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:
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.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
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.
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.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
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
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?
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).
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
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??
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.
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.
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.
Thanks, although in retrospect, it was probably a bit long winded. I wrote that after a couple of cups of coffee this morning.
And I agree, the science involved here is crazy complicated! My uncle is an atmospheric chemist and and we have discuss the issue and I have to say, it is hard for me to wrap my brain around it. Like you, the black and white thinking about the issue is frustrating, because it is certainly is not black or white. My uncle gets frustrated, because he and the majority in the field feel, due to the models they have, believe that it is in our best interest to act prudent and carefully concerning AGW. However, the science is complicated and it is hard to get things done (or initiate change) on a maybe, so then you have the 'I don't believe it' crowd that want to continue with the status quo. Then on the flip side you have those that want to throw the baby out with the bath water. My uncle who is in the field has said that at the moment the 'politically correct' word in climate science is to say that there is without a doubt the majority of global warming caused by human effects. If you say that, you get grants, etc...but, if you suggest that global warming, possibly most of the warming is due to 'natural' causes, you are defending oil companies etc... Most all of the scientist in the field feel it is prudent to curb our contribution to it. Again, how do you get folks to act on a maybe or a good chance opposed to an absolute. He feels stating an absolute where there is none puts the trustworthiness of science at stake.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Global warming isn't something we can afford to be wrong about. If there is a chance we are responsible for it, we should take every step to avoid that affect.
Global warming isn't something we can afford to be wrong about. If there is a chance we are responsible for it, we should take every step to avoid that affect.
If we're wrong, well at least we tried.
I agree, Commy. I believe in responsible steps to curbing our contribution to the problem.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Comments
We are bothering to prepare for the changes that are coming:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter17.pdf
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.
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.
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.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
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
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).
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
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??
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.
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!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Thanks, although in retrospect, it was probably a bit long winded. I wrote that after a couple of cups of coffee this morning.
And I agree, the science involved here is crazy complicated! My uncle is an atmospheric chemist and and we have discuss the issue and I have to say, it is hard for me to wrap my brain around it. Like you, the black and white thinking about the issue is frustrating, because it is certainly is not black or white. My uncle gets frustrated, because he and the majority in the field feel, due to the models they have, believe that it is in our best interest to act prudent and carefully concerning AGW. However, the science is complicated and it is hard to get things done (or initiate change) on a maybe, so then you have the 'I don't believe it' crowd that want to continue with the status quo. Then on the flip side you have those that want to throw the baby out with the bath water. My uncle who is in the field has said that at the moment the 'politically correct' word in climate science is to say that there is without a doubt the majority of global warming caused by human effects. If you say that, you get grants, etc...but, if you suggest that global warming, possibly most of the warming is due to 'natural' causes, you are defending oil companies etc... Most all of the scientist in the field feel it is prudent to curb our contribution to it. Again, how do you get folks to act on a maybe or a good chance opposed to an absolute. He feels stating an absolute where there is none puts the trustworthiness of science at stake.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
If we're wrong, well at least we tried.
I agree, Commy. I believe in responsible steps to curbing our contribution to the problem.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein