[miaturner95]

yes, the threat is real, but the immediate effects of newbielink:https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/effects-of-climate-change [nonactive] are being debated upon. However, the journal articles by this professional newbielink:https://spam.com/college-spamwriting [nonactive] suggests that localized rise in temperature is quite evident and is more prominent, as compared to the rise in global average temperature

[jackchadwick]

Thanks for sharing great information. I always love to read and spread this kind of information that is unique and really informative.This was the first time I ordered from spam.me. My order went smoothly with the help of the support team, They were as good as they said. The written material came well before the timeline, And it was flawless.

[Colin2B]

Thanks for sharing great information. I always love to read and spread this kind of information that is unique and really informative.This was the first time I ordered from spam.me. My order went smoothly with the help of the support team, They were as good as they said. The written material came well before the timeline, And it was flawless.

Thanks for sharing this piece of spam
Bye, bye

[charles1948]

Doesn't Global Warming seem somewhat less of a threat than Global Cooling, in the form of a new Ice Age. Like we used to fear in the 1970's.  That was what Science was predicting at the time.  I remember seeing the TV programmes.

Apparently, the Gulf Stream was about to shut down. Resulting in North America  and Europe getting frozen and encased by miles-thick sheets of violently advancing glacial ice, remorselessly gouging farmlands, erasing major cities, and bringing about the imminent end of civilisation

That was very scary. 

"Global Warming" seems mild by comparison.  It only seems to propose a modest increase in warming, of 2 or 3 degrees C, by the year 2100.

Given the advances in Science likely to be achieved during this length of time,  won't we be able to cope?

[Bored chemist]

Doesn't Global Warming seem somewhat less of a threat than Global Cooling,

Not really.
Global warming can lead to local cooling- not least by shutting down the gulf stream.
In which case the UK will get colder and wetter.

It hardly matters whether your city is destroyed by glacier or flood, and most cities are near sea level.

[alancalverd]

The "modest temperature increase" is predicted to be a disaster for humanity, largely because

our species occupies a lot of marginal land - most of us live within 50 miles of the sea (practically everyone in the British Isles!) and a small rise in mean sea level will destroy lots of the best delta farmland

we are heavily dependent on the sea as a source of food, and small temperature changes can be as disastrous for our prey species worldwide as 50 years of incompetent government of the North Sea has been

thanks to scientific advances, the human population has outgrown any sustainable food and water supply

we are hanging on to survival largely  by the expenditure of fossil fuels, which will inevitably become scarce as demand increases both in numbers of consumers and their legitimate lifestyle aspirations 

a small increase in mean ambient temperature can significantly increase the viability of insect populations which compete with us for food and carry disease - we can expect ever-larger locust plagues and a wider spread of drug-resistant malaria, zika, West Nile virus......

Not that an ice age would be much more desirable. The simple fact is that homo sapiens has outgrown its resilience to environmental change.

[charles1948]

I think we'll be able to manage Global Warming.

We are an advanced species, and have developed Science.  That is the key point.

Science will enable us to overcome anything Nature may throw against us. Look how we've dealt with Nature's pathetic Covid-19 virus.  Within 2 years of its appearance, Science has produced effective vaccines to crush it.

We can do the same with Global Warming.  If necessary, by re-engineering the entire planet. 

That might seem like a fantasy.  But it isn't really.  Science can achieve anything we want.

Aren't the only people standing in the way, those detestable throwbacks -  Politicians?

[Bored chemist]

Science has produced effective vaccines to crush it.

It isn't gone yet; it possibly never will be.

[charles1948]

The simple fact is that homo sapiens has outgrown its resilience to environmental change.

I agree with you that traditional homo sapiens is now outmoded.  The examples, and evidence that you cite in your excellent post,  show this clearly.

What we need now,  is an evolutionary advance from the old "homo sapiens" to a new "homo scientificus".

At the present time, the new scientific humans are a small minority.  Confined to people who are either professional scientists, or amateur enthusiasts of science. The question seems to be:

Can this scientific minority win against the overwhelming majority of unscientific people?

[charles1948]

Science has produced effective vaccines to crush it.

It isn't gone yet; it possibly never will be.

As you say, possibly it never will be. It will just relapse into a milder winter ailment like traditional flu.

That seems likely. Viruses are parasitic. They need hosts.  It's not in the interests of a parasite to kill its hosts.

[jeffreyH]

I think we'll be able to manage Global Warming.

We are an advanced species, and have developed Science.  That is the key point.

Science will enable us to overcome anything Nature may throw against us. Look how we've dealt with Nature's pathetic Covid-19 virus.  Within 2 years of its appearance, Science has produced effective vaccines to crush it.

