My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[modest]

Reason,

 

I like your stats and you sources. However, you confuse the trees for the forest. I am talking about food production.

 

No. You're not:

 

GW - Good thing or bad thing.

 

Regardless of whether GW is human or solar in origin; Warm is good. Cold is bad. It seems to me the same people who go all wide eyed at nuclear winter aslo go all wild eyed at Global Warming. Since temperatures have varied from extreme cold to extreme warm over billions of years, I invite the GW crowd to compare the ravages of each with one another. For instance, how many mass extinctions do you suspect were caused by global warming?

 

Not to mention...

 

More pertinent, a normal Ice Age would make much of North America and Europe uninhabitable.

 

People learned how to grow crops after the last ice age ended. This makes any discussion between the two useless. Also, farming techniques are changing all the time. It's now possible with center pivot irrigation to grow crops in the middle of a desert so long as fresh water is in pipe-range. So, comparing crop production of 20, 50, and 100 years ago to today is again pointless.

 

The generalization that warm is good and cold is bad is too imprecise to be useful. It is not scientific. If temperatures were 10 C hotter in the next few centuries than today then that would be extraordinarily bad. The same can be said of extreme cold.

 

As a moderator, I must say, can you please take it easy with the post padding. You have a tendency to ramble on with multiple short stream-of-consciousness posts that come off as disorganized and incoherent. Take a minute to compose your thoughts. You are clearly intelligent and have good ideas—they would be much better received if you didn't hit reply every time a thought pops into your head.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

freeztar - You quoted me: "Quote:Originally Posted by litespeed Again, all of human history, short as it may be, has demonstrated cold is bad, warm is good." Then you wrote: "Repeating a claim does not make it true. "

MY RESPONSE: List one cold era that was good for humans.

 

It seems you missed the major point I was making. The comments since then, by everyone, shows that it was either overlooked or ignored. So, I'll say it again, with a bit more elaboration.

 

---

 

I was driving home one day from work and was listening to Neal Boortz on the radio. He was ranting on global warming and his main point was that there is no optimum temperature. He kept saying, "None of these scientists can tell me what temperature we are suppossed to be at. Are we at the perfect temperature now? Is 2 degrees warmer the ideal temperature? 2 degrees colder? I have yet to hear what temperature we *should* be at. Doesn't this make the whole point moot? Climate changes folks. Deal with it." (or something like that)

 

Sound familiar litespeed? :)

 

The point I was trying to get across to you is that there is no climactic optimum! Organisms adapt (thank you Darwin!).

 

The *big* 600 pound gorilla in the back of the room is rate of change. This is what concerns me the most. I really don't care if we are 10 degrees warmer, or cooler, 100,000 years from now. If the change is gradual and somewhat linear, organisms (including humans) will adapt. If we shorten that time period to 1,000 years and have a logarithmic curve, it becomes a lot more troublesome. We are already seeing the rapidity of climate change affecting organisms, today! For example, consider the American pika.

 

Recent studies suggest that species populations are declining due to various factors, most notably Global Warming.[6] A 2003 study, published in the Journal of Mammology, showed that 9 out of 25 sampled populations of American Pika had disappeared, causing biologists to conclude that the species is reaching extinction.[7]

 

As they live in the high and cooler mountain regions, they are very sensitive to high temperatures, and are considered to be one of the best early warning systems for detecting global warming in the western United States.[8] Because their regular habitat's temperature rises, the American Pikas move higher up the mountain.[6] Scientists report that pikas can die within an hour if the outside temperature reaches above 23°C (75°F).[6]

 

Does it matter to humans if the pika disappears? Not in the big scheme of things.

Should we be concerned by its disappearance? Certainly, imo!

 

In summary, hotter or colder (or an "ideal temperature") is trivial when put into perspective of the rapidity in which climate change can occur.

[Eclipse Now]

Well, I don't know how to respond to that last post except to say "Wow!" But I'll give it a go.

