Global Warming Risk Analysis

Cosmo

There are several differing theories about the Mass Extinctions of the past. Things such as comet impacts are considered random, not cyclical. and all of the mass extinctions were due to terrestrial, not celestrial events. The causes of the Great Permian Mass Extinction is not agreed upon and there are about a dozen or so theories... here are the most popular ones:
Ref: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3318/01-susp-nf.html

Asteroid or Comet Impact
Most experts agree that a massive object from outer space struck Earth near the Yucatan Peninsula at the close of the Cretaceous, ending the reign of the dinosaurs. Did an asteroid or icy comet also cause the Permian extinction 185 million years earlier? Here's the doomsday scenario: An impact triggers earthquakes, tsunamis, and a shockwave of heat, incinerating the surrounding landscape. Hot debris from the impact rains down over a wide region, igniting wildfires that burn for weeks on end. More importantly, the airborne dust and gases from the impact and the fires filter out sunlight for months, shutting down photosynthesis and dramatically cooling the Earth. The cold period is followed by extreme heat, as the skies clear of dust particles yet remain full of greenhouse gases. The extreme climatic shifts devastate life around the globe.

Volcanism
At the end of the Permian, over about one million years, a series of eruptions inundated an area the size of the continental U.S. with layer upon layer of lava and ash, leaving deposits up to four miles thick across what is today Siberia. In total, nearly a million cubic miles of magma was unleashed. In addition to the Permian wipeout, half-a-dozen extinction events in the past 250 million years are contemporaneous with similar but smaller-scale volcanism. Coincidence? Here's how eruptions could kill life far and wide: First, sulfurous gas and dust circle the Earth, blocking sunlight and creating storms of acid rain. Then years of cold are followed by decades of unbearable warming, as carbon dioxide and methane linger in the atmosphere.

Formation of Supercontinent
Earth's landmasses slowly move to shape new continents through time. Geologists in the 1970s devised this extinction scenario: the formation of the supercontinent Pangea (or "all Earth") decimates life in two ways. First, as species on separate landmasses and in different waters come together, they compete for resources, and the losing species die out. Second, Pangea's creation affects regional and global climates. Once-warm waters become intolerably cold. The vast interior of the continent experiences wild seasonal swings (think Siberia but worse). In short, most species face new stresses, and as some perish, the effect ripples through the web of life, killing many others. Since the 1970s, though, evidence has mounted that Pangea formed in the middle of the Permian, not at its end.

Glaciation
Global cooling and the spread of gargantuan glaciers likely caused the second largest mass extinction in Earth's history, the Ordovician, which took place 439 million years ago. Was it behind the Permian wipeout as well? Here's the picture: Growing glaciers pull water from the ocean and reduce the area of shallow continental shelves, which are home to the greatest diversity of marine plants and animals. Species compete fiercely for resources, and many lose out. On land, with giant glaciers encroaching, species unable to migrate toward proverbial greener pastures also perish. Geologists have found evidence in rock deposits throughout Europe and Asia, however, that sea level at the end of the Permian was rising, casting doubt on this theory.

Anoxic Oceans and Bacteria
The deep ocean as well as shallow marine habitats appear to have had low oxygen levels at the end of the Permian. This condition, called anoxia, could have been the linchpin in the extinction tale. For most marine life, the anoxia would have meant suffocation. But other life—particularly anaerobic bacteria that give off hydrogen sulfide—would have thrived. The hydrogen sulfide would have spread through the oceans, killing more species, and as it slowly fizzed out into the atmosphere, it would have poisoned life on land as well. Hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere then would have damaged the ozone layer, opening paths for deadly ultraviolet radiation to reach the remaining life on Earth.

Methane Gas
Today, sediments on continental shelves contain vast amounts of methane, just as they did during the Permian. Some climate scientists fear that our present-day warming oceans could eventually release this methane into the atmosphere, with cataclysmic consequences. Methane, besides being toxic to most organisms, is also a potent greenhouse gas. At the end of the Permian, a great outpouring of methane could have caused runaway global warming and ended much of life on the planet. Even if this scenario turns out to be false, it holds a cautionary tale about how moderate global warming could suddenly turn severe.
...

