What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

well actually Marco there is ample evidence provided in the literature explaining the relationship between CO2 and temp. Its a complex relationship in the past however in the present it is much less so. The reality of CO2 proceeding temp in the present is clear and truly beyond debate. The physical components of CO2 make it a greenhouse gas and its reaction in the atmosphere is pretty well understood. You might want to read this article and then maybe reconsider your position

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/

and here are five letters from actual climate scientists in response to the denialist diatribe concerning CO2

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...3/broad-irony/

there really is very little doubt concerning this particular issue

cheers
B

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

well actually Marco there is ample evidence provided in the literature explaining the relationship between CO2 and temp. Its a complex relationship in the past however in the present it is much less so. The reality of CO2 proceeding temp in the present is clear and truly beyond debate. The physical components of CO2 make it a greenhouse gas and its reaction in the atmosphere is pretty well understood. You might want to read this article and then maybe reconsider your position

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/

and here are five letters from actual climate scientists in response to the denialist diatribe concerning CO2

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...3/broad-irony/

there really is very little doubt concerning this particular issue

cheers
B

Complex relationships always end badly.

[Boston]

well in this case
if we do not adequately deal with the circumstances yes
things are entirely likely to end badly

which is why I so adamantly insist on presenting the truth to the public
its a very serious business what we do with this climate issue we have brought on ourselves
we can ignore it and forgo any posibility of a future with our partner earth
or
we can address the issues and possibly save some semblance of the world as we know it for future generations

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Boston

well in this case
if we do not adequately deal with the circumstances yes
things are entirely likely to end badly

which is why I so adamantly insist on presenting the truth to the public
its a very serious business what we do with this climate issue we have brought on ourselves
we can ignore it and forgo any posibility of a future with our partner earth
or
we can address the issues and possibly save some semblance of the world as we know it for future generations

So what do you figure is the best case scenario for the age of homo sapiens? We have what, 27,000 years so far? Any idea of what the "normal" cycle is for other mammals?

What is the worst case? Floods and famine on a global scale next week? Extinction in 10 years?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by RHough

So what do you figure is the best case scenario for the age of homo sapiens? We have what, 27,000 years so far? Any idea of what the "normal" cycle is for other mammals?

What is the worst case? Floods and famine on a global scale next week? Extinction in 10 years?

I believe the life span of the average mammalian species is measured in millions of years, not thousands. But of course, we aren't your average mammal.

Personally, I think we have a long run ahead of us - regardless of what we do to the world. We'll deal with our environment one way or another, no matter how badly we garbage it up, and survive as a species anyway. But that doesn't make garbaging it up OK....why make life less beautiful or harder on our descendants than we have to?

[RHough]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I believe the life span of the average mammalian species is measured in millions of years, not thousands. But of course, we aren't your average mammal.

Personally, I think we have a long run ahead of us - regardless of what we do to the world. We'll deal with our environment one way or another, no matter how badly we garbage it up, and survive as a species anyway. But that doesn't make garbaging it up OK....why make life less beautiful or harder on our descendants than we have to?

If we accept a background extinction rate of 5 million years, Genus Homo is a newcomer in the last 2.5 million years. So far none of the species in the genus has reached the 5 million year average. Is there any compelling reason to think that Homo Sapiens will do better than the others? Is it more likely that Homo Sapiens are just as apt to be replaced as the Neanderthals before them were?

Out of all the star systems in even our galaxy, is it probable that there is other intelligent life? If so, why have we not discovered evidence of it? Is it possible that the same thing that is happening on earth happened elsewhere? That the changes to the planet's life support systems caused by the development of the technology required to explore other solar systems caused the extinction of the species before they could do so? Is it possible that "life as we know it" is not sustainable on any planet that can support life at all?

It boils down to can we have all the stuff we have now without poisoning the planet? Has global warming replaced global nuclear annihilation as the near future anthropogenic extinction scenario?

Can we assure the future of man by returning to a nomadic lifestyle? After all we evolved to be able to chase down our food ...

