Global Warming

[franklin]

Okay, so we're not talking about whether life will ultimately prevail or not. Of course it will. What I care about are the effects of climate change on the lives of actual humans, and on the rest of the biosphere after that. Consequently, anthropocentric concerns are pivotal to the discussion. Who gives a **** about what life was like 4 billion years ago? I would think that if the atmosphere was to revert back to its original oxygen-free state, we'd be in deep trouble, regardless of the bright side. Anaerobic bacteria be damned!

Fair enough if steeped in that cup.

Consequently, 12000 years is a more significant number than 4 billion, despite the fact that the latter is bigger. That is because humans built their civilization during this period, around current conditions. A large percentage of the human population inhabit coastal areas and will have to contend with a rising sea level. Many of the systems, man-made and natural, that we depend on are based around specific climates and will have to be adjusted/moved at a great economic cost.

That's a whole lot of speculation. Who are you to claim there won't be economic benefit?

If there is a problem, we try to understand it, and figure out paths to a better outcome. End of story.

Those are excellent key words. I couldn't agree more.

 

[babe]

Relative temperature change can be measured with great precision. Is it your claim that only constant phenomena can be considered scientific conclusions, or only those that can be measured with accuracy toward some ideal (one that, in the case of an average global temperature, can't possibly exist)?



I refuse to believe that you are so incapable of reading in context that you did not automatically add the words "in science" at the end of that post.



Certainly.

I sorta hate multiquotes, I lose track of what I'm talking about. . . .

1 I'm thinking you're not clear on the issues of accuracy and precision. Sure we can measure temp to .001C. That's precision. Accuracy is another issue. When the variance is greater in the phenomena, you have to consider accuracy no matter how precise a thermometer may be. How representative is that precise value of the situation? Daily temps, even if recorded faithfully at specific times. . . . or even if fully integrated as a linear curve throughout the day, are not as accurate as our measurements of the earth physics precisely because earth temps fluctuate so rapidly, on every time scale.

That is why the Nobel laureate is more accurate in his statement than the usual crusader for mass panic over say an looming death star, which is what I figure some folks think global warming is.

2) You responded to my rant about the distinctions of science and politics and religion with unfair insinuations I took, perhaps mistakenly, as a charge that I didn't recognize that we have some data that is pretty reasonably interpreted as showing a rise of 0.8 C or 1.4 F over 150 years, or that it may be associated with a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. I was just saying that using that data to justify a shoddy global governance power grab is a gross misapplication of the data. Science doesn't justify any human governance. In fact, we should have a constitutional amendment forbidding government from establishing any belief set for mankind, or any compliance requirements associated with those beliefs.

I argue that the best response to a crisis is to let people act for themselves. I know you can argue otherwise. Say a theatre catches fire, and the manager uses the intercom to cry out "Fire". Or not. Scene one has people trampling one another, scene two not so much. You say send in the ushers to open all the doors and encourage a calm orderly exit. That would be good.

So if we have AGW why can't we be building nuclear power plants already, why not invest in cold fusion research? lots of people choosing to put solar panels up on their roofs now, riding bikes and stuff. If people see a problem, and are free to try their own solutions, chances are we'll find one that really works best, and people will rapidly turn to it on their own good observation. I really think governments are dedicated to dinosaur solutions and ages behind the learning curve in nature. At least I don't think we should do the global carbon tax.

 

[babe]

Okay, so we're not talking about whether life will ultimately prevail or not. Of course it will. What I care about are the effects of climate change on the lives of actual humans, and on the rest of the biosphere after that. Consequently, anthropocentric concerns are pivotal to the discussion. Who gives a **** about what life was like 4 billion years ago? I would think that if the atmosphere was to revert back to its original oxygen-free state, we'd be in deep trouble, regardless of the bright side. Anaerobic bacteria be damned!

Consequently, 12000 years is a more significant number than 4 billion, despite the fact that the latter is bigger. That is because humans built their civilization during this period, around current conditions. A large percentage of the human population inhabit coastal areas and will have to contend with a rising sea level. Many of the systems, man-made and natural, that we depend on are based around specific climates and will have to be adjusted/moved at a great economic cost.

And there is also the issue that non-human animals are very vulnerable to climate conditions, and require a long time to adjust. Unlike humans, they can't just shape their environment to their liking. They depend on the painfully slow processes of natural selection. And the Anthropocene waits for nobody!

Yes, the alarmist side is absurd. But your "don't worry about it, I'm sure things will be fine" mentality isn't very helpful. If there is a problem, we try to understand it, and figure out paths to a better outcome. End of story.

Well, OK.

Except cherry-picking the last 12000 years. Did you notice that for 800 million years there's been some kind of natural driver on earth climate with a result that carbon dioxide goes down from 300 to 200, pretty much for 90 thousand years, then somehow goes back up to 300 for around 10K years. That's been going on independent of human carbon combustion practices.

"unprecedented" events in the last 150 years, perhaps if you argue cause, but not if you just look at the data. WE have been warmer before, both with the carbon dioxide levels up and without. I am not sure what powers interglacial warms, or the intraglacial cycle variations either. I just think the previous few cycles do show us some things about the situation.

