(December 4, 2010 at 9:25 pm)Chuck Wrote: Except climate change attacks the habitats of the greatest value and importance to human economy.

What does that even mean? Climate change doesn't cut down trees or dig mines, oil wells, etc.

(December 4, 2010 at 9:29 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(December 4, 2010 at 9:25 pm)Chuck Wrote: Except climate change attacks the habitats of the greatest value and importance to human economy.

What does that even mean? Climate change doesn't cut down trees or dig mines, oil wells, etc.

Sea level rise caused by Climate change will destroy majority of coastal wetland style habitats on which maybe half of the world's population depend for food.

Also, Prior to human development of the last 200 years, many habitats can respond to climate change by moving to seek Familiar climate conditions when climates at it's original location becomes unsuitable. With extensive human developments boxing habitats in, some habitats that normally would survive climate change by moving can no longer do so. This restriction probably makes many habitats much more susceptible to destruction by climate change then they were before human development.

(December 4, 2010 at 10:02 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(December 4, 2010 at 9:29 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(December 4, 2010 at 9:25 pm)Chuck Wrote: Except climate change attacks the habitats of the greatest value and importance to human economy.

What does that even mean? Climate change doesn't cut down trees or dig mines, oil wells, etc.

Sea level rise caused by Climate change will destroy majority of coastal wetland style habitats on which maybe half of the world's population depend for food.

Also, Prior to human development of the last 200 years, many habitats can respond to climate change by moving to seek Familiar climate conditions when climates at it's original location becomes unsuitable. With extensive human developments boxing habitats in, some habitats that normally would survive climate change by moving can no longer do so. This restriction probably makes many habitats much more susceptible to destruction by climate change then they were before human development.

Which would make over population and deforestation the problem.

The fact of the matter is that sea levels rising is not an immediate problem. That is my point. Forests literally disappearing is an immediate problem. As are invasive species and over hunting.

Both of you are correct dammit!

Climate change is an incredible problem right now as humans have contributed quite a bit of help to a force that has routinely decimated the globe in ages past ("Ice age").

Cutting down forests, overpopulation, carbon fuels all have contributed to that behemoth.

And no Shell, sea level rise and the fluctuations brought on by climate change will destroy or severely damage existing ecosystem. Technically, climate change is a bigger problem.

Think of it akin to a giant, heavy boulder rolling down a hill at us -- at first it starts slowly due to it's mass, but when it gets up to speed, good luck stopping it.

What accelerates and assists that giant climate change boulder of doom is cutting down forests, etc,. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and thus additional molecules that can store thermal energy quite well (as vibrational modes)) and damaging carbon sequestration is affecting the entire globe.

Global climate change, like any other large scale event, has a certain momentum to it. Several talks I attended by USGS scientists stated clearly that even if we were to halt all carbon emissions by humanity immediately, climate change would still occur. Not nearly as badly, but still.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a projected atmospheric/climate freight train thundering down the track and is aimed right at us.

(December 5, 2010 at 1:07 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Both of you are correct dammit!

Duh.

(December 5, 2010 at 1:07 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Climate change is an incredible problem right now as humans have contributed quite a bit of help to a force that has routinely decimated the globe in ages past ("Ice age").

I made it clear that I don't think climate change is not a problem. I think both problems need to be addressed immediately. What I said was that habitat destruction scares me more. This is basically because its effects are more obvious and immediate. It's also been happening for far longer than our affect on climate change.

(December 5, 2010 at 1:07 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Cutting down forests, overpopulation, carbon fuels all have contributed to that behemoth.

Indeed it has. It has also contributed to animals being hit by motorists, dangerous soil erosion (not future erosion, now erosion), etc.

(December 5, 2010 at 1:07 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: And no Shell, sea level rise and the fluctuations brought on by climate change will destroy or severely damage existing ecosystem.

I don't believe I said it wouldn't.

(December 5, 2010 at 1:07 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Technically, climate change is a bigger problem.

I don't think I said one or the other was a bigger problem. What I am talking about is which is more immediate.

