Something to look forward to...

[obsoletenihilist]

I wonder when we will start being able to launch our trash into space?

I saw that episode of Futurama and have learned my lesson from FUTURE EARTH'S mistakes.

[Chia]

http://environment.independent.co.uk/cl ... 675747.ece

Just another interesting article.

I really enjoy the careful wording used in the following paragraph:

"Civilisation developed, and constructed extensive infrastructure, during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12,000 years in duration. That period is about to end," the scientists warn. Humanity cannot afford to burn the Earth's remaining underground reserves of fossil fuel. "To do so would guarantee dramatic climate change, yielding a different planet from the one on which civilisation developed and for which extensive physical infrastructure has been built," they say.

[Guten Raynor]

derives its power from the fact that no-one really believes in zombies.

I will be prepared in the coming zombie apocolypse... will you?

[coruscadragon]

you're still going to reach the conclusion that you should kill them, regardless of evidence.

speak for yourself

but seriously,

Except that the agreed upon premise for even using this modified Pascal's Wager is that we cannot know if the GCC is really happening or not, the guy states that at the very beginning and throughout the video. So it doesn't matter whether or not I believe zombies are real or even if zombies are in fact real or not, the mere chance that zombies might be real and the fact my neighbor might be a zombie leads to the inescapable conclusion that I should kill them just to be safe.

while it is assumed that we don't know whether GCC is happening or not, it is also assumed that it is a viable possibility, which zombies or "terrorists" aren't (as there is no evidence that my neighbor is either).

[Peregrinus]

while it is assumed that we don't know whether GCC is happening or not, it is also assumed that it is a viable possibility, which zombies or "terrorists" aren't (as there is no evidence that my neighbor is either).

Well, then, be glad. I live about an hour away from Washington DC in an area that has had a heavy influx of Muslim and Hispanic immigrants... for all I know someone around here might be a terrorist sleeper, not that I really care or am actually scared of it, but in my neck of the woods, it really is a viable possibility.

As to zombies, you really need to do more research then, I suggest The Zombie Survival Guide for starters, as it covers most of the basics.

Also, remember, the entire premise is that it ignores any evidence one way or the other as to the existence of GCC, so, using this logic trap, it doesn't matter if GCC is a "viable possibility," it just matters that it might exist.

Finally, since you seem to be missing the complete point that I'm trying to make by using both absurd and more realistic examples of the same logic for different purposes, let me restart something: the logic argument used does not apply to anything concerning the physical world. Pascal's Wager, quite simply, is a logic trap used to help convince people to believe in God. It is an argument concerning philosophy and religion, not science, and using it for such an argument is the same as claiming that a dagger is the proper device for buttering bread.

Despite what is claimed in the video, GCC is much too complicated to be decided with a simple cost/benefit analysis and a logic argument.

[Chia]

And the offshot discussion above is a perfect example of why we, humans, will never ever be able to address such complex issues

[Depheant]

"Civilisation developed, and constructed extensive infrastructure, during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12,000 years in duration. That period is about to end," the scientists warn. Humanity cannot afford to burn the Earth's remaining underground reserves of fossil fuel. "To do so would guarantee dramatic climate change, yielding a different planet from the one on which civilisation developed and for which extensive physical infrastructure has been built," they say.

This unusually calm period in the Earth's history is just that - an anomaly. Historically (talking over billions of years), the Earth has shifted climate more times than F1 drivers do during a race.

Once could argue a return to climate instability would constitute a return to the status quo. What's interesting is that CO2 levels are at an all time historical low since the beginning of the planet. There was another period when this happened, about 300 million years ago - when the Earth was in an ice age.

There's a lot of material on this, but it rarely gets used outside educated circles when dealing with global warming, but that's not entirely unexpected since sensational news is the news that people are interested in, as opposed to hard facts.

The Earth had periods where average global temperatures went up by more than 12 degrees Celsius over the course of a few years, let alone a life-time or millennia (this when it was already in its maturity). Then a gradual cooling would occur over a long period, before the cycle was repeated.

What's even funnier is that global warming gets a bad rep, but without it life wouldn't be able to survive at all - heat from the sun isn't enough to sustain life if it wasn't for that nice blanket of gasses (think Mars).

