I’m doubtful that global social consciousness is at the top of the priority list for the majority of growing economies.
So, jump to the straw men, sure that will work. Of course as I never implied that, the answer is no already. The point was that it is really missing a lot when one assumes that we should expect a gradual change, I have seen experts mention items like “the bottle neck years” to what it is in store for us. Severe disturbed climate on the way to a new stable condition, with lovely temperate conditions up north, and mega droughts in many other areas of the world. And this even without the possible bullet we will have to dodge of extreme weather items like hurricanes and tornadoes if they turn out to be increased in strength by the warming.
And on that point I’m “just saying” because it needs to, the overall impression from many posters so far is that the good will outweigh the bad effects coming up or the bad effects showing now.
As much as you think it is obnoxious, video is very effective to get a point across and this is the 21st century.
Obviously, my remark must not have been clear. The Sun has been warming so the “default Earth” has been warming as well. That the present-day is cool – much cooler than in previous eras – is the result, in Lovelock’s view, of cooling mechanisms like low CO2 levels and ice-cap albedo. A breakdown in those mechanisms would represent greater warming risk than breakdowns in earlier eras.
I’m sure I don’t articulate this well, but won’t bother as interested Dopers will prefer to read Lovelock. (I expect that important thinker to be disparaged instead; I will ask his detractors to indicate if they’ve actually read the man’s books.)
The problem here is that Lovelock has disparaged himself on this issue.
Short history: He was the definition of an alarmist on this and most scientists told him he was wrong, now, just last year he reports he was wrong and now the ones that minimize this issue are correct, wrong again… it is almost like if Lovelock is saying to most scientists “are you happy now?”. I just think he is not important in this subject as most of his efforts now are on books and articles outside of peer review.
The general point remains, regardless of estimated odds on runaway change. I wasn’t even referring to his alarmist writings, just the insights on long-term climate he offered in books decades ago while he was still a climate-change denier!
And for heaven’s sakes!! The man is 93 years old, and, yes, is willing to be outspoken in ways tenure-worried scientists would not be.
To disparage this genius because his mental acuity may have declined by age 93 is silly.
Good thing I was never said anything about his mental acuity (neither the article, so we got a straw man point there), the point stands, when someone relies on books and it is not willing to face peer review, a scientist like him is only reporting his opinion, not the science.
The country you’re thinking of is most likely Denmark, which is making claims to the far north based on its ownership of Greenland. ETA: These claims, as well as Canada’s and Russia’s, are based on speculation that there may be oil and other mineral resources that will become available as the ice recedes.
Neither Russia nor Denmark has any reasonable claim to the majority of the Northwest Passage, which passes through Canadian waters. The difficulty there is likely to be between Canada, which wants to control and possibly profit from the new route, and those countries which think it should be an open international route even when it passes between two islands which are indisputably part of Canada.
I see what you’re saying, but probably disagree. Like I’ve said, we are indisputably in a cold period now relative to geologic history. Many periods in Earth’s history have no arctic ice at all, for example. However even more recently than the Eocene, in the Oligocene, some 25 mya we had significant warming, and the Sun’s output was extremely similar to what it is now. Scientists have shown 10% warming every billion years from the Sun, so 25 mya the Sun’s output was only 2.5% lower. Even 250,000 years ago we had a temperature spike to warmer than what it is today, and the Sun’s output would only be like .25% less at that time.
2.5% is actually pretty big, if that is simple percentage increase in energy we get from the Sun. That’s about 5 degrees centigrade (as a first order approximation, since most of the raw temperature of the Earth is due to raw solar radiation and not internal energy or greenhousing.)
Actually I think my math is off, it equates to almost 2K, due to the fourth root nature of blackbody radiation, but the point is that it is not insignificant.
My bad, my math is actually off (by an order of magnitude in fact.) As I said, scientists estimate you see about a 10% increase in 1 billion years.
So 25 mya the Sun would actually .25% less than it is now, and 250,000 years ago (the most recent prior warming spike) the sun would only be .0025% less than it is now.
[10% over 1 billion years comes out to .01% every million years, by making a simple arithmetic error I posted above as though it was .1% every million years.]
.3K isn’t quite nothing but I agree that it isn’t large compared to both natural and manmade forcings. Funny that I looked hard at blackbody radiation but also forgot to check the digits :smack: