Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Somehow, the glaciers and ice sheets didn't get the memo.

Apparently we didn't get that memo down here either. Temps have been hovering around 100 for weeks and I don't see any change in the pattern in the extended forecast. Plus we are going on close to a month now without a drop of rain.

Originally Posted by The Rani

WTF ... now they're saying the earth has NOT been warming in the past decade???
Scientists predict rare 'hibernation' of sunspots

Thats funny, here in the Pacific Northwest we have had the two coldest months on record. La Nina has struck again combined with a change in the PDO, which will keep the climate cooler for the next 15-25 years. Arizona has been cooler than in recent years as well.

China is now world's largest energy consumer. I am not sure this is a distinction to envy. And if you think coal consumption is going down as a percentage of energy use, think again.

China Surpasses US In Energy Consumption BP's 2011 Statistical Review of World Energy is out and the biggest news: China has become the biggest world energy consumer.

BP, in its 60th annual Statistical Review of World Energy, said China accounted for 20.3 per cent of demand, compared with the United States' 19 per cent.

The report said China's consumption rose by 11.2 per cent last year. American demand increased 3.7 per cent.

For carbon dioxide emissions China already blew past the United States about 5 years ago due to China's much heavier reliance on coal. Now China has surpassed the US in total heat energy used across all energy types. The Chinese economy's heavy reliance on coal makes it more immune to high oil prices. Though high level of car sales in China threatens to make China much more vulnerable to high oil prices.

King Coal gained market share. China was was responsible for two thirds of the coal consumption rise.

Thermal coal consumption in the global energy mix in 2010 rose to 29.6%, its highest level since 1970, according to the BP 2011 Statistical Review of World Energy.

In 2001, coal accounted for 25.6% of the global energy market.

more here.

James50

Originally Posted by The Rani

WTF ... now they're saying the earth has NOT been warming in the past decade???
Scientists predict rare 'hibernation' of sunspots

This "cancelled part of the greenhouse gas warming of the period 2000-2008, causing the net global surface temperature to remain approximately flat -- and leading to the big debate of why the Earth hadn't (been) warming in the past decade," Lean, who was not involved in the three studies presented, said in an email to AFP.

Around 1998, just before the peak of the last solar cycle, there was a considerably larger than normal El Nino. El Nino years show up as warmer than typical on the global average. El Nino / La Nina, solar cycles and large sooty volcanic eruptions are three major bits of 'noise' in the temperature record. The solar cycles have been fairly predictable. El Nino - La Nina is far less predictable. There is a sort of alternation between the two, but both period and magnitude is irregular. Volcanos throwing enough soot to effect global temperature are far less predictable, essentially random, but after a big eruption you can see a few cool years.

Anyway, 1998 was a sort of 'perfect storm' in terms of the random effects. All three factors were leaning towards hot. We got an all time record hot.

Ever since that all time record hot year, the denialists have been saying the global temperature trend is slight cooling. The alarmists have been saying nine of the last ten years have been among the hottest on record. Both sides are pointing at the same data. Depending on what your values are, you can embrace the exact opposite conclusions using the same data.

Problem is, if you are honestly trying to measure a long term trend, you don't cherry pick the start of your trend period at an all time record point. In the above example, both the alarmists and the denialists are cherry picking. If you want a true long term trend line, one measures mid points of the curve rather than peaks or valleys. You take 11 year rolling averages to get rid of short term anomalies like solar cycles, Nino / Nina and volcanoes. If one does look at the long term trend without the short term glitches, you get the hockey stick.

This is the first I've heard of a new pause in the solar cycles, a reprise of the Maunder Minimum. This would be good news in terms of lowing the global temperatures a bit, but as the linked article notes the increasing greenhouse effect is significantly larger than the solar cycles. The hockey stick will still be going up, it just wouldn't have that 11 year sine wave added to it.

