The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

[Sapiens]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Aral Sea

Rondônia Deforestation

Too many others... Nothing that Scotch cannot fix.

[WildspitzE]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

What exactly am I re-defining?

Didn't you say?

Hence, the solution to many of our current economic and social issues lie in the re-definition of "Wealth".

Fine, have fun at it.

and why not just try to pose a logical argument if you don't agree with what I say?

I did. I didn't continue on because I realized yesterday that it's not worth my time and effort. I've been down this path before with many other mulas.

I educated you by sourcing a more accurate definition of wealth then your simplistic one of "standard of living". Took me 3 seconds on Wikipedia.

I further educated you that wealth is a social construct - it does not just mean "how much money you have".

I then re-stated my idea that "wealth", as a social construct, will get re-defined in the future, as it has in the past, and that this is a way to solve many of our current issues.

The only thing that you educated me on is that I shouldn't waste any more time on this thread because it will be a time sink. You think that your definition is more accurate, that's fine. Picking one with more words doesn’t make it so. You also think that wealth is a social construct. However, wealth is all about the standard of living. It’s that simple. What humans pursue in the course of improving their quality of life and that of their offspring, i.e. the standard of living, is intrinsic and part of human nature. Of course such quality of life is dynamic. It is in this context that the item that you quoted (and I've quoted below) makes sense:

"This comparative wealth across time is also applicable to the future; given this trend of human advancement, it is likely that the standard of living that the wealthiest today enjoy will be considered rude poverty by future generations."

The smartest way to destroy a system is by destroying the meaning of the things that have value in such system.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

De-forestation in semi-arid regions such as California or the Mediteranian ( sp? )Sea region of the Earth MAY act to cool the world, because the albedo ( reflectivity ) of the Earth's surface ( as viewed from space ) is changed to a lighter colour. Sandy desert soil is rather light coloured, so it is rather reflective of sunlight ( solar insolation ).

However, nothing damages the environment in semi-arid regions more than de-forestation. The best way to combat de-forestation is to plant trees, or not to chop them down in the first place.

Tree-planting in Isreal has been going-on for decades. Tree-planting should be going-on everywhere on this planet, especially in semi-arid areas, and regardless of the possibility that trees may act to warm the Earth by changing the Earth's albedo.

I do NOT believe one word of the global warming hypothesis launched by Al Gore, David Sazuki, and the eco-frauds, nevertheless I still plant trees. Everyone who can should be planting trees wherever they live on this planet; I think we can all agree on that.

[Munger]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

"Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s, has shown that with extraordinarily few exceptions "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat"

The ancient Greeks even believed the earth was round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

The "flat earth" people are ignorant, always have been. Not scientists. Often a result of religious & political cults where people cannot process common sense ideas (example: concepts of heaven and hell conflicting with natural laws or Fox News "scientists" always slamming climate change).

I guess "THAT" is not the truth. LOL

Yep. And never mind that 99.999% of the time the scientific consensus is correct. And when it is not it is due to a "paradigm shift" - such as relativity, heliocentricity, etc. That is, it is due to thinking that is so far outside the box that it just had not occurred to anyone before Newton, Einstein, Archimedes, etc thought it up. Then, shortly after the paradigm-shifting ideas are disseminated, a few innovative scientists start catching on, and, in each case, before long the scientific consensus has shifted.

This is not what the "climate science" debate looks like. There is no paradigm shift; every climate scientist has thought through the arguments of the skeptics. The climate science "debate" is more similar to a debate between Einsteinian physicists and Expanding Earth Theorists. Or, more relevantly, between those who are familiar with the second law of thermodynamics and those that really really want an air powered car.

[Raz]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Yep. And never mind that 99.999% of the time the scientific consensus is correct. And when it is not it is due to a "paradigm shift" - such as relativity, heliocentricity, etc. That is, it is due to thinking that is so far outside the box that it just had not occurred to anyone before Newton, Einstein, Archimedes, etc thought it up. Then, shortly after the paradigm-shifting ideas are disseminated, a few innovative scientists start catching on, and, in each case, before long the scientific consensus has shifted.

This is not what the "climate science" debate looks like. There is no paradigm shift; every climate scientist has thought through the arguments of the skeptics. The climate science "debate" is more similar to a debate between Einsteinian physicists and Expanding Earth Theorists. Or, more relevantly, between those who are familiar with the second law of thermodynamics and those that really really want an air powered car.

