5 ms·

With ice cores, we have an Antarctic temperature history going back 400,000 years. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

With ice cores, we have an Antarctic temperature history going back 400,000 years. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-i... These ice cores show sudden, massive ice ages every 100,000 years. We are currently near (or overdue for) one of the big ice ages. In such a case it would seem that a warm world, even with a higher sea level and the human movement that would require, would be less disruptive than much of current civilization being under 200 feet of ice.

Retric 11y ago
That shows CO2 levels of 200-280 PPM over ~400,000 years the current level of 400PPM is a little outside that range. Also, temperature chart looks closer to a random walk than a clear trend. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-400-ppm-global-record-18965 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-400-ppm-global-record...
gedy 11y ago
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” ― H.L. Mencken 1922 (n.b. I'm not saying global warming is imaginary.)
- Oletros 11y ago
  Then what are you saying?
  - gedy 11y ago
    That politicians love scare tactics about things real or imaginary, and even speculating things like maybe global warming is good in some circumstances (as is the parent), or that we can try things like geoengineering, etc will be quickly dismissed since it does not serve their purposes.
    - kafkaesq 11y ago
      ..will be quickly dismissed since it does not serve their purposes. Or because, as in the parent post you're referring to, the logic employed is obviously flimsy.
deanCommie 11y ago
> "We are currently overdue for an ice age" That's a very convenient interpretation of the data. We are within the rounding error on a scale of several thousands of years. If the ice age was coming RIGHT NOW, and our carbon emissions were offsetting it, and the situation could be a LOT WORSE, then MAYBE you'd have a point. (Though even in this highly unlikely scenario, you'd think we'd be able to come up with a better strategy to offset global cooling than acidifying our ocean, melting our glaciers, and inadvertently creating more extreme weather events). But if that's NOT Happening, if that scheduled ice age is actually "due" 500 years from now, at the rate at which we are going right now, we can do a LOT of damage to our habitat, and the other living creatures on the planet before it shows up. Before the cooling comes to offset our warming we'd have created hundreds of millions of refugees from low lying watersheds, caused hundreds of species extinctions, and decreased the quality of life for every single person on the planet - not just the poor fuckers who couldn't afford new sea-walls. Is that worth it to you? Or are you happy tasting sand with your head buried below the ground? If you are, that's great because you'll be dealing with a lot more sand in your life before it's all said and done.
- danielvf 11y ago
  About ten or fifteen years ago, I got to visit several of the Hawaiian islands. On the big island I saw new land being "created", live in front of my eyes, as lava flowed into the sea. It just kept coming. All my life I'd thought of land as essentially permanent, only shaped by man. I realized that this was wrong - sometimes nature shifts into unstoppable mode, and the only thing we can do is to adapt - and/or get out of the way. If there were no global warming, the next scheduled move on the Earth's climate cycle would be an ice age. I don't think that's scientifically in dispute? Besides a lot of land going under ice, and the world getting a colder, the sea levels have historically dropped around 400 feet in the mega ice ages. It would be epic. People have survived them in the past, but it's certainly something that gets a lot of people moving.
  - deanCommie 11y ago
    Your capacity for self-deception is alarming. Yes, nature can be more powerful than man. But we are not powerless. The scientific consensus is not in dispute. The next asteroid to hit the earth will also be a big problem, but we need to survive until then, and the next ice age. Or, how about THRIVE, instead of survive
vram22 11y ago
>In such a case it would seem that a warm world, even with a higher sea level and the human movement that would require, would be less disruptive than much of current civilization being under 200 feet of ice. How about the fact that many human settlements are supposed to be near bodies of water (both the sea coasts and inland lakes and rivers)? At least for the former, the higher sea level could affect things a lot. Though I agree being under a lot of ice would be worse - with higher sea level at least there is the opportunity to move to higher levels of land. But there could be several factors that could still affect things or cost a huge, possibly impossible amount - one example being the amount of land used for agricultural and other use land that might be submerged. Also, people need to be reasonably near the land they work on (even if it is an office), and again, suitable replacement land for whatever use (farms, industry, offices) may not be easy to find at the higher levels that people move too.

