top bar
QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

What Can We Say? We Told You So!

8
lacy
06-14-2010
07:29 PM ET (US)
zenni optical
select spects
eyebuydirct
eyeglasses
7
Doug Johnson
08-05-2003
12:37 PM ET (US)
Some years ago Jerry Pournelle did an exhaustive analysis of the effects of man on mitigating the oncoming ice age... postponing it instead of succumbing "might" be a valuable thing to do. However, every time man gets his ego on the line and tries to solve complex, multivariable phenomenon with his linear additive predictive models, and his over blown sense of effective competency I personally get very, very concerned.

All this climatic change data seems to call for use of clever chaos theory graphic plotting... anything that attempts to provide some graphically cogent orderliness out of this mass of complex non-linear systems.
6
jonlPerson was signed in when posted
08-03-2003
05:40 PM ET (US)
Ted, the 'Mass Dieback' Viridian message also discusses the concept of 'abrupt climate change' and the probability that it will trigger an ice age. The effects are related. It's also true that climate change is inconsistent around the globe, though the 'global warming' term is accurate for average climate. The environmental scientists I've read or spoken with personally have no question that human activity has accelerated warming trends. The result of this acceleration is less certain, but mitigation is overall a Good Thing. I think the "large political components" are in the suppression of evidence that mitigation is necessary, where mitigation might have an adverse impact on many, if not most, industries. I don't see much hysteria - denial is more common.
5
Ted Vollers
08-03-2003
09:36 AM ET (US)
See the Woods Hole Oceanograhic Institute website
http://www.whoi.edu/home/
See the articles on thermohaline circulation system and abrupt climate change regarding the potential for abrupt transition into an ice age and indications that it isn't global warming that we face.

Also consider that for millions of years the climate of the earth has been characterized by "ice ages" on the order of 100,000 years duration alternating with "interglacial periods" on the order of 10,000 years duration.

Also consider that the present interglacial period is about 12,800 years long and that this is reported to be equal to the length of the longest interglacial period as determined by fossil ice records, etc.

Don't bet the farm on a move to Canada based on reports of global warming which seem to have large political components and elements of hysteria.
4
Stefan JonesPerson was signed in when posted
07-28-2003
07:24 PM ET (US)
Ah, I was looking in the article only for the 90% figure.
3
Joshua
07-22-2003
09:57 AM ET (US)
Quote from "Mass Dieback" Viridian Note:

"The real danger we face is that gradual warming of the sort we are experiencing now will trigger a sudden cooling that could drop average global temperatures by 5C (9F) in ten years.

"The sudden cooling and the accompanying droughts would destroy most of the agriculture that now sustains six billion of us, and at least 90 percent of the human race would be killed by famine and war in a matter of a decade or so."

I meant, mainly, the people of Viridian, Mr. Bruce Sterling, etc., were taking this seriously. He has forwarded Gwynne Dyer's article, not seeming to disagree with it, and it claims 90% loss of human life over next 20 years or so. Hence the Viridian Notes so cleverly named, "Mass Dieback."

I don't mean doing anything to prevent it, which by all indications seems to be impossible, even for governments, but do something to prepare for it. To become one of the 10% and not one of the 90%.
2
Stefan JonesPerson was signed in when posted
07-18-2003
06:46 PM ET (US)
I didn't read anything about a 90% dieback.

This is one of those "things slowly get shittier" things. Slowly enough that you can get away with ignoring it for a long time.

The people propagating the news are meteorologists. It's not their job to prepare for it. That's a job for governments, local and national, and international agencies.

Right now the emergent consensus response of the U.S. is to just ignore it all. The people who are worried are just about exactly countered by people who violently deny there's a problem.
1
Joshua
07-15-2003
02:07 PM ET (US)
How worried are people out there about this "Mass Dieback" article? Is it exaggerated? 20 years and 90% population decrease!?! That is a serious claim, if taken seriously, requires a serious response.

I was curious if anyone who was propagating this information is doing anything to prepare for it?

Print | RSS Views: 1527 (Unique: 708 ) / Subscribers: 0 | What's this?