Global Warming Predictions

[WeatherRusty]

Yes, but this is not a good argument...the temperature could stay the same for the next 100 years and yet all the years would be the top warmest. Doesn't mean the IPCC warming trend is being realized.

Except that in the case of the 2000's the global anomalies actually were the warmest EVER and for the first time in the instrument record.

In your hypothetical, temperature anomalies would be essentially tied for decades on end.

[tacoman25]

There's double standards on both sides. I think the media sensationalizing AGW doomsday scenarios over the past decade or so is what started the ball rolling. When skeptics started calling out a lot of the B.S. being thrown around, then there is the natural feeling to need to retaliate with some of the same stuff.

Right, and I don't have a problem with skeptics being held accountable for their statements/predictions or whatever. But when amateur weather geeks are held to the same or higher standard than prominent scientists, and every missed prediction is blamed on stupidity and faulty science (when this same standard is not applied to other missed predictions), that's just not fair.

[tacoman25]

Except that in the case of the 2000's the global anomalies actually were the warmest EVER and for the first time in the instrument record.

In your hypothetical, temperature anomalies would be essentially tied for decades on end.

The -PDO phase did not even begin until 2006-08, though.

And the 1980s and 1990s were also the warmest EVER, but by wider margins than the 2000s (especially when Pinatubo and Chicon are factored in).

[LakeEffectKing]

I agree with you. I profess to being a liberal and accept that fact biases my thinking. I definitely would prefer to see world politics converge on a vision of the future which moves us toward a sustainable, environmentally friendly economic model. We have a long way to go to meet such a standard and about half of the populating seems not to share my vision.

My bias is that I see humans systematically destroying the natural environment and I support that recognition in others and oppose those who persist in denial of the negative impact human activities are have on the environment.

Those who favor my vision tend to accept AGW science as good science, while those who do not tend doubt the science and the motivations of those who produce it.

As for assessing the science, I can't for the life of me understand how people find deep flaws in the physical basis. It fits so well and follows naturally from what is known about how the world works.

If you haven't noticed, we are learning about "how the world works" continuously....so to assume we've crossed some "knowledge threshold" to have "gotten it right" with such an incredibly complex system is as naive as every other scientist who has ever taken a breath on this planet and had a hypothesis fail. Nature has at every turn humbled us when we thought we "solved" her...there is very little dispute on the "basic physics" you espouse....but there is incredible dispute with how basic physics interact with countless other basic physics...not to mention our abilities to even percieve some of them. You throw in some of the nonsense that is arbitrarily perceived as "shady", and a political takeover of the face of AGW, and you wonder why skeptics think the way we do.....it's not to piss you off....it's not because we are stupid....it's not because we don't have an incredible passion for the environment we share with other living things......it's because we are not going to be guilted into accepting conclusions that we don't see as having passing the test of science.

I don't share the "humans are destroying the planet" tripe....first, the entire phrase is so ambiguous in meaning, that it's only value is in it's ability to lay unwarrented guilt trips. It's a very symbolic statement, and has little substanitive value. It means something different to different people, it inherently demonstrates an ignorance of man's splendor, an ignorance of the incredible resiliance of our way-too-often personified Earth, and a naivety of just how insignificant we are in the grandest of schemes.

Go walk to a park, interact with people, enjoy life for what it is, and understand that for all that is "bad" about human nature, we will ALWAYS fight to do the right thing....and that is not accomplished by our own diminishment.

[WeatherRusty]

If you haven't noticed, we are learning about "how the world works" continuously....so to assume we've crossed some "knowledge threshold" to have "gotten it right" with such an incredibly complex system is as naive as every other scientist who has ever taken a breath on this planet and had a hypothesis fail. Nature has at every turn humbled us when we thought we "solved" her...there is very little dispute on the "basic physics" you espouse....but there is incredible dispute with how basic physics interact with countless other basic physics...not to mention our abilities to even percieve some of them. You throw in some of the nonsense that is arbitrarily perceived as "shady", and a political takeover of the face of AGW, and you wonder why skeptics think the way we do.....it's not to piss you off....it's not because we are stupid....it's not because we don't have an incredible passion for the environment we share with other living things......it's because we are not going to be guilted into accepting conclusions that we don't see as having passing the test of science.