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by RHough

If we accept a background extinction rate of 5 million years, Genus Homo is a newcomer in the last 2.5 million years. So far none of the species in the genus has reached the 5 million year average. Is there any compelling reason to think that Homo Sapiens will do better than the others? Is it more likely that Homo Sapiens are just as apt to be replaced as the Neanderthals before them were?

Out of all the star systems in even our galaxy, is it probable that there is other intelligent life? If so, why have we not discovered evidence of it? Is it possible that the same thing that is happening on earth happened elsewhere? That the changes to the planet's life support systems caused by the development of the technology required to explore other solar systems caused the extinction of the species before they could do so? Is it possible that "life as we know it" is not sustainable on any planet that can support life at all?

It boils down to can we have all the stuff we have now without poisoning the planet? Has global warming replaced global nuclear annihilation as the near future anthropogenic extinction scenario?

Can we assure the future of man by returning to a nomadic lifestyle? After all we evolved to be able to chase down our food ...

Eh...don't stay awake nights worrying about it.

As far as I can see, what we're doing to the planet may affect the quality of life of individuals and societies in the future; It may not be as nice or as easy a place to live in. And we may be in for a lot of societal upheaval and human misery, as we adjust to the new environmental order. But I have no doubt we'll survive as a species one way or another anyway, for a good long while.

Chasing down our food? Don't forget we evolved as omnivores, not carnivores. A goodly proportion of the food we evolved to 'chase down' has roots and leaves... Like wild pigs, we're capable of living off the land in whatever way works. We're supremely adaptable.

And the path to the future doesn't lie through the past. The problems of a settled urban society won't be solved by exterminating most of the population, and sending the rest wandering through the desert like Moses and the Jews. The solutions to the problems caused by industrialization lie not in rejecting industry and technology, but in embracing them.

In other words, we don't need to reject the Industrial Revolution; we need to continue it and carry it forward.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by RHough

If we accept a background extinction rate of 5 million years, Genus Homo is a newcomer in the last 2.5 million years. So far none of the species in the genus has reached the 5 million year average. Is there any compelling reason to think that Homo Sapiens will do better than the others? Is it more likely that Homo Sapiens are just as apt to be replaced as the Neanderthals before them were?

Out of all the star systems in even our galaxy, is it probable that there is other intelligent life? If so, why have we not discovered evidence of it? Is it possible that the same thing that is happening on earth happened elsewhere? That the changes to the planet's life support systems caused by the development of the technology required to explore other solar systems caused the extinction of the species before they could do so? Is it possible that "life as we know it" is not sustainable on any planet that can support life at all?

It boils down to can we have all the stuff we have now without poisoning the planet? Has global warming replaced global nuclear annihilation as the near future anthropogenic extinction scenario?

Can we assure the future of man by returning to a nomadic lifestyle? After all we evolved to be able to chase down our food ...

Your questions prompting to think about how we use the resources at hand for evolution of man on earth make sense, however do not address the point in discussion.
No one denies that we have knowingly or not polluted water air, food, and have been slow in rectifying said problems.
The point in contention is that CO2 is NOT a pollutant and it's production by man adding a minuscule proportion to an already minuscule trace gas in the athmosphere, has no effect whatsoever in changes in the climate. The wild claims made by a group of influential people was orchestrated precisely in order to confound and draw behind them, the marginals and the confused who need a flag to run behind. Tree huggers and assorted misinformed cheer leaders of the green persuasion, are all called to arms to an imaginary war against an imaginary foe.

The loser in this war is, besides the truth, the real industrial, medical and food pollution that is still happily occuring today.
A series of cleverly designed strawman arguments, all well "documented" by paid scientist who would lose their funding instantly if they changed their mind, pushes scores of tree huggers to declare war on man kind, and anything remotely associated with energy production.
Cut energy usage in order to save the planet is such an ill informed fallacy, yet what this blind people do not realise is that the results are already in the mail. Electricity cost has gone up in Australia in the order of 30 to 60% AND WE HAVE YET TO HAVE A PRICE ON "carbon" (meaning CO2). Even before any tax is established, the electricty production who hasn't had one single solitary increment in costs, had the green light by the authorities to lift the prices. No one is saying how doubling the prices as they will in the next 2 years will address the falacy of Global Warming. Yet no one actualy cares, since the point of the matter is not "saving" a planet that does not need saving from CO2 but to collect more money from the populace who is too shy to protest since it is all for the good of the people, (didn't you know)?

