------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Let me make you a real prediction of real disaster. About 400 million years from now, the sun will be hot enough to render the Earth's surface totally sterile. That is, over 100 degrees Celsius. That is a reality, predictable from very long term trends in astronomy.

I thought that was not predicted to happen for several billion years, not 400 million?

400 million years isn't all that long on a planetary time scale.

[Simple]

The next 100 years, on the other hand, will involve a slight warming - probably about 1.5 Celsius. There will be changes as a result of this warming. Humanity will survive without loss of population numbers, and will continue in its long term destiny, whatever that is. And the world of living things will continue, a little bit changed of course, but that is the nature of the world. Over time, everything changes.

This is pure speculation no one knows what is going to happen. We've already lost 20-30% biodiversity and now global warming is kicking in.

Skeptic read my post here:

http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Fo...pic.php?t=5906

Look what just 0.6C is doing. The science article on Forest fires puts to rest the case their increase is due to global warming. The findings are worrying and thats only America and as far I can ascertain every continent is currently seeing an increase in forest fires. Siberia is going pump out a scary amount of CO2.

The world ice is receding almost everywhere apart from a few isolated examples where increased rainfall due to changes in local climate as a result of global warming has caused increase snowfall (western himalaya, Norway, NZ). There has been no increase in ice in eastern Antarctica as I'm sure you know from the lastest and most extensive survey where as the western ice sheet is rapidly melting, as is Greenland. The amount of fresh water entering the Arcitc is staggering.

ALL WITH 0.6C rise. ONLY 0.6C.

1.5C is not a mere blip and is the least possible rise predicted.

I have no idea what will happen next. Although if you extrapolate the temperature graphs 1.5C is optimistic and some feel we're heading for an acceleration.

The evidence is growing, read the links from this thread the science is becoming more solid, not dogma, not speculation.

Biodiversity is dropping rapidly the most rapidly it ever has in the world's history we are dependent on biodiversity we cannot overcome nature.

Simple[/code]

[Skeptic]

Richard.
On the solar expansion disaster. The sun is due to engulf the Earth in 5 billion years as it swells into a red giant. However, long before that (400 million years), it will put out enough heat to warm the Earth to 100 Celsius plus. Life will be sterilised long before the sun swells.

We could argue that this is human-kinds ultimate ecological role (if we want to get mystical). Almost certainly, some time in the next few thousand years, humans will travel to other stellar systems. And we will bring Earth life with us. It seems very likely, that when the Earth is sterilised, earth life will live on in other worlds.

Simple.
A do not want to argue the forest fire thing again. We have been through that.

As to whether 1.5 Celsius can be called a catastrophe, I guess we end up talking semantics. The world has been through such changes before, many times. It has survived. There will, of course, be ecological changes. Whether we call them harm or benefit, time will tell. However, remember that warmer conditions are correlated with higher biodiversity. We would lose much more biodiversity if the world was cooling, as opposed to warming.

And on biodiversity. We have not lost 20 to 30%. The best measure of loss of biodiversity is species extinctions. This is currently running a about 20 species per year. Maybe more, if there is species loss that we are unaware of. However, to lose even 20% means a total loss of about 4 million species. At 20 per year, that would take 200,000 years. Even if our estimate is out by a factor of ten (ie, we lose 200 per year) it would still take 20,000 years to lose 20%.

Also on biodiversity. Such loss as we have experienced is not due to global warming. The biggest factors are :
1. Introductions of alien species
2. Hunting and fishing.
If you want to argue harm from global warming, best not to argue loss of biodiversity. The facts do not support you.

[joewp]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Also on biodiversity. Such loss as we have experienced is not due to global warming. The biggest factors are :
1. Introductions of alien species
2. Hunting and fishing.
If you want to argue harm from global warming, best not to argue loss of biodiversity. The facts do not support you.

I was under the impression that habitat loss due to human expansion was the number one reason for species extinction.

