It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

gnimraw labolg

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Alright, I think its time someone asked this question.

for now, lets put the argument aside about who is causeing global warming. be it all nature, all human, or any combination in between.

What are the negative aspects of global warming? I mean, so all the ice melts, and earth becomes warmer. The oceans will rise, but whats the big deal about that? some rich people with waterfront property will now own nice places for scuba diving.

I mean, life will go on, I dont see any animals dieing really, as far as I understand warmth is beneficial to all life, (not extremes)

People and society will adapt, new land will become fertile, that was once barren, and unliveable. Look at Russia, compare the population to land use, heck even look at Canada, we have so much land we do not even use, much of it is up north and does not support proper living conditions, but with a rise in ocean levels, and world temp. It may become fresh land very useful for farming.

This would be the most significant thing to happen to humanity, the whole world would change, some countrys would be quick to snap up new land in the new world, now-a-days new territory is, as I like to think of it, one of the last things on the to do list of current governments, but this would change that, with some countries left with only scraps of what they had before,

anyway, give me some feedback, and some ideas of what this change could bring.




posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
There are quite a few negative things that will happen.

There are species of plant's that can not survive a change in either direction of more than a few degrees.

With the glaciers melting, more freshwater is put into the ocean, which will end up disrupting the atlantic flow, eventually stopping it, thusly starting an ice age in Europe and other northern places that are liveable.

Alot of land can be flooded, it's not just beach front areas, there,. ons some places could be new lakes formed.


There are more that no doubt another member in the know will know that I can not think of right now, but those are just a sample of the effects of global warming.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Good question, I'm sure lots of people don't really understand what the hoopla is about.
My husband was a biologist/virologist and has filled me in on all the consequences that could result.

1 - Firstly, we are in the midst of another Great Extinction - it has already started and looks to be one of the biggest extinctions, if not the most, ever seen on this planet There are many, many animal species that are already extremely threatened and expected to become extinct unless something HUGE happens to thwart global warming, which doesn't seem likely at any time. Some examples are: polar bears, penguins and just about any species that live in the north or south poles.

2 - Alaska's land is already melting, causing the permafrost underneath to defrost. We're talking a massive mudpit here, with buildings sinking into the earth. There's also Iceland, Greenland, both polar caps, etc. Where will the inhabitants of these regions go?

3 - Believe it or not, the majority of the world's people live in coastal areas. With rising sea levels, these coastal areas will be unlivable. This means the Hawaiian islands, New York City, Venice in Italy - yes, all wiped out.

4- Probable Ice Age in at least northern Europe.

5 - Massive droughts will create huge famines.

6 - Many viral diseases will be uncovered as the caps melt and climate changes where diseases that couldn't survive, now can.

7 - Areas that are now pleasant Mediteranean climates will very likely become deserts or be so hot that it's unliveable.

8 - Species around the world will be dying as any change in temperature can kill off many living things.

9 - As it warms up there will be less and less water available. Don't forget we get most of our water from glaciers that partly melt each year and without glaciers, no water.

10 - As our world becomes less able to support life, human reproduction will continue to fall; it's already been falling for a long time around the world. Something like half of the males in Scandinavia are able to have sperm healthy enough to reproduce and the rest don't (due to chemical and other toxic pollution.)

I'm sure there are many more consequences, but at the very least, we're talking huge numbers of people who will lose their homes (there goes the only investment most people ever make), will have to be relocated and/or may die since we can't move millions of people around the globe, practically speaking. We're talking large pandemics, starvation, famine and all of the accompanying chaos and anarchy that will happen as people get desperate to obtain resources such as food, water, housing, etc. I think that's one reason why the U.S. is starting to restrict and get rid of human rights, the Pentagon long ago warned the U.S. govt that we will have massive anarchy as a result of global warming. Controlling the people is their answer for all of this.

