Yay, you bit
Originally Posted by Sir Toose
NOW, you're going to try to piss me off. Did I not preface my statement with a caveat to the effect that I don't spend my waking hours beating off to Al Gore's pseudo science? I thought so.
Yep, you stated you didn't know much about the science involved. Then you happily concluded that the science is 'half baked'. How does that work?
(Incidentally, Gore's little powerpoint presentation is apparently considered surprisingly accurate on most of the key points, according to climate change scientists who've seen it, so the 'pseudo science' tag does seem pretty sweeping
)
Originally Posted by Toose
Just establishing a baseline.
Yeah, i know. I just thought it was kinda ironic that it wasn't very accurate, given your general "the science probably isn't accurate" stance
Originally Posted by Toose
There is no solid evidence that anything we (humankind) are doing is having any sort of long range detrimental side effect. This discussion needs to be framed as a hypothetical one.
First off, according to the IPCC et al, there
is very solid evidence that humans are affecting climate change. So on what grounds are you casting
that aspect into the 'hypothetical' realm?
Certainly predicting the future is a much more hypothetical practice, and gauging 'detriment' doubly so. It's worth looking at the general grounds on which the scientist's are making their predictions tho...
Originally Posted by Toose
Want to get more specific?
Sure. I imagine you're aware of most of this... but anyways...
A major one which worries CC scientists is the 400ppm (parts per million) 'threshold' for C02 concentration in the atmosphere - as it is considered 'highly likely' that we will reach a global temp of 2 degrees C above the pre-industrial period under such conditions.
The reason for that being a worrying 'threshold' in itself is that a 2C rise seems likely to set certain 'tipping points' into a phase-change in earnest.
Here's a good overview of 12 reasonably-well-understood 'positive feedback' systems that could change state with 'speed', and in some cases further add to the overall global shift.
And
Here's an interesting breakdown (and ensuing discussion) of the idea of 'tipping point' phenomenon.
Originally Posted by Toose
Whoa horsey, you're getting carried away again in speaking as if Gore's wet dream has already started coming (excuse the pun) to pass. Again, there isn't enough out there to start making bold assertions against what the future might or might not hold based upon 'evidence' that we might or might not have.
Hardly anyone is making
bold assertions of what
exactly is going to happen. Especially amongst the CC scientists. And yet you seem to want to throw the evidence that
does exist into the 'might not exist' category, which is daft.
For example, there
do seem to be changes going on now. There is pretty strong evidence of significant melt in the Antarctic (with contingent flooding risks for the future) and of permafrost melting too (with potential for mass methane-emission). There are signs of some slow-down in the European-end of the 'Gulf Stream' etc (which could, in extreme circumstances, cause flooding and society-battering temperature drops in the NW areas). IE several of the 'tipping points' seem to be undergoing predicted change, most probably due to the raised global surface temperature (and contingent factors etc).
Are those things worth keeping and eye on? Or not?
Originally Posted by Toose
Oh good you said 'likely' and stopped typing in definitive terms.
I'm totally streamlining my conclusions etc for brevities sake (honest
). I've dumped a lot of caveats just to get the conversation started too
. But for all that, i reckon i still highlighted the main areas of scientific uncertainty/certainty as i went (even in ways that don't necessarily reflect my own views). So
Originally Posted by Toose
Back to Doomsday
Not really. Just asserting the idea that climate change is probably inevitable in some form or another (given the fossil record of past examples etc). Would you prefer i was dreaming of a human-built thermostat where we could switch certain aspects of the climate on and off? (Coz hey, there are 'geoengineers' who want to do the equivilant - with giant sun-blocking shields or induced permanent cloud formations etc).
Nah man - i'm on a positive track
Originally Posted by Toose
Okay, so we're discussing the fossil record here and its relationship to current events. Remember, this is the part where you indicated your opinion of my intelligence.
Dyamn man, i was joking! Since when did the Devil have thin skin?
