Someone
But the model of gravity is extremely murky. No one knows exactly how it works, how it travels, etc. Does it travel by wave? By particle (affectionately known as gravitons)? Both? Or something else? Does it travel at the speed of light ala relativity? Faster? Slower? Is it instantaneous ala Newton? In fact, some argue that there is no such thing as gravity, that it's actually a phenomenon of the curvature of space-time. I don't think gravity is as well proven or understood as you think it is.

That's the difference between chemistry and physics. How the experiments work and how you prove things is a little different and the models are not as concrete, but the climate models are not as concrete either. But how C02 works in the atmosphere is not as well understood as how a feather and a rock fall. The actual mechanism is not understood, but we can predict what it will do. But CO2? NOt enough evidence and the models aren't as all encompassing. Yet.

Yes I'm familar with Collapse. The Mayans are a perfect example of what the author discusses. But then there are more civilizations that were destroyed by changes in their enviornment that they had nothing to do with. There are also others who made the right changes in their enviornment and flourished. And then came a change they could do nothing about and fell.

What I am saying is that if we did dismantle our industrial civilization it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference! It would still happen. You pick nits with C02 and gravity all you want but rocks still fall at the same rate and the atmosphere will change whether we are an industrial or pre-industrial civilization.

bravo1102
...But how C02 works in the atmosphere is not as well understood as how a feather and a rock fall.... What I am saying is that if we did dismantle our industrial civilization it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference! It would still happen. You pick nits with C02 and gravity all you want but rocks still fall at the same rate and the atmosphere will change whether we are an industrial or pre-industrial civilization.

You make some very good points, and I agree that humans are not the only agent of harmful change in the environment. I don't think there's a distinction between chemistry and physics so much as a difference with models that don't involve chaos theory and those that do, but I agree that not all models are the same, that's true. I guess I differ on two major points (somewhat connected):

1) We are still learning a lot about climate models, atmospheric patterns, CO2, etc., and we haven't learned all there is to know. But what we have found out so far is extremely disturbing. The evidence that is coming in from Greenland, the Arctic, worldwide glaciers, coral reefs, ice core samples, animal migration patterns, seasonal patterns, and so on and so forth all points to dramatic changes at a faster rate than previously recorded. You're right that science isn't conclusive, but oftentimes science finds some suggested correlations (sulfur waste in smokestacks and acid rain, smoking and lung disease, dumping grounds and water pollution, pesticides and animal extinctions, etc.) that suggest societal changes might be necessary, which then meets with disbelief and resistance. Eventually after delays and more data and more delays and public debate and more delays and more data, the science gets better and establishes the connection more forcefully, then a few more delays and public debate, until finally something is done. I guess to me it just looks like the same old pattern happening yet again with global warming.

2) We are dumping a *lot* of crap into the atmosphere. You seem to suggest that the atmosphere and climate models are more mysterious and unknown that I would, but even given that, we are dumping a lot of crap into a system you say we don't understand. And then you say that what we do to the atmosphere won't make a bit of difference. To throw up our hands and say the atmosphere is going to change whether we want it to or not, all while we are dumping crap into the atmosphere that is at some level changing it (a little or a lot, we probably differ), seems like folly to me. We have learned time and time again that we do have the capacity to cause more environmental change than we previously thought. No one used to think that humans could impact a system as vast as a groundwater aquifer. No one used to think that humans could upset the natural balance in a food web. Now it's common knowledge we can. And I think the data is consistently showing that we do have the ability to cause massive changes in the atmosphere, esp given our history of causing smog and acid rain.

bravo1102
What I am saying is that if we did dismantle our industrial civilization it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference! It would still happen.

The majority view in the scientific community (especially that in the climate field), seems to disagree with you there. :)
Most first world governments as well... Even most businesses in those countries now. The naysayers are fast becoming the new creationists, flat earthers lol!

The thing with CO2 is that we know from the evidence that increased atmospheric levels are part of the warming events in the past. We also know that current warming (over the long term), coincides with increased human output of CO2, methane and other Greenhouse gasses.

bravo1102
What I am saying is that if we did dismantle our industrial civilization it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference! It would still happen.

how odd that you can know that! When I say things about the climate, you say it is all mystery and uknowable - but apparently you know that "it would still happen." It seems the rules are very different for you then for me! You are simply saying how you imagine the world to be. I expect the guy who cut down the last tree on Easter island talked just like you.

However, you deserve kudos for slipping in the "dismantle our civilzation" theme so cleverly. You are an excellent sophist.

I am unimpressed with the claim - repeated many times here by several people- that if you dont know how much pollution is safe, then that means you can pollute all you want. It is not a logical premise to operate under.

No one is saying to pollute all you want if you don't know the effects, Stacey. What people are saying is it's very evident the Earth goes through sudden, dramatic changes with or without people.

If you believe that the Earth was populated for billions of years without people and these changes suddenly took place, then you must believe it is going to happen again with people present this time. Even if people weren't traveling in cars anymore, burning coal, or ever burning anything again, the problem would still happen, as evident with historic proof.

Just don't be jumping to conclusions that humans are the direct cause of the problems and everything would be better off without us present. It's just not logical or reasonable to believe so.


As for Arteestx, I never said we weren't the reason for any of things we experience, just that we aren't the cause of all of it.

