climate change and the future: debate.

[GetOutOfBox]

Even if those lifeforms were destroyed, various elements could still over time come together to form single celled organisms, which would again be the start of life.

 

Well I believe in past lives and that single celled organism thingy really sucked and I don't wanna go back and have to start over. :sad:

 

 

don't really believe in past lives ;D

 

lol you had me going there for a second xD.

[Mr Ham]

I agree that humans have had a negative impact on the climate in recent years, mostly due to the ozone layer being damaged, but climate cycles are a regular occurence that has been happening for earths entire existence. Earth's likely had many ice ages and warm ages during its existence, and it will keep having these as long as it lasts.

And yet CO₂ concentrations are well above the natural maxima. Nothing natural would cause a sudden spike like that.

[GetOutOfBox]

I agree that humans have had a negative impact on the climate in recent years, mostly due to the ozone layer being damaged, but climate cycles are a regular occurence that has been happening for earths entire existence. Earth's likely had many ice ages and warm ages during its existence, and it will keep having these as long as it lasts.

And yet CO₂ concentrations are well above the natural maxima. Nothing natural would cause a sudden spike like that.

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3162/2787258705_9aa0c3b717.jpg

 

hence the "I agree that humans have had a negative impact on the climate in recent years" part at the very beginning of the quote from me in your post.

Edited December 15, 2010 by GetOutOfBox

[marharth]

Climate change can easily happen naturally...

 

If plants grow in certain ways, or if certain plants grow in certain areas for example.

 

It would cause animals to have a different diet, and emit different gasses.

 

Also the natural destruction of trees can be a massive cause of change.

 

So humans aren't that only thing that can f*** up the world, it can do it by itself just fine :P

 

As much as I hate cars and oil companies, I think its pointless to talk about the environment like this. Currently there is more profit to be made from non renewable energy sources, so that's what we are using.

[HappyHerring]

I do not know where you are based marharth but here in the U.K. renewables were given a tarriff by the tories when last in power as a fig leaf when they gave financial protection to an unwanted civil nuclear power programme. Just as a goverment loading the utility bills of a populace in favour of certain energy providers can distort an economy so can human utiilisation of resources. We are natural organisms ourselves and so maybe we should regard our distortion of the ecology of the ecology as something which can be reduced.

[Balagor]

Climate change can easily happen naturally...

 

If plants grow in certain ways, or if certain plants grow in certain areas for example.

 

It would cause animals to have a different diet, and emit different gasses.

I don´t know what certain ways of growth you refer to. If you speak about "cow farts" the issue is human made, comming from well populated cow herds. The same goes for pigs.

 

Also the natural destruction of trees can be a massive cause of change.

Natural destruction of trees must be vulcanic activeties, brush fires and earth quakes, floods, etc. I think that have a very little impact compared to the loggin of 1000 of acres of rainforest daily. The trees damaged by natural cause will grow back in time. The rainforest will not. It will be exchanged by "cow farting".

 

So humans aren't that only thing that can f*** up the world, it can do it by itself just fine :P

 

As much as I hate cars and oil companies, I think its pointless to talk about the environment like this. Currently there is more profit to be made from non renewable energy sources, so that's what we are using.

 

The natural causes have happend all the time, and are hardly visible on the greater scale. What is to be worried about is the change all of a sudden that started approx. 100 years ago, and accellerated some 20 years ago and got turbo speed just 5 years ago. I´m thinkin about the de-icing of the poles.

[Mr Ham]

I agree that humans have had a negative impact on the climate in recent years, mostly due to the ozone layer being damaged, but climate cycles are a regular occurence that has been happening for earths entire existence. Earth's likely had many ice ages and warm ages during its existence, and it will keep having these as long as it lasts.

And yet CO₂ concentrations are well above the natural maxima. Nothing natural would cause a sudden spike like that.

[image]

hence the "I agree that humans have had a negative impact on the climate in recent years" part at the very beginning of the quote from me in your post.

Er... so if you're not attributing climate change to wholly natural or mainly anthropomorphic causes what's your point?

[phoneyLogic]

The de-icing of both poles would just mean that we actually let the current ice age behind us. We are still living in an ice age (Pleistocene). Though we are in a warm periode currently, the next cold phase will come, and wider parts of the northern hemisphere are iceing - regardles of what we are doing.

But it's really hard to say what exactly will change by producing CO2. Do we speed up the progress or not? But at least it can't be good to destroy the rain forests.

Edited December 15, 2010 by tortured Tomato