Is Solar Activity causing climate change?

[Laurens]

There is one of the flaws, you are ignoring the fact that I said there's a difference between environmental change and climate change. You are also using a reverse logic there, if the food of an organism increases then it is unlikely that would be the cause of the decline in the organism's population level. That's where your entire argument falls apart. Rainforests thrive in high CO2 and high heat environments, add water vapor to that and you have the perfect environment for the plant life, which in turn creates the perfect environment for the other life forms.

Yes trees do thrive on CO2, and perhaps under normal conditions that would lead to a flourishing population, however that doesn't really work if we chop them down faster than they can grow. If we do that then their populations are not going to flourish are they?

There's a favored phrase tossed around by both sides of the debate: correlation does not equal causation. It fits this instance too well.

What correlation did I mention?

Now if you said that we were destroying the rainforest through construction of cities and destruction of the resources, and if that was the cause of the increase in CO2, due to a lack of absorption by the part of the system which absorbs a lot of it, you'd have a possible point on the matter. But we are not destroying it in such a manner, so you have to reverse logic to make it connected.

When did I say deforestation was the cause of climate change? What I'm saying is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere whilst simultaneously removing a lot of the stuff which absorbs it is going to have an effect on the climate. I never said that deforestation was the cause.

The problem is that lots and lots of carbon which was locked away underground has been freed and is now being burned by us in vast quantities releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I'm not saying lack of absorption is the cause of the problem, merely that it only adds to it.

There was an algae that appeared here in Seattle recently, it was deemed "bad" because it was a mutation that was capable of surviving in a toxic environment. Algae is responsible for most of the CO2 absorption and O2 production in the world. Probably because of the amount of surface area it can grow in. They destroyed it, all of it, because it may be harmful to other organisms. However, the algae itself was not tuned to the toxic environment, it was just capable of surviving it. Which did mean that other organisms would have to eventually adapt to a change in the food system as well. However, my point being, we deemed this "bad" because it was different than we had seen, yet it fit well within expectations of biological science, it was another evolution of the algae in the area.

I'm not sure how this is relevant at all really.

When you consider only one aspect at a time, you can make anything look bad, but when you act on just one fact without examining all other options, possibilities, or even sciences you lose sight of the real effect. This mutation was not caused by toxic chemicals, it just helped the organism survive in a harsher environment, one we helped to create. You don't need a purpose to fulfill a purpose, and evolution does not happen without change in the environment. So even if we are the primary cause for such changes, perhaps it would be a good thing and not a bad one. If anything, it will help to finally shut up the ignorant religious zealots when they try to say evolution doesn't happen.

I'm still not sure how this is relevant.

 

[Laurens]

You don't think that these two datasets are linked?

Now I know correlation doesn't always imply causation, however we know that CO2 has a warming effect, and thus it is not unreasonable to assume that an increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels might be related to an increase in temperature.

It's not like trying to say that two completely unrelated things are linked, these are two quite related phenomena.

 

[KittenKoder]

You don't think that these two datasets are linked?


Now I know correlation doesn't always imply causation, however we know that CO2 has a warming effect, and thus it is not unreasonable to assume that an increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels might be related to an increase in temperature.

It's not like trying to say that two completely unrelated things are linked, these are two quite related phenomena.

I'm sorry, but did you just not want to read the rest of my reasoning or are you ignoring any outside possibilities simply because it challenges your preconceived notions?

Granted that sometimes a single observation can sometimes lead to a conclusion, we are, however, talking about a pretty complex system with multiple variables. Not to mention, you missed the entire point of CO2 being part of the energy source that drives what is supposedly dying off. That was my contention of why this line of reasoning does not work. It goes against the observed laws of natural order, something that has been demonstrated many times over. Now, if say CO2 was falling and the rainforests were failing because it, that would make sense, since the base of the food chain would be dying off due to suffocation. But the base of the food chain there is fueled by CO2, not killed by it. A higher O2 would account for it, though it would more likely be a sign of other life forms dying too quickly, just as the increased CO2 is more of a sign of plant life dying off too quickly than a cause. If you want to cure an illness, you do not go after symptoms, so it's important to know for certain what is a symptom and what is a cause.

