Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Actually, I think there is a clear and direct connection. The same attitude that allows some of us to spew pollutants into the atmosphere (like CO2 and CH4) is the same one that rationalizes turfing all manner of plastic garbage into the oceans. It springs from the same constantly failing narrative that says resources are endless and the Earth can absorb anything that we do to it without impact or change.

No ... the two are absolutely linked.

CO2 and CH4 are NOT pollutants.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

He's back!

Do you still think that climate models are heuristic?

If they are, then I'm a slow self-learner. Here's a larger shot of the graph from Jack's latest article on Arctic sea ice:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/im...timeseries.png

It compares a 30-year avg. winter trend that ends in 2010, to a 5-month avg. from the winter of 2011-12, to a 4-month avg. from the winter of 2015-16. The article says it's derived from satellite data, but isn't this the same sat data that shows an increase in ice extent starting in approx. 2012? I guess it depends how you draw your trend lines, but comparing a 30-year trend to a 4-5 month avg. from two distinct years seems rather misleading.

As for the anecdotal comments from the ice breakers & others, it's interesting and perhaps relevant, but doesn't address all the numerous factors that go into Arctic ice flows. If 2012 indeed proves to be a low point, then it only makes sense that the ice hasn't yet re-formed all that much in the few years since.

[Exile]

Straight from Alberta!

METHANE (CH4)

"Natural processes contribute about one-half of the methane in the atmosphere; the rest comes from agriculture and the production of fossil fuels."

And for those who may be perhaps overly concerned:

Wearable "CH4" fart tracker keeps a daily log of your rear end gas emissions

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Actually, I think there is a clear and direct connection. The same attitude that allows some of us to spew pollutants into the atmosphere (like CO2 and CH4) is the same one that rationalizes turfing all manner of plastic garbage into the oceans. It springs from the same constantly failing narrative that says resources are endless and the Earth can absorb anything that we do to it without impact or change.

No ... the two are absolutely linked.

Most plastic isn't turfed into the oceans and is prohibited by MARPOL regulations. Most of the crap originates from sources on land. Yet we don't get constantly beat over the head about the consequences of single use plastic containers, importance of recycling and reasons for not dropping rubbish in the street.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

Straight from Alberta!

METHANE (CH4)

"Natural processes contribute about one-half of the methane in the atmosphere; the rest comes from agriculture and the production of fossil fuels."

And for those who may be perhaps overly concerned:

Wearable "CH4" fart tracker keeps a daily log of your rear end gas emissions

And natural processes contribute about 97% (now where have I seen that number before?) of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

Straight from Alberta!

METHANE (CH4)

"Natural processes contribute about one-half of the methane in the atmosphere; the rest comes from agriculture and the production of fossil fuels."

And for those who may be perhaps overly concerned:

Wearable "CH4" fart tracker keeps a daily log of your rear end gas emissions

Looks to me as though that only keeps track of the number of farts. Not the volume or composition which can vary widely:

A typical breakdown of the chemical composition of farts is:

• Nitrogen: 20-90%
• Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
• Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
• Oxygen: 0-10%
• Methane: 0-10% (flammable)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

And natural processes contribute about 97% (now where have I seen that number before?) of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Very interesting, although some sources on the internet claim closer to 96%. Apparently a new satellite was launched in 2014 that is supposed to help with the measurements.

Originally Posted by StuM

Looks to me as though that only keeps track of the number of farts. Not the volume or composition which can vary widely:

A typical breakdown of the chemical composition of farts is:

• Nitrogen: 20-90%
• Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
• Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
• Oxygen: 0-10%
• Methane: 0-10% (flammable)

Wasn't I just saying how . . . uhhhh . . . errrr . . . "educational" this thread has been?

[Mike OReilly]

You're right Exile, I was attempting make the broader point. And no, I don't think the cruising community is largely, significantly or probably even measurably to blame for pollution like plastic. It's coming from terrestrial sources.

My point is that the same attitude expressed by Reefmagnet is the same one which continually leads to the repeated problem. And no, we're not learning any lessons. We keep coming to frontiers and see nothing but endless resources to exploit, and bottomless sinks to take up our waste. The stories are too numerous to enumerate; from the destruction of food species (all manner of fish and land species), to the devastation of flora from forests to peat bogs, we keep doing the same thing. We commoditfy the "resource", and then we exploit it until destruction.

This is not a new practice. Extinction and ecosystem destruction has followed Man where ever we've gone over the past 10,000 years. In the past these effects have been felt locally. There has always been new frontiers, new species, to exploit. But now with rapid climate change there's no where else for us to go. The ecosystem at risk is global, and mostly it's us who is in trouble.

Oh, and yes, carbon dioxide and methane are pollutants in this case. By your logic Stu, nothing but purely Man-made substances are pollutants.


Why go fast, when you can go slow

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You're right Exile, I was attempting make the broader point. And no, I don't think the cruising community is largely, significantly or probably even measurably to blame for pollution like plastic. It's coming from terrestrial sources.

My point is that the same attitude expressed by Reefmagnet is the same one which continually leads to the repeated problem. And no, we're not learning any lessons. We keep coming to frontiers and see nothing but endless resources to exploit, and bottomless sinks to take up our waste. The stories are too numerous to enumerate; from the destruction of food species (all manner of fish and land species), to the devastation of flora from forests to peat bogs, we keep doing the same thing. We commoditfy the "resource", and then we exploit it until destruction.

