Environment gets Bushed

[History_Buff]

So your approach is to accept that we will never understand, and so pretend the issue doesn't exist?

And here I thought you considered yourself a man of God.

 

[skadistic]

So your approach is to accept that we will never understand, and so pretend the issue doesn't exist?

And here I thought you considered yourself a man of God.

Who is that directed at? I hope its not me.

 

[History_Buff]

It surely was.

 

[El_Machinae]

Awww its not fair.

Are you mocking 'fairness' as an argument towards responsibility?

Rivers don't change course on time scales one good flood can change a rivers course for years until the next good flood.

Snowmelt can cause floods. If the snow melts too quickly during spring runoff, the likelihood of floods can be higher.

If all that cold glacier water runs into the sea won't it cool the sea thus cooling the planet.

I don't think that melting ice will cool a planet, except as a temporary buffer of new heat. The only thing that will cool a planet is to offload heat, whether via reflection or radiation. That's why seaice is a buffering system. While the seaice is there, the water remains 'very near' freezing in that location. Once the ice is gone, the water is free to fluctuate in temperature much more. A loss of ice will also reduce reflecting capacity.

It has been warmer in the past then it is today. It will be warmer in the future near and far then it is today. It has been colder in the past then it is today. It will be colder in the future near and far then it is today.

That's no reason to change things. Our current infrastructure and national borders are arranged according to our current climate. Intentionally (or accidentally) changing the climate in fast timescales will cause disruptions that are cheaper to avoid than to deal with.

 

[BasketCase]

Those last two lines are the real reason for most current attitudes about global warming.

Fear of change.

Intentionally (or accidentally) changing the climate in fast timescales FOR THE BETTER (three words Machinae left out) is feared just as greatly as changing climate for the worse. Yeah, the world we currently live in may suck, but we (well, not me--other people) are so terrified of change that we (well, not me--other people) would rather live in a world that sucks ass than take a chance in the hope of improving it.

 

[History_Buff]

Intentionally (or accidentally) changing the climate in fast timescales FOR THE BETTER (three words Machinae left out) is feared just as greatly as changing climate for the worse. Yeah, the world we currently live in may suck, but we (well, not me--other people) are so terrified of change that we (well, not me--other people) would rather live in a world that sucks ass than take a chance in the hope of improving it.

How do know things would get better? Current predictions do set Canada and Russia to be big winners in terms of GW, this is true. But if the anti-GW crowd distrusts the climate models we have now as incomplete, who's to say with any reliability that things would in fact get better? I for one would rather maintain the equilibrium we now enjoy rather than gamble on things getting better. Call me terrified if you want.


And even if things were to get better here, they would surely get worse elsewhere. The least adaptive nations of the world tend to be the poorest ones; if climates were to get worse through the third world, you'd see a whole new wave of immigrants/refugees fleeing their homes, looking for the richest place going. Think you have a problem with Mexicans now? Just wait.

 

[Loki130]

I rather doubt the majority of the world's coastal cities being flooded is an improvement.

 

[El_Machinae]

If my local climate changes for the better, I'm going to have a hard time convincing my neighbours that we should be increasing our donations to countries which were disadvantaged by the climate change. And that's even if we're running a profit on the climate change.

Deliberately changing a shared environment, for your improvement but someone else's loss, is easy dealt with in pollution economics: either don't do it, or pay an accepted compensation. In the case of climate change, it's easier to just not do it.

 

[skadistic]

It surely was.

That isn't even close to what I think. How you got that I'll never know.

And I would really love to know where you the idea I consider myself a man of god.

 

[skadistic]

Are you mocking 'fairness' as an argument towards responsibility?

No I was just mocking you and your thinking that things have to be fair. Since when is life fair? Since when do global sized changed of nature by nature going to be fair? Flooding isn't fair. Droughts aren't fair. Earthquakes aren't fair.

Snowmelt can cause floods. If the snow melts too quickly during spring runoff, the likelihood of floods can be higher.

Yea so what? What is to much to early? You can also get floods from to much snow from a colder then "normal" winter with a lot of snow fall.

I don't think that melting ice will cool a planet, except as a temporary buffer of new heat. The only thing that will cool a planet is to offload heat, whether via reflection or radiation. That's why seaice is a buffering system. While the seaice is there, the water remains 'very near' freezing in that location. Once the ice is gone, the water is free to fluctuate in temperature much more. A loss of ice will also reduce reflecting capacity.