That is where correlation does not equal causality comes into play. If we go after the wrong thing just because some corporation wants a monopoly, then we will likely cause other serious problems.

Let's look at another example: DDT

DDT is a horrible and dangerous poison. That's why we banned it, and it was a good reason. However, in spite of it being a good reason we did not consider the implications and are now dealing with a mite that has become a pest again, and this mite is extremely tough, nothing else kills it that won't kill us off. This is not inherently bad, however it demonstrates what happens when a matter is not considered thoroughly. If we decrease the CO2 to unbalanced levels (which is very possible considering the truly insane proposals that have appeared) and find out that it was just a sign or symptom of the illness ... that would be far more devastating than forgetting about a pest kept under control by a deadly chemical.

 

[Laurens]

I'm sorry, but did you just not want to read the rest of my reasoning or are you ignoring any outside possibilities simply because it challenges your preconceived notions?

I don't have any preconceived notions, I have no qualms accepting the facts and the scientific consensus. I'm not ignoring any outside possibilities at all, I just simply do not think that they fit the evidence.

Can you perhaps explain how the data on those two graphs are not linked? Why should I accept that burning fossil fuels is not a major factor in the rise in temperature recorded across the globe? Why should I accept your opinion over the consensus of the majority of scientists in relevant fields?

Granted that sometimes a single observation can sometimes lead to a conclusion, we are, however, talking about a pretty complex system with multiple variables. Not to mention, you missed the entire point of CO2 being part of the energy source that drives what is supposedly dying off. That was my contention of why this line of reasoning does not work. It goes against the observed laws of natural order, something that has been demonstrated many times over. Now, if say CO2 was falling and the rainforests were failing because it, that would make sense, since the base of the food chain would be dying off due to suffocation. But the base of the food chain there is fueled by CO2, not killed by it. A higher O2 would account for it, though it would more likely be a sign of other life forms dying too quickly, just as the increased CO2 is more of a sign of plant life dying off too quickly than a cause. If you want to cure an illness, you do not go after symptoms, so it's important to know for certain what is a symptom and what is a cause.

So how does it being a complex system with multiple variables refute the fact that as CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have increased, temperature has increased?

You completely misunderstand what I said. I did not say that increases in CO2 emissions were causing the forests to die off. CO2 isn't doing that we are. Perhaps you'd like to read what I said more carefully?

Humans are destroying the rainforests whilst releasing lots of the greenhouse gas which rainforests absorb thus meaning that less of the CO2 we release is being absorbed. I never said the CO2 was the cause of deforestation, it's us.

That is where correlation does not equal causality comes into play. If we go after the wrong thing just because some corporation wants a monopoly, then we will likely cause other serious problems.

Which corporations want monopoly and what has that got to do with science anyway?

Let's look at another example: DDT

DDT is a horrible and dangerous poison. That's why we banned it, and it was a good reason. However, in spite of it being a good reason we did not consider the implications and are now dealing with a mite that has become a pest again, and this mite is extremely tough, nothing else kills it that won't kill us off. This is not inherently bad, however it demonstrates what happens when a matter is not considered thoroughly. If we decrease the CO2 to unbalanced levels (which is very possible considering the truly insane proposals that have appeared) and find out that it was just a sign or symptom of the illness ... that would be far more devastating than forgetting about a pest kept under control by a deadly chemical.

How do you propose that global warming is not being considered properly? You think scientists aren't being as thorough as they could be? What do you mean by decrease the CO2 to unbalanced levels?

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm sorry, but did you just not want to read the rest of my reasoning or are you ignoring any outside possibilities simply because it challenges your preconceived notions?

I don't have any preconceived notions, I have no qualms accepting the facts and the scientific consensus. I'm not ignoring any outside possibilities at all, I just simply do not think that they fit the evidence.

Can you perhaps explain how the data on those two graphs are not linked? Why should I accept that burning fossil fuels is not a major factor in the rise in temperature recorded across the globe? Why should I accept your opinion over the consensus of the majority of scientists in relevant fields?