I don't share the "humans are destroying the planet" tripe....first, the entire phrase is so ambiguous in meaning, that it's only value is in it's ability to lay unwarrented guilt trips. It's a very symbolic statement, and has little substanitive value. It means something different to different people, it inherently demonstrates an ignorance of man's splendor, an ignorance of the incredible resiliance of our way-too-often personified Earth, and a naivety of just how insignificant we are in the grandest of schemes.

Go walk to a park, interact with people, enjoy life for what it is, and understand that for all that is "bad" about human nature, we will ALWAYS fight to do the right thing....and that is not accomplished by our own diminishment.

We fundamentally disagree on all points you make in this post.

First of all, we will never know it all to a certainty. If that were the standard for action we would be forever paralyzed. Unless there is something very unique about the Earth environment which exempts it from very basic and well understood thermodynamic principles, then we do have sufficient knowledge at hand to understand how the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will behave and to within a generalized matter of degree. We do know that the global climate is sensitive to perturbation and what the major factors are in causing change of state. Paleoclimatology informs us of these things.

You mention the political take over of the science. The science is useless unless acknowledged and acted upon. Scientists provide the information required by policy makers to effect utilization of the scientific knowledge. Policy is political by nature, pure science is helpless in that regard. The best of all worlds is a collaborative effort amongst scientists, governments and the private sector to bring about the change we need.

Guilt plays no part in this debate. I don't know where you get that from.

If you can not acknowledge that human technological civilization is having a devastating effect on the natural world then you have blinders on. The human population has grown to dominate most of the habitable surface area of the Earth. and we exploit a large portion of uninhabitable regions. Fish populations are crashing in the seas, most mid latitude first growth forests are gone forever, the tropical rain forests are disappearing rapidly, species extinctions are running about 100 times the normal background rate, the carbon and nitrogen cycles are being dangerously tampered with. We pollute everywhere we go. We are not insignificant, rather human activities have become a geological force, changing the face of the Earth forever (in human terms), changing the chemistry of the oceans and atmosphere, filling the night sky with light pollution and noise pollution.

Humans are not "bad". We are just doing like all dominant species do. However, we have the unprecedented ability to dominate the environment like no other species before us. We should do so wisely, or do so at our peril. We are part of nature and entirely dependent on her for our survival. Most species which overstep their bounds pay the ultimate price exacted by the balancing of nature, and we be no different if we do not heed the warning signs.

[BethesdaWX]

We fundamentally disagree on all points you make in this post.

First of all, we will never know it all to a certainty. If that were the standard for action we would be forever paralyzed. Unless there is something very unique about the Earth environment which exempts it from very basic and well understood thermodynamic principles, then we do have sufficient knowledge at hand to understand how the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will behave and to within a generalized matter of degree. We do know that the global climate is sensitive to perturbation and what the major factors are in causing change of state. Paleoclimatology informs us of these things.

You mention the political take over of the science. The science is useless unless acknowledged and acted upon. Scientists provide the information required by policy makers to effect utilization of the scientific knowledge. Policy is political by nature, pure science is helpless in that regard. The best of all worlds is a collaborative effort amongst scientists, governments and the private sector to bring about the change we need.

Guilt plays no part in this debate. I don't know where you get that from.

If you can not acknowledge that human technological civilization is having a devastating effect on the natural world then you have blinders on. The human population has grown to dominate most of the inhabitable surface area of the Earth. and we exploit a large portion of uninhabitable regions. Fish populations are crashing in the seas, most mid latitude first growth forests are gone forever, the tropical rain forests are disappearing rapidly, species extinctions are running about 100 times the normal background rate, the carbon and nitrogen cycles are being dangerously tampered with. We pollute everywhere we go. We are not insignificant, rather human activities have become a geological force, changing the face of the Earth forever, changing the chemistry of the oceans and atmosphere, filling the night sky with light pollution and noise pollution.

