*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #100 on: March 24, 2014, 01:30:50 AM »
It is making you pay for negative externalities, which should be in place in many more places. If you don't like paying the real cost of a product, then don't buy it. Don't complain about something not costing $1.00 when it costs $2.00.

That's a lot of words just to tell someone you've never taken an economics class.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #101 on: March 24, 2014, 01:57:39 AM »
It is making you pay for negative externalities, which should be in place in many more places. If you don't like paying the real cost of a product, then don't buy it. Don't complain about something not costing $1.00 when it costs $2.00.

That's a lot of words just to tell someone you've never taken an economics class.
Or a few to demonstrate you've never taken a course in the environmental sciences.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #102 on: March 24, 2014, 03:12:59 AM »
It's happened before. Historically speaking, every species that has become dominant over the Earth has screwed it up so badly that they could no longer survive on it. The only difference is that we're smart enough to stop before we go too far. Hopefully.

Huh? Are you saying that the dinosaurs were somehow responsible for getting themselves nuked by an asteroid?


I think he's referring to the blue green algae which poisoned everything else with oxygen.

I can't think of another apocalyptic species.

No, the cyanobacteria were the result of this. Methanogens created massive global warming through the sheer power of breathing over hundreds of millions of years until they couldn't sustain themselves anymore, and then the cyanobacteria took over.

Another example is the Carboniferous era plants. They completely took over the surface of the Earth and, again through the sheer force of breathing, took so much carbon out of the air that they created a runaway ice house effect. They all died and that carbon turned into the coal that we're putting back into the atmosphere as fast as we possibly can.

I think there are other examples, but I can't remember them and I don't feel like researching it.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #103 on: March 24, 2014, 03:15:49 AM »
Or a few to demonstrate you've never taken a course in the environmental sciences.

Whatever you say I guess.

No, the cyanobacteria were the result of this. Methanogens created massive global warming through the sheer power of breathing over hundreds of millions of years until they couldn't sustain themselves anymore, and then the cyanobacteria took over.

Another example is the Carboniferous era plants. They completely took over the surface of the Earth and, again through the sheer force of breathing, took so much carbon out of the air that they created a runaway ice house effect. They all died and that carbon turned into the coal that we're putting back into the atmosphere as fast as we possibly can.

I think there are other examples, but I can't remember them and I don't feel like researching it.

Well I think a key difference is that bacteria and plants aren't going to build themselves tools to stop the coming apocalypse.


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #104 on: March 24, 2014, 03:55:05 AM »
Do you understand what negative externalities are?

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #105 on: March 24, 2014, 04:01:31 AM »
Or a few to demonstrate you've never taken a course in the environmental sciences.

Whatever you say I guess.

No, the cyanobacteria were the result of this. Methanogens created massive global warming through the sheer power of breathing over hundreds of millions of years until they couldn't sustain themselves anymore, and then the cyanobacteria took over.

Another example is the Carboniferous era plants. They completely took over the surface of the Earth and, again through the sheer force of breathing, took so much carbon out of the air that they created a runaway ice house effect. They all died and that carbon turned into the coal that we're putting back into the atmosphere as fast as we possibly can.

I think there are other examples, but I can't remember them and I don't feel like researching it.

Well I think a key difference is that bacteria and plants aren't going to build themselves tools to stop the coming apocalypse.

There isn't much we can build to stop the plankton from dying. We're on a fast track to destroying the radiolarians and forams through ocean acidification, for example. It's hardly going to be the end of civilization, but it could certainly cause massive, global famines.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 04:03:52 AM by Tausami »
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #106 on: March 24, 2014, 04:07:14 AM »
There isn't much we can build to stop the algae from dying. We're on a fast track to destroying the radiolarians and forams through ocean acidification, for example. It's hardly going to be the end of civilization, but it could certainly cause massive, global famines.

Organisms such as algae tend to evolve more rapidly and respond quickly to environmental changes. Worse case scenario it can be motivated to evolve a certain way under laboratory conditions in just a few years. The fish on the other hand, well, that might be a problem.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #107 on: March 24, 2014, 04:23:47 AM »
There isn't much we can build to stop the algae from dying. We're on a fast track to destroying the radiolarians and forams through ocean acidification, for example. It's hardly going to be the end of civilization, but it could certainly cause massive, global famines.

