5 ms·

Glaciers supply summer water. Regardless how you feel about how things "should" be, in practical terms, we have a strong vested interest in their ability to sup

by ip26 8y ago

Glaciers supply summer water. Regardless how you feel about how things "should" be, in practical terms, we have a strong vested interest in their ability to supply water year round, both for our own use and to support local ecosystems that provide us with services. They have high albedo as well; their retreat is decreasing the albedo of the terrain. This isn't their most important feature, but they are a piece in the puzzle of keeping temperatures stable, and stability is good for us.

ThomPete 8y ago
Nature has never been stable especially not for humans so that's hardly a useful premise. If anything we have made it more stable because we are better at handling all the things it throws at us. I would still ask those most worried to point to a scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we don't know how to deal with or that they believe we won't be able to find solutions for over the next 50-100 years or so. Edit: It's funny how downvotes are being used instead of argument by people I assume consider themselves on the side of science.
- titzer 8y ago
  You're being downvoted for trotting out well-worn and eye-roll inducing ignorance. It'd be one thing to approach this conversation with an open mind, but just stating blanket nonsense raises hackles. > Nature has never been stable especially not for humans Yeah, it changes on geologic timescales, i.e. thousands and millions of years. We've subjected nature to catastrophic shocks 1000x faster. It does not respond well. It collapses. We're in the middle of shit storm because of our own actions. It is absolutely not business as usual for Earth. > I would still ask those most worried to point to a scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change We're not really sure how Earth is gonna function if the oceans are dead and there are no insects, and parts of it are literally uninhabitable for humans because it will be too hot to go outside (~130F). > If anything we have made it more stable Nonsense. We chopped down most of the forests in the US [1] to make farmland. Literally. My home state of Indiana was _literally_ solid hardwood forest 250 years ago. Take a look at it on Google maps sometime. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_St... Edit: added handy reference
  - explainplease 8y ago
    > Nonsense. We chopped down most of the forests in the US to make farmland. Literally. My home state of Indiana was _literally_ solid hardwood forest 250 years ago. Take a look at it on Google maps sometime. That's the only evidentiary argument you tried to make, and it's factually wrong. More of North America is forested now than 250 years ago. The rest of your comment is argument to absurdity and bare nonsense. Your beliefs are like a religion.
    - titzer 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_St... Prior to European colonization: 1,023,000,000 acres Today: 766,000,000 acres If that is too complicated for you to process, please take a look at the graphics on the page. Btw I don't do religion. Let's do facts instead.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        In what world is that in any way supporting your claim that: "We chopped down most of the forests in the US [1] to make farmland. Literally. My home state of Indiana was _literally_ solid hardwood forest 250 years ago. Take a look at it on Google maps sometime." So 25%
        titzer 8y ago
        Look at the graphic on Wikipedia from 1926. There were virtually no virgin forests in Indiana left at that time.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        I am looking at your claim which was and I repeat "We chopped down most of the forests in the US" That's factually wrong in so many ways especially seen in the light of your entire comment to me.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > Nature has never been stable especially not for humans so that's hardly a useful premise. Sure, but making it more unstable is clearly worse for us. Sure, we have ways of making even the most unstable environments survivable (like the Moon!) but saying that we should just make things worse and hope that we can undo it in 50 years isn't a really good strategy.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Again how is the world more unstable?
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Global warming increases the extremes of natural disasters, doing things like making deserts drier and creating larger storms.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        But we are better at dealing with extreme weather. More people survive extreme weather than before. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/resources/weather_fatalities.pdf http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/resources/weather_fatali... I would really encourage you to stop for a minute and start digging into the data. You will be shocked when you realize how little is based on actual facts.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  You dismissed mass migration and civil war with a single sentence. You're either being intentionally inflammatory or in denial about how close to home these effects are going to be. Humanity may survive, yes, but civilisation as we know it will regress to a large degree if the world leaders are as flippant about the issue as you are. Software will not solve climate change, no matter how many startups you create and sell. Climate Change is a human lifestyle addiction problem that affects the suppliers of the lifestyle more than the consumers - until the number of suppliers start dwindling and then the consumers wonder why their coffee habit starts costing so much. Addictions and habits aren't easy to break even individually, much less for a whole society. Rising oceans, changing climate zones, less arable land, fewer food resources, civil unrest, mass migration, resource wars, economic collapse. (edit: the first three are things in the above list are already occurring, the rest are logical extensions).
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I didn't dismiss them I just don't believe they are impossible to deal with. Again you are just listing a bunch of things that might or might not happen without any evidence: 1) that they will happen, 2) that we can't deal with them if they happen. 3) when they will happen. Yet you consider yourself the rational one.
    - germinalphrase 8y ago
      Legitimately curious: how do you "deal with" mass migration? Societies don't deal particularly well with large influxes of migrants.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        You deal with it as it happens. It's not like it will happen one day. It will also happen over time and yes create tensions. But the solution is not as some ex want to stop the moderns world and growth. On the contrary it's to make those countries richer so they can deal with the other consequences of a changing climate like the resto of us. Again we are discussing the difference between accepting there are some consequences of the climate changing and then these catastrophist claims that the world is going to end and we can't deal with it.

