what was wrong with the first post?
lets see if i can find them all.
First, I suggest anyone reading this look up the phrase "rapid climate change" or "abrupt climate change" in google. It is unintuitive that climate change is not gradual or linear. Outside of the scientific community it is a little known fact that when forced, the climate historically changes from one stable state to another abruptly
according to the graphs that da and others used to bring out to prove the connection between co2 and temperature changes (until i pointed out that the co2 followed the temperature by atleast a century), the "abrupt" changes usually take about 3 to 4 centuries. not that abrupt. The only graph that was every used that showed an abrupt change was the much disgraced Mann hockey stick graph.
As da pointed out, there are isolated examples that can, if streached, be able to argue your point.
Second, I suggest a person interested in learning would happen if the climate suddenly changed from the mild climate we've enjoyed for the last ten thousand years called the Holocene, to a hotter dryer climate that has been responsible for mass extinctions in the past, learn about past civilians that have suffered relatively mild droughts during the Holocene.
the last 10000 years have been something of an anomoly. the great majority of earths history, the temperature has been much higher. the majority of the time that it was not higher, it was considerably colder, with evidence that ice cover the entire earth at least once. Life existed just fine when the temperature was higher. It was only when the ice covered the equator that there was a problem with life surviving, in fact only single cell sea life survived.
the greatest extinctions did not occur because the temperature went up (life adjusted), but because the temperature fell, such as when Mount Toba exploded 75000 years ago and 80 percent of life died, including all but about 1000 of our ancestors. They did not die due to the heat, but from the freeze caused by the so2 that was pumped into the upper atmosphere in a matter of a couple to 4 days.
another possible example is the dinosars, but there is some argument that it was not the cold that killed them, but disease, or other things. Ive read about many of these theories, but dont have the evidence to be conpletely convienced in any of them.
It is difficult to imagine, because people now are so removed from where their food comes from, and from the heat of summer. Supermarkets and air conditioners. In the event of an abrupt climate change, there will be difficulty growing food, and producing enough energy to keep everyone cool.
some areas would need more cooling, but other areas that need cooling would not need it.
also some areas that cant produce food, due to the lack of a decent growing season would, plus areas that dont get rain would, allowing them to produce more food.
Third, if industrialized countries are whinning about their economy hurting my the small gradual cuts in greenhouse gas emission, imagine how they would react if they knew the large fast cuts they would have to make to avoid aburpt climate change.
1st off, the cuts are not as gradual as you make them sound.
2nd, its more the fact that those cuts would do little in comparison with what good it might concieveably do, and the cost compared to the gain. They are talking about a 100 percent cut, which means that we would have to stop driving cars, stop using all carbon based energy plants, and get rid of the majority of the animals that produce co2.
3) all of this assumes that man is the cause, save the much disgraced Mann hockey stick graphs, and a few graphs like the ones that i mention, and a bunch of models that have to have their data continually adjusted, there is no evidence that man is causing any change in the temperature of the planet. There is even data that suggest the planet is cooling rather than heating.
Yeah, the world is having big trouble just agreeing on rather painless small gradual cuts in emission. I doubt a climate crisis will make it any easier to reach a much more difficult agreement. Forget about it. It will be every man for himself. Every country for itself, with any resources used for crisis managment.
how painless is it to get rid of all cars, train, farm tractors and electric companies.
people talk about how little we have to get rid of, yet they dont see that it would destroy the worlds economy to do so. Millions if not billions would die from lack of food, because we could not grow the crops, or get them to market if we did. just using more efficent engines will not do the trick, it would require that ever industrial nation turn itself in to a preindustiral one to meet the criteria that GWA say is so easy to achieve.
ive yet to hear one GWA say how we are going to reduce the emission as much. its the same thing as a politician promising to raise benifits to everyone, yet at the same time reduce taxes to everyone. cant be done.
the biggest problem with this is that there is no evidence to back it up. no data, just another political lackey pumping more unproven hype into the stream.