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

for the sake of the idiots; let's say man had nothing to do with global warming. could we have slowed it? yes.
now; we say this is a natural cycle. what was the earth like during one of these cycles when the earth didn't have ice cover? extinction. we have an extinction every 62 million years. since you don't believe me; look for yourself.

...
No. We don't.

Kann

onelongsong wrote:

for the sake of the idiots; let's say man had nothing to do with global warming. could we have slowed it? yes.
now; we say this is a natural cycle. what was the earth like during one of these cycles when the earth didn't have ice cover? extinction. we have an extinction every 62 million years. since you don't believe me; look for yourself.

How long has it been since the last one?

Cosmo

Kann wrote:

How long has it been since the last one?

...
65 Million Years... ended the dinosaurs. And Comets do not hit the planet in cycles. Earth Impact events are random... one can hit us next month or one 100 Millions years.
...
ADD: The Present Day Mass Extinction is caused by Man... not the motion of the planet. De-forrestation, pollution, over-fishing, wholesale waste is knocking off all sorts of plants and animals... mostly insects, birds, reptiles and amphibians... but, still... part of the balance of Nature.

Ahnimus

The naturalistic fallacy is often claimed to be a formal fallacy. It was described and named by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica. Moore stated that a naturalistic fallacy was committed whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.).

The naturalistic fallacy is related to, and often confused with, the is-ought problem (which comes from Hume's Treatise). As a result, the term is sometimes used loosely to describe arguments that claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts.

Alternatively, the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" is used to refer to the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is bad or wrong (see "Appeal to nature").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

surferdude

Ahnimus wrote:

Alternatively, the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" is used to refer to the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is bad or wrong (see "Appeal to nature").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

I'm still not sure how anything can be unnatural. We don't suppose that any output or consequence of action by other animals are unnatural. Why would we suppose that some output or consequence of action by humans could be unnatural? It definitely places a completely arbitrary definition on what is natural for humans. It also presupposes that we know and understand what our role is, that this role is meaningful and deviating from the role has dire consequences.

Cosmo

surferdude wrote:

I'm still not sure how anything can be unnatural. We don't suppose that any output or consequence of action by other animals are unnatural. Why would we suppose that some output or consequence of action by humans could be unnatural? It definitely places a completely arbitrary definition on what is natural for humans. It also presupposes that we know and understand what our role is, that this role is meaningful and deviating from the role has dire consequences.

...
Animals don't build coal burning Hydro-electric plants. And if left alone... the Earth will never build coal burning hydro-electric plants either.
Basically meaning... Natural vs. Man-made.

surferdude

Cosmo wrote:

...
Animals don't build coal burning Hydro-electric plants. And if left alone... the Earth will never build coal burning hydro-electric plants either.
Basically meaning... Natural vs. Man-made.

Is a beaver damming a river natural or unnatural?

Ahnimus

surferdude wrote:

I'm still not sure how anything can be unnatural. We don't suppose that any output or consequence of action by other animals are unnatural. Why would we suppose that some output or consequence of action by humans could be unnatural? It definitely places a completely arbitrary definition on what is natural for humans. It also presupposes that we know and understand what our role is, that this role is meaningful and deviating from the role has dire consequences.

I hear what you are saying and I agree. Human behavior is natural. The naturalistic fallacy is to draw any kind of morality from nature. So Human A murdering his wife might be natural, but it probably shouldn't be considered moral.

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

...
Animals don't build coal burning Hydro-electric plants. And if left alone... the Earth will never build coal burning hydro-electric plants either.
Basically meaning... Natural vs. Man-made.

that's the most intelligent thing i've ever heard come out of you. spot on mate.

surferdude

onelongsong wrote:

that's the most intelligent thing i've ever heard come out of you. spot on mate.

How are humans able to do these things Cosmo refered to? Mostly by using tools that our intellect has designed. Our brains are only able to do this because they have quite naturally evolved. Evolution about as natural a process as there is.

Why is it unnatural when we dam a river in order to produce electricity but it's natural for a beaver to dam a river in order to build their home?
Cows fart and create greenhouse gasses, we treat this as natural. But when we create greenhouse gasses we treat it as unnatural. From my point of view there is a disconnect occuring over what is natural and unnatural. Humans are a naturally evolved species on earth. Everything we do is just as natural as anything done by any other species.

