20 Years Ago ...

Open

LikeAnOcean wrote:

But the point I'm making is, humans are natural, hence nature is making machines.. Bee hives don't grow out of the ground either. Bees make them.. see my point?

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying it depends on how you define or look at what is natural.

I see your point but i dont see it valid when it comes to global warming. Not everything we make is natural.

Even if i saw your point as valid; bees dont know they are doing harm to their enviroment (until its too late). We do; we have a responsibility to see the earth > money and profit.

LikeAnOcean

Open wrote:

Even if i saw your point as valid; bees dont know they are doing harm to their enviroment (until its too late). We do; we have a responsibility to see the earth > money and profit.

OK, that's what you sold me on in this argument. We are aware. Our collective consciousness is aware we are threatening our own existence... but can we stop it? or is it natures way to shake us off like a disease.

Open

LikeAnOcean wrote:

OK, that's what you sold me on in this argument. We are aware. Our collective consciousness is aware we are threatening our own existence... but can we stop it? or is it natures way to shake us off like a disease.

I do agree with you on that perspective; if we're too dumb to do anything about it maybe it's just natural selection of the species.

mammasan

cincybearcat wrote:

Good post....I think this subject is 2-fold, it is important to still look at and discuss whether or not it's a human induced matter, because if it isn't, we'll need to try and counter it or simply prepare for it in different ways than if it's human-related.

This is the issue I see with Global warming, or what ever it is being called these days. We continue to argue back and forth wether this problem is man-made or not when at this point it doesn't really matter. Global climate change is occuring and we should be preparing for what is in store. Does it really make difference what is causing it because at this point most experts will tell you that the damage is done.

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

BUt to think it's only a man-made issue is ignoring a very possible problem. I'm all for reducing the effects on man on the environment...I just don't want to put all my eggs into 1 basket.

Like someone said before, even if it's not entirely man-made, you still benefit from less pollution, etc.

by believing it is man-made is ignoring what problem?

polaris

mammasan wrote:

This is the issue I see with Global warming, or what ever it is being called these days. We continue to argue back and forth wether this problem is man-made or not when at this point it doesn't really matter. Global climate change is occuring and we should be preparing for what is in store. Does it really make difference what is causing it because at this point most experts will tell you that the damage is done.

that's like saying cancer is gonna happen anyways - so, let's just deal with it ... whereas maybe reducing toxins in our food, water and air might actually help to reduce cancer rates ...

we KNOW what is causing all this - it has been forecasted and it is happening now - there is a solution, it is in front of us ... the only thing standing in its way is greed, ignorance and apathy ...

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

by believing it is man-made is ignoring what problem?

I think we're having a communication breakdown....

Yes, believing it is solely man-made and that we have the power to stop it is ignoring a potentially serious issue.

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

I think we're having a communication breakdown....

Yes, believing it is solely man-made and that we have the power to stop it is ignoring a potentially serious issue.

possibly ... it's happened before ...

what potential serious issue are we ignoring?

mammasan

polaris wrote:

that's like saying cancer is gonna happen anyways - so, let's just deal with it ... whereas maybe reducing toxins in our food, water and air might actually help to reduce cancer rates ...

we KNOW what is causing all this - it has been forecasted and it is happening now - there is a solution, it is in front of us ... the only thing standing in its way is greed, ignorance and apathy ...

My point is that we spend sp much time arguing over wether it's man made or not that we are loosing time that can be used to prepare for the changes that are coming. Yes we should definitely do more to preserve our ecosystem, but we should do that even if cglobal climate change is not man made.

To use your example it would be like arguing over wether smoking causes cancer constantly and not even bothering to work on a way to cure the cancer.

polaris

mammasan wrote:

My point is that we spend sp much time arguing over wether it's man made or not that we are loosing time that can be used to prepare for the changes that are coming. Yes we should definitely do more to preserve our ecosystem, but we should do that even if cglobal climate change is not man made.

To use your example it would be like arguing over wether smoking causes cancer constantly and not even bothering to work on a way to cure the cancer.

i think i get your point ... but do you get mine?

while you want to focus on finding a cure - i'm more interested in prevention ...