[Skeptic]

Joe.
Not so. Habitat loss is often quoted as a cause of biodiversity loss, and probably is. However, the scientific evidence for it being a major cause of species extinction is not powerful.

For example; Puerto Rico is an island that was once almost 100% covered with rainforest. A major ecological study showed the following. Within that forest lived, amongst others, about 50 species of native birds found nowhere else. Over time, every bit of that rainforest was cut down. Admittedly, at no stage was the island bare, since pockets of rainforest kept growing back. But often no more than 5% of the island was forested, and none of it was virgin. Only 4 species of endemic birds went extinct, and the researchers state that the evidence points to them being wiped out by the introduction of rats.

Enormous numbers of species have been wiped out by direct human action (hunting and fishing), and probalby even more by indirect (transporting alien pests).

A good example of this is the greatest human caused extintion 'event' of all time. The Polynesian spread through the Pacific. Over a period of less than 12,000 years, these peoples moved across, colonising the islands of this great ocean. By 800 years ago, 2,000 species of bird had been rendered extinct - about 20% of the world's total. How did this happen? The primary reason is that Polynesians took a species of rat with them.

Species loss due to habitat destruction no doubt happens. However, it is a minor cause. Of course, habitat loss is a tragedy in its own right. The loss of rainforest, for example, is the loss of a great asset to humans, just by virtue of its beauty, even if we take nothing else into consideration.

[Paradox]

Super Typhoon Ioke - 50 foot surf and 195MPH winds

Nice day for sailing --

[Skeptic]

Paradox.
In 1972 I was living and working in Fiji. We got struck by Hurricane Bebe, which caused utter devastation. Yet this was towards the end of the last global cooling period.

The point is that disasters, whether storms, floods, droughts, or whatever, happen all the time. Take care before drawing unwarranted conclusions.

[Paradox]

Hello All,

It is clear to me that without a monumental movement to address and mitigate our exposure to future climate change life as we know it will disappear within a decade or sooner. In many respects it already is. The ice sheets are deteriorating, currents are changing and weather extremes are prevailing over moderate variability...things are not shaping up in our favor.

Let's assume for the sake of variety that we agree the Earth is warming, currents are changing, the ice sheets are deteriorating at an alarming rate, biodiversity is waning, storms are intensifying, volcanic activity is increasing, seismic activity is increasing, solar output is increasing, our magnetic poles are shifting, our ozone layer is weakening and droughts and flooding are not an anomaly but the new norm.

Now what? How do we face these challenges? Grabbing our ankles is not an option. At what point do we bite the bullet and begin preparations?

Skeptics would say, "Preparations!? Why prepare? For what?". I would suggest the skeptics put themselves in the shoes of the tens of millions currently being ravaged either physically or mentally by climate change. We have achieved a new level of irresponsibility. Skeptics should get over it. Next.

C02 sequestration accomplishes little in the way of hope for a secure future. Corporations will find loopholes, politicians will turn a blind eye, attorneys will prosper and humanity will maintain the deer-in-the-headlights expression that has been plastered on their face for decades. All the while the underlying problem will continue unabated...even if far reaching C02 objectives are realized. That movement must persist for alternate reasons such as the emergence of alternate energy sources and responsible environmentalism. I support this momentum but admit here that I do not believe it is enough. So where does that leave us?

We can't turn down the sun, regulate our currents or stabilize our glaciers...or can we? Geoenginering may be a solution. At what point does this prospect become viable? Sadly, it will probably take a catastrophe (attributed to climate change) on the scale of the Indonesian Tsunami in richie-rich land to implement such measures. Maybe another disruption of Gulf oil will raise some eyebrows.

The problem with geoengineering is that we must have our climate dynamics mapped out or we could do more harm than good. For example, if we seed the ocean with lead to promote cooling and the Sun spots flatline...well, you get the picture. As for modeling, I think the prospects are grand for being able to predict climate in the 'future'. I support everything they are doing in this area but it is in the 386-40 stage of development and cannot be accepted as foolproof.

