Simple truths and global warming
Don Quixote on Jul 09 2008 at 7:17 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
Danny L. sent me a link to a fine discussion at Flopping Aces of what amount to attempts to censor those who disagree that human caused global warming is a problem. Just an hour earlier, I had read a story from the front page of my local paper of efforts by Dick Cheney to censor those who agree that humans cause global warming. Yesterday, I read an article that said that 90% of the world’s glaciers are shrinking.
If ever there were an issue that is fact-intensive, amenable to tests of truth, and critical not to politicize it is global warming. All of the basic issues are pure issues of fact. Either the ozone layer is shrinking or it is not. Either the earth is warming or it is not. Either greenhouse gas levels are rising or they are not. Either glaciers are shrinking or they are not. Either sea levels are rising or they are not.
If these things are not happening, then there is no problem and we can all relax. If these things are happening (and it certainly appears they are), it becomes critical to determine (as a factual matter) whether the changes are part of normal cycles or part of a long-term change in climate. If they are part of normal cycles, we should monitor them closely, but we can probably relax a bit. If we can’t determine whether they are part of normal cycles, or if we determine that they are part of a long-term change in climate, we need to figure out what to do about it.
Of course, to figure out what to do about it, it would help to understand what is causing it, but that is not absolutely necessary. To illustrate this, let’s say we determine that global warming is continuing and it threatens to flood out coastal communities and even threatens to cause the Earth to end up as a second Venus. Let’s assume further that the problem is an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We can fix the problem by reducing the sources of the greenhouse gases, if we can determine what those sources are. Or, we can develop technologies to remove greenhouses gases from the atmosphere. This would remedy the problem, no matter what its source.
We should not surpress evidence, inhibit the free exchange of information and opinions, or otherwise discourage the search for the truth. We should not leap to conclusions, either. We should not act immediately, without knowing what actions are necessary or helpful. On the other hand, we should not bury our heads in the sand and do nothing. It does appear that greenhouse gases are increasing, that glaciers are shrinking and that temperatures are rising. The ultimate stakes are far too important for us to play either the Luddite or the ostrich.
What facts can anyone share that would shed light on the problem? And how can we insure that this problem is taken seriously and not politicized to death?
Email This Post To A Friend
38 Responses to “Simple truths and global warming”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Most people tend to think in a straightforward cause and effect manner. This is not how complex systems work. We have all seen the presentation of CO2 increases and Temp increases. This leads to the immediate conclusion that they are immutably and closely linked.
But, this is not how a complex system works. It is entirely possible for an increase in atmospheric CO2 causing an initial rise in temperature followed by a change in a different variable that results in lowering temperatures. The simple fact is we do not know how all these variables interact.
For the sake of the argument let’s assume that human CO2 production warms the planet. The first requirement is to show how that causes harm. It is a fact that the planet has experienced both heating and cooling at least one order of magnitude over the current fluctuations, and life flourished. Extinctions don’t cut the mustard since the planet is extremely efficient at making species extinct.
Let’s assume the warming is detrimental then the argument downselects to what to do about it. The answer is given as cut emissions of CO2. I have no intrinsic problems with that but I do have one question.
Do the proposals actually do that or is it an excuse for something else?
I wonder why glaciers on Mount Shasta are growing? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378144,00.html There’s definitely a lot of CO2 in California.
Allen, I agree about complex systems being difficult, which is why I allow the possibility that this is a normal cycle. Still, what if the normal cycle results in raising sea level sufficiently to do terrific damage to port cities world-wide? From the earth’s standpoint, everything is fine. But the cost to humans could nevertheless be devastating. We should put ourselves in a position to control the earth’s atmosphere, if need be, rather than being controlled by it.
Ms. HH, The article I read said that it’s because climate changes have caused more precipitation in the area, which falls mainly as snow which eventually turns to ice and gets added to the glaciers. Sounds reasonable to me. There’s a lot of “hot air” in California, too!
DQ,
Are you sure you want to advocate “control of the Earth’s atmosphere”?