This year's weather has certainly been strange. A lot of the strangeness is in the usual La Nina pattern. The jet stream above North America has also persistently stayed in an unusual configuration. La Nina has put more moisture into the air above North America. The jet stream has guided it to unusual places. Here in New England things have just been significantly wetter than usual, but we didn't get the spring flooding we got last year when La Nina was stronger. Texas has been dry, but the upper Colorado, Missouri and Mississippi river basins have been very wet. We're all aware of the bad news. The good is that Lake Mead's long decline has been reversed in a major way. Las Vegas and other areas dependent on the Colorado for water and power should feel relieved.

But one year is one year. Several years back I had several winters in a row here in southern New England where I didn't have to shovel snow to speak of. I found myself thinking that if that was global warming, it wasn't all bad. The last few winters, I've shoveled. A few unusual years in selected areas doesn't make for long term climate trends. Global warming does put more energy into the atmosphere. Unusual stuff might become less unusual. Extrapolating that a given year's unusual weather pattern might hold as a new long term pattern wouldn't be good practice.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think of myself as a global warming "realist." More from the second article that I quoted:

OK, so how do you square the NASA data that shows that the energy escaping the earth is less than the amount entering it with the article you quote? This is satellite data, and is not tied to any specific location. It's a generic data set for the planet. Thermodynamics dictates that an open system that is net endothermic, like the earth appears to be, will rise in temperture ... which squares iwth the messy surface data pretty well.

Heat Wave Shatters 2,852 U.S. Records, Kills Eight | The fossil-fueled heat wave blazing across the United States east of the Rockies has killed at least eight people, knocked out power from Detroit to Connecticut, and set 1,859 high-temperature and 993 high-minimum-temperature records this week:

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/...s-kills-eight/

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think of myself as a global warming "realist." More from the second article that I quoted:

You seem to perceive of yourself as a 'realist,' but I don't see that you have done the homework. I've repeatedly answered the denialist cherry pick perspective that the world has been cooling since the all time record hot year of 1998. Yet, you keep coming back with the same old denialist message no matter how many times I put it in perspective. I can review stuff like solar cycles, the south Pacific oscillation and volcanic events over and over, but you don't learn from it.

Of course, I perceive myself as a realist too.

There are tipping points. If one looks at the temperature record, one sees repeated clear evidence that the antarctic melts when the temperature reaches a certain point, and that when the antarctic melts the world gets six degrees warmer. The antarctic tipping point is two degrees over the pre industrial average. At this point, very few think the politicians are going to take firm enough action to prevent the two degree antarctic tipping point from being triggered. An eight degree temperature swing is epic, quite comparable with prior climate changes that led to mass extinctions.

Thus, I think it quite reasonable to be both a realist and alarmed.

http://www.grist.org/climate-change/...l-see-all-week

Chilling video of the week!

Wikipedia has a good summary of the facts. More info just waiting for the denialists to ignore!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, so how do you square the NASA data that shows that the energy escaping the earth is less than the amount entering it with the article you quote? This is satellite data, and is not tied to any specific location. It's a generic data set for the planet. Thermodynamics dictates that an open system that is net endothermic, like the earth appears to be, will rise in temperture ... which squares iwth the messy surface data pretty well.

As Bob said, you can take the data and do anything that you want with it.
A realist knows that people can yell at each other all they want, but there's no way to stop human growth from suffocating the planet, if that is indeed what is happening.

If you're interested in the yelling part, there's a comment section at the bottom of that blog.

In regards to the NASA measurements, this is an argument of data on one side and opinion on the other. Are you honestly equating the two? This NASA data has been collected for a long time, and has been consistent on a global scale. Consider it the validation set for the more precise modeling that seems to get some people's panties in a twist.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I've read your stuff, and I've read theirs.
Theirs makes more sense.

Propaganda written for those who don't care to review the 'science' can make sense at a surface level. Thing is, you show no signs of actually understanding what you allegedly read. You will raise the same point every few months seemingly not understanding propaganda techniques like cherry picking, or remembering that the 1998 record year is a classic cherry pick point frequently used by denialists.

