# We have a unique opportunity before we die:



## gigantes (Apr 24, 2009)

i haven't posted here in ages, but i was curious to see what you all had to say.  so:

you know all those sci-fi scenerios set in a post-apocalyptic world where the remnants of humanity are nosing about barren lands... and then one of them discovers the remains of a high-tech civilisation from the past and it leads to a fascinating story?

well, it hit me recently that *we* are that forgotten people.

traditionally we've thought of 'atlantis' or 'xanadu', etc as being the one, but as the science reports pour in, it now becomes clear that we ourselves are that doomed but fascinating society.  because the brightest minds in science now give us between 10-40 years before our stupidity wipes ourselves and 99%+ of life off the planet.

that's assuming that we don't manage to unite the globe against the threat. (yea, right)

so what do you think is worth remembering about this era of humanity? (good or bad)


----------



## cronny (Apr 24, 2009)

How do you preserve things from the elements for millions of years? 
Do we have the technology to do this feat? 
What if it takes that long for a civilization to start discovering our civilization? Do we still have the ruin to say that once a civilization existed here on earth?


----------



## zachariah (Apr 24, 2009)

Seriously, this question has been thrashed over many many many times before, all over the place. I think New Scientist even had an article about what sort of evidence a high-tech society would leave behind that someone could detect millions of years later. 

(The answer to which is, numerous composite materials would be identifiable, as would the remnants of any previous nuclear energy generators. Compact, strongly-built buildings may survive a long time but there is no guarantee. Everything we put on the moon should be there for a while, likewise anything that sank to the bottom of the ocean.)

There's also projects like the The Long Now Foundation and the question of what to do about warning future civilisations about hazardous waste (Wx3.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0115.shtml). These things are being addressed.


----------



## Pravuil (Apr 24, 2009)

gigantes said:


> but as the science reports pour in, it now becomes clear that we ourselves are that doomed but fascinating society. because the brightest minds in science now give us between 10-40 years before our stupidity wipes ourselves and 99%+ of life off the planet.


 
Per force intelligent, as their respective vocations demand, scientists, or the wide majority, are not supra-geniuses, notwithstanding what individual ego would argue, but instead average people willing to tax themselves in order that they may further the ends and knowledge of humanity and/or themselves. Having said this: many scientifically enlightened (or otherwise enlightened) men and religious extremists of years past have proposed the very thing this article treats. We continue and even in this modern world of today there still exist safe-havens.


----------



## chrispenycate (Apr 24, 2009)

I don't think we'll manage 99%; I'd be quite proud of anything over 95. Life is incredibly tough and resilient.

After millions of years? There would be quite a bit left over, but would the next species to achieve sapience recognise it, or would it  just be how the world was? Who's to say that are present hematite beds aren't that metal rich because they're fossilised scrap yards?

But dinosaur skeletons remain, so things do last; I'd expect gold stockpiles, faceted jewels, some stainless steel (in regions well away from the sea, quite possibly some plastics. Deformed, the objects unrecognisable, but the materials continuing, still giving clues to those who are ready and primed to understand that the world wasn't created a few thousand years before…


----------



## gigantes (Apr 24, 2009)

interesting digressions worth many a reply, but i'm still curious what your responses would be to the question--

what do you think is worth remembering about this era of humanity? (good or bad)

(from the perspective that we are in our final years as a species)


----------



## Dave (Apr 24, 2009)

zachariah said:


> ...what sort of evidence a high-tech society would leave behind that someone could detect millions of years later...



_from *The Graduate:*_


> Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
> Benjamin: Yes, sir.
> Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
> Benjamin: Yes, I am.
> ...


If our era were a strata of rock, hidden among the other geological era, it would be picked out be a high metal content, and by plastics, and by a mass extinction of species. That does about sum us up.


----------



## Urien (Apr 24, 2009)

The statue of liberty will survive... it always does. Somehow it will be caught in amber, and be unearthed by the alien archeologists led by ToEkneee ROHbynshon.

...and who says convergent evolution is dead?


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 25, 2009)

Let's face it, art is the most fascinating thing to unearth. Most of our art might not last, nor does it deserve to, but pottery will go on! (Says the potter. Must make more before the world ends...must make more before the world ends...)

As for the rest of it, well, I'm with Dave.


----------



## K. Riehl (Apr 25, 2009)

I say we should shoot a representative collection of what we want to be remembered for up to the moon. It should last quite a long time.


----------



## cronny (Apr 25, 2009)

Plastic? I tought plastic have a life for a several thousand years... I doubt after a million years exposed to the element, you still can find plastic.

I really doubt, you will find the statue of liberty after a million year.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Apr 25, 2009)

Link Please?  Because having actually talked with several of the real deal experts on global annihilation (nuclear weapons designers and astrophysicists) I have a tough time finding credibility in the pretense to this discussion.  With this in mind 99.9% global human destruction is *insufficient* to wipe out humanity (1/1,000 of 6 billion is 6 million which is above the genetic diversity threshold for human perpetuation).  Thus even the precursor event to this discussion is insufficient.


With all that said: I believe that several of the works of music are worth remembering; Many works of art pre-modern art would stand the test of time; are best feats of engineering are yet to come though...; philosophy has come a long way and has quite a bit to go; religion, globally speaking, is (I think) just starting to bubble up out of its violence (Jainism's resurrection speaks volumes to me); and perhaps the most important thing of all to not lose would be the lessons of history (a complete account, or as near as we could manage, is something that should *never* be lost).

MTF


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 25, 2009)

Come now MTF, we are not really talking global annihilation.  Who would dig up the ruins, then? 

No, life will go on and we with it no doubt. Our civilisation, though...that's a more feasible downfall. The lessons of history are an interesting point - I hope we don't lose them, but the fact is we don't seem to have learned them yet!


----------



## Urien (Apr 25, 2009)

Cronny,

Of course the Statue of Liberty will survive; giant bubble dwelling aliens will use it to prop open dimensional doors.

~v~


----------



## gigantes (Apr 25, 2009)

ManTimeForgot said:


> Link Please?  Because having actually talked with several of the real deal experts on global annihilation (nuclear weapons designers and astrophysicists) I have a tough time finding credibility in the pretense to this discussion.  With this in mind 99.9% global human destruction is *insufficient* to wipe out humanity (1/1,000 of 6 billion is 6 million which is above the genetic diversity threshold for human perpetuation).  Thus even the precursor event to this discussion is insufficient.


i probably should have been more specific-- the event i was indirectly referring to is runaway global climate change, which is different from many other deadly and legitimate fears (such as nuclear winter) in that there is no doubt it's going to happen soon unless we do something drastic to prevent (assuming that's even possible).

as far as doomsday scenerios, i don't sense a majority yet of how bad it's going to be from the scientific community.  man may be completely wiped out or small pockets of humanity may be able to survive in a few places.

although honestly, doesn't either scenerio disturb you a lot?


----------



## mosaix (Apr 25, 2009)

gigantes said:


> interesting digressions worth many a reply, but i'm still curious what your responses would be to the question--
> 
> what do you think is worth remembering about this era of humanity? (good or bad)
> 
> (from the perspective that we are in our final years as a species)



There are many things worth forgetting but two things worth remembering are:

1) Getting off-planet, even if only to the moon. Considering the technology available at the time, I think this was a staggering feat.

2) Sequencing the human genome.


----------



## mosaix (Apr 25, 2009)

gigantes said:


> man may be completely wiped out or small pockets of humanity may be able to survive in a few places.