The biggest problem with the global warming controversy is that we are completely piss-poor at evaluating the weather a week from now. Our climate models are a complete joke, and global warming control advocates treat those same ridiculous models as if they were an inerrant Bible.
I am reminded of 18th Century physicians who bled people to cure just about any ailment. If you dared to challenge their pure, God-like wisdom, they huffed in outrage and departed.
“Control of the atmosphere” means control of the weather, doesn’t it? Are you going to be able to control it to the point where everyone somehow manages to get gentle spring-like rains for two hours at night, three times per week? Let that first doozy of a controlled storm rage up and spawn a few tornadoes, and you are looking at incredible lawsuits. Unless the Big Government is the one controlling the atmosphere… and is immune to lawsuits… yes I can see it now: “We Run Your Post Office, Let Us Run Your Weather”. Egads.
‘For the sake of the argument let’s assume that human CO2 production warms the planet. . . . Do the proposals actually do that or is it an excuse for something else?’
But CO2 does not cause global warming. The natural cycle of warming causes increased CO2. But the latter does not present a basis for a huge power grab by the same people who have always wanted to run other people’s lives with other people’s money, since there is nothing whatsoever anyone can DO to alter a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Since we can’t create a parallel world and conduct experiments on it–and even if we could, we have no way to speed up time to get 100-year experimental results in a couple of years–climate change assessment is dependent on mathematical modeling. And although such modeling is vital in many fields, it should be approached with caution, especially where cause-and-effect factors are not fully understood and/or feedback loops are especially intricate.
For example, an early passenger jet (the Comet) suffered several disasters due to an inadquate understanding of flutter and stress concentration…even though aerodynamics and structural engineering were pretty well-developed and understood sciences. Just recently, problems in the subprime/CDO markets are due in part to bad mathematical models and excessive faith in these models.
Hi Marguerite,
Thanks for commenting but I must ask. You said, “But CO2 does not cause global warming. The natural cycle of warming causes increased CO2. ” This is a statement of scientific fact (2 facts, actually). What do you base it on? Certainly, human activity is releasing a huge amount of CO2, isn’t it? I’m not enough of a scientist to know, but I’ve heard that part of the concern is setting off a viscious cycle in which warming causes increases in CO2, which do cause increases in warming, until the matter runs out of control.
Hi Mike,
We don’t have to control everything. For example, if the vicious cycle I’ve described really was a problem, we would have to find ways to take CO2 out of the air, to break the cycle. That may require substantial new technology on an unheard of large scale, but it does not require the ability to control the weather.
Marguerite is absolute right. CO2 doesn’t just get in the atmosphere and sit there. It is reabsorbed in what is termed “carbon cycles” that lead back to equilibrium. Warming causes life to flourish, which releases CO2 (most CO2 is produced by microbial, insect life and the decomposition of vegetation - termites are huge CO2 generators). CO2 released in the atmosphere nourishes plant life on land and in water, which store CO2 as carbohydrates, oils and other organic materials. Coral reefs store CO2 as calcium carbonate, forming limestone deposits (the mountain ranges in S.E Arizona and Nevada’s Great Basin desert are former coral reefs, as are the Midwest’s limestone formations). If you look at Gore’s graphs closely, you will see that increased CO2 actually follow increased temperature warming by a lag phase of 80 to 100 years. When the world cools, the reverse happens (less plant life, fewer coral reefs).
There is a principle in science called “Occam’s Razor” which essentially says, look at the most obvious things first.
Two big problems (among others) that I had with “global warming theory” is that the models ignored (or kept constant) two of the biggest factors affecting climate - water vapor and clouds (water is the most important greenhouse gas by far) and solar activity cycles. The biggest problem with the models of course, is that they had huge margins of error and that they could not predict the climate backwards in time. As Allen points out, these are complex (i.e., chaotic) systems that we can’t (yet) understand, much less hope to control.
DQ, the second link that I sent to you documents that we have actually been in a period of cooling for the past 11 years. In addition, this has been linked to an easy-to-document reduction in solar activity (http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175) which may lead us into a very serious a protracted period (termed a “Maunder Minimum”) of cooling, with serious implications for food production and energy needs. Last winter, both the Arctic and Antarctic ice packs exhibited record growth (despite volcanic activity under the North Pole).