In summary, we may very well be talking about the extinction of all life on earth in the worst case scenario. Best case scenario is that at least some human and animal life is left to repopulate the earth.
If you add to this the continued use by U.S. govt of depleted uranium, which has a halflife of 4.5 million years, you end up with a ring around the planet of highly toxic material that will kill everything in its wake.
Not a good scenario is it?
The human race may well become extinct but maybe, in the end, for the planet, it's a good thing. We haven't been very good stewards of our Earth and all Her life forms.

-Forestlady



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Humans, along with most plant and animal species, will migrate. Those that don’t, or won’t, will adapt to the new condition or die. That’s called natural selection and it has been occurring since the beginning of the planet.

Presently uninhabitable lands will become habitable, and vice versa. New species will evolve, new ecosystems will develop, and the entire planet will adapt. Human political, economic, and social systems will change to fit the new conditions.

The biosphere thrives on change. Changing environmental conditions is the force that created life on this planet and has continually shaped it. Change is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ except from a biased and subjective human emotional viewpoint. Nature is indifferent to change, it just accepts it, adapts to it, and life goes on.

The future will bring many interesting phenomena. The future is not to be feared, it is to be embraced, with the optimism and confidence that history has always shown.

I look forward to the changes in my future and the opportunities that will be presented me. I feel sorry for the doom-and-gloom pessimists that fear the unknown.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Yes, change is good, and things will inevitably go through natural selection, but nature never intended the vast amount of huge changes that will occur in a very short amount of time.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The extinction we are in presently has already determined to be the greatest extinction ever. That should tell you that something is off balance.
If you think the future looks rosy, you need to do some scientific research on DU, global warming and overpopulation for starters.

-Forestlady



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Im with dave_54

I think that Forestlady, you are taking some things to an extreme, which cannot be properly backed up with our current knowledge of how the world works.

I feel its about time humans stood bad and looked at their role on earth, and quit feeling so responsible for animals who have evolved into such specialities that they cannot adapt to a new climate. Many Many animals would survive, and thats how the world works. New life would start to evolve and replace what became extinct.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by acura_el2000
some rich people with waterfront property will now own nice places for scuba diving.

This is earth during a period when there were no polar ice caps and sea level was high:


With rises like that, the world as you know it is over and a completely new world exists.


I dont see any animals dieing really, as far as I understand warmth is beneficial to all life

If you change the global environement, even if it is slowly enough for humans with their technology to adapt, the other organisms on the planet will not be able to adapt quickly enough and you will have something like a widespread extinction. That seems to be what has happened in the past with global climate shifts.


but with a rise in ocean levels, and world temp. It may become fresh land very useful for farming.

It won't wipe out humans, for sure. It would mean the end of the world as we know it though. Any city along a coast line would be gone, and so would many others, as sea level rises. Who knows if there would be enough arable land to support anything like the numbers of people now. The power dynamics of the world would change completely. RIght now, its dominated by the US, but if the US gets flooded out and has to focus its money to import food to its starving public, who will dominate the world then? African dictatorships? Islamist monarchs, etc etc?



I feel sorry for the doom-and-gloom pessimists that fear the unknown.

?
It is doom and gloom. If the world changes to something like the above map, then there will be billions of people dead, and anything resembling a progressive modern world will be completely destroyed. With such a reduction of resources and land area, only those who are able hold on to power with force will run things. The planet will go on, the planet has seen huge changes, thats not whats at issue. Global warming of that scale will be a tremendous human disaster.


has already determined to be the greatest extinction ever

This is actually not quite accurate. Currently, the rate of extinction is massive. The rate. However, the total number of species that have died off, if it were to stop or slow down and stop, would mean that its not even a mass extinction. If it stopped, which, I agree, is unlikely. The current event is a very fast rate of extinction, that would, if it goes to completion, be the largest mass extinction, or close to it.


New life would start to evolve and replace what became extinct.

Yes, however, these things take time, and when you take into account that now we are talking about habitat destruction, it might mean that new forms have no 'place' to evolve into: they might not be able to adapt to living in highly populated and urbanized human areas.
But, this is irrelevant. Its not nature that is going to suffer from global warming. ITs man that will suffer.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by acura_el2000
some rich people with waterfront property will now own nice places for scuba diving.

