[Wapiti]

So what is the proper response to man made global warming? (Just assuming for this thread that is undisputed fact, so as to not make another debate thread here.) If it's real, So what? Why should I care?

[Synchronicity]

The fear is that, as temperatures rise globally, the livability of the planet will be negatively affected in a number of ways (depending on how hot it gets). It seems the biggest concern is that the polar ice caps will melt and cause the sea level to rise, destroying large centers of population, since we all know how much human civilization loves living near the ocean. Then there's the general discomfort of above-average temperatures, and the effect it would have on plant and animal life not suited to it. It will also cause us to consume more resources in our attempt to cool our living spaces, further depleting them and presumably exacerbating the warming problem with increased pollution. There are other potential issues that are cause for concern, but I am less informed about them.

The best way to obviate the problem would be to reduce consumption of pollutant-creating sources of energy such as hydrocarbons. This can be achieved by switching to different sources of energy that to not produce greenhouse gases and/or reducing our energy consumption though increased efficiency and decreased use.

[LaoTzu]

I think it would depend on the magnitude of warming, and/or other effects that come along with climate change.

Trending away from fossil fuels is a good start; and we are led to believe it is going on right now. I'm not so sure it is... but there's only so much of it anyway.
I'd support advanced and heavily funded research into alternative energy...bringing together the greatest minds the world can offer into one place; rather than an 'every nation for itself' approach.

Anyone know if there has been a calculation done of the effect that burning all known reserves of coal/oil would have on the climate???

[Wapiti]

Fear is what I hear. I'm not afraid so why should I care? I can move inland or farther north and so can everyone else. Wait, I already am inland so again, why should I worry? People currently live in hotter environments than I currently live in now so that shouldn't be a problem. What if global warming is a good thing? It will open up new areas for plant and life growth will it not? Global warming will only cause more energy resources, in a hotter environment, to be consumed if efficiencies aren't improved and alternatives aren't developed which will be a problem itself as oil isn't going to last forever and if people don't decide to move to cooler areas. And oil isn't going to last forever. Won't the emissions from oil sort of take care of themselves as alternatives will have to be found if people want to drive as they do now?

[Night Runner]

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not afraid so why should I care? I can move inland or farther north and so can everyone else. Wait, I already am inland so again, why should I worry?

Indeed. Here is my opinion: a single individual won't make a dent in the global climate. Even if a lot of individuals come together and radically alter their behavior, a lifetime's worth of effort will be offset by a polluting factory somewhere in China/India running for a few days. The only real change will come through cooperation of multinational corporations and world's governments, but even then there will be lots of finger-pointing, name-calling and other such yelling. The point is, unless you're a superhero, you can't change a thing - all this "going green" craze is only to make people feel better about themselves.

So I do nothing. I still use paper plates and use the most convenient and price-efficient (as opposed to "greenest") products and services. It's a fact that Northern Nevada (where I currently live) will be among many regions to suffer the overpopulation and lack of fresh water. When that happens (or, better yet, before), I'll have enough money saved up to move someplace a lot more suitable for humans. Those who will suffer the most will be the poor and the stupid. Those who plan and have resources will always survive...

[Thinker]

We have to look at this as a period of transition. What needs to be done is not something which can be achieved quickly. Many western economies are based around low energy costs.

The demand for energy (per household) has increased significantly in the west every year for the last 20 years.

How do you tell a family who is about to buy their first house, that they don't need a 250 square metre (2500 sq ft) house with an airconditioner, plasma TV and everything that opens, shuts, cooks, boils and mulches?

How do you teach the building industry to use different techniques which will save energy over the life of the building? Energy efficient building practices have been known about for hundreds of years, and yet we still get domestic dwellings with very little thought applied to energy efficiency.

How do you solve the problem of hundreds of millions of existing high energy use housing stock, which just face the wrong way (East/West) and therefore need significantly more airconditioning/heating.

There are also the sovereignty issues of each country. Why should Australia (or the US, Canada or China) give away a competitive advantage because they have abundant fossil fuels? The solution is to find ways (or at least exhaust the possibilities) of using fossil fuels and sequester the C02.

Alternative energy sources aren't there yet. Wind power in Australia is on the uptake. At the moment, the electricity generated by wind power is wasted. Coal fired boilers cannot be turned on and off quickly, which means if wind power is supplying electricity to the grid, the coal fired power station needs to make a decision whether to stay on or turn off. It can take 8 hours to shut down, and a further 24 hours to start up again. Wind power works well in conjunction with Hydro, but Australia has very little water, and the hydro schemes are typically tied into irrigation timetables.....you get the picture...it is not simple....and there is no political imperative to educate the masses on the real problems.