Humans are not "bad". We are just doing like all dominant species do. We have the unprecedented ability to dominate the environment like no other species before us. We should do so wisely, or do so at our peril. We are part of nature and entirely dependent on her for our survival. Most species which overstep their bounds pay the ultimate price exacted by the balancing of nature, and we be no different if we do not heed the warning signs.

I feel you are confusing "cause & effect" in your AGW argument......although in Climate.... it is "forcing & feedback". Forcing is well understood, feedback is barely understood to the Least! Your "Co2 forcing" argument has no bearing on the outcome, because the way the climate system responds is dependand on feedbacks which are likely quite negative! Not only are many feedbacks still unknown, but our ability to contemplate & model intercorrelations based on asumption of "simple rapid feedbacks" is piss poor, and leads us no-where.

For CO2, Emissivity is a simple coefficient which determines the potential that any thermodynamic system has to emit energies. If the emitted energy is of its own, like the energy emitted by the Sun, the thermodynamic system is a primary source of energy. If not, like the gases in the atmosphere and the materials of the surface, it is not a primary source of energy and only can emit the energy it absorbs, at the most.

The Ice ages do not correlate that well with the orbital cycles at all, and even if they were/are the cause, those mechanisms are not CO2 related, and it shows how sensitive the planet is to incoming SW radiation changes..... which the IPCC admittedlly does Not understahd.... Just read AR4!.....This essentially Proving MY Point. AGW relies on the "trapping" of Outgoing LW radiation, and that itself doesn't matter, its the sensitivity of the climate system that matters... and climactic feedbacks could very well be negative to that aspect!

A feedback can be positive to certain aspects in forcings, of the climate system, and negative to others, depending on how they directly/indirectly impact the climate system.

And I'm not saying that most of what we do now isn't correct, but that what we don't know will change what we do know, we saw it happen in the 90's with the 1988 predictions being downgraded, and we'll see it it again soon.

Many People don't seem to realize that feedbacks can be positive to Incoming SW radiation, as seen in the past, but negative to Simple Outgoing LW radiation at different frequencies. Its not a "One fits all" scenario, there are many "Rays" from the Sun., the Climate system is very complex, and really you Cannot say "Understanding Co2 forcing means we understand what the climate will do".

Satellites measuring LW infrared radiation from earth/changes in the CO2 spectrum, DO NOT measure Reflected Visible Light (SW radiation) By clouds, and it is the diehard foolery like this that will topple AGW. AGW requires positive feedbacks within the climate system, which is based on very limited understanding and growing contrary evidence. Negative feedbacks may render CO2 warming un-measurable. Feedbacks from Increasing SW radiation, or visible light, are on a completely different spectrum. Equilibirum, as in, how fast the earth can equalize the difference between outgoing & incoming energy, is something we are still trying to learn more about. 4yrs, 6yrs, 15yrs, in a mean timespan, will affect how much impact it can have.

The only way "severe" AGW works is if the Equilibrium is over thousands of years

[michsnowfreak]

You can read comments for any weather-related article in any newspaper in the world, and you will be sure to find comments of "global warming" or "what happened to global warming". Then of course you always here the "just because its cold in XX location doesnt mean anything about GLOBAL warming". So I will keep it strictly local here. I dont have links for any articles, but I remember reading a slew of global warming articles in the late '90s and early '00s that pertained to what was going to happen in the Great Lakes region due to GW. They said Great Lakes levels would fall to alltime lows, winters would become noticeably less snowy throughout the region and even more dramatic would be the summer heat/humidity. I DISTINCTLY remember the comparison that within 30-50 years MI winters would be that of present-day KY and MI summers would be that of present-day GA. I kept that one for a while but have since thrown it out. I remember another one that said eventually snow in Detroit would only occur a few times per winter and melt quickly (I remember this actually upset me for a day). Not coincidentally, these articles were published during a time when the region had seen a string of hot summers and below-average snowfall winters. The past decade has seen several cool summers but much more noticeably a very impressive stretch of snowy winters, and since that has occurred I have read several articles that said that snowier than average winters are caused by GW (increased moisture, lakes freezing less, etc), but I have not seen one article recently that says our winters will become less snowy. I read one that said snowfall (and rainfall) will probably continue to increase in the Lakes, and of course I have heard on a global scale the word "ice age" thrown around a few times now. Since snow is the only sensible weather thing that people would really notice (rather than a few tenths of a degree or whatever), the recent snowy winters are very refreshing to me. The original prediction 13 years ago that in 30-50 years snowfall would be that of present-day KY? We have as little as 17 years to go to meet their "prediction" and rather than seeing decreasing snowfall, we are seeing winters exceed 60" sat the rate of every other year, a rate NEVER seen before in this a climate of 40-45" annual snowfall.