Your most recent post is old news.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

...You will raise the same point every few months seemingly not understanding propaganda techniques like cherry picking, or remembering that the 1998 record year is a classic cherry pick point frequently used by denialists.

Your most recent post is old news.

1) Pointing out facts are "cherry picking";

2) Old news is not invalid news.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

http://www.grist.org/climate-change/...l-see-all-week

Chilling video of the week!

Eric, I liked your video. As a person who is living in the middle of an intense heatwave and a drought stricken area, I'm seeing the effects this is having on the people around me physically. I thought it was only me who was feeling dazed and experiencing headaches. But I'm hearing the same thing from my friends and other's around me. Everyone is complaining of feeling extremely tired, a bit confused as if they are living in a fog, and is having problems with headaches. I think the obvious answer is that we are all having a bit of heat stroke. The temperatures have been hovering around 100 for the past three weeks and the extended forecast is predicting the same. There seems to be no relief in sight. The last time we had any rain was May 24th. I have to keep watering my bushes in front of my house because they are dying...bushes...not flowers or vegetable...bushes. Who has to water bushes to keep them alive?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I thought you were opposed to personal attacks. Tsk tsk.
I'd still like to know if you are "alarmed" enough to go vegan ... or at least vegetarian.
Same goes for M&L.

Sorry, but I gave the vegetarian thing a try in the past, and couldn't sick to it. That said, I still eat far less meat and animal products in general than your average adult. I'm not sure why this is a Global Warming issue, unless you are focusing on cow farts. The real methane reserves aren't in the bovine community anyway. They are the Greenland and Antarctic tundras.

The guy at star-base central for all deniers sure got excited a few weeks ago about their paper getting acepted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal -

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/0...aper-accepted/

The surfacestations.org paper – accepted
Posted on May 8, 2011 by Anthony Watts
After months of work, I’m pleased to announce that the paper that I have jointly written with several co-authors, including Dr. Roger Pielke Senior (who acted in the capacity as corresponding author) has run the peer review gauntlet and has been accepted.

but if we take out the authors on the paper who are grad students looking for committee approval and we take away Watts

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...=Anthony_Watts

Credentials held - Watts held an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[7] with a status of "retired".[8]

Credentials not held - Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[9], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[10], and Watts posesses neither certification.[11],[12]

and instead go with the guy on the paper that very few would dispute his credentials, Dr. Pielke, B.A. (mathematics), M.S/Ph.D. (meteorology); 300+ peer-reviewed scientific papers, who has published his own seperate conclusion about the paper with Watt's name on it -

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...ll-et-al-2011/

and his conclusions from the "citizen volunteers" study -

Q: So is the United States getting warmer?

A: Yes in terms of the surface air temperature record. We looked at 30-year and 115-year trends, and all groups of stations showed warming trends over those periods.

Q: Has the warming rate been overestimated?

A: The minimum temperature rise appears to have been overestimated, but the maximum temperature rise appears to have been underestimated.

Q: Do the differing trend errors in maximum and minimum temperature matter?

A: They matter quite a bit. Wintertime minimum temperatures help determine plant hardiness, for example, and summertime minimum temperatures are very important for heat wave mortality. Moreover, maximum temperature trends are the better indicator of temperature changes in the rest of the atmosphere, since minimum temperature trends are much more a function of height near the ground and are of less value in diagnosing heat changes higher in the atmosphere; e.g see .

Q: What about mean temperature trends?

A: In the United States the biases in maximum and minimum temperature trends are about the same size, so they cancel each other and the mean trends are not much different from siting class to siting class. This finding needs to be assessed globally to see if this also true more generally.

However, even the best-sited stations may not be accurately measuring trends in temperature or, more generally, in trends in heat content of the air which includes the effect of water vapor trends. Also, most are at airports, are subject to encroaching urbanization, and use a different set of automated equipment. The corrections for station moves or other inhomogeneities use data from poorly-sited stations for determining adjustments to better-sited stations.

Q: What’s next?