I am not saying that there aren't solutions, but just that it is not simple to make quick changes.

I have never really understood why many people still commute to work every day for clerical work. I work from home around 2-3 days per week. This saves energy.

The price of energy will go up. It needs to go up rapidly in order to change behaviour in the west. A doubling of energy prices will not lead to rapid change. I am guessing that a tripling or quadrupling of energy prices will be needed to achieve any real accelerated change.

[Arkeph]

Increased efficiency is good, but it's been noted that it helps in only certain cases where commodity use is relatively inelastic (in other words, people won't use 10% more just because it costs 10% less).

I think it's too late to seriously entertain replacing all of our energy needs with renewable sources before serious climate changes become inevitable. We need to switch to nuclear power, and do it quickly.

We need to focus on agricultural advances so that we can grow the food supply to match the population, even as farmland becomes less productive. That means building infrastructure to get water to places that will lose precipitation and glacial melt water.

We need to anticipate the needs of countries that will be most heavily impacted by climate change and plan ahead so that the resources are available to minimize the damage and disruption of economic activity.

Whether this is accomplished by governments or by individuals is, in my view, largely a matter of semantics.

[Avelas67]

I think we should be looking, as said previously, for alternate sources of energy.
I remember hearing that engines that ran at least partly on water have been built (economical though I have no idea), that ran on electricity (fully) and in that there is the possibility for water/electric powered cars which probably exist somewhere.

Although I personally wouldn't mind if cars were put off for only people physically incapable of riding a bike/taking a bus/walking etc. Theres also the ability to put millions of tiny mirrors into space to reflect offending sunlight away from us. Though neither are not too realistic, it would be quite cool.

And of course there is the flip side to this, elimination of the hydrocarbons already up there. If we could someone eliminate them faster then they are created (or somewhat near it) we needn't change at all. Of course the combined action is what I'm liking so far.

Many people have wanted to plant greenery in an attempt to have them utilize the CO2, others believe photosynthetic algal blooms will take a nice amount of it away (this method from memory only required nitrogen to be effective in reducing CO2, no idea about the effects on the ecosystem however). Hell, I've studied microbiology from a professor who had theories on engineering an ideal microbe which instead of producing CO2, produce something usable to the livestock in which they inhabit (as livestock tend to 'fart' a lot and release CO2 into the atmosphere. In New Zealand where I am the farmers have to pay their way based on what land they have or something similar). I have also heard ideas (only an idea, I'm not sure if this is even feasible) to catalyze reactions to change the CO2 into something less blanket-like.

[Pandemonium]

Yes, it is an undisputed fact that we have contributed to the warming from the mid 1700s to 1998 of the liberal estimate of 0.17 kelvin using IPCC 1955 figures.

We should we engage in activity to reduce the amount of CO2 that we emit? Hell no!

Based on current rates of emissions by the end of the century the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will be in the ranged of 566 to 700 ppm. This represents roughly a 0.8 to 1.7 kelvin increase of mean global temperatures (the ranged accounts for different values of climate sensitivity, feedback factor and forcing). However, this range in fundamentally flawed due to such concepts of peak oil, peak coal and anthropogenic carbon dioxide residence time (7 to 15 years). Some estimates state that we have 20 - 40 years of oil and 60 years of coal left. Hence by 2070 we would have stopped depending on these sources of energy for base load power and by 2077 to 2085 the earth would restore to a natural level of CO2 concentration, what ever that maybe.

Using the most basic theory of neo-classical economics as a commodity becomes more scarce and demand increases the cost of that commodity increases. Hence, substitution commodities become more economically viable. Subsidizing industry promotes inefficiencies in the production process, this would have a net negative impact. If substitution technologies/commodities compete, efficiency is promoted and inefficiencies are removed.

[rufsketch1]

I'm not sure if you're being satirical or not. But on the off chance that you're serious:

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fear is what I hear. I'm not afraid so why should I care? I can move inland or farther north and so can everyone else.

