Odds of climate change (for the worse)?

[KittenKoder]

Pretty good observation. However, you are leaving out one big factor. Evolution can only proceed with the material at hand. If a very promising line is wiped out by a catastrophe, whether rapid warming as in the Permian-Triassic extinction, or an impact, there will be no further evolution of that species. Had a random chunk of rock hit Eastern Africa about two million years ago, we would not be having this correspondance.

What promising line has humanity preserved? Ever?

Also, less "promising" species to us may actually be the next super species to nature. Look at the rat, when it first appeared virus' and toxins were just as deadly to them as other species, they had nothing going for them, weak and nearly at the bottom of the food chain. They should have gone extinct by our measure of what is "promising", but nature said otherwise and now they are one of the toughest mammalian species on the earth, even though they are still near the bottom of the food chain. Their survival has allowed many other species to thrive. Already mentioned cockroaches, natures toxic clean up crew. Both of these could not be wiped out, even if we tried, of course the environuts think they should be but think that penguins, which serve a very small purpose in nature right now, should be saved even when nature has decided to drive them extinct. Look at the cheetah, beautiful and fabulous creatures (second favorite feline of mine), but they are suppose to go extinct. Even biologists have said this, nature has just decided they are no longer needed. But do the environuts let them go extinct? No, instead they upset the natural order and try to "save" these creatures. As much as I love them myself, their time is up, and they need to be allowed to fail. Their food sources have evolved to overcome the unique hunting trait that helped them thrive in the past, that's nature, it's cruel but it's natural. We as a species are part of nature as long as we don't try to force our ideals on it, because what we think is the ideal environment most likely (as with the cheetah) is not ideal for the planet or nature itself. Here's an idea, why not worry about our survival when nature deems us worthless? The evolution of an intelligent species won't be measured in our ability to adapt physically, or our ability to force the world to conform to what we "think" it should be, but in how we can learn from it and how well we can use that knowledge to protect ourselves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, we have increased the amount of CO2, and other gases in the atmosphere, we've polluted much of the planet, and altered many eco-systems. We have essentially disrupted Earth's equation, or the 'normal state' of things.

So, what is likely to result?

A) Nothing changes at all (despite the "elements of the equation" changing)
B) Things change for the better (more fresh water, cleaner air, lots of vibrant ecosystems, the weather gets MORE predictable)
C) Things change for the worse...(less fresh water, dirtier air, loss of vibrant ecosystems, the weather gets LESS predictable)

Mathematically, option A is impossible.
You decide which of the other two is more likely (and then give a shit if that's your nature).

Stop wringing your hands, it ain't all bad:
How To Turn a Pizza Box Into a Solar Oven Video | Cooking Equipment Videos | Howcast.com

 

[American Horse]

Pretty good observation....

Here's an idea, why not worry about our survival when nature deems us worthless? The evolution of an intelligent species won't be measured in our ability to adapt physically, or our ability to force the world to conform to what we "think" it should be, but in how we can learn from it and how well we can use that knowledge to protect ourselves.

I'm in favor of a small expenditure to insure our long range, even ultimate survival if that is possible. We need to expand our base of operations, and the sooner the better with something that fits into our natural instinct for exploration; that being the furtherance of space exploration. The urgency for that is not so much tied up with some catastrophic event happening to pre-empt our expansion into space as a species, but that economically the window is closing. Once closed new opportunities will become remote into the future.

Not for much longer will politicians see any military (already gone except for China) or nationalistic advantage to going into space as national allegiances are erased for a world government. Right now the most important spur to human (non robotic) space ventures is nationalism. Even in the ISS, or particularly in the ISS, there is a chance to put one of "our" own into the mix or add some bit of technology to the operation with a national label attached.

Jupiter, which is a giant vacuum cleaner for the inner planets, just a few years back first fractured, then sucked up a comet and exhibited major damage for weeks on its huge gaseous body. But I'm not suggesting that will change and we can expect something catastrophic very soon; just that the window of our opportunity for humanity in space is closing, and it will probably not open again without a total re-ordering of civilization. Of course another ice age or an extreme climate change event could wrench apart human civilization so that we get another opportunity in some new golden age in the far future; at least far in the future from our perspective, if not geologically.

To that end any of us can join an organization like The Planetary Society, (membership about 100,000+) donating a small amount to keep the concept alive. The P.S. has recently proposed a new project for advancing the exploration of space, is being heard, and is helping to reshape planning for the mission to Mars, and a human presence in space. ->>> Beyond the Moon: Roadmap to Space - What We Do | The Planetary Society

 

[KittenKoder]

Pretty good observation....

Here's an idea, why not worry about our survival when nature deems us worthless? The evolution of an intelligent species won't be measured in our ability to adapt physically, or our ability to force the world to conform to what we "think" it should be, but in how we can learn from it and how well we can use that knowledge to protect ourselves.

