global warming gets a timeline

[koboshi]

Greenland ice cap 'doomed to meltdown'

Jonathan Gregory, a climatologist at the University of Reading, UK, says global warming could start runaway melting on Greenland within 50 years, and it will "probably be irreversible this side of a new ice age". The only good news is that it a total meltdown is likely to take at least 1000 years.

now we have 50 years to fix this shit, set your doomsday clocks.

[Nosartur]

I thought when this happend it was supposed to plunge the Northern Hemisphere and more specifically Europe into a mini Ice Age.  This has to do with the huge drop in salinity of the waters of the Gulf Stream that shut down the convection of warm tropical waters  to Ireland, Scotland, England and most of the rest of the Northern parts of Europe.

[UD_Delt]

Along the same topic here's an interesting take from http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584-1,00.html">Forbes.

Sounds like it would make for a good movie...

[SirBruce]

It already is:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/dayaftertomorrow/

Bruce

[Speedy Cerviche]

That's what I've heard also Nosartur. Our planet's climate is so complicated though that we barely understand many parts of it, so it's really difficult to know what exactly will happen.

Europe losing the gulf stream and experiencing the temperatures we have every year here in Canada probably isn't as the world coastlines being flooded.

[Nosartur]

The interveiw I remember seeing with the guy that came up with the theory about the Gulf Stream was not talking about Canadian style winters in Europe, which by the way they used to have up until about the 1500-1600's (IIRC), but full glaciation of much of England, Ireland, and Scandanavia.  About the cold winters that Europe used to have during the Dark Ages and up through the Middle Middle Ages it wasn't uncommon for the Thames to completely freeze over.  The ferrymen would then utilize sleighs to cross instead of there boats.

[Speedy Cerviche]

We have much bigger rivers than the Thames freezing over now (the St. Laurent for example). But, considering Britain is on the same latitude as James Bay, it could indeed get pretty damn cold there if they lost the Gulf Stream.

[Alluvian]

set your doomsday clocks

A little melodramatic aren't we?  For every expert that predicts one thing you can find an expert that says the fucking opposite.  And 10 years later they will flip-flop.  The problem is earths weather system is WAY THE FUCK too complicated for anyone on on this earth other than God himself to comprehend at this point.  And NO, computer models are nowhere fucking near accurate.

These fucks can't even say if it will rain or not this weekend, and you believe they know the cumulative effects of every single butterfly effect like storm from now until 1000 years in the future?  Yeah right.  I have some florida swampland to sell as well.

Clean up the environment.  That is good stuff.  But do it for real reasons, not this greenhouse effect, the results of which are way too hard to predict.  You can keep your eco-religion.

Too bad my old HD is dead.  I used to have a nice story cached on there with four different 'experts' saying exactly opposite things.  One even said the greenhouse effect would have longterm POSITIVE climate changes.  Unfortuantely that and the memory of the details are long gone.

Green Peace is a political force now, and little more.  They have their own motives that have drifted away from the environment first.  Meh, that sounds like conspiracy BS.  I would not say that in a second, but people are people, and movements are made of people and people are fucking broken.  BAH.

[daveNYC]

I prefer to go with the theory that the climate seems to be working OK the way it is, so changing it (or allowing it to be change) would be a bad thing.  That's just me though.

[koboshi]

I don't think that this study was done with the Undersea A.C. in mind, if it was they wouldn't have measured the results in ocean levels.  I have seen much on the phenomena of the deep sea currents and it has a lot of merit IMO.  The point of my clock quip was simply to point out that although many would pass off the response to geological changes to the next generation it seems to be a growing opinion that we are closer to said changes then the procrastinators would have you believe.

[SirBruce]

I am certainly convinced that human activity has contributed to global warming.  However,
[list=1]
[*]I remain unconvinced that contribution has been overly large compared to other "natural" factors.
[*]I remain unconvinced that global warming will be as severe as most are predicting, because I think the models are not sufficiently balanced and complex.
[*]In any case, I remain unconvinced that the negatives of global warming outweigh the POSITIVES of global warming, which are rarely accounted for in studies.
[*]Even if global warming is a net negative after comparing the above, I remain unconvinced that such negatives are severe enough to warrant substantial changes in things like energy production, automobile usage, etc.
[/list:o]
Bruce

[Anonymous]

Global warming documentary!

See a preview of it here!