This may all be hard to appreciate while California bakes in record heat, but we in the Midwest are enjoying are relatively cooler than normal summer.
As far as massive flooding associated with “global warming”, there just isn’t a geological record to suggest anything like this taking place. The earth’s climate and geosystems move in slow, gigantic phases and we puny humans really don’t have much to say or do about it.
I made a few assumptions in my original comment, not because they are manifestly true, but to get to the endgame of what could you do. If you look at the recent effort in the Senate to do something about it we have cap and trade. Put simply, an entity that produces CO2 will have to pay money to an entity that doesn’t. Which means the consumer of said product will pay it via government.
After this transaction occurs CO2 will be reduced, nonsense is my reply. Chemistry is not an option. If you want energy, you have several choices, gravity, fission, or combustion. Now the liklihood of new dams and reactors in the US is about zero. That leaves us with combustion, so if you want energy you get CO2. You cannot avoid it.
If you look at any of the current proposals to reduce CO2 you end up back at the same place, new taxes, no net reduction in CO2. The only option is to reduce the size and growth of an economy, because deep down or economy, and others’, are energy based.
I know people talk about alternative energy systems, but the simple fact is the scale needed virtually precludes it for existing technologies. The technology to do this in a meaningful way just does not exist as of yet.
So, my original question stands: if the proposed schemes do not reduce CO2, then what are they really proposing?
I think it’s been established (by measurement of levels contained in glacier ice) that the co2 levels during various prehistoric periods have been considerably higher than at this time. Humans may or may not have existed, but machines certainly didn’t. CO2 levels are therefore not solely determined by humans and/or human activity. Mars and Jupiter also have increasing average temperatures, and since our atmosphere cannot affect theirs, the increase in average temperature cannot be due solely to our atmosphere composition. Guess what we _do_ have in common? Yeah…the sun.
Sunspots are a major contributor to changes in storm patterns and climate conditions. It is our primary source of energy. The pattern of sunspots was high, but at the moment it has virtually stopped - in fact, we’re looking at a possible very cold trend for the next 20 or so years. You better hope we can store all that global warming you’re worried about - we may need it.
In any case, warming of the planet will probably result in fewer people dying as a result of weather than colder conditions. In either case, there would have to be massive changes globally - primarily in agriculture. That would mean also massive changes in means of distribution of ag products - you know…food. That alone would be a challenge. You know how the mid-east _might_ be hoarding/controlling oil? just wait till it’s food!
We could, of course, commit mass suicide. I get the feeling that the GW/environuts would approve of that… Maybe we’ve actually found the cause of all those lemmings running off cliffs…inhospitable environmental conditions!
Or you could grow a tree in your back yard to suck up all your human produced CO2. Or raise a garden. Google “Square foot gardening”…it’s good for the earth - and you! Walk to work. Buy a horse. (I have some for sale!) turn off your electricity for a day or a week…just to see what it’s like to live like the GW/environuts want you to. Google survivalists… Year 2K started a revival of the movement…
Don’t get me wrong - I think we _are_ in for a change, but I think it will be cooling, not warming. I also think peak oil is a looming problem…not in the very near future, but it will also take a very long time to develop alternative sources of energy, the technologies to use them, and the switchover to the technologies that allow us to use them. We need to get started - 100 years is none to short a time to anticipate. Personally, I think that’s why the Bush/McCain “conversion” to the global warming theory - not because they agree with the theory particularly, but because the global warming bus is traveling the right direction and has the momentum.
More on the topic. (He’s made some changes that make his site slow to load…I recommend hitting the “stop” icon about halfway through the load)
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/07/global-warming-update-higher-co2-levels.html
Here’s another one…
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/07/global-cooling-update.html
Yeah, you have to love “cap and trade:” the government’s finally figured out how to tax you for breathing, under the guise of fighting global warming. All those of you who plan to continue exhaling, get ready to pony up!