I'm in favor of a small expenditure to insure our long range, even ultimate survival if that is possible. We need to expand our base of operations, and the sooner the better with something that fits into our natural instinct for exploration; that being the furtherance of space exploration. The urgency for that is not so much tied up with some catastrophic event happening to pre-empt our expansion into space as a species, but that economically the window is closing. Once closed new opportunities will become remote into the future.

Not for much longer will politicians see any military (already gone except for China) or nationalistic advantage to going into space as national allegiances are erased for a world government. Right now the most important spur to human (non robotic) space ventures is nationalism. Even in the ISS, or particularly in the ISS, there is a chance to put one of "our" own into the mix or add some bit of technology to the operation with a national label attached.

Jupiter, which is a giant vacuum cleaner for the inner planets, just a few years back first fractured, then sucked up a comet and exhibited major damage for weeks on its huge gaseous body. But I'm not suggesting that will change and we can expect something catastrophic very soon; just that the window of our opportunity for humanity in space is closing, and it will probably not open again without a total re-ordering of civilization. Of course another ice age or an extreme climate change event could wrench apart human civilization so that we get another opportunity in some new golden age in the far future; at least far in the future from our perspective, if not geologically.

To that end any of us can join an organization like The Planetary Society, (membership about 100,000+) donating a small amount to keep the concept alive. The P.S. has recently proposed a new project for advancing the exploration of space, is being heard, and is helping to reshape planning for the mission to Mars, and a human presence in space. ->>> Beyond the Moon: Roadmap to Space - What We Do | The Planetary Society

You think, I like that. Space exploration could be one of the possible solutions, and if it ever became more than a dream we could learn a lot more about our planet as well. It's not a bad idea, just a very challenging one. One problem is we don't take enough risks in it, and we should, instead of looking at one tragedy and cowering in fear of it. The old coinage "nothing ventured, nothing gained" fits here quite well. I would not be opposed to such a proposal if given a voice in the matter.

 

[American Horse]

You think, I like that. Space exploration could be one of the possible solutions, and if it ever became more than a dream we could learn a lot more about our planet as well. It's not a bad idea, just a very challenging one. One problem is we don't take enough risks in it, and we should, instead of looking at one tragedy and cowering in fear of it. The old coinage "nothing ventured, nothing gained" fits here quite well. I would not be opposed to such a proposal if given a voice in the matter.

It is ridiculous to think we can just stand still and preserve the status quo. This is the germ in "Not to learn from history is to repeat it". We have to let risk takers take risks; even the realm of taking risks is being "forclosed" on.

 

[KittenKoder]

You think, I like that. Space exploration could be one of the possible solutions, and if it ever became more than a dream we could learn a lot more about our planet as well. It's not a bad idea, just a very challenging one. One problem is we don't take enough risks in it, and we should, instead of looking at one tragedy and cowering in fear of it. The old coinage "nothing ventured, nothing gained" fits here quite well. I would not be opposed to such a proposal if given a voice in the matter.

It is ridiculous to think we can just stand still and preserve the status quo. This is the germ in "Not to learn from history is to repeat it". We have to let risk takers take risks; even the realm of taking risks is being "forclosed" on.

Um ... now you've lost me.

 

[American Horse]

It is ridiculous to think we can just stand still and preserve the status quo. This is the germ in "Not to learn from history is to repeat it". We have to let risk takers take risks; even the realm of taking risks is being "forclosed" on.

Um ... now you've lost me.

Sorry, I thought from your last comment that you'd understand. Countering the manned exploration of space are the arguments that: 1. It's too dangerous: every accident gets a huge amount of press coverage. 2. It's too expensive, not worth it, we have better places to allocate that kind of money for public welfare. 3. We need to preserve the status quo ante: put all our focus on reversing climate change; this will consume all our resources. 4. long range history will repeat itself: We are at the threshold of space. If we back off and one of these inevitable global calamities befall us there will be no spore planted off our home base.

At the fall of Rome travel on the sea was at an apex, but exploration was foreclosed by a thousand year "dark age" and then some before a new spirit of exploration came out of the renaissance, in 1492.

If you were to take a poll here on this Forum you'd probably find that fewer supported manned space travel than do, seeing the expenditure of money and the risk to human life not being worth it. (I've seen these before and the results are surprising, at least to me) I have been discouraged by that attitude among our younger folks. People my own age who were excited by the space program of the 60s and 70s still hold on, but enthusiasm is dying, being foreclosed by a philosophy of necessity to mundane existence rather than the high adventure of space exploration.

 

[KittenKoder]

It is ridiculous to think we can just stand still and preserve the status quo. This is the germ in "Not to learn from history is to repeat it". We have to let risk takers take risks; even the realm of taking risks is being "forclosed" on.

Um ... now you've lost me.