You can throw all the stats and science you want in it, but when a lack of snowfall is attributed to global warming for a certain region, and then 10 years later a surplus of snowfall in that same region is also attributed to global warming it makes the whole thing look like a circus.

[LakeEffectKing]

We fundamentally disagree on all points you make in this post.

First of all, we will never know it all to a certainty. If that were the standard for action we would be forever paralyzed. Unless there is something very unique about the Earth environment which exempts it from very basic and well understood thermodynamic principles, then we do have sufficient knowledge at hand to understand how the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will behave and to within a generalized matter of degree. We do know that the global climate is sensitive to perturbation and what the major factors are in causing change of state. Paleoclimatology informs us of these things.

You mention the political take over of the science. The science is useless unless acknowledged and acted upon. Scientists provide the information required by policy makers to effect utilization of the scientific knowledge. Policy is political by nature, pure science is helpless in that regard. The best of all worlds is a collaborative effort amongst scientists, governments and the private sector to bring about the change we need.

Guilt plays no part in this debate. I don't know where you get that from.

If you can not acknowledge that human technological civilization is having a devastating effect on the natural world then you have blinders on. The human population has grown to dominate most of the habitable surface area of the Earth. and we exploit a large portion of uninhabitable regions. Fish populations are crashing in the seas, most mid latitude first growth forests are gone forever, the tropical rain forests are disappearing rapidly, species extinctions are running about 100 times the normal background rate, the carbon and nitrogen cycles are being dangerously tampered with. We pollute everywhere we go. We are not insignificant, rather human activities have become a geological force, changing the face of the Earth forever (in human terms), changing the chemistry of the oceans and atmosphere, filling the night sky with light pollution and noise pollution.

Humans are not "bad". We are just doing like all dominant species do. However, we have the unprecedented ability to dominate the environment like no other species before us. We should do so wisely, or do so at our peril. We are part of nature and entirely dependent on her for our survival. Most species which overstep their bounds pay the ultimate price exacted by the balancing of nature, and we be no different if we do not heed the warning signs.

How do you quantify and arbitrarily define "devastating effect"??? Are we speaking for the human race? Are we personifying everything observable to create emotionally driven definitions of devastating and detroying? Ask the Japanese if the tsunami was devastating, and then ask them to compare it to your definition. And your arbitrary definition will always be that......arbitrary (ie your perception). You do realize that there is no absolute quantity defining terms like "devastating" or "destroying"? Everyone is going to have a different definition of such verbage. Hell, I bet there are people who would say you are devastating the planet for not doing enough to solve "the crisis" vs. what they do. Yet those out there who mimic your take on humanity, continue to use electricity, or FF, or the asphalt roads, or the food that is driven down the road, or museums (built with FF) or own a king size mansion, or have a limo ....they get a pass, because maybe they went out and bought a hybrid, or maybe just because they verbally stated, "MAN DOING BAD TO PLANET"....... Symbolism.

Humanity will always come together on those causes that require such collaboration when a true consensus has been reached within many entities of our society. AGW isn't there yet.

