Global warming: been there, done that, got t-shirt and tan
June 1, 2006 4:20 PM Subscribe
Mefi-attention-span summary: Arctic ocean was subtropically warm (23C, 73F) and covered with floating vegetation. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels above 2000 parts per million (today = 381 ppm.) Life on Earth did not end, went right on about its business. [For longer attention spans, The Cenozoic palaeoenvironment of the Arctic Ocean (Moran et al.); Climate Change: The Arctic tells its story (Heather Stoll); Subtropical Arctic Ocean temperatures during the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum (Sluijs et al.); Episodic fresh surface waters in the Eocene Arctic Ocean (Brinkhuis et. al);. All from Nature v.441, (01 Jun 2006). Free abstract of Moran et. al; wants money for full texts. Also available for the asking nearest university or public library.
On land, there was a massive turnover of mammals, as most of the primitive mammals that had developed since the end of the Cretaceous were suddenly replaced by the ancestors of most of the surviving modern mammal groups, all of them in small versions, adapted to Eocene heat. (wikipedia)
posted by gubo at 4:26 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by gubo at 4:26 PM on June 1, 2006
That's an awfully long summary with lots of very small text to meant to be aiding my increadibly short
posted by public at 4:27 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by public at 4:27 PM on June 1, 2006
I think both sides miss the point on the global warming debate. The problem with global warming isn't that all life on Earth will end, it's that human life on Earth will be greatly impaired. Earth's going to be here for millions more years, regardless of whether we establish world peace or nuke each other into oblivion.
posted by Ndwright at 4:30 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by Ndwright at 4:30 PM on June 1, 2006
I apparently have a 49 million year attention span.
Um. Cool.
posted by -harlequin- at 4:30 PM on June 1, 2006
Um. Cool.
posted by -harlequin- at 4:30 PM on June 1, 2006
a massive turnover of mammals?
That wouldn't be bad for us, we're not mammals....are we?
posted by Megafly at 4:31 PM on June 1, 2006
That wouldn't be bad for us, we're not mammals....are we?
posted by Megafly at 4:31 PM on June 1, 2006
Oh, the planet might well survive our effects on the environment. The larger question is whether our species will be around to take notice.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:31 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by Mr. Six at 4:31 PM on June 1, 2006
Hey jfuller, who exactly is claiming that life is going to end? I think George Carlin put it best "the planet is fine, we're fucked". Most worst case scenarios posit a 300 meter rise in sea level, now that wouldn't even kill all us humans, and eventually the ecosystem would stabilise with more marine life. It's just that I happen to live within 300 meters of the current sea level, and so does most of the world's population.
posted by atrazine at 4:32 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by atrazine at 4:32 PM on June 1, 2006
"I think both sides miss the point on the global warming debate"
No, only the silly fringes (which from the sound of it may include the poster) miss the point. There are not two sides, and there are silly people of all stripes around the fringes :)
posted by -harlequin- at 4:33 PM on June 1, 2006
No, only the silly fringes (which from the sound of it may include the poster) miss the point. There are not two sides, and there are silly people of all stripes around the fringes :)
posted by -harlequin- at 4:33 PM on June 1, 2006
Yes, the global warming debate suffers because both sides simplify the problem: either it's not happening or it's the end of the world. Scholars need to point out what we really ought worry about: warming will impact the quality of life of every human being on the planet, agriculture will suffer, the total sustainable population will decrease, natural disasters will increase in frequency etc etc. Admittedly a worse sound byte, but also harder to argue with.
posted by mek at 4:33 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by mek at 4:33 PM on June 1, 2006
I think the problem is that one side thinks we can actually do something about it, while the other side thinks we can't. I side with the latter and using global warming as an argument for being conscious of what we spew into the environment seems a little weak. I'm all for clean air but earth has been hot before and will get hot again irregardless of what we do
posted by zeoslap at 4:35 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by zeoslap at 4:35 PM on June 1, 2006
"That wouldn't be bad for us, we're not mammals....are we?"