 

Tim Flannery suggests in "Weather Makers" that the ice ages WERE, as Litespeed suggests, inhospitable to civilisation forming in the ancient world. Humans adapted, but civilisations did not. We must distinguish the 2. We must also attempt to define the difference between "surviving" as a species and "thriving" as a civilisation. 10 degrees warmer and we'll just adapt if given long enough to do so? ONLY if science-fiction like technologies arrive, otherwise you're talking about maybe 5 billion of us dying from the agricultural implosion. That's a Lovelock Gaia's revenge sort of scenario you're painting there.

 

There are simply too many systems that would be thrown way out of balance if the earth's climate shifts much more beyond today's temperature to facilitate a civilisation adaptation. I'm sure humanity would survive, but would the internet, modern farming, modern medicine, and Warcraft 3 (which I play with my 10 year old boy) and Thai-curry and air-conditioning? These are all things I love... and the likes of Tim Flannery and James Hansen are saying that if we drift into higher temperatures, feedback mechanisms could kick off that will accelerate the warming beyond anything we can manage and ..... Mad Max comes to mind.

 

Litespeed, I agree that too much colder is a real issue for global agriculture. But I think we all could do with a look at the food thing from another perspective. Please take 5 minutes to read the following article very carefully. I know it's a bit long, but it is well worth it to grab a much larger understanding of last year's food spikes. By Lester Brown....

 

April 16, 2008: WORLD FACING HUGE NEW CHALLENGE ON FOOD FRONT - Business-as-Usual Not a Viable Option

(It starts with all sorts of scary anecdotes about food riots, dozens of food trucks being stolen, etc)...

 

Around the world, a politics of food scarcity is emerging. Most fundamentally, it involves the restriction of grain exports by countries that want to check the rise in their domestic food prices. Russia, the Ukraine, and Argentina are among the governments that are currently restricting wheat exports. Countries restricting rice exports include Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Egypt. These export restrictions simply drive prices higher in the world market.

 

The chronically tight food supply the world is now facing is driven by the cumulative effect of several well established trends that are affecting both global demand and supply. On the demand side, the trends include the continuing addition of 70 million people per year to the earth’s population, the desire of some 4 billion people to move up the food chain and consume more grain-intensive livestock products, and the recent sharp acceleration in the U.S. use of grain to produce ethanol for cars. Since 2005, this last source of demand has raised the annual growth in world grain consumption from roughly 20 million tons to 50 million tons.

 

Meanwhile, on the supply side, there is little new land to be brought under the plow unless it comes from clearing tropical rainforests in the Amazon and Congo basins and in Indonesia, or from clearing land in the Brazilian cerrado, a savannah-like region south of the Amazon rainforest. Unfortunately, this has heavy environmental costs: the release of sequestered carbon, the loss of plant and animal species, and increased rainfall runoff and soil erosion. And in scores of countries prime cropland is being lost to both industrial and residential construction and to the paving of land for roads, highways, and parking lots for fast-growing automobile fleets.

 

New sources of irrigation water are even more scarce than new land to plow. During the last half of the twentieth century, world irrigated area nearly tripled, expanding from 94 million hectares in 1950 to 276 million hectares in 2000. In the years since then there has been little, if any, growth. As a result, irrigated area per person is shrinking by 1 percent a year.

 

Meanwhile, the backlog of agricultural technology that can be used to raise cropland productivity is dwindling. Between 1950 and 1990 the world’s farmers raised grainland productivity by 2.1 percent a year, but from 1990 until 2007 this growth rate slowed to 1.2 percent a year. And the rising price of oil is boosting the costs of both food production and transport while at the same time making it more profitable to convert grain into fuel for cars.

 

Beyond this, climate change presents new risks. Crop-withering heat waves, more-destructive storms, and the melting of the Asian mountain glaciers that sustain the dry-season flow of that region’s major rivers, are combining to make harvest expansion more difficult. In the past the negative effect of unusual weather events was always temporary; within a year or two things would return to normal. But with climate in flux, there is no norm to return to.