No. They can't. For two reasons. First, by having everyone move closer to each other (inland) you're increasing the density of people in a given area. This generally leads to some pretty shitty living conditions. Second, not everyone can move like it's no big deal. For the huge majority of humanity, moving under such conditions means having to start their life almost from scratch (houses aren't cheap, and jobs won't be easy to find for a very long while). And for the poor portion of humanity, moving is the difference between poverty and homelessness. Ultimately, they wouldn't have a choice in the matter, but this is no justification for dramatically reducing the quality of life for so many people.

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	People currently live in hotter environments than I currently live in now so that shouldn't be a problem.

And what will become of those people who already live in that hotter climate? You expect all of India to move to Europe?

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What if global warming is a good thing? It will open up new areas for plant and life growth will it not?

You mean new areas for agriculture? From a total sum standpoint, this seems unlikely. But even worse than that, anywhere with a climate suitable for growing plants will be deemed suitable for living. And since there is less overall land available (due to heat and flooding), this land will inherently have people on it with conflicting interests. Some will be looking for a place to grow food, and some will be looking for a place to live. Combine this with the current problem scarce farmland availability and you have a recipe for something rather unpleasant.

One bright note at least; lack of farm-able land means we'd have to give up our reliance on meat products (cows consume way more food than do people, and they feed way less people than the food they eat can). I welcome this, but I doubt most other people would be especially happy to hear it.

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Won't the emissions from oil sort of take care of themselves as alternatives will have to be found if people want to drive as they do now?

Who's to say those alternatives would necessarily have less harmful emissions? That is of course, the general trend. But if the only motivation is "I want to drive as I currently do", then lower emissions are in no way guaranteed.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It will open up new areas for plant and life growth will it not?

Desertification will reduce the amount of arable land. It already is. We used to be at around 190 trees per person on the planet, now we're at around 60. Trees regulate water. This is why we're having water problems, and why vast stretches of land are becoming dead desert.

	Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	One bright note at least; lack of farm-able land means we'd have to give up our reliance on meat products (cows consume way more food than do people, and they feed way less people than the food they eat can). I welcome this, but I doubt most other people would be especially happy to hear it.

Fact check. An integrated farm, with multiple inputs (not just plants) produces more food and more arable inches of topsoil than a farm with single vegetal input.

If we need to produce massive amounts of food on small scales, the way will be multiple-input sustainable permaculture, which can support more people per acre than current agribusiness monoculture cropping. Life expands to fill every available niche; food webs developed to be multiple-input for a reason.

Less animal protein? Yes.

No animal protein? Only if you want to starve.

[Marcia]

Everything changes so gradually. People adapt.

[Wapiti]

Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No. They can't. For two reasons. First, by having everyone move closer to each other (inland) you're increasing the density of people in a given area. This generally leads to some pretty shitty living conditions. Second, not everyone can move like it's no big deal. For the huge majority of humanity, moving under such conditions means having to start their life almost from scratch (houses aren't cheap, and jobs won't be easy to find for a very long while). And for the poor portion of humanity, moving is the difference between poverty and homelessness. Ultimately, they wouldn't have a choice in the matter, but this is no justification for dramatically reducing the quality of life for so many people.

People live pretty well close together now in places like New York and any other major city. Obviously no one can move like it's no big deal. There is not enough inland infrastructure at the moment to support such living conditions. But with the fear being that the ice caps melt and certain places currently inhabited become under water, well that's a big deal that would require people to start their lives over in some fashion. I think the poor would find it the easiest of all to move as they haven't much in the way of possessions tying them to a particular area.

	And what will become of those people who already live in that hotter climate? You expect all of India to move to Europe?

I don't really care what they do. They can crank down the A/C like Synch is talking about or they can move elsewhere. Should I be concerned about where or how they decide to live? That is much of my question here. What is the correct response to global warming? What should I be thinking about global warming in relation to how it's going to affect other people? Should I stop driving my car now? Should I impact my current standard of living negatively to improve the future living conditions of people I know not?

You mean new areas for agriculture? From a sum total standpoint, this is seems unlikely. But even worse than that, anywhere with a climate suitable for growing plants will be deemed suitable for living. And since there is less overall land available (due to heat and flooding), this land will inherently have people on it with conflicting interests. Some will be looking for a place to grow food, and some will be looking for a place to live. Combine this with the current problem scarce farmland availability and you have a recipe for something rather unpleasant.

So the far north, Iceland, Greenland, tundra covered areas will be deserts uninhabitable? Am I to believe the entire planet will be a vast, arid desert? Somewhere around 14.5 to 17 million years ago it's estimated that Alaska was 25-30 degrees warmer and was not a desert.