Oh, and Bravo...don't say evolution is 100% proven. You sound like an asshat. It's never been proven. It's not even proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Science has never disproved what's in the Bible, either, it's actually gone quite hand in hand.

Croi Dhubh
No one is saying to pollute all you want if you don't know the effects, Stacey.

I do not think that is a reasonable statement. It seems to me that we are very much arguing about whether to limit the amount of carbon that goes into the atmosphere versus NOT doing so. The "not doing so" crowd has mostly won this debate over the years - hence, we put as much carbon into the atmosphere as we please. If only we had been pursuing a "reasonable middle path" for the last 20 years!

Croi Dhubh
What people are saying is it's very evident the Earth goes through sudden, dramatic changes with or without people.

If you believe that the Earth was populated for billions of years without people and these changes suddenly took place, then you must believe it is going to happen again with people present this time. Even if people weren't traveling in cars anymore, burning coal, or ever burning anything again, the problem would still happen, as evident with historic proof.

Just don't be jumping to conclusions that humans are the direct cause of the problems and everything would be better off without us present. It's just not logical or reasonable to believe so.

Let's try it this way - there will always be forest fires, and there always have been. Nothing we can do will totally prevent forest fires. Now suppose you notice people in the woods near where you live playing with flamethrowers. You might ask them to stop - you do not want a forest fire to start and burn down your house! And they might say "Just don't be jumping to conclusions that humans are the direct cause of the problems and everything would be better off without us present" like you did. But that would be silly of them, right? It would be a lot better foryou if they put down the flamethrowers!

Croi Dhubh
Oh, and Bravo...don't say evolution is 100% proven. You sound like an asshat. It's never been proven. It's not even proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Science has never disproved what's in the Bible, either, it's actually gone quite hand in hand.

Evolution is %100 proven. It is obviously true that living things change over generations to adjust to changing conditions by a process of natural selection.

Since you cannot seriously be doubting that, I assume you mean that "it is not %100 proven the evolution accounts for the history of living things on Earth." Well, I suppose, but that's kind of a bizarre standard. No historical event is "%100 proven" if you want to be that way. Did Genhis Khan die in 1227? Probably. Is it possilbe that the records are wrong or forged or whatever and he died in some other year? Sure. We can only do research - we dont have time machines.

But the fossil record clearly shows that living things have changed over time to adjust to changing conditions in the manner of evolving life, so we can reasonably say that "Evolution is the process that has shaped life on Earth."

But you should really save that for one of the creationist threads - though i realise that nowadays, denying global warming and believing in creationism seem deeply linked.

Flame throwers, a direct and proven cause of the problem, is much different than something which might be causing a problem.

Now you're picking at straws with the evolution thing. Depending on your definition of evolution, you can be correct, or you could be wrong.

Evolution isn't about historical events, though, technically.

The fossil records suggests there were changes over time, it doesn't prove it. There are too many missing pieces to even say there is a simple missing link. It's really a missing change. Scientists have found fossils of a horse which was supposed to have evolved from another type of horse in sedimentary layers well below what it was supposed to have come from.

One can't reasonably state "Evolution..." as there are too many missing pieces. There's enough doubt to say it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the test.

Croi Dhubh
Flame throwers, a direct and proven cause of the problem, is much different than something which might be causing a problem.

That is true - but notice how you have moved the goalposts? Before you said that

Croi Dhubh
...Even if people weren't traveling in cars anymore, burning coal, or ever burning anything again, the problem would still happen, as evident with historic proof.

And I believe I have refuted the logic of that claim here, and I think you know it. The polite thing to do is to say "well, you got me there, so let me try a different argument..."

Croi Dhubh
One can't reasonably state "Evolution..." as there are too many missing pieces. There's enough doubt to say it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the test.

It's not the fossil record that proves evolution 100%, it's genetics. The fossil record can barely prove it in court. Genetics has pushed it beyond a reasonable doubt into the realm of absolute certainty. It was proven in a court of law. (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.)

As for sounding like an ass, ain't the first time I've been called one. It comes with the territory of being a veteran of the combat arm of decision. Hence the proud title: Dumb-ass tanker. I think it has something to do with the diesel fumes.

I did the whole historical climatology thing in college. I had the little Ice Age, a verdant Greenland, grapes in England then came the change and it got colder. Then there was the 16th-17th Century cooling trend that only now are we coming out of. It has started trending warmer but still not as warm as it once was. Like I've said before the system is larger than most models have allowed for yet and not all the variables support global warming that is solelyman-made .

If we went back to a pre-industrial civilization there is no guarantee that the temperature would change. Humans can affect their enviornment, even destroy parts of it, but can we really effect the whole planet, when there are a whole lot more variables in play than dropping a cannon ball off the Leaning Tower of Pisa? I won't quibble the science, that's not my field. But history is and the history of climate doesn't back up man made global warming, but it does have plenty of examples of global warming and cooling without any imput from us one way or another. It will change again and dismantling our civilization wouldn't change it anymore than 5039 miles of land can protect Europe from a plague in China in the 14th century (both of which also had the same cold and wet weather causing famine)

No one has brought up this other theory yet: Happening because of the polar shift.

I'm just throwing that one out there. I'm not endorsing the idea.