 

The collective effect of these trends makes it more and more difficult for farmers to keep pace with the growth in demand. During seven of the last eight years, grain consumption exceeded production. After seven years of drawing down stocks, world grain carryover stocks in 2008 have fallen to 55 days of world consumption, the lowest on record. The result is a new era of tightening food supplies, rising food prices, and political instability. With grain stocks at an all-time low, the world is only one poor harvest away from total chaos in world grain markets.

 

Business-as-usual is no longer a viable option. Food security will deteriorate further unless leading countries can collectively mobilize to stabilize population, restrict the use of grain to produce automotive fuel, stabilize climate, stabilize water tables and aquifers, protect cropland, and conserve soils. Stabilizing population is not simply a matter of providing reproductive health care and family planning services. It requires a worldwide effort to eradicate poverty. Eliminating water shortages depends on a global attempt to raise water productivity similar to the effort launched a half-century ago to raise land productivity, an initiative that has nearly tripled the world grain yield per hectare. None of these goals can be achieved quickly, but progress toward all is essential to restoring a semblance of food security.

 

This troubling situation is unlike any the world has faced before. The challenge is not simply to deal with a temporary rise in grain prices, as in the past, but rather to quickly alter those trends whose cumulative effects collectively threaten the food security that is a hallmark of civilization. If food security cannot be restored quickly, social unrest and political instability will spread and the number of failing states will likely increase dramatically, threatening the very stability of civilization itself.

[Eclipse Now]

Guys and gals, what do you make of this Worldwatch institute "collapse" argument?

Our Panarchic Future | Worldwatch Institute

[litespeed]

MODEST - You wrote: "The generalization that warm is good and cold is bad is too imprecise to be useful. "

 

OK. Even if no one else will venture a gestimate, I will. I believe the absolute climate optimum is the warmer times of the Roman Era. The Roman Era did not have the benefits of our later Industrialization, and relied ENTIRELY on excess agricultural production to feed the Army, build the roads, let alone The Flavian Amphitheater and all the other construction that took place for several hundred years all across the Roman Area.

 

These projects were HUGE, took place over a long period of time, then came to an end. My personal suspicion is Global Cooling in the late Roman Era reduced agricultural production to such an extent that subsistence farming was about as good as it got for hundreds of years; until the midieval warming period, that provided enough excess agriculture to build all those great gothic cathedrals.

 

So. IMHO it will not be warm enough to be optimum until the UK once again has a respectible vinticultuer. I supose that is several degrees Centigrade/Kelvin more then it is now.

[litespeed]

REASON - You wrote: "I don't know the answer to your question. Should I?" Yes.

Why, because clearly your possition is GW is not only caused by humans, but is bad, and needs to be reversed. I have posted elsewhere that the carbonifeous period itself varied from 1,500 to about 300 ppm, and that hardly ever has it been less then 400.

 

You also wrote: "What I find curious about what you are saying is that you imply that we can "aspire" to the type of climate we want." No, but we can hope! You, on the other hand, clearly aspire to a cooler future. What I find curious is why would you want a cooler future?

[Moontanman]

I can think of several reasons for wanting the continuation of current temps at the very least if not cooler temps. If the temps get much warmer methane will start to be released from the bottom of the ocean, such releases can and will drive the temps up even more driving even more methane from the sea bed and so on. There is huge amounts of methane stored in the deep ocean. once this cycle of warming gets going the climate could indeed warm up to the point that complex life would be impossible, human life would be impossible way before that happens. It is thought such a release of methane caused the Permian extinction, such a release today would wipe out much of life on Earth and even "possibly" cause a run away greenhouse and leave the earth a barren red hot planet much like Venus. Even if that doesn't happen it is plausible that the Earth could become way to hot for humans. So warm is not better, too warm, and we don't know where that point is, results in a runaway release of methane and the potential of a runaway greenhouse effect.