This is earth during a period when there were no polar ice caps and sea level was high:


With rises like that, the world as you know it is over and a completely new world exists.


I cannot see that being the world with the oceans rising. I mean first off how all of a sudden is it almost Pangea again? secoundly, how come africa is not seperated into 3 like the recent events have shown it will? In case you didnt see that article were there has been a great split in africa, I wil look for it, there was something on ATS tho.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by acura_el2000
I mean first off how all of a sudden is it almost Pangea again?

Its a map from when the earth, in the past had no ocean water bound up as polar ice caps. I have to say though, its good that you noticed that the continents were closer together than they should be.


So, again, this is a map of the Earth in the Cretaceous, not in, say, a thousand years or so. Its not going to show the precise water levels, because things, like mountain building and subsidence, have occured in various regions. But what it shows nicely is that it will be a lot more than just a change at the coasts.


article were there has been a great split in africa, I wil look for it, there was something on ATS tho.

For what its worth, the african rifting has been going on for a long time and has been known for a long time. It will take a much longer time to finish seperating the continent and form a new ocean, much longer time scale than the melting ice caps timescale.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by acura_el2000
Im with dave_54

I think that Forestlady, you are taking some things to an extreme, which cannot be properly backed up with our current knowledge of how the world works.

I feel its about time humans stood bad and looked at their role on earth, and quit feeling so responsible for animals who have evolved into such specialities that they cannot adapt to a new climate. Many Many animals would survive, and thats how the world works. New life would start to evolve and replace what became extinct.


It's not just the animals, it's the effects of having such an imbalance on our planet. All systems are interconnected, if animals die from the environment, then so do we. Besides, we ARE responsible for the deaths of many species. There is no doubt that this current extinction was manmade, every article I've read about it says that. We have polluted the planet with all sorts of chemicals, not to mention DU pollution. DDT was a good example back in the '70's, all sorts of birds were becoming extinct. We can't even begin to imagine the consequences of all this extinction.
And no, I'm not ignorant on this topic. For the last 7 years, most of the people my husband and I associate with are scientists, especially biologists. As I've mentioned before, my husband was a biologist and virologist, who just retired last June, so his knowledge is not outdated. He and I have spent a vast amount of time becoming educated on the subject of global warming, in fact I've been following it ever since it became an issue back in the early '70's. If I didn't quote references, it's because I compiled information from reputable scientific sources for the last 7 years and don't have one source, but quite a number of them, too many to all list here.
One of the things I've found out, is that with global warming, it's not just that the sea levels will rise and cause the world's majority of people to be displaced, etc. It is that with the ocean water warming as well as rising, there will be many more hurricanes such as Katrina. So, OK, folks put your head in the sand. But all it tells me is that you havent' studied this issue in depth. About the only articles where no one is concerned, are ones that aren't scientific. Any scientist worth his salt these days, knows that the planet is in dire straights, and it's only just started. Even our own government is planning for when things get really bad. THere will be signifacnt loss of human life, we do already know this. The Pentagon has urged our govt to have a plan in place to deal with all of the coming catastrophes.

Check out James Lovelock's writings.
Here is an article by Richard Leakey which states that the current extinction is almost solely caused by humans. It was written in the late '90's but is still applicable.
www.well.com...

THis article explains alot about our present extinction and why it's
such a serious matter:
www.well.com...

Google "sixth extinction". As Nygdan pointed out, the rate of species extinction at present is greater than any previous extinction. What is also known is that the rate of extinction is growing. This trend is probably already irreversible in the near future.
I urge everyone to study the effects of DU (depleted uranium) which the U.S. has been using since 1991. THat's alot of DU. I urge you also to study the current extinction and find out the facts about global warming. You can just google "global warming" and get lots of info.
I'm not just blowing smoke out of my butt, these arena't just my opinions, but the opjinions of the majority of scientists, if you research, you'll see that it is true.

