Reply, part two
Posted by bobbapink on Jan 07, 2002 at 11:39
Re: Endangered natural resources (bio_ladi)
It is further projected that due to global warming within 30-50 years most of the world's coral reefs will disappear.
Projected by who and using what means. They can’t predict the weather a week in advance, how is it you think they are going to predict it 30-50 years in advance. All of these “predictions” are based on iffy assumptions, flawed models, and politics.
Think of the impact that will have on fish we already are finding difficult to harvest now.
Once again, moot point. I can’t know the impact of a non-event.
So if coral reefs disappear and new life has to form then per the norm life evolves and we move onwards yes? No…it is happening at too fast of a rate.
What is the extinction rate? Do you know? Do you know how it is calculated? Do you know how it is forecasted?
Four areas will be affected by coral reef devastation: sea life (our food included), tourism, biodiversity and coastal protection.
Your statement assumes that coral reef “devastation” is in fact occurring and that man causes its occurrence. Until you can demonstrate that, it is a moot point.
Egypt alone stands to lose approximately 2 million tourist a year.
Says who? Once again, it’s a moot point. BTW, I’ve been to Egypt, it sucked, and the smell of fish was the least offensive odor I noticed.
Do the math that is a heck of a lot of money for one country alone.
Then I’d suggest they change their culture to be more hospitable to the currency-laden tourist. But that’s their call, not yours or mine, and completely off subject.
Globally it will have even more devastating effects as nations that depend on tourism find themselves trying to survive without it.
Assumes facts not in evidence. As one region loses tourist dollars, other regions gain them. Unless, that is, people stop touring entirely because they no longer have the extra cash necessary to do so, as would likely be the case if protocols such as Kyoto were implemented.
Droughts, floods and severe storms are becoming more frequent and harsher.
Assumes facts not in evidence. It is more likely that if global warming were to occure, there would be less, not more, droughts, floods, and severe storms – depending on your locale of course.
El Nino was to blame for approximately 90% of coral reef death in the Indian Ocean.
El Nino has nothing to do with global warming so the point, even if true, which it likely is not, is moot.
The 1-2 C increase of water temp every 100 years is not at all good news for coral reefs and the wild life that depends on them for survival. (Note: El Nino is considered a natural occurrence, but it warmed the waters and shows the effects of such an event.)
And it’s still moot because you have not shown a 1-2 C increase in ocean temperature nor have you demonstrated that man is cause. Even then, you haven’t suggest what we could do about even if we were.
Global warming can also be laid to blame for an increase in growing season over the last 20 years.
Satellite data refutes your claim.
NASA researchers have shown (via satellites dear heart) that trees in Europe and Asia are coming into leaf about a week early and autumn is arriving 10 days later.
Hemispheric variations does not a global climate change make…dear heart.
What effect does this have on us?
Glad you asked that question my scholarly friend! *smile*
You asked it, I answered it! *smile*
All crops have an optimal growing season, farmers can make adjustments to this and may even be able to insure the same profits but that is doubtful.
You are suggesting that a longer growing season is less profitable than a short one? I’m sure the folk in Canada and Alaska will be happy to hear that. OTOW, since there is no long term variation in the growing season, I’m sure they don’t care.
Crops transpire massive amounts of water. Corn will transpire nearly 4.2 million liters of water per hectare (2.47 acres). So irrigation from lakes, rivers and aquifers has to make up for the lack of rain that is crucially needed during germination and fruiting stages.
Are you now suggesting that global warming will result in less rainfall? References please.
85% of the United States pumped water goes towards agriculture. In the United States only 12% of our agriculture is irrigated.
I find that scary.
Why? Assuming you’re right, what’s scary about that?
To pump this water we once again go back to using fossil fuels.
If you prefer, we could use nuclear power. Would that make you happy? It would certainly make ME happier.
That same water hungry hectare of corn uses twice as much energy when irrigated than rain fed corn.
Well, if you are right that global warming is occurring, how do you know that the US will not be wetter? References please.
Now we can discuss what global warming does for insects.
good. I like bugs.
Insects are prospering due to global warming trends. Some insect types produce 500 offspring every two weeks. A longer warm season means more insects. Which means more insects attacking crops and other plants. Not to mention the insects are very mobile and will move ever northern. (oops! forgot to mention disease via insects! Pesky little vectors aren't they?)
No trend is apparent but assuming there were, so what? What do you think you could do about it?
More insects equate less money for farmers.
That depends actually. Insects that farmers loath are generally quite specialized and their numbers could be managed as effectively as before using the same methods. This doesn’t even account for mans continued technology to genetically alter crops to resist such pests.
Naturally insecticides can be implemented which would raise crop prices, insuring less profit or more government assistance, to the farmers.
Assumes facts not in evidence. References?
There is also the little annoying fact that the more pesticides we use the more the insects seem to thrive…hmmm
That’s a problem, true, global warming or not. Monsanto to the rescue.
Yes, we are doing much to insure that our species will be harmfully effected.
Think about what you just said there. What solution to this non-problem do you suggest that well be less harmful than the problem it attempts to fix?
Without many of the plants and animals we now depend on to sustain life where will we turn when we find that the atmospheric CO2 levels are benefiting more weeds than food source?
Assumes facts not in evidence. References please?
So, I guess at this point I am talking merely about natural resources as in: animals, plants and water. Pretty important in the scope of things.
Well, important in an emotional sense, yes; but not really topical.
You suggest that we own this planet we now attempt to live on? I suggest we do not.
Either we evolved or we were created into what we are now. At the same point other species evolved or were created. If we own it do not they also?
Ownership is a human construct; so yes, we own it and they do not.
Since mankind is doing the majority of the damage to the earth then I would think that it would be our responsibility to undo what we have wrought.
Great – now all you have to do is figure out exactly how we are going to do that without causing more damage in the long run. Think of it this way: If your solution to solving the problem results in less productivity, you will have effected less wealth and more poverty. Wealth is the means by which these problems are solved, poverty is the means by which they are caused.
We are creating an environment that is no longer friendly to those that share it with us as well as ourselves.
I disagree. We seem to be cleaner than we’ve been in centuries.
Geez, I feel almost as if I were retaking my orals again!
I’ll leave that one alone for now.
- Re: Reply, part two bio_ladi 07/1 22:54 (2)
Post a Followup