Solving Global Warming

[cyborg]

Exactly. The data shows that yes, the Earth is slowing warming. But what is the root cause, and how to we stop it? Or should we stop it? Earth's climate has changed drastically before without mankind's help. Perhaps by attempting to stop global warming we may cause an environmental disaster worse than the one we are trying to prevent.

We're probably asking the wrong question.

The question is how do we adapt to climate change, not how do we adapt the climate change.

 

[CapelDodger]

This difference means that we cannot really look to Venus as a predictor of what "runaway" carbon dioxide buildup on earth might look like.

Certainly we can't, and another reason is the presence of life in a big enough way to have shaped the planet already - see under Oxygen-Rich Atmosphere. Or AGW, for that matter. Life will adjust, and by adjusting it will influence. It's gone through a lot worse than this in the past, and prospered. HomSap can't say the same, but who's to say it won't? In a few centuries all this will be history. See under Salutory Lesson and Hubris.

 

[Grimoire]

We're probably asking the wrong question.

The question is how do we adapt to climate change, not how do we adapt the climate change.

That may be part of the solution, but I think that it is important to know if the change in the climate is due to human activity, and if so, can we change our habits so that the climate stops changing. After all, there are a lot more species on the Earth than just us humans. We might be able to adapt to a changing climate, but we would lose many species that can't.

 

[CapelDodger]

We're probably asking the wrong question.

We're probably wasting our time trying to think what the right question is.

The question is how do we adapt to climate change, not how do we adapt the climate change.

If we're going to adapt to constant change we'll have to be much lighter on our feet, much lighter than 6 billion people. As a species and a culture we can probably do that. Whether we, living in the Golden Age, would find that culture atttractive is doubtful. It's a lot less doubtful that future generations will despise ours.

 

[lenny]

The question is how do we adapt to climate change, not how do we adapt the climate change.

do you believe that approach holds in general?

if you find yourself driving at high speed toward a brick wall, do you hit the brakes or just think about designing a better airbag?

 

[cyborg]

do you believe that approach holds in general?

Nothing holds in general.

Jeezus.

if you find yourself driving at high speed toward a brick wall, do you hit the brakes or just think about designing a better airbag?

Flawed analogy.

Climate change is not something we can merely put the brakes on. Your analogy seems to view it as if we just stopped and got out of the car we could merrily laugh at the wall for eternity.

Climate change was ALWAYS happening. The climate WILL change. It has happened before, it will happen again. We do not have the technology to control an entire planet's climate. We had better start thinking about adjusting our civilisations to the reality of the fact our climates are going to change no matter what schemes we come up with to try and hold the tide back.

 

[valis]

Also, how would you get the U.S. involved in such a project, when the official government policy is "global warming doesn't exist?" (It would take involvement of the U.S. to implement such a program on a large enough scale to have a reasonable effect.)

Theory is great, but putting it into practice is the real b##ch!

Do you have link for someone from the U.S. government stating that "global warming doesn't exist" and that the his/her statement is official U.S. policy?

 

[DeviousB]

Do you have link for someone from the U.S. government stating that "global warming doesn't exist" and that the his/her statement is official U.S. policy?

Not yet!

 

[DeviousB]

Climate change was ALWAYS happening. The climate WILL change. It has happened before, it will happen again. We do not have the technology to control an entire planet's climate. We had better start thinking about adjusting our civilisations to the reality of the fact our climates are going to change no matter what schemes we come up with to try and hold the tide back.

We may not be able to control the climate, but we can certainly affect it. Hence we can choose to exacerbate the problem or try to ameliorate it. Yes, civilisation will have to adapt to a changing climate; but the more gently we can make that climate change, the easier our job of adapting will be.

To use your analogy; when the tide's coming in, don't keep on wading deeper.

 

[cyborg]

To use your analogy; when the tide's coming in, don't keep on wading deeper.

It's irrelevant. You will still be covered in water. All that has happened is to delay the inevitable.

All the discussion about climate change seems to pretend that we are somehow going to be able to magically preserve the current climate we've got indefinitely. It's still avoiding the inevitable - the tide WILL come in and you will be wet whether or not you're wading into it. Now, how are you going to deal with the inevitable outcome?

After all it's clearly difficult enough for our civilization to even deal with changing enough to slow down the inevitable - jeez, how difficult do you think it will be to persuade people to deal with the changes required for the inevitable?