-Forestlady



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Forest lady, I hope I didnt offend you when I said that, I was mearly stating my point of view, Nygdan, I am very glad you are aware of those things, I was confused by that layout.

I have done a fair amount of reading on the subject of global warming, and I have come to the conclusion that there are tons of articles that seem to state that Humans are the main cause of it, and there are tons of articles that state that nature is the main cause, and that the earth is making a natural change, as it has done for its exsistance.

I mean, had we had scientists and the internet back when there was an ice age, people would be claiming that humans were the cause of that, look how significant that was, look how many animals must have become extinct. These arnt just little animals but things such as sabretooth tigers, mammoths etc. They are animals which had a huge effect on nature, and they died from natural changes to earth.

I am not deniing that Humans have played a role in global warming, BUT I belive that the role they have played is significantly less then what is popularily belived.

We currently dont have the data to show, accuratly, what the earth make-up was from even 200 years ago, Thats a very small fraction compared to how long even humans have been living here.

I think part of the problem with todays scientist are all of them want to be known with coming up with a good theory, so what better way then to "scientifically" find that Humans are going to kill themselves, I belive these people want to be known in the history books. Their is no better way then to claim something radical. because no one is know for having found out that, 2% nylon makes a cheaper t-shirt.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by acura_el2000
and there are tons of articles that state that nature is the main cause,

What scientific research supports that? Most research that I have seen has shown that its definitly happening and that its not caused by the normal controls on global climate, like orbital forcing and such.

They are animals which had a huge effect on nature, and they died from natural changes to earth.

Species are going extinct now because of habitat destruction, not global warming.

BUT I belive that the role they have played is significantly less then what is popularily belived.

Why do you beleive this? Upon what evidence?

We currently dont have the data to show, accuratly, what the earth make-up was from even 200 years ago

In what way?

are all of them want to be known with coming up with a good theory, so what better way then to "scientifically" find that Humans are going to kill themselves

Science operates by researchers putting their results and findings into the public arena and having other researchers examine it, and work to refute it and come up with better explanations of the data. None of that has anything to do with coming up with a snazzy theory that sounds neat to the public.

Their is no better way then to claim something radical.

Global warming isn't radical.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by acura_el2000
and there are tons of articles that state that nature is the main cause,

What scientific research supports that? Most research that I have seen has shown that its definitly happening and that its not caused by the normal controls on global climate, like orbital forcing and such.


I am not claiming to be an expert...far from it actually, but I have read many reports that show some good scientific evidence as to nature, just being nature, I will try to locate some solid articles as soon as I can, but I am busy with school currently.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Species are going extinct now because of habitat destruction, not global warming.


I agree there, that is our biggest problem I think, and we need to stop doing that, because it will have a far greater effect, because that is actually our fault. Were as (human) global warming has still yet to be conclusively proven.

I feel this way because of what I have read, I even like to look at the style of writing behind the report, you can tell if it is a biased opinion writing in the first place.


Originally posted by acura_el2000
We currently dont have the data to show, accuratly, what the earth make-up was from even 200 years ago


Originally posted by Nygdan
In what way?


I mean it in the fact that we didnt have the accuracy of recording, and testing we have today, what data from 200 years ago shows the CO2 content of our atmosphere, and yes they can figure it out through various ways in icebergs etc. but I think we can all agree that it is not the most accurate way to do so.


are all of them want to be known with coming up with a good theory, so what better way then to "scientifically" find that Humans are going to kill themselves


Originally posted by NygdanScience operates by researchers putting their results and findings into the public arena and having other researchers examine it, and work to refute it and come up with better explanations of the data. None of that has anything to do with coming up with a snazzy theory that sounds neat to the public.


Yes there are some scientists who are actual scientists, but I would say a far greater amount of them, then I would like to belive, are really not interested in providing the proper reports, I mean, how many scientists would work for 20 years on proving global warming is true, only to find out it isnt, and then look back at those years on how dumb it was to think like that? It would be easier to make the data you got look like it exsists. Plus 20 years of constant one way thinking will make a person belive things no matter what the actual facts are.