No a lot of colder water in the oceans will cool the planet by stopping the conveyor system. You should look up how Ice ages come about.

That's no reason to change things. Our current infrastructure and national borders are arranged according to our current climate. Intentionally (or accidentally) changing the climate in fast timescales will cause disruptions that are cheaper to avoid than to deal with.

Climate changes. Globally changes. Its part of nature. We don't change things. Nature does. I'm glad you think man has had such a large part in nature but it isn't cheaper to try and stop something that isn't stoppable.

 

[BasketCase]

How do know things would get better? Current predictions do set Canada and Russia to be big winners in terms of GW, this is true. But

You pretty much answered your own question right there.

if the anti-GW crowd distrusts the climate models we have now as incomplete, who's to say with any reliability that things would in fact get better?

Me. And climate data from the previous few Ice Ages.

As I've pointed out in lots of previous global warming threads (here I go again! ) previous cold snaps in Earth history show two things: that less of the planet's surface is habitable, and a lower percentage of that habitable land is farmable. Therefore, as the planet gets warmer, the opposite happens: more temperate real estate, more of which produces food. As as the latest spat over biofuels has shown, human beings in Third World countries get really mad when their food prices go up.

I for one would rather maintain the equilibrium we now enjoy rather than gamble on things getting better.

That's because you live in developed territory (without even bothering to check, I think that's pretty much a given--you do, after all, have Internet access....)

Two or three billion humans live in Third World conditions right now, and they damn well are NOT willing to maintain the current equilibrium, and damn well ARE prepared to gamble on things getting better. What are you gonna do to stop them? Shoot them?


Now diverging to take a quick swipe at El Machinae. Nothing personal---bah, who am I kidding---this is personal.

Deliberately changing a shared environment, for your improvement but someone else's loss, is easy dealt with in pollution economics: either don't do it, or pay an accepted compensation.

There's a third one you left out: refuse to pay compensation. The U.S. is doing this, and you can't stop them, and you can bet three times your bottom dollar that the Chinese will certainly do things this way too. Everybody on the planet is trying to get a bigger share of the economic pie, at everybody else's expense, and there's nothing you can do about it that doesn't involve nuclear weapons.


I've already got all the possible solutions worked out. Global warming is a problem that requires a solution the U.S. can implement without cooperation from anybody else, and at minimal cost. With current technology, that means either an efficient alternative to oil (currently, nuclear power is the only one) or an inexpensive method of carbon sequestration.

 

[Loki130]

Two or three billion humans live in Third World conditions right now, and they damn well are NOT willing to maintain the current equilibrium, and damn well ARE prepared to gamble on things getting better. What are you gonna do to stop them? Shoot them?

Yes, yes, things will be SO much better for them with much of their land flooded, people going to war over fresh water and basic supplies, others with even worse problems pouring out of other countries, and the West to busy to care. What a happy, happy world!

 

[BasketCase]

Or, people will be so much better with lots more farmland, lots more prime real estate on which they can build more houses, milder winters that don't freeze people to death or ruin their crops, a wider variety of plant and animal life (which we saw during the extremely warm Pleiocene era).....

Here's the deal, Loki--I can play "making mountains out of molehills" better than most. As you can see, I built one of mine to counter yours. Most of what you described will never happen (as usual with Doomsday scenarios, the reality always turns out to be considerably less exciting and less destructive than the predictions). Similarly, most of what I wrote in that last glowing paragraph will never happen either.

Global warming will produce a mishmash of very limited, boring, and not-newsworthy effects--some good, some bad--but all of them very mundane. And it will all occur over a period of decades--so slowly that nobody will notice until long after it's already happened and we suddenly go "gee, it already happened--that wasn't so bad after all".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Global warming will produce a mishmash of very limited, boring, and not-newsworthy effects--some good, some bad--but all of them very mundane. And it will all occur over a period of decades--so slowly that nobody will notice until long after it's already happened and we suddenly go "gee, it already happened--that wasn't so bad after all".

Is this supposed to be a positive claim or merely a possibility?

 

[Loki130]

Global warming will produce a mishmash of very limited, boring, and not-newsworthy effects--some good, some bad--but all of them very mundane. And it will all occur over a period of decades--so slowly that nobody will notice until long after it's already happened and we suddenly go "gee, it already happened--that wasn't so bad after all".