Or maybe I've just missed all that discussion but I don't think I've seen anyone who talks about climate change ever address this. All I've ever seen is arguments along the line of, "if we don't do X environmentally good thing then Y disastrous scenario will happen," the implication being that doing X will entirely mitigate the occurrence of Y. When Y is climate change this is entirely misleading from my perspective.

I'd be entirely willing to be shown wrong here.

 

[Cuddles]

It's irrelevant. You will still be covered in water. All that has happened is to delay the inevitable.

Exactly. If you dive right in you will get wet. If you wait for the water to come to you you have time to put on a drysuit. While everyone acknowledges that we (probably) can't keep the climate the same forever, happily forcing it to change as quickly as possible is a very different matter.

 

[DeviousB]

It's irrelevant. You will still be covered in water. All that has happened is to delay the inevitable.

Why is it inevitable? Tides go out as well as in.

All the discussion about climate change seems to pretend that we are somehow going to be able to magically preserve the current climate we've got indefinitely. It's still avoiding the inevitable - the tide WILL come in and you will be wet whether or not you're wading into it. Now, how are you going to deal with the inevitable outcome?

Take my shoes and socks off and roll up my trousers. If I am properly informed and have judged it right I will end up with nothing more than wet ankles. Marching forward in a sort of inverse Canute maneuver does not give me even that much certainty.

Climate change might be inevitable, that it proceeds uniformly in one direction and rate is not. S. Pacala and R. Socolow proposed a seven wedge strategy to stabalise our emissions, potentially giving us time to devise means or further reducing them. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a forcing mechanism, and constitute one thing we do (potentially) control. The idea is not to fix the climate forever-and-ever, it's to reduce its variability to natural levels by controlling our effects upon it.

Natural variability, we have had some success at handling.

After all it's clearly difficult enough for our civilization to even deal with changing enough to slow down the inevitable - jeez, how difficult do you think it will be to persuade people to deal with the changes required for the inevitable?

By pointing out that the worst effects may not (yet) be inevitable? That the choice of outcomes may lie somewhere between 'fairly bad' and 's<rule8>t-curdlingly bad' and which would they prefer? That business as usual may be the more difficult/expensive option? That mitigating the causes may be cheaper and more effective than mitigating the effects?

It's the difference between handling 1 million climate refugees a year for 10 years and having all 10 million on your doorstep at once.

 

[cyborg]

Why is it inevitable? Tides go out as well as in.

Fully aware of this. However we can only currently operate when the tide at one particular height - we are not set-up to deal with the ebb and flow.

The idea is not to fix the climate forever-and-ever, it's to reduce its variability to natural levels by controlling our effects upon it.

I don't see that 'natural levels' precludes being particularly disastrous for our way of life.

It's the difference between handling 1 million climate refugees a year for 10 years and having all 10 million on your doorstep at once.

Assuming that anyone will be able to actually handle these refugees that is.

 

[DeviousB]

I don't see that 'natural levels' precludes being particularly disastrous for our way of life.

Haven't been so far.

 

[cyborg]

Haven't been so far.

Our civilization has been around for no time whatsoever.

The natural climate has varied enormously over the history of our planet.

I wonder, for example, how Europe would cope with another ice age (I could skate to the continent) or the US with a sustained period of draught turning it into a dustbowl? We rely a great deal on the temperate climate we find ourselves in.

I doubt we could even feed ourselves.

 

[Diamond]

Oh and every serious climate scientist believes in it*
Don't let the overwhelming scientific consensus impede your political rhetoric though.






* the questions are, what is causing it and what is to be done about it.

Apart from the serious scientists who don't*


*but don't allow that to change your opinion just because its claimed on the basis of popularity and not evidence.

 

[Old man]

Apart from the serious scientists who don't*

*but don't allow that to change your opinion just because its claimed on the basis of popularity and not evidence.

Ahh, but Diamond, no TRUE Scottsm.., err, I mean, Climatologist, denies AGW!

 

[brodski]

Apart from the serious scientists who don't*


*but don't allow that to change your opinion just because its claimed on the basis of popularity and not evidence.

Can you tell me which climate scientists deny that the climate is changing?

 

[varwoche]

Can you tell me which climate scientists deny that the climate is changing?

There is the usual, small cast of characters on the fringe who write op-ed pieces. That's why I think it's better to preface this sort of question like so:

Can you point to peer reviewed studies by climate scientists that... ?

 

[cyborg]

Denying climate change only leaves one alternative:

The climate is not changing.

Now, how sensible is that given we already know the climate has gone through great changes in the past? Do the scientists who say there is no evidence for climate change also get annoyed by films like "Ice Age"?