Climate Change revisited.

[Winstonm]

Richard,

 

I appreciated the tone of your post to Dwayne. Even those with whom we disagree should have our respect as fellow human beings.

 

That said, I would like to hear your opinion on this - do you believe that man and man's ruinous behavior to be part of natural selection? Or another way to say it is that if man's encroachment causes the disappearance of the spotted owl, should man be attempting to save this species or is its loss due to the fact that it could not adapt and thus is being eliminated through natural selection?

[Al_U_Card]

And Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Just reading this thread gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. Might as well wait for the Mayan calendar to run out in 2012 and hope that the gods come back to save us......

 

IT IS NEVER TOO LATE UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE!

[Winstonm]

Winston, I thought the following sentence offered some hope, but I agree, the future looks rather bad: But the warming can be substantially blunted by prompt action, the panel of scientists said in a report released here today. What do you suggest, we give up on earth and play bridge until it's over? Not a bad idea actually..

 

Not at all, Han. I was only trying to point out the seriousness of the situation, that we have already waited too long to stop the next 50-100 years of change.

 

It is somewhat akin to finding oneself on fire after second degrees burns have occured - do you battle the fire so no further damage occurs or do you ignore it until you are are consumed? If you value your life, the answer seems obvious.

[pbleighton]

"That said, I would like to hear your opinion on this - do you believe that man and man's ruinous behavior to be part of natural selection?"

 

I'm not Richard, but:

 

a) Yes, but just because we *can* doesn't mean we *should*.

 

;) Preserving threatened species is in our long-term interest.

 

c) Social Darwinism is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

Richard,

 

I appreciated the tone of your post to Dwayne.  Even those with whom we disagree should have our respect as fellow human beings. 

 

That said, I would like to hear your opinion on this - do you believe that man and man's ruinous behavior to be part of natural selection?  Or another way to say it is that if man's encroachment causes the disappearance of the spotted owl, should man be attempting to save this species or is its loss due to the fact that it could not adapt and thus is being eliminated through natural selection?

You've raised an incredibly complex question: I can provide a simple answer - Its a matter of degree – however, I recognize that this is a dreadful cop out.

 

Lets consider the isolated loss of a single species. Hypothetically, something “bad” happens and the Northern Spotted Owl dies out. I would consider such an event regrettable. Owls are cool. I also recognize that there are risks associated with species going extinct. When you perturb an equilibrium you can't also predict what is going to happen. Things can really spiral out of control, especially if you're messing with a capstone specieis of a foundational one. There are also lots of arguments about loss of biodiversity on discovery of new biological compounds. Even so, I recognize that the state of nature is (ultimately) dynamic. Change is natural. Species have gone extinct in the past. They will continue to do into the future. I don't think that we have the power not the competency to attempt create stasis. In short, if we lose the North Spotted Owl, I'll shed a few tears, but not all that many.

 

However, this isolated though experiment really doesn't apply to whats happening on the planet right now. Its quite possible that we're headed towards a mass extinction event, where enormous numbers of species of plants and animals will die out within a relatively short period of time. Its important to understand the types of changes that we're talking about here:

 

Polar ice caps: Gone

Amazon rain forest: Gone

Canadian forests: Gone

Mega Fauna: Gone

 

Sure, something is eventually going to replace all this, but thats going to take an enormous amount of time for things to settle down once again. Indeed, I have some very real concerns that we're not going to see any new equilibrium emerge. If man keeps disturbing the system we might not allow sufficient time for most plant and animal species to adapt to whats going on. Life will continue, but the dominant species will be small hearty resilient organisms that are able to tolerate a broad spectrum of conditions. Lichen and scrub grass is all fine and dandy, but I'd miss trees.

 

Equally significant, all these changes are going to have a devastating impact on homo sapiens. A couple people have already noted that the bulk of the impact will initially be felt by by the poorest parts of the world. I will simple note that ***** flows down hill. The political instability caused by these types of events is going to have a very real impact on the entire world. India is in relatively good shape right now, however, whats going to happen to that country if it needs to cope with hundred's of millions of Bangladeshi's who've been flooded out of their country?

