[tasmodevil44]

I admit that correlation does not necessarily always translate into cause and effect.But it never ceases to amaze me how much a lot of right-wing conservatives try to deny or argue away global warming.By now,there's more than enough evidence for a consensus as to what is taking place.And it is not merely a cyclical thing determined by solar output variability.The warming trend is far greater than solar output from the sun can account for.I think they have global warming pretty much well pegged.How much more proof do skeptics need?

      Of course,there are short-term feedback mechanisms that may buy us more time(provided of course,we don't waste the time nature buys us).For example,there may be a temporary cooling trend in the middle of this century before temperatures begin to climb again.Computer models suggest that increased warming will cause more evaporation from oceans,thus temporarily increasing cloud cover that reflects sunlight back into space.And of course,the climate is so choatic and unpredictable,nature can unexpectedly throw a curve-ball at us.

      What is really scary about the climate is that no amount of global warming may be capable of preventing another ice age.If a volcanic eruption(I'm talking super eruption...not ordinary)injects enough volcanic ash high in the upper stratosphere above rain clouds and weather,it will take years to evetually fall out again.The explosion of Yellowstone Park is one possibility.What good would global warming do to counteract it if we had to deal with flooded population centers and coastal lowlands in the meantime?   

[Gerard]

uhm i hope this wont lead to a debate if mars is livable....

[tasmodevil44]

Living on Mars,did you say?Artificial Student,scientists have already had conversations about that for years.What you call terraforming(making an unlivable planet more livable).

      About 5 billion years from now(not in our lifetime,thank goodness),the Sun will swell-up and expand into what they call a red giant;as it exhausts the last of it's nuclear fuel supply.It will swallow-up and devour Mercury and Venus;and the atmosphere and oceans of Earth will boil away.

      At that time...if any future inhabitants of Earth still exist...and our species has not gone extinct due to other calamities by that time...retreat farther from the Sun to Mars would be one option.Global warming?Solar system roasting!

[Borek]

Around 900 millions till it will get too hot on Earth surface for liquid water. Sun is already slowly getting larger and we are getting closer to its surface.

[tasmodevil44]

If no amount of global warming can prevent another Ice Age if volcanic activity of major cataclysmic proportions occurs...or lots of smoke and dust is kicked-up by an asteroid or comet strike...perhaps we'll get lucky and just the opposite occurs:instead of global warming being able to prevent major global cooling in such an event,maybe we'll get lucky enough for a less severe explosion of Yellowstone--temporarily putting a damper on global warming--long enough to buy time to fix the problem.

      Don't count on it though.It's sort of tricky trying to neatly balance-out hot and cold the way you would balance the tap water from your shower head until it's just right.Ouuch! Just burned myself. Balancing climate(whether natural or by man-made intervention)could be equally tricky a proposition.   

[apex]

Maybe global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, not because of the increased emissions, but because we diminish the earth's capability to process greenhouse gases like CO2 by cutting down rain forests? I think I have read somewhere that the emissions from industry are negletable in comparison with the greenhouse gas production of nature and the living beings. Maybe overpopulation is also important?

[billnotgatez]

Should we
Decrease the birth rate
Increase the death rate
Promote immigration to outer space
All of the above
None of the above

[tasmodevil44]

I think that increasing the death rate would be cruel and inhumane disrespect for human life.

Immigration to outer space is unrealistic on economic grounds...takes to much fuel energy just for a few privileged astronauts to get to visit space...because you're fighting an uphill struggle against a steep gravity well.

Doing nothing at all is unrealistic because something has to be done about overpopulation or else all the technology fixes in the world will only buy a little more time rather than save us...the planet is finite and only so large...in fact,it seems to shrink all the time.

The only realistic option that is humane is to toe the line when it comes to controlling the birth rate...not allow so many people to be born in the first place.But try telling that to some fundamentalist extremist who thinks that an embryo consisting of only a few unspecialized cells is already a human.

[azmanam]

Immigration to outer space is unrealistic on economic grounds

That doesn't sound like the optimistic tasmodevil pondering CO₂ magnets...

because something has to be done about overpopulation or else all the technology fixes in the world will only buy a little more time rather than save us...the planet is finite and only so large...in fact,it seems to shrink all the time.

How small is the world?  What do you mean by 'overpopulation'?  To use the (in)famous example:

6,602,224,175 people in the world. 261,797.12 square miles of land area in the state of Texas (7.3 × 10¹² square feet). 

That works out to ~1,100 square feet per person, for every person in the world, if they all lived in Texas. 

Heck, my wife and I don't have 1,100 square feet in our apartment.  The world is large enough that every single person in the world could live alone by themselves in their very own 1,100 square foot apartment with every apartment located in Texas.  Imagine what we could fit in Texas if families combined their 1,100 square feet and if we build multi-story apartment buildings...  Or if Oklahoma joined in on the fun...

The only realistic option that is humane is to toe the line when it comes to controlling the birth rate...not allow so many people to be born in the first place.

Who gets to decide how many kids a woman can have?  You?  the UN?  The WHO?  What happens when, inevitably, someone gets pregnant with that n+1^th child?  Forced abortion?  Exile to an 1,110 square foot apartment in Texas?  Anything except allowing that child to live begins to sound like increasing the death rate - which we both agree is inhumane disrespect for human life.  How do you control birth rate?  Taxpayer-subsidized condoms?  Forced sterilization?  And how does the agency in charge of artificially controlling birth rate divine what the 'ideal world population' is? 

You throw out a number of options, but have you given thought to their consequences?

[billnotgatez]

To azmanam – although you can stack people one on top of the other it takes more land to support them. Food does not mysteriously appear from nowhere much less all the necessities like TVs, Autos, and the like. Of course we could all go back to being naked and eating twigs and berries. Then we would not need so much land.

To tasmodevil44 – your fundamental extremist argument is too broad a brush to paint with and trite.

Obviously we see two ends of the political spectrum here, neither having a good solution and having observations colored by opinion rather than fact.

Please do not ask me for the solution, I have not got a clue yet. I am just looking at all the options and most all of them have huge drawbacks.

[Borek]

Of course we could all go back to being naked and eating twigs and berries. Then we would not need so much land.

Quite the opposite, we will need much more land. Think in terms of productivity and amount of crops.

[billnotgatez]

I was being tongue in cheek – if everyone lived on a near starvation diet we might have plenty of land for a while – or maybe we could get solent green (movie reference).

[dzoys]

Of course we could all go back to being naked and eating twigs and berries. Then we would not need so much land.

Quite the opposite, we will need much more land. Think in terms of productivity and amount of crops.

also assuming that all the land in the world is equivalent to the fertility of texas land.

the numbers suggest that all land was included such as antarctica and siberia. with this in mind. i can not force myself to pretend that it will all be texan climate and fertility.