Cosmo

surferdude wrote:

How are humans able to do these things Cosmo refered to? Mostly by using tools that our intellect has designed. Our brains are only able to do this because they have quite naturally evolved. Evolution about as natural a process as there is.

Why is it unnatural when we dam a river in order to produce electricity but it's natural for a beaver to dam a river in order to build their home?
Cows fart and create greenhouse gasses, we treat this as natural. But when we create greenhouse gasses we treat it as unnatural. From my point of view there is a disconnect occuring over what is natural and unnatural. Humans are a naturally evolved species on earth. Everything we do is just as natural as anything done by any other species.

...
Nope.. you are comparing apples to B-2 Bombers... no comparison.
...
Boulder Dam cannot be compared to a beaver dam, unless there are 10 foot tall Beavers somewhere building dams to irrigate their crops, change the river current downstream so they can build condos and generate electricity so they can watch 'Leave It to Beaver' re-runs on Nickelodeon.
The way you would be able to compare it in your manner would be if Man lived in dams he created from the surrounding vegatation... that would be natural.
as for the cow farts... they are as natural as human farts. but to compare cow farts to output from man-made objects such as factories and autos.. well, when the cows start building factories and cars that pollute the atmosphere... then, we'll talk. Until then... it's apples and Iranian Nuclear facilities.

onelongsong

surferdude wrote:

How are humans able to do these things Cosmo refered to? Mostly by using tools that our intellect has designed. Our brains are only able to do this because they have quite naturally evolved. Evolution about as natural a process as there is.

Why is it unnatural when we dam a river in order to produce electricity but it's natural for a beaver to dam a river in order to build their home?
Cows fart and create greenhouse gasses, we treat this as natural. But when we create greenhouse gasses we treat it as unnatural. From my point of view there is a disconnect occuring over what is natural and unnatural. Humans are a naturally evolved species on earth. Everything we do is just as natural as anything done by any other species.

dude; humans lived naturally about 200 years ago and before. if you need to blame global warming on something; blame the industrial revolution. humans have used their intellect to destroy themselves. what is the one thing humans have always done since the beginning of human life? they've tried to find better ways to kill other humans. the spear gave way to the bow and arrow. the bow and arrow gave way to the gun. as the gun was improved; we invented bombs. human nature is to kill.
now look at global warming. instead of people using the technology we've developed; we're more interested in pointing fingers at who or what's to blame. we're not interested in slowing it. those that say it's the earths natural cycle; don't look at what happened to the earth when it didn't have ice cover. they don't look at the times the earth did suffer from global warming. if we're so bloody smart; why are we destroying ourselves?

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

that's the most intelligent thing i've ever heard come out of you. spot on mate.

...
Yeah... sorry I was unable to dispute your assessment that the Earth Revolves around the Sun once every several thousand years.

Obi Once

surferdude wrote:

So can I take from this you are against abortion? You've given equal weight to a future life as a current life.

I make a distinction between a humans life and an embryo or fetus.

I wonder if you make a payment to African charities equal to the taxes you pay to your government? If you believe a foreigners life is of equal value to a fellow countryman's you'd be all for global free trade. As long as someone is being employed it does not matter where they live.

Africa, or 'the third world' doesn't need money and food to survive another season, but knowledge tailored to whatever need is encountered on a smaller scale than it needs top down 'bandages' that can't fix structural problems.

I am all for free trade and think if implemented gradually it'll work if there is willingness to work together. There simply aren't enough people willing to make socks and flat screen monitors or grow and pick fruit here than there are in other countries, while in those countries the level and skill of technological and medical research can't compete with what is done here or in identical countries.

It's quite easy to say you believe all peoples lives have the same value or that a future life is of the same value of a current life but, it's quite different to live according to those beliefs. These beliefs have a serious impact on your neighbors. Are you willing to try to impose our belief system on them?

Screaming, imposing, I don't see the need for overstatement, but why would my believes have a serious impact on my neighbors?

By your reasoning would you value a 1/2 of an American/Dutch couple sentenced to death in a corrupt country more than the other?

I value the lives of the people I know personally more than those I don't. Nationality doesn't weigh in much in my respect for life in general. As an example it wouldn't sadden me less to hear a American soldier died in Afghanistan, than a Dutch would.