Facts:
1. Mefites are mammals.
2. Mefites fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the Mefite is to flip out and kill people.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:35 PM on June 1, 2006 [1 favorite]
Facts:
1. Mefites are mammals.
2. Mefites fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the Mefite is to flip out and kill people.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:35 PM on June 1, 2006 [1 favorite]
jfuller, you haven't got the balls to actually state what you're inferring. So, to interpolate, people worried about global warming think that life on earth will end?
Says who?
Crap post.
posted by wilful at 4:42 PM on June 1, 2006
Says who?
Crap post.
posted by wilful at 4:42 PM on June 1, 2006
zeoslap, human action caused the ozone hole, and human reaction is fixing the hole, so it's not unreasonable to think we can make a positive impact...
posted by nomisxid at 4:43 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by nomisxid at 4:43 PM on June 1, 2006
I'm all for clean air but earth has been hot before and will get hot again irregardless of what we do
A) you mean "regardless." (Sorry, but that one just bugs me--along with "could care less" and the misuse of "begs the question.")
B) so what evidence do you have that the impressive scientific consensus that much of the current warming trend is in fact anthropogenic is mistaken?
posted by yoink at 4:44 PM on June 1, 2006
A) you mean "regardless." (Sorry, but that one just bugs me--along with "could care less" and the misuse of "begs the question.")
B) so what evidence do you have that the impressive scientific consensus that much of the current warming trend is in fact anthropogenic is mistaken?
posted by yoink at 4:44 PM on June 1, 2006
Most worst case scenarios posit a 300 meter rise in sea level
I think you may be off a bit there.
posted by gimonca at 4:51 PM on June 1, 2006
I think you may be off a bit there.
posted by gimonca at 4:51 PM on June 1, 2006
gimonca, yeah that was clumsy phrasing. The 300 meters figure refers to historical highs.
posted by atrazine at 4:54 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by atrazine at 4:54 PM on June 1, 2006
When I was in Buffalo, NY one cold, windy, winter day I thought global warming sounded good. Stood outside and emptied every aerosol can I could find trying to get that damn ozone hole large enough..
posted by HyperBlue at 4:56 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by HyperBlue at 4:56 PM on June 1, 2006
a massive turnover of mammals?
But with the tremendous humidity it wouldn't have that nice light flaky crust.
posted by CynicalKnight at 4:56 PM on June 1, 2006
But with the tremendous humidity it wouldn't have that nice light flaky crust.
posted by CynicalKnight at 4:56 PM on June 1, 2006
I think the problem is that one side thinks we can actually do something about it, while the other side thinks we can't.
Our heavy use of fossil fuels is relatively recent, historically speaking.
And reducing our CO2 emissions doesn't mean that we need to return to a pre-industrial lifestyle. Reducing emissions from older coal-fired power plants might require some investment, but it's hardly unthinkable. It's bizarre to watch the Bush administration move in the other direction.
posted by russilwvong at 4:57 PM on June 1, 2006
Our heavy use of fossil fuels is relatively recent, historically speaking.
And reducing our CO2 emissions doesn't mean that we need to return to a pre-industrial lifestyle. Reducing emissions from older coal-fired power plants might require some investment, but it's hardly unthinkable. It's bizarre to watch the Bush administration move in the other direction.
posted by russilwvong at 4:57 PM on June 1, 2006
Sidebar: I'm perpetually amazed by the arguments made by the "global warming is bunk" people. Not by the mere fact that they doubt the science, but that they often do so on such bizarre grounds. Almost every time one sees this issue being debated you'll see people trotting out the "but the world was so much hotter in the past" or the (contradictory) "we only have climate data for the past 200 years" or the "correlation isn't causation" memes.
What strikes me as almost touching about this is the idea that none of the world's climate scientists would have noticed any of this. You imagine some climate scientist unwinding from a hard day of pulling statistics out of his ass, sitting down and reading Fark and thinking "geez, they're right, millions of years ago--or perhaps millions and millions, scientists disagree--the world was once totally hotter than it is now AND we don't know anything about the temperature of the world before 1800! What a doofus I've been!"