Their is no better way then to claim something radical.


Originally posted by NygdanGlobal warming isn't radical.


Ah, global warming isnt in itself, but the fact that humans will cause it and it will be the death of us is.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by acura_el2000]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by acura_el2000]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
This has certainly turned into an animated thread....

I find the prevailing misanthropic pessimism here both amusing and alarming. Fortunately, most people have enough common sense to reject these viewpoints, and our national leaders and policy makers listen to real information and not scaremongering.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
It's called coming to a realistic conclusion based on lots of research, Dave.
So far, I am the only one here that has provided any kind of sources for their viewpoints. Debunkers I would be very interested to see your sources.

All of the information I have given was collected from many articles and essays; in many cases, I found a number of articles saying the same thing and those are the sources I'm taking my information from, not just one.
When you put the facts together, it looks pretty grim and any scientist worth their credentials are saying the same thing. I formed my opinions after much research, not the other way around


-Forestlady



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady...So far, I am the only one here that has provided any kind of sources for their viewpoints....


You are the only one here who claims your posted sources are any kind of reliable source.

The internet is a giant library where the comic books are intermixed with the scholarly references, and most people are unable to discern the difference -- as evidenced by the majority of the 'references' on this ATS website.

Your sources indicate you are solidly in the majority.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by acura_el2000
but I think we can all agree that it is not the most accurate way to do so.

Why do you think its not accurate? These and other methods infact are pretty reliable.

It would be easier to make the data you got look like it exsists.

The problem is, it wouldn't be easier, because you've got thousands of other scientists checking everything you publish, and a paper also has to be reviewed by a group of people before it can even be published in the first place. Other scientists do their work based upon those papers, they don't want their work flushed down the toilet because some guy made up some of the information, so they scrutinize everything and test everything to make sure that the data is good.

Plus 20 years of constant one way thinking will make a person belive things no matter what the actual facts are.

BUt thats not how science operates. We have 20, 30 years of data from mutliple independant people supporting that global warming occurs and that it doesn't fit into a natural cycle, not just a few key careers that have allways printed papers that support the idea.


global warming isnt in itself, but the fact that humans will cause it and it will be the death of us is.

I'd have to say that, considering that we know C02 is a green house gas, and we know that industrial procedures release it in large volumes, that the only radical idea is that by doing so, nothing will happen and the atmosphere will not warm.


Your sources indicate you are solidly in the majority.

What was wrong, specifically, with the sources she cited? You didn't mention any reason, is it just becuase they support the idea that man's actions are leading to global warming that they must be wrong???

Also, I can understand refering to some of the pro-global warming propaganda out there as scare mongering. Pictures that show Mt Kilimanjaro without ice on the peak are dramatic and relatively common, but pointless, because Kilimanjaro's glaciers were melting from the moment anyone saw them!
However, the science strongly supports that global warming is occuring (there ins't even any debate over this anymore, its solid), and that the warming is an abberation, ie, not properly explained by any of the controls on global weather as we understand it. The current pattern is not explained by anything other than being caused by the increase in CO2, a gas that is known to trap heat.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54

You are the only one here who claims your posted sources are any kind of reliable source.

The internet is a giant library where the comic books are intermixed with the scholarly references, and most people are unable to discern the difference -- as evidenced by the majority of the 'references' on this ATS website.Your sources indicate you are solidly in the majority.


Since when are Richard Leakey and James Lovelock unreliable sources?
Or maybe you don't know who they are? If so, you haven't done any research on global warming at all and must be living in a cave.
I am a researcher and I do know the difference between unreliable sources on the internet and those that aren't. I only quote from ones that are reliable, please note I didn't mention prison planet or Alex Jones or Rense.
Why don't you do some of your own research and give us some "reliable" sources for your differing viewpoint? Otherwise, I will assume that you are just trolling and being either incredibly ignorant or very obstinate.
Do you actually have any solid informatmion to contribute?

My information obviusly is not wanted on this thread other than for Nygdan, so I'm done with it, I'm not wasting time with any more foolishness.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join