Munger, I'm a skeptic. Not of global warming, but of the proposition that it is entirely man-made.

Yet I'm an honest skeptic, meaning that I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

I admit that I'm uninformed on the subject and simply don't have the time to study it. I rely on people like you since I don't trust Al Gore's integrity on most issues any more than I do the turtle that holds our planet up.


Are you a firm believer in "man-made" global warming?

[Munger]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Munger, I'm a skeptic. Not of global warming, but of the proposition that it is entirely man-made.

Yet I'm an honest skeptic, meaning that I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

I admit that I'm uninformed on the subject and simply don't have the time to study it. I rely on people like you since I don't trust Al Gore's integrity on most issues any more than I do the turtle that holds our planet up.


Are you a firm believer in "man-made" global warming?

I am not a firm believer in much. And I must say I am not an expert in climate science. I think it is indisputable that the vast majority of very smart people who study the subject believe that humans have the capacity to change the climate.

Is it possible that humans can effect the earth on such a large scale? Well, for one, there is that hole in the ozone. We did this; it is undisputed. It is because of the nature of the chemical chain-reaction that O3 undergoes in the high atmosphere. Even though we have released only a small amount of CFCs compared to the total volume of the atmosphere, the catalytic reaction is such that a huge hole developed.

The smart people who spend their time modeling the climate and testing their models against hard data think that greenhouse gases have the ability to raise temperatures. In fact, I've read that this is undisputed even among skeptics. Most also seem to think humans put out enough greenhouse gases to influence the process. I'm not absolutely certain (of anything). But at this point I lean about 90% that it is, to some degree, man made.

[rjwjr]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

I am not a firm believer in much. And I must say I am not an expert in climate science. I think it is indisputable that the vast majority of very smart people who study the subject believe that humans have the capacity to change the climate.

Is it possible that humans can effect the earth on such a large scale? Well, for one, there is that hole in the ozone. We did this; it is undisputed. It is because of the nature of the chemical chain-reaction that O3 undergoes in the high atmosphere. Even though we have released only a small amount of CFCs compared to the total volume of the atmosphere, the catalytic reaction is such that a huge hole developed.

The smart people who spend their time modeling the climate and testing their models against hard data think that greenhouse gases have the ability to raise temperatures. In fact, I've read that this is undisputed even among skeptics. Most also seem to think humans put out enough greenhouse gases to influence the process. I'm not absolutely certain (of anything). But at this point I lean about 90% that it is, to some degree, man made.

You weren't swayed at all by the Michael Crichton opinion that I posted on page 1 of this thread?

[Roughneck]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

There a plenty of climate scientists who do not believe in man made global warming. The fact that 30 years ago they predicted we were headed to the next ice age is proof that it is not an exact science. We as humans make the mistake at looking at data only in relation to small time peiods.In the grand scheme of things 100 or a 1000 years is a relatively short period of time. I also find it interesting that most meterologists who study the effects of weather and climate in the REAL world application are skeptics.I also find that most "liberals" or "progressives" like to have a cause or believe that they are doing something "for the greater good". The doomsday climate change scenario fits their profile to a tee.

[we_are_toast]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

You weren't swayed at all by the Michael Crichton opinion that I posted on page 1 of this thread?

Yes! Let's accept what a writer of fiction says as fact, and let's reject hard science and mountains of supporting data as fiction.

EJ
The U.S. has entered a new dark age of unreason.

[c1ue]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

The smart people who spend their time modeling the climate and testing their models against hard data think that greenhouse gases have the ability to raise temperatures.

Apparently you did not read or gain the same information from the climate science interview posted a few days ago in this iTulip news section.

One of the very individuals you speak of, one which in fact works directly for that doyen of AGW - Robert Hansen - himself said that the models do not predict long term results well at all but do perform well in the short term.

This understanding is consistent with those who have intelligently fought against the Gore/Hansen/IPCC report claiming that AGW is here, the Earth is ending, and humans are all at fault.

I have also posted previous notes on several other factors:

1) The Earth was warmer in the past
2) CO2 levels were higher in the past
3) Existing models can't even replicate the past 2 Ice Ages

Thus I continue to have difficulty getting onto the AGW bandwagon. Is the earth warming? likely. Is it man-made? not clear. If it were, is it reversible? Also not clear. Will it reverse at some point in the future irrespective of man's activities? absolutely clear. From a long term viewpoint our present period is one of unusually warm temperatures even before the rise of the Industrial Revolution.

