Oh please, Matt. You're being uncharacteristically stupid here.
Global warming -- more accurately thought of as global climate change -- is a seriously bad thing.
Another poster already pointed out that sea levels will rise if the non-oceanic icecaps melt. This can end up submerging low-lying areas, such as densely populated coasts. This means that places like South Florida, or coastal cities like New York or Boston would pretty much have to be abandoned. In areas around the Indian Ocean or SE Asia, this could result in wars breaking out due to whole countries of refugees having to move into the territory of their neighbors.
Temperature changes in the oceans can have significant effects. Not only does warmer water occupy more volume, exacerbating sea level rise, but warm water strengthens hurricanes. This means longer seasons, more storms, worse storms, and the danger of permanent hurricanes if northerly cold water isn't cold enough to disperse it before it can cycle back to warm water. And remember that snow and ice has a really high albedo, while the oceans have quite a low albedo -- once the water changes state, it'll absorb more heat from sunlight and only speed up the process.
Also, water temperature is a key factor in ocean currents, and affects air temperature. Western Europe is actually at really northerly latitudes; Spain, with a California-like climate is about as far north as you are, while the UK, which is generally pretty nice is as far north as Labrador. This is possible because their air gets warmed up by the oceans drawing in heat from the south. Change the ocean temperature and the currents may shut down or change as well, altering the temperatures on land, sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler.
The water cycle can be hit by this. Changes in air temperature can alter where rain falls. In areas that rely on predictable seasonal weather (e.g. monsoons), having their rain fall elsewhere can cause their crops to fail. And the new recipints of the rain might be unprepared for it, getting caught in flooding, soil erosion, etc.
All of this -- changes in temperature, adding fresh water to the oceans, changes in weather -- can impact ecological niches, and result in lots of species going extinct because they can't adapt rapidly enough. Species that can adapt, on the other hand, might end up as disease vectors, carrying plant, animal, and human diseases into areas that hadn't had them before.
Humans have been really successful with the climate as it is. Screwing with it when we're unwilling, unprepared, and pretty much unable to deal well with the result is just idiotic.
I'd also point out that some CO2 is natural. Lots of it is synthetic in origin, and too much is a decidedly bad thing. I mean, ice was natural, does that mean that the release of ice-9 was good? It did end up killing everything but people and ants, and the people weren't doing so good. Right now we've got way the hell more CO2 than the Earth has ever been known to have, and we've shown no signs of slowing down. Yes, it's a pollutant. Bring it down to reasonable levels, and it's not a problem. No one cares about the output from animals; it's the output from engines and such that is the problem. And while power generation might be essential, the current method of power production certainly is not. Nor, frankly, is a lot of our lifestyle. If avoiding global warming means that people need to live more densely, closer to their jobs, or that we can't economically ship out of season fruit halfway around the world or something, I couldn't care less. Our modern lifestyle is not sacrosanct.
Al Gore's movie is playing in your general region (though I don't have your new address) and I strongly encourage you to see it. At the very least, even if it doesn't change your mind, it will give you a better idea of what to argue against, instead of the straw man you've constructed.
I've been told before that I need to do a better job distinguishing when I'm being sincerely wacky as opposed to (characteristically) provocative. You're right, I'm exaggerating, there's no serious environmental movement that I know of that demands regulation of breathing to control atmospheric CO2.
And I agree that global climate change would cause problems (you bring up a good point that it wouldn't be a uniform +2 degrees all over the world, it would have varying effects in different areas). But AFAIK, these problems would be slow in coming, would be disruptive but not catastrophic, and could probably be solved/prevented more easily forty years from now than today.
In a couple decades we'll have better climate simulations, better large-scale engineering capabilities, and an overall better understanding of how we affect the atmosphere.
At the moment I feel a bit like prophets of doom are running around yelling for people to sacrifice their sheep to appease the weather gods. We do know that the climate is changing. We don't know for sure that the sheep are causing the problem. We don't have much assurance that sacrificing the sheep will fix the problem. But an awful lot of people are going to suffer for lack of wool and mutton (aka cheap electrical power) this year if we do what the doomsayers demand.
