Dangerously hot - affects of Global Warming

Originally posted by Merk
How many North Koreans and Chinese won't freeze to death thanks to global climate change warming?

why should we care? they are not located in or near a major media market?

Originally posted by Bad wolf
In the year 2003, 35,000 people died because of a heat wave that hit Europe.

And how many fewer died in the winter as a result of global warming?

If heat waves are more regular people will be better prepared.

Many people blame the deaths in New Orleans on global warming when the true culprit is the Govt that did not make proper preparations for a strong hurricane.

Global warming will change weather patterns and other things like the sea level. Whether we should try to stop it or adapt is a complex question as there will be both benefits and disadvantages to global warming. The two main reasons for trying to stop global warming are:
1. adaptation is usually more expensive (most coastal communities will have to move or live below sea level.)
2. we do not know for sure what the various effects will be so the risks are greater.

Originally posted by lepomis
Only the young and old? They seem important. What are some of the plans to cool all of them without further increase to the global warming problem.

Preventing such a bad problem from developing in the first place. 😛

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why should we care? they are not located in or near a major media market?

Yes, good reason, it is difficult to care about it when the media coverage of it is so little, or even none existent.
You can't care about something like that if you know nothing about it.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Yes, good reason, it is difficult to care about it when the media coverage of it is so little, or even none existent.
You can't care about something like that if you know nothing about it.

i think it has something to do with the price of airline tickets to north korea, and editorial budgets.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Preventing such a bad problem from developing in the first place. 😛

So I guess these guys went through alot of trouble for nothing... I hope my tax dollars didn't get used for that research... 🙂

Originally posted by lepomis
So I guess these guys went through alot of trouble for nothing... I hope my tax dollars didn't get used for that research... 🙂

More than anything I think this is useful in putting things in perspective, for these countries in particular, and how much of a priority it is.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why should we care? they are not located in or near a major media market?

Good point. If we did, it wouldn't be very eurocentric of us.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
More than anything I think this is useful in putting things in perspective, for these countries in particular, and how much of a priority it is.

In other words it is less of a problem than say obesity which probably kills far more Europeans in the average year. Maybe they should introduce a 'fat tax' for to be applied to all fat producers.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In other words it is less of a problem than say obesity which probably kills far more Europeans in the average year. Maybe they should introduce a 'fat tax' for to be applied to all fat producers.

Fat is a choice (well, for most you could say certainly).
Suffering problems because of Global Warming isn't the choice of individuals.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The two main reasons for trying to stop global warming are:
1. adaptation is usually more expensive (most coastal communities will have to move or live below sea level.)
2. we do not know for sure what the various effects will be so the risks are greater.

But who do we end up believing in the whole debate?

If we believe the doomsayers, then we may have already reached the tipping point, and stopping global warming may not be possible at all.

On the other hand the few scientists and skeptics who question the computer modeling that has largely been responsible for producing the fear of global warming and irreversible climate change, may also have it wrong, yet they seem to have the unspoken support of many of the wests leaders who are not excited at the prospect of spending billions of dollars on a remedy, the effectiveness of which that ultimately no one can accurately predict.

There seem to be two clear unanswered questions;-

a) how effective would changing the way we do things reverse the observed/perceived trend in rising global temperature?

b) even if we made all the changes as quickly as possible, is the trend that we predict will oneday engulf the coastal regions of the world, only influenced by man made activities? And if not, are we just witnessing a natural cycle that we have as yet not discovered? The only reason we have not been able to understand its dynamics is that maybe we as yet have only been involved for a relatively short period of time in the systematic and scientific recording of climate changes.

Our understanding is therefore influenced by a very small window of accurate readings ( relative to the earths documented history) and what we therefore observe, may not tell us the whole story about how severe the effects of climate change may be, or how futile our efforts to change our way of life may have on the global effects of climate change.

Originally posted by kmax87
But who do we end up believing in the whole debate?

If we believe the doomsayers, then we may have already reached the tipping point, and stopping global warming may not be possible at all.

On the other hand the few scientists and skeptics who question the computer modeling that has largely been responsible for producing the fear of global warming and i ...[text shortened]... w futile our efforts to change our way of life may have on the global effects of climate change.

It really doesn't matter who is correct... we should still try to do things that are healthy for the earth. The argument should be over what are the best practices to reduce unnatural influences on the environment...