Because Science!!!

submitted by Questionable from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, and they are deigned to trap in heat. Say, I'm having trouble finding information on high temperatures in the Amazon. All I can seem to find are average temperatures, and this article on the summertime being the rainy period. In fact, all the movies I watch seem to depict deep tropical forests as sweltering hot. So the heat is bad for plants, and will cause droughts? Am I getting that right?

[–]Electronic_Antelope 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You'll find heat in both rainforests and deserts. Now, what I think you're getting at is that, yes, in fact, if the atmospheric CO2 concentration were really pumped up to 500, 600, whatever ppm, and everybody heated up a few more degrees, the places that ended up with good rainfall would probably be quite suitable for growing crops! If the soil was also decent, of course. But there's issues of, where's that going to be, what will be the rainfall and climate in the farmland we already have, how quickly can our agricultural centers really shift while maintaining production, how much will the coastlines recede along the way, what other species will be unable to biologically adapt to the rapid shifts and go extinct...

Humans in general are quite well-equipped to survive global warming as a species, and probably even to make the best of the world that results from it. Which is good, because I don't think we're sociologically equipped to do anything about it, save maybe geoengineering via sulphate aerosols. But there'll be a lot of disruption and losses and, almost certainly, human suffering along the way. If we could, it would probably be best to avoid it.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think we're sociologically equipped to do anything about it

I think the past two year are proof enough that you can guilt society into anything. Even killing themselves in the name of 'science'. As long as you craft a conniving enough story to go along with it. By the way, it's not 'global warming' anymore, it's "climate change" now, as 'the science has changed'.

[–]Electronic_Antelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's both, of course. Global warming refers specifically to the rising temperatures, climate change refers to the suite of other effects that go along with that, like those shifts in rainfall patterns previously mentioned. Associated with the temperature change, but not, strictly speaking, the same thing.

They try to predict those too, but, eh, I'm dubious how accurate any such prediction can be - it's trying to model a phenomenon a hell of a lot more complex than the temperature, which ultimately is a simpler system of energy out vs energy in.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And yet they model solutions that produce MORE CO2? And somehow heightened profits? Amazing, if they are 'wrong', they still improve the environment, and the only difference is that they get all the credit and money. All while we are lulled into the false belief that our sacrifices, made a difference.

What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

Better for who I ask?