Global Warming is a bold faced lie, invented in order to produce a) power shift B) wealth shift. This is achieved with the free volonteer labour of the mindless and the fool who pushes along lies and misinformation thinking he is doing us all a favour because they know better.

Can you see the analogy between this and the Church Inquisition? The crusades? The missions to "save" the savages?

It will all come undone in time. Let's just hope the damage is only temporary.

Delenda est viridis

[RHough]

Originally Posted by troy2000

In other words, we don't need to reject the Industrial Revolution; we need to continue it and carry it forward.

So by only burning only 20,000 liters of fuel this summer instead of 25,000 because I chose a modern, more efficient boat I did the right thing?

Thanks for the discussion, you usually make me think ... even if we don't agree sometimes.

R

[Boston]

my personal take is that we may well survive but in a much diminished world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm6hkAPxWqQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSKrJ...eature=related

deal is we are almost guaranteed to hit six degrees C above the baseline

how about a little something confirming the rate of loss at present of vertebrate species

from today's news

Ecologists and politicians agree that the planet's ecosystems are in crisis. The U.N.'s third Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-3) -- published in May 2010 -- painted a depressingly bleak picture of biodiversity loss in recent times.

"Alarming" declines in natural habitats (freshwater wetlands, sea ice, salt marshes, coral reefs), vertebrate species (down by a third in the past 35 years) and genetic diversity were recorded.

The targets set out in 2002 to achieve "a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level..." by 2010 were not met by any government, the report said.

The losses were, concluded GBO-3, of "profound concern" which has "major implications for current and future well-being."

about 400 species of mollusk alone went extinct this year so far
http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/lists/molluscs.htm

it should be getting more and more obvious to all that the time is now to stop the destruction

[wardd]

I want the suntan lotion concession at the new beach at my front yard

"we are almost guaranteed to hit six degrees C above the baseline" - Boss, when will this happen?... I mean, we've been hearing about hurricanes, we were shown th smoke stacks and sad puppies and all by Algore but can you put a date and a temperature on it? No more hockey stick. No arguing about selected trees or ice cores. No showing how a subsiding south Pacific island is going to go underwater. Just, if you wud please, say "it will be x number of degrees hotter on y date. If it doesn't then happen, we can end this discussion...or wud you fudge by putting the date too far into the future for us to realize it?
You're very confident. Say "Mark, at Homer airport recording station, it will be .5°C hotter by the primaries in 2012 than it was in 1989 (When Jimmy Carter told us to put on a sweater and turn the thermostat down)." If it is, I'll vote for Barack Obama and denounce conservatism. Come on. This thread is going nowhere - I'll join your team if you can tell me what the weather is going to do and it actually happens.

[wardd]

something as complex as climate doesn't run on a minute by minute schedule

just because you can make a prediction doesn't mean the time line is certain

say you can predict with a 20% accuracy , a hundred years means a 40 year spread , a hundred hours a 40 hour spread

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mark775

"we are almost guaranteed to hit six degrees C above the baseline" - Boss, when will this happen?... I mean, we've been hearing about hurricanes, we were shown th smoke stacks and sad puppies and all by Algore but can you put a date and a temperature on it? No more hockey stick. No arguing about selected trees or ice cores. No showing how a subsiding south Pacific island is going to go underwater. Just, if you wud please, say "it will be x number of degrees hotter on y date. If it doesn't then happen, we can end this discussion...or wud you fudge by putting the date too far into the future for us to realize it?
You're very confident. Say "Mark, at Homer airport recording station, it will be .5°C hotter by the primaries in 2012 than it was in 1989 (When Jimmy Carter told us to put on a sweater and turn the thermostat down)." If it is, I'll vote for Barack Obama and denounce conservatism. Come on. This thread is going nowhere - I'll join your team if you can tell me what the weather is going to do and it actually happens.

