The Coming Climate Change

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna True enough, as I've said before the answer is indeterminate. That said, as the data comes in and the analysis is done, the picture should begin to take shape.

Haven't you heard that the temperature peaked in 1998:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...global+warming

We must "act now" before it becomes obvious.

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Geof Perfectly correct, however, the Anthropogenic Global Warming disciples do use fuzzy logic. Their basic premise is that Global Warming is occurring; no denying that it is, CO2 levels are going up, no denying that they are and most of the new CO2 is from fossil fuels, it is. Ergo; fossil fuel generated CO2 increase is causing Global Warming. They make the mistake of assuming a correlation means a cause. Then they extrapolate and predict all manner of catastrophes; extinctions and all manner of things. However, 6000 years ago global temperatures were some 6 to 8 degrees higher than now; this was known as the Climatic Optimum and there is ample evidence for it. So if mass extinction and wordlwide disruption of ecosystems are going to occur in the future due to an increase of 2 degrees surely it must have occurred in the past with the warming of the Climatic Optimum? There is absolutely no evidence that this did occur and the alarmist claims that it will occur in the future are without foundation.

Good point, but I think now you have a confluence of events that taken together, may make the situation much worse. In addition to global warming you have an unsustainable population growth that is probably an even greater concern. When global warming occurred in the past there were many less people on the planet. Now, with the increased population, you will have greater dislocations and more dire effects. When global warming happened in previous times, some areas of the planet remained blissfully unaware of the occurrence. Nowadays we'll all feel the pain as people in coastal areas move inland by necessity of survival and islanders abandon their homes. BTW,the Climatic Optimum event that you referred to was not evenly distributed around the world and was probably caused by variations in the earth's orbit around the sun. The southern hemisphere was less affected, or perhaps affected at different times than the northern. In other words everything wasn't happening simultaneously on a global scale as it may be now.
Donna

[Geof]

xyzdonna you did not actually address any of the points I made, just talked around them. What is your confluence of events? How will we feel pain as people move inland and abandon islands this is going to be spread over a long time scale. But more important can anything be done to prevent it?

BTW I do know the dogma that the Optimum only affected the Northern Hemisphere. It used to be dogma that the major Ice Ages only affected the Northern regions until clear evidence was found in Southern and Tropical glaciers.

[jhowelb]

It is insanity to try to use reason and logic to persuade these folks on such an emotional subject. It is their religion and they are devout.

When you lay down facts and logic in such fashion as to make an irrefutable point the response will go something like this; "Oh yes, I agree, but we must rely on (have faith).....yada yada! Ad infinitum!

May as well just have a bit of fun tweaking their tails because nothing will ever be accomplished here!

Originally Posted by the4thseal are you saying there are more trees now than there were 1492???:-(

HHHmmmmmmmmmm! Kick started yur motor!

No one to put out fires before the white man, tree farms, reforestation projects, houses all thru the mid west and west where there were no trees...........yup! I said it, it's a fact and can be verified.

If you really care dig up the data yourself, it's out there!


If today we could produce an equivalent amount of CO2 to the total amount man has ever produced it would make 1/10 of 1 degree temp change in 100 years.

GW/CC is crap, all crap, nutin but crap thru and thru!

[the4thseal]

i have not looked up the tree thing but i have seem forest maps of the US and england and the amount of wooded area was huge as opposed today. logging ect. as for the fires, man makes them worse by stopping small ones, which increases fuel to unnatural levels,which makes the fires worse. i am not arguing your point, it may be one of those odd facts that flies in the face of convention. its just with deforestation in the amazon and Asia it just seems tough. interesting though.

[Geof]

I have seen this claim before but like in this thread I have not seen it backed up with a reference to the original source and how the data was collected for the comparison. It could be simply an Urban Myth but I haven't looked for it on Mythbusters.

But having said that there is a way it could be possible.

I have seen pictures from the beginning of the 1900's showing Ponderosa Pine forests and then pictures in the same region taken 80 or 90 years later. The difference was dramatic with a much denser tree cover in the later pictures; I seem to remember it was stated that in the early forest the average distance between trees was something like 10 meters but the recent forest had a spacing of 3 meters. This is a result of fire management; trees and forests over just about the whole of the North American continent are adapted to exist with fairly frequent low intensity forest fires, the trees can survive a little scorching. These fires naturally thin the trees out because if there happens to be a stand of trees that are closely spaced the fire is hotter and some of the trees get scorched too much and die.

The closer spacing results in about three times as many trees in the same area so even though there is less treed area across the continent there could be more trees.