What is also absolutely clear is that there are a large number of individuals who either already gaining from this thesis or are planning to. That these same charlatans were equally on the Global Cooling bandwagon a mere 20 or 30 years ago just makes me even more suspicious of their activities.

[Munger]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Apparently you did not read or gain the same information from the climate science interview posted a few days ago in this iTulip news section.

Apparently you did not read what I said - that it is undisputed that greenhouse gases have the effect of raising temperature. Show me where that physical phenomena is in dispute.

One of the very individuals you speak of, one which in fact works directly for that doyen of AGW - Robert Hansen - himself said that the models do not predict long term results well at all but do perform well in the short term.

And how would he be able to test long term predictions? That is part of the problem. I posted an article a week or two ago wherein it was asserted that the models of 20 years ago successfully predicted the change in climate up to today. The article readily acknowledged that long-term predictions are inherently difficult to test. However, shorter term predictions - such as the effects of volcanos - have shown the models (which are based on physical processes, not correlations) are remarkably accurate.

This understanding is consistent with those who have intelligently fought against the Gore/Hansen/IPCC report claiming that AGW is here, the Earth is ending, and humans are all at fault.

I have also posted previous notes on several other factors:

1) The Earth was warmer in the past
2) CO2 levels were higher in the past
3) Existing models can't even replicate the past 2 Ice Ages

As I have addressed earlier, and as was addressed in the article I posted from edge.org, climate scientists are well aware of #1 and #2. There are many factors that influence the Earth's temperature at different time scales. For example, on the order of billions of years there galactic effects. You are correct that humans cannot change this. On the order of hundreds of thousands of years there are orbital effects. Humans cannot change this. On the order of tens to hundreds of years these effects longer-term effects can be amplified by the greenhouse effect.

Thus I continue to have difficulty getting onto the AGW bandwagon. Is the earth warming? likely. Is it man-made? not clear. If it were, is it reversible? Also not clear. Will it reverse at some point in the future irrespective of man's activities? absolutely clear. From a long term viewpoint our present period is one of unusually warm temperatures even before the rise of the Industrial Revolution.

I agree with you for the most part here - but contend that while it is not 100% clear, the best evidence points to man having an impact on warming. In 100,000 years will the Earth cool again? Yup. Like I said, there are many overlapping long-term processes that may be amplified by greenhouse gases. Is short-term amplification preventable? Good question.

The whole thing should be addressed with a cost-benefit evaluation function:

If: (probability global warming is happening)*(probable damage caused) > (cost of attempting a remedy)*(chance remedy doesn't work)

Then: we should try the remedy.

What is also absolutely clear is that there are a large number of individuals who either already gaining from this thesis or are planning to. That these same charlatans were equally on the Global Cooling bandwagon a mere 20 or 30 years ago just makes me even more suspicious of their activities.

I cannot express the enmity that I have for the banking interests that are trying to get control of this issue. IF a carbon-tax/cap-and-dividend program is implemented, the money should be directed back to the energy-consumer who ends up paying the costs.

[e_goldstein]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Global Warming should get in line.

Right now, fiat currency collapse is probably the greatest threat to civilization...just like in Vonnegut's Galapagos.:eek:

[flintlock]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

I also agree there is climate change. Probably some man made influence on it. The question is the degree of impact man has on global warming and what can be done about it. If its a .0001 % impact then we are just pissing in the wind trying to change it. It its 10% then hell yeah lets get started. I don't think anyone can definitively say. I think we rely too much on science and technology these days and trust it implicitly. We tend to think its capable of anything when in fact some things may never be proven in our lifetimes.

And you really have to consider the motivation of the "scientists" involved. Sorry, but its just human nature to want that new grant from the government for a study that will keep you employed for the next 10 years. The scientist who says he thinks there is almost nothing man can do to influence climate change ain't getting diddly. It's the guy who claims he's saving the world who is going to get it. This ain't Louis Pasteur or Madame Curie working in their labs. There's big money involved and anyone who thinks that isn't a powerful influence on the "truth" is kidding themselves. So I approach the subject with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Apparently you did not read what I said - that it is undisputed that greenhouse gases have the effect of raising temperature. Show me where that physical phenomena is in dispute.

