Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have engaged with plenty of AGW deniers,etc. on this forum, and I think their arguments are completely bogus. The science behind greenhouse gases and their effects is 100 years old and self-evident.
What is more surprising in my observation is how we came to the view the if we don't screw up the climate, it will be stable. All of the earth's history suggests a tremendous amount of fluctuation. So, while I think it is asinine to thoughtlessly spew greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, I wonder why we have not been thinking about climate contingency planning. Given that the Holocene was an interglacial in a Pleistocene pattern where 90% of the time is much colder, it would seem the risk of a deep freeze is real too. But more generally, why assume the Holocene will continue? It might get colder and it might get warmer, and the precipitation patterns could change, and we should openly discuss all these options, without the political stupidity that surrounds the AGW debate. The balance of nature just does not exist, or to quote the engineers, stationarity is dead.
It is a hugely important topic and the only options I seem to hear are: 1) We are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and that it bad (true), 2) that is a hoax and we should drill baby drill. It is constantly changing. The truth seems be that we cannot count on any form of climate stability long-term, and so we should be building in contingency plans globally for massive changes. For example megadroughts, an Ice Age, an exceptionally hot period, etc. I could be behind on my science here, but how do we know any of these options is not around the corner?
Climate was never completely stable, BUT there has been a relative stability in the climate for about 10,000 years. This is probably why we have civilization and 7 billion people instead of a few hundred thousand people scavenging the corpses of dead animals.
I would say that the biggest reason that no real action has been taken to stop natural climate change is because no serious natural threats have been identified.
Historically, glaciation has taken thousands of years to turn an interglacial period into a glacial period. It would be relatively easy to reverse-- the problem is that as of now it would be impossible to predict just how MUCH you would be reversing the trend.
Similarly, natural warming happens at a much more gradual pace than AGW... it occurs more quickly than glaciation or cooling, but still takes thousands of years.
Barring some horrible catastrophe like an asteroid impact or some wildly unpredictable solar phenomenon, natural climate change isn't a threat at all... even if we do nothing about it, its gradual pace gives us plenty of time to adapt. AGW doesn't give us that luxury.
The Earth's climate has been changing since the Earth was first formed, and will continue to change until it is ultimately destroyed.
The only people who even come close to denying that the Earth's climate is constantly changing are the AGW alarmists, who appear to believe that a static climate is somehow normal, achievable and sustainable (contrary to what we have now) and is a goal that can effectively be pursued and achieved.
Climate was never completely stable, BUT there has been a relative stability in the climate for about 10,000 years. This is probably why we have civilization and 7 billion people instead of a few hundred thousand people scavenging the corpses of dead animals.
I would say that the biggest reason that no real action has been taken to stop natural climate change is because no serious natural threats have been identified.
Historically, glaciation has taken thousands of years to turn an interglacial period into a glacial period. It would be relatively easy to reverse-- the problem is that as of now it would be impossible to predict just how MUCH you would be reversing the trend.
Similarly, natural warming happens at a much more gradual pace than AGW... it occurs more quickly than glaciation or cooling, but still takes thousands of years.
Barring some horrible catastrophe like an asteroid impact or some wildly unpredictable solar phenomenon, natural climate change isn't a threat at all... even if we do nothing about it, its gradual pace gives us plenty of time to adapt. AGW doesn't give us that luxury.
The 'little ice age' was an example of a stable climate? 13th to 19th century
The 'little ice age' was an example of a stable climate? 13th to 19th century
I said relatively stable, and put relatively in italics so that people wouldn't get confused.
Anyways, the answer is yes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who Ever Said the Climate Would be Stable?