Projections in New Scientist a few weeks ago aren't nearly so pessimistic regarding survivability.

Many areas, such as countries bordering the Mediterranean may become uninhabitable (As uninhabitable as say, the Sahara is now.) But northern Europe, for instance, may aquire a Mediterranean climate. Much of the planet would be habitable but much of the planet would not.

That's not to underestimate the catastrophe of the potential population shift.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Apr 25, 2009)

Global warming might do a substantial amount of property damage, but it isn't going to kill off 99% of humanity (not by a long shot).  Sealed environments and HVAC pretty much preclude the possibility of this.  On account of the fact that humanity survived the last major global climate shift without such things; I can safely state that there is no way that humanity will be endangered by global warming.  It is much too slow a process to do that.

Could it result in a change to our culture?  Sure.  But so what?  Culture changes over time in response to changes in environment (this has always been so; otherwise we would all still be hunter gatherers).  Could this result in a culture that is fundamentally different from our current one?  Possibly, but again so what?  We won't lose our history (electronic and paper recording methods will make it just fine), and so whatever culture results it will still be fundamentally ours.  Some places will be made uninhabitable (small islands), but others will be made habitable (greenland for instance).


Global Warming and the next Ice Age are not going to end humanity.  And while it may alter our culture and force us to do some things we otherwise wouldn't, I say great.  Forcing humanity out of complacency has almost always been for the best in the long run (necessity is the mother of invention).


Global Warming is a natural process that the earth undergoes every now and again and even if it is artificially sped up by man's influence the most influential green house gas is still and always will be water vapor.  Earth is still the boss, and Global Warming alarmists need to re-examine their evidence or their philosophies.  Global Warming is not a doomsday event, not by a long shot.

MTF


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 26, 2009)

Yes yes, but if there were such a catastrophe, what would survive of our civilisation? It wouldn't have to eliminate anywhere near 99% of us to knock our civilisation on the head. Maybe we need to create something like the Rosetta Stone.


----------



## gigantes (Apr 27, 2009)

mosaix said:


> Projections in New Scientist a few weeks ago aren't nearly so pessimistic regarding survivability.


kudos for mentioning a legit source, but that is just one respected source.  many others really are that pessimistic, hence the creation of this thread.



> Many areas, such as countries bordering the Mediterranean may become uninhabitable (As uninhabitable as say, the Sahara is now.) But northern Europe, for instance, may aquire a Mediterranean climate. Much of the planet would be habitable but much of the planet would not.


i would not be too upset if that happened, but the question is, would you and others?  even in best-case scenerious, we're talking about the few surviving regions being cut off from almost all of their imports and exports and totalitarian govts likely finding the right situation to take power.  are you cool with that also?

not to mention, plant and animal species will suffer dramatically due to our negligence- are we all cool with that?



ManTimeForgot said:


> Global warming might do a substantial amount of property damage, but it isn't going to kill off 99% of humanity (not by a long shot).


could you link me to legit articles that support your view?
understand that there are a lot of BS articles written by real scientists funded by 'think tanks' and the like who are supported by exxon-mobile and the energy industry in general.  i can name you the names if you like, but let's stay positive for now.  what scientist supports your claim?



> Sealed environments and HVAC pretty much preclude the possibility of this.  On account of the fact that humanity survived the last major global climate shift without such things; I can safely state that there is no way that humanity will be endangered by global warming.  It is much too slow a process to do that.


no.  what we are doing is unprecedented in our knowledge of earth history and cannot be accounted for by past events.  for example, in 650,000 years, CO2 levels have never been as high as we are now pushing them, threatening a whole cascade of reinforcement mechanisms that will raise global temperature even more.

look.  here's an example anyone should be able to understand:
YouTube - Wake Up, Freak Out â€“ then Get a Grip



> Global Warming is a natural process that the earth undergoes every now and again and even if it is artificially sped up by man's influence the most influential green house gas is still and always will be water vapor.  Earth is still the boss, and Global Warming alarmists need to re-examine their evidence or their philosophies.  Global Warming is not a doomsday event, not by a long shot.


no.  for one thing, there is not one science org on the planet that believes that this is 'more of the old heating up and cooling down'.

also, the idea the idea that water vapor was driving the change was busted as long ago as the 19th century.

99% of the arguments that the energy industry is putting out there to deceive honest people such as yourself has been defrauded over and over again by the body of scientists.

here is one of the many collections of flawed arguments that are busted by legit science:
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | A Grist Special Series | Grist


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 27, 2009)

The LHC, maybe they'll think it was a small undergound racetrack?


----------



## Urien (Apr 27, 2009)

Originally Posted by *ManTimeForgot* 

 
_Global warming might do a substantial amount of property damage, but it isn't going to kill off 99% of humanity (not by a long shot)._
could you link me to legit articles that support your view?

Gig,

Your claim is the extraordinary one, that in 10-40 years we're snuffed by global warming. MTF saying that, the extraordinary event is not likely to happen is much more orthodox.

Therefore I feel it's you that needs to prove we shouldn't bother with long term planning and might as well throw our grandchildren into the sea now.


----------



## chrispenycate (Apr 27, 2009)

Moonbat said:


> The LHC, maybe they'll think it was a small undergound racetrack?



Not that small for moles. Still, none of it's going to be around in a million years without cryonic preservation, and that means they have to plug all the leaks.

When the beginning of this thread said 'wipe out 99% of all life' I assumed it meant 'all', not just humanity. 

Climate change won't get close to this figure, and even pollution can't manage; the only way to even approach this efficiency is the doomsday weapons, spreading long halflife radioactives over the entire planetary surface, preferably combined with as much toxic chemistry as hands can be laid on. Even then, it would be a good plan to boil the deep oceans; look at Chernobyl for how life can go on producing generations in what would seem impossible circumstances. 

A layer of radioactive poison and the words 'Ooops, silly me' would seem an excellent epitaph for our recent (last few centuries) societies.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Apr 28, 2009)

You want to talk to scientists that support my claim?  I could _start_ with the entire PLS directorate (physical and life sciences) at LLNL (that's the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) or the one LBNL (Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory) would suffice (haven't had the chance to talk to guys there much at all though).


Its all very nice to say that we are "approaching" this "tipping point" (which I'm not sure all the science actually supports the existence of such a thing), but that approach is _very_ slow.  Global climate change at the rate that it is will result in ecosystem shifts in response long before we turn Earth to Venus.  There are bacteria, algae, and lichen that are capable of living in high-acidity, high-temperature environments and will act as carbon sinks.  Hell, worse comes to worst we bio-engineer some algae that likes those conditions and acts as a super carbon sink.  That is of course barring us cleaning up fossil fuel act by installing scrubbers that convert CO2 emmissions back into methane (which burns and releases CO2 and then you scrub again).  Or even better we switch to nuclear power (which we have had the tech to make 100% clean for years now) with a supplement of wind, tidal, and solar power.



I never once said that water vapor was the cause of global warming.  It is however still the largest contributor to the green house effect.  CO2 doesn't come even close.  You want to kaibosh the green house effect?  Strip water out of the air.  We can do it if we really wanted to.  And I also didn't state that I thought this was an entirely natural process.  The earth has been slowly warming up (very slowly mind) since before we started burning fossil fuels (there was a cold spot some point in the middle ages, but after that it started warming again).  It started to accelerate when we started burning fossils, so it is clear that it is a contributor.  But the rate of global climate change is not so great that the earth is incapable of dealing with.  The earth's ecosystem has had to absorb far greater punishment from super volcano eruptions than anything man has done so far.

