Climate Change

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by conachair

I reckon the guys on Easter island knew it was the eleventh hour. .....

if you read the history of Easter island, there were many contributing factors to deforestation. This included the introduction of rats which ate the seed. As the trees were cut down , that act causes further loss of seed stores and pollination. Scarcity of trees forced a diet change into land and sea birds, which further reduced the pollination ability ( land birds were eaten to extinction).

But, this was a closed society, it had no outsiders to point out the folly of their actions. by the time westerns arrived , society had already completely disintegrated on Easter Island.

Its complex, just like AGW. but we have the advantage of knowing alot about our environment, we just need to stop listening to the freak show that continues to tell us "its all right"

The Planet will not "shake us off" , no more then it did on Easter Island. We can quite easily completely destroy it.

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Our adaptability IS limitless. Put another way, humans have NOT yet hit their limits to adapt. That whole ability to think in the abstract thing. To the extent that we can think about and predict the future consequences of present actions, we are OUTSIDE of nature. Throwing one's hands up and saying "oh well, that's what we do, it's our nature" is a cop-out.

The current climate change "debate" is very very simple: You have virtually an entire branch of science who have said the following:

1. they've identified physical changes in our environment that are directly attributable to human activity, and
2. to the best of their ability they've told us what they think is probably going to happen.

Arrayed against this is the money and PR muscle of large industries who make huge profits from the current and projected future levels of of energy sales and consumption.

Long story short - by getting the average person to suddenly doubt the utility of science, or the scientists' motives, this massive lobbying effort has succeeded in creating the false impression that there is a genuine debate about the science, and therefore what to do about the problem. We can't start discussing solutions if we still think there's uncertainty over what's happening.

Statement #1 is beyond dispute. #2 is of course subject to further discussion, but if we can't get past arguing about #1, we can't get to #2.

So - a win for the fossil-fuel lobby and friends, aided and abetted by some right-wingers who can't stand any diktat to reduce consumption, pay taxes or to take collective action.

If anyone doubts the power of corporate interests versus scientific truth, just look how long it took to out cigarettes as a cause of cancer, and to start doing something about it.

+1. A very cogent and lucid summation of the state of things.

dave

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by scoobert

meh, we survived the dinosaurs, we will survive 300ppm CO2

Survived the dinosaurs?! Home schooled, were we?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by scoobert

meh, we survived the dinosaurs, we will survive 300ppm CO2

We surpassed 300 ppm some time ago. That seemed to Mother Nature's upper limit. Now we are on the cusp of 400 ppm.

Walking with dinosaurs? Really?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Our adaptability IS limitless. Put another way, humans have NOT yet hit their limits to adapt. That whole ability to think in the abstract thing. To the extent that we can think about and predict the future consequences of present actions, we are OUTSIDE of nature. Throwing one's hands up and saying "oh well, that's what we do, it's our nature" is a cop-out.

The current climate change "debate" is very very simple: You have virtually an entire branch of science who have said the following:

1. they've identified physical changes in our environment that are directly attributable to human activity, and
2. to the best of their ability they've told us what they think is probably going to happen.

Arrayed against this is the money and PR muscle of large industries who make huge profits from the current and projected future levels of of energy sales and consumption.

Long story short - by getting the average person to suddenly doubt the utility of science, or the scientists' motives, this massive lobbying effort has succeeded in creating the false impression that there is a genuine debate about the science, and therefore what to do about the problem. We can't start discussing solutions if we still think there's uncertainty over what's happening.

Statement #1 is beyond dispute. #2 is of course subject to further discussion, but if we can't get past arguing about #1, we can't get to #2.

So - a win for the fossil-fuel lobby and friends, aided and abetted by some right-wingers who can't stand any diktat to reduce consumption, pay taxes or to take collective action.

If anyone doubts the power of corporate interests versus scientific truth, just look how long it took to out cigarettes as a cause of cancer, and to start doing something about it.

I agree with your overall comments and point LE, but I do have to quibble with your opening statement: "Our adaptability IS limitless." This is obviously false. Nothing is limitless -- that's kinda the point underlining the whole climate debate.

But I get your point (and agree). I think we have the capacity, and the potential, to deal with the crisis of rapid climate change. It's just that -- so far -- we've failed to do much. Almost all the trends are heading in the wrong direction.