DQ - Danny Lemieux addressed your question and saved me because although I’ve read enough to understand in my own mind what I believe to be the facts of science relating to climate change, I never could have been so lucid. However, you didn’t comment on the relevance (or not) of the last part of my comment where I assign motive. I know, I know . . . it is dangerous to go to motive, but I also know liberals like every square inch . . . well, you get my drift.
If you want a book that’s easy to read, does not “belong” to either side of the dispute, and is the single most educational piece of reading I’ve done about this issue (and I read about it a lot - I have to talk to students about it), get The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon.
http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215728814&sr=8-1
Or for a quick read…(and maybe a laugh or two…)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2274995/Cow-farts-collected-in-plastic-tank-for-global-warming-study.html
I put Earl’s suggested reading on my Amazon wish list and did read and did laugh at the tanked cow. Unreal.
I put Earl’s suggested reading on my Amazon wish list and did read and did laugh at the tanked cow. Unreal, Suek.
Hi Marguerite,
You are right that I ignored the second part of your comment on purpose. I’m interested in the science and in how best to determine if there is a problem and deal with it if there is. While, generally, I agree with you as to motives, this is one issue where the facts, if not surpressed and properly presented and analyzed should not be subject to political manipulation. Yes, I know, both sides are guilty here (that’s why I started with links of accounts of efforts by each side to censor the other side). But I want to get behind all of that and focus on the facts.
Hi Danny,
Look at your second link again. It does not claim we have had 11 years of cooling, but that we have not had warming in the last 11 years. Essentually, temperatures have been flat. It attributes that to a lack of sunspots. It makes sense that the lack of subspots would lower temperatures. Since temperatures have not in fact lowered that must mean that the forces (natural or man-made) that were pushing temperatures higher are still at work. This is not good for your theory at all. It means that if sunspots resume even normal activity temperatures will start back up. And, of course, the situation will rapidly worsen if sunspots enjoy a period of greater than average activity similar to the last decade of lower than average activity.
I live on a earthquake fault. I have not felt a lot of earthquakes lately, and not any of significant size in years. That does not mean that the fault is becoming more quiet. It just means that the pressures are building and the quake, when it comes, will be that much more severe. I don’t think we can take much reassurance in the pause in global warming when that pause is so easily accounted for by a simple, and surely temporary, phenomenon.
“Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases.”
“The melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.
“German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change. The culprits are plants.”
“Methane emissions from flooded rice paddies contribute to global warming.”
“…humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.”
And how ’bout those solar flares?
Hi DQ:
Fair enough! Here is another source: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.html
In geophysics and climate, nothing happens instantaneously. There are lag effects. The tendency of all systems is to return to equilibrium. It’s a bit like turning a supertanker. You turn the wheel well before anything begins to happen.
The point of the previous post that I sent to you was that contrary to many claims, there has been no warming over the past decade and if trend lines are anything to go by, the world has been cooling rather than warming.
The cessation of sunspot activity in 2007 was expected as part of a normal cycle. It wasn’t that they were at the normal level of activity, it was that they were at the absolutely lowest point of activity. Sunspot activity would need to increase steadily for about 5-6 years before they reached “normal” levels of activity.
What worries solar observers is that sunspot activity was supposed to pick up again last November…and it didn’t. Were not talking about “normal” activity, we’re talking about “zero” activity.
We won’t know the effects right away because of lag times. If there are no effects, then those global warmenists that claim that solar activity should be considered a constant (i.e., have no effect on global warming) will have been proven right - as counterintuitive as that might be. Somehow, I don’t think that is going to happen.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7524
http://tinyurl.com/3xangr
http://tinyurl.com/2foo2k
There is simply too much information available debunking man made global warming to list them all.
This is a small sample.
I live in the Chicago area, near lake Michigan. Were it not for past global warming, Chicago would not exist. At least as it is today.
One more resource list. Plenty of arguments against global warming hysteria.
http://tinyurl.com/3yop6n
I couldn’t link to your other story, Danny. It looks like it was truncated. Wouldn’t it be ironic if there was a long-term (long in human terms, say a few hundred years) break in sunspots and the only thing that kept us from freezing was the thing that caused global warming! Whatever thing that is. In a few hundred years, if we are fortunate enough not to blow ourselves up, we should be ready to deal with almost any warming/cooling scenario.
