Without getting into the snowball earth debate, there are several glaciations that precede the current (Quaternary) one:
Those times not marked with a blue bar are when the earth didn't have ice caps at all.
3 Cat4 Hurricanes in the Pacific
- Thread starter BelemNole
- Start date
Without getting into the snowball earth debate, there are several glaciations that precede the current (Quaternary) one:
Those times not marked with a blue bar are when the earth didn't have ice caps at all.
That's great, but humans have only been around for the last ~200,000 years (.005%?). So ideally we'd like the climate to stay in the range we've evolved for.
Don't forget to include all of the other present species in this discussion..........many of which are keystone species, which without them the whole ecosystem falls apart.
I think there is a tendency to assume the status quo is not only maintainable, but also ideal.
Ideally, I'd like the climate of the Caymans year round. I don't think Nature cares what we like.
I take the view that humans have accelerated the natural concept of evolution with our creativity and productivity. We don't wait to 'evolve' faster legs or wings in the conventional biological sense, we build cars and planes.
If you told a NYer in 1900 that there would be 7 million souls in the city in 100 years, he'd probably ask how they deal with all the horse dung dust on dry days.
We literally can't imagine the solutions (and problems) that are going to crop up in the next hundred. I do view with great skepticism claims of doom and gloom, especially when the planet has spent more of the time warmer and more lush than it is today.
I'm also confused when someone acknowledges we don't know enough about climate to proactively modify it, yet accepts as gospel predictions about the climate 100 years from now on that same level of knowledge.
Those two things don't require remotely the same level of knowledge.
Climate change theory, while complex, boils down to "you can't continue to constantly increase one variable and not expect your model to change". That's incredibly different than claiming to be able to manipulate the model to your will with precision.
There is an entire field of science dedicated to it. But you want me to explain it in 20 words or less to someone who is going to roll their eyes regardless. Thanks, but I learned my lesson the last 300 times in the RC. Pretty sure you were around then.
You want to have the cake and eat it too.
No, it boils down to making a host of assumptions about a literally unknown number of variables and influences, and plucking out a few as the basis for predictions 100 years hence.
I find that dubious, for the reasons we agreed above.
But you're trying to claim precision in the model based on changing one of the variables.
In short, you're saying we can predict what you turn around and say we can't predict.
Not sure if you're playing dumb or not.
There is a tremendous difference between predicting what continuing to add a single variable in large amounts will roughly do and fine tuning the climate to "stave off, or even prevent, the next glacial period" without killing us all. If you can't see that there is no point in discussing this further.
There is a tremendous difference between predicting what continuing to add a single variable in large amounts will roughly do and fine tuning the climate to "stave off, or even prevent, the next glacial period" without killing us all. If you can't see that there is no point in discussing this further.
I wholeheartedly agree I'm not going to change your mind, much like you aren't going to change mine.
The difference... I DON'T START STUPID ASS THREAD AFTER THREAD ABOUT COMPLETELY INANE "FIRST TIME IN HISTORY" BULLSHIT EVENTS AND TRY AND BLAME IT ON THE CAUSE DU JOUR...
All caps. Nice. You seem...fun.
I started a thread about a notable/historic weather occurrence. I also pointed out that "small" change in temperature was responsible for it. The rest of the "stupid ass thread" came from ignorant comments like yours.
I started a thread about a notable/historic weather occurrence. I also pointed out that "small" change in temperature was responsible for it. The rest of the "stupid ass thread" came from ignorant comments like yours.
Actually, its the same problem in both instances. Not knowing all the influences and feedbacks, as well as their natural variation and relative importance is why you don't trust trying to engineer it - in short, you don't trust their ability to predict the outcome.
I also cringe at the notion that climate change might 'kill us all'. That kind of hyperbole always engenders skepticism in me. Mankind has been through some pretty significant climate swings from naked ape to who we are now, and without our resources to aid in that effort.
The shorelines will move, like they always have, and mankind will follow them.
Actually a satellite is responsible for it. We don't know how many times the same thing has happened before because we've only been able to monitor such things for a very short period of time.
It is beautiful, though. I'm really wanting to check out the wind map that was linked earlier in the thread the next time a storm makes landfall.