We can do the same with Global Warming.  If necessary, by re-engineering the entire planet. 

That might seem like a fantasy.  But it isn't really.  Science can achieve anything we want.

Aren't the only people standing in the way, those detestable throwbacks -  Politicians?

Around 3.4M people are no longer alive because of this so called 'pathetic' Covid-19 virus. Hardly a triumph.

[Bored chemist]

Science has produced effective vaccines to crush it.

It isn't gone yet; it possibly never will be.

As you say, possibly it never will be. It will just relapse into a milder winter ailment like traditional flu.

That seems likely. Viruses are parasitic. They need hosts.  It's not in the interests of a parasite to kill its hosts.

And if humanity wipes itself out, the virus will find a new host.
What did you mean by "pathetic"?

[charles1948]

By "pathetic", BC, I mean Covid-19 doesn't seem to embody any radical new advance in viral technique.

It's just another variation in the old viral strategem  of: 

1. Get ingested into the host
2. Get pushed around the host's body by its bloodstream
3. Eventually if you're lucky, get bumped up against a suitable cell.
4.Then clamp onto the cell, and inject your DNA/RNA into it

This is all very old hat, and seems to rely entirely on blind luck. Like firing missiles off in random directions, in the expectation that one of them will eventually hit the target

Couldn't a new, modern, virus evolve with a target-seeking capability that didn't rely on luck, but on an active ability to seek out its prey.

I'm thinking of a modern military missile. Which uses Infra-Red heat-seeking technology, or Radar, to find and lock-on to the target.

Obviously, one can hardly conceive of a virus developing Radar, or IR sensors.  Given the extreme simplicity of the viral molecular structure.

Nevertheless, doesn't it seem that after the 3 billion years viruses have had to evolve, they haven't come up with a superior ability to infect host cells?

[Bored chemist]

By "pathetic", BC, I mean Covid-19 doesn't seem to embody any radical new advance in viral technique.

The strategy has been working for 3 billion years or more, why would you change it?

[charles1948]

By "pathetic", BC, I mean Covid-19 doesn't seem to embody any radical new advance in viral technique.

The strategy has been working for 3 billion years or more, why would you change it?

When you say that, it brings up a point that worries me about these modern vaccines.

Might they not be generating "change" in the viruses, by stimulating them to become more active and aggressive.

I say this with trepidation, in case it's seen as anti-vax propaganda, which I've been warned about already.

I may get thrown off for it.

[alancalverd]

We are an advanced species, and have developed Science.  That is the key point.

Four out of the five reasons I cited for looming disaster are the direct result of scientific advance over the last 200 years!

As for vaccines eliminating viral disease, they can only do so where the host in uniquely human.We can never completely rid the world of COVID, for instance, because the primary pool is disease-tolerant bats. Likewise ebola and any other zoonosis you care to mention.

[alancalverd]

But it will unfreeze some parts of Canada for more of the year (which might be a good thing for some Canadians).

But the vast majority of Canadians are bloodsucking flies, who will be the first to benefit!

[alancalverd]

We can do the same with Global Warming.  If necessary, by re-engineering the entire planet. 

That might seem like a fantasy.  But it isn't really.  Science can achieve anything we want.

I think not. There are about 1500 thunderstorms happening worldwide at any moment, about 15,000,000 per year, and each one releases about  as much energy as a 20 kt nuclear bomb. And thunderstorms are just a tiny part of a weather system. Even if we understood the science of climate change (and so far no "climate scientist" seems to have explained what we already know about historic temperature cycles) we do not have the engineering capacity to do anything about it.

As I see it, climate change is inevitable. What we can influence is human society, taking a scientific approach to decide what to change to ensure that our successors have at least as enjoyable a life as we do.

[Petrochemicals]

I think not. There are about 1500 thunderstorms happening worldwide at any moment, about 15,000,000 per year, and each one releases about  as much energy as a 20 kt nuclear bomb.

And took as much energy to create. Similarly forest fires produce masses of heat, release huge amounts  of co2 and evapourTe volumes of water. But it is in equilibrium with the growth of other plants.

[Kryptid]

When you say that, it brings up a point that worries me about these modern vaccines.

Might they not be generating "change" in the viruses, by stimulating them to become more active and aggressive.

All it would do is select for mutations that allow viruses to infect people who are vaccinated. It wouldn't actually create mutations or cause them to become more "active" or "aggressive".

We can do the same with Global Warming.  If necessary, by re-engineering the entire planet. 

That might seem like a fantasy.  But it isn't really.  Science can achieve anything we want.

Regardless of what science may allow us to do in the future, we have to be realistic in terms of what it can allow us to do right now. As of now, it most certainly doesn't allow us to "achieve anything we want".