Should you believe in climate change?

[xoxoxoBruce]

So it's back to what I asked long ago, what is the evidence people are the cause of global warming. Nobody came up with an answer.

[DanaC]

From 2007 in response to a documentary called 'The Climate Swindle"

[DanaC]

The ramifications of getting this wrong make it unlike almost any other issue of the modern age.

If we act against climate change without needing to - then what are the ongoing implications of that?

If we need to act against climate change and we don't ... what are the ongoing implications of that?

Unless the scientific consensus were to swing significantly towards disbelief in climate change (or more accurately against man's role in causing it) I'd really rather we hedge our bets and do something to try and reduce our impact on climate. Tootle about trying to lessen our impact on climate when we aren't actually responsible for it in the first place risks causing a bunch of economic upset and social change - do nothing when we are the cause and we risk our own extinction.

[Undertoad]

If we act against climate change without needing to - then what are the ongoing implications of that?

At the moment - it means quickly increasing the expense of all energy, leading to more poverty, and the third-world is likely to be unable to get the "leg up" that countries with early access to carbon were able to get, leaving them permanently behind. (Poorer nations always argue to be kept out of things like Kyoto for that reason.)

Because nations disagree on how to manage the problem, and "rogue" nations are likely to take advantage of the economic imbalance, a treaty system will not be enough to guarantee success. Entire nations will be made poor or rich by following or not following the protocol. Many people will survive or starve on this basis. Governments will fail or be voted out, and will be replaced with governments that are willing to burn fuels. For example, most of Arabia would immediately become poor, and their societies would fail.

So there will have to be a global enforcement agency - let's just call it "World Police" - with authority to override local Constitutions. It will monitor emissions and, if necessary, use violence and even wage war on those nations that do not follow policy.

There will have to be a very rapid increase in fracking for natural gas, which doesn't generate as much carbon. Although many people feel fracking itself leads to too much methane emissions, because that's also a greenhouse gas. I understand that some scientists believe that methane is not a big concern when CO2 is present in large amounts because they filter similar frequencies. There is no consensus.

At this time it is felt by some scientists that all this action would not be enough to prevent a snowballing effect of geometric trends, things like loss of ice decreasing reflectivity leading to more heat leading to less ice etc, and that warming would continue anyway if we stopped today, as there is enough CO2 already present to keep the trend going for decades. But on that there is no consensus.

[Undertoad]

If we need to act against climate change and we don't ... what are the ongoing implications of that?

There is no consensus.

Some scientists believe that the warming will continue to increase, whilst others believe that the "pause" is due to reaching limits on how much increase in heat the greenhouse effects can really force upon the world, and that natural limits restrict the increase to 1-2 more degrees.

It's tempting to come up with the apocalypse, because there is a natural tendency for end-of-the-world stories to be shared.

More than tempting actually; it's built-in. It's what we do. It's the entire history of mankind! Humans present competing ideas, in which the end of the world will be the result, if we fail to adopt their beliefs and behave accordingly.

It should give everyone pause, and a sigh of relief, to consider that after a century or more of warming, mankind is more successful right now than at any time in history.

In fact, we need to continue to use the carbon fuels, to continue to quickly improve humanity, to the point where it can solve the very problems it has created for the planet.

The amount of knowledge, intelligence, and capabilities we have continue to increase on a massive scale. Today we look at the issues of the planet and we can only worry. But we are still babes in the woods and our understanding of a lot of these things is in its infancy.

If we looked at the moon in the year 1900, and said it is important for us to get there, we would not have been able to do it. By the middle of the century, our understanding of *everything* had increased; fuel, space, physics, materials, etc.

Similarly we look at the planet today and can only wring our hands. But we have no idea what we'll know in 50-100 years - and the best way to guarantee we'll have more knowledge, more capability, more scientific understanding, etc. is to continue our current path of economic growth, societal improvements, etc.

In 1900 the entire planet had only (guessing here) about 100 million people with the education of a modern 10 year old. Today there are probably a billion people at that level. In 50 years there will be five billion. So when predicting the future, don't forget that progress makes all problems trivial.

[regular.joe]

Taken from that bastion of pseudoscience and supporters of liberal policy for many years: NASA (was I too sarcastic right there?) NASA does not seem to be telling us that there is no consensus.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf.

[Lamplighter]

Reading for comprehension...

IMO, after all the postings of this thread, this sentence is where UT has been heading all along.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...
In fact, we need to continue to use the carbon fuels, to continue to quickly improve humanity,
to the point where it can solve the very problems it has created for the planet
...

But, is there any reason or consensus to believe that such a goal could ever be reached ?
Simply put, if political leaders were to follow such a path...

"What could possibly go wrong ?
.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The captain of the titanic took a wait and see attitude. He couldn't have stopped the ship from sinking, but sure as hell could have made arrangements to mitigate the loss.

It's the science fiction freaks with their love of dystopian future scenarios, trying to bring it on as quickly as they can. Next time you see a zombie patrol vehicle, check for empty bean cans and methane.

[Undertoad]

Oh yes I forgot, along with a massive increase in fracking for natural gas, there will need to be nuclear power plants built. Hundreds. Using the safest known technologies. This will tide the world over until other forms of energy generation can be developed/discovered/etc, as well as innovation continuing to drive new ways of doing things without energy and through conserving energy, etc.

led bulbs man they weren't part of the equation until just now

maybe we could make the carbon into BACON DID ANYBODY THINK OF THAT

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hmm... carbon bacon? Sure, and use the resulting piles in the new nuke plants. Genius.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

IMO, after all the postings of this thread, this sentence is where UT has been heading all along.

If your thoughts differ please post your own !

Or if they do not differ.

[regular.joe]

Do I understand this correctly? Yes, global warming is real. Yes, it very well may be being caused by man. But, fuck it, it's the best we got.

Am I reading that wrong? It's cool either way, I'm just checking for understanding.

[Undertoad]

That's a pretty shitty summation so I'm gonna go with yes.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I got the impression it was more like science will save us if we keep improving the breed.
This was common in the 50s when science was giving us neat new shit to buy. Then we found out not everything they gave us was cool.
Corporations weren't going to take the heat so they teamed up with lawyers to blame scientists, and for good measure the schools the scientists attended.

Scientist ~ I invented a paint that will dry in half the time.

Science/Mechanix Magazine ~ Scientist invents instant dry paint which will allow JQ Public to change his house color instantly. Better make you house numbers bigger, so you can find it, in case the little woman changes color for her bridge party.

JQ Public ~ Hey this here paint don't work like S/M Magazine said. Must be the scientist fellas fault.

[sexobon]

I thought someone here came up with a solution to this problem years ago ...

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

"Strategic posturing for nuclear winter."

If the planet warms up enough, we can set off a few conveniently placed nukes to cool things down again (pursuant to the Weapons of Mass Salvation Doctrine). Shhhhh! Tippy Top Secret.