Granted that sometimes a single observation can sometimes lead to a conclusion, we are, however, talking about a pretty complex system with multiple variables. Not to mention, you missed the entire point of CO2 being part of the energy source that drives what is supposedly dying off. That was my contention of why this line of reasoning does not work. It goes against the observed laws of natural order, something that has been demonstrated many times over. Now, if say CO2 was falling and the rainforests were failing because it, that would make sense, since the base of the food chain would be dying off due to suffocation. But the base of the food chain there is fueled by CO2, not killed by it. A higher O2 would account for it, though it would more likely be a sign of other life forms dying too quickly, just as the increased CO2 is more of a sign of plant life dying off too quickly than a cause. If you want to cure an illness, you do not go after symptoms, so it's important to know for certain what is a symptom and what is a cause.

So how does it being a complex system with multiple variables refute the fact that as CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have increased, temperature has increased?

You completely misunderstand what I said. I did not say that increases in CO2 emissions were causing the forests to die off. CO2 isn't doing that we are. Perhaps you'd like to read what I said more carefully?

Humans are destroying the rainforests whilst releasing lots of the greenhouse gas which rainforests absorb thus meaning that less of the CO2 we release is being absorbed. I never said the CO2 was the cause of deforestation, it's us.

That is where correlation does not equal causality comes into play. If we go after the wrong thing just because some corporation wants a monopoly, then we will likely cause other serious problems.

Which corporations want monopoly and what has that got to do with science anyway?

Let's look at another example: DDT

DDT is a horrible and dangerous poison. That's why we banned it, and it was a good reason. However, in spite of it being a good reason we did not consider the implications and are now dealing with a mite that has become a pest again, and this mite is extremely tough, nothing else kills it that won't kill us off. This is not inherently bad, however it demonstrates what happens when a matter is not considered thoroughly. If we decrease the CO2 to unbalanced levels (which is very possible considering the truly insane proposals that have appeared) and find out that it was just a sign or symptom of the illness ... that would be far more devastating than forgetting about a pest kept under control by a deadly chemical.

How do you propose that global warming is not being considered properly? You think scientists aren't being as thorough as they could be? What do you mean by decrease the CO2 to unbalanced levels?

I am always suspicious when something that is put forward could benefit a small number of corporations and decrease consumer choices, always. To believe that the scientific community is immune to corruption is naive, we are all humans after all.

For example, paper. The paper industry is responsible for the most reforestation of any other industry, yet oil companies wanted a profit so they attacked the paper industry. Scientists at the time were made to appear as if they agreed with the findings that were driven solely by profits in an attempt to discredit one industry with the hopes of increasing dependence on another. It almost worked, but thankfully people just can't do without paper, and now we know that paper is better than the alternatives at this point.

So you see, it is not outside the realms of possibility for the papers themselves to be modified. The published results are not infallible. It would be great if it was, but scientific research has been hindered quite often by simple minded, and closed minded, people just because they want control of it.

Have you even seen some of the crazy, rather insane, project proposed by companies who say they support the CO2 hypothesis? There is literally no other explanation than greed for this support, none. What of the "carbon offsets" scam? Care to explain how that is even beneficial? The environmental movement has a track record of being hijacked by corporate lobbies, it's not a new phenomenon. I remember when I started working with the movement back in the 80's, to reduce emissions. There were a ton of corporations peddling their wares to the people based on something that was made popular by a scientific consensus. So we ignored the lobbyists and anything that was put forward by those with ulterior motives and came up with a sensible solution.

A prime example of one based on the renewable resources, Solyndra. I know, it's a bit cliche to use that after it was beaten to death by right wing nuts, but that does not make it go away. It happened, and they had scientific studies saying they could succeed, but did the technology itself even come close?

So again, who stands to benefit most from the CO2 hypothesis? Certainly not the trees I love to walk through, even the most moderate proposal would likely impact them in very horrific ways.

 

[Laurens]

I am always suspicious when something that is put forward could benefit a small number of corporations and decrease consumer choices, always. To believe that the scientific community is immune to corruption is naive, we are all humans after all.

Your suspicions and reservations have nothing to do with what the science says. Your belief that the scientific community is not immune to corruption also has nothing to do with this. Its about what the data says that is all.