[LakeEffectKing]

You can read comments for any weather-related article in any newspaper in the world, and you will be sure to find comments of "global warming" or "what happened to global warming". Then of course you always here the "just because its cold in XX location doesnt mean anything about GLOBAL warming". So I will keep it strictly local here. I dont have links for any articles, but I remember reading a slew of global warming articles in the late '90s and early '00s that pertained to what was going to happen in the Great Lakes region due to GW. They said Great Lakes levels would fall to alltime lows, winters would become noticeably less snowy throughout the region and even more dramatic would be the summer heat/humidity. I DISTINCTLY remember the comparison that within 30-50 years MI winters would be that of present-day KY and MI summers would be that of present-day GA. I kept that one for a while but have since thrown it out. I remember another one that said eventually snow in Detroit would only occur a few times per winter and melt quickly (I remember this actually upset me for a day). Not coincidentally, these articles were published during a time when the region had seen a string of hot summers and below-average snowfall winters. The past decade has seen several cool summers but much more noticeably a very impressive stretch of snowy winters, and since that has occurred I have read several articles that said that snowier than average winters are caused by GW (increased moisture, lakes freezing less, etc), but I have not seen one article recently that says our winters will become less snowy. I read one that said snowfall (and rainfall) will probably continue to increase in the Lakes, and of course I have heard on a global scale the word "ice age" thrown around a few times now. Since snow is the only sensible weather thing that people would really notice (rather than a few tenths of a degree or whatever), the recent snowy winters are very refreshing to me. The original prediction 13 years ago that in 30-50 years snowfall would be that of present-day KY? We have as little as 17 years to go to meet their "prediction" and rather than seeing decreasing snowfall, we are seeing winters exceed 60" sat the rate of every other year, a rate NEVER seen before in this a climate of 40-45" annual snowfall.

You can throw all the stats and science you want in it, but when a lack of snowfall is attributed to global warming for a certain region, and then 10 years later a surplus of snowfall in that same region is also attributed to global warming it makes the whole thing look like a circus.

Yes, those type of prognostications seem to get swept under the rug, and an attempt to "re-set" is done. (ie move goal posts, back pedal, attack the messenger, etc.) And if the information and predictions in the article(s) represent thoughts from an interviewed "scientist", then it is all the more troubling.

[skierinvermont]

I don't share the "humans are destroying the planet" tripe....first, the entire phrase is so ambiguous in meaning, that it's only value is in it's ability to lay unwarrented guilt trips. It's a very symbolic statement, and has little substanitive value. It means something different to different people, it inherently demonstrates an ignorance of man's splendor, an ignorance of the incredible resiliance of our way-too-often personified Earth, and a naivety of just how insignificant we are in the grandest of schemes.

You don't see how humans are destroying the planet? We have caused mass extinctions already. We have caused the entire surface of the earth to get noticeably darker due to the pollution in the air causing plants to grow slower. Lakes and forests are dramatically altered due to the falling pH caused by acid rain.. this alters the types of species that are able to survive. A majority of land surface is farmland or developed by humans in other ways. Most of the earth's coral reefs are dead or dying due to pollution of the water (and AGW). The rainforest is rapidly diminishing. Asthma rates have skyrocketed due to pollution. We have created a massive ozone hole. Go into the woods today and 90% of the plants you find will be a few species of invasives. The great lakes are being destroyed by zebra mussels and other invasives. Much of the ocean is just inhospitable due to algal blooms from N runoff. Our seafood is full of mercury. I could go on and on and on...

The earth is completely unrecognizable compared to even just 100 years ago.

[tacoman25]

You don't see how humans are destroying the planet? We have caused mass extinctions already. We have caused the entire surface of the earth to get noticeably darker due to the pollution in the air causing plants to grow slower. Lakes and forests are dramatically altered due to the falling pH caused by acid rain.. this alters the types of species that are able to survive. A majority of land surface is farmland or developed by humans in other ways. Most of the earth's coral reefs are dead or dying due to pollution of the water (and AGW). The rainforest is rapidly diminishing. Asthma rates have skyrocketed due to pollution. We have created a massive ozone hole. Go into the woods today and 90% of the plants you find will be a few species of invasives. The great lakes are being destroyed by zebra mussels and other invasives. Much of the ocean is just inhospitable due to algal blooms from N runoff. Our seafood is full of mercury. I could go on and on and on...

