Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

[Alceste]

Actually, its not the tip of the iceberg but the middle quadrant on the southern side. The semantics of what your saying could be misconstrued to...

Ow! That hurt! I was just kidding...

Neutrino smack: :slap:

 

[painted wolf]

Is this what you're talking about?

As Permafrost Thaws, Scientists Study the Risks

Lots of articles today about climate change, just in time for Christmas.

That's it. Once these stores of carbon and methane are released into the atmosphere in large quantities then things really start to get interesting.

I think we are leaving our grandchildren a potentially drastically different world than the one we have today. Certainly different from the one we (and all our domestic crops/animals) evolved to live in.

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

That's it. Once these stores of carbon and methane are released into the atmosphere in large quantities then things really start to get interesting.

I think we are leaving our grandchildren a potentially drastically different world than the one we have today. Certainly different from the one we (and all our domestic crops/animals) evolved to live in.

wa:do

From what the article said it would still take decades if not hundreds of years for the climate to change drasticly and the real danger was in the point of no return. Once the process gets really started it will not be reversable. I'm not to sure we haven't all ready passed that point.

 

[painted wolf]

From what the article said it would still take decades if not hundreds of years for the climate to change drasticly and the real danger was in the point of no return. Once the process gets really started it will not be reversable. I'm not to sure we haven't all ready passed that point.

Decades is my lifetime... hundreds of years is my grandchildren.
The general consensus is that the "point of no return" is only a few years away at most.

While the process at that point won't be reversible, we can try to keep the ultimate top temperature lower than the maximum projected. The only way to do that is to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Like I've said before, knowing about how humanity has dealt with environmental problems in the past doesn't leave me a lot of hope for preventing what is coming.

wa:do

 

[Kerr]

I dreamed I traveled to the south pole and there was trees and elephants there. And snow, of course, most of it snow but at some places it was green instead. If you need more proof that global warming is real then that is it .

Seriously, though, I voted for the one that we where mostly responsible for it. But I was torn between mostly and partly. Ended up becoming more or less a guess based on what I remember from years ago when I looked into it... kind off . Dont remember that well, lol.

 

[work in progress]

From what the article said it would still take decades if not hundreds of years for the climate to change drasticly and the real danger was in the point of no return. Once the process gets really started it will not be reversable. I'm not to sure we haven't all ready passed that point.

Unless someone has got some real fast bioengineering scheme to drastically reduce atmospheric CO2 levels and give us some breathing room to make the necessary changes, it is already too late to stop the positive feedback effects that will continue increasing the greenhouse effect, even if we stopped adding more carbon.

Right now, I'm about a third of the way through "Revenge Of Gaia" by James Lovelock. The basic premise of Gaia Theory is that the living biosphere creates and tries to maintain a state of equilibrium in global temperatures and atmospheric gases. But, when climate is forced up or down, to either a warmer or a colder world, the biosphere will settle into a new equilibrium state....but the problem for us...or our descendents, is that it may not be a world that is compatible for human life.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Unless someone has got some real fast bioengineering scheme to drastically reduce atmospheric CO2 levels and give us some breathing room to make the necessary changes, it is already too late to stop the positive feedback effects that will continue increasing the greenhouse effect, even if we stopped adding more carbon.

I fear you may be right.

it may not be a world that is compatible for human life.

Here is where I get a bit nit-picky. While I think the world will change to a point that it is no longer compatible for human civilization as we know it, I don't think it will progress to the point where human life itself is not possible.

 

[painted wolf]

Here is where I get a bit nit-picky. While I think the world will change to a point that it is no longer compatible for human civilization as we know it, I don't think it will progress to the point where human life itself is not possible.

Humans came very close to extinction once before... it's not outside the realm of possibility that it could happen again.

The combination of climate change and peak oil may be the one two punch that pushes us to the edge.

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Humans came very close to extinction once before... it's not outside the realm of possibility that it could happen again.

The combination of climate change and peak oil may be the one two punch that pushes us to the edge.

wa:do

Oh sure, its possible. But I think a total collapse of civilization that sends us back to a stone age existance for a few thousand years is much more likely. And really, at that point does it matter? Just the idea that we could end up reverting back to that level of existance should be reason enough to act. But history doesn't support the concept of foresight in the human race.

 

[Alceste]

Oh sure, its possible. But I think a total collapse of civilization that sends us back to a stone age existance for a few thousand years is much more likely. And really, at that point does it matter? Just the idea that we could end up reverting back to that level of existance should be reason enough to act. But history doesn't support the concept of foresight in the human race.

