In many cases, actions to help solve another environmental problem can also be beneficial in reducing undesirable effects of climate change. For example, as I discuss in Powering the Future: A Scientist's Guide to Energy Independence, moving away from fossil fuels toward wind and solar energy reduces the human contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere while also reducing habitat destruction (from the mining of fossil fuels) and air, water, and ocean pollution (from the mining, processing, and burning of these fuels), benefiting biodiversity and human health and well-being. The same can be said for a move away from fission-based nuclear power plants, whose toxic substances last up to millions of years (the U.S. government is seeking a warning sign that will keep people away from nuclear waste dumps for 10,000 years).
The politicization and ideology-driven beliefs about global warming, on both sides of the issue, prevent a calm, rational examination of where actions to mitigate global warming could fit into a set of priorities. Indeed, even making a claim that such prioritizing is possible leads to a change in viewpoints and will likely upset many who believe now that global warming is a present and future reality with disastrous effects. We need to be able to put the discussion within a rational context. Among other aspects of this context, we need, as Thomas Friedman wrote on September 14, 2011, in the New York Times, "to start taking steps, as our scientists urge, 'to manage the unavoidable and avoid the unmanageable.'" Not just about climate change, but in establishing an integrated, multifactor approach to our major environmental problems.
Excerpt from The Moon in the Nautilus Shell: Discordant Harmonies Reconsidered, by Daniel B. Botkin. Oxford University Press, 2012. Copyright © 2012. Reprinted with permission.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
46 Comments
Add CommentWeather conditions potentially harmful to humans have always occurred in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of what you believe regarding the impact of additional atmospheric CO2 on temperatures, there is almost no disagreement that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is many decades. What this means in very simple terms is that atmospheric CO2 concentrations will continue to rise for decades and will not decline for many decades after emissions levels have dramatically been lowered. It could be well over 100 years until CO2 concentrations start to lower.
The best method to minimize harms to humans is via the construction and maintenance of robust infrastructure. These include things link sewer systems to drain away flood waters during heavy rainfall and water storage facilities to retain water for extended dry periods.
This is NOT a new issue and different nations around the world make this more or less of a priority. In the US we do a reasonably good job of constructing good infrastructure but frequently do a very poor job of ensuring it is properly maintained. The evidence of this is widespread. Look at the impact of Katrina and Sandy. Both storms would have caused minimal damage if better infrastructure had been constructed and properly maintained.
The truth is that countries such as India put a low priority on building infrastructure and their citizens die in large numbers each year as a result. That is clearly not a problem that anyone other than the people of India can resolve.
Far less people than ever are impacted by climate change. Millions of people a year once died from famine and drought. Today...India imports an extra 'x' hundreds of tons of wheat from Australia or Ethiopoia receives UN relief from Sweden and Canada.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe hysteria continues.
Human beings and their societies thrive under conditions of warming. This is in stark contrast to the violent destruction of global societies during protracted cooling. Burning witches is not a good solution to population control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally, Sci-Am allows a breath of fresh air into the toxic breathing atmosphere, that has been deliberately encouraged and meticulously constructed to encourage alarm.
Listen to the Chicken Little(s) howl, in 3...2...1... GK
The best part of this article was the headline. Because it is very much the truth. Given human nature it is obvious in the extreme that the only solution that is possible is mitigation (or mitigation's particular case of geo-engineering).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bit about the Ogallala aquifer is worth separate comment. I've heard what we are doing there referred to as "mining" the water. I agree 100%. We're also mining natural gas and oil if it comes to that. It is not a negative thing. Not to use something because its supply is not infinite is pure eco-insanity. Use it wisely but use it. Understand surely that someday we will have to do other things and move in that direction but if this is the best/cheapest source use it until it isn't.
I can't believe this common sense article is actually
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisappearing in Scientific American. One of the key things
that he says is that climate change gets a lot of funding. You need look no further for the reason for the constant drum beat of global warming warnings. Follow the
money. These climate scientists have a vested interest in
keeping it up.
Get Used to Climate Change or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Global Warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon’t worry Botkin no one I know thinks that burning the rainforests and planting palm oil trees is a good idea. We feel the same way about corn ethanol: a bad effing plan that will do nothing to reduce CO2.