And if I really felt like "fixing" the problem right now, nuts to whoever cared about my methods, then I would just set off a large complement of high-energy nuclear weapons all over the earth (all those gammas tend to break down molecules into their elemental constituents) and voila, no more problems with large concentrations of CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.



So, No, global warming is _not_ going to kill off humanity.  When pushed up against the wall humanity does whatever it takes to survive.  Perhaps some people care more about some rare snake or lizard in the middle of some desert that nobody has heard of, but if it came down to a choice between our survival and a bunch of stuff we can replace with transplants, then guess which one humanity chooses?


MTF


----------



## chrispenycate (Apr 28, 2009)

'Little ice age' in the 1630s. Another round the fourth century. Could be volcanic (decent volcano can spit out as much CO2 as all the cars in the planet for a year, still cools everything down with a dust cloud, a bit like those soot particles in factory chimneys)

But there's too much water for a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus, and you shouldn't forget, the 'natural' atmosphere, before live modified it and introduced oxygen as a major component, will have had  a lot more greenhouse gasses.


----------



## gigantes (Apr 28, 2009)

Urien said:


> Gig,
> 
> Your claim is the extraordinary one, that in 10-40 years we're snuffed by global warming. MTF saying that, the extraordinary event is not likely to happen is much more orthodox.
> 
> Therefore I feel it's you that needs to prove we shouldn't bother with long term planning and might as well throw our grandchildren into the sea now.


fair points, sir uriens from mallory.

although my "10-40" claim is by no means extraordinary or unexpected.  listen to just two scientifically-trained reporters and you will hear the many references to legit scientists who mention this time frame--

greg craven:
YouTube - How It All Ends

gwynn dyer:
part one, part two, part three.



ManTimeForgot said:


> You want to talk to scientists that support my claim?  I could _start_ with the entire PLS directorate (physical and life sciences) at LLNL (that's the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) or the one LBNL (Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory) would suffice (haven't had the chance to talk to guys there much at all though).


bravo, did you find some science orgs that digress from their fellows?  and could you link me to their statements about the matter, please?

here, this is how all recognised science orgs feel:
Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion



> Its all very nice to say that we are "approaching" this "tipping point" (which I'm not sure all the science actually supports the existence of such a thing), but that approach is _very_ slow.


i'm sorry, but science does not support your opinion.  if you had watched the video then you would have seen how the concept works, and if you had read the findings of the IPCC and the individual science orgs then you would have found how close we are to the tipping points.



> So, No, global warming is _not_ going to kill off humanity.  When pushed up against the wall humanity does whatever it takes to survive.


which is a sad cliché and part of the whole problem.

our brightest minds have seen for over 100 years that we have been living in a non-sustainable cycle and that eventually it would catch up to us.  if you ever took a broad art class you will probably have heard of the dadaists and their asociated movements (for those of you who got into art).



> Perhaps some people care more about some rare snake or lizard in the middle of some desert that nobody has heard of, but if it came down to a choice between our survival and a bunch of stuff we can replace with transplants, then guess which one humanity chooses?


an excellent example of how we got into this mess in the first place and how our disdain for animals and the environment have blinded us to the reality of our negligent, self-centered approach since the beginning of the industrial age.

in short, stop wasting our time with your personal opinions, fellas.
cite your arguments by legit scientists.  link the science orgs who think that GCC is no big deal, and name the individual scientists who feel the same.

and don't be surprised if i can show direct links between your scientists and the energy industry (exxon-mobile and crew).

so please do your homework and show us your evidence...


----------



## mosaix (Apr 28, 2009)

gigantes said:


> kudos for mentioning a legit source, but that is just one respected source.  many others really are that pessimistic, hence the creation of this thread.
> 
> i would not be too upset if that happened, but the question is, would you and others?  even in best-case scenerious, we're talking about the few surviving regions being cut off from almost all of their imports and exports and totalitarian govts likely finding the right situation to take power.  are you cool with that also?
> 
> not to mention, plant and animal species will suffer dramatically due to our negligence- are we all cool with that?



I'm not cool with any of it Gigantes. I think the situation is very worrying, I think it's a very big deal indeed. 

I was just pointing out that global warming if unchecked, whilst causing major problems along the lines of the ones you've mentioned, isn't going to signal the end of life on Earth as seemed to be suggested.

There are many races and animal species who have already adapted well to a hot climate and, whilst I don't see this as trivial, will be able to survive quite happily with a degree of migration.


----------



## mosaix (Apr 28, 2009)

ManTimeForgot said:


> Global Warming is a natural process that the earth undergoes every now and again and even if it is artificially sped up by man's influence the most influential green house gas is still and always will be water vapor.  Earth is still the boss, and Global Warming alarmists need to re-examine their evidence or their philosophies.  Global Warming is not a doomsday event, not by a long shot.



I think you've got your head in the sand MTF. Trouble is the sand is going to get VERY hot. 

The evidence for man made global warming is very strong, just follow Gigantes link to Logicalscience.


----------



## zachariah (Apr 28, 2009)

Further to the moon repository idea, we should use our nukes to blast out a message on it. Something like 'Gaze upon my works ye mighty and despair' in letters big enough for anyone to read unaided from Earth. That'll show 'em.

Come to think of it, those craters look a bit regular...


----------



## chrispenycate (Apr 28, 2009)

mosaix said:


> I think you've got your head in the sand MTF. Trouble is the sand is going to get VERY hot.
> 
> The evidence for man made global warming is very strong, just follow Gigantes link to Logicalscience.



The question isn't whether the global warming is human influenced, although even that isn't proved yet (I take a lot of evidence before I accept the term "proved". Still, if it isn't true, I can't see any disadvantage in reducing carbon emissions, while if they are an appreciable factor {as seems most likely} I can see plenty of difficulties in going on as we are) but whether runaway global warming is likely on Earth. And I'm claiming Earth has simply too much water to go the Venus route, and if the risk had been appreciable it would have happened in a previous interglacial, when there was still a reducing atmosphere.

Which doesn't alter the fact that apprentice sorcerers are mucking about with numerous things that could cause an appreciable reduction in human population (not necessarily a bad thing, except that several other species will probably suffer worse) And even without massive overheating our recent progress shows strong signs of approaching an extinction event, with a large percentage of terrestrial and maritime species following the dodo and great auk. And, despite our record as a flexible and adaptable species, humanity could easily be one of the victims of its own ingenuity.


----------



## K. Riehl (Apr 29, 2009)

Here are two links that have some bearing on the global warming debate.

Japans governmental Science advising board has looked at the climate models and found them to be the equivalent of "astrology"

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made â€¢ The Register

They point to the sun as the main contributor to warming. This is backed up by the historical temperature records as cross referenced to solar irradiation going back to 1659. Follow this next link to the bottom of the page and you can see three graphs, all using the same data, but it shows how by deliberately varying how you define the axis you can make the data support your "theory". Check the three graphs at the end of the article here:

JunkScience.com's "Global Warming" at a glance

Notice that the data shows minimal impact via carbon. Less than 0.3% if you check the historical data. 

You can extrapolate anything you want from a small sample size. If you look at the historical temp. record you see that we have been in a warming trend for 18,000 years. SO should we fundamentally change everything about how we live based on a "trend" that may or may not actually be happening? 