DQ,
Thank you for your reply on my concern that ‘controlling the atmosphere’ meant ‘controlling the weather’. Your post is concerned with “Simple Facts”, and I don’t think you’re going to be able to make a case that there even ARE any simple facts… not when it comes to interpreting temperature observations around the world. I mean, build a parking lot around a temperature sensor and suddenly it’s reading 10 degrees hotter. Don’t laugh, this has happened. Many of our “benchmark sensors” have seen significant development around them, and the readings cannot be correlated for more than ten years.
Even the simple facts are maddeningly troublesome. Then just try to to start interpreting those facts. Then try to form a hypothesis. Then prove the hypothesis by making prediction that come true - WHOOPS! OOPS! With that last sentence I stayed true to the scientific model, and that’s something where, at least for global warming, well… we don’t do that sort of thing around here. Move along.
My fear remains the same. Our models are a complete joke. Suppose we came up with a technology for seeding the atmosphere with chemicals that would reduce CO2. Are you sure you really would want to go ahead with it? Are you sure these so-called ‘climate scientists’ have ANY clue what they are talking about?
Science used to be based on the notion that you set a hypothesis and then you proved it. THEN the rational people should act upon the proof.
With global warming, they’ve set their hypothesis and then immediately we’re all running off into the “acting upon it” part. There’s absolutely no meaningful proof of any sort. There are hints and possibilities. But so long as they keep pointing to their models and shouting “PROOF!”, only to find repeatedly soon afterwards that their “Proof Model” was simply totally wrong…
Yes, I do see a lot of “Simple Facts”, which is a part of your post heading. But I do not see a provable and trustworthy synthesis of these facts into theory. You can do a LOT with the “simple facts”, and you can come up with a wide variety of hypotheses. But then you must make predictions using your proposal and THOSE PREDICTIONS MUST COME TRUE. That is an absolute necessity for you to claim you are being scientific. There has not been one single case, not one, where the global warming crowd is performing anything that might be called science.
Global Warming is not about science, and it has never been about science. Marxism used to be the foundation on which collectivists rested their arguments about an absolute necessity that they be allowed to control all of us, all our actions and behaviors. Now that Marxism has been discredited, the Environment is merely the tool, and Global Warming is the facade. (Or haven’t you noticed since the “Science” of Global Warming is clearly being shown to be false, how they are all switching to “Climate Change”? That’s just the facade.
The simplest of facts would answer the question: “Is the Earth warming”? Surprisingly, even THAT most basic of questions is not yet answerable with confidence.
Once you get past that, then you get to cause and effect. If the Earth is warming, then WHY is it warming. And we’re years away from any consensus on figuring out that. Solar activity, human civilization… etc…
And then, there’s the cost/benefit ratio: Can we or should we do anything about it? And you’ll get even wilder responses. This is the point at which you, DQ, suggested removing CO2 from the atmosphere. I think you’re many steps ahead of the game, proposing a solution that is poorly understood to a problem that is poorly understood or even nonexistent. What if solar activity is 95% of the cause of warming and cooling?
I personally believe that the disappearance of the rain forests is a far, far more serious problem than any rise in CO2 levels. The rain forests are the great regulators of Earth weather undulations. Their loss will unleash the kind of wild swings - may be the CAUSE of wild swings - in Earth weather resulting in massive hurricanes and floods. I can’t say I have any proof of that, but that’s my belief, I’m proud to call it
my belief, and most importantly, until there’s proof I’m not gonna try to stomp my boot upon your neck and destroy your very livelihoods demanding CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE when there’s no proof the changes will work.
Finally, China and India are not on board with any climate control proposals, and are being conveniently left off of every list. Only the Evil West is eligible for having its people under the Government Boot of Environmentalism, having all hope of prosperity destroyed. Why is that, and why don’t you think that is important? Talk about a Simple Fact! Easy to see, easy to acknowledge, easy to solve: There will be NO climate control legislation without the inclusion of China and India, and furthermore upon their inclusion there will be absolutely verifiable adherence to the treaty or the treaty will be void.
