Climate Change & Global Warming

[skaterboy]

Climate change should be seen as a opportunity to expand human experience and practice skills we are going to need if we are to survive as a species beyond the next asteroid strike, if the ice melts and Antarctica is uncovered we will need to cover it with vegetation a lot faster than nature will do it herself.

 

Instead of planning ahead for climate change that is going to happen no matter what we do, we are wasting $trillions trying to prevent it.

 

Money that should be spent on expanding the space program and scientists that should be looking out into the cosmos figuring out a way to Terra-form other planets are wasting their time trying figure out ways to keep this one static.

 

With such inward thinking and lack of vision we are surely DOOOOOMMMED anyway.

[jz]

 

Money that should be spent on expanding the space program and scientists that should be looking out into the cosmos figuring out a way to Terra-form other planets are wasting their time trying figure out ways to keep this one static.

 

Which planet do you suggest should be terra-formed? Mars is too distant from the sun, and Venus is too close.

[ArabiaTerra]

What that shows AT is that temps are lower now than they have been for the majority of human existence.

Err, no they aren't

 

Also if you keep the time to the same scale for the whole of the period temperatures now are doing pretty much the same as they have been doing for the last half billion years, changing erratically.

No they haven't, they have been changing due to known and quantified changes in Solar output, ocean circulation and CO2 changes in the atmosphere

 

Thanks for that AT you have just proved without any shadow of a doubt that you and the rest of the climate change doom sayers are full of poop.

I think you need to brush up on your graph reading skills, and try learning something about the geological history of the Earth.

 

Climate change should be seen as a opportunity to expand human experience and practice skills we are going to need if we are to survive as a species beyond the next asteroid strike, if the ice melts and Antarctica is uncovered we will need to cover it with vegetation a lot faster than nature will do it herself.

You should read this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun

 

That's the danger of not trying to mitigate climate change. We have good evidence that massive releases of methane from the clathrates have been implicated in more than one of the previous mass extinctions.

 

Instead of planning ahead for climate change that is going to happen no matter what we do, we are wasting $trillions trying to prevent it.

We can still influence the amount the climate changes. And anyway, no-one is suggesting it will cost trillions. The bank bail-out a couple of years ago would have comfortably paid for it.

 

Money that should be spent on expanding the space program and scientists that should be looking out into the cosmos figuring out a way to Terra-form other planets are wasting their time trying figure out ways to keep this one static.

How could we even begin to terraform other planets, if we can't even keep the one we evolved on habitable.

 

With such inward thinking and lack of vision we are surely DOOOOOMMMED anyway.

Inward thinking, lack of vision? Yep, that just about sums up the denier position, though I would add wilful ignorance to the list as well.

[Ghostrider]

This is rather the crux of the whole debate though, is it not? Just how credible is credible, regardless what stance is taken on the subject?

 

Climate science is a relatively young science, and its an imprecise science as it contains too many variables, interactions and chain reactions to be anything else. Arguably the only credible figures are those for what has already occured, and even they're dubious as they're neither comprehensive or accurate enough, or cover a period long enough to give the full picture.

 

By credible source, I mean from the scientists, not from some political organisation financed by the fossil fuel industry and which has a vested interest in denying reality. And I'm not sure what you mean by not covering a long enough period. Is 800,000 years not long enough for you? That's how far back the ice core data goes, and this data shows that today's CO2 levels are unprecedented.

 

Show me a scientist that hasn't been "bought", and I'll show you a scientist who's in poverty and destitute. Somebody pays the wages of all of them.

 

By not going back long enough, I mean that nobody was keeping comprehensive records, or any records for that matter, far enough back to be meaningful.

 

Sure there's evidence left behind by past climatic conditions, but to use it you've got to rely on scientists interpreting and understanding it correctly. Maybe they are doing so, and maybe they're not, there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Its not like there's any other source to cross reference with, any more than there's a time machine to go back and measure for yourself. They can say whatever they like, and as long as only data that backs them up is in the public domain, they can just about get away with it.