For example, paper. The paper industry is responsible for the most reforestation of any other industry, yet oil companies wanted a profit so they attacked the paper industry. Scientists at the time were made to appear as if they agreed with the findings that were driven solely by profits in an attempt to discredit one industry with the hopes of increasing dependence on another. It almost worked, but thankfully people just can't do without paper, and now we know that paper is better than the alternatives at this point.

This has nothing to do with what the data says about climate change.

So you see, it is not outside the realms of possibility for the papers themselves to be modified. The published results are not infallible. It would be great if it was, but scientific research has been hindered quite often by simple minded, and closed minded, people just because they want control of it.

This doesn't mean that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are not affecting the climate.

Have you even seen some of the crazy, rather insane, project proposed by companies who say they support the CO2 hypothesis? There is literally no other explanation than greed for this support, none. What of the "carbon offsets" scam? Care to explain how that is even beneficial? The environmental movement has a track record of being hijacked by corporate lobbies, it's not a new phenomenon. I remember when I started working with the movement back in the 80's, to reduce emissions. There were a ton of corporations peddling their wares to the people based on something that was made popular by a scientific consensus. So we ignored the lobbyists and anything that was put forward by those with ulterior motives and came up with a sensible solution.

This has nothing to do with the science.

It doesn't matter what corporations say or do, that has nothing to do with the scientific data, so can you address the data rather than trying to refute it by saying 'corporations tend to scam people' well we all know that, but that's irrelevant.

A prime example of one based on the renewable resources, Solyndra. I know, it's a bit cliche to use that after it was beaten to death by right wing nuts, but that does not make it go away. It happened, and they had scientific studies saying they could succeed, but did the technology itself even come close?

Can you explain what this has to do with the data I presented?

So again, who stands to benefit most from the CO2 hypothesis? Certainly not the trees I love to walk through, even the most moderate proposal would likely impact them in very horrific ways.

All you've presented here is a rather large red herring. I asked you to address what the science says and you've not even come close. All you've done is vaguely present some kind of corporate conspiracy - with no evidence whatsoever.

Even if corporations were using climate change to make money, how do you propose that refutes the science? Corporations generally do what they can to make money - that has no bearing on what the scientists say about anything.

Do you have any data that shows climate change is not man made?

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay, let's look at it this way. Timing is everything, we cannot argue that, science has to be refined and tested, that is how knowledge is grown.

Now look at the first chart, the long term chart. You can see the spikes are there, right? In the past. What would have caused those?

You see, and I hate saying it this way, but the anti-environmentalists have a point here. When you factor in historical evidence, we still appear to be well within typical patterns. A slight deviation on a global scale is not a surprise either. So answer my question.

Why is the plant life reducing the rate in which they absorb carbon dioxide again?

To answer that, you cannot pick it apart from the other facts, like that most of the absorption is from water based plant life. You also cannot ignore that the lumber industry has increased the number of trees, responsible for most of the absorption from land based plant life. You also cannot ignore the word "again" in that question. To do so would be dishonest.

 

[Laurens]

Okay, let's look at it this way. Timing is everything, we cannot argue that, science has to be refined and tested, that is how knowledge is grown.

Now look at the first chart, the long term chart. You can see the spikes are there, right? In the past. What would have caused those?

I'm not sure because I'm not expert on environmental science.

Yes the first graph shows that CO2 levels fluctuated in the past, but assuming those graphs are accurate, it shows that during all that fluctuation from 647,426 BC to 337 BC the CO2 concentrations reached around 300 ppm max.

Now look at the last graph it shows that by 2006 the CO2 concentrations reached 380 ppm which is higher than it ever got in a space of 600,000 years.

So ignoring the fluctuations, its evident from that graph that since the 1950's CO2 concentrations reached higher levels than they had for 600,000 years.

You see, and I hate saying it this way, but the anti-environmentalists have a point here. When you factor in historical evidence, we still appear to be well within typical patterns. A slight deviation on a global scale is not a surprise either. So answer my question.