As I understand it, a few degrees of warming and the subsequent feedbacks could potentially change the composition of the atmosphere. I can imagine a smattering of humans surviving when most have nothing to eat and no water to drink, but how will we survive if we have nothing to breathe?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

As I understand it, a few degrees of warming and the subsequent feedbacks could potentially change the composition of the atmosphere. I can imagine a smattering of humans surviving when most have nothing to eat and no water to drink, but how will we survive if we have nothing to breathe?

This is the point of debate, will the climate change to the point where humans can no longer physically live in it. I predict that it will not change that much, not that my prediction is any more relevant than anyone elses.

Our level of civilization is much more fragile. Even minor changes to global ecosystems could devastate the world economy and send us spiralling down into war and famine. I also think that if those who wish to influence people on climate change were to focus on this aspect they would have more success at creating concern. The dangers to our lifestyle are much easier to illustrate and prove and therefore have a greater impact.

 

[painted wolf]

Oh sure, its possible. But I think a total collapse of civilization that sends us back to a stone age existance for a few thousand years is much more likely. And really, at that point does it matter? Just the idea that we could end up reverting back to that level of existance should be reason enough to act. But history doesn't support the concept of foresight in the human race.

Will there be any ecosystems that could support a population large enough to maintain genetic stability in a humans that rely on hunting/gathering anymore?

But that's why we are involved with the transition movement. Finding local solutions to the problems before they become critical. If nothing else it helps us become more self sufficient and less at the whim of the global markets.
Transition Towns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With any luck at some communities will be prepared to ease into the challenges of the future.

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Will there be any ecosystems that could support a population large enough to maintain genetic stability in a humans that rely on hunting/gathering anymore?

Now that is a question to ponder over, and one you are far more capable of answering than I.

While I think there will be ecosystems that could support the populations, another question is will the number of suvivors of the collapse of civilization be a large enough gene pool?

 

[painted wolf]

Now that is a question to ponder over, and one you are far more capable of answering than I.

While I think there will be ecosystems that could support the populations, another question is will the number of suvivors of the collapse of civilization be a large enough gene pool?

I don't think there will be any in North America, Europe or Australia. I'm skeptical that Asia, Africa or South America will have any once the famines start to hit.

We have killed off all the large herd animals that are adapted to living in the wild... we have some token herds left in Africa and they are already starting to decline.

Once the famines start, poaching will skyrocket and there are simply not enough animals to support our numbers. They will be hunted to extinction in rapid order. This is already happening in places where bushmeat is commonly eaten... places most people see as "immune" to human pressure like rainforests of the Congo, South America and South East Asia.

wa:do

 

[work in progress]

I fear you may be right.



Here is where I get a bit nit-picky. While I think the world will change to a point that it is no longer compatible for human civilization as we know it, I don't think it will progress to the point where human life itself is not possible.

Why? I keep getting this caution that I'm being alarmist or doom-mongering from people who make a faith-based assumption that we (the next generations) will somehow pull through, or some new technology will be invented and save the day. Until I see real hard evidence from the pov of what a future policy-maker will have to deal with -- especially how to keep the yields expected from global agribusiness continuing, in the face of increasing droughts, floods, more violent weather...and last but not least - sea levels are going to start rising and flooding out river deltas where much of the Third World's food production is based....yes, all of that...I can't take a faith-based optimistic assumption that future generations will somehow pull through.

And that's just the beginning of the problems for the future! A migration northward and away from the tropic zones will become essential as the Global South becomes too hot to grow anything. Further in the future, sea levels will continue to rise, until the last glacial ice sheet -- the East Antarctic is gone...and so are the cities and all of the productive coastal growing areas.

A major catastrophe for the future could result from an effect that's happening in the world's oceans and is still barely understood -- for reasons that are not well understood, ocean plankton and algae levels are dropping and oceans are turning into sea deserts. We are starting to notice the effects in crashing fish catches. A lot of the problem comes from overfishing; but it's been noted by ocean scientists for years, that fisheries where commercial fishing has been sharply curtailed -- such as the Grand Banks off the coast of Newfoundland - are not recovering and returning to previous conditions. What the biologists studying complex ecosystems are most concerned about in the coming centuries is that ocean plankton plays at least as large a role in photosynthesis, and the regulation of atmospheric carbon levels as tropical rainforests, so what will happen with a large loss of both the jungles and the ocean plant life?

Some of the computer models that James Lovelock has worked with, show that a mass extinction which kills off more than 80% of total plant life, essentially end the Earth's ability to regulate its atmospheric gas levels and keep the biosphere operating. Not only will future generations have to deal with these problems, they will also have to deal with the prospect that they could end human life and possibly even life on Earth, turning the Earth into a dead planet like Mars! That would be some tombstone for the human race to leave behind, after showing so much promise to achieve great things and explore the Universe!

