calamine wrote:the Temperate Zones are affected the least, the Arctic and Tropical, the most. What that means is that the U.S., Europe and China can pollute the most with the least harm to themselves - and, just my guess, they will.

Your reasoning is flawed. While it is true that global warming is most pronounced at the polar regions, this doesn't give the temperate regions license to pollute the most.

First, this differential of temperatures only applies in the early phase, the most unstable, which we are now in. As time goes on, temperatures will equalize all over the world, reaching the first global "year of no seasons" by around 2040.

Second, each tonne of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere from anywhere doesn't just sit in situ, it disperses since it is a gas and is able to DIFFUSE. If you ever studied the process of diffusion in physics or HS chemistry you'd understand that.

Third, each tonne deposited has a resident time in the atmosphere of 100 years. What that means is that each successive input of CO2, from wherever, increases the CO2 load cumulatively. Thus, the effects we are seeing now with CO2 concentrations near 380 ppm, are a result of the accumulation of CO2 dating back to 1909. Those 1909 CO2 molecules are only now beginning to dissipate, but new, more concentrated ones are being added all the time from later years.

As you can see, each tonne of CO2 produced in ANY temperate nation will therefore also add to the total load of the gas, and enhance its forcing effects in the atmosphere. It is these forcing effects that mainly comprises the contribution from human-engendered warming.

Thus, to blindly pour more CO2 into the air because one lives in a temperate nation is merely compounding the warming problem for all future generations.

Now a postcript: while it is true that humans are as "nothing" in the grand cosmic scheme of things, as one commentator implied, that doesn't give us license to simply allow human civilization to be destroyed for us and all generations to follow by doing "nothing".

If one is really and truly THAT cynical and nihilistic, his best bet is simply to off himself right now. At least the rest of us can then do what we can to salvage what's left of the planet without being sidetracked by human nihilists - who are nearly as bad in their own way as the deniers.

web_reader wrote:Tell us what you do know. How about, if we do nothing (as is currently likely) what will our future look like? What is the cost of delaying 10 years? 20 years? What can be done that would make a useful impact? What would the impact be?

If you want to have answers to those questions, at the level a member of the non-scientific "peanut gallery" can digest and understand, tune in tonight to ABC's 'Future 2100'.

It will provide you with ample visuals on what to expect if we continue to allow the deniers to force us to postpone action and just do nothing.

Cheers.

awaesome -o (member of NA) wrote: Where are you pulling this shit from? The same place as Droogoy's "200k"? Do you guys share an anus or something?

Actually, we share an intellect and insight - using an analogy, that renders yours like a cockroach's by comparison. The 200k figure, fyi, was arrived at by simple quantification using extrapolations, reasonable assumptions and a simple pocket calculator. For example, using available data from sources, e.g. World Water Atlas, to incorporate that data into simple models that yield climate-related deaths.

For example, the previously cited source notes at present rates of decline in potable water volume (and access) even without factoring in the worst global warming influences. These data lead to an estimate of the number of people living in water-stressed countries increasing from 470 million to 3 billion by 2025.

More than a sixfold increase. Add in projected new climate change data and likely effects (see. eg. recent issues of Eos) and the stressed populations increase nine or tenfold.

Now, go to the present and the number of water-related deaths, whether by basic dehydration(leading to kidney failure etc), or more commonly water borne illness -including amoebic dysentery and cholera. This runs to nearly 2.5 million per year.

Estimating the increment (positive change) of climate conditions that could cause this, say from the previous year, leads to an expectation value or average of how many (what proportion) of the 2.5 million deaths from water-related issues factors. An estimate of 5% arises, based on previous models and work for example, reported in SCIENCE, Global Climate and Infectious Disease- The Cholera Paradigm, Vol. 74, p. 2025, 1996.

The 5% value translates into 125,000 deaths. And we aren't even including those (yet) from climate-spread diseases, such as West Nile fever, Dengue fever, Leptospirosis, Hantavirus and others. Which similar computation easily leads to an additional 75, 000 deaths per year - since none of those diseases would be producing the deaths they are in the places they are were it not for climate change.

No one faults you for your ignorance, since alas that is a widespread commodity amongst the peanut gallery know-nothing skeptics. But at least next time you comment bring something to the table besides your evident mental retardation.