217 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

Ecosystems react very poorly to drastic and sudden changes

says who? I'd worry more about habitat destruction for shopping malls.

It's all well and good to say "we" will be fine, but when you say "we" you tend to mean the very small and exceedingly wealthy (comparatively) proportion of humans living in the USA.

no. I mean homo sapiens. We can't grow our crops on much of the land area of the world presently because it's too cold. And tundra of course has very little biodiversity.

Do you have any examples of a particular time when the global climate shifted as quickly and drastically as it is predicted to this time, in which there is no evidence of a related mass extinction event?

you bet. Within human history in fact. And from the loved IPCC

http://www.ipcc.ch/i...tar/wg1/074.htm

observations indicate that the climate is changing equally quickly with a remarkable correlation to these greenhouse gas levels

maybe. though I'm sure not as quickly as whatever it is you think is quick.

we know we put a crapload of it and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (extremely quickly in geological terms) that wouldn't ordinarily be there

well... the last time yellowstone erupted 640,000 years ago it put more than 1000 cubic km of material and probably more CO2 than the human race have ever produced into the atmosphere in seconds (if you make some back of the envelope calculations regarding CO2 content vs other eruptions).

Hmmm, is that too cataclysmic to defend my point?

We can see the effects that this is starting to have on our environment (none of them being positive)

none of them? My word! Perhaps you better define what positive and negative mean in your subjective usage here.

indications are that things are going to get worse

worse than what? And says who? Worse than the fact that every single human being on earth is definitely going to die most of them painfully and slowly unless we can cure aging? We need priorities. This global warming hullabaloo is a distraction.

This is not "sensationalist hippy greenie liberal wacko" rhetoric, this is based observations of our recent natural environment, and well founded scientific theory.

Of course it isn't. You just said bad things are happening without actually saying what any of them were any of them were and waved your hands a bit. I would expect sensationalist hippy greenie liberal wacko rhetoric to mention specifics like global warming causing more hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and flooding large land masses in short timescales as well as other such easily falsifiable material.

[eternaltraveler]

I think that there are people who have sufficient understanding of the systems involved to provide sensible guidance

so do I. I just don't think they are the same people that you would pick.

[niner]

I think that there are people who have sufficient understanding of the systems involved to provide sensible guidance

so do I. I just don't think they are the same people that you would pick.

Oh, I don't know. I bet we might pick a lot of the same people. We both accept the validity of science, evidence, logic...

We need priorities. This global warming hullabaloo is a distraction.

You're not kidding. I've spent most of the night responding to threads that ought to be in the Politics forum, which I have filtered out of Active Topics.

[eternaltraveler]

Oh, I don't know. I bet we might pick a lot of the same people. We both accept the validity of science, evidence, logic...

yeah, I guess you're right. We need to hook up some economists with whatever climate scientists weren't swallowed by that east anglia shitstorm

You're not kidding. I've spent most of the night responding to threads that ought to be in the Politics forum, which I have filtered out of Active Topics.

come on, admit it. You get the same kind of perverse satisfaction I get when you debate these kinds of almost pointless things

[Grail]

[quote name='eternaltraveler' post='402945' date='Apr 27 2010, 01:57 PM'][quote]It's all well and good to say "we" will be fine, but when you say "we" you tend to mean the very small and exceedingly wealthy (comparatively) proportion of humans living in the USA.[/quote]

no. I mean homo sapiens. We can't grow our crops on much of the land area of the world presently because it's too cold. And tundra of course has very little biodiversity.
[/quote]

Hmm. This kind of argument may have made sense in the ice ages, but it doesn't really translate well now. If temperatures shift that much, it's entirely possible that we would not be able to grow the crops we are used to in the climate zones our countries are in currently. This cancels out any potential benefit from thawed tundra being used for agriculture. Human Beings will no doubt survive as a species, but that does not mean civilisation as we know it will, and it doesn't mean that people will, on the whole, be better off. Think about it, how much high and low latitude areas does any particular country own? Russia owns a lot, as does Canada, but who else? Do you think that there won't be conflict over the newly usable land? What about water availability? Many areas in central and southern latitudes are expected to experience severe water and food shortages as a result of climate change. You think these people will just think "oh well, these other countries have some, but we don't, so we'll just sit here and die peacefully." No, they won't, there will inevitably be conflict. Conflict is not exactly my idea of an OK future.

[quote name='eternaltraveler' post='402945' date='Apr 27 2010, 01:57 PM'][quote]Do you have any examples of a particular time when the global climate shifted as quickly and drastically as it is predicted to this time, in which there is no evidence of a related mass extinction event?[/quote]

you bet. Within human history in fact. And from the loved IPCC

http://www.ipcc.ch/i...tar/wg1/074.htm
[/quote]

Interesting example. Seen any Megafauna around lately? This example is hardly evidenced to be globally as dramatic as in a few choice areas either. The same article states that the average temperature increase was only a few degrees from 20ky BP to 10ky BP. All in all, it's neither conclusively global, nor did it have no effect on the ecosystem at the time. It is certainly not a good comparison to make with today. Impact on humans is likely to be far more pronounced considering our population, static habitation range (i.e. borders, cities etc.) and resource shortages.

[quote name='eternaltraveler' post='402945' date='Apr 27 2010, 01:57 PM'][quote]observations indicate that the climate is changing equally quickly with a remarkable correlation to these greenhouse gas levels[/quote]

maybe. though I'm sure not as quickly as whatever it is you think is quick.
[/quote]

That depends, what do you see as "quick"? For current temperature ranges, any number of whole degrees over 100 years is quick.