Retric 11y ago

That shows CO2 levels of 200-280 PPM over ~400,000 years the current level of 400PPM is a little outside that range. Also, temperature chart looks closer to a random walk than a clear trend. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-400-ppm-global-record-18965 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-400-ppm-global-record...

gedy 11y ago

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” ― H.L. Mencken 1922 (n.b. I'm not saying global warming is imaginary.)

Oletros 11y ago
Then what are you saying?
- gedy 11y ago
  That politicians love scare tactics about things real or imaginary, and even speculating things like maybe global warming is good in some circumstances (as is the parent), or that we can try things like geoengineering, etc will be quickly dismissed since it does not serve their purposes.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    ..will be quickly dismissed since it does not serve their purposes. Or because, as in the parent post you're referring to, the logic employed is obviously flimsy.

deanCommie 11y ago

> "We are currently overdue for an ice age" That's a very convenient interpretation of the data. We are within the rounding error on a scale of several thousands of years. If the ice age was coming RIGHT NOW, and our carbon emissions were offsetting it, and the situation could be a LOT WORSE, then MAYBE you'd have a point. (Though even in this highly unlikely scenario, you'd think we'd be able to come up with a better strategy to offset global cooling than acidifying our ocean, melting our glaciers, and inadvertently creating more extreme weather events). But if that's NOT Happening, if that scheduled ice age is actually "due" 500 years from now, at the rate at which we are going right now, we can do a LOT of damage to our habitat, and the other living creatures on the planet before it shows up. Before the cooling comes to offset our warming we'd have created hundreds of millions of refugees from low lying watersheds, caused hundreds of species extinctions, and decreased the quality of life for every single person on the planet - not just the poor fuckers who couldn't afford new sea-walls. Is that worth it to you? Or are you happy tasting sand with your head buried below the ground? If you are, that's great because you'll be dealing with a lot more sand in your life before it's all said and done.

danielvf 11y ago
About ten or fifteen years ago, I got to visit several of the Hawaiian islands. On the big island I saw new land being "created", live in front of my eyes, as lava flowed into the sea. It just kept coming. All my life I'd thought of land as essentially permanent, only shaped by man. I realized that this was wrong - sometimes nature shifts into unstoppable mode, and the only thing we can do is to adapt - and/or get out of the way. If there were no global warming, the next scheduled move on the Earth's climate cycle would be an ice age. I don't think that's scientifically in dispute? Besides a lot of land going under ice, and the world getting a colder, the sea levels have historically dropped around 400 feet in the mega ice ages. It would be epic. People have survived them in the past, but it's certainly something that gets a lot of people moving.
- deanCommie 11y ago
  Your capacity for self-deception is alarming. Yes, nature can be more powerful than man. But we are not powerless. The scientific consensus is not in dispute. The next asteroid to hit the earth will also be a big problem, but we need to survive until then, and the next ice age. Or, how about THRIVE, instead of survive

vram22 11y ago

>In such a case it would seem that a warm world, even with a higher sea level and the human movement that would require, would be less disruptive than much of current civilization being under 200 feet of ice. How about the fact that many human settlements are supposed to be near bodies of water (both the sea coasts and inland lakes and rivers)? At least for the former, the higher sea level could affect things a lot. Though I agree being under a lot of ice would be worse - with higher sea level at least there is the opportunity to move to higher levels of land. But there could be several factors that could still affect things or cost a huge, possibly impossible amount - one example being the amount of land used for agricultural and other use land that might be submerged. Also, people need to be reasonably near the land they work on (even if it is an office), and again, suitable replacement land for whatever use (farms, industry, offices) may not be easy to find at the higher levels that people move too.