We had a thread like this, but it got hijacked by a fantasist. Seems like a good a time as any to light another bonfire of vanities... and flush out some new opinions along the way
---
Here's a couple of US-centric headlines from the last few weeks, just to get us started:
Climate shift 'killing US trees'
Analysis of undisturbed forests showed that the trees' mortality rate had doubled since 1955, researchers said
Drought warning as the tropics expand
Now new research suggests that the three-year drought in the Golden State may be a consequence of the expanding tropics
They seemed suitable, as they've probably already hit people's buttons in certain ways: Apprehension if you're concerned by climate change; derision if your highly sceptical of the scientist's claims; apathy if you don't know what to think about it either way. And so on...
So how about some positive ones?...
Fish Guts Explain Marine Carbon Cycle Mystery
[Fish will help rebalance ocean pH & lock away even more carbon if expected sea temp & CO2 rises take place]
Some locust plagues don't like it hot
"Our results suggest that warming reduced climatic extremes and locust plagues in ancient China."
Chances are your buttons were getting pushed again one way or another: Scientists don't know everything; warming might be a good thing; why does China get to have all the fun these days? (etc )...
For what it's worth, I thought I'd state my position bluntly here:
A key issue to remember when pondering all this is that that CO2 emissions remain influential for centuries{*}. (That's why all the fuss about it - in case ya didn't know ).
I'll happily admit that I've mainly posted this to flush out layman Climate Change deniers, so I can challenge any scepticism-lite objections they may have.
But I wouldn't want to leave those peturbed by these issues without a positive note. How's about this?... We might be able to scrub some of that CO2 back out again - & maybe power our cars with the 'proceeds'
---
Here's a couple of US-centric headlines from the last few weeks, just to get us started:
Climate shift 'killing US trees'
Analysis of undisturbed forests showed that the trees' mortality rate had doubled since 1955, researchers said
Drought warning as the tropics expand
Now new research suggests that the three-year drought in the Golden State may be a consequence of the expanding tropics
They seemed suitable, as they've probably already hit people's buttons in certain ways: Apprehension if you're concerned by climate change; derision if your highly sceptical of the scientist's claims; apathy if you don't know what to think about it either way. And so on...
So how about some positive ones?...
Fish Guts Explain Marine Carbon Cycle Mystery
[Fish will help rebalance ocean pH & lock away even more carbon if expected sea temp & CO2 rises take place]
Some locust plagues don't like it hot
"Our results suggest that warming reduced climatic extremes and locust plagues in ancient China."
Chances are your buttons were getting pushed again one way or another: Scientists don't know everything; warming might be a good thing; why does China get to have all the fun these days? (etc )...
For what it's worth, I thought I'd state my position bluntly here:
- The underlying physics connecting human emissions & activities to accelerated climate change seems too solid to ignore {*}
To this layman, anyway. If there's one thing 'hard' scientists love doing it's tearing down a weak argument. You don't establish a consensus of this apparently unprecedented kind amongst these fractious types, over decades, (in a discipline that's accessible to government number-crunchers to analyse) unless the theory is testable & exceptionally flipping strong.
- The debate should be about Mitigation vs Adaptation
There is plenty of uncertainty about how good the predictive models are. So the question should be how much do we direct our energies & money towards reducing our greenhouse gas influence (Mitigation) and how much towards 'everyday' concerns that will be an issue come climate change or not (Adaptation) - such as crop improvement & drought prevention etc (all of which are considered key to avoiding resource wars in the face of a 'peaking' global population)
- Some human-influenced changes seem to be here. There are reasons to believe future changes will damaging for humanity.
Ongoing changes are increasingly being directly connected to human influences. (Once things have happened that makes them much more testable ). Even if we were to hit the base level targets for reducing emissions, certain changes are liable to occur that will stress well known problems for global social stability (those like water, food & land-access that fall in the 'Adaptation' category)
A key issue to remember when pondering all this is that that CO2 emissions remain influential for centuries{*}. (That's why all the fuss about it - in case ya didn't know ).
I'll happily admit that I've mainly posted this to flush out layman Climate Change deniers, so I can challenge any scepticism-lite objections they may have.
But I wouldn't want to leave those peturbed by these issues without a positive note. How's about this?... We might be able to scrub some of that CO2 back out again - & maybe power our cars with the 'proceeds'
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here
Last edited by Golgot; 02-08-09 at 11:41 PM.