So no global sea level rise? All that ice will just disappear, floating away into the light... I grow bored of this. I'll make you a deal: we'll let global warming go its way, meet in New York in 50 years, and discuss the pros and cons of climate change.

 

[El_Machinae]

It could be innocuous, as long as no serious tipping points are reached (which have a % risk). It'll then be a bit like Western obesity, we all just deal with it and it's a normal part of life. There are even good things in our society as a result of our obese lifestyles that you can point to. But, in the end, you know things are a bit worse than they need to be. Now, obesity drags us down about 2-3.5%. Climate Change is predicted to drag us down between 2 & 6%, assuming no tipping points.

However, unlike obesity, it's a problem which is foisted onto others by selfish behaviour.

No I was just mocking you and your thinking that things have to be fair.

Ah, I was referring to fairness in the sense of how people treat each other when they're part of a good civilization. Life isn't fair, but we try to get people to be fair to each other. Especially when deciding policy.

 

[BasketCase]

Is this supposed to be a positive claim or merely a possibility?

Well, I see you've been paying attention in that thread on annoying argument tactics.

Yes, that's a positive claim I made. I will now prove it.

Every single Doomsday prediction made by human beings, EVER (and there have been thousands) has fallen far short of the predictions.

Infectious diseases (Ebola, AIDS, hantavirus). Environmental disasters (Exxon Valdez, the Kuwait oil well fires). The use of nuclear weapons (Japan got hit by two). Genetically-engineered supercrops. Mutated insects. The Y2K bug. And that's just modern ones. Go back to medieval times, and you'll find a lot more.

Global warming Doomsday itself has been disproven by the Pleiocene epoch.


So there. I've got about ten thousand examples throughout world history showing that when we humans predict Doomsday, we are ALWAYS wrong.

So no global sea level rise?

Dear God. Why must it always be black and white with you people??? Either gigantic sea level rise, or none.

WHAT DID I SAY?? I said this: "Global warming will produce a mishmash of very limited, boring, and not-newsworthy effects."

Now get with the program. I said some sea level rise. Meaning a little. Meaning not enough to break a sweat over. Your house will fall over due to wood rot caused by termites long before the rising ocean gets anywhere near it.

Sheesh.

It could be innocuous, as long as no serious tipping points are reached

Tipping point: human beings reduce their CO2 emissions enough that the world's plants overconsume it, starting a chain reaction that reduces CO2 to near-zero levels. And the next Ice Age begins.

Don't stare at me like that. I didn't write that scenario--Exit Mundi did.

It goes like this: mankind emits a hell of a lot of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide. But plants and algae live on carbon dioxide. They'll grow and grow, because there's plenty of the stuff around. Already, this effect is clearly seen in oceans, where algae and plankton thrive more than ever.

But then, after some decades, carbon dioxide is up. Be it because of humans switching to other, cleaner fuels, or be it because there are so many algae and plants; the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere will drop. But all those `extra' plants and algae will still be there, sucking up all carbon dioxide they can get. In a short period of time, they will suck almost all carbon dioxide out of the Earth's atmosphere.

So there. I has a tipping point. Better make sure we don't set it off, right....?



.....right.....?

See? This old tipping-point argument of yours doesn't work.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, I see you've been paying attention in that thread on annoying argument tactics.

Yes, that's a positive claim I made. I will now prove it.

Every single Doomsday prediction made by human beings, EVER (and there have been thousands) has fallen far short of the predictions.

Infectious diseases (Ebola, AIDS, hantavirus). Environmental disasters (Exxon Valdez, the Kuwait oil well fires). The use of nuclear weapons (Japan got hit by two). Genetically-engineered supercrops. Mutated insects. The Y2K bug. And that's just modern ones. Go back to medieval times, and you'll find a lot more.

Global warming Doomsday itself has been disproven by the Pleiocene epoch.


So there. I've got about ten thousand examples throughout world history showing that when we humans predict Doomsday, we are ALWAYS wrong.

This is not proof.

edit: The Exit Mundi thing is funny

 

[El_Machinae]

The Mundi hypothesis would be rediculously easy to test. In fact, I bet a pubmed search would show many, many results of that type of experimental protocol (plants grown under high CO2 switched to reduced CO2). I betcha the hypothesis is wrong.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Mundi is not really a serious site. The hypothesis is rediculous.