Mailo wrote:Unfortunately many species are rather sensitive to small changes in average temperature, while they can cope just fine with a larger yearly range. Malaria mosquitos showing up in Europe comes to mind. Also, a larger average global temperature means more energy in the atmosphere, which leads to more extreme weather patterns (more freqent floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes etc).
You are underestimating nature's capability of adapting to environment. That's exactly the point, to show that there are endangered species which we must save.
No, I don't agree. We don't have to save species which cannot adapt. Earth is not a museum, it is a living system. If a change occurs, species die as they always did - making room for new ones. And it has already been proven that new species can occur even during several years.
Our problem is, we usually don't see new species to emerge - because we only know so many of them and newly discovered ones usually don't count as newly emerged. Thus, we rather see some of these we know to become extinct. But that's what we call selection effect.
Plus, people also tend to ignore countless new species of domestic animals or plants because they are "created by humans" - although the path over which they speciated is quite the same as in nature.
Mailo wrote:True, but during those times there weren't 6 billion humans around who needed to be fed. Also, the starts and ends led to extinctions of species. Not usually seen as something good. Finally, the temperature changes during those periods were significantly slower (thousands of years) than the one seen today (50 years).
Humans are clearly overpopulated and sure enough we'll have to do something with it. Either we reduce our counts ourselves or nature will do that for us somehow. Trying to control our climate is not going to stop population growth, these two have very little to do with each other.
Mailo wrote:Also true, yet many of those significantly stronger forces balance each other out, because some of them are cooling, others heating. A small change in CO2 concentrations (though I wouldn't call doubling it "small") may tip that balance, causing the other forces to spiral out of control, as the relative strengths of these also depends on average temperature.
Butterfly wing flap may start a tornado, right? Yes, I kinda agree with you, but there's greater argument that if the butterfly didn't flap its wings some other greater impulse would cause similar effect at maybe slightly different time and place anyway. If our climate is about to change, we can't stop it. We need to get ready for it.
Mailo wrote:True, even if one might debate just how imperfect the models are. Yet unless you have a better model it isn't correct to totally discount it. This is a big difference to the LHC scare. The scaremongers propose rather imperfect models on which they base their accusations, yet ignore the also imperfect but much better Standard Model of particle physics. This is not the case in climate science (again, ignoring the obvious propaganda from both sides in mainstream media).
Personally I think the boom in climate research is the only positive effect of all this. It is very useful that our models are getting better - I can see myself that where weather forecasts were unreliable even for tomorrow just a few years back (well, 15-20) they are quite reliable for almost one week now. And that's just what a normal person appreciates. We are still very far from any chances to make forecasts for tens of years and I hate when a so-called "scientist" comes up and tries to tell me that I'll fry in 50 years if I don't do what he's telling me to do. This is normal religion, only there's global heat instead of hell.
Mailo wrote:If astronomy discovers a 1000mile asteroid that will impact earth in 10 years, then the results will be extreme.
Astronomy is proven to be reliable enough to allow years long forecasts regarding celestial body positions.
Despite recent progress, climate science is still far from that point.
Mailo wrote:Hmm ... oil and coal has stayed safely underground for millions of years, yet it will decompose soon? Not really.
I didn't say it will get out by itself. What I said was, humans will not stop taking it out until it's depleted. Maybe they'll make plastic from it rather than fuel, pretending it doesn't increase CO2 levels, but that will eventually decompose too - there are bacteria capable to digest plastic.
The only way to "get rid" of CO2 is - by investing
at least as much energy as we gained by making it. This is simple physical law.
Plus, in my opinion there's no point doing it. CO2 is good for nature. If you look at a tree, what do you think it is made of?
Mostly water. But if you subtract water, almost all the rest is in fact what originally was atmospheric CO2.
Even every humans' body carbon and oxygen atoms were once atmospheric CO2.
Mailo wrote:And you are falling into the same trap as many people reading mainstram media propaganda. No, it is not pure money making.
Okay I admit I don't have evidence for that statement. I just can't believe people don't see where is this in fact going so I rather tend to assume it is very profitable for somebody.
And no, I didn't mean companies. Notice that they don't make these rules.
Mailo wrote:If you ignore the damage done my pollution (of whatever kind), you actually increase company profits at the cost of everyone else, who then have to come up with taxes to pay for e.g. increased health costs.
Well... there we are in chaotic systems again. In fact some companies (or rather their leaders) are smart enough to realize that they actually save money by taking care of pollution and their employee health. And many other factors come into the equation (people often prefer good health care over better salary etc etc) so it's hard to argue on this ground.
What I think is - climate changes are not our enemy and we should not try to fight them. Climate changes are normal and inevitable and we need to get ready for them.
Either we survive by adaptation or we die trying to stop the evolution.