[quote name='eternaltraveler' post='402945' date='Apr 27 2010, 01:57 PM'][quote]we know we put a crapload of it and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (extremely quickly in geological terms) that wouldn't ordinarily be there[/quote]

well... the last time yellowstone erupted 640,000 years ago it put more than 1000 cubic km of material and probably more CO2 than the human race have ever produced into the atmosphere in seconds (if you make some back of the envelope calculations regarding CO2 content vs other eruptions).

Hmmm, is that too cataclysmic to defend my point?
[/quote]
Come off it, no comparison. any good sized volcanic eruption will cool the planet rather than warm it. The tropospheric C02 greenhouse effect is drowned out by other factors. That is not the case now, the sum total of all actively out gassing volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate that is about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.

[quote name='eternaltraveler' post='402945' date='Apr 27 2010, 01:57 PM'][quote]We can see the effects that this is starting to have on our environment (none of them being positive)[/quote]

none of them? My word! Perhaps you better define what positive and negative mean in your subjective usage here.
[/quote]

I'm trying to think of environmental effects of climate change that tally to a global net positive effect, can you help me out? I'm honestly interested.

[quote name='eternaltraveler' post='402945' date='Apr 27 2010, 01:57 PM'][quote]indications are that things are going to get worse[/quote]

worse than what? And says who? Worse than the fact that every single human being on earth is definitely going to die most of them painfully and slowly unless we can cure aging? We need priorities. This global warming hullabaloo is a distraction.
[/quote]

In my opinion political and environmental stability are necessities in order to tackle this pressing issue. It is a distraction indeed, and rightly so, but that does not mean that progress in the field of life-extension will halt or even pause because scientific focus is on something else currently. I don't think it will make a whit of difference. I would think there would be more distractions in the long run should runaway global warming occur.

[quote name='eternaltraveler' post='402945' date='Apr 27 2010, 01:57 PM'][quote]This is not "sensationalist hippy greenie liberal wacko" rhetoric, this is based observations of our recent natural environment, and well founded scientific theory.[/quote]

Of course it isn't. You just said bad things are happening without actually saying what any of them were any of them were and waved your hands a bit. I would expect sensationalist hippy greenie liberal wacko rhetoric to mention specifics like global warming causing more hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and flooding large land masses in short timescales as well as other such easily falsifiable material.
[/quote]

It's not really conducive to a succinct post to elaborate on every single point I brought up. I'm not a wacko, nor am I a so called "climate skeptic", so I try not to make statements that are easily falsifiable.

I don't know how you type to indicate the waving of hands, maybe I should add *waves hands incoherently* to the end of all my posts.

[eternaltraveler]

Seen any Megafauna around lately?

nope, we ate them. they survived a lot of other interglacials.

Do you think that there won't be conflict over the newly usable land?

no more than there will be over the presently usable land

Come off it, no comparison. any good sized volcanic eruption will cool the planet rather than warm it.

Yes thats right. Why not copy volcanoes and inject some sulfites into the stratosphere and burn all the fossil fulls we want?

the sum total of all actively out gassing volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate that is about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.

nah 1/10th. I never said volcanoes produced a a significant amount of CO2 lately.

environmental effects of climate change that tally to a global net positive effect

paleoclimatetology shows us that when the earth has been warmer it has tended to be wetter, with corresponding increases in biodiversity. The tropics and the temperate regions (the people friendly areas) increase, and the taiga and tundra decrease (not so people friendly). 1/3rd of land on earth is in these areas. That is largely Russia and Canada, yes. If political lines on a map are causing problems with utility distribution it is those lines on a map that are the problem, not that some areas get increased utility.

It is a distraction indeed, and rightly so, but that does not mean that progress in the field of life-extension will halt or even pause because scientific focus is on something else currently

you realize that all the things needed to be done to actually reduce CO2 emissions to a level that would actually make a difference would be expensive right? Thats money the world economy could be using for lots of other things. Life extension is one.

nor am I a so called "climate skeptic"

I am not a climate skeptic either (i'm a climate agnostic). I just don't think climate change on a matter of a degree or 2 a century really is relevant. Especially considering where we'll be in a century. Maybe if I thought it was relevant i would allow myself to become polarized to the CO2 is the devil camp.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 27 April 2010 - 03:04 PM.

[donjoe]

We can see the effects that this is starting to have on our environment (none of them being positive)

Here we go again with the blatant lies. This is what you end up talking like when you've been all too happy to swallow the green propaganda whole, without any digestion at all.
In fact one of the consequences of increasing CO2 concentrations (and possibly also temperatures) has been the conclusively proven increase in global green mass over the past decades, which is about the greenest thing you could wish for, yet also a fact which the so-called "greens" themselves seem strangely content to ignore or outright deny completely.

Wait a minute. Aren't you the one who is proposing that we do nothing to mitigate greenhouse gases

Nope, you have me confused with a Straw Man. I never criticised any proposal so broad/vague as "mitigation". In fact, my proposal to build a better immediate-environment for our race could be seen as a form of "mitigation".
My problem was with the specific solution so far advanced by the anti-carbon hysterics: reducing CO2 emissions (through inefficient/counter-productive methods, I might add).

because it would be too expensive?

No, firstly because there's no proof that it would work as intended and secondly because it's overly-specific to the exact problem we're seeing today and does nothing to protect us from very different climate problems we might face a century from now or sooner (and thus it's less efficient than other things we could do, like shield-type solutions).

Do you think that mitigation would itself cause more harm to humanity than climate change?

The only form of mitigation I can accept is a long-term immunization of our species against all types and effects of climate change, so no I don't.

[Lallante]

It also wierds me out when people start making moral claims based on market efficiency.

Who gives a f*** about market efficiency - I am more interested in human happiness.

Pollution is a bad policy, whatever you might think its specific effects are, a self-contained process is always preferable to a waste-emitting one.

Edited by Lallante, 28 April 2010 - 11:14 AM.