(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: The earth has had much warmer climates in the past. What's so special about the current climate? Anyway, it seems like a generally warmer world will be better.
Answer: I don't know if there is a meaningful way to define an "optimum" average temperature for planet earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. Perhaps any point between the recent climate and the extreme one we may be heading for, with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, is as good as any other. Maybe it's even better with no ice caps anywhere.
It doesn't matter. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving.
Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.
This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before -- that sounds reassuring, right?
Not so much. Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.
What we know about ecosystems, and what geologic history demonstrates, is that dramatic climate changes -- up or down or sideways -- are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. That, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing.
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 2:03 am
01 Mar 2007
So, what is it...has global warming happened already or is it about to happen? Since we've been living through these "warmest years on record" then shouldn't the human habitat and infrastructure been destroyed right now?
Oh, and don't bring up Katrina. A poorly designed levee breaking (a breakage that was predicted in the 1950s) doesn't count.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 2:02 pm
07 Mar 2007
You might make the same kind of argument as you pass the third story window: "So why did you tell me not to jump? I've been falling for 20 stories already, no problems"
"The problem with people who have no vices is that they tend to have some pretty annoying virtues."
-- [paraphrased] Elizabeth Taylor
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:18 pm
29 Apr 2007
Humans are inherently adaptable -- the most adaptable on the planet.
We live in every temperature zone on the planet...from Fiji to the Arctic Circle. The people living at these extremes often use the most primitive of technologies...and yet, survive!
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 3:27 am
05 May 2007
Sure, humans can live in any climate the earth may devise for us in the next several millenia. But we depend on untold numbers of other organisms for food and numerous other basic services, including the water cycle. Just look at how difficult the bio-dome experiments have turned out to be. Do we really believe we can recreate and manage every environmental service we depend on? Are you really ready to bet the existence of our civilisation, if not our species, on such a belief?
"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?"
-- unknown
Permalink
VillageIdiotSavant Posted 11:24 am
11 Jun 2007
Just jump in I guess, and risk sounding selfish.
I live in Minnesota. It's not uncommon for me to have to endure EXTREME temperature variations... as much as a 50 - 70 degree swing in a single day, and as much as 140 degree variation (-40 to + 100) over the course of a year. Now, I know I am SUPPOSED to be both worried about, and incapable, of handling the .7 degree average increase of the last 100 years, and even more worried about a similar projected.7 degree increase in the next 100 years or so - assuming I can find a way to live to be about 140 years old - but to be frank, I find myself more concerned about the daily and yearly temperature extremes in my immediate neighborhood, than about the barely measurable fractions of single degrees I am supposed to worry about - over the course of the next 2 or 3 lifetimes.
I could tell you stories about how on some days, I have to wear near-eskimo-like garb in the early morning, only to have to strip down to short sleeves upon my return home later... the very same DAY!
I mean seriously... how can an average guy be expected to survive this, every day. If not for the clothes, the air conditionining, the heat, and all the other inventions we zany humans have come up with over the last few millenia to adapt to our ever changing... local climates, I would have expired long ago. Instead, through judicious use of these handy inventions, and the occasional use of my very own brain, I have so far muddled my way through, and have yet to accidentally overheat or freeze me-self to death during one of our frequent - and potentially deadly - local climate extremes.
Seriously, if our government(s) could do something about leveling out the local temperature extremes here in Minnesota(and everywhere?), I would be far more interested and vested than I find myself able to be in worrying about another potential half degree, imperceptible, GLOBAL average temperature increase.
I'm old enough to remember the frigid 70's here in Minnesota - it was not pleasant. I am also aware enough to know that we (humans) have faced climate crises since the beginning of recorded history (maybe even long before!). I see little need to manufacture future climate change 'scary stories'. Those with the urge to nuture their humanitarian capabilities have plenty of freezing/overheated/ and/or starving fellow humans that could use our heating, cooling, and/or water producing /or curtailing technologies - today. Of course, to save the millions of humans already dying today from climate extremes - will require using much more of what we scary-future protagonists hate the most... the production and use of more, and more... energy. Quite a conundrum.
Yes, better to leave be those already suffering from climate extremes today - and invent notions that it will be worse later. Tsunami's, hurricanes, cylones, droughts, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes - we've seen it all before, and invented quite a few handy mechanisms to predict, preserve, and restore before, during, and after these tragic events.
Since our history of climate related tragedies is hard to refute, per another of Coby's thinly argued, anti-skeptic talking point articles, we are left to predict an ever-more-terrifying RATE of climate change, as the penultimate bogey-man of our projected future. As if 300,000 almost instantly dead in our recent tsunami isn't dramatic / scary enough. No, the future is now, folks, and always has been (sort of like hydrogen fuel cells... they're the energy of the future... and always will be).
