--- On Sun, 11/29/09, RandallM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Chris,
> I am trying to keep up here so I want to know if this
> summary is correct:
OK.
> You feel Martin is arguing a "climate" specific area.
> You argue it is "Global".
It seems that Martin is arguing that there are only micro climates (i.e. the US
plains) but no such thing as a global climate. I am arguing that the existence
of micro-climates does not negate the existence of the single macro/global
climate. Indeed, since the global atmosphere/aquasphere/biosphere is a single
contained system (akin to a snow globe) it should be obvious that it is
connected into a single system.
> But you are arguing or showing it to be a cycle which has happen a number of
> times.
"Cyclic" gives it more regularity than I would imply. If you look at the
"climate" (the gaseous and liquid envelope surrounding the earth) from
beginning to end the most macro-cycle starts with the out-gassing of molten
stone, has a middle section dominated by an evolving set of hydrocarbons and an
ending that seems likely to be as part of the outer shell of our sun when it
gets to the Red Giant stage.
Inside the (from our perspective) interesting section in the middle, there have
been various phases, most of which would still be fatal to us. Within the
section that wouldn't be fatal to us, there has been various phases and some
recurring oscillations (like the ice-ages over the last few hundred millennia),
but none of those are truly long term and could be upset or interrupted by a
variety of single events (such as the Yellowstone caldera popping or a good
sized comet strike).
My primary argument is that the current state of the earth's atmosphere is a
fortunate happenstance that we happen to be evolved to enjoy because it
happened to be here when we were busy evolving. It isn't permanent or
preordained at any level, and is at least as likely to become fatal to our
delicate sensibilities as it is to stay within the narrow boundaries we hold so
dear.
> You feel Tomas is not bringing enough "man" causes to the
> table and you feel man has added greatly along with natural causes.
I first like to determine whether the parties I am discussing this topic with
believe the earth somehow "wants" to maintain the climate we enjoy.
Some such people believe a deity is watching over us and that He will make sure
everything stays to our liking - there isn't much point debating climate cycles
with such folks, however wonderful they may otherwise be.
Other folks seem to argue that mankind is just not capable of impacting the
climate. My clumsy generalization for this view is: "we are weak and puny
and can't be trusted to tie our shoes, how could we pitiful creatures affect
something as large as the global climate?" Folks with this view are worth
debating these things with, because I think the issue is primarily a matter of
explaining the past, current and forecastable future actions of the human
species. If it is simply a matter of scale, then the debate at least has
defined boundaries to discuss.
For my part, obviously, I think we are certainly capable of rising to the
challenge of whatever scale is necessary to impact global climate. I believe
we will in future go so far as to "terraform" other planets, which is exactly
that scale of climate engineering, intentional in this case.
I also believe that we will in the end take control of the Earth's global- -
and yes, Martin, also micro- - climates and manage them like we do other large
systems. Between now and then we need to continue to increase our capabilities
in understanding the existing climate(s), our ability to intentionally add or
subtract factors to influence change, and not least our computing capabilities
to allow us to model systems of this scale (which we can do only extremely
crudely today, leading to all these debates).
-best
-chris
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