And how would he be able to test long term predictions? That is part of the problem. I posted an article a week or two ago wherein it was asserted that the models of 20 years ago successfully predicted the change in climate up to today. The article readily acknowledged that long-term predictions are inherently difficult to test. However, shorter term predictions - such as the effects of volcanos - have shown the models (which are based on physical processes, not correlations) are remarkably accurate.

As I have addressed earlier, and as was addressed in the article I posted from edge.org, climate scientists are well aware of #1 and #2. There are many factors that influence the Earth's temperature at different time scales. For example, on the order of billions of years there galactic effects. You are correct that humans cannot change this. On the order of hundreds of thousands of years there are orbital effects. Humans cannot change this. On the order of tens to hundreds of years these effects longer-term effects can be amplified by the greenhouse effect.

I agree with you for the most part here - but contend that while it is not 100% clear, the best evidence points to man having an impact on warming. In 100,000 years will the Earth cool again? Yup. Like I said, there are many overlapping long-term processes that may be amplified by greenhouse gases. Is short-term amplification preventable? Good question.

The whole thing should be addressed with a cost-benefit evaluation function:

If: (probability global warming is happening)*(probable damage caused) > (cost of attempting a remedy)*(chance remedy doesn't work)

Then: we should try the remedy.

I cannot express the enmity that I have for the banking interests that are trying to get control of this issue. IF a carbon-tax/cap-and-dividend program is implemented, the money should be directed back to the energy-consumer who ends up paying the costs.

The sea level was 300 feet lower during the last Ice Age. During the last century, sea levels rose one-half foot. Even that most trivial rise in sea levels is more likely to have been due to the Earth's emergence from the last Ice Age than for any increase in the CO2. Also, mankind and nature both put dust into the atmosphere, and that tends to cool the planet, especially in the daytime.

So, I do NOT believe one word of this man-made global warming hypothesis. It is nonsense and junk science.

Sadly, the Obama Administration and that bunch in the BBC in the UK are sold on man-made global warming. But the evidence is lacking, especially when you really think about the issue.

We have junk models in climatology just like the junk computer models in economics. These models have been calibrated with faulty data which is biased in favour of warming.

I have discussed how buildings, block-out the sky at night preventing temperature stations from radiating heat to the sky.

On a clear night, as I am sure you are aware, the temperature of the sky ( the Earth's upper atmosphere ) is near -40F (-40C ) and maybe even lower than that. I think space is near absolute zero on the Kelvin scale. So blocking the sky is quite serious because it biases temperature data to infer warming of the world.

I wrote about this effect in my masters' thesis in the Geography Department at the University of Minnesota. My thesis was never published because of the gate-keepers of information...... Happily now, there is an internet, and we can have discussions with each other and share information.

I strongly suspect that if you examine temperature trends in open areas, away from structures that block the sky, even away from trees, maybe in Greenland, Antarctica, the Sahara Desert, the Gobi Desert, wherever, you will find little temperature change on this planet in the last one-hundred years.

Another point in my favour is that ocean water temperature is little changed, maybe up one degree F. or a bit over one-half degree C. at depth in the last hundred years. Even considering the high specific heat of water, that is not much of a temperature increase to blame mankind for, if even mankind caused it.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

I also agree there is climate change. Probably some man made influence on it. The question is the degree of impact man has on global warming and what can be done about it. If its a .0001 % impact then we are just pissing in the wind trying to change it. It its 10% then hell yeah lets get started. I don't think anyone can definitively say. I think we rely too much on science and technology these days and trust it implicitly. We tend to think its capable of anything when in fact some things may never be proven in our lifetimes.

And you really have to consider the motivation of the "scientists" involved. Sorry, but its just human nature to want that new grant from the government for a study that will keep you employed for the next 10 years. The scientist who says he thinks there is almost nothing man can do to influence climate change ain't getting diddly. It's the guy who claims he's saving the world who is going to get it. This ain't Louis Pasteur or Madame Curie working in their labs. There's big money involved and anyone who thinks that isn't a powerful influence on the "truth" is kidding themselves. So I approach the subject with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Letting grants and politics rule what is published is the reason why we have so much junk science now. You have hit the nail on the head.

Can you imagine that Prince Charles, the next King of England, remarked that the Earth has only 91 months before civilization collapses due to global warming! What rubbish!