The earth is completely unrecognizable compared to even just 100 years ago.

While I agree that humans have done a lot of damage, some species are thriving and others are dying. And that's the way it's always been through the history of life on earth. Massive changes have happened before, and so have mass extinctions. While there is certainly need to be concerned about some things, the doomsday scenarios are almost certainly an overreaction. Just look at all the other doomsday predictions based on how we are "destroying the earth" over the past 50-100 years. Most of them turned out to be way off.

[WeatherRusty]

Talk about over analysis!

How about this? We humans are having a destructive impact, ranging from minor to severe, on most every ecological system in existence. Why do you think there is a need for wildlife refuges for example? Fishing bans?

You are very optimistic if you believe our civilization will be up to any challenge, especially those we remain unprepared for. It is becoming evident that the demise of many civilizations, including the Egyptian Empire, were brought about by climate change.

[tacoman25]

Talk about over analysis!

How about this? We humans are having a destructive impact, ranging from minor to severe, on most every ecological system in existence. Why do you think there is a need for wildlife refuges for example? Fishing bans?

You are very optimistic if you believe our civilization will be up to any challenge, especially those we remain unprepared for. It is becoming evident that the demise of many civilizations, including the Egyptian Empire, were brought about by climate change.

That is very debatable. There was likely a massive volcanic eruption near the end of the Egyptian empire that effected plant growth and food supplies, but there were many other contributing factors to that demise. The Roman Empire? The Aztecs? The Greek empire? The Ghenghis Empire in China? The Babylonian Empire? I see little evidence that climate change was a major factor in any of these civilizations' demises.

[Clifford]

They said Great Lakes levels would fall to alltime lows, winters would become noticeably less snowy throughout the region and even more dramatic would be the summer heat/humidity.

Unlike Salt Lake, aren't the levels of the Great Lakes substantially dependent on the outlets. So, as long as the flow restrictions at the outlets don't change, the levels of the lakes won't change substantially.

I.E. Niagara Falls will dry up before Lake Erie dries up.

The biggest threat to many of our waterways is agricultural (and also municipal) water diversions.

Summer heat, and perhaps night-time heat is a potential problem if the effect is real.

[LakeEffectKing]

Talk about over analysis!

How about this? We humans are having a destructive impact, ranging from minor to severe, on most every ecological system in existence. Why do you think there is a need for wildlife refuges for example? Fishing bans?

You are very optimistic if you believe our civilization will be up to any challenge, especially those we remain unprepared for. It is becoming evident that the demise of many civilizations, including the Egyptian Empire, were brought about by climate change.

Again, bold is arbitrarily defined.

Look Rusty, I'm a decade or two yonger than you, and because of how I was brought up, have an inherently added respect for you. You post generally in a respectful, yet firm mode, but are spirited....I appreciate that, and hope that my spirit outlining a different view, does not come off too harshly.

In our current volitle times, wedges are being driven between every social, political, religious and gender groups out there. Searching for commonality in today's world has become a challange...especially in the electronic world. And with that backdrop, I hope you can see that many people are just not overly responsive to the tact that many AGW'ers have taken (both out of the science and political fields) with the constant (over decades long) advice to cut this, and do that, and save this.

I took a decent break from this forum for a few months earlier this year. It was refreshing, and honestly felt like maybe all the online discourse is tunneling all of our collective open-mindedness.

I choose to celebrate my life, with an arbitrary amount of given respect for the environment that I share with all else. Could I do more? Sure. Everyone could. Others may give more respect, some may give less. The balance humanity strikes with nature, will never be quantifyably agreed upon by all, and I am OK with that, because, as stated before, I do tend to look at the good in humanity, and learn from the unavoidable "bad". And I believe if the constant wedges were being pushed, we'd all be able to adapt, adjust, and come to a real consensus as to how to address humanity's ills.