"We need to be able to put the discussion within a rational context. Among other aspects of this context, we need, as Thomas Friedman wrote on September 14, 2011, in the New York Times, "to start taking steps, as our scientists urge, 'to manage the unavoidable and avoid the unmanageable.'" Not just about climate change, but in establishing an integrated, multifactor approach to our major environmental problems."
If you are going to suggest that we need to consider other “major environmental problems” you do need to prioritize them. If you want people to take you seriously you have to make your case about which other problems are equal to or more important than anthropogenic global climate disruption. And, since you are an environmentalist, I assume you are counting ocean acidification and climate change together.
Yes humanity has faced climate change before. This time, however, there are 7 billion of us rapidly depleting air, soil, and water quality. This time it will be "nasty".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, but those hundred year storms that used to come once a century are now comming every few years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Human beings and their societies thrive under conditions of warming. This is in stark contrast to the violent destruction of global societies during protracted cooling."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease provide citation.
And please provide, for the responses to this article, your assumption (of which you posted on another article) that an increase in CO2 concentration helps plant growth and hence agricultural prosperity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey always have come every few years in the sense that somewhere they are experiencing a _once in a century_ storm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's just that now because of modernity we feel as if every event is as real as if it happened to us personally.
In the seventies a cyclone hit what is now Bangladesh. It killed four hundred thousand people. It got hardly any mention in the world media at the time. Now it would be non-stop 24 hour coverage for weeks. It would be presented up close and personal. There would no escaping the personal sense that a great tragedy had occurred.
Individuals would feel that another once in a century disaster had just happened. And, indeed, it had. But at the time few outside Asia experienced it as something personal. Now we add such events to our estimation of the frequency of once in a century events.
9. moss boss
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to G. Karst writes that he wants Karst to provide citations for his claim that ...
"Human beings and their societies thrive under conditions of warming. This is in stark contrast to the violent destruction of global societies during protracted cooling."....
Please consult any text on anthropology where you will find that what we call humanity started in a warm climate. You will also note that the spread of humanity slowed as they moved farther into cooler climates.
You might want to look at any map which shows the current spread of humanity. Absent modern technology you will find few people living at the north pole but many millions in the warmest parts of the world.
It was during the warmest period since the end of the last ice age, a time called the Holocene Optimum between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, that the first civilizations flourished in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. Other warm periods, climate optimums during Minoan, Roman, and Medieval times, and of course, the modern warm period, have all resulted in increased food productivity, lower death rates, and greater all-around prosperity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn contrast, cold periods have been very rough on societies. The Dark Ages Cold Period between about 600 and 900 AD was a time of great retreat of agriculture and depression of human activity. There were plagues and starvation in many regions and people were forced to migrate away from farms in central Europe and Scandinavia.
The Little Ice Age (LIA) from about 1350 to 1850 was even worse; there was great misery for people around the world. Alpine glaciers overran mountain villages in Europe, and cold and wet weather killed millions of farm animals and ruined crops. With famine weakening the population, more than a third of Europeans died due to bubonic plague. People resorted to making bread from tree bark, and in some parts of Europe cannibalism was common. Later in the LIA, a million people died in Ireland and a million more left the country due to the Potato Famine brought on by the cold weather. Storms ravaged coastal settlements in both Europe and across the Pacific.
As to citations of the above, merely google the event listed above and plenty of citations will appear. As to the proven increase in yields for vegetation, I have already provided the following reference:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_p.php
Some think an experiment using only desert grasses (lowest carbon requirement of plants) which receives double the amount of rain, fungal attack, insect disturbance and dispersal... and then fail to thrive, somehow negates the above careful research. Epic fail, nuff said. GK
Although Karst references "warming climates", I believe that he (in his self-proclaimed omniscience) may be referring to warm climates. I do not want to put words in his mouth, as he has mine in the past, but do you really believe that the warming that has taken place in the last 100 years or so (as it has brought with it, and will continue to bring with it, more and more climatological outliers and, hence, less certainty about many of the norms upon which we rely) will bring about positive change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are writing about apples and oranges. OF COURSE much of humanity was started in a warm climate, but most of humanity, in a historical context, has not been faced with a dramatic shift in temperature the likes of which we are looking at now.