(December 5, 2010 at 1:07 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Think of it akin to a giant, heavy boulder rolling down a hill at us -- at first it starts slowly due to it's mass, but when it gets up to speed, good luck stopping it.

I couldn't agree with you more, as it pertains to both issues (which are obviously the same in some respects). I don't think people will be able to stop it by the time it bites them in the ass.

(December 5, 2010 at 1:07 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: What accelerates and assists that giant climate change boulder of doom is cutting down forests, etc,. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and thus additional molecules that can store thermal energy quite well (as vibrational modes)) and damaging carbon sequestration is affecting the entire globe.

Yep. To be honest, the best thing that could happen for this planet is for climate change to kill us and to spare enough life for this planet to continue sustaining it.

(December 5, 2010 at 1:07 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Global climate change, like any other large scale event, has a certain momentum to it. Several talks I attended by USGS scientists stated clearly that even if we were to halt all carbon emissions by humanity immediately, climate change would still occur. Not nearly as badly, but still.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a projected atmospheric/climate freight train thundering down the track and is aimed right at us.

Shell B Wrote:Yep. To be honest, the best thing that could happen for this planet is for climate change to kill us and to spare enough life for this planet to continue sustaining it.

It is a pity.......

It would be nice to think that we could make it to the next level, but we persist in waging a war against our Planet.

Quote:Yep. To be honest, the best thing that could happen for this planet is for climate change to kill us and to spare enough life for this planet to continue sustaining it.

I had no idea the planet was a thinking thing with a value system. For me the planet and all on it is exactly a resource to be managed for the benefit of men and his progenies and nothing else, and the continued existence of the planet and everything on it would be a silly objective without presupposing the continued existence of men and his progenies to benefit from it.

I think I have to agree with that sentiment. If humanity is to become extinct, I don't really care what happens to the planet after that. As long as we need to use the planet as a resource, I think we should do what we can to keep it around.

(December 5, 2010 at 12:33 pm)Chuck Wrote:

Quote:Yep. To be honest, the best thing that could happen for this planet is for climate change to kill us and to spare enough life for this planet to continue sustaining it.

Since for me the planet and all on it is exactly a resource to be managed for the benefit of men and his progenies and nothing else, and the continued existence of the planet and all on it unnecessary without men continued existence of men and his progenies, no meaningful discussion between can continue on this basis.

I didn't say I wanted it to happen. However, I do have an interest in the planet that goes beyond the species that is destroying it.

This species is not destroying it. It is reforming it, although whether or not for the better by a number of different standards, including what i think is yours, is really much harder to say then you realize.

Was the Permian extinction - the greatest extinction event we know of, and far more extravagantly destructive of then living species and habitats than the most serious projections of the current extinction event or the one that killed dinosaurs - destroying the planet? It might have looked like it for someone looking at it from within it the few hundreds of thousands of years it lasted. Would it have been the best thing for earth if Permian extinction never occurred or was cut short long before destroying 90% of all species as it would go on to do? For someone enamored to lystrasaurs or other permian habitats and biota, it might appear so. But was the Mesozoic age that followed it, with its dinosaurs, pterosaurs and plesiosaurs, worse then the Paleozoic age that it terminated? Permian extinction ushered in an entirely new age with a completely different biota that was fundamentally different and arguably much more robust and diverse. So why were the habitats and creatures of the Permian age more deserving of life then those that came after them in the jurrasic?

Without a robust means to forecast how the biota will adapt in the long run to what we impose, we have no grounds to analytically say what will be the best for the planet. I think Experience of past extinction events suggest while the planet's short term ability to maintain habitats exactly as the biota at one point of time has adapted to is easily defeated, the planet's fundamental long ability to ensure conditions in which vigorous new habitats for new biota can develop is very strong and easily beyond our ability to dent in an overall sense. In this case, it seems to me the main factor which can rationally drive our policy on habitat maintenance is how much will destruction of an existing habitat, to which we may have become materially dependent directly or indirectly, cost us.