4 ms·

Yes, but I don't believe that impoverished populations who can't feed themselves anymore will be relocated graciously in say for example, Siberia and won't nece

• marcus_holmes 11y ago
  the rate of change is not unprecedented. The climate changed faster coming out of the last ice age, for example. Clearly nature can adapt to rapid change.
  • seren 11y ago
    Correct me if I am wrong but at the end of the last Ice Age we did not had 7 billions people. I find the terms "Nature", "Earth", etc really ambiguous in these kind of discussions. Sure "Earth" will be fine, will still orbit the Sun, even if it gets as hot as Venus. Cockroaches or water bears will inherit the Earth. But people worried are not really worried about "Nature" (at least I am not) but rather about the very people that are sharing the same and only habitable, in our reach at least, planet. Europe is considered in a major crisis for 3-4 millions Syrian refugees, now imagine if tomorrow there are 100 or 200 millions refugees moving all around the world. In the end, it is only a "people" issue.
    • marcus_holmes 11y ago
      We only had a few million people during the Ice Age. I live in Australia. An island inhabited by a few hundred thousand people using stone-age technology until colonisation. Now there are 25 million of us here. Yes Europe is having a problem with a few million refugees, but it's less of a problem than it had from 1939-45. And it recovered from that pretty quickly. We're used to a level of peace and comfort unparalleled in human history, and perturbations of that feel like TOTAL DISASTERS to us. We can cope and adapt to much greater events than we would ever believe watching the news. And yes, Nature will cope. So will we.
  • Oletros 11y ago
    > the rate of change is not unprecedented. The climate changed faster coming out of the last ice age, for example Do you have a source for that?
    • marcus_holmes 11y ago
      There have been a couple of articles talking about the rapid change coming out of the ice age recently. I didn't bookmark them because who has time for that? But I'm not making this up randomly ;) Feel free to ignore the point and my comment if you feel it insufficiently supported by peer-reviewed articles. I'm sorry I'm unable to assist your learning by giving you a solid reference.
      • Oletros 11y ago
        Well, as far as I know,. all the articles I have read say exactly the contrary, that the rate now is a lot faster than the one coming out from the ice age. Is because of that I ask your sources. From [0]: > As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. [0] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page...
        • marcus_holmes 11y ago
          well, 20 seconds googling turned this up: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097 http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-clim... Quote from the abstract: "One of the most surprising findings was that the shifts from cold stadials to the warm interstadial intervals occurred in a matter of decades, with air temperatures over Greenland rapidly warming 8 to 15°C"
          • Oletros 11y ago
            DO cycles didn't changed the Earth global mean temperature, they are regional changes.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
• ekianjo 11y ago
  > Change is not that an issue, the rate of change though... Rate is change is actually pretty slow in this case.
  • Oletros 11y ago
    > Rate is change is actually pretty slow in this case. Really? All the articles and papers say the contrary. Do you have anything to back your claim?