I have no doubt we will react. I just read the science of overshoot, and I fear it may all come too late.

[goboatingnow]

Nothing is limitless -- that's kinda the point underlining the whole climate debate.

infinity is a number.

our adaptability is limitless taken as a huge number. yes not theoretically infinite but as close as practical to be regarded so. Its what makes us so dangerous as well.

Dave

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

infinity is a number.

our adaptability is limitless taken as a huge number. yes not theoretically infinite but as close as practical to be regarded so. Its what makes us so dangerous as well.

Dave

Sorry Dave, infinity is not a number, it is a concept that really has no meaning in science. It's like the concept of a singularity -- it indicates a breakdown in our understanding.

... but again, I agree with the general thesis that we have the capacity to deal with human-caused climate change. I just see little evidence that we will.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by scoobert

indeed with dinosaurs. science club does not just lie about global warming.

And you really expect to be taken seriously? Seriously?! The ignorance hurts! The horror, the horror.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by sneuman

And you really expect to be taken seriously? Seriously?! The ignorance hurts! The horror, the horror.

remember "they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

dave

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by sneuman

And you really expect to be taken seriously? Seriously?! The ignorance hurts! The horror, the horror.

You try watching Jurassic Park on Acid... then come back and say that... and anyway... all those dinosaur bones are only there to test your faith... the Earth is really only 6000 odd years old...

[Boatguy30]

Somewhat related to this issue I have started a petition on Moveon.org to address the disparity between those that view fossil as a bargain at $4 a gallon and burn all they can every weekend and those that struggle to get to work.

Overall I believe it's an approach that will appeal to TRUE conservatives and progressives alike.

Please sign and pass on to your friends.

MoveOn Petitions - Fair Gas Tax

Cheers,
Jeff

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

remember "they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

dave

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

...The one issue I have with Climate Science/Research is where the Mauna Loa Observatory is located. It is at 3,400m elevation. Well, doesn't cold (air temperature) CO2 sink in air? How many ppm of CO2 are there at sea level in HI away from volcanoes and vegetation, if it is reading 400ppm way up high?

Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark | BBC

..."Mauna Loa and the South Pole observatory are iconic sites as they have been taking CO2 measurements in real time since 1958. Last year, for the first time, all Arctic sites reached 400ppm...

And Dr Butler added: "Probably next year, or the year after that, the average yearly reading will pass 400pm.

"A couple of years after that, the South Pole will have readings of 400ppm, and in eight to nine years we will probably have seen the last CO2 reading under 400ppm."

To determine CO2 levels before the introduction of modern stations, scientists must use so-called proxy measurements.

These include studying the bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice.

One of these can be used to describe CO2 levels over the past 800,000 years. It suggests that CO2 held steady over this longer period at between 200ppm and 300ppm...

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Somewhat related to this issue I have started a petition on Moveon.org to address the disparity between those that view fossil as a bargain at $4 a gallon and burn all they can every weekend and those that struggle to get to work.

Overall I believe it's an approach that will appeal to TRUE conservatives and progressives alike.

Please sign and pass on to your friends.

MoveOn Petitions - Fair Gas Tax

Cheers,
Jeff

Don't know if you can edit your petition, but there are a few awkwardnesses...

A fair gas tax will allowing (allow) millions of Americans to commute to work with affordable fuel while providing additional revenues for future and current infrastructure projects. Since the tax is proportional, the (those with) higher incomes and greater consumers of fuels (those who consume the most fuel) will be paying (pay) a progressively higher rate as the(ir) consumption increases. This will encourage conservation will (while) still providing the freedom of choice for each individual consumer.

Like to know more how such a tax would be implemented?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

... I do have to quibble with your opening statement: "Our adaptability IS limitless." This is obviously false. Nothing is limitless -- that's kinda the point underlining the whole climate debate.

Stated another way, we have not hit the limit of our ability to cope, and we have no reason yet to think we are at or close to our limits. I would even argue we are not capable of determining ourselves what our ultimate limit is (see Godel). It's sort of like testing a bridge - if a 12 ton truck falls through, the bridge was probably rated for 10 tons.

But if we just sit on our hands pretending there's a real debate over the science of AGW and climate change, of course this "limit" discussion is moot.