SundaySilence

mammasan wrote:

My point is that we spend sp much time arguing over wether it's man made or not that we are loosing time that can be used to prepare for the changes that are coming. Yes we should definitely do more to preserve our ecosystem, but we should do that even if cglobal climate change is not man made.

To use your example it would be like arguing over wether smoking causes cancer constantly and not even bothering to work on a way to cure the cancer.

We are bothering to prepare for the changes that are coming:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter17.pdf

mammasan

polaris wrote:

i think i get your point ... but do you get mine?

while you want to focus on finding a cure - i'm more interested in prevention ...

I get your point and I believe we should find a medium between the two. Prevention is great but at this point it is not possible to reverse the damage done so we need to also focus on way to adjust to the situation. By arguing over weither it's man-made or not is just a waste of time. Even if it's not man made we should still be doing what we can to preserve our environment.

ClimberInOz

LikeAnOcean wrote:

But the point I'm making is, humans are natural, hence nature is making machines.. Bee hives don't grow out of the ground either. Bees make them.. see my point?

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying it depends on how you define or look at what is natural.

You are correct- humans are simply naturally organisms of this planet that have evolved a radically advanced capability to use tools to manipulate the natural world.

However, conservation should be inherintly a selfish pursuit for humans. We conserve to survive and improve our quality of life. This desire to protect ourselves and future generations is written into our genes.

So regardless if you class humans as a part of nature or separate... our species needs to begin limiting its impacts now.

baraka

I really wish folks would take climate science back to science and leave it out of the political propaganda sphere. Why can't we just say that we should curb pollution because it's a good idea and we need to find cleaner alternative energy sources? I grow weary of this 'GW is bad for life' argument, it is not bad for life in general, it is bad for people. Whether or not humans are the root cause, has a lot more credibility with me than saying it is bad for life. Those nasty, 100% organic fossil fuels that the environmental movement so despises came from a time when the world was a lot warmer and life was much more prolific than it is now.

We have observational data which suggests that the CO2 rise in the atmosphere correlates with human CO2 exhaust. I don't think there's much dispute about that.

We have much less sure observational data that suggests that global temperatures have 'slightly' been rising. Recently however (satellite data on ocean temperatures) this is not clear at all.

We have the 'hypothesis' that CO2 increase is going to act as a greenhouse gas. Simple radiation transport models ('all else equal') show us that a doubling of the CO2 (about beginning 2100) will give rise to a global increase in temperature of about 1 degree.

And then we have a LOT OF MODELS that add feedback to this radiation transport mechanism: increasing temperatures will do 'other things' (so no more 'all else equal'), like changed land usage (different vegetation, ice cover, etc), changed atmospheric content (water vapor, clouds, etc), changing ocean currents, changing ocean composition, changing atmospheric composition and profiles, etc... and depending on the guesses one puts in these models, one can obtain positive feedback which then predicts temperature increases for a doubling of CO2 of up to 6 degrees.

However, these models don't work as of now yet in a scientific way, in that they make falsifiable predictions, those predictions are then observed, and so on. Indeed, recently they made different predictions of the ocean temperatures from those observed.

So, what does all this mean? This indicates that 1) it is indeed physically possible that a CO2 increase COULD give rise to serious temperature increases, not that it WILL be the case. But the possibility exists, so we should be careful. 2) we are not yet able to say with any certainty what will really happen. If you read the IPCC full reports, that's pretty clear. But in the summaries, doubts have made place for affirmative statements.

If that's not yet sufficiently murky, then people are going to model what will happen, GRANTED that temperature will rise with 6 degrees. There are of course some obvious, simple things such as the sea level rise of a meter or so, ice melting, etc... Much more difficult is the prediction of what the biosphere will look like WITH HUMANITY 100 years from now. It is like someone trying to predict in 1900, what earth, its biotopes etc would look like in 2000, from extrapolations of evolutions at the end of the 19th century.

Now, all this can be an interesting intellectual exercise, but to go around the world fear mongering is the same as those preaching about terrorists hating us for our freedoms.

What climate science has shown us is that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere can potentially give rise to a temperature increase, although how much has not yet been determined with any degree of certainty. And that's about all we know. But,that should give rise to prudence, and to start thinking of how to get our CO2 exhaust down, just in case.