[Winstonm]

"That said, I would like to hear your opinion on this - do you believe that man and man's ruinous behavior to be part of natural selection?"

 

I'm not Richard, but:

 

a) Yes, but just because we *can* doesn't mean we *should*.

 

;) Preserving threatened species is in our long-term interest.

 

c) Social Darwinism is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

 

Peter

The most dramatic and sudden examples of natural selection have occured during times of rapid global climate changes; if mankind makes the earth uninhabitable for man himself, would that be natural selection, mass suicide. mass greed, or simply stupidity?

[pbleighton]

"The most dramatic and sudden examples of natural selection have occured during times of rapid global climate changes; if mankind makes the earth uninhabitable for man himself, would that be natural selection, mass suicide. mass greed, or simply stupidity?"

 

Stupidity.

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

The most dramatic and sudden examples of natural selection have occured during times of rapid global climate changes; if mankind makes the earth uninhabitable for man himself, would that be natural selection, mass suicide. mass greed, or simply stupidity?

 

Not going to happen due to global warming. Must be because of some kind of weapon or a quite big asteroid landing in our backyard.

 

In fact, global warming even continued the way things are going is not going to be the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that there are already more people on this planet than can be sustained indefinetely.

 

I hope that will make yall feel better.

 

BTW about the "global warming is a religion"-comment, it's simply an incorrect statement. People WANT it to be like a religion, but it is a falsifyable scientific theory which disqualifies it as a religion.

[hrothgar]

if mankind makes the earth uninhabitable for man himself, would that be natural selection, mass suicide. mass greed, or simply stupidity?

I think that its a mistake to group "natural selection" with mass suicide/mass greed/simple stupidity.

 

"Natural selection" describes an environmental filter that eliminates "unfit" elements. Greed / stupidity are examples why humanity might not pass through the filter.

[keylime]

Richard,

 

I understand your opposition to Mr. Limbaugh. My post was from the view that many, like myself, have strong reservations about whether or not global warming is a viable answer for many of the world's meterological and geographical changes. It did not in any way indicate whether or not I agree with him (for the record, unlike the fervent dittoheads I do strive to exercise self-through and self-direction).

 

I firmly believe that environment is worth conserving. I most definitively though disagree with the approach that is being espoused. Millions of people have died because DDT has been systematically and actively banned, even when the science behind it has been proven in independent studies as a safe and effective tool to combat malaria. Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring for me is a nearly complete falsehood. I've heard of people swallowing DDT by the spoonfuls with no ill effect in the short or long term. There are so many conflicting studies on the pros vs. cons of DDT that I can not state whether or not DDT should be banned. Yet so many have died because they were not permitted the opportunity to live as a direct result of malaria infection.

 

Acid rain, the rising of the oceans, the population boom (which was predicted, wrongly, to end the Earth in 1825 with Malthus), and other disasters have been predicted by well-meaning people whose science has been fundamentally flawed. Remember Carl Sagan's fear of a nuclear winter? Where is it? I don't see it yet.

 

My contention has been from the start, the fact that the science of global warming was taken as factual with carte blanche assertions and pressure. The problem with taking anything scientificly derived as absolute truth is, sooner or later, something will arise that either debunks it or questions it, especially one that is so model dependent as global warming is. Currently, there are studies that have stated that Antarctica's ice packs are gaining in size, and that the ozone level has not reduced and in certain sectors gaining in density. Surely this isn't due to a reduction of pollutants - with the Chinese starting to assert its energy needs and with India and other countries transforming themselves into economic powers, the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases have increased markedly. Yet, even with the all the emissions from the large number of cars and airplanes and such, the Earth still keeps going. It is a vibrant, dynamic, synergistic organism that is responsive and adaptive to changes in its realm.