[Snowspinner]

Soul... not only has that already been posted in this thread, but it was posted by Bruce. =/

[Mesozoic]

[*]I remain unconvinced that contribution has been overly large compared to other "natural" factors.
[*]I remain unconvinced that global warming will be as severe as most are predicting, because I think the models are not sufficiently balanced and complex.
[*]In any case, I remain unconvinced that the negatives of global warming outweigh the POSITIVES of global warming, which are rarely accounted for in studies.
[*]Even if global warming is a net negative after comparing the above, I remain unconvinced that such negatives are severe enough to warrant substantial changes in things like energy production, automobile usage, etc.
[/list:u]
Bruce

The point is that the Earth is a hideously complex organism that is not fully understood.  Nonetheless, our survival depends on the maintenance of certain parameters within certain ranges.  As science advances, we might reach a point where we are actually able to determine the exact effects of global warming, and come to an intelligent decision as to whether or not it is OK or even needed.  But we're not there yet, and predicating our actions on our current satisfaction with the existing data ("I remain unconvinced") is a mistake.  

Its enough to simply know that there is a threat of serious injury.

[SirBruce]

But there's always a threat of serious injury.  NOT spewing carbon dioxide into the air might be a threat to the planet... as you point out, we just don't know.

However, I think humanity is a lot tougher than you imply.  I don't think a 10 degree average swing either way is going to kill all of us.

Bruce

[Mesozoic]

But there's always a threat of serious injury.  NOT spewing carbon dioxide into the air might be a threat to the planet... as you point out, we just don't know.

However, I think humanity is a lot tougher than you imply.  I don't think a 10 degree average swing either way is going to kill all of us.

Bruce

But spewing CO2 into the sky is an active step that changes the environment in an unpredictable way.  How is that logically equivalent to, say, "letting the Earth's natural processes determine the appropriate levels of CO2"?  

You're making the logical error of assuming that because we don't know exactly what will happen, then anything is possible.  But the machine seems to have run pretty well for millions of years.  Theres no reason think that we all need to spray paint into the sky right now to save it.  

And something does not need to "kill all of us" in order to reduce quality of life in signifcant ways.  The environment is not a simple lever that can either be set to "Fine" or "Fucked."  A 10-degree shift in either direction could cause massive problems.

Again, our collective ignorance is not a license to do whatever we want.  Conventional wisdom tells you not to fuck with things you don't understand and which seem to be working.  Especially when its been working so well for so long, and when the stakes are so high.

[Anonymous]

Soul... not only has that already been posted in this thread, but it was posted by Bruce. =/

You think I bother reading Bruce's posts?!

[Snowspinner]

Soul... not only has that already been posted in this thread, but it was posted by Bruce. =/

You think I bother reading Bruce's posts?!

How else are you going to know when you can ban him?

[Anonymous]

Soul... not only has that already been posted in this thread, but it was posted by Bruce. =/

You think I bother reading Bruce's posts?!

How else are you going to know when you can ban him?

I knew to ban him before the forums went live.  He's being given a chance though.  Not sure why.  *shrugs*

I figure when his behavior gets outrageous again, someone will PM me.  Until then, I can blissfully ignore him.  Ahhh.  Bliss.

[El Gallo]

These fucks can't even say if it will rain or not this weekend, and you believe they know the cumulative effects of every single butterfly effect like storm from now until 1000 years in the future?

I would not bet you a dollar that I knew whether the stock market would be up or down 20 days from now.  I would bet both of my testicles that it will be up 20 years from now.  Sometimes, long term trends are much easier to discern than short terms ones.

[Mesozoic]

These fucks can't even say if it will rain or not this weekend, and you believe they know the cumulative effects of every single butterfly effect like storm from now until 1000 years in the future?

I missed this gem.  Did you think that this prediction came from your local weatherman?  Did you think that predicting rain in the next X days has something to do with the effect of increased CO2 emissions and deforestation on long-term temperature patterns?  

Do you not believe in the hole in the ozone layer?  Maybe its a GreenPeace conspiracy.  Or do you believe that this hole will have no effect?

Idiot.

[Anonymous]

Even with all my enviro touchy feely ways, I feel the correct answer is, "We don't know."

Still, if/when NYC is under 8 feet of water, it's a little late to try to avoid that consequence.  Changes in the weather could create problems, such as the US breadbowl drying up.  Or becoming too wet for grain.  We don't know.  And it's uncertain whether what effects humanity on ozone are causing the new trends, or whether the trends were already present, and we are simply "enhancing" them.

At any rate, I'm glad I live about 2000 feet above sea level.  Not likely I'll get flooded.

[Alluvian]

I prefer to go with the theory that the climate seems to be working OK the way it is, so changing it (or allowing it to be change) would be a bad thing. That's just me though.