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Some of the computer models that James Lovelock has worked with, show that a mass extinction which kills off more than 80% of total plant life, essentially end the Earth's ability to regulate its atmospheric gas levels and keep the biosphere operating. Not only will future generations have to deal with these problems, they will also have to deal with the prospect that they could end human life and possibly even life on Earth, turning the Earth into a dead planet like Mars! That would be some tombstone for the human race to leave behind, after showing so much promise to achieve great things and explore the Universe!

I just don't think its that bad. I can see us going the way of the dodo but not all life on Earth. I think the planets tougher than that. Just an opinion though.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I don't think there will be any in North America, Europe or Australia. I'm skeptical that Asia, Africa or South America will have any once the famines start to hit.

I assume you are speaking geo-politically rather than literally and I agree totally.

We have killed off all the large herd animals that are adapted to living in the wild... we have some token herds left in Africa and they are already starting to decline.

True, but if a large portion of humanity were to be elminated that might not be an issue.

Once the famines start, poaching will skyrocket and there are simply not enough animals to support our numbers. They will be hunted to extinction in rapid order. This is already happening in places where bushmeat is commonly eaten... places most people see as "immune" to human pressure like rainforests of the Congo, South America and South East Asia.

While true, I suspect that we will see wars and disease have a huge impact on human population A total collapse of civilization would lead to a reduction of human life by large percentage points in my opinion. This would take some of the pressure off of the ecosystems to support human life. Will it be enough, I guess we'll find out.

 

[painted wolf]

I assume you are speaking geo-politically rather than literally and I agree totally.

No.. I mean literally. There is no ecosystem in North America that can support a large population of hunter gatherers. None. They are too eroded and stressed by historical pressures of human behavior.

True, but if a large portion of humanity were to be elminated that might not be an issue.

Except that unless you have a sudden mass die off from a new global black death or massive sudden bombing of every major population center... that won't happen. The die off will be "swift" but it wont be overnight.

While true, I suspect that we will see wars and disease have a huge impact on human population A total collapse of civilization would lead to a reduction of human life by large percentage points in my opinion. This would take some of the pressure off of the ecosystems to support human life. Will it be enough, I guess we'll find out.

Again, I offer the example of the Congo.
This is a real world current example of the problem. Warfare has only exacerbated the bushmeat problems. Soldiers need to eat and they don't have time to farm... and soon the locals are so harassed that they can't produce food either.

I can also offer the example of Haiti... The ecology of Haiti has been devastated by poverty, hunger and violence. Across the border in the Dominican Republic they still have a functional ecology but it is falling prey to poaching from across the border and deforestation and species extinction is a growing problem. This photo shows how stark the difference is between the two nations.

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

No.. I mean literally. There is no ecosystem in North America that can support a large population of hunter gatherers. None. They are too eroded and stressed by historical pressures of human behavior.

Ah, you mean the ecosystems, yes I agree. The ecosystems are changing and will be totally different, no doubt about it.

Except that unless you have a sudden mass die off from a new global black death or massive sudden bombing of every major population center... that won't happen. The die off will be "swift" but it wont be overnight.

Hmmm, you examples aren't really the best for comparison to a global collapse of civilization IMHO. Those examples are probably good for China and other nations that are under developed and not technology dependent but I suspect the die off in more westernized nations to be extremely fast. Think about how long a bunch of New York lawyers and insurance salesmen are going to last trying to hunt and fish. The forest could be full of deer and rabbit, the streams full of trout and brim but they'd still starve.

Now, having said that, I suspect you're still correct that the die off will not be fast enough for the ecologies to catch up. Still, I like to have at least a little hope that remnants of the human race will survive and rise up from the ashes.

 

[painted wolf]

Ah, you mean the ecosystems, yes I agree. The ecosystems are changing and will be totally different, no doubt about it.

Hmmm, you examples aren't really the best for comparison to a global collapse of civilization IMHO. Those examples are probably good for China and other nations that are under developed and not technology dependent but I suspect the die off in more westernized nations to be extremely fast. Think about how long a bunch of New York lawyers and insurance salesmen are going to last trying to hunt and fish. The forest could be full of deer and rabbit, the streams full of trout and brim but they'd still starve.

No, they will hire militias and hunters of their own... much like the warlords have done in Congo and Haiti. They won't try to live a subsistence life, they will try to keep power (and access to goods) by force.

If the die off is quick here in the west it will be because we are better at killing each other for scraps rather than rallying against others first.
Instead, I think we will fight the rest of the world harder and more brutally for what is left because we have the incentive to keep our "living standards" where they are... we have the most to loose. We will be the warlords watching the world burn so we can keep our palace. (unless we change our current course)

Now, having said that, I suspect you're still correct that the die off will not be fast enough for the ecologies to catch up. Still, I like to have at least a little hope that remnants of the human race will survive and rise up from the ashes.

I have hope too... or I wouldn't be involved in the transition movement.

wa:do