Yeah, scientists can collectively bark up the wrong tree. We still can't connect every single last dot from human activity to its effect on the climate. But scientists don't simply ignore the principal datasets in their own fucking fields! Climate scientists know about the previous cycles of warming and cooling. They know that even without human interference the climate would change. They have evidence that human interference is making it change more rapidly than it would otherwise do, and they have evidence that suggests that if we changed our behavior it would cease to change so rapidly. If you believe they're wrong, point to flaws in their evidence, or flaws in their inferences from that evidence, but don't just say "dude, the climate changes! Didn't you realize?"
posted by yoink at 4:57 PM on June 1, 2006
What strikes me as almost touching about this is the idea that none of the world's climate scientists would have noticed any of this. You imagine some climate scientist unwinding from a hard day of pulling statistics out of his ass, sitting down and reading Fark and thinking "geez, they're right, millions of years ago--or perhaps millions and millions, scientists disagree--the world was once totally hotter than it is now AND we don't know anything about the temperature of the world before 1800! What a doofus I've been!"
Yeah, scientists can collectively bark up the wrong tree. We still can't connect every single last dot from human activity to its effect on the climate. But scientists don't simply ignore the principal datasets in their own fucking fields! Climate scientists know about the previous cycles of warming and cooling. They know that even without human interference the climate would change. They have evidence that human interference is making it change more rapidly than it would otherwise do, and they have evidence that suggests that if we changed our behavior it would cease to change so rapidly. If you believe they're wrong, point to flaws in their evidence, or flaws in their inferences from that evidence, but don't just say "dude, the climate changes! Didn't you realize?"
posted by yoink at 4:57 PM on June 1, 2006
Look! Pretty shiny thing over there!
As this post is a self contained snark I'm going to post without reading it.
then find something else for my
posted by edgeways at 4:59 PM on June 1, 2006
As this post is a self contained snark I'm going to post without reading it.
then find something else for my
posted by edgeways at 4:59 PM on June 1, 2006
Stood outside and emptied every aerosol can I could find trying to get that damn ozone hole large enough..
That's kinda sweet. You helped increase the cancer risk for people living in Australia and New Zealand by doing something that nobody thinks has any connection to global warming.
Hang on, I didn't mean sweet, did I. Moronic. Yeah, that's the one.
posted by yoink at 5:00 PM on June 1, 2006
That's kinda sweet. You helped increase the cancer risk for people living in Australia and New Zealand by doing something that nobody thinks has any connection to global warming.
Hang on, I didn't mean sweet, did I. Moronic. Yeah, that's the one.
posted by yoink at 5:00 PM on June 1, 2006
What a pathetic strawman, jfuller. This is a lame fpp.
posted by hattifattener at 5:06 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by hattifattener at 5:06 PM on June 1, 2006
Global warming is only one problem caused by humans, bodiversity is collapsing and there is also a continuing reduction in the amount of carbon absorbing vegetation on the planet as deserts expand and we destroy the rain forests. Each of these problems is interconnected and mutually exacerbating. 49 million years ago all the eco systems were adapted to those conditons and worked to regulate the planets bio sphere. Humans on the hand are destroying eco systems, the planet may be getting warmer but while we're here there is nothing to stop the process.
posted by piscatorius at 5:20 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by piscatorius at 5:20 PM on June 1, 2006
Plate techtonics? Might what would become the Arctic ocean been over a much more equatorial part of the surface of the Earth so many millions of years ago?
posted by chasing at 5:27 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by chasing at 5:27 PM on June 1, 2006
Except us, of course, piscatorius.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:31 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by zoogleplex at 5:31 PM on June 1, 2006
Plate techtonics? Might what would become the Arctic ocean been over a much more equatorial part of the surface of the Earth so many millions of years ago?