As to what value one puts to 1) future human generations, 2) biological life on earth in the coming centuries 3) current human generations, that's not a scientific but a political and ideological discussion. Science should limit itself to telling people what it knows, what is plausible, and possible and what is not clear yet.

Just so I'm not misunderstood, I'm NOT saying that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming or man made GW) is not a potential issue. And I DO think that there are many reasons to get away from fossil fuels. But I'm against all this irrational fear mongering. It can only lead to irrational decisions, and a lot of unnecessary problems. I'm also claiming that these things are far less understood than the fear mongerers claim. The real answer is that we really don't know what's going to happen 100 years from now, and that there is a potential for warming, so we should act accordingly.

sourdough

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Am I the only one who beliefs humans are part of nature, hence nature is warming itself?

I mean, we are 100% of this earth, 100% natural.

So your argument is if it is "natural" it is OK. Because something is natural it is good? Are there not many, many natural substances that are harmful? By this definition, nuclear bombs are natural (b/c we are natural so our nukes are too) so it would be okay to detonate them because that would be "natural"? I don't understand this logic

sourdough

kh65 wrote:

I couldn't agree more and we are the only species that can bend nature to high degree to suit our needs. The Earth is here for us to use.

Is it ours to abuse as well? Do the other species that exist on our planet not have any rights to exist? What about the implications of poor management on our own existence?

baraka

sourdough wrote:

Is it ours to abuse as well? Do the other species that exist on our planet not have any rights to exist? What about the implications of poor management on our own existence?

I saw a science program about the earth's climate, can't remember which channel, probably Discovery or something like that, it has been awhile. They were basically saying that global warming of a couple of degrees would put the earth back to one of it's healthiest periods, the time when the earth was covered by lush tropical forests. The climate that humans have been enjoying for the past 10,000 years is what 'we' like and know, not necessarily what is healthiest for the planet as a whole.

If past performance is any indicator, life overall will thrive in a warmer climate, but not all life, of course. Personally, I am also concerned with what it will do to humanity. If the predictions of the global warming crowd are correct, global warming most likely will be bad for humanity, but excellent for biodiversity.

Humanity gave up on what is best for biodiversity 10,000 years ago or so. If the worst prognostications of global warming are true, global warming will be very, very good for biodiversity, because these extreme prognostications possibly have humanity collapsing (or at least 'cutting back' on the population).

sourdough

baraka wrote:

I saw a science program about the earth's climate, can't remember which channel, probably Discovery or something like that, it has been awhile. They were basically saying that global warming of a couple of degrees would put the earth back to one of it's healthiest periods, the time when the earth was covered by lush tropical forests. The climate that humans have been enjoying for the past 10,000 years is what 'we' like and know, not necessarily what is healthiest for the planet as a whole.

If past performance is any indicator, life overall will thrive in a warmer climate, but not all life, of course. Personally, I am also concerned with what it will do to humanity. If the predictions of the global warming crowd are correct, global warming most likely will be bad for humanity, but excellent for biodiversity.

Humanity gave up on what is best for biodiversity 10,000 years ago or so. If the worst prognostications of global warming are true, global warming will be very, very good for biodiversity, because these extreme prognostications possibly have humanity collapsing (or at least 'cutting back' on the population).

I've heard that hypothesis before as well and there may very well be some benefit to climate change. However, what is alarming to me is the increase in desertification (largely attributed to warming). Deserts are the only terrestrial ecosystem that is increasing and are not so good at sustaining large quantities of life.


The idea of "cutting back" is a scary thought to me. I definitely understand that issues of overpopulation but I am also not keen on seeing entire countires lost, mass starvation, increased war and refugees and poverty that will come with the "growing pains" or this transition.

If the earth was warming naturally, I could somewhat accept this reality, but if it due to the ignorance and indifference of some humans towards the greater humanitarian disaster than I cannot. Did that make sense??

ClimberInOz

baraka wrote:

I really wish folks would take climate science back to science and leave it out of the political propaganda sphere. Why can't we just say that we should curb pollution because it's a good idea and we need to find cleaner alternative energy sources? I grow weary of this 'GW is bad for life' argument, it is not bad for life in general, it is bad for people. Whether or not humans are the root cause, has a lot more credibility with me than saying it is bad for life. Those nasty, 100% organic fossil fuels that the environmental movement so despises came from a time when the world was a lot warmer and life was much more prolific than it is now.