Some animal populations will suffer from global warming, others will thrive, as you point out. How many species went extinct during the Medieval warm period? The little ice age of ~1600 AD? Climate change on a timescale of a hundred years is not uncommon, think of it as evolution in action. Humans have been successful in a wide range of climates. Note that the exceptions tend to be on the cold end. The tropics are much more densely populated than the arctic regions.
Ice-9 is, er, fictional. We do have higher CO2 levels now than we've had historically (400 ppm vs 250 ppm). I don't know that this has caused ill effects. Nobody is rushed to the hospital for atmospheric CO2 poisoning. The canaries are doing fine. I'd tentatively argue that Earth's history of cyclic ice ages (and associated cyclic CO2 levels) implies negative feedback, which may keep us from going too far from nominal levels. As one example, more CO2 means faster plant growth, which sequesters excess CO2.
I agree that our modern lifestyle is not sacrosanct; we need to make serious changes to accomodate the increasing cost of oil, the rising global demand for raw materials, the epidemic of obesity and sedentary-lifestyle diseases here in the US. But from what I've seen so far, global warming isn't a serious enough threat to make that list.
This is no longer clear. Firstly, because we've been dumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and truly huge quantities during the last 50 years or so. This might mean that we've already used up much of our grace period, and rapid changes are ahead. Secondly, because we're finding positive feedback cycles. Look, for example, at how rapidly a part of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica broke up. It was the size of Rhode Island, and yet it happened in a month, far faster than anyone predicted or expected.
would be disruptive but not catastrophic
I think that that depends. For people in the US, a wealthy and technologically advanced country with a lot of land area, we could probably manage. For the 140-odd million people crammed into Bangladesh, where the whole country is quite low-lying, where per capita income is extremely low, I think that it could quite accurately be considered catastrophic. The country would largely cease to exist, and they wouldn't be able to prevent this. For their neighbors, who would have to deal with millions upon millions of refugees, it might be catastrophic as well; they'll not only have their own problems, but they'll have to deal with the problems of the displaced Bangladeshis.
could probably be solved/prevented more easily forty years from now than today.
The effects of global warming might be more easily dealt with then, but since time is a factor, preventing global warming from happening is something that can't be put off. Besides, it's not that hard to deal with now; it's basically industrial and vehicular emissions that are the problem. We basically either need to capture those emissions where possible, and avoid the processes resulting in them where possible. Even if we can't stop all of them, significant reductions can't hurt.
I'd compare it to Ehrlich's theory of the "Population Bomb"
Ehrlich and Malthus aren't inherently wrong, it's just that we keep finding technological solutions before we run into the wall. Ehrlich had Borlaug. But I think that it's pretty dumb to expect these things to magically be developed just as we need them. It would not be the end of the world if we created our problems at a slower pace, giving ourselves more time to find and implement solutions. But it might be, at the rate we're going.
In a couple decades we'll have better climate simulations, better large-scale engineering capabilities, and an overall better understanding of how we affect the atmosphere.
And yet I can't help but think that all that will result in is our having a much better idea of just how screwed we'll be, and how we could have done something about it previously, if we had been willing to try. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to the possibility of the world becoming significantly less hospitable.
We don't know for sure that the sheep are causing the problem.
AFAIK there is little doubt that it's the sheep. We might lack 100% certainty, but we have enough to go on. And even if it's not the sheep, will there have been significant harm done by reducing how much we pollute anyway? It's not as though it's otherwise desirable.
Ice-9 is, er, fictional.
Well duh. I was making a point.
I'd tentatively argue that Earth's history of cyclic ice ages (and associated cyclic CO2 levels) implies negative feedback, which may keep us from going too far from nominal levels.
Well first, we're way outside of the normal bounds already. Second, that takes time to occur. Third, I don't want to live in an ice age either. Our historical climate has been great. I'm for not screwing with it, if possible.