Is that where my lap goes when I stand up?
posted by cytherea at 5:38 PM on June 1, 2006
Is that where my lap goes when I stand up?
posted by cytherea at 5:38 PM on June 1, 2006
talk about your short attention span: not too long before that in geological frames of reference, the atmosphere was methane and the oceans were boiling sulfurous acid.
and look! we're alive today!
posted by 3.2.3 at 5:42 PM on June 1, 2006
and look! we're alive today!
posted by 3.2.3 at 5:42 PM on June 1, 2006
jfuller: What is your point? Earth was different in the past? What?
posted by Freen at 5:59 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by Freen at 5:59 PM on June 1, 2006
jfuller, I think you should go get a Ph.D. in climatology, land a professorship, and get a paper in Science. Then we'd know how right you really are.
posted by rxrfrx at 6:26 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by rxrfrx at 6:26 PM on June 1, 2006
Yes, the global warming debate suffers because both sides simplify the problem: either it's not happening or it's the end of the world.
Who is the "side" that claims its the end of the world? I've never heard anything about them.
The two "sides" of the debate are 1) People who don't think it will happen 2) People who do. Group one is getting smaller every day, and group two is correct. I suppose there are 'centrists' who say it is happening but it's 'natural' and 'not our fault'. Those people are also wrong.
Everyone I've ever heard has said they expect the earth's temperature to rise by about 10 degrees.
Saying there are two sides to the global warming debate is like saying there are two sides to the heliocentric solarsystem model, or two sides to the evolution debate. It's true that there are two sides, but one side is right and the other side is fucking crazy.
posted by delmoi at 6:37 PM on June 1, 2006 [1 favorite]
Who is the "side" that claims its the end of the world? I've never heard anything about them.
The two "sides" of the debate are 1) People who don't think it will happen 2) People who do. Group one is getting smaller every day, and group two is correct. I suppose there are 'centrists' who say it is happening but it's 'natural' and 'not our fault'. Those people are also wrong.
Everyone I've ever heard has said they expect the earth's temperature to rise by about 10 degrees.
Saying there are two sides to the global warming debate is like saying there are two sides to the heliocentric solarsystem model, or two sides to the evolution debate. It's true that there are two sides, but one side is right and the other side is fucking crazy.
posted by delmoi at 6:37 PM on June 1, 2006 [1 favorite]
When I was in Buffalo, NY one cold, windy, winter day I thought global warming sounded good. Stood outside and emptied every aerosol can I could find trying to get that damn ozone hole large enough..
The ozone hole has nothing to do with global warming, but rather UV radiation that could cause skin cancer in humans. Actually, I think humans are pretty much the only animals that would have been adversely effected by that.
Furthermore air can still be "Clean" and loaded with CO2 at the same time.
posted by delmoi at 6:39 PM on June 1, 2006
The ozone hole has nothing to do with global warming, but rather UV radiation that could cause skin cancer in humans. Actually, I think humans are pretty much the only animals that would have been adversely effected by that.
Furthermore air can still be "Clean" and loaded with CO2 at the same time.
posted by delmoi at 6:39 PM on June 1, 2006
When I was in Buffalo, NY one cold, windy, winter day I thought global warming sounded good. Stood outside and emptied every aerosol can I could find trying to get that damn ozone hole large enough..
posted by HyperBlue at 4:56 PM PST on June 1 [+fave] [!]
Reminds me of a cartoon Jeff Danziger did years and years ago for the Christian Science Monitor. I can't find the actual image online, but here is a good description of it.
posted by diddlegnome at 6:52 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by HyperBlue at 4:56 PM PST on June 1 [+fave] [!]
Reminds me of a cartoon Jeff Danziger did years and years ago for the Christian Science Monitor. I can't find the actual image online, but here is a good description of it.
posted by diddlegnome at 6:52 PM on June 1, 2006
The two "sides" of the debate are 1) People who don't think it will happen 2) People who do. The two "sides" of the debate are 1) People who don't think it will happen 2) People who do.