A: We also plan to look specifically at the effects of instrument changes and land use issues, among other things. The Surface Stations volunteers have provided us with a superb dataset, and we want to learn as much about station quality from it as we can.

Another denier bits the dust (or would it be some artic ice?)!

Note -actually, Pielke is a real scientist who actually has voice caution in interpeting climate change results; his views have been played with by real nut case deniers like Watt)

Sort of reminds me what happen earlier this year -

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/cli...ensus-gets.asp

Global Warming Consensus gets a Surprise Boost Apr 5, 2011; 10:35 PM ET
UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians, led by professor Richard Muller, who has been critical of government run climate studies for many years, recently launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming by analyzing a large volume of temperature data.

By the way, the project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases, according to the Los Angeles Times.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups," according to the Times article.

The group was surprised by its findings, according to Muller, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined

Originally Posted by The Rani

So playdude, are YOU willing to go veg to save the planet?

Livestock impacts on the environment

Sure, to some degree. I'm pretty beef-less now other than its minor contribution in some ethnic foods. Maybe a good steak about once a year. Same with pork. More chicken, fish and other seafood. But by far, veggies and fruits and a whole hell of a lot of mushrooms and berries relative to what most others have in the US (due to Russian wife).

Tougher than beef to live without would be the dairy - life without cheese? I don't think so. Is dairy a big part of the animal source of methane? How about goats?

I could live without the beef, and probable a whole hell of a lot longer. I couldn't live without Khmer (sorta like Thai) or India food, however - but way okay with me if that's all meatless. Really, as I'm sure you would agree, there's no reason to live if there's no curries!

Originally Posted by The Rani

The U.N. says it is, based on current scientific research.
You can't stick to a vegetarian diet to save the planet?

Let's just say that a veggie diet will kill my wife ... literally. Not all things are cut-and-dried.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Reuters


So that's one "no" and one "sort of" on the willingness of alarmists to make personal sacrifices to save the planet.
Still waiting on Bob.

No, that's you picking a favorite and asking whether everyone will agree. I save more on my over-insulated home than you save by eating veggies. Lifestyle changes don't have to be uniform, they just have to be effective.

Originally Posted by The Rani

All the talk about cherry-picking got me wondering who the real living-in-denialists are. The answers are pretty much what I expected.
And it's hardly a competition, but if that's what you're interested in I'll put my carbon footprint up against yours any day. The bigger question is how far we are willing to go to help, or do we expect others to do it for us? Or are we really only interested in internet pissing contests?
I mean, seriously, if you TRULY believe that the destruction of the planet is imminent, doesn't that take precedence over a cheeseburger? Or in Amy's case, watering your bushes during a drought?

Okay, guilty as charged. But I just planted them this spring and I hate to see them die. However, I'm not watering my lawn. So do I get at least some brownie points for that?

Originally Posted by The Rani

All the talk about cherry-picking got me wondering who the real living-in-denialists are. The answers are pretty much what I expected.
And it's hardly a competition, but if that's what you're interested in I'll put my carbon footprint up against yours any day. The bigger question is how far we are willing to go to help, or do we expect others to do it for us? Or are we really only interested in internet pissing contests?
I mean, seriously, if you TRULY believe that the destruction of the planet is imminent, doesn't that take precedence over a cheeseburger? Or in Amy's case, watering your bushes during a drought?

You really need to understand the concept of the Pareto Chart and the underlying math it represents. Is eating meat anywhere near the left axis? I doubt it. Typically, the rule for problem resolution is to concentrate your attack on the first few items on the left where the most effect is achieved. As those item recede, lesser items move into the hot zone, and become the focus. Burning fossil fuels for various purposes and the excessive use of energy in general are unquestionably the first few bars. I'm guilty of some of those, which truly are important. You should pick on me for those.

Instead, you are making an emotional appeal to resolve a functional problem. OK, eliminating meat eating is a good thing, but I doubt it is an important one.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Okay, guilty as charged. But I just planted them this spring and I hate to see them die. However, I'm not watering my lawn. So do I get at least some brownie points for that?