We will atempt to use our cumulative intellect to solve problems such as mitigating CO2 and its effects (sea level rise, depletion of species diversity, agricultural shifts, the adaptation to alternative energy, and so on), if we are lucky, and if we do not let politics get in the way.
If you are new to the postings on this site, you may not regard GK as a troll, but you will learn. Keep posted.
Hey, everybody I know is used to climate change! Where have you been?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are physical limits to the capacity of humans and many other mammals to adapt to climate change. Heat stress imposes an upper limit to adaptation, and this can be quantified by wet-bulb temperature. For a scientific article that argues this case very well see:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.full
We can wish and hope all that we like, but the physics and physiology set the boundaries.
I regret having read anything here. I was hoping for rational discourse, but the SciAm forums are now apparently just for wingnuts. I didn't get the memo!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I thought the climate was changing because of our sins against AlGore? You aren't saying that the climate has actually changed before, are you? Does this mean that all of these prophets of doom are full of it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGW is essentially a millenarian religious movement, complete with the requisite flood, redemption through appropriate acts, original sin and a potential heaven on earth of we just redeem ourselves and do what the AGW high priesthood tells us to do. It's time that we realize this and reject this fanaticism.
The climate is constantly changing, has for millions and millions of years, this is a natural process and we simply have to cope with it. The idea that we could stop this process of probably one of the most arrogant acts of narcissism in the history of the universe.
Blah! Blah! Blah! This ludicrous argument continues endlessly with "experts" on every side claiming to be the only ones who really know the "real truth".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I'm concerned all this noise is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I'm no expert but I've been reading about climate change for two decades from all sides and not just climate scientists; biologists, oceanographers, zoologists, geologists, botanists, you name it.
Almost every natural science has had a say at various times and, putting it all together, three things seem clear: the climate is actually warming much more rapidly that predicted several years ago, the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere is increasing and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, and the self perpetuating feedback loop that will insure a runaway and uncontrollable increase in warming is probably already beginning to operate.
The question that we should be asking ourselves is not "how will we adapt" but "what species, if any, will survive the next couple of centuries"?
My bet, which, fortunately I will not be around to collect if I am right, is that Earth will become quite similar to Mars within five hundred years and there is absolutely nothing that humans can do about that because we refuse to do anything about it.
We will simply continue to delude ourselves and procrastinate until the truth is totally undeniable and by then it will be far too late.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReply to 19. cccampbell38
02:36 PM 12/8/12
The planet has been much, much warmer than it is now. During those periods not only did life flourish but it did so a at a level we can barely imagine.
Global temperature levels and co2 levels are not extreme in geological terms. Neither are they unique in human history.
Anthropological generated warming theory is based on the assumption that all the forcing agents are so finely balanced that a small change in the most trivial of them will overwhelm all the massive components of climate.
This is based on absolutely nothing but computer models which are based entirely on the assumptions built into the models. The advocates of such models themselves indicate that the situation is unique and has never been observed before nor can it be observed until it is too late (as they define it).
Even something as basic to the computer models as the current global average temperature is heavily debated by reputable participants with reference to what it is and how it should be calculated.
All the models eliminate cloud cover as a factor because it is so massive an influence and yet so variable it can't be assigned a meaningful value.
You indicate that you won't be around hundreds of years from now when the dire consequences (if any) will be apparent. Neither will I. But I certainly don't want to deliberately move armageddon up to the present because it may happen some time in the future.
Climate alarmists are opposed to modernity and the civilization that comes with it. They regard the contingent elimination of billions of people, whose very survival is tied up with modern civilization, as a desirable objective.
For thirty years I have been hearing that in thirty years disaster would have struck and humanity's situation would be hopeless. Every year it keeps moving thirty years into the future. And yet in my lifetime things are better now than they ever have been by just about every meaningful measure. Not only that but they continue to get better at what seems an accelerating rate.
So if this is doomsday then let's have more of it.
You are full of shit; Models are based upon thousands of measurements by those who you demean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour use of the word "theory" is also demeaning, as you clearly do not know the definition of the term in the realm of science. Do you dispute "Evolutionary Theory" or "Gravational Theory"?
It is ironic that you state that things are getting better at an "accelerated rate".
Although many would say, for example, that the effects of "Sandy" were not attributed to climate change. Scientists may differ in the argument (an increase in sea level coupled with cold temps from the north combined with warmer ocean temps). I was in the middle of it and it kicked my ass.