Sorry, I thought from your last comment that you'd understand. Countering the manned exploration of space are the arguments that: 1. It's too dangerous: every accident gets a huge amount of press coverage. 2. It's too expensive, not worth it, we have better places to allocate that kind of money for public welfare. 3. We need to preserve the status quo ante: put all our focus on reversing climate change; this will consume all our resources. 4. long range history will repeat itself: We are at the threshold of space. If we back off and one of these inevitable global calamities befall us there will be no spore planted off our home base.

At the fall of Rome travel on the sea was at an apex, but exploration was foreclosed by a thousand year "dark age" and then some before a new spirit of exploration came out of the renaissance.

If you were to take a poll here on this Forum you'd probably find that fewer supported manned space travel than do, seeing the expenditure of money and the risk to human life not being worth it. (I've seen these before and the results are surprising, at least to me) I have been discouraged by that attitude among our younger folks. People my own age who were excited by the space program of the 60s and 70s still hold on, but enthusiasm is dying, being foreclosed by a philosophy of necessity to mundane existence rather than the high adventure of space exploration.

Okay ... works for me, still have nothing to counter against ... LOL
I myself am pretty bored with the earth and would welcome another space exploration boost, I don't fear risk at all as long as there is a valid goal and method for the risk (NASA has that already) and at least a chance of success.

 

[Gurdari]

Hmm... so 'A' is impossible and 'B' seems unlieky. Looks like the future is bright!


As for Global WARMING, I think it isn't about us all having 'warmer weather', but the EARTH's temperature going up a few degrees, which can have unpredictable results, some of which may be colder temperatures.

So, Global Warming may give us extreme weather and change how our ecosystem behaves (warmer or colder depends on where and when you live).

 

[Gurdari]

'A' is impossible because it's naturally impossible. Nature changes, without change and sometimes drastic and erratic change then life does not improve, evolution stops, and the world becomes as stagnant as Mars.

Yep. A is impossible... maybe not for those reasons exactly, A is impossible because changing something means it is no longer the same (overly basic, but not meant as a trick question at all) so that leaves you with B or C...


I would say life does not improve because of change... it is because of change, that life has to adapt (which organisms no doubt feel is an improvemnt, i.e. becoming more in tune with the environment).

 

[auditor0007]

C. Life on this planet will suffer the most from a lack of clean drinking water do to overpopulation and deforestation.

Overpopulation is easily resolved if it ever truly becomes necessary. And no, I'm not talking about killing billions of people. All it requires is the prevention of pregnancy. Mathmatically, it is feasible that the world population could be cut in half in one generation.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is ridiculous to think we can just stand still and preserve the status quo. This is the germ in "Not to learn from history is to repeat it". We have to let risk takers take risks; even the realm of taking risks is being "forclosed" on.

Um ... now you've lost me.

Sorry, I thought from your last comment that you'd understand. Countering the manned exploration of space are the arguments that: 1. It's too dangerous: every accident gets a huge amount of press coverage. 2. It's too expensive, not worth it, we have better places to allocate that kind of money for public welfare. 3. We need to preserve the status quo ante: put all our focus on reversing climate change; this will consume all our resources. 4. long range history will repeat itself: We are at the threshold of space. If we back off and one of these inevitable global calamities befall us there will be no spore planted off our home base.

At the fall of Rome travel on the sea was at an apex, but exploration was foreclosed by a thousand year "dark age" and then some before a new spirit of exploration came out of the renaissance, in 1492.

If you were to take a poll here on this Forum you'd probably find that fewer supported manned space travel than do, seeing the expenditure of money and the risk to human life not being worth it. (I've seen these before and the results are surprising, at least to me) I have been discouraged by that attitude among our younger folks. People my own age who were excited by the space program of the 60s and 70s still hold on, but enthusiasm is dying, being foreclosed by a philosophy of necessity to mundane existence rather than the high adventure of space exploration.

I find myself looking at the moon, and wondering why we are not seeing the lights of settlements there. It was the race to be first on the moon that created the computer revolution. It also created another revolution.

When I watched the landing, and the first walk, it was a feeling of deje vu. I had seen it in my mind from the many science fiction stories I had read. What was totally suprising, and not predicted in those stories, was the fact that everywhere in world, people were watching this historic event. That, and the picture of the Earthrise, were paradigm shifting moments.

Robots are cheap and quick, but they do not satify the need to be there, nor do they have the ability to recognize when something not expected is happening. Manned exploration is a must, if we are truly to do real exploration.

 

[KittenKoder]

Um ... now you've lost me.

Sorry, I thought from your last comment that you'd understand. Countering the manned exploration of space are the arguments that: 1. It's too dangerous: every accident gets a huge amount of press coverage. 2. It's too expensive, not worth it, we have better places to allocate that kind of money for public welfare. 3. We need to preserve the status quo ante: put all our focus on reversing climate change; this will consume all our resources. 4. long range history will repeat itself: We are at the threshold of space. If we back off and one of these inevitable global calamities befall us there will be no spore planted off our home base.