Delmoi is spot on, but I would modify this statement from "don't think it will happen/do" to "don't think it is happening/do." It's going on as we speak - rather far advanced, in fact.
posted by Miko at 7:22 PM on June 1, 2006
Delmoi is spot on, but I would modify this statement from "don't think it will happen/do" to "don't think it is happening/do." It's going on as we speak - rather far advanced, in fact.
posted by Miko at 7:22 PM on June 1, 2006
My inner trilobyte is glad I read this.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:34 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:34 PM on June 1, 2006
Hilarious. Still rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, are we?
posted by FormlessOne at 8:10 PM on June 1, 2006
posted by FormlessOne at 8:10 PM on June 1, 2006
nomisxid writes "positive for our lifestyle of seashore living"
I wonder if we will see a net increase or decrease of ocean front property? on one hand there is going to be a lot less dry land. On the other a bunch of islands have more seashore than a single large island of the same area.
delmoi writes "but rather UV radiation that could cause skin cancer in humans. Actually, I think humans are pretty much the only animals that would have been adversely effected by that. "
It was bad for ocean life as well, the UV kills microscopic organisms at the surface which reduces the living space of those creatures.
posted by Mitheral at 8:14 PM on June 1, 2006
I wonder if we will see a net increase or decrease of ocean front property? on one hand there is going to be a lot less dry land. On the other a bunch of islands have more seashore than a single large island of the same area.
delmoi writes "but rather UV radiation that could cause skin cancer in humans. Actually, I think humans are pretty much the only animals that would have been adversely effected by that. "
It was bad for ocean life as well, the UV kills microscopic organisms at the surface which reduces the living space of those creatures.
posted by Mitheral at 8:14 PM on June 1, 2006
Hilarious. Still rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, are we?
We're soaring. Those chairs are on the Hindenburg.
posted by cytherea at 8:20 PM on June 1, 2006
We're soaring. Those chairs are on the Hindenburg.
posted by cytherea at 8:20 PM on June 1, 2006
"the UV kills microscopic organisms at the surface which reduces the living space of those creatures."
Not to mention the foundation of the ocean food chain.
Not trivial, that.
posted by zoogleplex at 8:25 PM on June 1, 2006
Not to mention the foundation of the ocean food chain.
Not trivial, that.
posted by zoogleplex at 8:25 PM on June 1, 2006
but one side is right and the other side is fucking crazy.
Spot on!
posted by twistedonion at 1:25 AM on June 2, 2006
Spot on!
posted by twistedonion at 1:25 AM on June 2, 2006
I always felt that when two sides held opposite and irreconcilable views, then the truth would lay somewhere in the middle. The more passionately the views are contested the closer to the middle the truth can be found. I can't believe that Dawkins and I are the only people to have recognized this obvious universal principle. I mean Duh.
posted by econous at 3:07 AM on June 2, 2006
posted by econous at 3:07 AM on June 2, 2006
It's not about the temperature, it's about the speed with which the climate is changing. As the FPP proved earth has had much warmer periods in it's past - and life on it survived. Evolved perhaps, but survived nonetheless.
We, the human race, are changing our environment at a speed that is faster than ever before. Life on earth will undoubtedly survive that change, it's just that our species might not.
posted by hoskala at 3:45 AM on June 2, 2006
We, the human race, are changing our environment at a speed that is faster than ever before. Life on earth will undoubtedly survive that change, it's just that our species might not.
posted by hoskala at 3:45 AM on June 2, 2006
I fought suburbia and sprawl by moving to the city. I got rid of my car. All of my vegetables (but not the fruit) are locally grown and organic.
But the smoke in the city gives me asthma and I know I should be somewhere else.
posted by furtive at 6:22 AM on June 2, 2006
But the smoke in the city gives me asthma and I know I should be somewhere else.
posted by furtive at 6:22 AM on June 2, 2006
So, jfuller, a couple of facts missing from those links.
How many human beings were there in the Palaeocene? How many cities? For that matter, how many mammals larger than a shrew?
I'll keep the answer short in case you have, y'know, the MeFi attention span:
Zero.