Wow! Great post, Mike Devx. I really agree with your insight into the linkage between the “Marxism” mindset and environmentalism, as Marxism, too, was about “big ideas” oblivious to consequences combined with a hubris about humankind’s capabilities. So is it with all fascist ideologies (including environmentalism).
During the cultural revolution, Mao once decreed that sparrows in Beijing were a nuisance and should be killed. The Chinabots dutifully went about their business killing sparrows en masse. The result was a epidemic of flies.
This really wasn’t all that different from those “scientists” in the 1970s who so feared global cooling that they actually proposed sprinkling carbon soot over the Arctic ice cap to increase solar absorption.
>>Mao once decreed that sparrows in Beijing were a nuisance and should be killed. The Chinabots dutifully went about their business killing sparrows en masse. The result was a epidemic of flies.>>
While I agree with your underlying thesis of “unintended consequences” and also that there’s a heck of lot more that we still _don’t_ know than what we _do_ know….nevertheless, in a view to accuracy, sparrows are seed eaters, not fly eaters. Maybe someone meant swallows?
Technically, you are correct, Suek. However, see this:
http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/birds/housesparrow.htm
Nice site, Danny. But they’re considering house sparrows _endangered_? Wow. I know there are probably many types of sparrows - the info you linked to might not apply to the ones in China…and certainly “endangered” isn’t a term I’d apply to house sparrows in the USA! There’s also a possibility that both are incorrect, and there’s an identity error due to a translator’s lack of info on avian identification. Hard to say.
However, I assume your point is that they are apparently birdie omnivores - or at least opportunist feeders - and _do_ eat insects. Maybe. I doubt they’d eat enough to affect a population, but who knows! When a usual type of food isn’t available, a species that survives is the one that can transfer to another kind of food - even if temporarily.
Here’s another link for you…this should link to a press release by the group, apparently a new one. I haven’t explored the site yet, but the info counters the global warming theory. Not the changing climate theory, but the global warming theory…
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Or, in the Middle Ages, when the cats were declared of the devil by the Church and the Black Plague followed?
A reduction of CO2 is associated with famine, Little Ice Age etc.
Interesting link, suek. I have no more idea if these folks are right than I do if the global warming folks are. I suspect our ability to predict sunspots is not better than our ability to predict earthquakes or the weather.
But let’s go back to basics. The “hole” in the ozone layer has been very carefully measured. Is it continuing to grow or not? The amount of CO2 put out by mankind’s activity should be fairly straightforward. How much are we putting into the atmosphere? The effect of our cutting down rainforests, and thus inhibiting the ability of the planet to absorb that CO2 should be measureable as well.
Mike, I got a laugh out of your comment about the scientific method, but that’s kind of my point. The scientific method is nothing more than inspired trial and error. Use knowledge and inspiration to form a hypothesis, then try it out, test it to see if it accurately predicts results. Many times, it will not. Unanticipated variables get in the way. Theories are flat wrong. So we learn from our mistakes, form a new theory and try again. We do not just say, well, gee, that prediction wasn’t accurate, so we’ll just give up and go away. That seems to me to be the attitude of too many of global warming’s opponents — The global warming proponents’ computer models are flawed and don’t do a very good job of predicting anything, so there is nothing to worry about. On the contrary, there is everything to worry about, not the least of which is that our predictive models are lousy.
Mankind is having a profound effect on the earth. The earth has some ability to adjust but no one knows how large mankind’s effects are or how limited earth’s ability to adjust is. No one know whether earth’s adjustments (the storms and such that Mike anticipated from the cutting down of the rain forests, for example) are compatible with mankind’s health and prosperity. Remember, “mother earth” is a bitch. She doesn’t care about you and me. The earth may adjust to mankind’s effects by getting rid of mankind (like she did the dinosaurs). That’s fine for the earth, not so good for us. The problem is too important to jump to conclusions. But the problem is also too important to be ignored.
The world is ending 12/23/2012 anyway, so why worry?