If you want absolute certainty and the unerrant Word, go to church.

You're demanding absurd precision. If a mechanic tells you your brake pads are wearing out, do you demand he prove that's the problem, by telling you the exact time and date you'll start hearing metal to metal when you push the brake pedal?

Obviously, all the weather stations in the world don't rise and fall simultaneously and in perfect synchronization; an average global temperature is just that: an average. No one is predicting what temperature Homer Field will be at any given time in the future, but scientists can give you a pretty good indication of what the average temperature worldwide will be doing then....

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Your questions prompting to think about how we use the resources at hand for evolution of man on earth make sense, however do not address the point in discussion.
No one denies that we have knowingly or not polluted water air, food, and have been slow in rectifying said problems.
The point in contention is that CO2 is NOT a pollutant and it's production by man adding a minuscule proportion to an already minuscule trace gas in the athmosphere, has no effect whatsoever in changes in the climate. The wild claims made by a group of influential people was orchestrated precisely in order to confound and draw behind them, the marginals and the confused who need a flag to run behind. Tree huggers and assorted misinformed cheer leaders of the green persuasion, are all called to arms to an imaginary war against an imaginary foe.

The loser in this war is, besides the truth, the real industrial, medical and food pollution that is still happily occuring today.
A series of cleverly designed strawman arguments, all well "documented" by paid scientist who would lose their funding instantly if they changed their mind, pushes scores of tree huggers to declare war on man kind, and anything remotely associated with energy production.
Cut energy usage in order to save the planet is such an ill informed fallacy, yet what this blind people do not realise is that the results are already in the mail. Electricity cost has gone up in Australia in the order of 30 to 60% AND WE HAVE YET TO HAVE A PRICE ON "carbon" (meaning CO2). Even before any tax is established, the electricty production who hasn't had one single solitary increment in costs, had the green light by the authorities to lift the prices. No one is saying how doubling the prices as they will in the next 2 years will address the falacy of Global Warming. Yet no one actualy cares, since the point of the matter is not "saving" a planet that does not need saving from CO2 but to collect more money from the populace who is too shy to protest since it is all for the good of the people, (didn't you know)?

Global Warming is a bold faced lie, invented in order to produce a) power shift B) wealth shift. This is achieved with the free volonteer labour of the mindless and the fool who pushes along lies and misinformation thinking he is doing us all a favour because they know better.

Can you see the analogy between this and the Church Inquisition? The crusades? The missions to "save" the savages?

It will all come undone in time. Let's just hope the damage is only temporary.

Delenda est viridis

You're simply repeating the same tired old canards over and over again, as though saying them enough times will make them true.

Too much of a good thing is pollution, no matter how many times you tell us it isn't. If you don't believe a little of something can be good but too much bad, try overdosing on any of a long list of prescription drugs.

CO2 is not just a miniscule trace gas; it has a definite, measurable effect on our climate.

Global warming is not a conspiracy. Like most conspiracy theories, the claim that it is one is being promulgated by people who can't deal with a complex world, and demand simple answers: because God said so, or because Satan (or the Freemasons, the Jews, the Bilderbergers, or whoever) is deceiving us.

Frankly, you sound like a blithering idiot when you claim that tens of thousands of scientists worldwide have been suborned by crooked, greedy politicans or capitalists, and are somehow coordinating their efforts and falsifying their data to enrich and strengthen some sinister string-puller[s]. Anyone with the power to do that could (and would) rule the world anyway, without bothering to use climate change as an excuse.

Use a little common sense, for a change. If you disagree with AGW, start examining the science for genuine scientific flaws - instead of sitting around making absurd claims that it's all just a pack of deliberate lies. You're starting to remind me of the idiots who fought flouridation of drinking water because they believed it was a communist plot to poison America.... Nothing anyone said could change their minds, because it was obvious to them that anyone trying to explain the facts to them was a communist co-conspirator, or an unwitting dupe and tool of the communists.