The only thing we know about the climate is that it is always changing. It never was at some mythical perfect state and it is hubris to think that we can manipulate the climate to suit us. We have to do what we are best at, adapt.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Apr 29, 2009)

I wouldn't want to ruin what K Riehl and Chris have already put forward by restating what they've already pointed out (spot on agreement from me), but it bears mentioning (again) that even if the earth is heading towards a tipping point (which again I am not convinced that it is; the warming process so far has not shown any indication of being so fast that it would out pace evolutionary adaptation), it is slow enough of an effect that there is no way humanity would ever _let_ it destroy us.

Drastic measures get taken during drastic circumstances.  We would ionize the skies before we would let something as snail pace as global warming take out humanity.  I'm not actually advocating this as a solution; I'm quite sure that more knowledgeable minds than my own can come up with several long term ideas that will be more effective and less damaging than this one.  But my point is that if it ever became obvious that this (mythical?) "tipping point" was close to happening, then humanity would do something drastic (like scorching the skies).  3 Billion people dead is better than 6 billion dead and nigh-infinite not existing because no one gets born.

MTF


----------



## Dave (Apr 29, 2009)

K. Riehl said:


> They point to the sun as the main contributor to warming.


WOW! Did they all get awarded a PhD for that?  

I do think think the evidence is indisputable that man-made CO2 emissions have contributed to a rise in global temperatures, but there are many other factors to consider. The Sun is currently at an all time low recorded sunspot minimum, and has been acting unusually for the last ten years. Who can say that, if not for that, temperatures would be higher, or, that if not for the rise in CO2 we would all be freezing to death right now??

Certainly, in the 1970's the doom and gloom warnings were all of a new Ice Age, and not of a warming.

I still think that, on principle, we should not experiment with raising the CO2 level any further without knowing exactly what the outcome would be. It is clear from the arguments that not enough research has yet been done.

I also agree with MTF that before millions died and the human race went to extinction, then we would try all kinds of engineering solutions - shadow squares in orbit that could absorb sunlight and produce energy to boot - or simply activating a dormant volcano and spewing a few million tonnes of dust into the atmosphere. We are not anywhere near that point though.

So, global warming is not going to wipe us out. It would cause tremendous economic disruption, mass migrations on a scale never seen before, and possibly lead to human conflicts over resources and land. I don't think the outcomes would be at all preferable.

But why has this descended into a global warming argument? That scenario was only one suggestion for our demise. The question was what would we have left behind of our brief civilisation. That discussion seems to have been completely derailed.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Apr 29, 2009)

A point from a historical perpective. K. Riehl notes that what we are best at is adapting. This can be stated in another, more useful way - what we are best at is short-term problem solving. This also serves to highlight our chief weakness as a species: long-term problem solving. How many times have human civilisations risen on the wave of the first and crashed in the dumpers of the second?

Climate change: still controversial, and as noted by Chris, strictly speaking unproven. No discussion about it is going to change anyone's minds in this thread.  But let us not forget our little troubles that have been proven, such as pollution, resource depletion of many kinds, and species extinction rates.

The first two speak for themselves. Trouble. Enough trouble to destroy our civilisation if remedial action is not undertaken. 
K. Riehl asks: 





> ...should we fundamentally change everything about how we live based on a "trend" that may or may not actually be happening?


If the "trend" in question bothers you, not to worry. We have sufficient reason without it to do exactly that if we want to continue on our healthy, wealthy way. The social pressures alone that will develop from rising overpopulation, rising exploitation of human and natural resources (renewable and non-renewable), and pollution levels are an alarming matter, to say nothing of the more directly resulting problems that will accumulate in the future. Even without climate change, if we keep on as we are, history will repeat. Again. Of course humanity will survive, but western civilisation in its current form will not. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't be fooled into thinking the world can go on forever as it is.

The third point, species extinction rates, is a greyer area. We do not know enough about the functioning of the biosphere of which we are a part to know what the consequences of this will be for us, let alone our fellow denizens of the planet Earth. Could be that the only consequences will be moral. Could be that this will spell the end of the balance for life as we know it. I dare say time will tell.  

I maintain that we should be making more pottery if we want to leave a mark.


----------



## K. Riehl (Apr 29, 2009)

What troubles me is making decisions based on "what everybody knows" rather than the Scientific data. The Global Warming theory is being used to scare the crap out of children, and adults who haven't checked it for themselves. I would much rather allocate resources to areas that will make a real difference in our lives than to spend a significant amount of time and money on something that may be beyond our control. 

I advocate that instead we spend the resources on improving desalinization plants to provide fresh water, fusion research to have more clean energy, developing ways to safeguard biodiversity, increase research funding for new methods of waste reclamation and air purification. 

I don't expect that civilization will keep it current form at all. I can foresee pandemics, wars over scarce resources,  mass starvation due to a breakdown in supply. I see that US farmers who switched to corn to make bio fuel caused food shortages and food price increases all over the world. Going green is not the panacea that everyone claims and their will be severe repercussions(governments will fall, starvation, global depression) to making fundamental changes in the worlds infrastructure. 

The  point made in this thread about species extinction may have the greatest impact on humans in the long term. But in the short term I still say chasing the global warming "problem" is a misuse of resources.

Sorry for the thread hijack but I get tired of people telling me that Global warming is a man made problem and that anyone who speaks against it is a tool of the industrial complex.


----------



## Urlik (Apr 30, 2009)

climate change isn't a man made problem, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem

even if it isn't a short term problem, surely we should do something, even if we limit that at this stage to further research in what is causing it and whether it can be stabilised.

but in my opinion, we are more likely to blow ourselves back into the stone age than suffer extinction due to global warming (which, if the theorists are right and it is caused by heavy industry, will solve the problem of global warming for a few thousand years)


----------



## gigantes (May 1, 2009)

sorry for not keeping up with all the excellent replies- i've been incredibly busy lately but mean to come back and continue the discussion when i have time.

also, sorry for borderline obnoxiousness in one or two places- posting in a hurry is a weak excuse, but...



K. Riehl said:


> Here are two links that have some bearing on the global warming debate.
> 
> Japans governmental Science advising board has looked at the climate models and found them to be the equivalent of "astrology"
> 
> Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made â€¢ The Register


thanks- i will examine that in detail when i have time.

of course, a couple of things i can tell you right off the bat- i know that panel of five scientists appears ludicrous at best to the world's natural academies for calling GCC akin to "astrology".  unless, of course, their research was absolutely revolutionary.

to get an opinion of japanese scientists that has significant merit, i'd like to hear how the JAS (national academy of japan) feels about GCC.  do you think you could track that down?



> They point to the sun as the main contributor to warming. This is backed up by the historical temperature records as cross referenced to solar irradiation going back to 1659. Follow this next link to the bottom of the page and you can see three graphs, all using the same data, but it shows how by deliberately varying how you define the axis you can make the data support your "theory". Check the three graphs at the end of the article here:
> 
> JunkScience.com's "Global Warming" at a glance


that's been debunked multiple times.  see coby beck's site which i linked earlier for the reasons why and what the science really is on that issue.

one more note- "junkscience.com" is itself a junk science or propaganda org devoted to misleading the public on things such as the GCC situation.  (of course they are certainly not unique)  exxon-mobile and the energy industry's funding to such orgs is on record has been going on going on since around the time that the IPCC (internation panel of climate control) was formed to study GCC.

the petroleum and traditional-minded energy industries have a huge stake in the determinance of the GCC issue and i suspect anyone can see why.  the amount of money they have to manipulate opinion is, of course, enormous.

i can get you whatever lists of orgs and individuals, the payments and their histories that you like.  let me know.

gotta run.