One bright note at least; lack of farm-able land means we'd have to give up our reliance on meat products (cows consume way more food than do people, and they feed way less people than the food they eat can). I welcome this, but I doubt most other people would be especially happy to hear it. Who's to say those alternatives would necessarily have less harmful emissions? That is of course, the general trend. But if the only motivation is "I want to drive as I currently do", then lower emissions are in no way guaranteed.

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Desertification will reduce the amount of arable land. It already is. We used to be at around 190 trees per person on the planet, now we're at around 60. Trees regulate water. This is why we're having water problems, and why vast stretches of land are becoming dead desert.

The fact that there are fewer trees now sounds more like a problem of global forest management than global warming. Did increased CO2 emissions cause trees to disappear or were the trees cut down?

	Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not sure if you're being satirical or not. But on the off chance that you're serious:

Satirical yes but really, what should my response be to global warming? What should I and everyone else think about it? What should we the people do about it?

[Arkeph]

	What is the correct response to global warming? What should I be thinking about global warming in relation to how it's going to affect other people? Should I stop driving my car now? Should I impact my current standard of living negatively to improve the future living conditions of people I know not?

I, at least, view the world with a sense of ownership, and it's one of my most prized possessions. I feel that it's my responsibility to know about it, to maintain it, and to avoid damaging it. Since other people are part of the world, that responsibility extends to them.

There's no particular obligation to value the Earth or the people living on it. When people don't, it just makes my goals more difficult to reach, but I have full confidence that I and others who share my concerns will be able to achieve our goals in spite of those difficulties.

You *should* follow your own moral code. If that means looking out for #1, or living a life of self-sacrifice, then so be it. All anyone can reasonably demand beyond that is for fundamental rights and liberties to be respected.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The fact that there are fewer trees now sounds more like a problem of global forest management than global warming. Did increased CO2 emissions cause trees to disappear or were the trees cut down?

Cut down. Which will lead to (is leading to) water shortages. You should care because being able to hydrate yourself is kinda important.

[Mogura]

The earth has many self-healing mechanisms. Unfortunately, for the complex organisms that claim earth as their home (humans, mammals, etc.), things are going to get a bit uncomfortable for them. But that's okay. It's the economy...

[Dodeca]

Dodeca's Solution/Prediction: Liquid electricity

With superconductor batteries that recharge in 3 seconds electricity could be boat and sold like Gasoline. Gasoline comes from oil refineries. It can be shipped stored and used on demand. Renewable energy power plants store the store the electricity then ship it when needed via transmission lines, car batteries. Houses will have there own batteries for emergencies when the grid gos down.

[DewFuel]

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fear is what I hear. I'm not afraid so why should I care? I can move inland or farther north and so can everyone else. Wait, I already am inland so again, why should I worry? People currently live in hotter environments than I currently live in now so that shouldn't be a problem.

This is probably the most realistic response I've heard.

So global warming is happening, what the hell can I do as an individual? The answer is pretty much nothing. We have to wait for some kind of political movement or legislation forcing people into dealing with global warming (whether it be an emissions cap, or a move to a greener effort / more renewables).

	What if global warming is a good thing? It will open up new areas for plant and life growth will it not? Global warming will only cause more energy resources, in a hotter environment, to be consumed if efficiencies aren't improved and alternatives aren't developed....

The problem, however, isn't with human settlements. We're pretty much capable of adapting through the entire range of temperature the earth has to offer (well, save for the poles). Over time, if it isn't caught quickly enough, the amount of fertile land will start to diminish. Global changes in wind currents, precipitation patterns, etc etc... will cause a huge change in usable agriculture, which will definitely drive prices of cost & production.

Most simulations show that this is a bad thing for humans, overall. Ice caps start melting, which causes water vapor levels to rise (the biggest contributor to global warming, although not the biggest in magnitude / molecule), which basically snowballs itself into the worst case scenarios that we've all heard: ocean levels rising, ocean temps increasing, people moving more inland.

----

EDIT: I guess you were looking for some kind of solution so heres my input: Re-vamp the US's electrical network. It hasn't changed in infrastructure since Edison's time. This is a monument of inefficiency. Bigger carrier lines / more carrier lines to remote locations would solve a lot of energy problems, and reduce waste. A push into R&D into some kind feasible renewable energy would also be needed.

