Spring and Climate Change

[CommRLock78]

Yes, if humans don't make some drastic changes (much more drastic than the 'band-aid' changes promoted at the link above) pretty darn soon, we just might be looking at the literal end of all life on Earth, and the transformation of this beautiful big blue marble into a literal hell, just like Venus.

Well said, buddy, well said. There is much more at stake than mammals... even at best case scenario, we stand to throw evolution back a few billion years.

[Diziet Sma]

Here's the plain, unvarnished facts on where we currently stand..

Climate-change summary and update - updated regularly, last updated 27 April 2013.

[CommRLock78]

Here's the plain, unvarnished facts on where we currently stand..

Climate-change summary and update - updated regularly, last updated 27 April 2013.

Cool - thanks for the link
Here's another:
http://www.savoryinstitute.com/

[Diziet Sma]

You may not be thanking me after you've read it, followed the links and digested the information..

<wonders if this discussion should be split into a new thread>

[Diziet Sma]

Here's another:
http://www.savoryinstitute.com/

Ah yes.. I've run across that before.. I'm not going to even go into all the problems with his idea.. to see it totally shredded, read this.

[CommRLock78]

Here's another:
http://www.savoryinstitute.com/

Ah yes.. I've run across that before.. I'm not going to even go into all the problems with his idea.. to see it totally shredded, read this.

Yeah, there are certainly be problems with the concept, but I'm not convinced it's all bullshit. Many of the grasslands around the world had indigenous grazers on them before we removed them - that element should be replaced, somehow. Whether his plan is the "only way" I think is another matter altogether, however . There is more than one way to 'skin the cat', and I think a big part of the solution is using nature's methods - like organic gardening/farming - not working against them. So yeah, his ideas are probably off a bit, but not completely

[Selezen]

It was noted on the news today that the hole in the ozone layer is currently smaller than it has been since it was originally measured way back when.

Does that mean that the global environmental efforts have succeeded? If you say "yes" or "no" then you might be right. The truth is, no-one knows what effects we are having on the globe. Some say that everything about climate change is just the planet changing slightly or moving a little on its axis.

As regards humans causing extinction, I fully agree with that. Humans are parasites - we consume resources and give nothing back to the world in exchange. We even process away our waste, which would be a valuable source of fertiliser (but that is apparently changing). We're starting to go some way to balancing that situation, but not far enough. The "green" drive is hypocritical at best. Politicians and world leaders promote cleaner energy and cutting down emissions and use of cars, but without fail ALL of them continue to fly here there and everywhere, and promote a trade model that makes extensive use of oil (for ships and freight planes) and consumable energy (refrigeration for imported goods) on a large scale. All in the name of, you guessed it, money.

Many [weasel words][/size] say [citation needed] that the only reason we haven't banned petrol and diesel cars is that the tax the government receives for the trade in oil is FAR too great to lose, and that if combustion engines were scrapped the country would fall into a recession and our economy would plummet, and the countries that rely on the oil trade would go to war with everyone for natural resources. Doh.

Anyway, my opinion is "when the avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote". Now that we're noticing global problems (like ice caps melting and so on) it's too late to do anything about it. Now there are only consequences. I like that the news has finally picked up on the increased amount of geological instabilities and odd weather patterns that have been going on for the last few years - I've been saying for about two years now that it's all linked to changes in the planet. Whether it's all our fault is doubtful though. I think the planet is moving through some serious gravitational stresses out there in space, maybe from the sun or some sort of weird space thing (see how technical I am), but something that is part of the planet's natural existence. It's quite arrogant for humanity to believe that we're to blame for EVERYTHING that's going on. The mountains don't even notice us, so why would the entire planet?

[Eric Walch]

I tell you, it's a miracle the ecosystem managed to survive for all those billions of years without us around to manage it properly.

Hmm. the first land herbivores only appeared 0.4 billion years ago. So it could not been billions as our current ecosystem with mammals must be younger as 0.05 billion years.

The whole greenhouse gasses is also not a real problem for our globe. It is only a problem for humanity. We humans are not prepared to give up our current coastal areas and move to higher regions. Birds would be more flexible in this. And more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere could mean more food production. Probably, the current desserts will grow, but on the other hand will a new ecosystem form itself on Antarctica.
The only problem in forming new ecosystems with increased amounts of greenhouse gasses are the humans. If you kill that species, the world will develop without further problems. And what is the problem of sacrificing one species to safe hundreds other species.

[Diziet Sma]

It was noted on the news today that the hole in the ozone layer is currently smaller than it has been since it was originally measured way back when.

This is a separate issue.. the ozone layer only affects how much UV light reaches the Earth's surface. UV has very little affect on global warming. The reduction in size of the hole is mostly due to the fact that use of the chlorofluorocarbons that damage the ozone layer has been significantly reduced.

Whether it's all our fault is doubtful though. I think the planet is moving through some serious gravitational stresses out there in space, maybe from the sun or some sort of weird space thing (see how technical I am), but something that is part of the planet's natural existence. It's quite arrogant for humanity to believe that we're to blame for EVERYTHING that's going on. The mountains don't even notice us, so why would the entire planet?

