Nobody knows just what the mean temperature would be without any global warming factors. And of course, if you don't know what the temperature would otherwise be, then its extremely hard to make a case for CO2 or any other factor being the cause.
Temperatures have risen and fallen prior to 1900, so there's clearly a natural mechanism at work. Thus the entire global warming issue becomes a case of observing that temperatures in the past 30 years have risen ' faster than average '. But then, there are bound to be faster than average rises...after all, that is the entire basis of what defines 'average'.
Furthermore, I'm sure all this talk of hockey stick graphs being 'abnormal' tends to overlook the fact that scientists themselves argue that at the end of the ice age temperatures rose by 10 degrees or so within 100 years. Oh.....and the sea level rose 400 feet ! Now THAT's what I call dramatic change. I think the latest recorded recent rise was two inches or something.
So the entire global warming scare is predicated on a basis that 'nothing like this has happened before '. Well, clearly a rise of 400 feet in sea level kocks that claim on the head.
There's also this notion, which is what I dislike most about AGW, that somehow there's a sort of pristine 'unspoilt' level that climate 'ought' to be at.......an extremely anthropic rather than anthropogenic concept. We're ruining a perfectly good world.........never mind that 10,000 years ago there'd have been a mile of ice above your head.
And that's the real issue. Nobody, not even the staunchest AGW advocates, can tell me what the 'right' climate is. If you went by the average, then we should impose ice age conditions because that is what the predominant conditions have been in the past.
Current temperature levels are not even the highest that have ever existed, so we are still well within the range of natural variation.
So...someone remind me again........just exactly what is the problem ? Since when was the climate in 1970 determined to be the absolute all time pristine condition ? In a sense I totally agree that the 'problem' is man made......but in the sense that the entire definition of the problem lies with us and not with the climate.
If you ask someone who likes humans then they probably don't want the world to warm up much, given that it will cause so much inundation, crop failure and so ultimately forced migration and famine.
If you ask someone who doesn't like humans then they'll probably tell you that the world isn't meant to be this stable, it can't really support this many people and everyone will be much happier once the global population has dropped by 90% or so.
Originally posted by MindCrime: I guess you don't like humans much.
Who doesn't like humans, me or him?
I'll have you know I love human beings.
My statement merely reflects the historical evidence that shows climate changes all the time, therefore this is the natural and correct state of the climate.
No.....I'm making the point that global warming is fundamentally a political problem as opposed to an environmental one. People talk of 'environmental disaster' when such talk is nonsense if you ( correctly ) leave out any anthropic sentiments. The environment is simply the environment.....it does not care whether there's an ice age on the one hand or the polar caps melt on the other......both of which have occured in the past long before mankind. There's no mythical 'Gaia' type being sitting there thinking ' right....let's upset the balance now '. There is no 'right' climate......there never was any pristine Eden that we got turfed out of.
So if AGW is anthropogenic.......then so too is whether or not it is actually a problem. AGW advocates seldom grasp that point. The problem IS man made.....but not in the sense that they think. Our ancestors coped with HUGE climate changes.............400 foot rises in sea level....etc. The sky did not fall down. The reason why even the tiniest change is a problem today is not down to the climate ( which has always changed ) but entirely due to political, social, and urban factors. It is our inability to cope that is the REAL problem......rather than straining towards some notion of a 'correct' climate.
If you ask someone who likes humans then they probably don't want the world to warm up much, given that it will cause so much inundation, crop failure and so ultimately forced migration and famine.
Well that's just it. Crops won't 'fail', they will simply move further north. Just as they did at the end of the last ice age, when climate change occured that makes today's change look piddling by comparison. Now if that is 'environmental disaster'......then I guess the fact that we are able to live in the UK without a mile of ice on top of us is an environmental disaster and we should set up a UN panel to work on putting all that ice back again ! I mean......think of all those poor Neanderthals in the south of Europe who lost their nice UK type climate that we nicked !
I am quite sure that had the UN existed at the time...........there'd be an IPCC panel working on how to put the ice back.
Originally posted by Chi Squared: Our ancestors coped with HUGE climate changes.............400 foot rises in sea level....etc.
They died (mostly). Some lived on to continue the species. Can you really call this coping?
"People" are quite within their rights to term the death of millions a "disaster". How can you say they must treat it as anything else?
If the death of a human is a moral wrong (as most would say) then the "right" climate is the one that minimises the human death toll.
Don't get me wrong - I know what you are saying. I know that this "crisis" is a direct result of human development and overpopulation. But if you start telling people that death on a scale undreamt of is not a "real" disaster because they're being too sentimental then they will look at you in horror.
Was the boxing day tsunami a disaster? I'm sure the death toll was increased because of intense (unnecessary) coastal development. Are you going to tell those people "it's your own fault you shouldn't have built there."
