From the BBC:
The naturalist Sir David Attenborough has said climate change is humanity's greatest threat in thousands of years. The broadcaster said it could lead to the collapse of civilisations and the extinction of "much of the natural world".
He's right, but for the wrong reasons.
It appears that we are teetering towards the next Ice Age (h/t paulc156). When that starts - in a few centuries or a few millennia - the outcome will be far, far worse (for mankind) than anything that the Warmenists have dreamed up:
Another one bites the dust
3 hours ago
18 comments:
"Sir David Attenborough has said climate change is humanity's greatest threat in thousands of years."
So the world getting a little warmer is a greater threat than bubonic plague, is it, something that killed 60% of Europe's population? I know which I would prefer. OK, the disease is under control now, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a huge threat then. OTOH, there is always the possibility of the bacillus becoming germ-resistant. Dial it back a bit, Sir Dave!
B, to tie that in, it was cooler weather and poor harvests in the preceding years which made people weaker and more vulnerable to diseases.
I rather suspect climate scientists are aware of the 100,000 year cycles shown in the chart. I also suspect the exact year or decade or even century when the next ice age kicks in is not predictable to better than plus or minus a thousand years, by which time global warming will have wiped out most of the human race, if that's what it in fact is going to do.
RM, which it isn't. Humans have quickly adjusted to rising temperatures. Falling temperature is the real killer.
"Humans have quickly adjusted to rising temperatures"
But they've only risen this fast once in the modern era. Previous temp rises due to natural cycles took place with tiny world populations.
Rapid temperature fluctuations have led to mass extinctions in the past. RM is right.
Are you suggesting we wait a few thousand years to see if things balance out nicely? :)
The new factor is carbon dioxide levels. They are approaching what they were in the early Tertiary.
Phys, that's only a problem if CO2 levels are a cause of rising temperatures, rather than a symptom.
B. "Phys, that's only a problem if CO2 levels are a cause of rising temperatures, rather than a symptom."
No. It's a problem if CO2 levels are a symptom and a cause. And that's precisely what the evidence shows. It's both.
Sobers posted an interesting point last week.
Industry associated with CO2 production as a by product only became a global activity circa 1950.
Din, exactly.
"It's a problem if CO2 levels are a symptom and a cause. And that's precisely what the evidence shows. It's both."
Well, no. If it's a symptom of rising temperatures, then we don't need to measure CO2 levels to know the earth is getting warmer, we just need to read our thermometers, so the raised levels of CO2 aren't the problem, it's the raised temperature.
It's like if you run a temperature. Running a temperature is not a problem, it might make you feel a bit uncomfortable. What is the problem is what is causing you to run a temperature.
Din. The answer to that point was that CO2 is cumulative. So the relatively small amounts of CO2 added by burning fossil fuels in the 19thC is still hanging around well into the 20thC and the rapid increases in CO2 et al GHG's circa the latter part of the 20thC sees the very gradual rise in global temps accelerate. That which was added circa 1950's is mostly still there doing it's thing.
B. You said rising CO2 levels are only a problem if CO2 levels are a cause of rising temperatures, "rather" than a symptom.
The reason I commented was because it can be and is widely accepted as being BOTH a cause AND a symptom. If that is the case then it is still a problem.
It's not a problem if you 'believe' it is ONLY a symptom of rising temps. Ever fewer climate scientists share that view.
>paulc156
You are missing the point. The point is not the period 1950s onwards the subject of the point is the period 1911 to 1950.
D. "The point is not the period 1950s onwards the subject of the point is the period 1911 to 1950."
Din, make your point clearer then? Sobers didn't. He claimed in the earlier thread that we were in any case in a warming trend since the end of the little ice age quite apart from any 'possible' CO2 influences. We are/were not. He also never elucidated on his point that CO2 emissions were not so high prior to the mid 20thC even though I pointed out it was a case of levels rather than simply emissions.
Guessing at just what your point is tbh. I presume it's that temps rose only very slowly initially from 1911?????
Temps slowly rose in that period along with slow but steady increases in CO2. And so...
So you are saying that you propose an historical temp rise 1911 to 1950 but no associated significant industrial activity. Just to confirm, do you have an explanation.
"Ever fewer climate scientists share that view."
Hardly surprising, since most climate scientists have only become climate scientists since the whole AGW theory was postulated and the increase of demand for climate scientists has been entirely driven by the contentious nature of the theory. There's lots of jobs to be had in climate research, producing yet more predictions of the future extrapolated from past data and almost none in trying to prove the opposite.
"producing yet more predictions of the future extrapolated from past data..." Internet driven caricature.
Oil industry threw enough dosh at willing scientists who would did just what you claimed 'almost none' are doing.
Could more justifiably claim you're angered by the stubborn insistence climate scientists have in pursuing research and analysis which doesn't match your preferred view. I seem to remember previous time on here you were offering solar cycle as a likely cause of recent warming trend. Can't really blame scientists for lacking your contrarian enthusiasm :)
Look, there's no doubt climate change is happening thanks to science.
What's not in the least yet proven is how much of it is man made. (READ Prof. Judith Curry world's #1 hurricane expert who shows how the 'end of times' from wind has receeded over the past 40 years)
15 years ago when I was attached to planet saving too, they were saying that in 20 years the waves would be lapping at our doors. And Yvette Couper set a target of 50% reduced emissions by 2015.
So how much is man made is where the research needs to go. We cannot rely on the public to decide.
Post a Comment