4 ms·

I recognize this. There are different answers for different people, too. The people of the Maldives want the temperature rise regulated below 1.5 C. Certain env

I recognize this. There are different answers for different people, too. The people of the Maldives want the temperature rise regulated below 1.5 C. Certain environmentalists want atmospheric CO2 at pre-industrial levels. Perhaps Alaskans have a different view? The point is that this is how to structure the debate. There are certain acceptable limits. They are different for every person. If we're to succeed, as a species, on a finite planet, we're going to need to figure out how to make democracy and diplomacy work for this, possibly grandest tragedy of the commons. Surely we can't risk a global temperature rise of 10 C? Right?

anamax 17y ago
> The people of the Maldives want the temperature rise regulated below 1.5 C. Do they? Or, do they want a given sea level? Note that sea level may well be independent of CO2. (That's part of why I mentioned artic ice, which has been increasing.) > There are certain acceptable limits. And you're assuming quite a bit about a lot of things, such as the relationship between CO2 and temperature and sea level. > Surely we can't risk a global temperature rise of 10 C? I don't know and that may not be the question. I've posted links showing CO2 levels several times what it is now. What was the temperature then? (Since those times were in the past, it's absurd to argue that whatever happens at those concentrations is irreversible.)
- DaniFong 17y ago
  Arctic ice seems to be trending downward, and fluctuation more rapidly. http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg But that's rather immaterial since it's land based ice, as in greenland and antarctica, that will influence sea levels. Greater fluctuations will cause more permanent loss of land based ice than sea based ice. But that's rather immaterial too, since much of the expected and currently visible sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the oceans. This is a pretty clear temperature link. --- Perhaps the most relevant limits of which I speak are regarding the extent to which we are willing to change our world. This is a separate question from the action of CO2 -- for example we already fix more nitrogen as all other life on this planet, and three quarters of the land based biomes on this planet have been dramatically influenced by our actions. We have changed this planet. Are we to become conscious of this or are we to continue claiming innocence and practicing ignorance as we accelerate our ecological impact? A return to the atmospheric conditions of the Triassic might well be the best thing for the world, but as long as people continued to be confused, lazy and stupid about what kind of future we want, we will continue to argue about tiny details having little to nothing to do with the global atmospheric, ecological, biological climatic change that is taking place, and we will continue to be at odds as our actions annihilate biomes that we scarcely know about. I put the question back to you. What change in the world would be acceptable to you? If we have reconcilable goals for our shared planet, then at least the debate becomes on of science, of planning, of what must be done. If, however, like many seem to think, you too believe that the changes we are making to the world are ultimately inconsequential, the loss of biodiversity acceptable, and our gambling with the ecosystem immaterial, then we are at odds that this conversation will not mend.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Arctic ice seems to be trending downward, and fluctuation more rapidly. Your link doesn't support that conclusion. > But that's rather immaterial too, since much of the expected and currently visible sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the oceans. This is a pretty clear temperature link. And yet, you don't bother to provide any water temperature argument or tell us the magnitude of the sea level change from said temperature change. > Perhaps the most relevant limits of which I speak are regarding the extent to which we are willing to change our world. You're assuming that we're producing significant changes. > but as long as people continued to be confused, lazy and stupid about what kind of future we want, Your position appears to be "now is best" but I've yet to see any supporting argument. > the loss of biodiversity acceptable, There's no loss of biodiversity from CO2 unless there's climate change, so you don't get to throw that in. > three quarters of the land based biomes on this planet have been dramatically influenced by our actions. That's a combination of poverty and population. Reducing poverty increases CO2 emissions. Since you oppose that, you're arguing for reducing population. Who do you think should get to live? Which reminds me - we're not significantly changing the amount of cultivated land. That ship sailed 1000 years ago. (We are destroying it in the third world, but that's different.) > and our gambling with the ecosystem immaterial, and you're back to assuming man made climate change. If, as seems increasingly likely, the CO2 changes we're making are irrelevant to climate, you're advocating spending tons of resources on non-problems. Acting as if something in particular is happening is a huge obstacle to finding out what is going on. You claim to want to know yet ....
    - DaniFong 17y ago
      There is an enormous body of knowledge out there that I simply don't have time to spoon-feed to someone playing the ignorant student. Find someone else to stonewall.