This is not a new practice. Extinction and ecosystem destruction has followed Man where ever we've gone over the past 10,000 years. In the past these effects have been felt locally. There has always been new frontiers, new species, to exploit. But now with rapid climate change there's no where else for us to go. The ecosystem at risk is global, and mostly it's us who is in trouble.

Oh, and yes, carbon dioxide and methane are pollutants in this case. By your logic Stu, nothing but purely Man-made substances are pollutants.


Why go fast, when you can go slow

I vote for fixing the oldest problems first before inventing new ones although I fail to understand why people walk around with this belief that 7.2 billion humans can inhabit the Earth without having a significant effect on the environment and ecosystem. Aint gonna happen. And like every other plant and animal species, we'll continue to exploit our niche until it either cannot be exploited anymore or it vanishes. Don't matter that we're sentient at all. It's just what life does to survive. Our problem is we do it so much better than most other critters.

BTW The one atmospheric gas that could even remotely be called a true pollutant is oxygen. The planet's primordial atmosphere had very little.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I vote for fixing the oldest problems first before inventing new ones although I fail to understand why people walk around with this belief that 7.2 billion humans can inhabit the Earth without having a significant effect on the environment and ecosystem. Aint gonna happen. And like every other plant and animal species, we'll continue to exploit our niche until it either cannot be exploited anymore or it vanishes. Don't matter that we're sentient at all. It's just what life does to survive. Our problem is we do it so much better than most other critters.



BTW The one atmospheric gas that could even remotely be called a true pollutant is oxygen. The planet's primordial atmosphere had very little.

A pollutant is anything that distorts the existing ecosystem balance in a negative way, so yes, O2 can also be a pollutant. And you don't have to back 2.5 billion years to make this so.

I think you're bang on about solving existing problems, and the clear impact humans are having on our global ecosystem. It's what said over and over: we're just behaving like all animals do, who expand to the limits of their ecosystem, and then come into balance, either softly or harshly.

We have the capacity to be the most unnatural animal this plant has ever evolved b/c we can see into the future, and can care about future humans and even others. Sadly though, this discussion illustrates why we're no different that all other species.




Why go fast, when you can go slow

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

My point is that the same attitude expressed by Reefmagnet is the same one which continually leads to the repeated problem. And no, we're not learning any lessons. We keep coming to frontiers and see nothing but endless resources to exploit, and bottomless sinks to take up our waste. The stories are too numerous to enumerate; from the destruction of food species (all manner of fish and land species), to the devastation of flora from forests to peat bogs, we keep doing the same thing. We commoditfy the "resource", and then we exploit it until destruction.

This is not a new practice. Extinction and ecosystem destruction has followed Man where ever we've gone over the past 10,000 years. In the past these effects have been felt locally. There has always been new frontiers, new species, to exploit. But now with rapid climate change there's no where else for us to go. The ecosystem at risk is global, and mostly it's us who is in trouble.

I wonder if prehistoric man was thinking the same thing when they killed the last wooly mammoth?

We seem to have adapted and rebounded over the past 10,000 years quite nicely.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I wonder if prehistoric man was thinking the same thing when they killed the last wooly mammoth?

We seem to have adapted and rebounded over the past 10,000 years quite nicely.

Well, we have plenty of historic evidence to answer this question Ken. When primary food sources are devastated it usually leads distress and often collapse and/or dispersal of human populations. Population crashes are well documented in our archeological and even modern history.

This is not a question of humans adapting .... of course we will. The issue with climate change is the impacts it will (is) having on our global civillization. This is the real issue.


Why go fast, when you can go slow

[Reefmagnet]

I support the theory the warmer it gets, the smarter we get. Moving into the current interglacial period almost single-handedly kick started modern human civilization. Only the most optimistic of optimists would be disappointed that average temperatures have increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius in nearly two centuries on a planet that has extremes approaching 150 degrees Celsius.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[transmitterdan]

To get the public to go along with climate change driven revisions to the economy, government and lifestyle they have to be convinced that the cure is not worse than the disease. When the majority don't believe the disease is bad enough calling them names will not change their minds.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I support the theory the warmer it gets, the smarter we get. Moving into the current interglacial period almost single-handedly kick started modern human civilization. Only the most optimistic of optimists would be disappointed that average temperatures have increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius in nearly two centuries on a planet that has extremes approaching 150 degrees Celsius.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

That's an interesting theory Reef, although that should mean equatorial peoples and civilisations should be measurably and demonstrably "smarter" than northern or southern peoples. I don't think the evidence supports this.

The point about climate change is not that it is changing, it is the rapidity of that change. Climate science is telling us we are in the midst of a rapid change. If the warming simply stabalized at +1 C (we passed that mark last year), then the issues would be simple, but that's not what the science is showing.

Our global civilization has existed in a remarkably stable climatic period. What will happen to us in a rapidly changing climate is unknown ... we've never run the experiment till now. We have plenty of evidence for societal collapses in our past, and local climate changes are often implicated in these civillization collapses. It would be the utmost arrogance to think we are somehow immune to this kind of change now.




Why go fast, when you can go slow