No one of any consequence is saying that life on Earth will end. What they are saying is that rapid climate change will have drastic effects on everything now living. Life adapts, but the adaptation process involves living things dying, both as individuals and species. Would you be content to lose cities and human populations -- likely including you and yours -- and a host of other species, the collapse of huge parts of the currently established food chain, simply because you know that some human descendents will be just fine and everything will have bounced back to some kind of new normality between 10K and 250K years from now?
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:12 AM on June 2, 2006
How many human beings were there in the Palaeocene? How many cities? For that matter, how many mammals larger than a shrew?
I'll keep the answer short in case you have, y'know, the MeFi attention span:
Zero.
No one of any consequence is saying that life on Earth will end. What they are saying is that rapid climate change will have drastic effects on everything now living. Life adapts, but the adaptation process involves living things dying, both as individuals and species. Would you be content to lose cities and human populations -- likely including you and yours -- and a host of other species, the collapse of huge parts of the currently established food chain, simply because you know that some human descendents will be just fine and everything will have bounced back to some kind of new normality between 10K and 250K years from now?
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:12 AM on June 2, 2006
The more passionately the views are contested the closer to the middle the truth can be found.
So, econous, I guess you think that that means that, say, life on earth developed half as a process of natural selection and half as a process of divine fiat; you also think that the holocaust was half perpetrated by the Nazi government and was half a myth sustained by evil Jews whose plan for world domination is detailed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which is, of course, half an historically verifiable and genuine document and half a fabrication that only lunatics will believe in--perhaps every second page??), you also believe that half of the planes on 9/11 were flown by islamist terrorists, but (by, perhaps, an extraordinary coincidence?) half of them were flown by Mossad--while a third half of them were flown by the CIA. etc etc etc
No--you can have two passionately committed sides, and one of them can just be "right" and one of them can just be "wrong." In this case, those who choose to stick their fingers in their ears and say "lalalalalalal I can't heeeaaar you" when it comes to global warming (and that's what this FPP amounts to) are simply wrong.
posted by yoink at 9:49 AM on June 2, 2006
So, econous, I guess you think that that means that, say, life on earth developed half as a process of natural selection and half as a process of divine fiat; you also think that the holocaust was half perpetrated by the Nazi government and was half a myth sustained by evil Jews whose plan for world domination is detailed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which is, of course, half an historically verifiable and genuine document and half a fabrication that only lunatics will believe in--perhaps every second page??), you also believe that half of the planes on 9/11 were flown by islamist terrorists, but (by, perhaps, an extraordinary coincidence?) half of them were flown by Mossad--while a third half of them were flown by the CIA. etc etc etc
No--you can have two passionately committed sides, and one of them can just be "right" and one of them can just be "wrong." In this case, those who choose to stick their fingers in their ears and say "lalalalalalal I can't heeeaaar you" when it comes to global warming (and that's what this FPP amounts to) are simply wrong.
posted by yoink at 9:49 AM on June 2, 2006
Look, the thing of it is...Oh! Ball of yarn!
*paws yarn ball*
posted by Smedleyman at 12:44 PM on June 2, 2006
*paws yarn ball*
posted by Smedleyman at 12:44 PM on June 2, 2006
Oh yeah, - heat dissipation from larger bodies under those conditions, for mammals anyway, might be...ooh! A bell!
posted by Smedleyman at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2006
posted by Smedleyman at 12:51 PM on June 2, 2006
People interestend in this stuff are like dairy farmers something something, equines and racing something or other, thermoregulation, heat dissipation surface to volume ratio yadda yadda.
Biological scaling and physics and such.
/I don’t know, I wasn’t really paying attention in biology class. Sound kinda like ambient air temperature being very high = bad.
Yawn.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:18 PM on June 2, 2006
Biological scaling and physics and such.
/I don’t know, I wasn’t really paying attention in biology class. Sound kinda like ambient air temperature being very high = bad.
Yawn.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:18 PM on June 2, 2006
« Older This meme's got legs . . . | They had all been shot in the head, in the chest. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
So yah.
...
What we're we talking about again?
posted by Alex404 at 4:22 PM on June 1, 2006