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chi Squared: Our ancestors coped with HUGE climate changes.
Yes, but they were organised in very types of different societies (hunter gatherers) and were very small in number worldwide. Crucially they were mobile and moved to where the food was (or just followed their food sources when they migrated to warmer climes) as and when they needed.
It may be worth considering that during the Medieval Warm Period much of Central and North America was afflicted by very severe droughts, lasting much longer than the 1930's dust bowl, and extending from Pacific across the Great Plains to the Mississippi basin in the East and as far north as Virginia. The native tribes had the option of migration, but that led to conflict with the tribes whose land they crossed. Imagine the same happening today when the USA’s population is 300 million and most of its agriculture is based in the mid western plains (corn belt etc.) Even judged just economically it would be a disaster if those droughts were repeated. If there is a chance that humans might unnecessarily contribute to such a repeat occurrence that should worry people.
They died (mostly). Some lived on to continue the species. Can you really call this coping?
"People" are quite within their rights to term the death of millions a "disaster". How can you say they must treat it as anything else?
If the death of a human is a moral wrong (as most would say) then the "right" climate is the one that minimises the human death toll.
[quote]
There is no evidence that anyone 'died' as a result of the end of the ice age. You're justing adding a dramatic AGW type touch.
Same goes for this 'death of millions' stuff. It is all speculative hype. Millions are much more likely to die of plain simple poverty....which they have been doing long before CO2 was even discovered.
Yes, but they were organised in very types of different societies (hunter gatherers) and were very small in number worldwide. Crucially they were mobile and moved to where the food was (or just followed their food sources when they migrated to warmer climes) as and when they needed.
It may be worth considering that during the Medieval Warm Period much of Central and North America was afflicted by very severe droughts, lasting much longer than the 1930's dust bowl, and extending from Pacific across the Great Plains to the Mississippi basin in the East and as far north as Virginia. The native tribes had the option of migration, but that led to conflict with the tribes whose land they crossed. Imagine the same happening today when the USA’s population is 300 million and most of its agriculture is based in the mid western plains (corn belt etc.)
But that's precisely the point I'm making. The issue is a socio-political one caused more by the nature of our society than it is a problem caused by global warming.
If I eat too much and get so fat that I cannot get out of the front door........is the problem the door or the fat ?
“So...someone remind me again........just exactly what is the problem ?” “... The issue is a socio-political one caused more by the nature of our society than it is a problem caused by global warming.”
Actually, I think the whole issue is about its impact on human society. Our species has a tendency to look to its own survival. I’d sum up your worldview as a fatalistic ‘shit happens’ one. I do hope you don’t let your kids play with chainsaws and I guess you don’t bother much with insurance.
To take the USA as a discussion. Given the USA is an economic engine that drives much of the world’s economy and is highly populated to boot, are you really saying that a major catastrophe there is something we should just take in our stride and not be concerned about, even if it could be avoided? (Severe droughts would cause massive movement of population across the continent and immense stresses would be placed on areas that could see populations double, at a time when food would be scarcer and/or very expensive. (as happened in the 1930s when drought struck a much smaller area) It would almost certainly cause a major economic depression, political crisis and much social unrest.) Guess you don't live there either.
Much of the populated areas between 30 degrees north and south of the equator would face the same as well.
I think you’re going to have a difficult time convincing people that the problem is that they chose to live in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hey, you're all just surplus to requirements. Just so much fat.
Originally posted by Chi Squared: There is no evidence that anyone 'died' as a result of the end of the ice age. You're justing adding a dramatic AGW type touch.
How about the Human Genetic Bottleneck - reduced to ~1000 breeding pairs.
And where is your evidence that they coped well?
quote:
Same goes for this 'death of millions' stuff. It is all speculative hype. Millions are much more likely to die of plain simple poverty.
The two are not unconnected. Do you really think a warming of 6 degrees will not cause widespread death and unrest?
(bearing in mind we are not debating whether GW will happen but whether it can be justly described as a crisis)
i don't think anyone is denying that global warming will have a dramatic effect on the planet and its population, but its the causes of global warming. i dont believe its just caused by CO2 and/or humans. i'm also not denying that humans have had a small effect on this planet, especially over the last 100 odd years, but what i dont think we are considering is that the earth is not a static environment and we may not like the way that it changes, whether it gets hotter or colder. i dont think we have a say or can change what the planet is going to do. And should we try to stop it from changing, if its a natural occurance?
Why do you assume that warming will be a curse? Warming may require some adjustments, but it should produce more habitable lands and greater rainfall?
I have heard Sea Level rises touted of up to 5M. Well I found some Interactive Sea Level change maps and guess what - the global effects are quite minimal. Many of the affected areas can easily construct defences and reclaimation strateges to keep much of the land under threat as useable.