Except those graphs show the opposite they show that in the last 60 years CO2 concentrations have got higher than they ever got in the space of 600,000 years

Why is the plant life reducing the rate in which they absorb carbon dioxide again?

Can you show me that it is? Then I'll gladly look into why that is.

To answer that, you cannot pick it apart from the other facts, like that most of the absorption is from water based plant life. You also cannot ignore that the lumber industry has increased the number of trees, responsible for most of the absorption from land based plant life. You also cannot ignore the word "again" in that question. To do so would be dishonest.

Can you cite a source that the lumber industry has increased the number of trees?

I'm not ignoring that "fact" I've never heard it before so perhaps some evidence would come in useful?

 

[bluejatheist]

I'm not sure because I'm not expert on environmental science.

Yes the first graph shows that CO2 levels fluctuated in the past, but assuming those graphs are accurate, it shows that during all that fluctuation from 647,426 BC to 337 BC the CO2 concentrations reached around 300 ppm max.

Now look at the last graph it shows that by 2006 the CO2 concentrations reached 380 ppm which is higher than it ever got in a space of 600,000 years.

So ignoring the fluctuations, its evident from that graph that since the 1950's CO2 concentrations reached higher levels than they had for 600,000 years.

Not to play devil's advocate, but I believe there is a natural phenomena of rare extreme fluctuations, such as with rogue waves. This is one possible explanation to consider, no?

 

[Laurens]

Just to hit the point home I've added a dot on the first graph showing where the levels reach on the last graph...

Doesn't really fit in with the pattern does it?

 

[Laurens]

I'm not sure because I'm not expert on environmental science.

Yes the first graph shows that CO2 levels fluctuated in the past, but assuming those graphs are accurate, it shows that during all that fluctuation from 647,426 BC to 337 BC the CO2 concentrations reached around 300 ppm max.

Now look at the last graph it shows that by 2006 the CO2 concentrations reached 380 ppm which is higher than it ever got in a space of 600,000 years.

So ignoring the fluctuations, its evident from that graph that since the 1950's CO2 concentrations reached higher levels than they had for 600,000 years.

Not to play devil's advocate, but I believe there is a natural phenomena of rare extreme fluctuations, such as with rogue waves. This is one possible explanation to consider, no?

It's possible yes, however my point is to refute the claim that the current levels somehow fit in with the trend on the first graph which is nonsense.

However, its also worth noting that the peak on that graph corresponds with the trend on this one:

 

[KittenKoder]

It's possible yes, however my point is to refute the claim that the current levels somehow fit in with the trend on the first graph which is nonsense.

However, its also worth noting that the peak on that graph corresponds with the trend on this one:

Quite ironically I didn't say they fit, just pointed out that there is a pattern there, one which demonstrates there are spikes that occur naturally. However, and here's a little bit of clarification I needed as well, the scientific community is only agreeing that we have had an effect on it, exactly what that effect is they still are debating, and for the reason I mentioned. Curing a symptom does not make the disease go away. Essentially the whole mess was caused because a tipping point was reached.

But why now? Why is it that after we made changes to our behaviors did it decide to tip? Remember, carbon increase lags behind temperature change (a fact I was struggling to remember before). Most of the increase is not actually caused by us directly, and I'm still hesitant to agree that it was just something we did for reasons I mentioned above.

This is why science advances though, there is certainly a few facts that have not come forward yet, a few undiscovered points. We have completely moved this discussion past the idiotic solar flare idea, but ... there just may be another factor that will be the key to figuring out what happened.

Now here's the irony, I'm actually for reducing emissions, clean air, I love that. I am not arguing that we should not reduce emissions. I am arguing some of the other snake oil charms being peddled in the name of environmentalism (look into recycling a bit for a prime example). However that is not what I am considering in this. I am considering, what if we act without knowing enough of the details and we're so wrong, we push another tipping point? As I said, there are people peddling some really drastic methods to radically modify our atmosphere just to make a quick buck to politicians who are not hearing the entire story. But both sides are to blame, doubt is a good thing, doubt prevents disasters more than rushing into anything. We have to voice the doubts, but we can't just stop the research either.

As for citing that the lumber industry has increased the number of trees, the study actually got buried .... again. Search hit manipulators tend to do these things, so I'll search for it but no promises on when I find it.

 

[Laurens]

Quite ironically I didn't say they fit, just pointed out that there is a pattern there, one which demonstrates there are spikes that occur naturally. However, and here's a little bit of clarification I needed as well, the scientific community is only agreeing that we have had an effect on it, exactly what that effect is they still are debating, and for the reason I mentioned. Curing a symptom does not make the disease go away. Essentially the whole mess was caused because a tipping point was reached.

You said:

When you factor in historical evidence, we still appear to be well within typical patterns. A slight deviation on a global scale is not a surprise either.

The simple fact is that the graph shows precisely the opposite, the current levels don't fit in with the typical pattern. Those spikes which occur naturally reach 300 ppm max, the most recent spike reaches 380 ppm max. Now you'd have to be a very terrible scientist indeed to ignore that and say its a normal fluctuation. Anyone with half a brain should be alarmed by the fact that CO2 levels are much higher than they ever reached in a period of 600,000 years.

So you're admitting that climate change is being caused by humans now then?

But why now? Why is it that after we made changes to our behaviors did it decide to tip? Remember, carbon increase lags behind temperature change (a fact I was struggling to remember before). Most of the increase is not actually caused by us directly, and I'm still hesitant to agree that it was just something we did for reasons I mentioned above.

Your claims are meaningless without sources.

The fact that you're hesitant to agree doesn't change the fact that you nicely pointed out for us with your graph. Since the 1950s CO2 levels have reached higher levels than they had in a period of 600,000 years - which fits with the graph showing an increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, which correlates to a rise in temperature. Can you refrain from stating 'correlation does not imply causation' please because we've known that CO2 has a warming effect since 1852, so we can quite reasonably say that when we see a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature that correlation does imply causation.

Do you have any science that demonstrates that man did not cause global warming? The graph was interesting I must admit, but to be perfectly honest it proved my point rather than yours.

This is why science advances though, there is certainly a few facts that have not come forward yet, a few undiscovered points. We have completely moved this discussion past the idiotic solar flare idea, but ... there just may be another factor that will be the key to figuring out what happened.

What factor?

Now here's the irony, I'm actually for reducing emissions, clean air, I love that. I am not arguing that we should not reduce emissions. I am arguing some of the other snake oil charms being peddled in the name of environmentalism (look into recycling a bit for a prime example). However that is not what I am considering in this. I am considering, what if we act without knowing enough of the details and we're so wrong, we push another tipping point? As I said, there are people peddling some really drastic methods to radically modify our atmosphere just to make a quick buck to politicians who are not hearing the entire story. But both sides are to blame, doubt is a good thing, doubt prevents disasters more than rushing into anything. We have to voice the doubts, but we can't just stop the research either.

Well the graph showed that CO2 levels naturally fluctuate between around 190 ppm to 300 ppm, so we can be fairly certain that trying to push things back in that direction isn't going to do anything bad. Why would we push another tipping point? What tipping point?

Doubt is a good thing yes, up until things like this are happening:

And morons are still saying that there is not a problem. There is and if we don't want to fuck things up irreparably we need to do something.

I mean take a look at the numbers of species that are endangered. There is little doubt as to the negative environmental impact of humans, I've even heard it said that we are causing a mass extinction event. Now, ecosystems can only take so much hammering before they start to collapse like a house of cards. Doubt can only take you so far, sometimes you have to face up to the facts and in this case we need to do so fast, or we might fuck things up irreparably.

As for citing that the lumber industry has increased the number of trees, the study actually got buried .... again. Search hit manipulators tend to do these things, so I'll search for it but no promises on when I find it.

Why would there be a conspiracy to hide such a thing, surely logging companies would want that to be known so that they have a legitimate excuse to carry on? I'm sorry but I don't buy your conspiracy...