[Mallow]

How do you quantify and arbitrarily define "devastating effect"??? Are we speaking for the human race? Are we personifying everything observable to create emotionally driven definitions of devastating and detroying? Ask the Japanese if the tsunami was devastating, and then ask them to compare it to your definition. And your arbitrary definition will always be that......arbitrary (ie your perception). You do realize that there is no absolute quantity defining terms like "devastating" or "destroying"? Everyone is going to have a different definition of such verbage. Hell, I bet there are people who would say you are devastating the planet for not doing enough to solve "the crisis" vs. what they do. Yet those out there who mimic your take on humanity, continue to use electricity, or FF, or the asphalt roads, or the food that is driven down the road, or museums (built with FF) or own a king size mansion, or have a limo ....they get a pass, because maybe they went out and bought a hybrid, or maybe just because they verbally stated, "MAN DOING BAD TO PLANET"....... Symbolism.

Humanity will always come together on those causes that require such collaboration when a true consensus has been reached within many entities of our society. AGW isn't there yet.

While the definitions may be arbitrary by nature, that doesn't mean that one can't make the qualitative statement that humans have, by and large, had a destructive influence on the Earth. You ask "but what is destruction?" I'd argue that the ongoing anthropogenic "mass extinction", both in terms of decreasing plant/animal populations and loss of biodiversity (species), is unambiguously destructive. MAN DOING BAD TO PLANET is accurate. That's not to say that humans, as individuals or as a species, are bad or "should" act differently... but I think to deny that we're having a negative impact on the planet is disingenuous.

[LakeEffectKing]

While the definitions may be arbitrary by nature, that doesn't mean that one can't make the qualitative statement that humans have, by and large, had a destructive influence on the Earth. You ask "but what is destruction?" I'd argue that the ongoing anthropogenic "mass extinction", both in terms of decreasing plant/animal populations and loss of biodiversity (species), is unambiguously destructive. MAN DOING BAD TO PLANET is accurate. That's not to say that humans, as individuals or as a species, are bad or "should" act differently... but I think to deny that we're having a negative impact on the planet is disingenuous.

Our mere existance is a "negative impact" if you carry out your thought to the ultimate extreme. How much we should mitigate that "negative impact" is both an individual perception and choice. Ultimately it ends up being a world consensus decision, with various governments playing the largest part in that decision.

[Mallow]

Our mere existance is a "negative impact" if you carry out your thought to the ultimate extreme. How much we should mitigate that "negative impact" is both an individual perception and choice. Ultimately it ends up being a world consensus decision, with various governments playing the largest part in that decision.

I don't agree.

However, I do agree that we can only reasonably expected to do so much to mitigate our impact. How much is "reasonable" is the ultimate question.

[LakeEffectKing]

I don't agree.

However, I do agree that we can only reasonably expected to do so much to mitigate our impact. How much is "reasonable" is the ultimate question.

But Mallow.....playing devil's advocate here....what is your perception of the threshold at which we DON'T have a "negative impact"....ie provide an example of what humanity's life style would be. Wouldn't ANY scenario you paint provide a point to where others could deem such scenario as "negatively impactful"....thus my argument would hold??

[Mallow]

But Mallow.....playing devil's advocate here....what is your perception of the threshold at which we DON'T have a "negative impact"....ie provide an example of what humanity's life style would be. Wouldn't ANY scenario you paint provide a point to where others could deem such scenario as "negatively impactful"....thus my argument would hold??

Logically, maybe. But there's a point where it's much more of a "gray area", and I think once there is very little agreement on whether or not we're having a "negative impact" would be "good enough". I would say that we're not even close to that level, as there's probably pretty strong agreement that rapidly decreasing biodiversity is a "negative impact" and that humans are responsible.

Of course, "what should be done about it?" is a question that is currently much less black and white, IMO, and I don't know what the answer to that is.

[tacoman25]

It looks like NOAA has added a 1981-2010 baseline to their U.S. climate maps now...but when you try to apply it, the maps appear with the 1950-1995 baseline.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/usclimdivs/