Global Warming. Let's do it again.

Great Debates
1

A C&P of a post to the Comments forum:

***I know man will create massive world-wide flooding that will destroy up to 3 feet of coastline based on 2 or 3 centuries of industrialization in the US. It’s proven by the ice caps receding, you dolts!!! All we, as good Americans, need to do is severly curtail out lifestyle to save the Earth! India and China, with no “global” pressure to care about dying puppies, aren’t under any pressure at all to halt or even care about pollution.

What I want to know is who was around to screw up my fishing? I mean, I live in the middle of one of the largest fresh-water lakes to ever exist. Except there is no lake.

Here’s where I’m getting confused. At one point there was a huge glacier extending from here to the geologic formations as far as Wisconsin and Michigan. Then the glacier melted creating this huge-ass lake. Then something happened to dry everything out, save the Great Lakes.

Seems a little more significant than a 3 degree rise in average worlwide temps over the next 100 years caused by us humans. 3 degrees per century over 400 years won’t make the Ice-Age recede.

Maybe the Creationists are right and we lived among the dinosaurs. We somehow put their bodies on the fast-track for oil production to kill the Earth.

Personally, I’m gambling on a 5 billion year history of the planet kicking our asses after 5000 years.

Just saying.***

Again, as before, I’m looking for something to make me consider global warming not only being a valid concern, but why it’s so important now as opposed to 100,000 years ago. Or a million. Or a billion.

Like any planetary body (or life form) there are changes and evolution. Things change, temps rise and fall, life forms evolve and decay. Oceans rise and fall. Ambient carbon levels rise and fall. Nitrogen, oxygen, ozone, helium, etc.

To expect the Earth to be static and dependant on human activity to make any change is hubris to a sick degree. For all the species we’re blamed of killing every day, what about those that become formed based on nature? What about those that evolve? What about those that haven’t been discovered yet? They evolved and we just didn’t discover them? It only takes 100 years to evolve into a new life form? And it only formed if we find it and catalogue it?

Life is always changing. Only the most ardent creationist can deny it. What some forget is that for every life evolved, another one becomes extinct because they didn’t evolve and adapt. Fossils prove extinct life forms.

And yet humans were not around to kill them. The Earth somehow had her own willy-nilly cycles over millenia to weed out those that couldn’t keep pace. Forest fires (that provided life), volcanoes (that provided life), massive warming (that provided life), massive cooling (that provided life).

The Earth isn’t concerned with what man can do. We’ve proven that with the nuclear weapons dropped on Japan in WWII as well as in various other locales during testing. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island (though that was pretty non-consequential, regardless the news stories.)

All healthy and robust biologically.

The global warming hysterics, IMO are at best some people with valid cares, but misguided and often uninformed. Their hearts are in the right place, I guess, but so blinded they can’t see the forest for the trees. (Sometimes literally.)
The entire call for “Global Warming” concern, is no different than those in the '70’s (China Syndrome, anyone?) that were worried about nuclear power plants. As in nuclear power, the big concern was the environment. But that was the facade. (Goofy French punctuation inserted). The concern wasn’t what horrors nuclear power may wreak on the environment, but rather what it may wreak on the protest group in the unlikely chance it harmed them. (BTW, how may people died from nuclear power plants in the US?)

None? Guess what? They lived on to tout “global warming”.

Do I have the definitive say on the theory? Of course not. Can I look at some simple history to see man has had pretty much nothing to do with causing entire sheets of ice to cover continents then recede?
Well, the house is dry right now and the Northern’s aren’t biting for a damn off the back porch.
To the global warming crusaders, I ask simply this. Are you trying to protect your life? Or the well-being of the Earth? Answer that honestly and we can talk.
Because if it’s the Earth you’re trying to save, I have news for you. If you think you can control the environment for good or bad, I have a T-Rex in my gas tank that wants to sign up for the newsletter.

2

Which issue would you like to debate?
[ol][li]The climate of the Earth is warming, which may/will lead to radical shifts in coastlines and the ability of humans to provide themselves enough sustenance to survive?[/li][li]The climate of the Earth is warming, which may/will lead to radical shifts in coastlines and the ability of humans to provide themselves enough sustenance to survive–and it’s all our fault and we need to stop it![/li][li]Anyone who believes either point #1 or point #2 is behaving irrationally because the physical globe will continue to survive even if all life forms on its surface are destroyed and who cares about humanity or other life, anyway.[/li][li]Everyone who expresses concerns about any ecological disaster is a fool because we are going to be fine.[/li][li]Everyone who expresses concerns about any ecological disaster is a fool because we are going to die horribly, regardless of the scenario.[/ol][/li]The question of whether Global Warming is real is a legitimate topic.
The assumption that Global Warming is real, but whether it is the result of human interference or is following a long-duration natural cycle is a legitimate topic.
Point 3 might be a legitimate topic, although it relies on an assumption that humans should not care, one way or another, whether there will by any life as we know it if disaster strikes. You seem to have begged the question when you posed this one. I think that it is likely that most concern about ecological issues are tied to a concern that a person or his or her offspring will or will not be able to survive. Pretending that that is not a (legitimate) concern for many people is not conducive to rational discourse.
Points #4 and #5 are also legitimate topics for discussion (if expressed in a manner that is unnecessarily hostile).