 

[nudger1964]

[, the scientific community is only agreeing that we have had an effect on it, exactly what that effect is they still are debating, and for the reason I mentioned. .

blimey, tell us something we dont know.

actually, you have made claims that i think i would like clarified.
1. you said

Why is the plant life reducing the rate in which they absorb carbon dioxide again?

what do you mean by this, exactly

2. You claim the lumber industry is increasing its replanting program. What is the lumber industry?. is there one global organisation that can ensure each year more trees are planted than are chopped down? does that include the trees in the rain forrests?



you do seem to be misunderstanding what was being said. No body claimed that trees were struggling and dying,,,they said they were being destroyed by man at an alarming rate. We all know that high co2 levels are a good thing for trees, but that is little comfort for them if they have been burnt to the ground.
We all know that just planting more trees wont cure the problem, which is why the attempt to reduce our CO2 emmisions is even more important.

I do agree that the enviromental movement has probably over egged some of the data, and that hasnt helped their cause one little bit, but there is an overwhelming consensus that covers a best case and worse case scenario...even the best case seems to show that we really should be doing something.

 

[tuxbox]

Should we even care about global warming? It is 2012 after all, we are all going to die in December.

 

[GeologyJack]

First of all, credentials, I am not only a geology and astronomy nerd, but I actually have a degree in elements of this topic.

Secondly, I apologize if I may come across as blunt and nonrefined, our hot water supply broke and I am dealing with cold tea, still regardless of tea temperature, I have the knowledge so lets get into that why don't we.

I would first like to address the point made by Dean about carrying capacity, or "k" as we will call it as it is shorter.

Bias: I am not in favor of the population of the Earth growing significantly more, I think it puts us at a tough point where we will have to decide whether we should have harsh programs to limit population growth to have a greater standard of living, or if we should give people the right to choose how many kids they want and risk more of their kids having a lack of access to food, water, and other necessary resources.

As has been established, the Earth is hardly a stable place in terms of resources, here on the Rocky Mountain eastern slope we have dealt with droughts several times over the past few decades. For the most part we do our best to have rock gardens rather than beautifully manicured grass lawns, we switch out any fountain which has the ability to lose a great deal of water due to evaporation (a serious problem in this environment), and we make sure our water storage facilities don't have leaks. On the other hand we have years of plenty like this year, our spillways are glistening with water overflow. One could say that the maximum population of Denver on a wet year is significantly higher than that of a dry year.

Same goes for the Earth. Leaving ideas such as terraforming the Sahara, clear cutting Siberia, and building massive farms out in the Pacific out of the picture, we are in fact approaching a resource crisis. Still, there are projects in the works that will allow us to do these activities and much more, we may be wasting our resources away to feed the masses, but damn it, we have the technology to do so.

Enough of that, I think it goes without saying that Dean is essentially correct.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

Anthropogenic based climate change is as real as the Earth beneath our feet. I will try not to give a blue answer to a green question so here we go.

First thing I would love to address, those major climate spikes in the long term graph. We humans freaking adore seeing patterns in data. Is there a major pattern here, it looks kinda like it, but if you look close there is some funkiness in it, some of the peaks are closer than others, while others have dents in them. From an objective analysis they are mostly different other than one remarkable feature that they all share, it looks as though after a sharp rise, it takes SIGNIFICANTLY longer for it to return to a low, lets hold on to that.

Second, lets play a little game of prisoners dilemma. I assume most of you are familiar with the rules. For the purposes of this we will assume that there exist two dichotomies: whether or not we affect the climate and whether or not we choose to do anything about it. If we are not actually capable of climate change and it is all natural and we don't do anything about it, then fine, life goes on. If it is in fact our fault and we do something, fine, world is good and we have accomplished something. Then there exists the possibility that it is our fault and we do nothing because we assume we can't, then we are doomed. Then finally theres the happy cahnce that the world is doing what the world will do, and we take action to make our world better, then that is the best of all choices. Lets hold on to that as well.

Third, now we look at some tried and true examples. Do you remember that little crisis a while back about a hole in the ozone layer. We chose to do something about that issue, we limited our CFCs, we eliminated sulfides from our emissions, we stepped up and took care of the problem, and believe it or not, the hole is closing http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/. Given that we had been introducing substances to the environment the the problem grew, then we stopped and the problem started to go away it is evident that us humans do actually have an effect on the world. If we add that to our growing stockpile things may start to come together.

