It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who gets to control the thermostat?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Who gets to control the thermostat?

Let's start from the premise that global warming is real, and it will result in catastrophe for humanity if nothing is done. This is, after all, what most Al Gore deciples believe. For this exercise, it doesn't matter if the cause is natural or man-made.

The objectives of the excercise are:

1) Determine what is the "right" global average mean temperature.

2) Determine what is the "right" global average amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.


Now, once this is accomplished, let's pretend some very smart people have invented a machine that can control the average golabal mean temperature and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.


Now everbody gets to participate.....



What is the right temperature?

What is the right CO2 concentration?

Who gets to control the thermostat?



If it's set too low, some people will complain of a shorter growing season or more expensive heating seasons.

If it's set too high, some will complain of forest fires, draughts, locusts, dead polar bears.....

How do you please everyone? I'm most interested in hearing from people in Al Gores camp, but everyone is invited to wiegh in.

[edit on 1/2/2008 by darkbluesky]




posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
First and foremost, people like me who believe in GW, are not members of the Cult of Gore. The research into GW was available long before An Inconvenient Truth.

Secondly, the hypothesis you propose, being a machine that can regulate carbon, is fundamentally flawed. The amount of carbon does not regulate a static temperature. Increased carbon has been shown to be involved with increased temperatures. Still this is only ONE factor that affects the global mean temperature.

I find it really fascinating that those who believe in GW are in "Gore's Camp". Personally I believe it is a tactic to try to pigeon hole a group. By using a political figure tied to one political party to represent those who believe in GW is a ploy, conscious or unconscious, to try to discredit a particular groups beliefs.

Technically, according to your classification, I would be in Gore's camp (however I am not). My answer to this hypothetical question would be, there is no RIGHT temperature, other than the temperature created by NATURAL processes.

Conversely the only WRONG temperature would be one caused by the unintended, harmful impacts of human endeavors.

Sure, the planet's temperature changes. We may experiance global warming without our help at all, just like we may experiance ice ages. The only issue I have with such issues is what impacts we as a species have on these cycles.

I fully believe that we can do everything we do today without the negative impacts caused by our actions. I also believe that working towards this goal would be a huge benefit to our species as a whole. Innovation, progress, improvement were never negative words in my dictionary, nor will they ever be.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


i agree animal, the right temp is the earths natural temp. and any tinkering by us is just wrong. ....we should stop trying to play at being mother nature.

snoopyuk



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The optimum would be that which we are adapted to, give or take a bit.

The thing here is that it is very likely we could adapt to higher temperatures. We could move people from coastal regions, learn the required new farming techniques, etc etc. The problem is that we are heading for rapid climate change. That isn't so good.

One good comparison is the PETM. That was most likely induced by rapid changes in GHGs. We appear to be pumping out GHGs faster than then. The PETM led to a large extinctions with temps up to about 8'C higher, IIRC. But this happened over thousands of years, and lasted much much longer. We could achieve this degree of change in a few hundred maybe.

A degree of stability is the optimum. That's not to say climate change doesn't occur, and that stability can be achieved. But the ideal for human society would be little or no change. It's what we know and are adapted to.

A rise of 6'C would not be ideal, a fall of a few degress would not be either.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
First and foremost, people like me who believe in GW, are not members of the Cult of Gore. The research into GW was available long before An Inconvenient Truth.


Animal, I also believe in GW, and I am not a member of the "cult" of Algore. I don't think my post insinuated that all believers in GW were Gore extremists, I simply wanted to hear from those people, because in general, they are alarmists and don't think through the issue rationally. I was hoping this excercise would get some of these well intentioned, but poorly informed individuals to "think" about the problem instead of reacting to thier emotions (fear, guilt, etc.).


My answer to this hypothetical question would be, there is no RIGHT temperature, other than the temperature created by NATURAL processes. Conversely the only WRONG temperature would be one caused by the unintended, harmful impacts of human endeavors.


You're avoiding the issue. If humanity has altered the average global mean temp (AGMT) through it's actions, Then only it's additional actions can restore it to the previous NATURAL state, which, by your definition, was RIGHT.