----------



## K. Riehl (May 2, 2009)

Gigante-You mean listings like the $720,000 paid to J. Hansen the head of NASA by George Soros. The people I know at NASA all consider him a hack of the worst sort. The worst because he has political muscle to stifle/fire anyone who doesn't toe the "Carbon is greatest threat to mankind" line? The J. Hanson who was caught substituting data from 2007 in place of data from 2008 so that he could claim continuing temp. rise?

I cited the JunkScience link because it linked to all of the current available data. From the IPCC, Satellite data, University and Government(NASA) temp data. You can actually find the information do the math yourself, then make your own determination.

Even if you take the data from IPCC it shows a correlation with Carbon that equals, at most, 3% of the contributing effects to Global Warming. So if we eliminate our industrial base and increase power production costs, by an estimated $5 trillion to meet the Carbon emission targets, we can only affect 3% of the total. 97% is still beyond our ability to make any changes too. i.e. the Sun. The increasing carbon output by India and China will offset any reductions we may actually achieve.  

JunkScience says between .5 and 1 degree increase in temps per 100 years over the last 300 year period. This is part of the historical temp record. The IPCC says, based on a ten year trend, that the increase could be as much as 4 to 6 degrees in the next 20 years. Which conclusion is based on a long term, large sample size trend? 

I 'm not saying that Global Warming isn't occurring. I'm saying that the current rush to "do something" won't work and has a very real downside for most industrialized nations. 

BTW Hansen is famous for saying "we only have 20 more years". That was in 1988. Now he is saying we only "10-40 years before the end" why don't I believe him?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (May 2, 2009)

This is the bottom line of this whole thread: Eventually, every civilization will die and lay forgotten in the sands of time. Who knows how many civilizations actually existed that we have no idea about? And today's will be no different, because if we leave a big enough mark for the universe to remember, our species will be, for all intents and purposes, be wiped clean from the face of the world, whether it's from global warming, warfare,  a super-pestilence, or simply lack of living space and oxygen as landfills and cities grow at exponential rates.


----------



## K. Riehl (May 2, 2009)

I still say that if we want to leave a lasting "We were here!" we should erect a large scale edifice on the moon. Put information about us in a vault inside. Use every type of storage method. That would last a few million years I think.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (May 2, 2009)

Electronic information storage has a fairly limited shelf-life archaeologically speaking (this is actually something Jack MvDevitt looks at in some of his books).  Paper is quite a bit better, but considering how long it _might_ take for another civilization to find you even a few thousand years might not be good enough; though a good underground vacuum storage site (underground to ameliorate radiation exposure) might do the trick (the moon might be good for this).  But if you really want to make a lasting mark, then it really has to be earthen (given our current tech limitations).  Stone and metal go the distance.  Make a stone edifice in several places on the moon and you could leave a mark that lasts a hundred thousand years.


I'm still waiting on semi-organic storage methods (self-correcting data structures and automated replication when damaged) as I think those will prove resilient, lasting, and (unlike stone work) able to be used on the large scale.

MTF


----------



## Rodders (May 2, 2009)

Digital Watches?

Also, whay are we assuming that we are in a position to be the first? We may yet be in for a discovery ourselves.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (May 2, 2009)

I think when this thread posited "uniqueness" that the OP was thinking from a literary perspective.  I have serious reservations about thinking that humanity is the first intelligent life in the entire universe (consider that our best estimate for when life in the universe could have begun is about 1 billion years before life on earth began).

MTF


----------



## zachariah (May 2, 2009)

Thanks to this thread (http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/50290-shadow-out-of-time.html) which shows another, simpler idea - build big. 

Huge cement/carved rocks structures should survive a few goeolgical epochs. If we carve as much as we can on them, some if it's going to survive. 

I'm not thinking that the structure itself has to be that big, just that it's spread over a large area - the sort of thing that only someone in an aeroplane or loking at a satellite image will detect. After all, we didn't really spot the meteorite crater in south america that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs unil we had a good look from above, and that's been there for a few hundred million years. 

So maybe the foundations of the Great Wall of China, or our larger roads will be the only clues that some monkeys built stuff a long time ago.


----------



## Urien (May 2, 2009)

Put it in orbit around the sun. A huge asteroid saying... "We wuz 'ere"

Alternatively let's colonise the galaxy and expect the future to belong to humanity, that way we won't need to leave monuments. 

First step is to build my underground lab... preferably in a hollowed out volcano. It's a long walk up a step hill to reach the stars tha' knows.


----------



## Rodders (May 2, 2009)

How about we find the most Fry like person in the world and freeze him for 500 years?


----------



## zachariah (May 2, 2009)

Something else on a similar theme : Possible 9500-year-old city found. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.


----------



## Urlik (May 2, 2009)

if they find evidence of an atomic bomb, the Mahābhārata might need to be reclassified from epic poetry to historical record


----------



## Omphalos (May 2, 2009)

I read an article that the spaceships in Area 51 have stasis boxes.  That's where Larry Niven got the idea from.  He is a government spy.  So, like, stuff in there should be OK for the next race to find.  Assuming that the outlet its plugged into still, like, works.


----------



## ktabic (May 3, 2009)

zachariah said:


> Something else on a similar theme : Possible 9500-year-old city found. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.


 
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. And this is an extraordinary claim, the discovery of a city that existed several thousand years years before the currently accepted oldest civilisation.

I always find it suspicious when a discovery like this is made. So I do some research. And what do I find? 
The name of Graham Hancock. Very famous, for being a pseudoarchaeologist and Atlantis hunter. Also that the pyramids where built in alignment with Orion. And a variety of other slightly dodgy stuff. Well, that pretty much destroys any credibility in my mind. 
Then there is a nice summary here: Bad Archaeology.
Currently, the belief in scientific circles is that the ruins are either an equipment fault or natural rock formations.


----------



## zachariah (May 3, 2009)

Sadly true, and the added weight of Linda Moulton Howe is the mixed metaphor in the coffin. Sometimes I get sick of living in an age where everything has been mapped already.


----------



## Chirios (May 5, 2009)

gigantes said:


> i haven't posted here in ages, but i was curious to see what you all had to say. so:
> 
> you know all those sci-fi scenerios set in a post-apocalyptic world where the remnants of humanity are nosing about barren lands... and then one of them discovers the remains of a high-tech civilisation from the past and it leads to a fascinating story?
> 
> ...


 
How would you find any evidence that the society was advanced? Pottery endures, circuits and the like don't.


----------



## zachariah (May 5, 2009)

Oh? How do you know this? Please read up on the subject and let us know your research, as mine indicates, as I said, that many of our advanced materials will survive multiple geological eras. 

Composite materials (eg carbon fibre, glass fibre, metal alloys) or indeed any refined metal (like a block of iron from a foundry) will give clear indication to any future society that an industrial civilisation existed before them. Circuitboards may survive as well, unless crushed by physical forces, which would also destroy pottery.

That we have found no evidence of any such materials so far is strong circumstantial evidence that there have been no industrial societies before recorded history.


