A Question - If Climate warming/change isn't anthropogenic, what do we do?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Absolutely, and without going too far off topic, AGW is just one prong among many.

Its gilded in pretty words, which is why social engineering has hammered on words being more important than actions. If people are willing to label someone regardless of their actions, its second nature to think "sustainable living" and even "wealth redistribution" are fantastic. Even if the actions taken under that label have little, or nothing, to do with the terms used.

The worst part is "they" are shooting themselves in the foot as well as hobbling everyone else.

On the positive side, we aren't helpless victims. We can utilize tools like the internet and learn, use and share things to gain self-sufficiency and independence without dismantling, or even hindering, most of the systems of stability in place.

originally posted by: Rikku
do nothing.

firstly because we cant do anything, secondly like someone already said, we adapt.
weve been around long enough, ice ages didnt stop us, i dont didnt the climate getting slightly warmer is going have any effect on us.

Precisely . Nothing. This may be natural and some folks want to over compensate ? Sure let em go ahead and bring on another Ice Age...

Getting way off topic folks.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: FyreByrd

Stop over populating our species to the point where we can't keep up resource wise.

Stop wasting so many resources on pointless activities.

Prepare to move to another location if you're in a zone of possible big changes.

(Too late or Improbable that any of those are possible however. Except that last one maybe.)

Take only what you need. Use what you take. Give back when you can. Hope for the best. Plan for the worst. Don't be a dick.

I think history shows us that someone will grow up to hate everybody who doesn't do what he or she says. That person will attempt to dominate by the use of horrible slaughter of some portion of humanity, no matter the worlds population. History is rife with it now. That is real population control. No, we have to understand the Earth is very large and we are very small if it is population. It is about decisions to build things like Nukes to kill and other WMD's that have driven mankind. If we could shift that energy spent we could talk about how to get to that utopia that probably can't exist.

a reply to: melatonin

Of course, if we act to attempt to terraform and change the climate in order to attempt to avert a perceived doom, how would we know we aren't in fact making something worse?

Right now, we have one world and don't get do overs. Recall the days of the '70s when they thought we were heading for a new ice age and wanted to spread black soot over the ice caps to encourage them to melt? Uh-huh, what if we had done that? Where would be today with all our hysteria?

Is it wise to attempt to change a global thermostat when we don't even fully understand why it's doing what it's doing and how to change it?

a reply to: pthena

OK, you've set the goal of 1 couple one child. Now how do you enforce it? Check with China.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: melatonin

Of course, if we act to attempt to terraform and change the climate in order to attempt to avert a perceived doom, how would we know we aren't in fact making something worse?

Right now, we have one world and don't get do overs. Recall the days of the '70s when they thought we were heading for a new ice age and wanted to spread black soot over the ice caps to encourage them to melt? Uh-huh, what if we had done that? Where would be today with all our hysteria?

Is it wise to attempt to change a global thermostat when we don't even fully understand why it's doing what it's doing and how to change it?

Is it not wise, unequivocally. Sci Fi writers have explored this thought and it was not pretty. We can engineer things to do what they do without hurting the Earth or not. The rocks don't care and like Carlin pointed out, the Earth will do what it wants. Soil practices and water pollution controls are our friends.

originally posted by: DrChandra
a reply to: pthena

OK, you've set the goal of 1 couple one child. Now how do you enforce it? Check with China.

I'd argue most developed nations have already done a pretty good job of it by making it financially unsupportable for most people to have more than one themselves unless we are talking very wealthy or welfare underclass.

Why do you think so many countries have such a bad illegal underclass problem? They are looking for ways to keep their labor replacement levels up because their legal populations are right at or under replacement levels of 2 kids per couple now.

a reply to: DrChandra

you've set the goal of 1 couple one child.

That wasn't a goal. That was an example. In China, the population continued to rise, but probably not as fast.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Just for the sake of this discussion, let us stipulate that the warming climate is simply a product of Solar Activity (or insert your favorite alternative theory).

What can and should human beings do to mitigate the warming and extreme climate changes in order to ensure the survival of the human race?

All the same things we should be doing if humans arent in any way at all affecting climate .... Because, lets face it, we arent going to be cutting our GHG emissions, brown clouds, soot, stop tropical deforestation or decrease contrails (amongst other things) any time soon.

in other words, prepare for the worst ....

a reply to: Justoneman

Yes the earth is a big place. If it was simply a question of area then I wouldn't worry about overpopulation. But having room to move around is actually far down the list of priorities for continuous life on earth. In fact if you've reached the point where living space might become a problem you've grown way too fast way too quick.

Because before you get to worrying about actual living space you usually encounter issues about Resource Consumption, Pollution, etc. Non=Renewable resources, food and clean water are going to be your major problems before land area. As it is now we're just able to manage our consumption rates and they're quite staggering actually. By managing what I really mean is for the most part supply is meeting demand in most cases however we are in fact depleting these resources faster than they are coming back. Basically we're tapping into our savings and going into the negative rather than balancing at zero or producing extra.

Keep in mind when thinking about population it's exponential growth that gets ya. Doubling Time. Which is the rule of 70. Which is 70 x "Growth Rate Percentage" = Doubling Time of Population. Estimated growth of World Pop. is 1.11%
which makes it easy, so population double is approx. 70 years. That's not as long as it may seem either. That's only one lifetime to double the world pop if that rate is stable. Here in the US we're at like .7 which is pretty good compared to India which is at like 1.5.

Also note that if the rest of the world matched the US in resource consumption and level of development it would require 2 additional planet earths to support that. Which we clearly don't have and cannot do. At the same time, other nations are advancing which is a good thing. Living in 3rd world conditions isn't necessary since we know how to live better through tech and advancements like medicine, plumbing, etc. But the fact is, we can't support a world where everywhere is living at the same advanced level. Too much resource usage for so many people at those kind of levels even if we were doing good with resources. But we aren't. We're already wiping them out fast and need to cut way back as is.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Is it wise to attempt to change a global thermostat when we don't even fully understand why it's doing what it's doing and how to change it?

Of course it wouldn't be. Hence why it would depend on the background cause. If we don't know cause then we have little way of predicting future behaviour anyway. It could just be a random walk.

However, if we do understand cause then we can make predictions regarding outcomes and determine potential action.

Sulphate aerosols have a well-established mechanism. Not ideal, though. Salt water would be a better option with few/negligible negative impacts. Both are very short term influences with known mechanisms.

Indeed, both have much shorter term impacts than chucking billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere :/

You do see the massive flaw and contradiction in your position? Turn your argument on yourself (:

Right now, we have one world and don't get do overs. Recall the days of the '70s when they thought we were heading for a new ice age and wanted to spread black soot over the ice caps to encourage them to melt? Uh-huh, what if we had done that? Where would be today with all our hysteria?

Who?

We are already spreading black soot all over the ice caps, lol.

Such a good thread. The obvious lack of insight is rather staggering.

originally posted by: DrChandra
a reply to: pthena

OK, you've set the goal of 1 couple one child. Now how do you enforce it? Check with China.

With insentives - only a tax deduction for one child. If you want more you pay more.

Thats one way.

And another - empower women, let them control their reproduction. That has been shown to lower the birth rate considerably.