Amy -- get a bucket or a watering can or save some plastic jugs and fill them with your dishwater or bathwater (if they don't contain the foaming suds from commercial products) and decidedly the water you steam or boil vegetables in and water them by hand. In desert conditions you don't want to sprinkle them, you want to get the roots, so --- PM me for details. But at any rate, in droughts like this, greywater is your friend. Or at least, the friend of your bushes.

And the water with the foaming detergent suds? PM me with how to use that in the toilet instead of flushing pure city drinking water down the sewer.

Pat, Pat, the desert rat...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sorry, but I gave the vegetarian thing a try in the past, and couldn't sick to it. That said, I still eat far less meat and animal products in general than your average adult. I'm not sure why this is a Global Warming issue, unless you are focusing on cow farts. The real methane reserves aren't in the bovine community anyway. They are the Greenland and Antarctic tundras.

I wouldn't discount the impacts of animal husbandry on global warming. Based on the little I've read they are pretty big.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

This might be best understood as a symptom of values lock. If one's values force rejection of the evidence of climate change one also has to demonize those that accept the evidence. Something has to be wrong with their thinking. This results in the creation of strawman values, the notion that 'all environmentalists think X' when in fact most environmentalists don't. I would also expect an inability to communicate, an inability to listen to what an environmentalist is actually saying. Humans have an amazing ability not to hear something that would force values change.
This problem is hardly unique to the global warming issue. It can be seen in many political and religious discussions where one or both sides are unwilling to truly and objectively question their base values.

Except I never rejected the evidence (rather the contrary). How ironic of you to speak of value lock while simultaneously missing my point which is not political at all. My rejection of Eric’s so-called environmentalism is based on the arrogance of the premise, not his political leanings or science.

Environmentalism is a philosophy and social movement. It is not naturalism nor biology nor physics and should not be confused with any of these. Environmentalism is yet another attempt by humans to meddle in the affairs of nature. Its core beliefs are arrogant presumptions that man holds ultimate power over nature and that only man can “save our earth.” It is largely the philosophy of those who fear changes in nature that may cause them personal inconvenience or hardship. It is certainly not knowledge of the natural world and presses the earth into a whore-like slavery where even her majestic views are traded and consumed as a commodity under the guise of “conservation”. It seeks to make the forests safe for our vacations.

Well I take exception to that philosophy.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Trouble is, with our global warming, pollution, and confiscation of habitat, we humans have speeded up extinction to a ridiculous degree.

Ridiculous to whom? "Ridiculous" is a human emotional response to stimuli and cannot be applied to nature or the universe which does not use or even define these terms. You are applying human emotion to nature which is superstition (little more than animism).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, at least the dinosaurs got out of our way. But we humans pushed other animals virtually to oblivion only because we could.

Arrogance. The dinosaurs did not get out of our way. They did not bow out gracefully. Their world changed and most failed to adapt. I expect they fought for every last breath, scratched and clawed, but in the end they died. They died because the oxygen levels plummeted. The moles and proto-mice of the time (your ancestors) were able to survive due to an odd and unique adaptation; the diaphragm. This allowed them to breath in a low oxygen environment. Somewhat ironically dinosaurs themselves had an adaptation that aided their respiratory systems (air sacks contained in their vertebrae) which had allowed them to survive the previous extinction event (an environment with high CO2 concentrations) and become the dominant species. This same adaptation would lead to the evolution of flight in some dinosaurs which would eventually evolve into birds.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In evolution, it's the opposite of what you say. Species have to adapt because there's lots of competition.

Well what do you think we have now? Competition for resources.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We humans have won the game.

What exactly have we “won?” An overpopulated world with limited resources? That’s not a victory condition for any species. That’s the point where nature re-establishes balance.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Extinctions don't help us to evolve; they only extinguish.