anamax 17y ago

> The people of the Maldives want the temperature rise regulated below 1.5 C. Do they? Or, do they want a given sea level? Note that sea level may well be independent of CO2. (That's part of why I mentioned artic ice, which has been increasing.) > There are certain acceptable limits. And you're assuming quite a bit about a lot of things, such as the relationship between CO2 and temperature and sea level. > Surely we can't risk a global temperature rise of 10 C? I don't know and that may not be the question. I've posted links showing CO2 levels several times what it is now. What was the temperature then? (Since those times were in the past, it's absurd to argue that whatever happens at those concentrations is irreversible.)

DaniFong 17y ago
Arctic ice seems to be trending downward, and fluctuation more rapidly. http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg But that's rather immaterial since it's land based ice, as in greenland and antarctica, that will influence sea levels. Greater fluctuations will cause more permanent loss of land based ice than sea based ice. But that's rather immaterial too, since much of the expected and currently visible sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the oceans. This is a pretty clear temperature link. --- Perhaps the most relevant limits of which I speak are regarding the extent to which we are willing to change our world. This is a separate question from the action of CO2 -- for example we already fix more nitrogen as all other life on this planet, and three quarters of the land based biomes on this planet have been dramatically influenced by our actions. We have changed this planet. Are we to become conscious of this or are we to continue claiming innocence and practicing ignorance as we accelerate our ecological impact? A return to the atmospheric conditions of the Triassic might well be the best thing for the world, but as long as people continued to be confused, lazy and stupid about what kind of future we want, we will continue to argue about tiny details having little to nothing to do with the global atmospheric, ecological, biological climatic change that is taking place, and we will continue to be at odds as our actions annihilate biomes that we scarcely know about. I put the question back to you. What change in the world would be acceptable to you? If we have reconcilable goals for our shared planet, then at least the debate becomes on of science, of planning, of what must be done. If, however, like many seem to think, you too believe that the changes we are making to the world are ultimately inconsequential, the loss of biodiversity acceptable, and our gambling with the ecosystem immaterial, then we are at odds that this conversation will not mend.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Arctic ice seems to be trending downward, and fluctuation more rapidly. Your link doesn't support that conclusion. > But that's rather immaterial too, since much of the expected and currently visible sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the oceans. This is a pretty clear temperature link. And yet, you don't bother to provide any water temperature argument or tell us the magnitude of the sea level change from said temperature change. > Perhaps the most relevant limits of which I speak are regarding the extent to which we are willing to change our world. You're assuming that we're producing significant changes. > but as long as people continued to be confused, lazy and stupid about what kind of future we want, Your position appears to be "now is best" but I've yet to see any supporting argument. > the loss of biodiversity acceptable, There's no loss of biodiversity from CO2 unless there's climate change, so you don't get to throw that in. > three quarters of the land based biomes on this planet have been dramatically influenced by our actions. That's a combination of poverty and population. Reducing poverty increases CO2 emissions. Since you oppose that, you're arguing for reducing population. Who do you think should get to live? Which reminds me - we're not significantly changing the amount of cultivated land. That ship sailed 1000 years ago. (We are destroying it in the third world, but that's different.) > and our gambling with the ecosystem immaterial, and you're back to assuming man made climate change. If, as seems increasingly likely, the CO2 changes we're making are irrelevant to climate, you're advocating spending tons of resources on non-problems. Acting as if something in particular is happening is a huge obstacle to finding out what is going on. You claim to want to know yet ....
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    There is an enormous body of knowledge out there that I simply don't have time to spoon-feed to someone playing the ignorant student. Find someone else to stonewall.