That internet thing Al Gore invented has worked out pretty well for many of us. Maybe it's time our idle er, idol Al got to work on inventing the magic energy source to save us all. Or is Al too busy building up his carbon credit business, now that he has so succesfully built the hype necessary to drive its revenues.
Coby, sorry, unfortunately, your points intended to counter the skeptics - missed, this target.
Now I need to go put on some pants. Its cooled off ten degrees already here, tonight.
... Le Vidiot
Permalink
trickytank Posted 10:27 pm
14 Jun 2007
But with the warmer temperatures comes more violent weather.
Also we rely on many other organisms to adapt to the new climate for us to survive. From our crops, to livestock and trees, without these we will not have much of a chance of survival. We can't expect our food supply to be able to keep up.
Also our body cells normally operate within about one degree, so relative to this we have already experienced a large amount of change. This has also meant many insects in third world countries are populating new areas and spreading diseases which were once more rare.
Permalink
Nidan Posted 2:33 am
07 Jan 2008
Permalink
spoon13 Posted 8:35 am
05 Mar 2008
spoon13
Permalink
Lenoxus Posted 11:04 am
05 Mar 2008
"Tsunami's, hurricanes, cylones, droughts, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes - we've seen it all before, and invented quite a few handy mechanisms to predict, preserve, and restore before, during, and after these tragic events."
Why is climatology not allowed to contribute to those mechanisms of prediction? It's mighty peculiar to respond to the thousands of scientists saying "Something must be done to prevent rapid climate shift!" with "Sorry, but humankind is perfectly good at predicting and solving these kinds of problems on its own, thank you very much." I'm reminded of how children, when told by their parents to put on their shoes already, say "I am, I am!"
"Since our history of climate related tragedies is hard to refute, per another of Coby's thinly argued, anti-skeptic talking point articles, we are left to predict an ever-more-terrifying RATE of climate change, as the penultimate bogey-man of our projected future. As if 300,000 almost instantly dead in our recent tsunami isn't dramatic / scary enough. No, the future is now, folks, and always has been (sort of like hydrogen fuel cells... they're the energy of the future... and always will be)."
Why is this some kind of fight between the dead of the past and the dead of the future? Does the death toll of past disasters, both weather-related and otherwise, somehow use up the possible future deaths? An extremely peculiar and crotchety argument, like being angry at the universe.
European civilization has, in the past, managed to pull out of (with a very dwindled population) a freaking Black Plague -- one which, in its own way, helped foster the Renaissance. Does this mean that we should deliberately ignore the WHO every time they tell us to vaccinate against this year's batch of flu? Indeed, our species (if not individual humans) probably will survive even the worst both ourselves and nature have to pit against us -- that's how natural selection works. Don't you think we can settle for more than that, though?
Incidentally, scientists are not "left to predict" such a rate -- the rate of change has been the point all along.
"That internet thing Al Gore invented has worked out pretty well for many of us. Maybe it's time our idle er, idol Al got to work on inventing the magic energy source to save us all. Or is Al too busy building up his carbon credit business, now that he has so succesfully built the hype necessary to drive its revenues."
Oops, just lost my respect for a minute there. I'm just as happy to bash Mr. Gore as anyone, but I'm afraid that never has and never will change any of the scientific evidence or understanding of global warming. Not even if he drank the blood of kittens! Incroyable, non?
As for "magic," well... does it really have to be a choice between using petroleum until it runs out, or using magic? Why, exactly?
Permalink
loyds1000 Posted 10:50 am
12 Jun 2008
The danger is not really climate change will wipe our species off the face of the Earth as much as it is we many irreparably damage the ecosystems that provide us with the ability to sustain a high quality existence for our species. We monitor possible damage we do by monitoring rare and endangered species. If the environment is quality enough to allow these species to survive, it is most likely beneficial to our species, although how is now always evident immediately. Rapid climate change is one of those things that causes major unpredictable disruptions in Earth's ecosystems. Since scientist believe a significant portion is caused by human activity, the reasonable thing to do is slow climate change down to allow more time for ecosystems to respond.
Permalink
Jan101 Posted 6:05 am
28 Jun 2008
The agricultural and inhabitable land will increase enormously in the following countries :
Canada
Russia
Northern Europe, Scandinavia
Maybe even parts of Greenland and Alaska if temperature increases enough, and let's hope even Antarctica.