[litespeed]

MoonMan

 

The earth has been WAY warmer in the past with or without excess CO2. My general point is that life on earth is generally more prolific and successful in those warmer eras, and like we have had tenuously in this interglacial period. In fact, IMHO, the WORST thing we could do is force global cooling.

[Moontanman]

Litespeed what does any of this have to do with global warming? Are you so desperate for attention you have to bring up your military service over and over? If you think the planet was optimum in the 1970's then your perspective is very very tiny. Don't worry about the optimum of anything, optimum for you could be hell on Earth for someone else. Stick to the facts, Facts have a way of dispelling aggression. Hurt feelings don't have a place in these discussions, I doubt very seriously if you can hurt anyones feeling here with accurate information.

[InfiniteNow]

Did I make you cry?

 

Actually, yes, but not for the reason you suggest. I'm discouraged, disheartened, and disappointed that so many people on our planet are so ignorant, despite the modern and abundant tools at their disposal to improve themselves, their intellects, and their knowledge base.

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, does anybody even care about this thread anymore?

 

From my perspective (complete with my own biases and limitations) it seems like it's just become a place for people to come to Hypography and take a dump, one giant steaming pile of crap where real science and debate falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.

 

I mean, really, with only rare exception the posts here lately in this thread are ridiculous and off-topic garbage thrown about by people who post like they're in kindergarden and wiping boogers on each other.

 

I say "with rare exception" because obviously when these paste eating booger wipers get corrected, the correction is usually offered by members who are of a higher caliber and who ably demonstrate the spirit of well supported, scientific, and logical argumentation.

[Moontanman]

MoonMan

 

The earth has been WAY warmer in the past with or without excess CO2. My general point is that life on earth is generally more prolific and successful in those warmer eras, and like we have had tenuously in this interglacial period. In fact, IMHO, the WORST thing we could do is force global cooling.

 

Yes the Earth has been way warmer in the past, it has also been so warm that 90% of all species died out, if warming was the only problem we could encounter I would agree with you but the facts of methane under the ocean is not a fantasy, it is a real problem. release of huge amounts of this gas would be a disaster.

 

I look at it a little bit like forest fires, the effect of regular forest fires are a good thing, the build up of flammable materials in the under story of the forest is not a big deal if they burn with some regularity. Humans do not like forest fires so they suppress forest fires. the flammable material builds up to the point that any forest fire is total disaster that destroys all the trees and leaves a barren land scape.

 

In recent millions of years the climate has favored a build up of methane under the sea bed. Way back during the hey day of the warm earth these build ups were small and seldom amounted to much but since the earth has been cooler in the last several million years the build us hasn't been released in small amounts on a regular basis like it would be during the warmer periods.

 

Now we have a potentially disastrous amount of methane built up and like during the Permian extinction if this build up is released it would be a very bad thing for us. We are not responsible for this build up but if we release it we would be responsible to a planet wide problem which we are not equipped to handle.

 

Personally think it's a serial phenomenon and we are just speeding it up but it would be better if it didn't happen. During periods of high volcanic activity these methane build ups do not happen, the temps stay high enough that methane is released a little at a time and doesn't build up.

 

The Earth hasn't been as active volcanically in the last tens of millions of years as it was 100's of millions of years ago. so we have to decide if we want to risk this release of methane or not.

[litespeed]

Infinite - You wrote: "I'm discouraged, disheartened, and disappointed that so many people on our planet are so ignorant, despite the modern and abundant tools at their disposal to improve themselves, their intellects, and their knowledge base....and take a dump."

 

I have provided all sorts of facts that do not constitute a 'dump'. For instance, CO2 concentrations now are at the low end of planetary history. In addition, the undeniably warmer Roman times saw the development and expansion of not only Rome, but the Chin dynasty in China. I have proposed that warmer temperature was more conducive to civilization then the climate we have now. Clearly, the cooler eras in the post Roman period were catastrophic.