Global warming -- more accurately thought of as global climate change -- is a seriously bad thing.
Another poster already pointed out that sea levels will rise if the non-oceanic icecaps melt. This can end up submerging low-lying areas, such as densely populated coasts. This means that places like South Florida, or coastal cities like New York or Boston would pretty much have to be abandoned. In areas around the Indian Ocean or SE Asia, this could result in wars breaking out due to whole countries of refugees having to move into the territory of their neighbors.
Temperature changes in the oceans can have significant effects. Not only does warmer water occupy more volume, exacerbating sea level rise, but warm water strengthens hurricanes. This means longer seasons, more storms, worse storms, and the danger of permanent hurricanes if northerly cold water isn't cold enough to disperse it before it can cycle back to warm water. And remember that snow and ice has a really high albedo, while the oceans have quite a low albedo -- once the water changes state, it'll absorb more heat from sunlight and only speed up the process.
Also, water temperature is a key factor in ocean currents, and affects air temperature. Western Europe is actually at really northerly latitudes; Spain, with a California-like climate is about as far north as you are, while the UK, which is generally pretty nice is as far north as Labrador. This is possible because their air gets warmed up by the oceans drawing in heat from the south. Change the ocean temperature and the currents may shut down or change as well, altering the temperatures on land, sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler.
The water cycle can be hit by this. Changes in air temperature can alter where rain falls. In areas that rely on predictable seasonal weather (e.g. monsoons), having their rain fall elsewhere can cause their crops to fail. And the new recipints of the rain might be unprepared for it, getting caught in flooding, soil erosion, etc.
All of this -- changes in temperature, adding fresh water to the oceans, changes in weather -- can impact ecological niches, and result in lots of species going extinct because they can't adapt rapidly enough. Species that can adapt, on the other hand, might end up as disease vectors, carrying plant, animal, and human diseases into areas that hadn't had them before.
Humans have been really successful with the climate as it is. Screwing with it when we're unwilling, unprepared, and pretty much unable to deal well with the result is just idiotic.
I'd also point out that some CO2 is natural. Lots of it is synthetic in origin, and too much is a decidedly bad thing. I mean, ice was natural, does that mean that the release of ice-9 was good? It did end up killing everything but people and ants, and the people weren't doing so good. Right now we've got way the hell more CO2 than the Earth has ever been known to have, and we've shown no signs of slowing down. Yes, it's a pollutant. Bring it down to reasonable levels, and it's not a problem. No one cares about the output from animals; it's the output from engines and such that is the problem. And while power generation might be essential, the current method of power production certainly is not. Nor, frankly, is a lot of our lifestyle. If avoiding global warming means that people need to live more densely, closer to their jobs, or that we can't economically ship out of season fruit halfway around the world or something, I couldn't care less. Our modern lifestyle is not sacrosanct.
Al Gore's movie is playing in your general region (though I don't have your new address) and I strongly encourage you to see it. At the very least, even if it doesn't change your mind, it will give you a better idea of what to argue against, instead of the straw man you've constructed.
Reply
You're right, I'm exaggerating, there's no serious environmental movement that I know of that demands regulation of breathing to control atmospheric CO2.
And I agree that global climate change would cause problems (you bring up a good point that it wouldn't be a uniform +2 degrees all over the world, it would have varying effects in different areas). But AFAIK, these problems would be slow in coming, would be disruptive but not catastrophic, and could probably be solved/prevented more easily forty years from now than today.
Thus I think the fear over global warming is overblown. I'd compare it to Ehrlich's theory of the "Population Bomb" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
In a couple decades we'll have better climate simulations, better large-scale engineering capabilities, and an overall better understanding of how we affect the atmosphere.
At the moment I feel a bit like prophets of doom are running around yelling for people to sacrifice their sheep to appease the weather gods. We do know that the climate is changing. We don't know for sure that the sheep are causing the problem. We don't have much assurance that sacrificing the sheep will fix the problem. But an awful lot of people are going to suffer for lack of wool and mutton (aka cheap electrical power) this year if we do what the doomsayers demand.
