4 ms·
I think in the context of convincing people that we urgently need to address the current climate problem (for economic, ecological, and security reasons), that
by _petronius 11y ago
I think in the context of convincing people that we urgently need to address the current climate problem (for economic, ecological, and security reasons), that might be distracting.
Assuming there are probably other interglacial periods in Earth's long history that were a lot warmer than the current one[0], or maybe had lots more greenhouse gasses from some non-human source (if such a thing is geologically possible), that doesn't make the implications of global temperature rise on current human society any less disastrous, or absolve the fact that the current warming period is from gasses released by burning fossil fuels.
The fact is, that the Earth has had worse ecological disasters than the human species (although not many, and most of them were caused by big asteroid impacts[1]). So I'm less afraid of how this stacks up against the entire climatalogical history of the planet than I am of armed conflicts breaking out over water rights, or the loss of huge swaths of agricultural land.
[0]: And it looks like there are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinct...
- andyjohnson0 11y ago"...the Earth has had worse ecological disasters than the human species..." True, but they were a long time ago and the human species wasn't around to experience them. The rate of change of present warming, and its likely effects, are going to cause very severe difficulties for our (and many other) species.
- fexl 11y agoLikely yes, but please be careful that the remedies do not cause more severe difficulties than the problem itself.
- primroot 11y agoImplicit in this remark is the idea that all humans share roughly the same interests and concerns. As difficult conditions exacerbate conflicts the weight of interests is measured first in capital and then in violent prowess. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc2016e2-d320-11e4-9b0a-00144feab7de.html#axzz3dzguJ9wf http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc2016e2-d320-11e4-9b0a-00144feab7...
- fexl 11y agoSorry, I can't click through to that article -- when I dismiss the pop-up, the tantalizing "Climate Shock" headline disappears. I do say that all humans require energy to survive, and more efficient forms of energy require capital in the hands of innovators. I'll be happy to read the article if you can give me a link that functions better for me.
- primroot 11y agoI found another review of the book that mentions geoengineering. "There will still be ocean acidification, smog, ozone depletion and so on and once we set on geoengineering our planet, we’ll likely get hooked and never turn back. In many ways, geoengineering is even more uncertain in its consequences than climate change itself. Definitely far from being a solution, and even the foremost experts on geoengineering agree that it shouldn’t be done – only in extreme conditions, like when there isn’t any other choice." http://www.zmescience.com/other/reviews/book-review-climate-shock-the-economic-consequences-of-a-hotter-planet/ http://www.zmescience.com/other/reviews/book-review-climate-...
- _petronius 11y agoTotally agree. I'm not saying we should be sanguine about the current situation just because it isn't as bad as previous extinction events or the like (and in fact, being even fractionally as bad as any of the worst ones would be cause for outright panic).
- primroot 11y agoI would replace "are causing" for "are going to cause." One of may examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
- semi-extrinsic 11y agoScience shouldn't care about "convincing people that we urgently need to address the current climate problem" when it comes to testing their models. Scientists should test their predictions against all available usable data with impunity. Of course you don't want to write about that in your fancy Nature paper, you put that in a climate modelling conference paper or something.
- _petronius 11y agoYes, the division of concerns is important. I guess I'm more concerned with how we talk about what it is the climate models are predicting rather than how those models are constructed. I wouldn't want anyone to conflate "natural processes without human influence can cause similar effects" with "we aren't causing it therefore we can keep burning oil/coal/etc. and it doesn't matter."