 

In fact, one poster specifically pointed out the tenuous nature of our CURRENT food supply. That supply, incidentally, is VERY much reduced by US subsidies for ethanol production. Finally, I made a social statement that the current generation lacks historical perspective, but may soon be introduced to same in the next few 'Progressive' years.

 

I have one bit of advice. Buy a house in the next couple of years. It should be two levels less then you can afford, and it should be for 30 years. I believe inevitable inflation will then be your friend.

[litespeed]

RE: Methane. Cow farts to Xfactor.

 

Get a grip, my man! The LEAST of your wories you have is a repeat of the permian extinction in the next, say, 200 million years.

 

I Am Out Of Here!

[Moontanman]

So litespeed you are going to continue to ignore the probability of methane releases in favor of warmer is better? Do you really think that any measures we might take now will make the temps cooler in time to make current populations suffer due to the cold? GW is a long term effect not next week it's going to be cooler or hotter. Why shouldn't we take steps now to limit future warming? Do you actually think that during roman times the world was warmer than it is now? I really don't get your point, you seem to bouncing all over the place like a drop of water on a hot stove trying to avoid the heat. If you have a reason why we should not take measures to slow global warming I'd like to hear them.

[Moontanman]

RE: Methane. Cow farts to Xfactor.

 

Get a grip, my man! The LEAST of your wories you have is a repeat of the permian extinction in the next, say, 200 million years.

 

If you think the methane I am talking about is cow farts you are at the very least ignorant of the science around global warming, the extinction of 250,000,000 years ago wasn't caused by cow farts.

[Eclipse Now]

Litespeed, don't sign off... there's so much to talk about!

 

Because Tim Flannery (and FWIW I) agree with you that cooler = bad, "warm = good". But I'd want to clarify that the MWP was warm, just as today is warm... what the climate experts are saying is that we don't want it to be "hot". The MWP was not HOT, because HOT is bad as well... very bad.

 

I agree that the carboniferous forests of millions of years ago were much, much warmer than today... did you watch the ABC's "Crude"? But those Carboniferous forests are a poor reference point and are irrelevant. They did not have a whole civilisation dependent on rain in certain parts, sea levels at certain levels, and agriculture running under certain predictable climate rhythms all of which will be interrupted and changed if global warming goes nuts.

 

The reference above to Siberian and Arctic methane is just one of many "feeback mechanisms" that could really push the rate of change beyond anything we've done. Natural feedbacks would take over and accelerate our puny actions... as if we'd pushed the proverbial snowball over and started an avalanche.

 

We've only got a little time in which to prevent that avalanche.

 

I refer you again to

Our Panarchic Future | Worldwatch Institute

 

From my perspective (complete with my own biases and limitations) it seems like it's just become a place for people to come to Hypography and take a dump, one giant steaming pile of crap where real science and debate falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.

 

I mean, really, with only rare exception the posts here lately in this thread are ridiculous and off-topic garbage thrown about by people who post like they're in kindergarden and wiping boogers on each other.

Ha ha! I love it when you're cranky.

 

But iNow, I think litespeed's contributions have at least been more interesting and worth of discussion than FB's... if we could maybe just give him another chance and not get so personal, maybe this conversation could end up in interesting new directions?

[litespeed]

Eclipse - You wrote: "Litespeed, don't sign off... there's so much to talk about!"

 

YOU are now my Main Man! Not all that often you find someone willing to actually come out and play! I DO need to sign of shortly though, as I have a social engagement.

 

However:

Moon wrote: " Do you actually think that during roman times the world was warmer than it is now?:

RESPONSE: Do you actually think it was not? I propose we both do some googling on that matter. Then later compare notes. Remember, I have already given you the point spread by stating Britain had a vibrant vinticultar then, but does not now.

 

Later, guy's