Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy
Short answer is I think yes we are responsible. In my opinion we cannot compare say the 1500 through the 1800's with today since most of the really nasty stuff has happened due to industrialization of the world in roughly the last 100 years.
|
I think we can compare them, simply because they're examples of short term climate change that had nothing to do with humans. True enough, the nasty stuff did occur in the last 100 years but coal burning reached it's peak around the turn of the century. Why do I keep banging on about coal? Because burned in the way it was in those days (want more heat? Shovel in more coal; build the chimney higher if you have to) it was highly polluting. I've read that as far as cause and effect goes, the pollution we're causing now will affect things some 50 years hence. If this is true, then looking at peak coal burning, we should have seen it's effects in the late 40s/early 50s. But it didn't happen.
I believe that if the climate is changing, it's changing. Instead of spending vast amounts of money trying to prevent it, we should be doing everything possible to deal with it. Think irrigation on a massive scale; think sea defenses where practical. The hot one? If things get warmer long term, land which is now fertile could become barren and land which is now too cold to cultivate could become fertile. If this happens, I reckon one of two things will be the result.
1). People forget political or national boundaries and relocate where they can grow food. In the Northern Hemisphere this could mean Siberia, Greenland, Iceland....... You don't have to dig too deep into the permafrost to find evidence that these areas were once fertile. Even the worst predictions give us time to do this if we have the will.
2). People dig in; strengthen national boundaries and try to repel all borders.
This assumes the worst case scenario doesn't happen. If the climate warms up enough to melt all the ice including permafrost, we could be royally screwed................