If I understand your postion correctly, I take it that you believe a +10 C variation in AGMT would be OK if it was a direct result of natural processes, and in that event, humanity should do nothing to correct it? Am I correct?

I'm not trying to argumentative here. IMO, this discussion is central to the whole issue. Too many people are simply reacting emotionally to provocative images and dire warnings without thinking things all the way through. It's easy to say we must do something, but what is that something? Specifically? What is it we must do? Keep the AGMT exactly the same as it is today? Adjust it to 1954? 1890? 60,000 BC? See what I'm getting at?



I fully believe that we can do everything we do today without the negative impacts caused by our actions.


Again, I need to ask you why a temperature rise is negative if we cause it, but not negative if the Sun causes it? The temperature rise will produce the same undesired conditions whatever it's cause, right?



[edit on 1/2/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Darkbluesky, sorry if I misunderstood your post. Still I feel like you may have misunderstood mine as well.

When you asked "What is the right temperature?" i replied,


My answer to this hypothetical question would be, there is no RIGHT temperature, other than the temperature created by NATURAL processes. Conversely the only WRONG temperature would be one caused by the unintended, harmful impacts of human endeavors.


To which you replied:


You're avoiding the issue.


Really? How so? I defined what I believed to be the RIGHT temperature, I was very clear, or so I thought. I would ask you to clarify what it is I did to AVOID the issue, but that would take this thread off topic.

You also said,


If humanity has altered the average global mean temp (AGMT) through it's actions, Then only it's additional actions can restore it to the previous NATURAL state, which, by your definition, was RIGHT.


I am not so sure I agree with this. In fact I down right disagree. I full heartedly believe that the planet Earth is comprised of interdependent systems that exists on a scale unintelligible to the human mind and as such it is very unlikely we would ever make good managers of this complex system(s). While I do believe that we have negatively impacted the planet, I do not think that we are going to be able to apply a fix to regulate the systems we have impacted. Rather I believe we need to REDUCE or preferably REMOVE our negative impacts and let the planets cycles sort the issue out for itself.



If I understand your postion correctly, I take it that you believe a +10 C variation in AGMT would be OK if it was a direct result of natural processes, and in that event, humanity should do nothing to correct it? Am I correct?


You've got it man. I do believe that if natural cycles were to create drastic changes to climate it would be the CORRECT global temperature and that humans would be foolish to intervene. Although I know this would have catastrophic impacts on our ability to survive and thrive as we do, it is a NATURAL process and I think attempting to change it could have even more damaging impacts in the long run. While I can completely understand the impulse to control the forces of nature for the benefit of humanity I still while heartedly believe that we are only one PART of this planet, and shaping it merely to suit our needs is dangerous.


I'm not trying to argumentative here. IMO, this discussion is central to the whole issue. Too many people are simply reacting emotionally to provocative images and dire warnings without thinking things all the way through. It's easy to say we must do something, but what is that something? Specifically? What is it we must do? Keep the AGMT exactly the same as it is today? Adjust it to 1954? 1890? 60,000 BC? See what I'm getting at?


I perfectly understand your question. What I believe we should do is have a policy of non-intervention, more specifically we need to drastically limit the actions our species takes that have damaging impacts on the planet.



I fully believe that we can do everything we do today without the negative impacts caused by our actions.



Again, I need to ask you why a temperature rise is negative if we cause it, but not negative if the Sun causes it? The temperature rise will produce the same undesired conditions whatever it's cause, right?


As I said in the begining of this response. All the studying I have done into natural systems leads me to believe that humans are incredibly incapable of effectively managing natural systems and cycles without causing more harm than good. Take a look at our efforts at fire suppression in natural systems (specifically forests in the west) and the impacts that resulted. I don't think humans are evil or bad, I am one and I like me, my wife is one and I love her... The point is that we cannot assume to know how to manage this Earth. As difficult as it is to accept things like the negative impacts nature can throw at us, it is simply the nature of nature, if you follow my meaning. Just like dying is something the majority of us fear and resent, it is a part of life and cannot be avoided.





[edit on 2-1-2008 by Animal]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join