It was a warmer wetter period that crated the vast reserves of coal we are now burning. It was a warmer wetter world that precede what now is the Sahara Desert, a verdant highly fertile zone. It was a warmer wetter environment that made the vast inland areas of Australia, presently semidesert, full of flowing streams feeding an inland sea surrounded by forest & millions of grazing animals. Incidentally sucking up any excess CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow eloquent & reasoned. Not. What caused all the much larger storms before the present industrial era?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this21. moss boss
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to northernguy
11:19 PM 12/8/12
writes
....You are full of shit; Models are based upon thousands of measurements by those who you demean.....
You write as if thousands of measurements is some kind of quality that in itself proves your point.
In computers we talk about G.I.G.O. which is Garbage In Garbage Out. If you take a measurement like the tree rings of a single bristlecone pine tree in the Hudson Bay area and declare it to represent the climate for a four hundred year period over an area the size of New England (as is commonly done) then you have one of your thousands of inputs into the computer model. If you further declare any confounding specimen tree rings as as unrepresentative and simply "noise" to be eliminated (which, again, is commonly done) you will have simplified your model. Eventually you can end up with thousands of "simplified" measurements.
But in the end all you have are measurements. To get actual results from your computer you need an algorithm. Now neither you nor I know what is in that algorithm. Mostly because the authors will seldom tell you what it is. Their response is if you are not sure about the results then go do your own research with your own algorithm. Very often the authors couldn't tell you what it was even if they wanted to as they themselves don't know what it is. They have someone else come in to actually do the computer work involved.
So the more you talk about thousands of measurements in your undefined computer models the more skeptical I become about the reliability of the results. Note I did not say the validity just the reliability.
You write about your personal weather experience reflecting on my comments about how things are better and getting better for the average person. And yet here you are able to post comments on a science oriented board, able to engage in debate and generally living in a way that was unimaginable fifty years ago for anybody, anywhere. This despite having personally experienced what you regard as a disaster just weeks ago.
Two hundred years ago you probably wouldn't have lived long to experience such a disaster. If you did experience it you probably wouldn't have survived it. If you did survive it you would have little left to live for in what remained of your short time on earth.
Things are better for me. They are better for you. The difference is you don't know it.
There's nothing we can do to slow, stop or reverse AGW/climate change, short of mass-deindustrialization and/or suicide. This fact has been obvious from the start. As has been said many times now, you AGW whiners need to set an example and get off the grid and lose your cars. Maybe some of you can be truly noble and off yourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat does it. I will never post on a global-warming related thread again. Best to just cut our losses and switch to a private site, where trolls actually get banned, and discuss possible solutions instead of the latest statistics that try to show the nutcases how screwed we are. Is there a way to prevent the comments section from appearing on these online articles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Best to just cut our losses and switch to a private site, where trolls actually get banned"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is the most intelligent comment that you have written. Please do so ASAP. May I suggest that http://www.autismsafe.org/ would be a safe site for you.
"Is there a way to prevent the comments section from appearing on these online articles?"
Yes, it is called "self control"! When you get to the bottom of an article - STOP SCROLLING. No one is forcing you, to discern knowledge or realize truth. No one is forcing you to read this comment... either. GK
One of my concerns is if there is widespread heating of the atmosphere, will there be heating of the crust of the earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the crust heats up even one degree, there would be expansion and would this lead to earth quakes.
Looking at highways and bridges, there are expansion joints, and even rail road tracks have capacity for expansion in hot weather.
If there crust of the earth heats even one or two degrees, and heating probably would extend several feet, perhaps hundreds of feet from the surface, will this lead to earth quakes.
Considering the circumference of the earth, about 25 thousand miles, and heating one or two degrees celsius, what will be the expansion of the crust.
What is the coefficient of expansion of crustal materials such as rock, basalt, limestone, etc.
Will this destabilize tectonic plates? Will this cause activation of volcanoes.
How about the super-volcano at Yellowstone. Will heating the crust one or two degrees lead to faults and migration of lava.
There have been other super-volcanoes, I think in India in the distant past.
Can we expect a super-volcano, or even volcanoes like Mt. St. Helens or the volcano in Iceland which caused extensive ash in Europe and over the North Atlantic.