Organisms such as algae tend to evolve more rapidly and respond quickly to environmental changes. Worse case scenario it can be motivated to evolve a certain way under laboratory conditions in just a few years. The fish on the other hand, well, that might be a problem.

Not like this. Basically, as the oceans get more acidic there's less calcium for calcareous plankton (which is what I meant when I said algae, which was wrong) to make shells with. We've been able to measure the decrease in shell growth, and we've been able to measure its effect on fish populations. This isn't something they can just evolve around in a few decades, and the siliceous plankton probably won't be able to rise to fill the gap they leave if they disappear. We're probably screwed.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #108 on: March 25, 2014, 02:04:52 AM »
Not like this. Basically, as the oceans get more acidic there's less calcium for calcareous plankton (which is what I meant when I said algae, which was wrong) to make shells with. We've been able to measure the decrease in shell growth, and we've been able to measure its effect on fish populations. This isn't something they can just evolve around in a few decades, and the siliceous plankton probably won't be able to rise to fill the gap they leave if they disappear. We're probably screwed.

I'm not overly worried. A reasonable assumption of convergent evolution would demand something will take their niche rather quickly, as they use a most basic resource to survive (sunlight), something else will thrive using that resource. Since that something else will inevitably use photosynthesis, the overall impact will be the same, even if the new plankton do not produce shells.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #109 on: March 25, 2014, 03:42:07 AM »
Not like this. Basically, as the oceans get more acidic there's less calcium for calcareous plankton (which is what I meant when I said algae, which was wrong) to make shells with. We've been able to measure the decrease in shell growth, and we've been able to measure its effect on fish populations. This isn't something they can just evolve around in a few decades, and the siliceous plankton probably won't be able to rise to fill the gap they leave if they disappear. We're probably screwed.

I'm not overly worried. A reasonable assumption of convergent evolution would demand something will take their niche rather quickly, as they use a most basic resource to survive (sunlight), something else will thrive using that resource. Since that something else will inevitably use photosynthesis, the overall impact will be the same, even if the new plankton do not produce shells.
In general, acidification of the ocean has a much larger effect than the disappearance of a single species. Most organisms are adapted to survive in certain pH ranges, and when you mess with that too much, it causes massive ecosystem disruptions. If one removes the producers for even a short amount of time, it would cause extinctions on a mass scale, and genetic bottlenecks occurring on a grand scale. Even though I wouldn't suspect too much from our perspective, we're currently experiencing one of the largest mass extinctions in history. Since the beginning of the athropocene, extinction rates have been on the rise, as human influences annihilate many of the world's species.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #110 on: March 26, 2014, 02:24:24 AM »
Not like this. Basically, as the oceans get more acidic there's less calcium for calcareous plankton (which is what I meant when I said algae, which was wrong) to make shells with. We've been able to measure the decrease in shell growth, and we've been able to measure its effect on fish populations. This isn't something they can just evolve around in a few decades, and the siliceous plankton probably won't be able to rise to fill the gap they leave if they disappear. We're probably screwed.

I'm not overly worried. A reasonable assumption of convergent evolution would demand something will take their niche rather quickly, as they use a most basic resource to survive (sunlight), something else will thrive using that resource. Since that something else will inevitably use photosynthesis, the overall impact will be the same, even if the new plankton do not produce shells.

Not quickly enough. Again, we have historical data about this. When similar things have happened in Earth's history, there have been mass extinctions over it. And mass extinctions aren't necessarily bad on a natural scale, since they tend to result a massive spike in biodiversity afterward (since there are all sorts of empty niches to fill), but in the short run it's bad for us humans.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #111 on: March 26, 2014, 02:29:37 AM »
Not quickly enough. Again, we have historical data about this. When similar things have happened in Earth's history, there have been mass extinctions over it. And mass extinctions aren't necessarily bad on a natural scale, since they tend to result a massive spike in biodiversity afterward (since there are all sorts of empty niches to fill), but in the short run it's bad for us humans.

Guess I better use my Bitcoin money to start building that bunker, then.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #112 on: March 26, 2014, 07:20:40 AM »
Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any significant academic circles that broadly cover the sciences (the AAAS) or specifically atmospheric science circles (like the AMS) that dispute that humans are the driving cause of global warming?

General or atmospheric science because i'm sure there are plenty of geologists who dispute the issue.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #113 on: March 26, 2014, 12:03:20 PM »
Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any significant academic circles that broadly cover the sciences (the AAAS) or specifically atmospheric science circles (like the AMS) that dispute that humans are the driving cause of global warming?