 

Many forget that right now the Sun is in a high spot of activity (for about 60 years). Danish scientists have proposed recently that higher than average solar activity equates to higher temperatures due to cosmic ray intensity decreasing and stronger magnetic fields. Also, the Earth's orbit has been shown to have some bearing on ice ages ( Scientific American 22 Dec 2006 ). Whether or not this is directly related to climate change is unknown, but I am willing to place more money on the Sun than man-made pollution solely because the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old and the Earth was much more energetic then than now.

 

Some tidbits ( courtesy of the Contra Costa Times ):

 

1. Uncontrolled fires in China's abandoned coal mines release as much carbon dioxide as the entire nation of Japan does from useful fuel consumption.

 

2. The oceans and land outgas 210 billion tons per year compared to 3 billion tons per year from human activity.

 

3. Introducing coal-fired electrical power generation in Africa and South America would reduce the 30 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning wood to cook substantially and save more than 1.6 million lives per year.

 

4. Consider what you get from 1 ton of carbon: You could heat your house with a small electric stove (1 kilowatt) for six hours a day for 10 months of a year. Nothing would be left for cooking, lighting, hot water, refrigeration, vacuuming or washing. No travel would be possible except on foot or on bicycle. A 1-ton footprint would actually return you to a lifestyle that existed before our lifetime.

 

If global warming comprised of let's say 100 variables, and we knew each of them with 99% accuracy - that means the model is just over 36.5% accurate. So if our best model is this, how can we blindly assert that the world is coming to an end like Al Gore has espoused? The scientific method is not based on this.

 

Thusly, for me, global warming is junk science at best. At worst, I dare not entertain...

[hotShot]

Not going to happen due to global warming.

You are wrong here. A lot of species have adapted to very narrow environmental conditions.

 

There are e.g. fish that put there eggs on the sea ground, needing a specific water depth and temperature range. Rising the sea level or warmer water will kill them.

The sturgeon is about to leave the north sea, because it is to warm.

But further north the water depth does not fit his needs, so it is just a matter of time until we loose that species too.

 

There is no doubt that some species will survive, but most won't be able to adapt at the speed that chances will take place.

[Gerben42]

A lot of species have adapted to very narrow environmental conditions

 

Of course some species will die from the climate change, but not humanity. Not cockroaches either.

 

For humanity it will take either a global disease (probably self-engineered), some weapon of mass destruction, or an asteroid.

 

For cockroaches, I dunno they'll probably be around when the sun runs out of hydrogen.

[hrothgar]

 

I hardly know where to begin with a posting like this one

 

>Acid rain, the rising of the oceans, the population boom (which was predicted,

>wrongly, to end the Earth in 1825 with Malthus), and other disasters have been >predicted by well-meaning people whose science has been fundamentally flawed.

>Remember Carl Sagan's fear of a nuclear winter? Where is it? I don't see it yet.

 

Acid raid happened. It didn't develop in as serious a problem as it might have because organizations like the EPA put limits on SO2 emissions.

 

Mathusian type population pressures are blamed for a lot of really hideous occurances. There are some very good studies suggesting the recent genocides like Rwanda were a result of population pressure. To date, mankind has been saved by a couple key factors: 1. Population isn't increasing geometrically because humans tend to limit the number of children that they have as income rises. 2. We've seen a lot of scientific improvement. However, issues like pollution, global warming, and limits on raw materials might mean that the free ride has come to an end.

 

As for nuclear winter: I don't think that anyone managed to disprove the basic science. its just that we never conducted any of the large scale experiments that would be necessary to validate the conjecture.

 

>Yet, even with the all the emissions from the large number of cars and airplanes

>and such, the Earth still keeps going. It is a vibrant, dynamic, synergistic

>organism that is responsive and adaptive to changes in its realm.