There are some pretty interesting ideas out there which should be looked into more closely. Nocera at MIT has made some novel di-rhodium complexes which split water into H2 / O2. Hes given a few talks at my univ. Problem is that they have a very low turn over rate right now. Industry is reluctant to pick it up because it might not lead to anything, and that's billions of dollars down the drain. Nocera is a genius, by all accounts, but he doesn't have unlimited resources and hundreds of employees working for him.

There are many other projects that are stuck in academia as "gems" but never make it into industrial testing because they are not yet viable. More funding for these types of proof-of-concept designs would be instrumental to solving the energy problem.

[rufsketch1]

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Satirical yes but really, what should my response be to global warming? What should I and everyone else think about it? What should we the people do about it?

People should encourage the production and innovation of environmentally friendly products by boycotting products which are not environmentally friendly. Citizens should petition their political officials to install electricity generating windmills, and people should look beyond alternative energy simply as a way to escape our dependence on a finite resource. That sort of thinking isn't actively attempting to solve the problem (though it may coincidentally happen to).

	So the far north, Iceland, Greenland, tundra covered areas will be deserts uninhabitable? Am I to believe the entire planet will be a vast, arid desert? Somewhere around 14.5 to 17 million years ago it's estimated that Alaska was 25-30 degrees warmer and was not a desert.

That isn't what I was implying. I was implying that the areas which are currently available for agriculture will no longer be. If an area is unavailable for agriculture, it will also be unavailable for inhabitation (if it's too hot to grow, it's too hot to live). Any new areas which then become agriculture friendly will also become population friendly. From there, you have considerable competition for living space and growing space. Government intervention will be necessary, and there's nothing people hate more than being told where they can and can't live. Especially if they just went through considerable expense to move there.

People live pretty well close together now in places like New York and any other major city. Obviously no one can move like it's no big deal. There is not enough inland infrastructure at the moment to support such living conditions. But with the fear being that the ice caps melt and certain places currently inhabited become under water, well that's a big deal that would require people to start their lives over in some fashion. I think the poor would find it the easiest of all to move as they haven't much in the way of possessions tying them to a particular area.

If someone has very little income, the few possessions they own are things they consider absolutely necessary. Like, a house. If they are poor, wherever they move, it will be a very long time before they can afford another house. Thus, it's the difference between poverty and homelessness.

	Should I impact my current standard of living negatively to improve the future living conditions of people I know not?

Yes.

[Wapiti]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Cut down. Which will lead to (is leading to) water shortages. You should care because being able to hydrate yourself is kinda important.

Not being able to hydrate due to trees being cut down sounds more important than global warming to me. Should I forget global warming and plant some trees? But help me out here, I'm trying to figure out where all the water is going. The oceans seem pretty full. In fact, that is some of the fear here with global warming. That the oceans will become even more full. Sounds like there will be more water? Won't the increased surface area allow for more evaporation of water or does water in the oceans not evaporate? Does it only rain where there are trees? What if we just desalinate the water in the ocean like they do in the middle east? Can we rehydrate then or is there some law I'm unaware of that I can only drink rain water?

Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

People should encourage the production and innovation of environmentally friendly products by boycotting products which are not environmentally friendly. Citizens should petition to their political officials to install electricity generating windmills, and people should look beyond alternative energy simply as a way to escape our dependence on a finite resource. That sort of thinking isn't actively attempting to solve the problem (though it may coincidentally happen to).

So are you for the boycotting of oil? Should I and my fellow citizens be boycotting oil? Is that the proper response to global warming?

That isn't what I was implying. I was implying that the areas which are currently available for agriculture will no longer be. If an area is unavailable for agriculture, it will also be unavailable for inhabitation (if it's too hot to grow, it's too hot to live). Any new areas which then become agriculture friendly will also become population friendly. From there, you have considerable competition for living space and growing space. Government intervention will be necessary, and there's nothing people hate more than being told where they can and can't live. Especially if they just went through considerable expense to move there.

So how will the planet be different with an increased temperature in regard to climate diversity. There are places now that are uninhabitable and places that people pack into, where government intervention is necessary. It sounds as if you are implying that people will all be fighting to live in a few square kilometers because that is all the agriculture land available.

	If someone has very little income, the few possessions they own are things they consider absolutely necessary. Like, a house. If they are poor, wherever they move, it will be a very long time before they can afford another house. Thus, it's the difference between poverty and homelessness.