I think you are cutting some corners in most claims, but yeah I do believe empathy and solidarity go beyond borders. If actions here can have a positive effect on others on the other side of the world, why not make an effort?

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

...
Yeah... sorry I was unable to dispute your assessment that the Earth Revolves around the Sun once every several thousand years.

sorry i haven't been well enough to find the evidence. i can't sit at the pc that long. i'd like to know the speed that the earth actually moves in it's orbit. considering that we are millions of miles away from the sun; we must really be flying through space. that circumference formula is pie R sq. if someone wants to do the math. my calculator only goes to 6 digits. it has to be billions of miles for us to orbit the sun.

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

sorry i haven't been well enough to find the evidence. i can't sit at the pc that long. i'd like to know the speed that the earth actually moves in it's orbit. considering that we are millions of miles away from the sun; we must really be flying through space. that circumference formula is pie R sq. if someone wants to do the math. my calculator only goes to 6 digits. it has to be billions of miles for us to orbit the sun.

...
Fact: The Earth goes around the Sun... once every 365.4 days. Not thousands of years.
...
ADD: Earth's speed as it travels around the Sun... approx. 110,000 km per hour (68350.8 mph).
ref: http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/relativity.html

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

...
Nope.. you are comparing apples to B-2 Bombers... no comparison.
...
Boulder Dam cannot be compared to a beaver dam, unless there are 10 foot tall Beavers somewhere building dams to irrigate their crops, change the river current downstream so they can build condos and generate electricity so they can watch 'Leave It to Beaver' re-runs on Nickelodeon.
The way you would be able to compare it in your manner would be if Man lived in dams he created from the surrounding vegatation... that would be natural.
as for the cow farts... they are as natural as human farts. but to compare cow farts to output from man-made objects such as factories and autos.. well, when the cows start building factories and cars that pollute the atmosphere... then, we'll talk. Until then... it's apples and Iranian Nuclear facilities.

why are there billions of cows? why are 90,000 cows butchered EACH BLOODY DAY? man! why are there concrete cities that become heat sinks? man! it can rain over phoenix yet no rain hits the ground? it evaporates because of the concrete heat sink we've built. there's a name for it but it eludes me at the moment. since when is a tele natural? since when is plastic natural? where the bloody hell does DVD players grow naturally in nature? man invents the car which expells deadly poisons and knows he's going to breathe those poisons. man knows those poisons will contaminate the atmosphere but he doesn't care because it won't happen in his lifetime.

now tell me again how smart man is. he's smart enough to orchestrate his own extinction. that's how smart man is.

sorry cosmo. i didn't direct this at you. i know we're on the same page here. i just got pissed at something someone else said. i quoted you but this isn't directed at you.
my mistake.

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

why are there billions of cows? why are 90,000 cows butchered EACH BLOODY DAY? man! why are there concrete cities that become heat sinks? man! it can rain over phoenix yet no rain hits the ground? it evaporates because of the concrete heat sink we've built. there's a name for it but it eludes me at the moment. since when is a tele natural? since when is plastic natural? where the bloody hell does DVD players grow naturally in nature? man invents the car which expells deadly poisons and knows he's going to breathe those poisons. man knows those poisons will contaminate the atmosphere but he doesn't care because it won't happen in his lifetime.

now tell me again how smart man is. he's smart enough to orchestrate his own extinction. that's how smart man is.

sorry cosmo. i didn't direct this at you. i know we're on the same page here. i just got pissed at something someone else said. i quoted you but this isn't directed at you.
my mistake.

...
The cause of the current day mass extinction of plant and animal species... Man.
Mass Extinctions of the past are NOT cyclical... pollution and destruction of habitats and environs are not part of Natural cycles... neither are comet/asteroid impacts and/or plate tectonics.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

sorry i haven't been well enough to find the evidence. i can't sit at the pc that long. i'd like to know the speed that the earth actually moves in it's orbit. considering that we are millions of miles away from the sun; we must really be flying through space. that circumference formula is pie R sq. if someone wants to do the math. my calculator only goes to 6 digits. it has to be billions of miles for us to orbit the sun.

I thought it was like 45,000 KM/H

Let us look.

107,218 km/h
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Kind of ironic since "Earth" originally meant stationary, unmoving, the centre of the universe.