Although super-volcanos in the distant past led to widespread atmosphere shading from sulfur dioxide in the high atmosphere, and the ash clouds have lead to years without a summer in the past, it is hardly a solution we want to global warming.
If global warming is likely to precipitate increased crustal and tectonic activity with earth quakes and volcanism, even tsunami's, we may be looking at unprecedented apocalyptic events which would occur on a global scale, for which it would be very difficult if not impossible to respond.
Wake up world. The primary cause of global warming (and it really is happening) and the faster rate of other animal destruction is the human animal's desire for SEX! Spending more on things which result in even higher rates of childbirth will simply result in even greater increases in the global warming relationship to the food production system let alone everything else from heating/cooling living quarters to driving whatever types of vehicles. So can we even begin to deal with this part of the issue? Well this is highly unlikely as every major religion (that which was created by the same dumb human animal) has convinced the majority of people to continue to add to the world as they are told that is what their gods want and the more you add the higher up into this illusionary pedestal will you go. Once one studies what is really happening, it is without question that the majority of us will really lose in less than one century. So continue to rationalize meeting the basic human need as there is little hope at this point. Oh you might as well also give even more away to those who can add the most in terms of human animal counts. Maybe the faster we wipe ourselves out the better change most of the other animals have in surviving their instinctual abilities to adapt to change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you sure you are not "Penrod"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone else interested in cashing in... visit:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkeptics - Money for Nothing... Chicks for Free.com
Now that we have got that out of the way, perhaps you can suggest another reason for CO2 skepticism. No skeptic, I know of, has ever claimed, there was no CO2 effect. Some small portion of the GW signal is anthropogenic in nature. It is small and resides within the noise signal of constantly shifting climates and yes, weather.
It is the exaggerated signal being presented and the further extrapolation, of that exaggerated signal, into the future, that has the skeptics outraged. They instantly recognize such tactics, as alarm raising, in order to initiate a rush to action. A rush to action means ignoring all data which contradicts the hypothesis. It is this data individual contributors are trying to present to the public.
The fact that you find the data entertaining... BONUS! GK
Yes we are victims of our status quo bias. With 7+ billion on the planet, the "grass is greener" approach to climatic change our ancestors used will not work unless we plan to see a large reduction in the population through violence and starvation. My question is why do we limit our options. When facing such a problem the first strategy is mitigation of damage, particularly when true solution to the fossil fuels problem may be many years out into the future. As a species we need not be victimized by our own ignorance in the past. Judicious use of albedo increasing particulates such as SO4 will buy us time so we are not at the whim of a capricious climatic system. Once the human disasters begin in earnest it will be too late to begin such a project.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have had to wait years for this type of article, and had stopped buying the magazine in protest. While the Tragedy of the Commons didn't get a mention, most of the key issues were addressed in a sane and sensible manner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSCIAM must get out of its almost unceasing discussion of economics, politics and government policy and get back to science.
Well done Daniel Botkin for this excellent article.
It's a great idea to get used to climate change. This has been true all throughout human history. Climate change is a regular process and always has been. It's like weather change, or daylight change, or ageing change or any other kind of change - a natural progression caused by natural processes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea that we can legislate it out of existence is a narcissistic notion promoted by the AGW religious cult, a huge power grab by an unelected elite.
"Karst, I am breaking my self-imposed rule to say this:"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike I said... merely a loss of "self control". Try keeping your finger off the scroll wheel, in order to prevent, the overturning of your universe and another "episode".
The world may end tomorrow, but it certainly won't be due to trace CO2. Iranian U235 perhaps, maybe Syrian nerve gas, or dozens of other reasons, that may tip us into Armageddon type conflagration. The world is rife with danger and we take calculated risks daily. No reason to lose our heads. Cheers GK
Bird/tree you express my own frustration very well. But, isn’t it obvious that these deniers are simply the pawns of all those conservative organizations that want to end any government attempt to address AGW. It really is a shame that they dominate this site but I really come here to read the articles and I have come to expect the ratings of these fools. Since it is impossible to change their minds I think it best to simply post coments on the articles and ignore them. They seem to want the attention as if they are stage actors cavorting about in front of an audience. Although it is not really the subject of Macbeth’s soliloquy I cannot help but think of them as, "a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing." Signifying nothing because, in the end, the truth of physics and chemistry will become known to all...possibly when it is too late to do anything about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd your solution oh wise one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan kind can either make changes that correct or mitigate the causes of climate change, or climate change will correct the problem by greatly reducing or eliminating man kind. (extinction). Most likely, if disastrous dye off of man kind happens, there would be "some of us left" to start over, but not for sure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can start working to correct what we are doing to the environment, or the environment will correct it by eliminating us.
