Rapid Global Climate Shift and its socio-economic effects

debate ? good point Gonzo, so if the people educated in the subject all agree on something what might I ask is the subject of this debate going to be?

For instance, lets take those three bright looking individuals pictured "debating" the finer points of mathematics. Notice anything askew in there numbers. Their having that lively debate, but what exactly are they debating? And might not they benefit a little from some education themselves? Or is it asking to much to begin a debate from some position of comprehending the basics? Otherwise what kinda debate could you possibly have other than one that ends up with a few stooges, all looking somewhat in over there heads.

 

Woop!

 

Here's something that seems that it could have some potential...Well if you happen to live near a good source of water...

Water Powered Bucket Generator

Five Gallon Bucket Hydroelectric Generator Build Manual

If I actually had a stream in my yard I'd haft to give this some real serious consideration...

 

For me its incredible to see that many seemingly educated people deny the impact of 7 billion humans on the environment. Environment also mean climate.......... Climate change.

The new generation of fortunate rich country citizens will have a tough time adapting to this new world. The effects on developing counties will be severe.

Its completly logical to confront these challenges before they blow up in your face like the current banking deficit crisis.

 

The climate has flowed through natural cycles as far back as man has historically studied the earth. Some of the events we're experiencing now may well be grounded in "Polar Shift" and the current "Sun Cycle" may also be playing it's part also.

The people who are shouting loudest about climate change for the most part just create controversy. Creating controversy in itself doesn't make one viable contribution to essentially solve anything.

What are you alarmists actually offering as a viable solution to minimize the global populations effect on the earth... Are you willing to stand back and watch as someone you love is force-ably aborted because she didn't have a government permit to reproduce??? How about grandpa be given a dose of Sodium Pentothal because somebody decided he outlived his usefulness?

We do need to practice conservation practices, but it somehow needs to be applied in some sort of fair universal practical manner that applies to everyone equally despite where they were born. Do you have any realistic viable solutions to actually offer that seem doable??

Realistic conservation measures that everyone can afford and live with may be the most viable way towards a long term solution..

 

this is most certainly not a natural cycle

at what other time in the past say 4.6 billion years has mankind drilled the planet till it looks like swiss cheese for every drop of oil imaginable
and burned it ?

something does need to happen twice in order for it to be cyclical doesn't it ?

HMMMMMMMMMMMM, let me think back, nope, can't remember ever learning in history class that prehistoric man ever built any oil drilling platforms out over the gulf. Nope, none in Egypt either, Hang on a minute I do remember something about a tower in Babel somewhere, OH wait that was a garden.

Nope
Don't think they did.

so I'm curious, how does a one time event constitute cyclical ???????????

 

There is no precedent for what is happening now, as Boston pointed out.

Not everyone has the ability to propose and implement solutions to global problems. They can, however, highlight those problems and promote debate.
Isn't that a useful contribution in itself?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

You do know that the last Eugenics Board was abolished in the USA in 1977
and that there have been no state-sanctioned forced sterilizations since 1974?

 

And what is happening now?

Is the climate outside of any historical precedent?

 

Bamby's pretty determined to believe its all just a big fat conspiracy. Its understandable, sorta, partly because its pretty easy to confuse the issues, specially when they are so huge the seem to all spill over into one another. But still, its obvious enough if only people will stand back and take a fresh look at it minus the preconceptions.

In a nut shell we screwed up the atmospheric chemistry. So unless we've done that before suggesting its cyclical makes no sense at all.

I think B is asking for a graph of what a non cyclical event looks like

I believe that great big funny looking vertical blue spike in CO2 on the far right hand side of that there graph might just represent a one off event of the type we are discussing

 

Do you believe the effect is clear at this point Boston?

 

It is all a big fat conspiracy.

 

well there was a great paper recently on calculating the probabilities of it being random chance or a clear trend.

the argument that its only been a few years of study doesn't quite look as good as it sounds once you realize there is so much proxy data. Which goes back nearly 1 million years at this point.

we are miles outside of the standard patterns at this stage and our friends studying the siberian CH4 release are reporting a tenfold increase in the number of "torches" appearing in there study area this season. Thats huge.

I had a conversation with G Schmidt recently in which we discussed the likely time frame of organic carbon being released. That was just a few months ago and whadaya know, here comes this study showing that methane hydrate is erupting like crazy out of the thawing north.

I'd say the effect is frighteningly clear.

That and if we don't get off our fat asses fast its going to be very very difficult to set this right

 

Miles outside of any other interglacial?

Given that we are lower than peak temperatures in prior epochs, anything observed by researchers sampling now would have occurred in each of the prior periods.

 

ah but its the rate of change that is also of concern. So combine the change in CO2 which is most definitely well outside of any cyclical norm and must be accompanied by a corresponding change in temp. And then go look for the change in temp as well as the rate of change. Which also kinda screws some folks up cause then you bump into a resolution issue where you can't just look at the whole record at once unless you've got a roll of paper a mile long or so.

Yup its still within the interglacial norm but its moving quickly, really quickly actually. ~2°C in the last 200, and rising fast

Cant just look at one parameter either, which is why I keep referring to the atmospheric chemistry rather than just CO2.

 

Humans are ejecting chemicals into the atmosphere of a type and at levels never before experienced.

No. There have been similar temperature variations before.