Global Warming

[Zeus]

I would even go further to say: Even if these environmentalist claims were true, does man have a choice but to act according to his nature, i.e., to use his mind to conquer nature?

[Thales]

Damn, and I was just going to predict gloom and doom brought about by us entering into an ice age!

Like they did back in the 1970s.

I would even go further to say: Even if these environmentalist claims were true, does man have a choice but to act according to his nature, i.e., to use his mind to conquer nature?

Exactly. If true, we have to be free more than ever to deal with any such problem.

[Godless Capitalist]

For example,  the earth was warmer 1000 years ago, and nothing much happened.

Actually quite a bit happened. For example, the Vikings explored the North Atlantic as far as Newfoundland and established colonies. When the climate cooled back down again many of these colonies had to be abandoned.

This cooling--the "Little Ice Age"--had massive impacts ( http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html ) Of course we are much better prepared now to deal with the effects of climate change but I don't think we can say a warming would have no effect at all.

The same site btw has a decent explanation of various possible natural causes of climate change: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/possible_causes.html

[Thales]

Actually quite a bit happened. For example, the Vikings explored the North Atlantic as far as Newfoundland and established colonies. When the climate cooled back down again many of these colonies had to be abandoned.

I understand this, but nothing earth shattering. It wasn't the end of the world.

In fact, more warmth seems to have brought lots of good things. It's the cold that is more difficult to contend with.

But, note also, these fluctuations in temperature are natural. I've seen graphs of the earth's estimated temperature dating back millennia, and it is not a flat graph at all.

[Godless Capitalist]

Correct; there are definitely natural factors, since climate change predate human existence. However, there is a serious theory that says that human activity has been warming the climate since the beginning of agriculture thousands of years ago. Perhaps that delayed the beginning of the next ice age.

It's true that warming is generally better than cooling. Unfortunately too much warming could trigger cooling (because it increases evaporation of water, which increases cloud cover, which blocks sunlight, which could trigger an ice age after all.)

I just don't think we should be quite so complacent and dismissive about possible climate change.

[AshRyan]

I just don't think we should be quite so complacent and dismissive about possible climate change.

And I, for one, won't be so complacent and dismissive about it...as soon as you give me some evidence of it.

[Capitalism Forever]

Unfortunately too much warming could trigger cooling

Now THEN the sky will really fall! It will be too hot and too cold at the same time, everywhere on Earth!

[tommyedison]

I just don't think we should be quite so complacent and dismissive about possible climate change.

Fact is that with our present technology, we cannot do much about it.

Man releases 7 billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere while nature does 200 billion tonnes.

Chlorine

Ocean evaporation: 600.0 millions of tons of chlorine per year

Volcanoes: 36.0 millions of tons of chlorine per year

Burning of organic substances: 8.4 millions of tons of chlorine per year

Plankton: 5.0 millions of tons of chlorine per year

Chlorine in man-made CFC's: .75 millions of tons of chlorine per year

Chlorine theoretically release by the alleged breakup of man-made CFC's: .0075

All this is the information I got from the internet and actuality may be a little different but the fact remains that man-made contributions to global warming are negligible.

[Betsy]

I just don't think we should be quite so complacent and dismissive about possible climate change.

Let's not be then. Let's be activists about climate change.

Let's be prepared -- not just for a climate change of a few degrees in a century, but for a change of EIGHTY DEGREES in a single year!

Many peeple already are.

I know many New Yorkers who, when the temperature goes down below freezing actually live in heated buildings and wear warm clothing when they venture outdoors. Then, when temperatures soar into the 80's and 90's in the summertime, they enter air-conditioned buildings and shed as much clothing as they can. They fight the damagingly strong ultraviolet rays of the sun with SPF 30 sun lotion.

Whatever will men do if, God forbid, they are faced with a major climate change whether due to global warming or global cooling? I guess they will have to rely on the only thing that has save the human race so far.

Their minds.

[jfortun]

Am I the only one who wants it to get colder?

[Betsy]

Am I the only one who wants it to get colder?

One of the few.

Some like it hot. That's why Stephen and I moved from New York to California.

[ex_banana-eater]

I know many New Yorkers who, when the temperature goes down below freezing actually live in heated buildings and wear warm clothing when they venture outdoors.  Then, when temperatures soar into the 80's and 90's in the summertime, they enter air-conditioned buildings and shed as much clothing as they can.  They fight the damagingly strong ultraviolet rays of the sun with SPF 30 sun  lotion.

True say. The only thing that global warming threatens is animals, that's why the environmentalists are against it.

At the rate climate is changing (whether natural or man-made or both) it will take 200 years to reach the same global climate of 1400AD. That time period resulted in an expansion of agriculture and life span. I do not see how that is a threat to man--only to insects and animals.

[Godless Capitalist]

Betsy: Yes of course we can adapt to changing conditions. But the cost might not be trivial. If the Gulf Stream were weakened or diverted (one possible result of global warming) Europe's climate could become more like that of northern Canada, which is virtually uninhabited.

Am I the only one who wants it to get colder?

Me too! After all, you can add clothes to stay warm but not to cool yourself. Plus I love cross-country skiing. Bring on the ice age!

[tommyedison]

True say. The only thing that global warming threatens is animals, that's why the environmentalists are against it.

At the rate climate is changing (whether natural or man-made or both) it will take 200 years to reach the same global climate of 1400AD. That time period resulted in an expansion of agriculture and life span. I do not see how that is a threat to man--only to insects and animals.