IF temperatures will really rise very fast, causing sea levels to rise i.e. 20 cm per year, there would be a problem for coastal areas. But, the actual increases in sea level are pretty minimal, and leave the countries facing it with plenty of time to react. Most of the Netherlands where I live lies beneath the sea, some parts even 7 m beneath sea level. The cost to our economy is minimal, we are amongst the richest nations on earth.
What's more, building dams and sea-structures to contain the sea can even INCREASE the size of coastal nations, like it did in the Netherlands. There are plenty of low-water areas that could be dammed-in and cultivated, belgian and dutch companies are doing that in the middle-east, japan and hongkong for decades.
Temperature increases also lengthen the time in which you can grow and harvest crops.
In fact, higher temperatures cause the entire bio-cycle to accellerate, just like in a greenhouse, where it's done on purpose. This will INCREASE bio-mass and bio-activity around the world.
If human activity would make the planet COLDER, I would be really concerned. But WARMER weather is a blessing to the earth. The technologies to cope with problems like rising sealevels are already known to the entire world for decades.
In short, if a real temperature increase happens that can affect climate, this will open tremendous opportunities for business, and increase the inhabitable land on the earth enormously.
Permalink
JediWelder Posted 10:14 pm
08 Nov 2008
Here is my point regarding rapid global climate change:
The earth will survive.
Mankind will survive.
But your children may not.
Why not? Well, before industrialism we were below one billion on this earth. Now we are 6.5 billions. Most likely nothing big will happen in the next comming years so everything will go on like ususally, and soon we are 8 billions.
But how could industrialism make us become so many? Due to industrialized farming. We squezze every grain of food we can out of the land. And boosted the population.
Now, what will happen if climate changes faster than we can adopt to it (a likely event)? If we lose 10% of earths food capacity, we will lose some 1% of the population, give or take some. Thats 80 millions starving to death. If we lose 30% of food capacity? Then some 10% will starve. If we lose 50%? That may cost us 25% of the population. And that is 2 000 000 000 dead.
This will lead to global depression, and global war over resources. Yes, mankind will survive, and the planet also. But not your grand children.
Several areas of the world already see lower food output, including but not limited to parts of Australia and Spain.
Add to this the rapidly decreacing oil stock. We are about to use the 50ieth percent of all avilable oil. If we have an industrial colapse ontop of rapid climate change, we will enter the worst period of in human history ever, with billions of dead people.
The reason we will not be able to handle this is overpopulation. The solution is better technology and fewer humans. And that is a win win trade; if we do develop better technology and decrease the population, we will be richer also.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:52 am
13 Dec 2008
OK, guy from Minnesota, happy that your neighborhood is not as freaking cold? (And I understand that, having lived for a while in Michigan.) How much you going to enjoy it when your temperate climate attracts a few hundred million people from South America, Central America, Mexico, the Southern US States? Not to mention the hundreds of millions of people flooded out in Bangladesh and forced out by drought from Nepal and India....
And that new farming area that we're opening up in the far north - any top soil there? Or are we going to be trying to feed billions while farming on rock and swamp land?
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:44 am
13 Dec 2008
July 15, 2348 BC...
Man! This is great! We're finally getting some rain. My crops were dying and we lost a couple goats last week when the creek dried up.
July 18, 2348 BC...
Looks like the drought is really over. The pond is full again and everything is looking nice and green. Crops are going to be better than ever.
July 21, 2348 BC...
Boy! It really has been raining a lot. I don't ever remember this much rain. Sure seems like something unusual is happening. Maybe we'll be able to grow some stuff here that hasn't worked before.
July 24, 2348 BC...
OK, it can stop now. My winter furs are growing mold and the creek is starting to flood the bottom land.
July 27, 2348 BC...
This isn't fun anymore. The path over to the pub isn't passable. I hope there's not a lot more of this unusual weather in our future.
July 30, 2348 BC...
OK, water's creeping into the cave. Time to move to higher ground. It should be fine underneath that overhang up where we sometimes camp when we're hunting.
August 3, 2348 BC...
Sure is getting crowded in here. Never realized how many other people had the same idea about moving up here.
August 6, 2348 BC...
Food's running short. Killed the last rabbit here on the mountain yesterday. Deer used up a few days ago. Roots and leaves now.
August 10, 2348 BC...
Had to organize a militia today. Have to stop more people from arriving by raft. There's not enough food for those of us here as it is.
(Going to have to start killing off the less useful if the water keeps rising. Don't want to think about what we might have to do with their bodies. Cannibalism is so last century.)
August 20, 2348 BC...
OK, only us three big guys left here on the last rock sticking out above the water. Wonder which one of us will get shoved off first?
Also wondering if we shouldn't have listened to that guy who told us that if we didn't change our evil ways we were going to be in a world of hurt?
Permalink