But it is irrelevant to Global Warming and human released CO2. Do a calculation and figure out how many barrels of oil a tree is equivalent to; especially a scrawny Ponderosa Pine. On a dry weight basis wood contains about as much Carbon as the same weight of gasoline; the about is plus or minus say 50%, I am not talking high precision here. So you can figure out how much weight the trees in your backyard need to put on each year to compensate for the petroleum products you have used in the same year. You will need a very big backyard with a lot of trees but most important you are not allowed to let them die and rot away...ever! Because if they do then the CO2 is back in the atmosphere again.

[the4thseal]

i understand that in the united states this "might" be true. but global deforestation is rampant and i think outstrips us based planting ...i do not have facts as to tree numbers it just seemed very counter intuitive .I have been looking around for facts on this but it is hard to find actual data that does not obviously from some interest group. i am finding this to be a problem in general on this topic. any ideas?

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Nowadays we'll all feel the pain as people in coastal areas move inland by necessity of survival and islanders abandon their homes.

I guess somebody forgot to tell these future islanders of the catastophic sea level rise that is coming? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...+world+islands

To see the logic behind it, follow the money: Follow the money

[Geof]

FACTS???? ACTUAL DATA???? REAL HARD NUMBER STUFF???? You must be dreaming!!!!!

Actually there are some facts related to Global Warming; it is a fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased, it is a fact that spring time plant growth is earlier in the year in some locations, it is a fact that glaciers in many locations have receded. It would be possible to go on for a long list.

Is it a fact that worldwide deforestation exceeds re-forestation? That is a good question but I think it would be impossible to verify it. Anyway it is irrelevant to the aspect of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels which are the important ones; putting all the forests back would not compensate for very much of the accummulated fossil fuel CO2 and it would be a one shot deal. Forests do not continuously accummulate Carbon: A growing tree is accummulating Carbon and removing CO2 from the atmosphere; a decaying tree is returning the Carbon back to the atmosphere as CO2. A mature forest is comprised of trees at all stages of the growth and decay cycle so it is nuetral overall. There is a lot of puffery and nonsense spouted about sequestering Carbon and suggesting it can be done in green plants is simply idiotic; as I point out you have to stop then rotting away forever.

My approach is to use a bit of common sense and knowledge to evaluate whether something could or should be done and whether it will have any useful effect.

What ways are proposed to combat global warming? Carbon Credits or a Carbon tax are two.

Carbon Credits are a farce. These are like the Indulgences sold by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages; wealthy folk who had sinned all their life could make a payment to the Church to guarantee entry to Heaven. They bought absolution for their sins; now you can buy absolution for contributing to CO2 emissions. Does it reduce the emissions? No, your money goes to making somebody or some company wealthy.

Carbon taxes as they are proposed in some cases are also a farce. A significant tax is to be put on fossil fuels but at the same time other taxes will be reduced; the intent being to make the Carbon tax revenue neutral. So now a gallon of gas will cost me five dollars but my monthly tax bill has declined by a few hundred dollars so I can afford to keep driving my gas guzzler.

And measures that are not a farce, if they are put in place, i.e. if they do indeed significantly reduce fossil fuel use will knock individual country economies or the world economy into a tailspin. Earlier I put in a link to an analysis I had posted in a different thread. I run a business, I do know what I am talking about, the only way my business can use significantly less energy is to make less product. In other words, lay off employees, buy less material, pay less in taxes while making less income. Who wants to volunteer to join me in committing business suicide? And before anyone tries to argue I could improve efficiencies I will point out that over the past five years I have improved efficiency enough that I absorbed a 60% decline in the value of the currency of my major export customer; I have SFA efficiency improvment left.

Do I have a solution for Global Warming? No, I don't think there is a solution I also don't think that most of the horrendous scenarios that are postulated will occur. Predicting more violent storms or wildly varying weather patterns arising from a 1 or 2 degree increase is silly. Extrapolate backwards through a similar decrease in temperatures; was weather and were storms much more predictable and milder? Of course not.

And this is why I think Lomborg is about the only one talking sense; the only practical approach is to adapt to Climate Change because any effort to significantly combat it will cause enormous economic and social upheaval in the short, medium and long term and will probably do nothing useful. Even the IPCC gurus admit that no matter what measures are put in place the changes predicted for the next fifty years will take place. So the World would be face with relocating millions of people while in the middle of economic and social upheaval. I think it is a much better approach to face up to the fact that relocation is going to occur, but it will not be overnight it will be spread over decades. And it will be done in a stable society.