I'd like to hear some ideas, policies or projects you feel could help expedite a solution to this growing threat call 'climate change'.

~Paradox

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Paradox.
In 1972 I was living and working in Fiji. We got struck by Hurricane Bebe, which caused utter devastation. Yet this was towards the end of the last global cooling period.

The point is that disasters, whether storms, floods, droughts, or whatever, happen all the time. Take care before drawing unwarranted conclusions.

Ye Old Mule,

Unwarranted conclusions? Skeptic, I'm sorry you don't like my interpretation of current events but come on. I've made a much more compelling case for my views than you have. Unfortunately that task is not very complicated considering the amount of evidence supporting my views and the lack of for yours. I'm here to expand my understanding not bicker over perpectives. You tout an adherence to scientific method but all I see is speculation and references to outdated scientific data.

You refuse to accept the view that we are in serious trouble and I respect your right to hold that view. It is apparent to me that you ignore the fresh evidence that has been presented in this forum. Since you don't take the time to read the current studies put forth here the substance of our debate lacks. I am glad you feel that what is going on is just a normal phase. It surprises me based on the level of exposure you have had to the truth...but hey?

I don't sit around pulling my hair out about this stuff. Life goes on and if anything I live each day with more vigor than ever. I worry about the future that will be available to my son. He's almost two. I feel an obligation to protect him and to me this requires understanding and preparing for climate change. There is a twisted adventurer side of me that appreciates the dynamics of living during a time with such amazing events unfolding. Another part of me is worried. Yet another part of me is indifferent--dedicated to family, work and achieving some prosperity in life.

Remember...it's ok to be wrong


~Paradox

[Simple]

The ability of the earth to support a diverse array of life and sustain mankind is dependent on the state of the environment and climatic conditions. The overall wellbeing of the environment is reflected by its ability to support the widest variety of life or biodiversity. The greater the
biodiversity within an environment, the more robust, productive and healthy it is. Global biodiversity is decreasing and the current extinction rate of 30,000 per annum is approximately a hundred to a thousand times greater than historical trends(MEA 2005, Elredge 2001).
The main causes are;

1. Habitat Loss (Deforestation, Changing water courses, Coral reef loss etc.)
2. Climate Change
3. Invasive alien Species
4. Overexploitation
5. Pollution / Waste (MEA 2005)

The American Natural History Museum supports the notion that the world is in its sixth mass extinction and that the rate of loss is increasing due to man’s interactions with his environment.

"This mass extinction is the fastest in Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history and, unlike prior extinctions, is mainly the result of human activity and not of natural phenomena " (American Museum of Natural History 199.

The current extinction crisis, if unchecked, will disrupt evolution to a degree that:
• the earth will see a proliferation of pests and a decline of large mammals
• the tropics will no longer be powerhouses for the evolution of new species
• the biodiversity losses will persist for millions of years (Myers 2001).

Eldredge N. 2001, The Sixth Extinction, new frontiers: evolution and the future,
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newf...ldredge2.html; Accessed Dec 2005.
American Museum of Natural History 1998, National survey reveals biodiversity crisis -scientific experts believe we are in midst of fastest mass extinction in Earth’s history,
http://www.amnh.org/museum/press/feature/biofact.html. Accessed Dec 2005.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (MEA) 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Myers N. 2001, "The biotic crisis and the future of evolution" published in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 98, Issue 10, 5389-5392, May 8, 2001.

Look at the life index graph at the botto of this page clearly shows how we've lost ~30-40% of biodiversity since the 1970s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4563499.stm

Skeptic if you read my post you'll see I say global warming is just kicking in, not the cause at present. I fully agree at present global warming is a bit part player.

As for the forest fires this is a new article in Science that puts to rest the case that global warming is causing an increase in forest fires despite all other factors in america.


Simple