 

What we're getting just now is "best guess" scenario figures based on current thinking, possibly tainted by the agendas of paymasters. Personally I think the only way ahead is to remain very sceptical of all sides of the argument until there's something more solid to go on.

 

Reducing atmospheric pollution is a laudable and worthwhile course in and of itself, and should be practised wherever and whenever it is reasonably possible to do so. But to pursue it at any and all costs regardless of anything else, based on the evidence presented so far, is folly in my mind.

 

I would have a whole lot more faith in the "official line" on global warming if world governments were actually meaningfully taking action against some of the biggest causes of energy and resources usage. Ban air travel for pleasure, ban un-necessary packaging, ban excessive food miles etc, the list is endless. Low energy lightbulbs and windmills smack of the classic "be seen to be doing something, and let them feel they're contributing" among the great unwashed, government cynicism and spin, while "business" goes on regardless.

[ArabiaTerra]

I just want to pick this one point for now:

 

What we're getting just now is "best guess" scenario figures based on current thinking, possibly tainted by the agendas of paymasters. Personally I think the only way ahead is to remain very sceptical of all sides of the argument until there's something more solid to go on.

Yes, best guess scenarios based on current thinking. And how, pray tell, will we ever have anything more than this? Where else is knowledge going to come from but best guess based on current thinking?

 

Where do you expect this "something more solid" to come from if not from best guess based on current thinking?

 

The ice is melting, the glaciers are retreating. We are seeing unprecedented weather events, storms, droughts, wildfires, all over the world. What will it take to convince you?

[skaterboy]

F**k me AT humans have been around for close to 7 million years.

In that time frame over 4 million of those years were warmer than now.

 

Just because something changes erratically doesn't mean there is no cause.

 

Who the hell says it won't be habitable, It might not support 7billion humans but that is no bad thing we could do with getting rid of quite a few, nature tries her best to clean the place up a bit but then bleeding hearts go and cock up her plans by dishing out food and not bloody contraceptives.

 

We evolved because the climate changed not because it was stable.

 

Stop using Wikipedia as a source you muppet anybody can write any poop they like on there and you come along and lap it up.

[ArabiaTerra]

F**k me AT humans have been around for close to 7 million years.

From Wiki:

Homo is the genus that includes modern humans and species closely related to them. The genus is estimated to be about 2.3 to 2.4 million years old,[1][2] evolving from australopithecine ancestors with the appearance of Homo habilis. Specifically, H. habilis is assumed to be the direct descendant of Australopithecus garhi which lived about 2.5 million years ago. The most salient physiological development between the two species is the increase in cranial capacity, from about 450 ccm in A. garhi to 600 ccm in H. habilis. Within the Homo genus, cranial capacity again doubled from H. habilis to H. heidelbergensis by 0.6 million years ago. The cranial capacity of H. heidelbergensis overlaps with the range found in modern humans.

Mitochondrial DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

 

And on the subject of the history of past climate change, the lecture posted at the site below is a good place to start:

 

http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2771

[Ghostrider]

I just want to pick this one point for now:

 

What we're getting just now is "best guess" scenario figures based on current thinking, possibly tainted by the agendas of paymasters. Personally I think the only way ahead is to remain very sceptical of all sides of the argument until there's something more solid to go on.

Yes, best guess scenarios based on current thinking. And how, pray tell, will we ever have anything more than this? Where else is knowledge going to come from but best guess based on current thinking?

 

Where do you expect this "something more solid" to come from if not from best guess based on current thinking?

 

The ice is melting, the glaciers are retreating. We are seeing unprecedented weather events, storms, droughts, wildfires, all over the world. What will it take to convince you?

