D'Juhn Keep on 6/10/2007 at 11:30

---

Well yes, agriculture! An age where we can fertilise, artificially grow shit in hydroponics <small>(they grow up so fast)</small> and - gasp - genetically modify crops is a far cry from the dawn of civilisation where if it didn't grow you were a bit fucked. However this is still conditional on us returning to a Jurassic climate which is still a bit of a reach. Not quite so extreme an example as a Venus climate but I don't really see it happening soon.

Also when I said "I have to wonder though why runaway global warming has not happened sometime in the past, say when the amount of CO2 was at several times its current level?" you didn't really answer me, just said that it was before humans ruled the earth. Why does this matter? Is it important that the CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic?

Just so you know, I'm not against cutting greenhouse gas emissions, I think it would, if nothing else, make the world's air much nicer to breathe! However a) I hate people saying the planet is doomed - admittedly it's mostly in the Independent but it still pisses me off. b) I think that humans will adapt to whatever conditions/climate they're presented with, short of a full on ice age. c) Medlar's spot (lol) on with his link talking about the effect of solar luminosity on the Earth's temperature. It has a very large affect that shouldn't be underestimated.

If you think that we only have this century to stop and then reverse carbon emissions then you may as well give up now. Convincing China and India to not have the same lives we westerners have? Good luck with that.

Of course to eliminate global warming we just have to get rid of the biggest greenhouse gas - the dreaded dihydrogen monoxide ;)

demagogue on 6/10/2007 at 17:08

---

Who is this "we", kimosabe? Do you really think that "global climate change" is only about your the grass at your local golf country club?
That's a mean way to say that this problem is not just about rich countries; poor countries will feel the blow the hardest, and have the least recourse. I mean, these are good ideas that, while very expensive on the scale you're talking about, will still definitely be a part of the solution. But it doesn't make the case for mitigating climate change at the same time, the real herculean task, any less demanding.



It's one of the most important facts about it. From a policy perspective, if we know the source, we can target it with policy mechanisms, which can control, conveniently enough, human behavior.



Haha, sure clean up just the air around a few major cities with a little effort while billions of others, requiring a massive effort, lose their livelihoods, without access to your silver-bullet hydroponics and GMOs.
Anyway, you are mixing up global climate change (ave global ambient carbon concentration) and particular air pollution (PAP, dirty emissions; a problem not with the "world's air", just big cities). They are two different things. Carbon can be emitted cleanly without air pollution (PAP), and dirty emission PAP actually cools the air a little; it counteracts global warming (one stupid solution to CC would be just to increase emission dirtiness). The point is, climate change as a problem dwarfs PAP, the environmental and social upheaval will hit much much harder, and the effort to mitigate it is much much bigger ... unfortunately it laughs at your concession.



Nobody credible is saying this.



Sure, if all you mean by "adapt" is basic survival of the race. But this is about gov't policy ... of course it's all about adaption. All gov't policy is; all environmental regulation is. It's about mitigating the risks and coping with the economic and social upheavals of environmental degradation. It isn't any different from moving the coolant industry off CFCs onto substitutes to protect the ozone layer ... only the economic stakes make it a harder case. Not because of the cost, mitigation is cheaper than stay-the-course, so cutting greenhouses gases is economically rational, but because of the prisoner's dilemma/free-rider problem.



What makes climate change a little special is the Int'l Panel on Climate Change, a group of about 4000 scientists arond the world, all across the political spectrum, that periodically publish the state of scientific art on climate change. If they think this sunspot-related phenomenon is a credible source, they'll say so, and it will go into the bag of facts we're dealing with. It's doubtful that it's very major, given the huge case for anthropomorphic sources they've already presented in previous reports.



They will do something because the environmental health risks in both countries are going off the charts. Esp China is a country of control ... remember they just executed the CEO of a toy manufacturer because of lead paint. It doesn't want to give any excuse for people to rise against the gov't. They have more to worry about from environmental refugees than any country.

Also, they'll have the benefit of technology transfers so their industrialization won't have to be as dirty as ours.



Also don't forget, in addition to carbon, the influential role that the awful 8th element plays as well in the atmosphere. Get rid of that and I think you'll quickly start hearing fewer complaints. :)

D'Juhn Keep on 6/10/2007 at 18:11

---

Jesus demagogue I really thought better of you than passive agressive ad hominems

At the risk of taking this to a QUOTE BATTLE you took my comment of "Is it important that the CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic?" completely out of context. My point there is that why does the fact that it's anthropogenic make the level of CO2 in the atmosphere different to when it's been at the same level naturally. That is, it's not going to cause runaway global wamrning on the scale of Venus now when it didn't before.

