Why should we fear climate change?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Blindman, Dec 15, 2009.

  1. Arch_Rival Registered Senior Member

    Ok. So you agree totally co2 lagged warming in the past. You essentially agree this is a fact, no argument about it.

    So how did you think we misunderstood this fact?
    Or how did you think we misrepresented this fact?

    Those hockey-stick type of graphs that show temperature going back a thousand years have been used by many to indicate the rise in co2 causes a rise in temperature. If we neglect for a moment the data for the last 200 years or so, do you think in the past temperature rise is mostly driven by co2?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Arch_Rival Registered Senior Member

    Ahh....apologies if i offended you in any way.

    I wouldn't want you to think i haven't anything to contribute to your thread.

    See, we shouldn't fear much about climate change.

    What we should worry about are the effects of climate change.

    Which, in my opinion, if considered and studied carefully, can be properly handled.

    Take for example the common argument of death due to malaria. The mechanism works something like this: co2--> higher temperatures --> favours breeding of malaria-carrying mosquities --> more deaths due to malaria.

    But think about this: are we going to spend billions of dollars to reduce co2 just to save malaria deaths?

    People die of malaria not so much because of rising temperatures, but more due to the fact that they are mostly poor. They couldn't afford, or don't know, any measures to fight malaria.

    Instead of worrying so much about rising temperatures/co2 levels, we could do better by spending more time, attention and money on providing mosquito nets, getting anti-malaria drugs, providing proper sanitation, educating the poor and erradicating poverty.

    btw, iirc, anti-malarial drugs usually cost <US$1 per person per dose, or around there. Compare this with the amount of money thrown about at climate talks.

    This is an example of how we can combat the effects of climate change rather than tackle climate change directly. Which, in my opinion, is more useful in saving lives and more effective in the use of resources.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    We're not debating that either - you are simply denying any of the possibilities for disaster inherent in a rapid and unprecedented boost of the CO2 greenhouse influence.

    You are not afraid of drought, sea level rise, large and sudden alterations in the circumstances of agriculture, ecology, or human endeavor, etc. All these are possibilities.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Totally agree. A friend of mine died of malaria some years back in Indonesian.Lets fight the imminent threats rather then vague idealized threats.

    Mind you I find it strange that many say that global warming will bring much drought yet still increase mosquito habitat.. ????

    Possibilities as you say.. I could win Lotto and that would protect my family for a few generations from much of the worst that GW scare mongers push apon us. Possibilities....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Denying nothing, I just want to have some thing solid to fear.

    Sea level rise. Gosh I just moved to Rockingham WA (coastal town in Western Australia) If we humans cant outrun 2mm a year we don't deserve to survive. The surface of the earth is a dynamic system. Some parts uplift at far greater rates, some subside. New Orleans sinks faster then sea levels rise. The Dutch love to reclaim the sea, they have no fear of rising sea levels even though they have vast tracks of land below sea level.
    Most of the important crops of the world can be generated in less than a year. Give me water and power and I can grow anything anywhere.

    Sudden in human terms is months or may be a year. We are not dumb animals.
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    On this point there's two ways of interpreting it.

    1. Systematic error:
    As I understand it, the lag shows up in two places, the Dome Fuji and Vostok ice cores. Snow falls, some of it melts, what's left behind the following year is called firn. Last years firn gets buried by this years firn, then next years, and so on and so forth, until it reaches a certain depth where it becomes ice. It's not until this point that the air pockets become completely sealed as air bubbles. This takes time, how much time it takes is dependent on the environmental conditions. What I had not realized until I looked at the raw data was how much time. At Dome Fuji it takes 2100-3100 years, at Vostok station it takes 4000-6000 years. This is important because it means that the gas bubbles in the ice are younger than the ice itself by this much, and the exact value varies, however, until this depth is reached, the air in the pockets is free to mix with the atmosphere, so, the possibility exists that the lag is simply a data artifact created by a systematic error in the models being used of the firn-ice transition depth over time.

    2. So what?
    People often bring up this point, but, the point itself does nothing to prove that CO[sub]2[/sub] is incapable of causing warming.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, you can't. You can't, for example, replace the loss of the rice production in the river delta rice paddies of southern Asia, in real life, in anything like the time scale at which they would be destroyed by a one meter rise in sea level that takes place within one century.

    You can't, in real life, replace the pasture and irrigated field production from the glacier fed rivers flowing from the Himalaya Mountains, if those glaciers cease to produce those rivers within 50 years.

    You can't, in real life, replace the monsoon dependent agricultural production of the monsoon regions, if that weather pattern is radically altered within 25 years.

    You can't even replace the loss of irrigation agriculture in the American West, if the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer is not replaceable by snowpack melt and glacial feed from the Rockies in the near future - never mind the rainfall agriculture currently producing the enormous surplus from the rich soils of the tallgrass prairie regions of the American Midwest, if the American West dries out to the extent it did in the hypsithermal after the most recent glaciation of North America.

    and so forth.