Ask any biologist Eric. Extinctionary pressures are the drivers for adaptation, evolution and the creation of new species. Evolution actually begins to diminish and slow down during periods of high bio-diversity. For instance Eric, biologists know that the population of human beings (that is homo sapiens) has dropped as low as 1000 breeding pairs as recently as 100,000 years ago. You exist today because of this event Eric.

To better explain how this works, imagine that you have some random mutation that increases your chance of survival and that you pass this mutation onto your children. That mutation is more likely to propagate and take hold in a small population of say 1000 animals than it is in a large population of 7 billion. Mutations in any large population of animals are exponentially more diffused and diluted and it becomes worse as population increases. It is simple math and simple science.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is only injustice, and evolution now consists of humans seeking gradually to become more human, more just, more enlightened.

Justice? Where do you find justice in nature? Again you are trying to attach a fabricated human concept to the universe around you. Imagine your ancestors again, those little creatures scurrying around under leaves and branches, scratching a living in dirt, fearful of every shadow that passed overhead. How “just” was the world to them? How fair was it?

Or perhaps something more recent? Why don’t you ask a few survivors living on the coast of Japan how fair nature is or how in control and powerful they feel.

There is no justice in nature and there is no injustice. The strong survive, the weak do not. It is neither malevolent nor benevolent. It does not punish nor reward. It does not love you and it does not hate you. The only rule for life is that an organism must eat and eventually be eaten. It is the same for every microbe on earth as it is for every human being. You too Eric, eat life and will eventually be consumed by it. You will not find any justice in our universe. It is ruled by entropy and decay. Everything you see and care about today will be destroyed, recycled, destroyed again and eventually disappear forever. It’s more powerful than you, more powerful than all of us.

We will all likely have our lesson soon. I expect it will be hardest on the most arrogant among us.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't pay those taxes.

Really? I bet you do.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Amy -- get a bucket or a watering can or save some plastic jugs and fill them with your dishwater or bathwater (if they don't contain the foaming suds from commercial products) and decidedly the water you steam or boil vegetables in and water them by hand. In desert conditions you don't want to sprinkle them, you want to get the roots, so --- PM me for details. But at any rate, in droughts like this, greywater is your friend. Or at least, the friend of your bushes.

And the water with the foaming detergent suds? PM me with how to use that in the toilet instead of flushing pure city drinking water down the sewer.

Pat, Pat, the desert rat...

Thanks for the tips. I hadn't even thought of using bath water. I'm getting the bucket out when Sam finishes his bath tonight. I only have one bush in trouble. So a couple of bucket fulls should do it.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Except I never rejected the evidence (rather the contrary). How ironic of you to speak of value lock while simultaneously missing my point which is not political at all. My rejection of Eric’s so-called environmentalism is based on the arrogance of the premise, not his political leanings or science.

Environmentalism is a philosophy and social movement. It is not naturalism nor biology nor physics and should not be confused with any of these. Environmentalism is yet another attempt by humans to meddle in the affairs of nature. Its core beliefs are arrogant presumptions that man holds ultimate power over nature and that only man can “save our earth.” It is largely the philosophy of those who fear changes in nature that may cause them personal inconvenience or hardship. It is certainly not knowledge of the natural world and presses the earth into a whore-like slavery where even her majestic views are traded and consumed as a commodity under the guise of “conservation”. It seeks to make the forests safe for our vacations.

Well I take exception to that philosophy.



Ridiculous to whom? "Ridiculous" is a human emotional response to stimuli and cannot be applied to nature or the universe which does not use or even define these terms. You are applying human emotion to nature which is superstition (little more than animism).



Arrogance. The dinosaurs did not get out of our way. They did not bow out gracefully. Their world changed and most failed to adapt. I expect they fought for every last breath, scratched and clawed, but in the end they died. They died because the oxygen levels plummeted. The moles and proto-mice of the time (your ancestors) were able to survive due to an odd and unique adaptation; the diaphragm. This allowed them to breath in a low oxygen environment. Somewhat ironically dinosaurs themselves had an adaptation that aided their respiratory systems (air sacks contained in their vertebrae) which had allowed them to survive the previous extinction event (an environment with high CO2 concentrations) and become the dominant species. This same adaptation would lead to the evolution of flight in some dinosaurs which would eventually evolve into birds.