by ip26 8y ago

ThomPete 8y ago

Nature has never been stable especially not for humans so that's hardly a useful premise. If anything we have made it more stable because we are better at handling all the things it throws at us. I would still ask those most worried to point to a scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we don't know how to deal with or that they believe we won't be able to find solutions for over the next 50-100 years or so. Edit: It's funny how downvotes are being used instead of argument by people I assume consider themselves on the side of science.

titzer 8y ago
You're being downvoted for trotting out well-worn and eye-roll inducing ignorance. It'd be one thing to approach this conversation with an open mind, but just stating blanket nonsense raises hackles. > Nature has never been stable especially not for humans Yeah, it changes on geologic timescales, i.e. thousands and millions of years. We've subjected nature to catastrophic shocks 1000x faster. It does not respond well. It collapses. We're in the middle of shit storm because of our own actions. It is absolutely not business as usual for Earth. > I would still ask those most worried to point to a scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change We're not really sure how Earth is gonna function if the oceans are dead and there are no insects, and parts of it are literally uninhabitable for humans because it will be too hot to go outside (~130F). > If anything we have made it more stable Nonsense. We chopped down most of the forests in the US [1] to make farmland. Literally. My home state of Indiana was _literally_ solid hardwood forest 250 years ago. Take a look at it on Google maps sometime. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_St... Edit: added handy reference
- explainplease 8y ago
  > Nonsense. We chopped down most of the forests in the US to make farmland. Literally. My home state of Indiana was _literally_ solid hardwood forest 250 years ago. Take a look at it on Google maps sometime. That's the only evidentiary argument you tried to make, and it's factually wrong. More of North America is forested now than 250 years ago. The rest of your comment is argument to absurdity and bare nonsense. Your beliefs are like a religion.
  - titzer 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_St... Prior to European colonization: 1,023,000,000 acres Today: 766,000,000 acres If that is too complicated for you to process, please take a look at the graphics on the page. Btw I don't do religion. Let's do facts instead.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      In what world is that in any way supporting your claim that: "We chopped down most of the forests in the US [1] to make farmland. Literally. My home state of Indiana was _literally_ solid hardwood forest 250 years ago. Take a look at it on Google maps sometime." So 25%
      - titzer 8y ago
        Look at the graphic on Wikipedia from 1926. There were virtually no virgin forests in Indiana left at that time.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        I am looking at your claim which was and I repeat "We chopped down most of the forests in the US" That's factually wrong in so many ways especially seen in the light of your entire comment to me.
saagarjha 8y ago
> Nature has never been stable especially not for humans so that's hardly a useful premise. Sure, but making it more unstable is clearly worse for us. Sure, we have ways of making even the most unstable environments survivable (like the Moon!) but saying that we should just make things worse and hope that we can undo it in 50 years isn't a really good strategy.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Again how is the world more unstable?
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Global warming increases the extremes of natural disasters, doing things like making deserts drier and creating larger storms.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      But we are better at dealing with extreme weather. More people survive extreme weather than before. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/resources/weather_fatalities.pdf http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/resources/weather_fatali... I would really encourage you to stop for a minute and start digging into the data. You will be shocked when you realize how little is based on actual facts.
BLKNSLVR 8y ago
You dismissed mass migration and civil war with a single sentence. You're either being intentionally inflammatory or in denial about how close to home these effects are going to be. Humanity may survive, yes, but civilisation as we know it will regress to a large degree if the world leaders are as flippant about the issue as you are. Software will not solve climate change, no matter how many startups you create and sell. Climate Change is a human lifestyle addiction problem that affects the suppliers of the lifestyle more than the consumers - until the number of suppliers start dwindling and then the consumers wonder why their coffee habit starts costing so much. Addictions and habits aren't easy to break even individually, much less for a whole society. Rising oceans, changing climate zones, less arable land, fewer food resources, civil unrest, mass migration, resource wars, economic collapse. (edit: the first three are things in the above list are already occurring, the rest are logical extensions).
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I didn't dismiss them I just don't believe they are impossible to deal with. Again you are just listing a bunch of things that might or might not happen without any evidence: 1) that they will happen, 2) that we can't deal with them if they happen. 3) when they will happen. Yet you consider yourself the rational one.
  - germinalphrase 8y ago
    Legitimately curious: how do you "deal with" mass migration? Societies don't deal particularly well with large influxes of migrants.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      You deal with it as it happens. It's not like it will happen one day. It will also happen over time and yes create tensions. But the solution is not as some ex want to stop the moderns world and growth. On the contrary it's to make those countries richer so they can deal with the other consequences of a changing climate like the resto of us. Again we are discussing the difference between accepting there are some consequences of the climate changing and then these catastrophist claims that the world is going to end and we can't deal with it.