Likewise you've made much of a throwaway comment of "I think it would, if nothing else, make the world's air much nicer to breathe" greenhouse gases (let's not limit ourselves to CO2) H2O, CH4, NOXes, CFCs - can be shitty things to have in our atmosphere in overabundance is the point I was trying to make. ALSO you seem to be mixing up your rebutals. I don't WANT humanity to have to rely on GM crops and hydroponics I was merely saying it's an option IF the world were in a Jurassic climate.


I've never said anyone credible is saying it in a fucking journal, I'm saying it pisses me off when I read it in a paper/letter section.


Yes actually. And yes, that will probably mean that rich, white people will be better off than poor, coloured people. Welcome to the last 500 years. Until we welcome our chinese overlords of course


You seem to think I'm arguing against the anthropogenic affect on climate change when I'm not. Solar luminosity does seem to be a factor in global warming though so I think it's a valid thing to take into consideration vov



(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4330469.stm)


I think you must know you're putting words in my mouth here. Just to make it clear: I don't think humanity would be fucked should such a climate befall us. I'm not saying it'd be a great holiday or anything, just that the species would survive.

And I'm not a member of a country club :mad:

Edit: forgot to mention: thanks for those links on solar stuff, jay, you're certainly right saying that our emissions of CO2 are more of a factor in global warming than the output of the sun.

demagogue on 6/10/2007 at 18:40

---

@D'Juhn Keep.
Ok ok, I toned it back a little, I mean before I even read your post ... that was just the first draft I wanted to edit anyway.
Of course nothing personal ... I used a little bite in some arguments not directed at you personally, but at the point you were making ... as actually part of the point in response. Much of it was tongue in cheek, too. I honestly think a lot of things aren't actually at debate, esp with your responses, because I think the positions you are attacking themselves aren't credible positions. I mean, I don't think you're saying anything I disagree with per se, if I understand what you're arguing for.

Is the anthropomorphic influence add anything to what's natural? If you mean 80% of the continents are underwater as in the Jurassic period, no, not really. If you mean just much of the Netherlands, Manhattan, and Florida underwater ... then yes, that's a live, in-the-cards possibility within a century based on anthropomorhpic sources. People debate in good faith where the line is when global warming becomes "dangerous", but general opinion is that wherever the line is, over 500 ppm when major cities start getting submerged is decidedly on the dangerous side.

Of course, I didn't think you were literally a country club member, that's just to put a little bite in the point that you shouldn't think of a global environmental problem from only from what happens in the West, or what's the Western response, esp when the problem is mostly hitting the developing world. (As far as I'm concerned, we're all in this together, and everything I gather about you is that you're a decent, responsible guy has a healthily critical mind ... all good things. I used that term more as a rhetorical tactic, rather than spitting out a dozen facts no one will read, one sentence forces you to lay your cards down and bring yourself to moderate your position.) But anyway, point is, this is a problem largely about the developing world. So when we talk about climate change as a problem, we're talking about the developing world in the forefront. So if you're white washing them, it's not the main problem on the table.

Historical inequality or not, the climate is a global commons, and like any commons the policy has to start with the baseline that everyone owns the climate and has a right to exploitation that doesn't interfere with the exploitation rights of everybody else. (It's just like capping fishing of a species of fish in the sea so it doesn't go into extinction; a ton of carbon is just like a fish, and there's a limit to how much carbon you can put in the atmosphere before it becomes "dangerous" on a global scale.) And when a harm of a commons is particularly targeted against one party over the others (e.g., the developing world), then there is a special obligation to look out for their interests in regulating it. Anyway, with globalization, their interests are our interests in any case when you're talking about this kind of scale.

mopgoblin on 6/10/2007 at 22:34

---

I wouldn't be so confident about that. There's probably chaotic behaviour involved, and it looks like a Venus-like climate is reasonably stable. If we nudge the system into a chaotic region, we can't control or predict where it'll end up. It may be that there's a barrier of stable states between here and there, but to me it sounds like a fucking stupid risk to take.


Some people see this as a bad thing, and would prefer not to make it far worse than it already is.


Yes, the species will almost certainly survive. A hell of a lot of <em>people</em> won't, though. Some of those nice things modernity has given us - liberal democracy, for example - might not make it either. We should be aiming for something better than "the species would survive".