Some animal populations will suffer from global warming, others will thrive, as you point out. How many species went extinct during the Medieval warm period? The little ice age of ~1600 AD? Climate change on a timescale of a hundred years is not uncommon, think of it as evolution in action. Humans have been successful in a wide range of climates. Note that the exceptions tend to be on the cold end. The tropics are much more densely populated than the arctic regions.
Ice-9 is, er, fictional. We do have higher CO2 levels now than we've had historically (400 ppm vs 250 ppm). I don't know that this has caused ill effects. Nobody is rushed to the hospital for atmospheric CO2 poisoning. The canaries are doing fine. I'd tentatively argue that Earth's history of cyclic ice ages (and associated cyclic CO2 levels) implies negative feedback, which may keep us from going too far from nominal levels. As one example, more CO2 means faster plant growth, which sequesters excess CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
I agree that our modern lifestyle is not sacrosanct; we need to make serious changes to accomodate the increasing cost of oil, the rising global demand for raw materials, the epidemic of obesity and sedentary-lifestyle diseases here in the US. But from what I've seen so far, global warming isn't a serious enough threat to make that list.
Reply
This is no longer clear. Firstly, because we've been dumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and truly huge quantities during the last 50 years or so. This might mean that we've already used up much of our grace period, and rapid changes are ahead. Secondly, because we're finding positive feedback cycles. Look, for example, at how rapidly a part of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica broke up. It was the size of Rhode Island, and yet it happened in a month, far faster than anyone predicted or expected.
would be disruptive but not catastrophic
I think that that depends. For people in the US, a wealthy and technologically advanced country with a lot of land area, we could probably manage. For the 140-odd million people crammed into Bangladesh, where the whole country is quite low-lying, where per capita income is extremely low, I think that it could quite accurately be considered catastrophic. The country would largely cease to exist, and they wouldn't be able to prevent this. For their neighbors, who would have to deal with millions upon millions of refugees, it might be catastrophic as well; they'll not only have their own problems, but they'll have to deal with the problems of the displaced Bangladeshis.
could probably be solved/prevented more easily forty years from now than today.
The effects of global warming might be more easily dealt with then, but since time is a factor, preventing global warming from happening is something that can't be put off. Besides, it's not that hard to deal with now; it's basically industrial and vehicular emissions that are the problem. We basically either need to capture those emissions where possible, and avoid the processes resulting in them where possible. Even if we can't stop all of them, significant reductions can't hurt.
I'd compare it to Ehrlich's theory of the "Population Bomb"
Ehrlich and Malthus aren't inherently wrong, it's just that we keep finding technological solutions before we run into the wall. Ehrlich had Borlaug. But I think that it's pretty dumb to expect these things to magically be developed just as we need them. It would not be the end of the world if we created our problems at a slower pace, giving ourselves more time to find and implement solutions. But it might be, at the rate we're going.
In a couple decades we'll have better climate simulations, better large-scale engineering capabilities, and an overall better understanding of how we affect the atmosphere.
And yet I can't help but think that all that will result in is our having a much better idea of just how screwed we'll be, and how we could have done something about it previously, if we had been willing to try. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to the possibility of the world becoming significantly less hospitable.
We don't know for sure that the sheep are causing the problem.
AFAIK there is little doubt that it's the sheep. We might lack 100% certainty, but we have enough to go on. And even if it's not the sheep, will there have been significant harm done by reducing how much we pollute anyway? It's not as though it's otherwise desirable.
Ice-9 is, er, fictional.
Well duh. I was making a point.
I'd tentatively argue that Earth's history of cyclic ice ages (and associated cyclic CO2 levels) implies negative feedback, which may keep us from going too far from nominal levels.
Well first, we're way outside of the normal bounds already. Second, that takes time to occur. Third, I don't want to live in an ice age either. Our historical climate has been great. I'm for not screwing with it, if possible.
--josh
Reply
Leave a comment