    Not that any of these disasters are certain - but they are all reasonable, midrange possibilities among the many created by the current boosting of CO2.

    Any one of them would cost more than the replacement of all coal fired electrical generation by heat engine solar power using current, commercially available technology.
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    this of course assumes food must be grown or "produced" on land.
    what happens when all of our food is produced in 3 or 4 factories?
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Are you living in some kind of fantasy?

    What raw materials do you imagine will be used in these factories of yours?
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    no, unless you wanna get all philosophical about it.

    the elements themselves.
    if our scientists put this stem cell research to the task i believe we can accomplish that.
  13. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Because it introduces a survival pressure on the world that can outpace humanity's ability to adapt.

    Ignore the fear mongering or anything subjective.

    Some changes can present opportunity, others risk, and others both.

    I must have skipped that part of history.

    Why do you need someone to tell you what to fear? What do your optimism and apathy have to do with anything? Are you looking for a reason to reduce your consumption?
  14. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Come now iceaura your such a pessimist. Look at the dutch example. IN the 15 century draining of mashes and bogs resulted in a 15meter drop in land levels to many meters below sea level. They had it under control by the 16 century. If we could do it back then its a snitch now.
    Europe produces a lot of its food in factories. Once again look at the dutch with tens of thousands of square km of green houses growing crops that could not be profitable in their climate.

    Lucky you. The threat of nuclear war loomed large when I was young 70-80's. Nuclear winter and radiations perverse effects on life where taught as standard to young pre teens like me at the time. Global warming is a joke compared to the destruction we faced back then.

    It is very evident that no one can put forth nothing but vague threats.
    No just wondering if i should vote for a political party that wants to drive up the cost of living because of global warming. No way. Take your carbon credits and put it where the sun don't shine. Im not going to give my hard earned tax dollars to unknown or vague threats
  15. Arch_Rival Registered Senior Member

    Wow, you guys change your stand all the time.

    First, iceaura insinuated we are analytically incompetent.
    "you were pretending to an analytical competence you did not necessarily possess..."

    Then he ate his words and said he is long longer sure if we are really competent.
    "Ihae no idea whether you are competent or not. "

    Then he said we are deluded.
    "Who is more deluded in that situation: the person who has never heard of the history of CO2 increases initially leading warming trends, or the person who thinks that casts doubt on estimations of the warming effects of the current CO2 boost? "

    Then he ate his words again and said he no longer think we are deluded.
    Me: "Why do you suggest we, in making the statement about co2 lagging warming, are deluded?"
    Iceaura: "Not necessarily....."

    Now the latest. Since we are no longer deluded, we are now misrepresenting or misunderstanding facts.
    "In the context of the validity of the fears about CO2 boosting, the choice is misunderstanding or misrepresentation. "

    Then when questioned, well....he hasn't replied.

    And now for Trippy, it is no longer a mispresentation. It is now a question of relevance.
    Me: "Or how did you think we misrepresented this fact?"
    Trippy: " So what? People often bring up this point, but, the point itself does nothing to prove that CO2 is incapable of causing warming."

    Since you guys don't know what to think, i'll tell you what you're thinking.

    See, the statement of lagging co2 was merely a question posed to the suits during a break. And that was all there was to it.
    1. We did not express any opinion to them on it.
    2. We did not express to them our stand on its accuracy or relevance.
    3. The question was never posed during the formal presentation, hence not a factor of consideration.

    But when iceaura sees any text to do with "CO2 lags warming", his alarm bells go off.

    See, he's shown himself to be a diehard climate change advocate. Anyone who sets off his alarm bells is an enemy he has to shoot down.

    And he does it by personal attacks. He called us conmen, deluded, misrepresenting facts, lack analytical competency, etc. Yet we show he couldn't justify any of those.

    So how does he justify his claim we are conmen? By presenting us as people who don't believe in the stuff we presented.

    But truth is, he doesn't even know what we believe in. He has to make that up in his mind.

    Lets be clear. The contract the suits gave was money in exchange for a clearly defined set of deliverables. So long as we deliver, we are not cheating, hence not conmen.

    Iceaura simply applied his own arbitrary moral standard to call us conmen, simply because in his mind we disagree with whatever his opinions are. And when questioned, he heaped false allegation after false allegation, which he can't substantiate.

    Thanks iceaura. I'll record this as an example of the state climate change advocacy is in nowadays.
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    News for you. These two statements don't neccessarily contradict each other, they may even compliment each other.

    More dishonesty from you, that wasn't the only thing I said.
    More to the point, it's a pretty transparent attempt at misdirection.

    Aside from that, I wasn't addressing how you did or didn't misunderstand or misrepresent the fact, I was adressing the fact.

    And you're absolutely right, one of the points is one of relevance.

    There are no changes of stand, Iceaura and I simply have differing views on the matter. That Iceaura and I must have the same view is enitrely your fallacy, or can we start holding you responsible for Buffalo Roams statements, and talking about how you guys change your stand all the time?

Share This Page