Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

[jimk]

I have largely avoided this thread. Until now. I have several questions that I don't think have ever been addressed by any one.

1. I just heard a report a few minutes ago that there's a volcano in Alaska that geologists are watching. What effects would the eruption of Mts. Redoubt, Ranier (Washington, USA), Hood (Oregon, USA), Lassen (California, USA) not to mention active volcanoes in Hawaii, Japan, and Indonesia blow? Geologists are also watching the Yellowstone area of Wyoming, USA for increased volcanic action.

2. What about the role of large scale epidemics on world politics? Think of the Black Death in Europe in the 14th century. It might not be disease but famine next time.

3. There may be a possibility of the collapse of the oil market someday. (Nothing lasts forever.) Think of the collapse of the fur trade in the mid-19th century, or later, the collapse of the buffalo hide trade or the ends of various gold rushes.

Over a period of 1000 years, I wouldn't get too shook up about the picture of the future. Civilizations rise, and civilizations fall. Out of destruction arise the materials for new creative endeavors.

Just my $0.02
JimK

[wayang]

(re:1) Volcanic eruptions do have a profound, if somewhat more temporary, effect on global climates, as evidenced by the late-nineteenth-century eruption of Krakatau and the subsequent worldwide cooling caused by particles distributed throughout the upper atmosphere. These effects last a few decades at most, as what goes up must, of course, come back down (when it's heavier than air). CO2 is different in a number of ways.

(re:2) Epidemics and famine are big, important geopolitical factors, but these are caused primarily by overpopulation.

(re:3) As the Saudi Oil Minister himself once said, on the subject of the future of the oil market: "The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone." This contrasts strongly with the history of genocidal markets such as the fur trade and the buffalo hide trade, and gold rushes were almost always done before most people even got there...

One of the main reasons for mitigating our current behavior is to make things better for ourselves here and now. I don't know what the air quality is like where the rest of you live, but here in the Mile High City, we fight for our oxygen on a daily basis against the giant hydrocarbon f*rt we live inside of (euphemistically termed "The Brown Cloud")...

As to the idea that "life tends to fluorish during warm periods", that may be so...but the way I read history, warm periods tend to favor giant reptiles and insects...the best size for a mammal during those historical periods seemed to be that of a shrew...

[jimk]

re: #2 the point I was trying to make was that these sorts of epidemic episodes tend to drastically reduce human population. Population reduction should have some effect on the environment.

re: #3. Mining is mining, whether it's pelts, gold, coal, or oil. It all has some effect on the environment.



Yes, we should be very concerned about the here & now. But I doubt that Exxon/Mobil is going to go down without some serious kicking and screaming. I think they may just keep on mining until its all gone. And there's no incentive for them to diversify as far as I can tell. Empires rise, and empires collapse.

In sum, something seems to happen eventually which drastically disrupts the status quo. Sometimes the disruptions are small, sometimes they are drastic, like the Black Death.

JimK

[brammy]

>>>>The 'global warming' theory states, among other things, that the melting Arctic ice cap will push the Gulf Stream further south in the Atlantic,

With the operative word being "theory". Unfortunately for the luddites among us, observation does not correspond with their theories. And if cooling is actually part of the global warming theory, why didn't your guru Al Gore tell us about that little detail in his thoroughly disingenuous movie?

Antarctica Ice Cap Growth Reaches Record High Levels (Photos)
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/ ... aches.html

The Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Back And It's Thick
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/ ... -back.html

Average Arctic sea ice extent for the month of December (2008) was 12.53 million square kilometers (4.84 million square miles). This was 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) greater than for December 2007
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

But thats ok, the sky-is-falling luddites have never let the facts stand in the way of placing blame on the evil humans. In the 70's it was cooling.
(Another Ice Age? (Time, 1972), “The Cooling World”(Newsweek, 1975) and “Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing: MajorCooling May Be Ahead” (The New York Times, 1975)). That one didn't work out. In the 90's and early 2000's it was warming. That one didn't work out either. Now it's "Global Warming, but this melt the ice caps and will actually cause cooling" but this one aint working either.

Some luddites still believe that the ice caps are melting. The fact that it is not true does not seem to deter them. Those same luddites think that the polar bears are in danger. The fact that it is not true and that lies and distortions of the major media have been exposed does not slow them down at all. Becausee, you see, to the left it is not the facts that are important but whether the story tells the right narrative. Al Gore got a Nobel... not for doing any real science, and not for telling the truth... no. He was awarded the prize because it told the right story and advanced us toward the greatest money grab scam in history: carbon trading. Follow the money? You bet.

[brammy]

And just in case any of you were wondering what a hardcore luddite sounds like ....

>>>>As to the idea that "life tends to fluorish during warm periods", that may be so...but the way I read history, warm periods tend to favor giant reptiles and insects...the best size for a mammal during those historical periods seemed to be that of a shrew...

Get it? Mankind will suffer and the lowly shrew will prosper. And, to them, that is GOOD NEWS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

No, the observations that life (including human life) flourishes more in warmer periods are not only referring to millions of years ago, but to relatively recent times. http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2669 Global "climate change" is nothing new. What we are seeing is neither unique nor even dramatic. It has all happened before and will all happen again.

I think it would be great for mankind if we were headed for a warmer period. We'd flourish just like Greenland did prior to the 1300's. Unfortunately is seems like Mr Sun may have a different plan in store for us. Recent lack of sunspot activity has caused concern that we might be headed for a repeat of the "Maunder Minimum", but the latest observations are encouraging in that some increased sun activity is observed.