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Geof xyzdonna you did not actually address any of the points I made, just talked around them. What is your confluence of events? How will we feel pain as people move inland and abandon islands this is going to be spread over a long time scale. But more important can anything be done to prevent it? BTW I do know the dogma that the Optimum only affected the Northern Hemisphere. It used to be dogma that the major Ice Ages only affected the Northern regions until clear evidence was found in Southern and Tropical glaciers.

Hi Geof,
Sorry, didn't mean to be equivocal. Let's take it from the top. I pointed out that the Optimum perhaps wasn't as pervasive as what we're facing now. You summarily dismissed this. You may be right. Perhaps the Optimum was the genesis of the biblical floods, (pardon the pun) who knows. Let's conjecture on and assume you're right. What I meant by a confluence of events was a large increase in global population in conjunction with man made global warming. I think that the increase in population is what is causing global warming. I think that this may be an even greater problem than the global warming. You pointed out that because CO2 is going up, that didn't necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship with global warming. Kind of like the point I made about the post hoc fallacy, just because one event precedes another doesn't necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship. Maybe, in this case I think it does. What happened 6,000 years ago? Maybe a lot of volcaneos went off at once and spewed a lot of stuff, maybe changes in the earth's orbit, something happened. Something else is happening now and it's probably man made. The question becomes how far will it go. Will we totally melt the polar ice caps and have to deal with the sea level rise that would portend. It may make those 6 to 8 degrees that you allude to look like a cold front. We need to consider what we are doing to the planet with rationality and science. Then take action if it looks like it's going past the tipping point. We may be taking our world way past what happened 6,000 years ago.
Donna

[307startup]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Hi Geof, Sorry, didn't mean to be equivocal. Let's take it from the top. I pointed out that the Optimum perhaps wasn't as pervasive as what we're facing now. You summarily dismissed this. You may be right. Perhaps the Optimum was the genesis of the biblical floods, (pardon the pun) who knows. Let's conjecture on and assume you're right. What I meant by a confluence of events was a large increase in global population in conjunction with man made global warming. I think that the increase in population is what is causing global warming. I think that this may be an even greater problem than the global warming. You pointed out that because CO2 is going up, that didn't necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship with global warming. Kind of like the point I made about the post hoc fallacy, just because one event precedes another doesn't necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship. Maybe, in this case I think it does. What happened 6,000 years ago? Maybe a lot of volcaneos went off at once and spewed a lot of stuff, maybe changes in the earth's orbit, something happened. Something else is happening now and it's probably man made. The question becomes how far will it go. Will we totally melt the polar ice caps and have to deal with the sea level rise that would portend. It may make those 6 to 8 degrees that you allude to look like a cold front. We need to consider what we are doing to the planet with rationality and science. Then take action if it looks like it's going past the tipping point. We may be taking our world way past what happened 6,000 years ago. Donna

xyzDonna...

Not to attack you from two fronts....but....

If we, humans, are these horrible parasites slowly killing our host, Earth...then how do you explain not one, but several meteorite impacts throughout history (The one in Siberia (Tanguskie?), the one that supposedly ended or ushered the end of the dinosaurs reign, the one in Mauritania, the one in the Nazca Plains in Central America...) that would have had an impact considerably greater than any nuclear blast...and surely contributed to global weather patterns (When Mt. St. Helens exploded, its ash traveled as far away as Italy on the air currents and released millions of tons of toxic gases...and had an adverse effect on the following winter) but miraculously, Earth survived those catastrophic bombardments, but now, little puny man, with his SUV is killing the earth? Give me a break. Please.
ADAPT or DIE. That is how man has managed to go from hairless ape to top of the foodchain. Harsh as it sounds, adapting is better from an EVOLUTIONARY standpoint than any technological solution. We are after all, organic, biologic creations. We must evolve or go extinct. Technology is not our savior, it is our creation. I will not bow to any virtual "Jesus" that the NEO-GREENIES parade about as the way to salvation...but I just may pass on stronger genes to my children that will keep them alive if this impending BBQ you call GW/CC is indeed the new Armageddon. I hope that you have strong genes to pass on to your children as well. I damn sure don't want my children having machines be their protectors. I want my children to be strong enough to deal with adversity. Not coddled in some bubble-wrapped air-conditioned techno nanny cubicle.

[Geof]

Actually the Biblical Flood, and other flood legends, are most likely related to the refilling of the Black Sea from the Mediterranean some 8000 or so years ago. The Climatic Optimum was a solar orbit phenomenon being one of the Milankovich cycles.

Regarding taking action before going past a tipping point. What action do you propose? Do you have some magic way to cut CO2 emissions by 50% in the next twenty years without bringing much of the World's economy to a crashing halt?