Worked well for those imaginary past martians.  Letting the earth run it's own course could spell doom to us all.  Changing the course of the earth's climate could spell doom to us all.  I fail to see how one is better or worse than the other.

My comment about weathermen was that weathermen don't actually DO shit.  They just take what the weather modeling programs spit out and report them.  Our weather modeling programs are just above useless.  We have psychics with better track records.

Sure CO2 is going up.  Sure the ozone has holes (I have actually seen some articles questioning this as well, that holes in the ozone are not a rare thing in planetary history and there is no evidence we actually caused them).  What the real effect of this will be 20-100 years from now is just bullshit science though.

[eldaec]

Spewing uncontrolled levels of CO2 and other nasties into the atomsphere probably isn't, you know, helping.

But at the same time, haven't there been about a million of these doomsday timelines?

And is it just me, or does every announcement of an 'accurately modeled date' seem to get further and further away?

EDIT: Also, if I were looking for the worlds top experts on anything scientific, I'm not sure the University of Reading would be my first stop.

[Snowspinner]

Actually, the University of Reading is one of the best schools in the UK for environmental sciences.

[SirBruce]

But spewing CO2 into the sky is an active step that changes the environment in an unpredictable way.  How is that logically equivalent to, say, "letting the Earth's natural processes determine the appropriate levels of CO2"?  

Just because something is active doesn't mean it must be held to a higher standard.  PASSIVE steps change the environment in unpredictable ways as well.  And "appropriate" should not be misunderstood to the point of demagougery.  Man and other species have always changed their environment... man is just doing so now on a larger scale than before.

You're making the logical error of assuming that because we don't know exactly what will happen, then anything is possible.  But the machine seems to have run pretty well for millions of years.  Theres no reason think that we all need to spray paint into the sky right now to save it.

No, I'm not making that assumption at all.  I don't think anything is possible.  But I do know what we are doing has a KNOWN benefit, and until you can show the currently UNKNOWN drawbacks outweigh those, and accounting for the known drawbacks and unknown benefits as well, there's no reason to alter one's behaviour.
   
And the fact that the "machine" seems to have run pretty well for millions of years is irrelevant... by that logic, why have man at all?  Earth ran fine without us.

And something does not need to "kill all of us" in order to reduce quality of life in signifcant ways.  The environment is not a simple lever that can either be set to "Fine" or "Fucked."  A 10-degree shift in either direction could cause massive problems.

I didn't say it was.  I said we don't know what is happening, we don't know if what might happen is good or bad, and I said even in the worst case(s), we aren't fucked.  So, sure, there might be massive problems.  So what?  Every other man on the planet is a "massive problem" to another man.  We do not live our lives trying to avoid all problems.  We live our lives by doing what is morally right and avoiding what is morally wrong and whatever problems happen because of that, well, you just fucking deal with it.  You examine it, you evaluate it, and maybe you implement voluntary measures to address it... but you don't force a species-wide change based on your early understanding of a complex phenomenon.

Again, our collective ignorance is not a license to do whatever we want.

Oh yes, that's EXACTLY what it is.  Just as free speech protects the speech we DON'T like, so to does freedom of action protect the actions we DON'T know are morally wrong.  Otherwise, how could anyone ever do anything?  None of us are omniscient.  You!  Mesozoic!  Stop posting now and kill yourself!  Your unknown ignorance doesn't allow you to see that's actually best for the rest of us!

Conventional wisdom tells you not to fuck with things you don't understand and which seem to be working.  Especially when its been working so well for so long, and when the stakes are so high.

Didn't they make those same arguments against abolition, women's rights, democracy, and virtually every other point of human progress?

This is not meant as a personal attack, but your rhetoric is QUITE similar to those far-left Earth-firsters who think the pre-human order of nature is "right" and thus any deviation from that is "wrong."  I reject this wholly and completely.  Man WILL change his environment, sometimes for the worse, attempting to improve his life.  And sometimes, he'll wind up with something BETTER than what nature gave him... things like internal medicine, electrification, and indoor plumbing.

Bruce

[Tebonas]

So much stupidity it physically hurts. Ow!

The point is "Something will happen if we mess around with our climate".

For sane persons "I don't know what happens when I muck around with this, and it will likely be irreversible" translates to "I better not muck around with this".

For clinically insane it seems to translate to "Hey, I don't know what happens, so its my god given right to try to see what happens. Maybe it turns out for the better. "

[Mesozoic]

Suffice to say that Bruce and I have different levels of comfort with risk-taking.  I guess Bruce can take comfort in the fact that in 50 years it will really be our childrens' and grndchildrens' problem, and if they buy into the modern conveniences the same way we have, we can blame them too.