Despite what many of the climate change deniers say, there is no reason for any climate scientist to want to see anthropogenic climate change be the cause of our woes. Most of these scientists are not greedy hogs who are hoarding their money to themselves. It is true, the world is a large place and she will do what she feels like doing, within the constraints of being an unthinking lump of rock and metal. It is also true that for parts of the ecosystem, the addition of extra carbon dioxide to the environment coupled with warmth may be a good thing, by the same light there are places where it is bad.

For the most part we have been touching on the surface here, talking about trees. The greatest sign that something is wrong here can be seen when we look into the depths of the ocean. If we look back at the long term chart, the scale can lead us astray, if we were to look at the chart at the same scale as the short term chart, our recent surge is significantly more short term than the usual. I am hoping we all know evolution to be a fact here as it will come into play here in a second.

When change occurs over a long scale, life has the capability to adapt to it. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere has a direct link to the amount of carbon in the oceans http://tinyurl.com/38bjuh, with a slight lag to account for the main currents cycling out older material. In fact when you have carbon as a greater amount it even affects the geosphere http://tinyurl.com/7cuhnkl. The problem with the current trend is that it is affecting things far too fast http://tinyurl.com/6xsrbnb. We have seen the populations of creatures that are adversely affected by carbon dioxide in the hydrosphere quickly dying out in massive numbers that we would surely have seen from a paleontological perspective if it happened frequently in the past http://tinyurl.com/ch6ozx. Sadly this is something we do not see frequently in the past unless it involves massive debris flows and of course those can be as sporadic as a day without election news. When we look at those spikes of carbon dioxide, we do not see associated marine extinctions, they happen slow enough that evolution can provide a mechanism for species to adapt.

When we put it all together the lessons that I wish to impart come together like this: we can see that this spike is not a normal occurence from evidence in the hydrosphere and the geosphere, this data is not something that researchers would report as wrong, even if we are wrong, it is still handy to put work towards remediating the world, we know that we can have an impact on the environment, and on top of all of it, the longer we let the problem get out of hand, the longer it will take to fix it.

Luckily I have my tea now...

 

[tuxbox]

Bias: I am not in favor of the population of the Earth growing significantly more, I think it puts us at a tough point where we will have to decide whether we should have harsh programs to limit population growth to have a greater standard of living, or if we should give people the right to choose how many kids they want and risk more of their kids having a lack of access to food, water, and other necessary resources.

You are so right!!!! We need to restrict basic human freedom in all aspects of life. Most humans are just too stupid for their own good. We need to tell them how many kids they can have, what to consume, what not to consume, and force them to buy things they do not want. We should also start forced euthanasia programs for the sick and the elderly. They are too much of a burden on society. Age 70 is good place to start eliminating the elderly. They start to going down hill around that age and they cannot drive worth a damn. We should also restart the eugenics programs from the early 20th century. Undesirables make life too frustrating. I mean hell, most of them vote Republican.

 

[GeologyJack]

Well tuxbox, what would you have us do, I would like to see us increase the planets ability to hold life, but no matter how you look at it, the world has a limited amount of resources we can use at this moment. I am not saying that tomorrow every government needs to wake up and kill everybody over 70, nor am I suggesting that we have reached a point where any sort of drastic measure needs to be taken in regards to the growth of human society, what we do need is to work on conservation of our resources.

 

[tuxbox]

I have faith in science and trust that the problems we face can be addressed without resorting to civil rights violations. That said, this man made global warming propaganda campaign needs to stop. All it does is create a mistrust of our scientists, which makes it harder to get the funding we need to combat the problems.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Well tuxbox, what would you have us do, I would like to see us increase the planets ability to hold life, but no matter how you look at it, the world has a limited amount of resources we can use at this moment. I am not saying that tomorrow every government needs to wake up and kill everybody over 70, nor am I suggesting that we have reached a point where any sort of drastic measure needs to be taken in regards to the growth of human society, what we do need is to work on conservation of our resources.

We start seriously looking at the possibility of inhabiting other planets, moons, etc.......

I only have one request: I want to be one of the first 10 people on the list to get off this rock.