Well what do you think we have now? Competition for resources.



What exactly have we “won?” An overpopulated world with limited resources? That’s not a victory condition for any species. That’s the point where nature re-establishes balance.


Ask any biologist Eric. Extinctionary pressures are the drivers for adaptation, evolution and the creation of new species. Evolution actually begins to diminish and slow down during periods of high bio-diversity. For instance Eric, biologists know that the population of human beings (that is homo sapiens) has dropped as low as 1000 breeding pairs as recently as 100,000 years ago. You exist today because of this event Eric.

To better explain how this works, imagine that you have some random mutation that increases your chance of survival and that you pass this mutation onto your children. That mutation is more likely to propagate and take hold in a small population of say 1000 animals than it is in a large population of 7 billion. Mutations in any large population of animals are exponentially more diffused and diluted and it becomes worse as population increases. It is simple math and simple science.



Justice? Where do you find justice in nature? Again you are trying to attach a fabricated human concept to the universe around you. Imagine your ancestors again, those little creatures scurrying around under leaves and branches, scratching a living in dirt, fearful of every shadow that passed overhead. How “just” was the world to them? How fair was it?

Or perhaps something more recent? Why don’t you ask a few survivors living on the coast of Japan how fair nature is or how in control and powerful they feel.

There is no justice in nature and there is no injustice. The strong survive, the weak do not. It is neither malevolent nor benevolent. It does not punish nor reward. It does not love you and it does not hate you. The only rule for life is that an organism must eat and eventually be eaten. It is the same for every microbe on earth as it is for every human being. You too Eric, eat life and will eventually be consumed by it. You will not find any justice in our universe. It is ruled by entropy and decay. Everything you see and care about today will be destroyed, recycled, destroyed again and eventually disappear forever. It’s more powerful than you, more powerful than all of us.

We will all likely have our lesson soon. I expect it will be hardest on the most arrogant among us.



Really? I bet you do.

4 billion years of evolution has turned the planet and the biosphere into a self-regulating whole. Over millions of years the forces of natural selection create distinct ecosystems and each ecosystem is a vital part of the the whole. Once you start degrading ecosystems via climate disruptions that are too fast for them to adapt to, or by clearcutting whole forests, or push a vital link in an ecosystem to extinction, or poison the biosphere with toxic metals and pesticides eventually the whole ecosystem collapses down to a lower level of biological productivity less able to sustain human life.

Originally Posted by Odin

4 billion years of evolution has turned the planet and the biosphere into a self-regulating whole. Over millions of years the forces of natural selection create distinct ecosystems and each ecosystem is a vital part of the the whole. Once you start degrading ecosystems via climate disruptions that are too fast for them to adapt to, or by clearcutting whole forests, or push a vital link in an ecosystem to extinction, or poison the biosphere with toxic metals and pesticides eventually the whole ecosystem collapses down to a lower level of biological productivity less able to sustain human life.

So you are suggesting that man has degraded the ecosystem faster than say, the impact event that helped wipe out the dinosaurs? You also need to ask yourself if you really think nature is at all concerned with the survival of human life over other life. It is important to note that the climate will change regardless of human interference and throughout geological history has often changed in far more drastic ways and at a quicker pace than it is now. If your argument is that "man-made" changes to the environment are somehow different or separate than a change caused by some other natural force, then you do not understand my point.

Regardless of climate change, humans will eventually become extinct someday.

Today humans will either survive or they won't. Either result is completely insignificant in the history of life on earth (much less the universe as a whole).

I would also quibble with your assertion that life on earth is "self-regulating." Life on earth exists as it does today due to a series of accidents, random events and quantum changes but it is by no means stable. In fact the system is constantly breaking down (entropy). You simply live in too short a time-scale to notice. Simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time all life on earth could be wiped out (and it eventually will be). Life is at the constant mercy of entropy and luck.