Bottom line is, no one really knows but to say that "Humanity cannot afford to burn the Earth's remaining underground reserves of fossil fuel. To do so would guarantee dramatic climate change, yielding a different planet from the one on which civilisation developed and for which extensive physical infrastructure has been built," sounds more like one of those pieces of news aimed to stir as much emotion as possible, disregarding that facts - CO2 levels are the lowest they've ever been. Carbon Dioxide levels are blamed for global warming, but that isn't exactly true, now is it. Of course, there are other gasses out there... ; )

[Wyvern]

I think Jay needs to tell us all what he thinks on global warming.

[Chia]

Do you have perhaps a link to any of the studies you mentioned?

All I could find is that the levels of CO2 are raising and/or are highest.

Sample article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/ ... 5640.shtml

"A previous ice-core sample had traced greenhouse gases back about 440,000 years. This new sample, from East Antarctica, goes 210,000 years further back in time.

Today's still rising level of carbon dioxide already is 27 percent higher than its peak during all those millennia, said lead researcher Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern, Switzerland."

Obviously, this is simply one person's interpretation of a possibly flawed technique. You are also correct that there is a driving media frenzy about the issue...

However, it seems that a lot of respected scientists are jumping on the bandwagon, and the voices of oposition appear few and, admitedly, largely inaccessible, so I would appreciate a look at the other side's validated opinions.

[Chia]

Mrrgh. Why do I keep getting double-posts...

[kikkelipoika]

What's even funnier is that global warming gets a bad rep, but without it life wouldn't be able to survive at all - heat from the sun isn't enough to sustain life if it wasn't for that nice blanket of gasses (think Mars).

Yeah, the greenhouse effect is really such a nice and harmless thing (think Venus).

[Kell]

I wonder when we will start being able to launch our trash into space?

I saw that episode of Futurama and have learned my lesson from FUTURE EARTH'S mistakes.

I wonder when our current trash in space will start coming down, actually.

[Depheant]

Do you have perhaps a link to any of the studies you mentioned?

Eh, not really. I accumulate information from a variety of sources and I tend to remember things. What I was talking about , I saw in a documentary a couple of years back.

Here's something that might show I'm not making things up though. And something more.

This quote is quite nice:

The new data show that throughout millions of years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels swung back and forth between about 250 parts per million, close to present-day levels, to more than 2,000 parts per million.

Our present day C02 levels are around 380 ppm.

Yeah, the greenhouse effect is really such a nice and harmless thing (think Venus).

The greenhouse effect offsets a great deal of the heat it generates (though not all) through the process of global cooling, where light from the sun is reflected back, but not so much that it damages life down on the ground. If there wasn't an effect like this, it would be very unlikely that life would've developed in the way it has.

Also, Venus' atmosphere is much closer to the Sun than Earth is - as I said, the Earth would otherwise not receive enough heat, and ultimately cool down, like Mars has (and yes, I know Mars' geological heart is dead). Its atmosphere is made up of ammonia, a much nastier gas than carbon dioxide. And for a kicker, Venus' surface is also much cooler (a chilling 400 degrees celsius) than its atmosphere (a nice and toasty 600 degrees).

I know you were trying to be funny, but like most people who post on the internet in an attempt to be funny, you failed spectacularly.

[Chia]

Do you have perhaps a link to any of the studies you mentioned?

Eh, not really. I accumulate information from a variety of sources and I tend to remember things. What I was talking about , I saw in a documentary a couple of years back.

Thank you. Very interesting!

Although this still does not dispel the notion that such dramatic changes as we experience are unnatural (the first link does mention that explicitely). On the other hand, I doubt it is easy to check the daily temperature and CO2 levels on daily basis for dates about 400 million years ago

[Guten Raynor]

From your first link

But instead of a smooth shift, the transition occurred in a series of sharp swings between cold and hot conditions, occurring during perhaps a half-million to few million years.

But Montanez pointed out that these results cannot be directly applied to current global warming. The current rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is occurring throughout a much shorter timescale, for one thing. But the current work does show that such a major change in climate will likely not proceed in small, gradual steps, but in a series of unstable, dramatic swings.

Further, the record of fossil plants shows the drastic effects of major climate change on living things. In the modern era, tropical forests are already stressed by human use and settlement, and ecological researchers have recorded species moving north or south, likely driven by current global warming.

The second link has no relevance beyond saying that 250+ Myrs ago CO2 levels have been lower than they are right now.

Curious how this article supports your viewpoint...?