 

I agree with you. The Earth is dynamic. The Earth is going to keep on going. However, its important to understand that these dynamic changes occasionally kill 50 - 90% of the species living on the planet. This has happened at least five times before.

 

>Many forget that right now the Sun is in a high spot of activity (for about 60 years).

>Danish scientists have proposed recently that higher than average solar activity

>equates to higher temperatures due to cosmic ray intensity decreasing and

>stronger magnetic fields. Also, the Earth's orbit has been shown to have some

>bearing on ice ages ( Scientific American 22 Dec 2006 ).

 

Factors lik these get built into climate models, almost all of which state that mankind is responsible for significant amounts warming above and beyond what would be expected from sunspots, orbit changes, etc.

 

>1. Uncontrolled fires in China's abandoned coal mines release as much carbon >dioxide as the entire nation of Japan does from useful fuel consumption.

 

Is this (somehow) supposed to make me feel better about other sources of CO2 emissions. Vlado Bevc introduced this point to suggest that the Kyoto caps are impossible to enforce. Its not an argument that CO2 emissions are bad.

 

>2. The oceans and land outgas 210 billion tons per year compared to 3 billion tons >per year from human activity.

 

Yes: Natural processes emit substantial amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are a lot of dynamics which govern how much CO2 gets absorbed and released in the oceans, land etc. However, these processes exist in a (rough) equilibirum. All of the additional CO2 that mankind is dumping into the atmosphere are disturbing the system. The simpliest analogy is the following:

 

Lets assume that I have a 1000 gallon bath tub. The bathtub (currently) contains 500 gallons of water. The drain is open and water exits the system at a rate of 210 gallons per hour. Furthermore, the water is running and water pours into the tub at a rate of 210 gallons per hour. Now, lets assume that I go and play with the system. I open up the faucet a bit more and now I'm dumping 213 gallons of water into the tub. I'm gonna end up with a wet floor...

 

BTW: its worth noting the conclusion of Vlado Bevc's little piece:

 

"Our children and grandchildren will ask us whether we believed the great hoax of global warming and I, for one, don't want to be telling them that I kept a chart of my carbon footprint. I love to take my SUV to Tahoe, ski at night on well-lit slopes, fly airplanes and do all the power-intensive activities within my reach.

 

I recommend you keep doing the same or whatever else you enjoy. Have no fear. The Earth is a big place and your enjoyment of life will not hurt it in the least."

[Al_U_Card]

Tautaulogical arguments always seem to make sense because they start with a fallacious premise and build with logic to the desired end point. We can debate the interpretation but we can't debate the reality.

 

Global warming is coming like a freight train in the night. We hear sounds, we see a light in the distance. Some say it is a lighthouse and the noise is the crashing of the waves. They will only find out too late......will we?

[luke warm]

almost, al... a tautology is actually based on truth... an example would be, global warming is either true or not true

[keylime]

Ooooh, can we do truth tables?

 

I can see it now...."today class, we shall learn the contrapositive"...... B)

[DrTodd13]

Cosmic ray influence on climate.

 

Here it is.

[jtfanclub]

I've heard of people swallowing DDT by the spoonfuls with no ill effect in the short or long term.

100% of people who ate DDT were no longer able to lay eggs.

 

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/02.htm

 

I'm not sure where you got the idea that direct harm to humans was why DDT was banned. It was banned because it tended to prevent animals from laying viable eggs, which nearly wiped out a number of species, including the bald eagle and some kinds of fish. It was banned in 1971, and classified as a possible human carcinogen in 1985.

 

If somebody told you that it was banned becuase it caused cancer in humans, they were at best misguided.

[mike777]

how many millions died from ddt ban...ok another simple question....anyway

[Al_U_Card]

almost, al... a tautology is actually based on truth... an example would be, global warming is either true or not true

My mistake.....or perhaps ours....Tautology refers to the repetitive use of different versions of the same situation to demonstrate proof of validity. For me, only people espousing false premises need to use tautology in an attempt to validate the correctness of their position.