If we "take off" and go into a steep rise another 8C, the earth has still been that warm, and with that much carbon dioxide. The oceans have risen before, and even without massive central planning, I bet we will be better off without the carbon tax.

 

[Siro]

Well, OK.

Except cherry-picking the last 12000 years. Did you notice that for 800 million years there's been some kind of natural driver on earth climate with a result that carbon dioxide goes down from 300 to 200, pretty much for 90 thousand years, then somehow goes back up to 300 for around 10K years. That's been going on independent of human carbon combustion practices.

"unprecedented" events in the last 150 years, perhaps if you argue cause, but not if you just look at the data. WE have been warmer before, both with the carbon dioxide levels up and without. I am not sure what powers interglacial warms, or the intraglacial cycle variations either. I just think the previous few cycles do show us some things about the situation.

If we "take off" and go into a steep rise another 8C, the earth has still been that warm, and with that much carbon dioxide. The oceans have risen before, and even without massive central planning, I bet we will be better off without the carbon tax.

I already responded to that.

Okay, so we're not talking about whether life will ultimately prevail or not. Of course it will. What I care about are the effects of climate change on the lives of actual humans, and on the rest of the biosphere after that. Consequently, anthropocentric concerns are pivotal to the discussion. Who gives a **** about what life was like 4 billion years ago? I would think that if the atmosphere was to revert back to its original oxygen-free state, we'd be in deep trouble, regardless of the bright side. Anaerobic bacteria be damned!

Consequently, 12000 years is a more significant number than 4 billion, despite the fact that the latter is bigger. That is because humans built their civilization during this period, around current conditions. A large percentage of the human population inhabit coastal areas and will have to contend with a rising sea level. Many of the systems, man-made and natural, that we depend on are based around specific climates and will have to be adjusted/moved at a great economic cost.

And there is also the issue that non-human animals are very vulnerable to climate conditions, and require a long time to adjust. Unlike humans, they can't just shape their environment to their liking. They depend on the painfully slow processes of natural selection. And the Anthropocene waits for nobody!

Yes, the alarmist side is absurd. But your "don't worry about it, I'm sure things will be fine" mentality isn't very helpful. If there is a problem, we try to understand it, and figure out paths to a better outcome. End of story.

 

[babe]

Siro, I read it the first time.

I think it's blinders to just consider the past 12000 years. You need to look at least the past three cycles of interglacial warm spells to see if this one is any different. and the answer to that looks like "no" to me, even with AGW. The possibility exists that we are breaking into new or unprecedented territory, but to me that's not clearly strong enough to overcome the -8C drop some natural driver has been ending our warm periods with. . . . So, it's not certain that the AGW concern is justified.

Anyway, there are ways we can as a world or as societies and individuals move to conserve our environment and our status quo that appear to me to be better than the set that is being sold to us by government today. . . . so there you have it. Genuine difference of opinion based on the science we know. It's a mistake to ignore all the things we do know. . . .and just focus on the recent span or the past 12000 years.

 

[b_line]

Siro, I read it the first time.

I think it's blinders to just consider the past 12000 years. You need to look at least the past three cycles of interglacial warm spells to see if this one is any different. and the answer to that looks like "no" to me, even with AGW. The possibility exists that we are breaking into new or unprecedented territory, but to me that's not clearly strong enough to overcome the -8C drop some natural driver has been ending our warm periods with. . . . So, it's not certain that the AGW concern is justified.

Anyway, there are ways we can as a world or as societies and individuals move to conserve our environment and our status quo that appear to me to be better than the set that is being sold to us by government today. . . . so there you have it. Genuine difference of opinion based on the science we know. It's a mistake to ignore all the things we do know. . . .and just focus on the recent span or the past 12000 years.

You're missing the point. Humans didn't live in cities hundreds of thousands of years ago. The cost will be huge because humans have made civilizations around the current climate. When sea level rises and storms get way bigger, land becomes arid, the cost will continue to rise.

 

[fishonjazz]

Sure was warm yesterday for thanksgiving week

 

[franklin]

You're missing the point. Humans didn't live in cities hundreds of thousands of years ago. The cost will be huge because humans have made civilizations around the current climate. When sea level rises and storms get way bigger, land becomes arid, the cost will continue to rise.

:

That's a whole lot of speculation. Who are you to claim there won't be economic benefit?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Sure was warm yesterday for thanksgiving week

Don't know about that, but the skiing sure was great.

 

[Siro]

:

There might be economic benefit in the long run. I saw several models that show the situation in Canada and Siberia improving significantly for agriculture. But there will also be consequences for people affected, and those are things we need to equip ourselves to deal with.

 

[fishonjazz]

Don't know about that, but the skiing sure was great.

Amazing what they can do with artificial snow making machines these days.

Hell just last week I went up to the weber river to do a little fishin and happened to drive by park city and saw their snow machines runnin full bore.
Wonder if them there snow machines were working that hard 20 years ago

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Amazing what they can do with artificial snow making machines these days.

Hell just last week I went up to the weber river to do a little fishin and happened to drive by park city and saw their snow machines runnin full bore.
Wonder if them there snow machines were working that hard 20 years ago

I was on natural snow at Alta. But since you bring up snow machines, were you aware that they require cold temperatures in order to operate?