General or atmospheric science because i'm sure there are plenty of geologists who dispute the issue.

Neither of those organizations dispute anthropogenic climate change. In fact, I've found statements from both of them affirming that it exists and is significant.

Quote from: AAAS
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now

Quote from: AMS
Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 12:05:31 PM by Tausami »
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #114 on: March 26, 2014, 04:12:41 PM »
Sorry, I didn't elaborate on that enough. I was curious if anyone was aware of any significant academic circles that dispute anthropogenic global warming, as i'm not aware of the existence of any that dispute it. The AAAS and the AMS, I was using them as example of significant academic circles, however, not as example of significant academic circles that dispute AGW. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #115 on: March 26, 2014, 07:08:23 PM »
Sorry, I didn't elaborate on that enough. I was curious if anyone was aware of any significant academic circles that dispute anthropogenic global warming, as i'm not aware of the existence of any that dispute it. The AAAS and the AMS, I was using them as example of significant academic circles, however, not as example of significant academic circles that dispute AGW. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

There aren't any. Several years ago a conservative group made a list of scientists who disputed global warming, and they had to make up names and add random people to complete the list. Charles Darwin was on there. I'd imagine that if there were serious scientific groups disputing it they wouldn't have had to resort to such idiocy.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #116 on: March 26, 2014, 07:25:15 PM »
Sorry, I didn't elaborate on that enough. I was curious if anyone was aware of any significant academic circles that dispute anthropogenic global warming, as i'm not aware of the existence of any that dispute it. The AAAS and the AMS, I was using them as example of significant academic circles, however, not as example of significant academic circles that dispute AGW. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

There aren't any. Several years ago a conservative group made a list of scientists who disputed global warming, and they had to make up names and add random people to complete the list. Charles Darwin was on there. I'd imagine that if there were serious scientific groups disputing it they wouldn't have had to resort to such idiocy.
Exactly the point I was trying to make.  :)

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #117 on: March 29, 2014, 06:57:59 PM »
I just compiled all hurricanes rated at cat 4 and 5 over the past 100 years by decade. The graph shows an increase in the amount of major hurricanes over the years. This would fit into the predictions and models showing an increase in major hurricanes due to warmer waters. Global warming would also allow hurricanes to survive farther in the north, making sandy-like events more likely. Hurricanes that seem to defy the laws of physics such as Katrina will become more common, as likeliness of super-heated waters will be more prevalent.



This demonstrates one of the many additional monetary costs imposed by unchecked global warming. Additional annual costs due to increased numbers of major hurricanes in the Atlantic basin ranges in the billions (assuming that the coast remains at the same level of development) and this does not include costs from increased Cyclones in areas such as the Pacific and Indian oceans.

*note that this is not evidence for AGW, simply a demonstration of increased costs and damages due to Global Warming*

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #118 on: March 31, 2014, 06:34:13 PM »
Yes, HHunter. You extrapolated a tiny section of earth's climate as though 100 years completely explains everything about climate and any upsurge must mean the sky is falling in.  Below is the last 10,000 years. The little red bit is the bit you quoted. Imagine if we lived 8300 years ago. You'd be screaming "Look what we are doing to the planet! >o<". Climate changes. Sometimes rapidly and certainly way faster that it is at present. All the animals didn't die out in the last 10,000 years. The trend for temperatures is actually down. If it was getting cooler, we really would have stuff to worry about. It's a relief temperatures are not plunging us further towards another ice-age. Slightly warmer, more hurricanes. But it hasn't got anything to do with me driving my car to work in the morning. Environmental taxes are the new religious taxes. They are trying to get you to believe in something you can't disprove and you are derided as an idiot if you disagree. Only an idiot would swallow such crap. If it costs money, the likelihood is someone has an agenda. Welcome to the climate change industry.

« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 06:36:49 PM by Thork »

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #119 on: March 31, 2014, 07:28:58 PM »
Weird scale on that graph, for the time axis. Intervals to the left are 400-500 years apart, whereas intervals to the right are ~100 years apart. Makes the graph itself inaccurate. Since the recent, anthropogenically affected climate change seems to be similar in steepness to the steepest slopes on the left side, we can therefore conclude that the climate is changing 4-5 times faster than it has at any point in the last 10,000 years. That's pretty significant.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 03:36:17 AM by Tausami »
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