3

What really are the odds of America’s coastal cities being flooded when the ice caps melt?

4

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Which issue would you like to debate?
[list=1][li]The climate of the Earth is warming, which may/will [/li][/QUOTE]

Well, let’s begin with may/will and change it to may/may not. Without an option we’re set up from the gate.

Cavemen lived during the Ice Age and somehow we’re here debating massive climate change as the end of civilization. What the hell were Fred and Barney driving to cause the glaciers to melt?

Global warming is a natural cycle. It doesn’t matter what we call it. For 5 billion years it’s been happening. For another 5 billion years it will happen.

I just don’t think man is powerful enough to change or halt what has been happening for this long. And we don’t have the power to do anything to control the future cycles the Earth goes through.

5

If the debate is ‘is global warming real’ then it won’t be much of a debate IMHO. Not only is there a scientific consensus on this point but there is steadily growing solid data pointing to it as well.

If the debate is ‘are humans causing or major contributors to global warming’…well, THAT is the question isn’t it? I think there IS a lot of room for debate here, as though again there seems to be scientific consensus on this point from what I’ve read in the past the data is no where near as solid, the models are no where near as reliable or solid.

If they melt completely? I’d say the odds are 100%. That much water would raise see level by over a hundred feet IIRC (if both caps melted I mean).

I would love to see this question answered both rationally and scientifically with good solid models…instead of gloom and doom and scare tactics countered by hand waving. I’ve never seen a really good answer to this that didn’t have one or the other in it.

Same here. Again, I’ve never seen really solid science ‘proving’ that either ‘its all our fault’ or that we have the ability (without gutting our economies and civilization) to halt it if it IS our ‘fault’.

-XT

6

Wait, let me get this clear - you think the draining of Lake Agassiz (or whatever giant lake you mean) in the past is a reason not to worry about any effect humans may be having on global climate today? Is your argument something like “The Earth has always had fluctuations, whatever we do won’t matter much”?

3 degrees over a century is enough to worry me, and I live a half-hour from a nuke plant that I sometimes go hiking around. It’s not about the well-being of “The Earth”, but certainly about the wellbeing of me, my descendants and the environment they live in.

7

It may be a rather lengthy study. One I haven’t seen because it isn’t sexy for a 30 minute newscast.

Somehow, as I linked in the OP, where I live was a deep lake, but NYC was still dry. It’s fun to come up with numbers about how much the sea will rise, but there is so much missing info.

Where I live is lower than NYC. Given an increase in the sea levels, the water will always seek a lower level first. Should the icecap melt tomorrow, I imagine the water would back up into the Great Lakes before into the 3rd floor of the Chrysler Building. Beyond that? Maybe I can start fishing those Northern’s off the deck.

It’s something that sells papers and books. It’s a joke. And worst case scenario? They (the rich everyone here hates) has at least a few years to move. Bonus? More swimming area for the whales and dolphins. And warmer water for their babies.

8

The Ice Age ended. The glaciers receeded. There is no doubt global warming is happening. I’ve never denied that. I’ve shouted it.

The point is it’s been happening for millenia and has nothing to do with what people are doing in the past 200 years.

It’s a natural cycle (one of thousands) that man’s hubris thinks he can control in a few hundred years.

9

Could anything be done (if it were to occur) before the coasts became flooded?

10

“may/will” vs “may/may not”
I simply set up a potential affirmative to which I figured I’d let you set the strength of the declaration. The possibility/probability that that affirmative assertion is in error would be the whole point of the debate.

11

Lake Agassiz was a fresh-water lake left over for millions of years after a glacier melted. Then it had to somehow drain.

3 degrees over 100 years gets you worried? Get a grip and think in geologic time. How many 3 degree/century rises do you think it took to melt glaciers?

Who the hell was responsible for that?!? Good Lord, can you imagine the size of the SUV’s?!?

Me neither. I’ll grant the first 10 degrees per century to Earth. Beyond that, you have a case to nake. Stop thinking your actions have suce a great import on a planet. Earth has already punked us all for thinking anything we do can appreciably affect what she does.

Again, if you want to fight for whatever cause you choose, go for it. Just quit thinking you can have even a modicum of control over what has, is, and is going to happen. Nature will always win. The coal and oil are hers. Burning them affects us. Guess who will win?