Tell me. What is the greatest change we could begin to make immediately with proven technplogy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"dye off"? What color?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMankind will probably not die off. With multi-billions of people (and growing) enough people should survive any catastrophe short of what killed off the dinosaurs. What will happen is a drastic reduction of the number of people, and a reduction of the standard of living of the remainder. Yes, large numbers of people live in warm climates, but the highest standard of living has been maintained in temperate climates. (Malaria, dengue, west nile virus, Chagas disease, etc. all flourish in tropical climates.) Yes, people and animals have adapted to changing climates in the past, however the climate is changing far more rapidly then it has ever changed in the past. Blithely saying, "we'll all adapt" is a foolish approach to unprecedented change. This type of change has never happened before. The intelligent approach would be to attempt to mitigate the amount of climate change by accelerating the change to renewables, as well as to build a robust infrastructure. Evidently, mankind isn't as smart as we think we are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYea, We'll adapt...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom any sensible & rational scientific POV, there is no question whether, one way or another, either through choice or default, we will have to adapt, and do so in a very big way. And I have little doubt our species will survive. But survive, thrive and/or maintain our modern paradigm are all very different things. It is clear to me that human population & civilization, as we now know it, will change very drastically and no amount of additional infrastructure can stem that tide (pun intended). The sad fact remains that literally billions of us have all our eggs in the "current Climate" paradigm. Many of the places where literally billions of us reside and/or rely upon for food and water will become either inhabitable or un-arable. There will severe worldwide droughts in many of the places where the vast majority of our food and water comes from. Famine will become the new normal even for places once thought to be famine free. Coastal locations where most major modern cities are located, and most humans reside, will become permanently flooded. As such there will be billions of first world folk forced into third world lives and great exoduses and great migrations that will even further overwhelm the current paradigm of modern habitation. And well before that there will be great conflicts and wars for all sorts of different resources, esp. food and water, as they decline. Clearly, its gonna get rely ugly really fast and no one will be spared from true and deep suffering and near everlasting grief. And literally billions will perish well before their time in that process. But yea, we'll adapt, but only in the way a kicking, screaming and tantruming child adapts. Of that I am 100% certain.
The changing effect of the climatic pattern is hard to understand now. Lot of findings are aiming to research on this topic of course.Many of the world population's life events are prone to be a partially related to there zonal climate.Hence it has identified as a controlling reason in any activity. What I feel is finally we all belongs to nature. We cant go beyond it. The nature select us. We can win anything that made by man but not nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems so logical that the climate will change because humans are steadily putting in more co2 every day. The climate has to change. What is the problem?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is just part of the right wing attack on anyone who wants to focus on Global warming as a problem. The new meme on the right is that OK, so the warming is real, so what? Adapt Adapt Adapt is their new motto. But, you don't see the author calling for restrictions of hydrocarbon based energy use as a way to Adapt, do you. They want us to adapt ( AKA, Get used to it), but not God forbid threaten the short term profits of their Holy Oil , Coal and Nat. gas Corps. while doing it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this45. Seaglass
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this11:24 AM 12/21/12 writes....
.....They want us to adapt ( AKA, Get used to it), but not God forbid threaten the short term profits of their Holy Oil , Coal and Nat. gas Corps. while doing it....
In this case _they_ refers to right wing conspirators and their desire for adapting as a legitimate response to his claims of imminent disaster. I am sure seaglass would include me in that category.
However I must say that I am indifferent to the profits or lack thereof in particular industries.
I am concerned though with my life and lifestyle. The originators and current serious advocates of global warming catastrophe responses are indifferent or pleased with the likelihood of my losing both as a consequence of their plans.
Naturally I beg to disagree. Really, it has nothing to do with someone else's profits.
The fact that Seaglass can't understand something as simple and human as my reaction makes me question his understanding of just about everything else.