eliminate human contribution (by living in the stone age) and everything they fear will HAPPEN ANYWAY. Now, if the great concern is that we accelerate the time frame so it happens in 15,000 years instead of 25,000, have at it. By all means spend 100 trillion dollars to "combat" it. Unfortunately, that would be a fool's errand. To those who think it will happen in 5, or 50, or even 500 years---get off Fantasy Island, that isn't even remotely close to reality.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Aces4

I think you’re focusing on the wrong catastrophe, you’re not tuned in to what really is happening. Potential, determined terroists are a far bigger threat now than any global warming threat.

Rogue states, terrorists, are indeed a problem. And the pressure of over population only makes it worse.
But the focus here is climate change. War could be another thread.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Here's the problem with that reasoning:

Even if there wasn't a single human, or cow fart on Earth, in 20-25,000 years all that "eco-disaster" flooding of coastal cities and global temperatures of 4-6 degrees higher would occur ANYWAY. It has happened dozens of times in the last 4 million years without any help from humanity, and it will happen again. The last time it happened was about 15,000 years ago----and the evidence is cities off the coast of India and Japan, and possibly in the Caribbean and Mediterranean that predate the start of the latest warming cycle and are now under 200 feet of water since they were built on the coastline of the time.

So, even given the chicken little scenarios, all we could do is reduce/eliminate human contribution (by living in the stone age) and everything they fear will HAPPEN ANYWAY. Now, if the great concern is that we accelerate the time frame so it happens in 15,000 years instead of 25,000, have at it. By all means spend 100 trillion dollars to "combat" it. Unfortunately, that would be a fool's errand. To those who think it will happen in 5, or 50, or even 500 years---get off Fantasy Island, that isn't even remotely close to reality.

If "we" weren't here, then "we" wouldn't have a problem. But, we are here. 8 billion of us, with numbers growing exponentially. The negatives of our current existence is also growing exponentially, and the 15,000 to 20,000 year time frame you give is quite likely much, much less than you think. Changes happen ever faster. We seniors will be gone before long and we won't be overly affected. But those very close behind us better learn to swim (tongue in cheek). Waterworld is on the way and Fantasy Island will be no more.
Living in the stone age is not required. Lowering birth rates and learning to make the best use of new technologies in all industries, from farming to manufacturing. Serious recycling of resources. Lots can and should be done to begin halting further destruction of the earth.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

If "we" weren't here, then "we" wouldn't have a problem. But, we are here. 8 billion of us, with numbers growing exponentially. The negatives of our current existence is also growing exponentially, and the 15,000 to 20,000 year time frame you give is quite likely much, much less than you think. Changes happen ever faster. We seniors will be gone before long and we won't be overly affected. But those very close behind us better learn to swim (tongue in cheek). Waterworld is on the way and Fantasy Island will be no more.
Living in the stone age is not required. Lowering birth rates and learning to make the best use of new technologies in all industries, from farming to manufacturing. Serious recycling of resources. Lots can and should be done to begin halting further destruction of the earth.

Maybe. But there is absolutely no scientific data to support a time frame. There is only conjecture, guessing, magical thinking and extrapolation of short term weather records. None of this supports neither a 15,000 nor 50-year time frame. However, I suspect those "closely behind us" will have as much in common with us as we have with cavemen. And they may very well have the technology to deal with the "problems we leave them"

[sounding]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

If "we" weren't here, then "we" wouldn't have a problem. But, we are here. 8 billion of us, with numbers growing exponentially. The negatives of our current existence is also growing exponentially, and the 15,000 to 20,000 year time frame you give is quite likely much, much less than you think. Changes happen ever faster. We seniors will be gone before long and we won't be overly affected. But those very close behind us better learn to swim (tongue in cheek). Waterworld is on the way and Fantasy Island will be no more.
Living in the stone age is not required. Lowering birth rates and learning to make the best use of new technologies in all industries, from farming to manufacturing. Serious recycling of resources. Lots can and should be done to begin halting further destruction of the earth.

Golfing Eagles is correct. And, regarding destruction, CO2-induce, man-made global warming will destroy plants that aren't protected from global cooling -- Friday morning.