The sky is not falling. And (as strange as it sounds to rational people) to a luddite that is BAD NEWS.

[brammy]

GLOBAL WARMING DOOM, GLOOM HAVEN'T OCCURRED
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/conte ... /3106/218/

Scientists Say 'Not So Fast' On Climate Gloom And Doom
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/ ... _say_2.php
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/080719

Global warming challenged by new data and failed predictions
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/080719

Sorry Algore.......The science is definitely not "settled".

[brammy]

[brammy]

[jimk]

Wow, you're really on about this, aren't you? I'm very impressed. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic, but indeed in earnest.)

JimK

[winston]

Wow, you're really on about this, aren't you? I'm very impressed. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic, but indeed in earnest.)

JimK

Indeed this is a very interesting and informative thread on both sides of the issue. Thanks to all who have contributed of course. Now back to what I do best..........my daily reading of posts on the forum.

[cjj]

Reminds me of the ol' ozone hole hysteria...

[bails]

Is there any correlation between age and belief in man-made rapid climate change?
In my limited experience, I haven't seen a lot of doubters in the under 30 age age group and I haven't seen a lot of believers who are over 50. The concern with this observation is that the over 50s are making all the political decisions, while the under 30s are the ones who will have to live with the consequences.

Is there any correlation between region and belief in man-made rapid climate change?
As stated by someone else in a previous post, a lot of belief is based on anecdotal evidence. The majority of Australian's anecdotal experience includes ten previous years of constant drought (pretty insignificant in geological* terms), which may well add to belief in climate change despite this having only a minor contribution to a world wide phenomenon. Alternatively, some people have mentioned above they have experienced cold weather, and do not believe in man-made rapid climate change. Despite cold weather actually being a predicted result of climate change, are these people more likely to doubt climate change because of the region they live in?

*Note: Some would say 10 years is insignificant in 'climate terms', but current research may indicate 10 years can in fact be highly significant.

Is there any correlation between educational background and belief in man-made rapid climate change?
I'm just throwing this one out there, but are people with a science** education, more likely to accept the idea, than people with arts, humanities, law, business or no no educational background?

**Note: I mean any evidence based science (chem, physiscs, maths, biology, geology etc) not just environment science where acceptance is obviously pretty high.

Is there any correlation between religion and belief in man-made rapid climate change?
I'll leave this one alone...

[bails]

Reminds me of the ol' ozone hole hysteria...

As far as my region question goes, I note that you don't live near the hole, in a country with the highest rate of skin cancer in the world...

[longboard_ric]

Hi Kent , just a couple of comments on your earlier post.

Antarctica Ice Cap Growth Reaches Record High Levels (Photos)
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/ ... aches.html

Here's another opinion.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23052256-2,00.html

The Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Back And It's Thick
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/ ... -back.html

Average Arctic sea ice extent for the month of December (2008) was 12.53 million square kilometers (4.84 million square miles). This was 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) greater than for December 2007
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The full quote reads as follows :

Average Arctic sea ice extent for the month of December was 12.53 million square kilometers (4.84 million square miles). This was 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) greater than for December 2007 and 830,000 square kilometers (320,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 December average.

The article conclusions are :

Arctic sea ice in 2008 was notable for several reasons. The year continued the negative trend in summer sea ice extent, with the second-lowest summer minimum since record-keeping began in 1979. 2008 sea ice also showed well-below-average ice extents throughout the entire year.

The ice cover in 2008 began the year heavily influenced by the record-breaking 2007 melt season. Because so much ice had melted out during the previous summer, a vast expanse of ocean was exposed to low winter air temperatures, encouraging ice growth. Although still well below average, March 2008 saw slightly greater ice extent at the annual maximum than measured in recent years. However, the ice was also thin: less than a year old and vulnerable to melting in summer. Even the geographic North Pole was covered with thin ice, capturing the imaginations of many in the media and general public.

Would 2008 break the 2007 record low summer minimum extent? Would the geographic North Pole be ice free for the first time in the satellite era? From May through July, cooler temperatures and winds less favorable to ice loss slowed the decline in ice extent. Nevertheless, by August the rate of ice loss was much faster than average—even faster than in 2007—as the effects of a warm Arctic Ocean worked against the thin ice cover. The melt season became a race: waning sunlight versus rapid ice loss.

Ultimately, summer 2008 finished with the second-lowest minimum extent in the satellite record, 9% above the 2007 minimum and 34% below average. A more diffuse ice cover and a thinner pack nevertheless suggested a record-low ice volume (ice area multiplied by thickness) at the end of summer.

As the sun set in the Arctic with the advent of autumn, seasonal ice growth was initially quite rapid, but slowed during early November. Average ice extent in December was well below average and very close to that measured in 2007. Heading into 2009, the Arctic sea ice cover is again young and thin; given this set-up, a continuation of well-below-average sea ice extent in 2009 is a near certainty.

[longboard_ric]

Reminds me of the ol' ozone hole hysteria...

If I remenber correctly, there was some doubt from parts of the scientific community regarding the causes of ozone depletion being attributed to CRC's and Halons. The theory was subsequently proven correct.

The result of ozone depletion, which centre's above a large part of good old OZ, was a much higher rate of skin cancers, which now makes us the Melanoma capital of the world.

So we all slap on plenty of sunscreen to save ourselves from skin cancer, only to be told recently that the use of sunscreen may result in genetic abnormalities.

Ya can't win !!!!