Some species of animals may die out but I am sure that many will adapt themselves to it. And insects are very hardy. They are not crushed easily. Cockroach has been around for around 250 million years.

[DavidV]

The scientific consensus is that global warming is real.

Do you agree with it? Temperatures certainly seem to be rising - see the attached graph.

The evidence for the human impact on the global warming is more disputed. What is the evidence there?

If global warming is real, how will it affect humans? Can we know the impact a priori?

[EC]

What is the source for this information? Is it possible that in the 1800's and early to mid-1900's the temperture recording equiptment and methods aren't as advanced as today's? Wouldn't it be like comparing apples with oranges then? Isn't it true that the same people that expounded a return of an "ice age" now report a "global warming"? What is the evidence that man could cause such an event? Isn't it more likely the earths climate shifts periodically and that should be considered normal? What is the real motivation for these "environmentalists" "looking" for "global warming" in the first place? These rhetorical questions were just off the top of my head and it's late, but I would say the whole concept of "global warming" is an arbitrary construct, and can properly be rightly dismissed as such.

[A.West]

Firstly, one can know nothing "a priori" because there is no such thing as a priori knowledge.

Secondly, if you want to explore ideas related to interpresing graphs like this, that's a core idea of Michael Crighton's novel "State of Fear". There were several parts in the book in which a character was presented a graph like that, then the dates were expanded, or information about the source data or collection practices were discussed, leading to different conclusions, and then implications were discussed.

Anyway, the chart doesn't provide enough information and context to draw any conclusions.

[DavidV]

What is the source for this information? Is it possible that in the 1800's and early to mid-1900's the temperture recording equiptment and methods aren't as advanced as today's?

Lack of precision in a measuring instrument is not the same thing as bias. In any case, the temperature measurements are also made from ice cores and other sources dating back thousands of years so that the actual temperature measurements are not in question.

Isn't it true that the same people that expounded a return of an "ice age" now report a "global warming"?

At best, this is an argument to be skeptical, not an argument against global warming.

What is the evidence that man could cause such an event?

Well, all of man's actions release heat energy in one form or another. My question was whether they are sufficient to create global climate change.

Isn't it more likely the earths climate shifts periodically and that should be considered normal?

The fact of periodic climate changes is not in dispute. The argument given by proponents of global warming is that the current warming is much more rapid that previous episodes.

What is the real motivation for these "environmentalists" "looking" for "global warming" in the first place?

I’m not sure what the point of your using scare quotes is, but that is a topic distinct from the scientific question of global warming.

….I would say the whole concept of "global warming" is an arbitrary construct, and can properly be rightly dismissed as such.

I don’t know what you’re getting at. It’s a fact that global warming happens. The question I asked is whether it’s happening now, what’s causing it, and how it will affect us.

Edited March 28, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[DavidV]

While it is possible to manipulate any non-linear dataset to form a pattern, the evidence in regard to global warming shows an indisputable upward trend, confirmed by dozens of different environmental, biological, and geological sources. I don’t think this is a controversial fact anymore – the only controversy is over the extent and causes of the trend.

For some sources, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[DavidV]

Firstly, one can know nothing "a priori" because there is no such thing as a priori knowledge.

Sorry, I meant “a priori” in the economic sense, as in “prior to examining the details of a particular situation.” For example, we know “a priori” that there are transition costs associated with any environmental change, and that the costs will increase with the degree of the change. It is also likely there will be both beneficial and harmful consequences of any such change.

Edited March 28, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[BurgessLau]

Sorry, I meant “a priori” in the economic sense, as in “prior to examining the details of a particular situation.”

Your explanation is the sense in which Kant uses the phrase a priori in Critique of Pure Reason. Why use a technical term borrowed from a corrupt stream of philosophy when you could just as well say, "beforehand" or "deductively" or "from basic principles"?

[EC]

Their motivation for looking for "global warming" (scare quotes used because I think it's an invalid scientific concept) is very important because if it is based on false premises, i.e., that man can actually cause "global warming" or that even if he could then it's by definition bad because it's not "natural" is at its heart wrong and can be dismissed as arbitrary or starting from bad premises.

[DavidV]

I think the one holding an invalid concept is, if you view “global warming” as a package deal of “global climate change caused by humans.” The two aren’t necessarily related. Furthermore, there is nothing illogical or improbable about the idea of man causing climate change (Anyone live in LA or Houston?) or of man-made climate change (Middle East) versus natural processes (the Sahara.)

I would go further and say that there is nothing logically unsound about the idea of man causing global climate change either. We certainly have the capacity to do so drastically (such as by nuclear war) and we certainly do so gradually by agriculture and forestry. This does not prove the primary claim of the proponents of global warming (that the burning of fossil fuels is causing a rapid rise in global temperature) but it is evidence that we cannot dismiss their claims a pri… err, deductively.

[ex_banana-eater]

The graph you showed started in the 1800's. Of course temperatures are going to increase in a graph that is only a century coming out of "The Little Ice Age." Why not start the graph at the 1400's based on tree ring data when the world climate was 2-2.5 degrees warmer than present?

[TomL]

There is a graph on the Wiki page linked to that shows an estimate of the last 2000 years. But I would say that even 2000 years is not nearly enough context to have any particular relevance to whether or not the phenomena is man-made this time.

Let's see a graph of the last 200,000,000 years -- then we'll be talking about some real context. The issue of the average surface temperature of our planet is a cosmic one, of cosmic proportions, in both space and time. Trying to take a tiny little sliver out and saying that "we caused it" is context-dropping on a massive scale.