Originally posted by MindCrime: I guess it depends who you ask.
If you ask someone who likes humans then they probably don't want the world to warm up much, given that it will cause so much inundation, crop failure and so ultimately forced migration and famine.
If you ask someone who doesn't like humans then they'll probably tell you that the world isn't meant to be this stable, it can't really support this many people and everyone will be much happier once the global population has dropped by 90% or so.
I guess you don't like humans much.
You scaremonger's feeble attempt at humor is actually laughable! Thanks, I needed that.
Nobody knows just what the mean temperature would be without any global warming factors. And of course, if you don't know what the temperature would otherwise be, then its extremely hard to make a case for CO2 or any other factor being the cause.
Your are fundamentally wrong already on your first paragraph.
We do know how hot it would have been without the global warming factor.
Looks like you tripped on your first hurdle.
Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is this: if the world gets a bit hotter, we can simply adapt society with almost no loss. Therefore global warming is just hype.
However, you have completely ignored every report on the consequences of global warming. Not only would it cause potentially millions of deaths and turn a huge amount of fertile land into desert, it would cause the world almost 25% of world GDP causing the biggest economic recession there has ever been.
You say otherwise. So who's more qualified to say, the world's elite climite science community combined with analysis from the economic experts; or you? Hmmm, tough call.
are you really saying that a major catastrophe there is something we should just take in our stride and not be concerned about
No. Read my lips...........I am saying a 'major catastrophe' ( gosh you AGW advocates do like dramatics ) is just something the AGW lobby invented and you've been watching too many Hollywood disaster movies.
Even in recent days we have had the UK's climate research scientists saying that the effects of global warming are being 'over-dramatized'.
I think Mark Twain summed it up nicely with his " reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated "
Your are fundamentally wrong already on your first paragraph.
We do know how hot it would have been without the global warming factor.
Looks like you tripped on your first hurdle.
Er.....no.....it is more the case that claims that you know where all the CO2 in the atmosphere has come from are nonsense, thus you do NOT know what portion is man made. I am not aware of there being a little RFID tag on every carbon atom that says ' good carbon ' or ' nasty man made carbon '. Carbon is just carbon, and you have no idea whether it has come from man or from some deep sea hydrothermal vent among the thousands yet to be discovered.
The estimate that man has put 240 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere is just that.....an ESTIMATE. Nobody has been standing there with a measuring guage at every factory or home.
So we have starting figures that are an estimate, baseline rates ( what the climate would be without the CO2 ) that are an estimate, increase rates that are an estimate, projected rates that are an estimate, other contributing factors that are an estimate...........and yet you're telling me that you have every single CO2 molecule tagged as to its impact over and above a mean alternative climate that is iteself also an estimate !
However, you have completely ignored every report on the consequences of global warming. Not only would it cause potentially millions of deaths and turn a huge amount of fertile land into desert, it would cause the world almost 25% of world GDP causing the biggest economic recession there has ever been.
Which Hollywood movie was that in ?
The latest IPCC report ( you know....they are the guys you keep quoting when you want to prove AGW ) says that global warming will have less impact than expected.....in fact they reduced the impact by over 25%. That's a pretty big change for people who we are told know everything.
What is more, the projected temperature increase over 100 years now has a range of from 2.2 degrees to 5.6 degrees. Again, a pretty large variation for people who are telling us they have it all sussed out.
The projected impact and temperatures change almost on a daily basis. So quite how you come up with a 25% GDP loss is beyond me.
No. Read my lips...........I am saying a 'major catastrophe' ( gosh you AGW advocates do like dramatics ) is just something the AGW lobby invented and you've been watching too many Hollywood disaster movies.
Even in recent days we have had the UK's climate research scientists saying that the effects of global warming are being 'over-dramatized'.
We can't win can we. In your first paragraph you criticise scientists for "liking dramatics" and then in the next, you use a couple of scientists who appear to be down-playing the issue to suggest there is a problem.
The scientist you refer to are not complaining about over-dramatisation, they are complaining about evidence of attribution not being there, which is quite a different thing.
You seem to be missing the point by a mile. The science is pointing to a big man-made change. Without the additional CO2 temperatures would likely be a degree cooler. With it, they will rise another degree or more in 100 years. This will have a cost within the lifetime of most of us which we need to understand and plan for.
Undoubtedly costs will include upgrading road, rail and utility infrastructures, upgrading existing buildings and redesigning new ones, fitting air-con, planning new sea defences just based on the temperature rises, changing agricultural practices. That was a really boring list, but it'll be money out of our tax at some point in the future.
Costs we can't plan for are those caused by unexpected changes which we're not yet very good at predicting.