At the fall of Rome travel on the sea was at an apex, but exploration was foreclosed by a thousand year "dark age" and then some before a new spirit of exploration came out of the renaissance, in 1492.

If you were to take a poll here on this Forum you'd probably find that fewer supported manned space travel than do, seeing the expenditure of money and the risk to human life not being worth it. (I've seen these before and the results are surprising, at least to me) I have been discouraged by that attitude among our younger folks. People my own age who were excited by the space program of the 60s and 70s still hold on, but enthusiasm is dying, being foreclosed by a philosophy of necessity to mundane existence rather than the high adventure of space exploration.

I find myself looking at the moon, and wondering why we are not seeing the lights of settlements there. It was the race to be first on the moon that created the computer revolution. It also created another revolution.

When I watched the landing, and the first walk, it was a feeling of deje vu. I had seen it in my mind from the many science fiction stories I had read. What was totally suprising, and not predicted in those stories, was the fact that everywhere in world, people were watching this historic event. That, and the picture of the Earthrise, were paradigm shifting moments.

Robots are cheap and quick, but they do not satify the need to be there, nor do they have the ability to recognize when something not expected is happening. Manned exploration is a must, if we are truly to do real exploration.

*smirk* In order to afford that we have to stop funneling taxes to the environmentalist scientists and companies.

 

[code1211]

I love some good CO2!

The earth has been warmer...the earth has been colder.

'Nuff said.

Thinking of planting in in door garden, I wouldn't be upset at having more CO2 to push out the CO from the neighboring freeway so they will grow better. As soon as it warms up enough (finger crossed) that is. It's been too cold these last couple years here to get anything started on time.

You are so right on the cold and late springs, also fall has been warmer than average and winter has come late also, the last couple of years, La Nina.

In Indianapolis, the Winter arrived right about on time if not early. This cool spring has lingered on and on. I'm ready for a little bit of summer to intrude on spring.

 

[FactFinder]

co2 is so tiny its impossible to determine its effect, what is the biggest green house gas and what has the most effect on the heat of the planet?

water vapor

 

[KittenKoder]

Thinking of planting in in door garden, I wouldn't be upset at having more CO2 to push out the CO from the neighboring freeway so they will grow better. As soon as it warms up enough (finger crossed) that is. It's been too cold these last couple years here to get anything started on time.

You are so right on the cold and late springs, also fall has been warmer than average and winter has come late also, the last couple of years, La Nina.

In Indianapolis, the Winter arrived right about on time if not early. This cool spring has lingered on and on. I'm ready for a little bit of summer to intrude on spring.

I was in Indianapolis for one winter ... buried the whole city, well almost. It was about 10 years ago (my memory on time sucks). I think it did come early then to.

 

[FactFinder]

The odds of climate change are 100%. The chance of man having anything to do with it are near zero. Whether it is a good thing or bad will depend largely on where you live and how resourceful you are.

 

[KittenKoder]

Thinking of planting in in door garden, I wouldn't be upset at having more CO2 to push out the CO from the neighboring freeway so they will grow better. As soon as it warms up enough (finger crossed) that is. It's been too cold these last couple years here to get anything started on time.

You are so right on the cold and late springs, also fall has been warmer than average and winter has come late also, the last couple of years, La Nina.

In Indianapolis, the Winter arrived right about on time if not early. This cool spring has lingered on and on. I'm ready for a little bit of summer to intrude on spring.

I was in Indianapolis for one winter ... buried the whole city, well almost. It was about 10 years ago (my memory on time sucks). I think it did come early then to.

 

[Meister]

You are so right on the cold and late springs, also fall has been warmer than average and winter has come late also, the last couple of years, La Nina.

Fall has been cold! Damn cold! We used to have nice Indian Summers, now just a bunch of cold chilly days - this has been the pattern for the last five years.

I want some of this global warming they keep promising us!!!

What part of the country do you live? Some places have had colder than average temps, but most have had warmer than average temps. Anomalies are always going to happen, whether we're in a cooling or warming trend, and 1 or 2 cooling years does not make a trend.

Nor does 20-30 years when we're talking about 5,000,000,000 years..now does it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Fall has been cold! Damn cold! We used to have nice Indian Summers, now just a bunch of cold chilly days - this has been the pattern for the last five years.

I want some of this global warming they keep promising us!!!

What part of the country do you live? Some places have had colder than average temps, but most have had warmer than average temps. Anomalies are always going to happen, whether we're in a cooling or warming trend, and 1 or 2 cooling years does not make a trend.

Nor does 20-30 years when we're talking about 5,000,000,000 years..now does it?

We are not discussing 4.53 billion years. We are discussing the next 100 years.