12

Well, to be fair, coming from you that was a little unnerving and unexpected. This is a first for me, so I must reflect upon it.

(No really, I’m used to insults, so you caught me off-gaurd.)

13

I’m a trained geologist, I have no problem thinking in Ma. I don’t think it took 3deg/century temp rises to melt glaciers, 0.3 deg/century would do it just as well if the rise was constant.

Look, I’m well aware that the earth has been warmer in the past. I’m aware that the temperature change can be very sudden*. I’m also aware that the “balance” of things that determine temps is very easy to tip. Homeostasis is a delicate thing.

This in no way negates the threat that a 3 degree rise in temp over the next century poses to us now. I’m not saying that life as we know it will end. But life will change, that’s for damn sure, and as someone living on the coast, I don’t particularly look forward to moving inland.

*Sudden draining of Lake Agassiz in fact being responsible for one rapid cooling episode, by shutting off currents with fresh water influx.

14

I remember P.J O’Rourke dismissing global warming by saying the earth’s climate has been changing since the time of the trilobites.

All I could think was “Yeah, well look what happened to them!”

15

Firstly, of course we can’t keep the atmosphere ‘static’ for billions, millions or even hundreds of thousands of years, so let’s burn that strawman right now (or, at least, weave him into a handy reusable basket).

Seconsdly, crusaders? OK, I’ll accept that epithet if” discussing possible severe consequences” is “crusading”. (But let’s keep hyterical and doom-mongering out of it, can we?)

So, am I trying to protect my life. No – the probability of rising sea levels or Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference (DAI) killing me, or even affecting me economically beyond, say, increased insurance premiums is very slim. The “well-being of Earth”? Earth would exist even without a biosphere at all, and that bioshpere has survived billions of years. So ,again, wrong question.

The honest answer to why I think Antropogenic Climate Change (ACC) is a concern is to minimise harm to other people I don’t know. If I had terminal cancer, would I drive around recklessly? No, because other people would be harmed. If I accidentally break some glass in a park, do I just leave it there? Again, no – my responsibility to to avert that danger. Of course, it might not cause harm at all, ever, but taking that cahnce would be irresponsible.

The danger of ACC is that it is so much faster than natural variations. For thousands of years, the CO2 concentration has remained steady at 280 ppm. It has climbed 30% to 380 ppm in just a couple of centuries. If we do nothing to reduce emissions, CO2 will reach at least 750 ppm, which no climatologist I know of considers anything other than extreme DAI.

So, I guess the turnaround question, duffer, is: given enomous meteor impacts in Earth’s history, why should I be concerned about global thermonuclear war?

16

Why? There seems to be no basis for this assertion other than pure wishful/lazy thinking. What actual evidence do you have to support the claim that nothing humans do can change global conditions?

According to the conclusions of actual scientists, the facts appear to be quite the contrary of what you assert. Human activity does have the potential to significantly affect climate, if it isn’t doing so already. We can measure greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We can measure the amounts of greenhouse gases that we emit during human activity. We can measure global temperatures.

It appears from the measurements that humans during the industrial era have changed, and are rapidly continuing to change, the composition of the atmosphere. And there are models and evidence that, at the very least, strongly suggest that this anthropogenic atmospheric forcing is driving a large part of observed climate change in recent decades, and will drive even more of it in the future.

Like it or not, that implies that humans do have at least a “modicum” of control over what has been happening with the climate. We may not have been using that control deliberately up to now, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Hey, another Conservative Eco-Mystic ™! Usually it’s the far-out lefties like Deep Ecology people who use this kind of foggy woo-woo rhetoric about “Nature” as a supremely powerful mystical entity who can’t be significantly affected by the activity of us puny humans. But now and then you see conservative climate change deniers using it too, as it makes a useful excuse for not bothering to do anything about human environmental impacts. I collect examples of this sort of conservative “eco-mysticism”, and I thank you for contributing this fine specimen. :slight_smile:

17

Why is anyone even bothering?

duffer is just parroting the new conservative line. First it was that global warming isn’t happening. Now they can’t deny that, so it’s “Well, prove to me why I should care.”

18

Board mission, dude. Doesn’t matter whether or not the ignorance wants to be fought.

19

Sadly, I think the new position is more insidious - it now seems to be “prove to me that we haven’t passed the point of no return already, so we might as well keep emitting all we like”.

Altogether now, ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm …

20

So pollution is a myth? CFCs? Mmm, I like some mercury in my water, it kicks it up a notch!

Er…wait, is this one of those rants that says it’s OK if all humans die because the physical earth will still be floating in outer space? Huh? I’d like humanity to live into the appreciable future, thanks.