In the case with cities under water, the rich and the poor are in the same boat, literally. They are both homeless.

	Originally Posted by Wapiti
	Should I impact my current standard of living negatively to improve the future living conditions of people I know not?   Yes.

OK! This is on the way to the answer of my question. How should I impact my standard of living first? What will have the most impact? Where to begin? What is the proper thing to do?

[plotthickens]

Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not being able to hydrate due to trees being cut down sounds more important than global warming to me. Should I forget global warming and plant some trees? But help me out here, I'm trying to figure out where all the water is going. The oceans seem pretty full. In fact, that is some of the fear here with global warming. That the oceans will become even more full. Sounds like there will be more water? Won't the increased surface area allow for more evaporation of water or does water in the oceans not evaporate? Does it only rain where there are trees? What if we just desalinate the water in the ocean like they do in the middle east? Can we rehydrate then or is there some law I'm unaware of that I can only drink rain water?

Planting trees is a very good idea. You're welcome to read the first few posts in my blog, which exactly address this.

Clouds (and rain) are formed of water droplets. The droplets are formed around particulate matter. Lots of particulate matter means that there are more clouds and rain -- less sun getting to the Earth and bigger storms. We have seen the results of bigger storms, and the less sun part is helping to balance out global heating.

All flights were grounded for 3 days after 9/11 and there was a general slowing of most industry. Particulate matter in the atmosphere greatly decreased. Temperatures rose worldwide by 1 - 3 degrees.

Kinda dramatic.

Water, when it runs to the ocean, takes a rather large amount of land with it. Trees help keep water where it belongs -- in the land, where we can benefit from it. When water runs to the ocean, it takes nutrients with it and changes the makeup of the seas. We are already seeing dieoff from this kind of pollution.

It is much easier, quicker and cheaper to plant trees and manage precipitation than it is to try to desalinate and purify water from oceans for humans to drink (and to water crops, animals, etc etc etc). Systems that took millions of years to evolve work very well, and to assume that we can do better with our "problem -> solution -> causes another problem -> solution -> causes another problem" technology is what got us into this mess in the first place. Working with existing excellent processes will net us better results than trying workarounds.

[rufsketch1]

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So are you for the boycotting of oil? Should I and my fellow citizens be boycotting oil? Is that the proper response to global warming?

That is part of the proper response. The other part is to actively support energy sources which aren't harmful to the environment. Boycotting oil isn't going to help much if you switch to something even more harmful.

	So how will the planet be different with an increased temperature in regard to climate diversity. There are places now that are uninhabitable and places that people pack into, where government intervention is necessary. It sounds as if you are implying that people will all be fighting to live in a few square kilometers because that is all the agriculture land available.

Without a carefully coordinated effort, people who can afford it will move to wherever they feel like. If too many of them happen to move to places that are vital for agriculture but don't intend on using their land for agriculture, then you have conflicts of interest. Because agriculture is the thing which will be most necessary to humanity, these people would be forced off of their land, and it's not too difficult to imagine this causing problems. This isn't the hugest concern however. I don't know enough about what land will be fertile and what won't be, nor do I know if shortage will necessary follow. It just seems like a somewhat likely thing if the move isn't coordinated.

	In the case with cities under water, the rich and the poor are in the same boat, literally. They are both homeless.

The problem isn't that they are both initially homeless. The problem is that the poor will be homeless after that boat lands, and the rich will easily be able to buy a new house.

	OK! This is on the way to the answer of my question. How should I impact my standard of living first? What will have the most impact? Where to begin? What is the proper thing to do?

Seek renewable and environmentally friendly energy sources. Petition your local government to take initiative in making their city a "green" one.

This is of course all assuming global warming is a phenomenon man is responsible for. I'm no climatologist, and I don't claim to know the truth. That said, it's a bit like Pascal's wager. If global warming is man made, and we do nothing, we're fucked. If it isn't, and we do something, the worst that happens is a cleaner environment and cheaper -more accessible- energy.

[Wapiti]

Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Planting trees is a very good idea. You're welcome to read the first few posts in my blog, which exactly address this. Clouds (and rain) are formed of water droplets. The droplets are formed around particulate matter. Lots of particulate matter means that there are more clouds and rain -- less sun getting to the Earth and bigger storms. We have seen the results of bigger storms, and the less sun part is helping to balance out global heating. All flights were grounded for 3 days after 9/11 and there was a general slowing of most industry. Particulate matter in the atmosphere greatly decreased. Temperatures rose worldwide by 1 - 3 degrees. Kinda dramatic.

So pollution is helping to fight global warming and increase rain? Should we fly more planes then? Or just pump dirt into the air? This seems counterintuitive to the policies of government in my area which try to curtail the dust and air quality in the county I live in.

Water, when it runs to the ocean, takes a rather large amount of land with it. Trees help keep water where it belongs -- in the land, where we can benefit from it. When water runs to the ocean, it takes nutrients with it and changes the makeup of the seas. We are already seeing dieoff from this kind of pollution. It is much easier, quicker and cheaper to plant trees and manage precipitation than it is to try to desalinate and purify water from oceans for humans to drink (and to water crops, animals, etc etc etc). Systems that took millions of years to evolve work very well, and to assume that we can do better with our "problem -> solution -> causes another problem -> solution -> causes another problem" technology is what got us into this mess in the first place. Working with existing excellent processes will net us better results than trying workarounds.

So we can manage precipitation? We can control the rain with trees? I can plant all the trees I want but I can't make it rain. Desalination is easy and works well, just energy intensive. Dams do a good job of containing water flowing into the oceans and providing a way for seepage into the ground and from preventing land entering the ocean. What if we build more dams? Systems that took millions of years also were also full of change, just look at the petrified forest. Once a thriving forest is now just a field of rocks. The planet changes and will continue to on it's own and now possibly in part due to human activity. So?

	Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That is part of the proper response. The other part is to actively support energy sources which aren't harmful to the environment. Boycotting oil isn't going to help much if you switch to something even more harmful.

The big problem here is that I have no feasible alternatives to get me to work at this point. None I am willing to take at this point and I'm not alone. Who wouldn't support alternative energy sources that aren't as harmful?

Without a carefully coordinated effort, people who can afford it will move to wherever they feel like. If too many of them happen to move to places that are vital for agriculture but don't intend on using their land for agriculture, then you have conflicts of interest. Because agriculture is the thing which will be most necessary to humanity, these people would be forced off of their land, and it's not too difficult to imagine this causing problems. This isn't the hugest concern however. I don't know enough about what land will be fertile and what won't be, nor do I know if shortage will necessary follow. It just seems like a somewhat likely thing if the move isn't coordinated.

This is and has happened where I currently live. These aren't issues that are the result of global warming. Houses have been popping up in agricultural areas like crazy, forcing farmers out. This already happens.

	The problem isn't that they are both initially homeless. The problem is that the poor will be homeless after that boat lands, and the rich will easily be able to buy a new house.

Not likely as the amount of houses needed will be greater than those available due to the people offset by their houses being underwater. That is unless a bunch of people die off. But the new areas the people would be moving to would not have infrastructure and housing built in to support them initially. That is also only if the effects of oceans filling up are rapid to not give people ample warning to move elsewhere. And I don't think we'll wake up one morning with the oceans suddenly a meter deeper.

	Seek renewable and environmentally friendly energy sources. Petition your local government to take initiative in making their city a "green" one.

What makes a city a "Green" one?

	This is of course all assuming global warming is a phenomenon man is responsible for. I'm no climatologist, and I don't claim to know the truth. That said, it's a bit like Pascal's wager. If global warming is man made, and we do nothing, we're fucked. If it isn't, and we do something, the worst that happens is a cleaner environment and cheaper -more accessible- energy.

Why are we fucked? This assumes global warming is a bad thing does it not? What if we do do something and the planet continues to warm? Are we still fucked or because we didn't cause it, the planet will take it easy on us? Like I said before, Alaska somewhere around 14.5 to 17 million years ago was estimated to be 25-30 degrees warmer than today acording to
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(no I didn't read it all.) Was this a bad thing? If it does warm - "A future change to warmer, moister climates will result in expansion of Alaska's forests into areas now occupied by tundra." Oooh, more trees, thats good right?

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So pollution is helping to fight global warming and increase rain? Should we fly more planes then? Or just pump dirt into the air? This seems counterintuitive to the policies of government in my area which try to curtail the dust and air quality in the county I live in.

Weird, huh? And yet it's true. Your ideas to fight global warming kind of ignore the 'more storms' fact, and jump over the idea of high air quality being a good thing. If you're this interested in the subject, there are lots of places on the Web to research options and what is currently being done.

[Wapiti]

What "more storms" fact? I'm all for high quality air.