It'll be fun!

[SirBruce]

So much stupidity it physically hurts. Ow!

The point is "Something will happen if we mess around with our climate".

For sane persons "I don't know what happens when I muck around with this, and it will likely be irreversible" translates to "I better not muck around with this".

Something will happen if you breath.  Something will happen if you have sex.  Something will happen if your have children.  Something will happen if you farm.  Something will happen if you get up in the morning.

It's not sane to not do any of those things because SOMETHING will happen.

For clinically insane it seems to translate to "Hey, I don't know what happens, so its my god given right to try to see what happens. Maybe it turns out for the better. "

No, insanity is what you are showing - NOT doing something because of something that MIGHT happen, but you aren't sure what.

Samity is thought and action based on what you DO know, based on what you think WILL happen using evidence and logic and the scientific method.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

Suffice to say that Bruce and I have different levels of comfort with risk-taking.  I guess Bruce can take comfort in the fact that in 50 years it will really be our childrens' and grndchildrens' problem, and if they buy into the modern conveniences the same way we have, we can blame them too.

It'll be fun!

Actually, I plan to be here in 50 years, and in another 50 after that.  So whatever happens, I'll be here, fighting alongside the rest of humanity to better our world within the boundaries of morality and freedom.

Bruce

[El Gallo]

Please Bruce.  Please go play Russian Roulette with 5 chambers loaded about 300 times in a row.  I'll give you $100k if you survive.  After all, it would be irrational for you not to do it, because you only MIGHT die, but you might not die, in which case you'd have a nice bit of extra cash.  In fact, according to your own definition of insanity, you would be insane not to take me up on that offer.

[Mesozoic]

Bruce, talk about the subject of CO2 emissions.  Your analogies are a slight of hand.

So far you've come to the conclusion that if you breathe something will happen, therefore we can continue to spew CO2 into the sky while deforestation occurs on a global level, thus decreasing the ability of the planet to absorb CO2.   And none of this will have any negative affect on the environment until you are personally convinced of it.

[SirBruce]

Please Bruce.  Please go play Russian Roulette with 5 chambers loaded about 300 times in a row.  I'll give you $100k if you survive.  After all, it would be irrational for you not to do it, because you only MIGHT die, but you might not die, in which case you'd have a nice bit of extra cash.  In fact, according to your own definition of insanity, you would be insane not to take me up on that offer.

The problem with your attempt at analogy is the lack of application of logic.  Recall that I said we had to make choices based upon what we do know, not what we don't.

Your analogy presumes that global warming is like the bullets in the gun, and that the chances of a bad outcome are quite high, and that the severity of that outcome is quite large (death).  This is simply not supported by the scientific evidence and economic evidence for global warming.  Not only do we not know how many chambers are loaded (that is, the chance of a bad outcome), we also don't know if they are filled with bullets (bad) or whipped cream (yum!).

Bruce

[SirBruce]

Bruce, talk about the subject of CO2 emissions.  Your analogies are a slight of hand.

So far you've come to the conclusion that if you breathe something will happen, therefore we can continue to spew CO2 into the sky while deforestation occurs on a global level, thus decreasing the ability of the planet to absorb CO2.   And none of this will have any negative affect on the environment until you are personally convinced of it.

No, I've come to the conclusion that... well, see my previous post, where I outlined all 4 of the points, none of which say the things you said.

Human activity in general MAY be having a negative impact on the enviroment.  We do not know if it is, nor do we know how severe, nor have we calculated whether the benefits outweigh the positives.

When the last ice age was ending, man was still around.  If he had been sufficiently advanced intellectually, do you believe he should have tried to stop the sudden "global warming" trend?  The trend which was a boon for humanity, especially in food production?

What about the Little Ice Age (1715 to 1845)?  Should we have stopped burning coal when things started warming up in the 1800s?  Or should we have burned more coal and oil in the 1700s when it started?  When is the "natural" trend "good" and when is what "humans" do "bad"?  Or is any change to global average temperature by humans in either direction automatically bad?  Can nature itself do no wrong?  What if nature decides to make humanity extinct?

The migration of humans out of Africa surely had a drastic effect on the enviornment and species throughout the world.  Shall we all go back to the jungle where we were born, and stop changing the word around us?

Bruce

[Mesozoic]

You're not really following the argument at all.  You're still using ignorance as a license to alter the environment in unknown ways.    Scientific studies like the one linked above indicate that you are damaging the envionment.  At the very least, you are changing it.  And when someone asks if this alteration is for better or for worse, you say "I don't really understand this environment thing.  It might hurt or help."