----------



## chrispenycate (May 5, 2009)

Or that technology took a path we didn't recognise. If they'd gone biotech, for example (a perfectly reasonable route out of agriculture) we'd be left wondering where a particular fossil fitted into our classification system, not seeing an elephantoid bred to be a fire engine (see Harrison's "West of Eden") Organic semiconductors might biodegrade fast enough that if you weren't lucky enough to find a mummified biopentium, there would be no way we could recognise the traces.

Is freeze-Frying like freezedrying as a conservation technique?


----------



## gigantes (May 8, 2009)

and... back again.  hopefully i can keep up this time.


			
				zachariah said:
			
		

> Something else on a similar theme : Possible 9500-year-old city found. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.


doh...!  so it's looking busted then?
that's too bad, since on the face of it, the finding sounds fascinating.




K. Riehl said:


> Gigante-You mean listings like the $720,000 paid to J. Hansen the head of NASA by George Soros.


oh, what was that about?  can you talk a little about the conclusions you draw and what the source of the claim is?



> The people I know at NASA all consider him a hack of the worst sort. The worst because he has political muscle to stifle/fire anyone who doesn't toe the "Carbon is greatest threat to mankind" line?


that would be ironic, since it sounds like he's spent a large amount of time at goddard NYC simply battling the bush regime's appointees at NASA who have made it their mission to downplay the org's findings on GCC, including hansen's.  battle within a battle within a battle, perhaps.



> The J. Hanson who was caught substituting data from 2007 in place of data from 2008 so that he could claim continuing temp. rise?


sources?



> I cited the JunkScience link because it linked to all of the current available data. From the IPCC, Satellite data, University and Government(NASA) temp data.


well, regardless of the fact that junkscience.com is run by a known lobbyist for the petroleum, food additives and fertiliser industries (among others), what is it that you're trying to prove exactly?

even if we take steve milloy's word on the integrity and completeness of his sources...
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

...we still see an overall trend in the last 30 years for average global temperature going up about .4° C, nevermind the .74° C increase in the last 100 years estimated in the IPCC's most recent report.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"




> Even if you take the data from IPCC it shows a correlation with Carbon that equals, at most, 3% of the contributing effects to Global Warming.


i'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here since CO2 contributes around 10-30% of the greenhouse effect and the greenhouse effect has been known for probably over 100 years.

and:








> JunkScience says between .5 and 1 degree increase in temps per 100 years over the last 300 year period.  This is part of the historical temp record.


that doesn't quite sound correct to me based on all the proxy data (ice core and sediment) that we have, but i need to run again and will have to check that some other time.



> The IPCC says, based on a ten year trend, that the increase could be as much as 4 to 6 degrees in the next 20 years.


and do you understand that even a two degree rise would be catastrophic to civilisation?



> Which conclusion is based on a long term, large sample size trend?


one lobbyist versus the body of science.  hmm, interesting choice...



> I 'm not saying that Global Warming isn't occurring. I'm saying that the current rush to "do something" won't work and has a very real downside for most industrialized nations.


i agree that haste makes waste.  OTOH we are in an exceedingly precarious position according to science as a whole, so we don't have much choice in the matter.  and i agree that there is a tough growing period of switching over to green energy that is going to be difficult.  but again, we simply have no choice as responsible entities.  it's either do that relatively quickly, or become history.




> BTW Hansen is famous for saying "we only have 20 more years". That was in 1988. Now he is saying we only "10-40 years before the end" why don't I believe him?


well, on a chilling note, hansen may have been absolutely correct the first time.  GCC is already going on in many places across the globe, and we are starting to get into some particularly nasty tipping points, such as activating a whole bunch of methane sources (20x more damaging than CO2) and wiping out a lot of our albedo cover.  such things only cause an acceleration in the problem, hence the need for urgency.

due to the amount of greenhouse gases we've caused to be added to the atmosphere, we are already committed to around a 1.5 degree increase in global temperature.  even if we find a way to halt all emissions right now, the temperature is still going to rise about 1.5 degrees.  and this is out of a two degree maximum, after which a lot of crops and the insects that pollinate them move out of their breeding comfort and begin to fail, not to mention heightened weather systems which will work in damaging fashion with increased sea levels.

the thing is, most people on earth simply have no idea about GCC, and IMO a large proportion who do have an idea of GCC are completely missing the point that science is no longer significantly debating the principles of GCC- the basic details are known, it is clear that we humans directly caused this situation, that if it continues as is it spells disaster, and that every science org on earth is in agreement over these findings.  sure, you can still find dissent, petitions, disagreement, and there is nothing inherantly wrong with that.  it means that there is still a healthy democratic and scientific process working, which is the same process that still causes a few individual scientists to continue debating things like the theory of gravity.

but on the organisational level there is no debate about this matter.  to my mind that should mean that every person of common sense would view these matters as extremely serious.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (May 8, 2009)

If crops haven't failed because of 3 degree spike in temp over a small year period (like 5 years), and the arctic regions aren't shrinking, then where exactly is the evidence that a global super rise in temperature is actually real or even dangerous?


Monsoons (like all high powered weather phenomena) are so complex in cause that we cannot accurately state how they come about.  Continental shelf size and location, tidal breaks (kelp, mangrove swamps, under water mountains etc), water temperature, air temperature, humidity, cloud cover and density, upper atmospheric ice crystal density and distribution, deep-sea volcanic activity, yada, yada, yada  all contribute to the formation of weather systems.  There are lots of things that when degraded increase the severity of storm systems (mangrove swamps being a big example), but when pushed into a corner most eco-agendaed individuals also claim that such things _prevent_ storm systems, which I have yet to find anyone link me to evidence of such.  Incidentally it would be really difficult to prove such a thing since climatology heavily relies upon statistical inference.  You would have to observe a trend over the course of decades in order to have something approach statistical significance (that's assuming you could reasonably rule out other factors).


I would like someone, anyone, positing an alarmist perspective on Global Warming to give me a link to anything that can evidence how a 2 degree rise in global temperature (not that that is very likely) can possibly be devastating.  Similarly link me to anything that can evidence the existence of a "breaking or tipping point" in the earth's ecosystem (that is something to show that it is anything more than a doomsday theory).  Do climate models take into account organisms evolving to take into account the altered climactic conditions and to effect retardation and reversal of the process?  No, but that's exactly what happens; note that that is how the last Ice Age was ended.

Pretty much anyone who stylizes themselves as an "activist scientist" loses my immediate respect on the grounds that they have an agenda other than fact finding.  Case in Point: Climate lobbying group ignored its own science advisors - Ars Technica


It's still not even clear that global temperature is continuing to rise (let alone rising faster); if it were, then there would be external evidence of this that isn't bound up in subjective interpretation of weather patterns.  You would see something like an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th (especially late) century (which you don't/haven't) or a deceleration in the rate of Antarctic growth (something also not seen).



As a side note: I think it was a bad move to try and turn this back into a debate about Global Warming when the thread had moved on to discussing the end of the world survival aspect.

MTF


----------



## The Procrastinator (May 8, 2009)

zachariah said:


> Composite materials (eg carbon fibre, glass fibre, metal alloys) or indeed any refined metal (like a block of iron from a foundry) will give clear indication to any future society that an industrial civilisation existed before them. Circuitboards may survive as well, unless crushed by physical forces, which would also destroy pottery.
> 
> That we have found no evidence of any such materials so far is strong circumstantial evidence that there have been no industrial societies before recorded history.



No large scale industrial societies, certainly. But if what you say about circuitboards is true, I shudder to think of the amount of our crap future civilisations will be digging up. If the civilisations are human, it may be only several thousand years in the future that such finds are made. Think of all the lovely material, or traces of material, that they might find! 