>>Mankind is having a profound effect on the earth. >>
God gave us the Bible to guide us. He told us to “Go forth and multiply, and subdue the earth.” The problem is that we need Volume II…we’ve sort of reached the point of “OK God…we’ve done that - now what!”
>>The earth has some ability to adjust>>
_SOME_ ability??? you’re kidding. How do you define “adjust”? The earth has been all water, has been all ice, has been virtually all tropics…maybe “adjust” isn’t the right word! The earth has the ability to _Change_. Whether we humans can survive the changes is a different issue. hmmm. Sort of like Obama….
>> but no one knows how large mankind’s effects are or how limited earth’s ability to adjust is.>>
I suspect that if you live long enough, you’ll find that mankind’s effects are pretty miniscule. And that the earth will simply change - even if that means that mankind disappears. We’re really not all that important except in our own minds…
Gee, Ellie2, I had no idea. Thanks for the warning! I’ll plan accordingly. I love it when a comment makes me laugh.
The complicating issues of GW…one “good” vs another “good”.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/07/12/the-two-faces-of-the-awg-crowdthe-tale-of-desert-rock-the-navajos-and-the-un/#more-5853
>>Mankind is having a profound effect on the earth. >>
Rereading….and this jumped out at me.
You make this as a statement of fact. In fact, it is the sum of the question - “What effect - if any - is mankind having on earth?” When you start out with the statement as a statement of fact, you’re assuming the conclusion.
Hi suek,
I suppose we could get hung up on defining “profound effect” but there is very little point to it. You, yourself, in a post above noted that we have subdued the earth.
I’ll never forget the first time I flew across the country and was absolutely stunned at the visual evidence of mankind’s effects on the earth. True, once I got to the Rockies, the earth looked largely undisturbed, but everywhere else mankind’s effect was profound enough for me.
Have you ever seen pictures from space of the earth at night and thought about how much effort of mankind and use of energy went into making all those lights that are visible from space?
We could argue all day about how much oil still exists in the world, but we are certainly using it up far faster than it is being created and will likely use it all, or most all, within a time so short as to be nearly unmeasureable in the cosmic scheme of things.
For better or worse, we have destroyed huge portions of the earth’s rainforests.
We are told that more species have become extinct because of man than from all other sources combined (Okay, I don’t know if this one is true, but I have no reason, other than questioning political motives, to disbelieve it). Certainly, we have profoundly changed the populations of many species, from buffalos to whales to bald eagles.
Sure, there is a very open question as to how much effect mankind has had on greenhouse gases, the ozone layer, global warming, global cooling or whatever. But mankind’s overall effect has been large enough to qualify as “profound” in my book.
>>We could argue all day about how much oil still exists in the world, but we are certainly using it up far faster than it is being created and will likely use it all, or most all, within a time so short as to be nearly unmeasureable in the cosmic scheme of things.>>
See now…this is a different issue! This is called the “peak oil” issue, and I agree with you. It appears that we have more oil available than was originally thought, but it’s still a limited resource - that’s a fact.
The problem I see is that the Global Warmers want the issue solved immediately - if not sooner - because we’re all going to hell in a handbasket if we don’t. I don’t think that humans contribute that much to Global Warming, and for that reason, don’t think that we should just plunge willynilly into the gap, thinking that we can solve the problem - if there actually is one.
Peak Oil, though, while a little farther out there, is something we need to be aware of, and need to begin working on NOW. It’s going to take a lot of time to solve…first the technology of acquiring energy sources, then adjusting our technology to use the new energy sources. I suspect that adjusting our technology is going to be at _least_ as big a project/problem as developing the new technologies we need.
By the way - I think that peak oil is why Bush - and maybe McCain - are on the GW bus…I think it’s a case of hopping on the bus that’s not only going in the right direction, but it’s the bus that has momentum already. The peak oil bus would be starting from scratch.
I don’t disagree with you on man’s overall effect, I just don’t think it has that much to do with GW. If people were really believers, though, I think the first thing they should do is tear up all the concrete and asphalt. Talk about a climate modifier!