 

We will have more when "best guess" future predictions, based on interpretation of evidence of past climatic conditions, actually comes true with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

The scientists say the ice is melting, and the glaciers are retreating, but that goes right back to what is credible evidence. Were it not for the fact that scientists are now looking for this happening, would anyone else really have noticed any difference? Not really I don't think.

 

It backs up their core message that the planet is heating up, so obviously they shout it wherever and whenever they can, however miniscule it may be. But in doing so, can we be sure that they are not so blinkered in looking for what they want to see, that they aren't missing other equally relevant facts at the same time. Can we really trust them when they say the global temperature rise is such that it is outwith normal expected variations, especially when temperature records, measured and recorded as they occured only go back such a short period. I have significant doubts.

 

What unprecedented weather events are we seeing? Storms 100 - 200 years ago drove the sea ashore to places where things had existed for centuries previously unmolested, and destroyed them, but have never returned since. Things have a long way to go to recreate the American Dust Bowl of the '30's. Are there more wildfires, or are they just being better reported and documented these days? One thing which strikes me about wildfires, especially in the U.S. is that these days the majority seem to be started either intentionally, or carelessness through total ignorance. IMHO both of those are products of current lifestyles, and cannot be utilised as part of the argument. In the U.S. at least I would question if there has been a notable increase in wildfires started either by natural causes or through purely accidental means.

[skaterboy]

Apes first walked upright millions of years ago, and we are just bipedal apes.

the climatic conditions when that happened would not be detrimental to us as it wasn't for them.

[ArabiaTerra]

We will have more when "best guess" future predictions, based on interpretation of evidence of past climatic conditions, actually comes true with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

So we have to wait for climate change to happen, before we can conclude that it is, in fact, happening?

 

Here are some predictions published in 1988 with analysis of how accurate they have been so far:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

[ArabiaTerra]

Apes first walked upright millions of years ago, and we are just bipedal apes.

the climatic conditions when that happened would not be detrimental to us as it wasn't for them.

And here you are making an error common to deniers. The debate is not about whether or not we could happily live in a warmer but stable climate, of course we could. The debate is about how we deal with the change between two different, stable, climate states. The changes seen on Earth at the end of the last ice age included massive sea level rise and changes to climate zones, rainforest and deserts moved around on the surface of the Earth. But, it took 5000 years. It happened so slowly that humans living at the time wouldn't even have been aware that things were changing.

 

The difference between the middle of the last ice age and the pre-industrial age was around 6 degrees C. At present emission levels we could well see 6 degrees C of change by the end of the century. That's less than 300 years, as compared to 5000!

 

It is the change part of climate change and the unprecedented speed that it's happening which is dangerous.

 

(Of course, this is ignoring the risk of setting off any of the possible catastrophic options such as the clathrate gun.)

[Seahorse]

 

Who the hell says it won't be habitable, It might not support 7billion humans but that is no bad thing we could do with getting rid of quite a few, nature tries her best to clean the place up a bit but then bleeding hearts go and cock up her plans by dishing out food and not bloody contraceptives.

 

Skating on very thin ice there Skaterboy. Are you saying that people in the third world deserve to die and those left should be stopped from having childern? Just so that you can continue with your resourse rich, comfortable life. Shame on you.

[Ghostrider]

We will have more when "best guess" future predictions, based on interpretation of evidence of past climatic conditions, actually comes true with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

So we have to wait for climate change to happen, before we can conclude that it is, in fact, happening?

 

I seem to recall that demonstrating a theory working as predicted in practice was part of the definition of "good science" when I passed through the AHS.

 

To rely entirely on theory is usually called gambling.

[Carlos]

And when a scientific idea moves status from "hypothesis" to "theory" it's because it's already accepted as doing a fair job of describing reality?

[Ghostrider]

^^ I don't think many of my science teachers could have pronounced "hypothesis" frequently and on a regular basis, they tended to use simpler words.

 

"Theory" tended to encompass everything which could not be fully demonstrated in practice one way or the other.