Now, in favour of pottery: pottery does not just tell you there is an industrial civilisation beneath your boots. It tells you something of technical capabilities (composition of glazes - types of clay used (both of these can vary immensely depending on the sophistication of available tech) - firing temperatures - existence of potter's wheel/methods of production) as well as the even more interesting aesthetic dimension, which tells you something about the people themselves - the makers. What they thought was beautiful, for instance.

In other words, it's a window into the soul of a people. If our soul is circuitboards...

I repeat, we should make more pottery. Btw we don't yet know the "use-by date" of fired clay. Pottery breaks, but the pieces will last you a long long time. Even just a few fragments can give you an insight into the whole. An extremely useful and "soulful" kind of legacy in my opinion.


----------



## gigantes (May 10, 2009)

ManTimeForgot said:


> If crops haven't failed because of 3 degree spike in temp over a small year period (like 5 years), and the arctic regions aren't shrinking, then where exactly is the evidence that a global super rise in temperature is actually real or even dangerous?


given that i'm not the quickest person around but i'm trying to boggle my mind over _what_ exactly you're trying to point out or question:

there is no three degree temperature spike in five years in all of known history, going back 650,000 years by the proxy temperature record.

the northern arctic has been shrinking at an alarming rate, even though it goes through a summer melting and winter rebuilding.

so what exactly is your point there?



> Monsoons (like all high powered weather phenomena) are so complex in cause that we cannot accurately state how they come about.  Continental shelf size and location, tidal breaks (kelp, mangrove swamps, under water mountains etc), water temperature, air temperature, humidity, cloud cover and density, upper atmospheric ice crystal density and distribution, deep-sea volcanic activity, yada, yada, yada  all contribute to the formation of weather systems.  There are lots of things that when degraded increase the severity of storm systems (mangrove swamps being a big example), but when pushed into a corner most eco-agendaed individuals also claim that such things _prevent_ storm systems, which I have yet to find anyone link me to evidence of such.


this is an excellent example of a denialist argument which serves to push the real situation to the background, fooling many people who can't tell the difference between science and rhetoric... and therefore encouraging them to do nothing, merely worsening the situation.

your much-hackneyed *intellectually dishonest* ploy is that nature and science are so complex and unpredictable that no one person can ever understand them fully (quite true) and that therefore there is no way for human beings to ever anticipate what might be coming, climate-wise.

therefore we should just ignore the body of science and listen to reasonable-sounding dissenting media and scientists who say such stuff as "GCC is a liberal propaganda campaign serving to advance the politicial campaign of al gore".

so honestly, we should all dismiss al gore for the fraud he is, since he's the evil culprit behind the global-warming propaganda campaing, right?

right?.... right?



> Incidentally it would be really difficult to prove such a thing since climatology heavily relies upon statistical inference.  You would have to observe a trend over the course of decades in order to have something approach statistical significance (that's assuming you could reasonably rule out other factors).


which is why the body of science agreed sometime back that ground-based monitors had an obvious bias and that additional bias-free sensing devices would be most valuable:
Satellite temperature measurements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> I would like someone, anyone, positing an alarmist perspective on Global Warming to give me a link to anything that can evidence how a 2 degree rise in global temperature (not that that is very likely) can possibly be devastating.


first of all, a two degree rise is what we're currently heading for since we've already injected enough CO2 into the atmosphere to guarantee us a 1.5 rise even if our CO2 emissions become zero as of right now.

but since you like to play coy on this matter, all you need to do is to start with the IPCC reports and the body of science that interprets those reports.  

read the national academy reports to understand the "alarmism" on this matter.

yet we know that you're never going to do that since the very definition of a confirmation bias is to look for opinions that mirror your own.

and as you keep doing that, your opinion means less and less to anyone.



> Similarly link me to anything that can evidence the existence of a "breaking or tipping point" in the earth's ecosystem (that is something to show that it is anything more than a doomsday theory).


i've done a whole bunch of such linking in this thread, thus i'm forced to wonder where you've been, exactly.




> Do climate models take into account organisms evolving to take into account the altered climactic conditions and to effect retardation and reversal of the process?  No, but that's exactly what happens; note that that is how the last Ice Age was ended.


how ingenious and brilliant.
i'm greatly looking forward to your paper spanking the body of science for overlooking the obvious.  and the rewards that you'll pile up.

because, you know... all that matters is that a few organisms adapt in evolutionary terms so quickly as to be evolutionary superstars for the express purpose of saving us from our own stupudity.  because as long as there's a successful organism to take advantage of, homo sapiens sapiens will ride that animal's coattails, right?

hats off to your foresight and planning, my friend.



> Pretty much anyone who stylizes themselves as an "activist scientist" loses my immediate respect on the grounds that they have an agenda other than fact finding.  Case in Point: Climate lobbying group ignored its own science advisors - Ars Technica


does that mean that you lost your own respect for clinging to alternate theories of GCC that the body of science dismissed?



> It's still not even clear that global temperature is continuing to rise (let alone rising faster); if it were, then there would be external evidence of this that isn't bound up in subjective interpretation of weather patterns.  You would see something like an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th (especially late) century (which you don't/haven't) or a deceleration in the rate of Antarctic growth (something also not seen).


since you seem acquainted with the IPCC, i suggest that you read their last report again.  and do it closely this time.  most everything you claim is 'unsure' about climate change has been proven and proven again from their first to their latest assesment reports.

CONCLUSION:
sorry for my time being split up between this forum and many other situations, and sorry for coming off as a know-it-all-jackass, but i will keep doing my best to show up here and present the opinion that i think is very factual and important... that all science organisations on earth view global climate as extremely alarming.

but this was probably the greatest laugh i've ever had online:


> As a side note: I think it was a bad move to try and turn this back into a debate about Global Warming when the thread had moved on to discussing the end of the world survival aspect.
> MTF


ew.... how rude for anyone to talk about global warming... i mean, since we're here for humor and not fact, what we should do is to meet at icanhascheezburger.com.

screw the army of crazy 60's liberalllssssss......!


----------



## gigantes (May 10, 2009)

bottom line, every current science org on earth is telling you kids that global warming is a huge dangerous problem.

yet if you trust science (the thing that's made 99% of your nintendo lives possible), you will either read up on science or prove that humankind deserves to be extinct as per the current model of foolishness.


----------



## zachariah (May 10, 2009)

The Procrastinator said:


> I shudder to think of the amount of our crap future civilisations will be digging up.



Yeah, this thought occurred to me too.


----------



## K. Riehl (May 13, 2009)

Gigantes- Do you think for yourself? Do you really believe that there is only one answer. Do you really believe that anyone can build a climate model based on theories that are unproven and actually predict anything about the future of climate change? Do you often disregard actual science to support your views? 
It seems that the answer is yes to these questions and I need to add that you belittle anyone who disagrees with you too.

I don't take such black and white views of any subject and I try to find the data and check it myself. So when I do I actually have some basis for what I say rather than calling people,"much-hackneyed *intellectually dishonest* ploy" I say follow the links I am giving you and show where the science is wrong.