(Altho i was laying things on with a trowel, admittedly, given your past signs of apparent-contempt for archaeology/geology
)
Originally Posted by Toose
1). If humankind has only had an effect (purportedly) on the environment for MAYBE 70 years (and I'm being generous) and we've known about this carbon emission 'science' for less than that, then how do we know a natural 'healing' process, as the one you've mentioned above, can take place?
Because:
(a) We can observe it happening
now (But neither it, nor mainland 'carbon fixing', captures all of the gases, of course. [And the efficacy of the ocean process are expected to drop as temperatures rise - based on observations of the ways the flora and fauna involved react to changes in temperature and other factors etc. But you probably don't wanna hear that
])
(b) We can draw general conclusions about its
past 'behaviour', under various conditions, thanks to the geological record etc.
Originally Posted by Toose
2). Was there some sort of emission hiatus that the world took part in to watch the ocean heal the earth?
Heh, i doubt hiatus, but i've no idea what the offical lines are on this. It seems that all the major elements involved are always around to one degree or another tho. Seems it's all a question of degrees really. (Pun not intended, but i'll leave it
) .
(Not sure 'heal' is the right word either - but i quite like the Gaia hypothesis, so i'll roll with it
)
Originally Posted by Toose
3). What caused previous events where 'global warming' occurred
Again, i've never read anything specifically on that subject. I believe that elevated green-house gas levels (plus water vapour etc), along with many other factors which bear comparison with today (not least of which being the sun's role) have been tied in with transitions to periods of greater warmth. I know they've learnt a lot from 'minor' temporary shifts as well, such as the 'mini' ice ages for example.
Originally Posted by Toose
4). Since China, for example, has become a manufacturing superpower and has, as would be natural, increased exponentially in fuel use and emission can we see a trend of worsening damage proportional to the amount of emissions? In what study is that information available?
Well, i don't know of a specific study, but i do know that systems are being set up with an aim to measuring the specific output of various regions via satellite etc [currently it's mainly done on 'declared emissions' etc] - so it's possible that future studies will be able to display a reasonably accurate correlation between national output and local-and-global trends.
As a rule, yeah, China's expected to undo most of the good work any of the fully-industrialised nations care to undertake - especially as they're sitting on some very convenient coal resources. They do also have 'green-leanings' tho - along with every country really - and can be expected to be interested in any future tech which lowers emissions while securing energy efficiency and autonomy. [They're also already struggling a bit with water resource issues - so, would probably take extra interest if predictions suggested exacerbated drought conditions in their region]
Originally Posted by Toose
Speculation at best with possible scientific indicators. FAR from fact at this point.
Did you notice the 'probably'?
. As i've said, none of the predictions are classed as facts. But they're based on them. Within scales of probability, and still using a healthy does of scepticism, i'd still rate their prediction abilities over yours
Originally Posted by Toose
I'm not discarding any of this as a waste of time. I'd hate to say that we aren't having an effect on the environment, that may be causing bad things to happen, and then be wrong.
And i'd hate to pursue anything that was an over-reaction. (That's why i prefer 'dual use' responses
. Do stuff that makes financial and social sense whether the predictions pan out or not
)
Originally Posted by Toose
Nothing that relates to any of this is factually proven however so don't act like it is.
Well, the scientists say you're wrong. And, on this, again, i trust them over you matey
. The correlation between human activity and temperature rise is a solid bit of fact-based science, it seems.
All the predictions that then follow on from this are very much more 'up in the air'. But it can't hurt to help them improve their all-purpose climate predictions with a
click now can it?
Originally Posted by Toose
Also, if I'm as smart as a debating doll then I'd have to equate you with a parrot who happens to be caged within a real scientists lab.
Rawwwk! Bad for the environment! Rawwwk!
Hah. They ain't got me caged. I peer over their shoulder and **** down their back. All the while squawking 'What!? What!?' in their ear.