We have observational data which suggests that the CO2 rise in the atmosphere correlates with human CO2 exhaust. I don't think there's much dispute about that.

We have much less sure observational data that suggests that global temperatures have 'slightly' been rising. Recently however (satellite data on ocean temperatures) this is not clear at all.

We have the 'hypothesis' that CO2 increase is going to act as a greenhouse gas. Simple radiation transport models ('all else equal') show us that a doubling of the CO2 (about beginning 2100) will give rise to a global increase in temperature of about 1 degree.

And then we have a LOT OF MODELS that add feedback to this radiation transport mechanism: increasing temperatures will do 'other things' (so no more 'all else equal'), like changed land usage (different vegetation, ice cover, etc), changed atmospheric content (water vapor, clouds, etc), changing ocean currents, changing ocean composition, changing atmospheric composition and profiles, etc... and depending on the guesses one puts in these models, one can obtain positive feedback which then predicts temperature increases for a doubling of CO2 of up to 6 degrees.

However, these models don't work as of now yet in a scientific way, in that they make falsifiable predictions, those predictions are then observed, and so on. Indeed, recently they made different predictions of the ocean temperatures from those observed.

So, what does all this mean? This indicates that 1) it is indeed physically possible that a CO2 increase COULD give rise to serious temperature increases, not that it WILL be the case. But the possibility exists, so we should be careful. 2) we are not yet able to say with any certainty what will really happen. If you read the IPCC full reports, that's pretty clear. But in the summaries, doubts have made place for affirmative statements.

If that's not yet sufficiently murky, then people are going to model what will happen, GRANTED that temperature will rise with 6 degrees. There are of course some obvious, simple things such as the sea level rise of a meter or so, ice melting, etc... Much more difficult is the prediction of what the biosphere will look like WITH HUMANITY 100 years from now. It is like someone trying to predict in 1900, what earth, its biotopes etc would look like in 2000, from extrapolations of evolutions at the end of the 19th century.

Now, all this can be an interesting intellectual exercise, but to go around the world fear mongering is the same as those preaching about terrorists hating us for our freedoms.

What climate science has shown us is that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere can potentially give rise to a temperature increase, although how much has not yet been determined with any degree of certainty. And that's about all we know. But,that should give rise to prudence, and to start thinking of how to get our CO2 exhaust down, just in case.

As to what value one puts to 1) future human generations, 2) biological life on earth in the coming centuries 3) current human generations, that's not a scientific but a political and ideological discussion. Science should limit itself to telling people what it knows, what is plausible, and possible and what is not clear yet.

Just so I'm not misunderstood, I'm NOT saying that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming or man made GW) is not a potential issue. And I DO think that there are many reasons to get away from fossil fuels. But I'm against all this irrational fear mongering. It can only lead to irrational decisions, and a lot of unnecessary problems. I'm also claiming that these things are far less understood than the fear mongerers claim. The real answer is that we really don't know what's going to happen 100 years from now, and that there is a potential for warming, so we should act accordingly.

Good post. I agree with almost everything that you said.

It is the position of absolute unwavering belief that every single weather anomaly is now due to AGW, or the alternative, that we could never possibly influence world climate patterns, that I find frustrating.

Each shows a blatent lack of understanding of the science involved. AGW has become such a hot issue that we now have the a large part of the world debating the science, where the majority of them do not understand the science.

baraka

sourdough wrote:

I've heard that hypothesis before as well and there may very well be some benefit to climate change. However, what is alarming to me is the increase in desertification (largely attributed to warming). Deserts are the only terrestrial ecosystem that is increasing and are not so good at sustaining large quantities of life.


The idea of "cutting back" is a scary thought to me. I definitely understand that issues of overpopulation but I am also not keen on seeing entire countires lost, mass starvation, increased war and refugees and poverty that will come with the "growing pains" or this transition.

If the earth was warming naturally, I could somewhat accept this reality, but if it due to the ignorance and indifference of some humans towards the greater humanitarian disaster than I cannot. Did that make sense??

Yes, you made perfect sense! And I agree, mother nature is harsh, yes, but a preventable disaster is a harder pill to swallow.

Your post actually reminded me of another program I saw recently about the Toba catastrophe theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Scary, but interesting stuff!