You chided me for one person speaking up against the consensus, here is a US Senate report where over 700 scientists have put their names and reputation on the record against the climate predictions:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

I particularly like the section where multiple former IPCC scientists quit due to politicaliztion of the science. A favorite quote is the one where one scientist heard, "we need to make the data look as scary as possible to make the US sign the Kyoto agreement"

The following link is the Steve McIntyre website. Steve is the scientist that showed the flaws in the GISS calculations by James Hansen led to the overstating by 50% the temp. rise in the IPCC data that you cite in your graph up thread. generally when you make a model that is off by 50% then you can conclude it has no scientific basis in reality. Steve asked for Hansens computer program to study and find out why it was so different from the other three models.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2031

Here is the link where Steve compares Hansens model to actual observed temps.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3354

The reason I post this is that this is the model (Hansens)that the IPCC is using to make their recommendations. 

Here is the general link to McIntyres blog in which he includes all scripts he uses plus links to source data. You can review and run the scripts yourself to determine for yourself the accuracy of the calculations.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

The Australian government is no longer on board with the IPCC results.

Debate on climate change far from over | The Australian

Here is the Wiki article on Steve McIntyre it lists his credentials and lists where he pointed out errors in GISS data the GISS acknowledged these errors. I post this because I am sure you will try attack his credibility.

Stephen McIntyre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The cost of the cuts in energy production is about $45 trillion. And only achievable if we raise the Hydro and windmill production to 50% of supply. This is impossible as Hydro is blocked by enviromental groups and ther aren't enough windmills in the world to raise their production from the current Hydro/wind combined percentage of 12% to 50%. Here is a summary of the G8 study on costs:

Halving CO2 emissions by 2050 would cost 45 trillion dollars - IEA : Environment


China won't be making the cuts that we will. They will pass the US in Carbon emissions in the next 1-2years.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China unveils climate change plan

India won't be cutting any Carbon Emissions unless the west does by 40% and they will "think about it"

India Wants US to Cut Carbon Emissions Up To 40% But Fails to Promise Any Emission Cuts of Its Own : Red, Green, and Blue

I think the current doomsday predictions are overstated and to destroy our energy infrastructure with the attendant costs will bankrupt the US. I also don't see India or China choosing to destroy their economies either. We can always work towards cleaner and more efficient power going forward but I can't see the scientific data that requires us to cause worldwide disruptions to economies for a percived result that may only have marginal impact on climate change.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (May 13, 2009)

There are areas of countries that have had 3 degree temperature spikes in their farmland for 5 years straight.  It happens all the time; they also have 3 degree drops in large areas too.  Variable weather patterns tend to do this.  The crops in those areas don't magically fail.



If you could drop the wounded soldier routine or the political grandstanding for 5 seconds (the ad hominem doesn't help either), then you might find out some things that surprise you.  For starters: I vote democratic more than any other political party; so your whole "liberal basher" routine falls completely flat.  I've voted green, libertarian, liberal, american, constitutional, etc parties before.  I vote according to the facts I possess and my conscience.  Just fyi: it is for this reason that if you have to bring up politics to try and justify your position on _science_ then you have almost certainly already lost the argument.

I argue that we can and should limit our damage to the environment, not because of some mythical doomsday event that might or might not happen (the best evidence we have does not support either situation conclusively, and arguing that it does is what is actually *intellectually dishonest*), but because it harms us.  We are doing damage to ourselves through our lungs, our water, and our food supply.  That's it.  That's all that needs to be said.  You don't have to invoke magic or fear monger to do it.  Pure rational.

Not suggesting we ignore the body scientific.  But the body scientific isn't agreed (nor is their some 90% majority in agreement about doomsday that seems to be toted at times); most agree that Man has contributed to the increase in global temperature, but as has been pointed out already there is evidence to suggest that the mean global temperature has actually been dropping recently.  So until I see *extraordinary* evidence I am not going to believe an *extraordinary* claim like doomsday.

Why should I care about Al Gore?  Al Gore is a bloody politician.  I do not give two twits about what Al Gore thinks.  Al Gore can attend all the conferences on the environment he wants.  What I care about is what the body scientific (specifically those that deal with ecology, biology, chemistry, climatology, geology, and particle/astro physics).



"Bias free" doesn't obviate the need for decades worth of information.  Statistics don't care if you can isolate a more accurate mean using a better method if you still don't have enough information to isolate the mean in the first place.  The problem with much of the claims is that there have been "outliers" that are occurring every so often, but are too often to be actual outliers with the limited data sets we have.  That's why to discern a trend you need many more years data than what we have.


And the problem with your accusation of confirmation bias is that you have to have a statistically unbiased data set from which to work from in order to verify a confirmation bias.  Your data is demonstrably biased, as is everything that both sides have posted here.  Back in the 1980s we didn't have enough data/know-how to make accurate climate models or predict future temperature gains.  We are starting to be able to do so, but we are no where near at the level to be able to predict major climactic disruption.  I have actually talked with climatologists and high energy/astrophysicists and the gist of what I learned was that we simply don't know enough to be able to statistically evaluate increased or decreased likelihood of large scale weather patterns or global climate disruption.  To make a proper model would have to incorporate so many factors as to render it virtually impossible to create: ecological/biological responses to climate change are often virtually ignored by climate modeling.


The body scientific is divided on whether there is actually global warming still occurring.  The reason being is that not all of the empirical evidence is consistent with this and some of the temperature data has lead to the conclusion that the planet is cooling.  Until this controversy is resolved a good scientist reserves judgment.  "Activist" scientists are letting politics override their duty to maintain objectivity.  And until this controversy shows a clear and decisive "winner" it is up to the informed citizen to also reserve judgment (as any good scientist does as well).


No what you have linked us to is a bunch of conjecture which makes predictions about now and the future that runs contrary to empirical facts (like ice formation).  Until you can show us some theory that takes all of the facts into account and has the backing of major scientific organizations (like national labs) you can't really claim to have something more than conjecture.


It would probably help if you actually read the IPCC reports before claiming that I was in the wrong.  The Regional Impacts of Climate Change  This article examines the regional impacts of climate change (notice global warming isn't used, and that is because not all areas are expected to actually get warmer; fancy that...)  The article predicts (given current economic trends and expected population growth) that by 2100 the world mean temperature will increase somewhere between 1 and 3.5 degrees C.  So the world isn't going to end in 10-40 years.  Nice try.  But no matter what way you shake it the whole "tipping point" theory is rubbish by scientific standards.  This article doesn't (and isn't capable of so its forgiven) take into account future sociological and scientific trends which might wax towards reversing/preventing environmental damage.

I believe (but please understand that just because *I* think something is true doesn't actually make it true) that the climate is going to be increasing in temperature in the future and that man contributes some small amount to this.  I believe there is a reasonable amount of evidence to support this.  But what I also believe (and this is backed up by facts) is that there are bigger problems to tackle and some of this will involve industrial solutions: like world hunger, water shortage, energy shortage, AIDS, housing availability, land availability, etc.  We can and should start implementing methods for reducing environmental impact.  There should be no doubt about this.  However, this is no excuse for the use of fear mongering or shoddy science to try and get the populace to agree with you.


Lastly: I'm glad you had a good laugh, but it really is at your own expense.  Global warming isn't fact.  Doomsday global warming is mostly myth.  Climate change is fact.  Climate change can and should be debated, but last time I checked the OP posited a question as the main focus of this thread: (notice the title: we have a unique opportunity before we die) that of what should we do to be remembered.  The "global warming" issue was merely lead in.  So congratulations on getting upset and making use of some rather colorfully sarcastic turn of phrase, but in the end it didn't amount to anything more useful to the argument than _icanhazcheezeburger.com_ would be.

MTF


----------