Were it not for a couple of important details, I might be inclined to agree..

However:

a) Solar energy levels have not increased in the last 50 years.

b) Check this article out...

"The amazing image of the day here is is Figure S3 from the supplementary material of Marcott et al, A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, in the current issue of Science. They combined 73 proxy records of temperature from around the globe - mainly from marine sediments - and used a Monte Carlo analysis to estimate the uncertainties. The result is the above picture of the entire Holocene - the period in which agriculture and civilization have arisen on this planet for the first time - together with the spike of the Anthropocene on the right - the period of major human impact on the climate."

Note the uptick at the far right.. then note that it precisely aligns with both the use of hydrocarbons and the human population explosion. It's pretty hard to ascribe that to anything except us humans. The full report can be found here.

[Diziet Sma]

The whole greenhouse gasses is also not a real problem for our globe. It is only a problem for humanity. We humans are not prepared to give up our current coastal areas and move to higher regions. Birds would be more flexible in this. And more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere could mean more food production. Probably, the current desserts will grow, but on the other hand will a new ecosystem form itself on Antarctica.
The only problem in forming new ecosystems with increased amounts of greenhouse gasses are the humans. If you kill that species, the world will develop without further problems. And what is the problem of sacrificing one species to safe hundreds other species.

I suggest you properly read the "Climate-change summary and update" I linked to.. we may be looking at the extinction of all life on Earth within a few decades.

[Selezen]

we may be looking at the extinction of all life on Earth within a few decades.

As long as Elite IV's out by then I don't care.

Seriously though, all that research is based on hypothesis and data that is being biased by the opinions of those who are looking at it. One of my big sociological bugbears is that scientists (and people in general) are good at making up theories that fit whatever charts and tables their studies come up with. It possible to hypothesise that the migration patterns of Mongolian people under six feet in height are having an impact on the gross GDP of the Shetland Islands if one really wanted to.

Global change takes thousands and thousands of years to enact. Is it realistic to think that humanity has affected the globe in as drastic a way as to be killing us all in mere decades due to the actions of only a century?

I'm not disputing that the world may end in decades, what I'm saying is that our part in it is relatively small. I think the world is reacting like any organism that's been infected would.

[Diziet Sma]

Some more good news, from yesterday..

The UN's climate chief called for urgency Monday as she opened a new round of global talks amid warnings that Earth-warming carbon dioxide levels were approaching a symbolic threshold never seen in human history.

Data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii have shown the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to be at 399.72 parts per million (ppm), Christiana Figueres told climate negotiators in Bonn.

"We are just about to cross the 400 ppm threshold," she said in a prepared speech that stressed "a heightened sense of urgency".

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which informs policy makers on the science of global warming, has said the atmospheric CO2 level must be limited to 400 ppm for Earth's average temperature rise to be contained at between two and 2.4 degrees Celsius (3.6 and 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit).

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-climate-ch ... y-co2.html

Given that there's a 20 year lag between pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and seeing the effects, at this point, 2° C is baked into the cake. And, as it happens, 2° C is when the positive-feedback effects really start to kick in. Even if we totally cease all CO2 emissions right now, it may be too late to prevent a runaway.

[cim]

Global change takes thousands and thousands of years to enact. Is it realistic to think that humanity has affected the globe in as drastic a way as to be killing us all in mere decades due to the actions of only a century?

We still have enough fission weapons stockpiled, even after some partial disarmament after the Cold War, to take the entire surface layer off the planet in hours.

Two centuries is a long time by comparison, so yes, probably well within current technology.

it may be too late to prevent a runaway.

Well, with conventional methods. At some point between now and extinction we'll probably go for experimental geoengineering on the grounds that it can't possibly make things significantly worse - intentionally set off a supervolcano, or something.

[Diziet Sma]

At some point between now and extinction we'll probably go for experimental geoengineering on the grounds that it can't possibly make things significantly worse - intentionally set off a supervolcano, or something.

Interestingly enough, I was just reading someone earlier today who said much the same thing..

We have witnessed over just the last three years, hypothetical Abrupt Climate Change become empirical, where the evidence is so overwhelming, it barely has anything to do with actual observable science anymore, and has everything to do with human psychology, or rather, our shared pathology in the hopium of indefinite growth and progress. And this is why the whole concept of climate change will be, very soon, completely refashioned in context to geo-engineering, if for no other reason, than it sadly now has both the logical and moral high ground compared to doing nothing. Amazing!

[Eric Walch]

I suggest you properly read the "Climate-change summary and update" I linked to.. we may be looking at the extinction of all life on Earth within a few decades.

I don't see anything in that link that supports your claim. The only 'evidence' in that article is claiming that 'other people say'.

It keeps speaking about 400 ppm CO2 as a safe limit above no live could exist. But, keep in mind that at the end of the Jurassic period, the CO2 levels were around the 2000 ppm and we all know there was live in that period. See next graph:



From: Carboniferous climate

So I keep my opinion that climate change will be bad for the human species, but not for life in general.