Extinction.

[dealtn]

Life is a massive anti climax for the most part ...

Crikey, don't ever offer to swap with me in case I was ever foolish enough to agree.

[Bubblesofearth]

Playing devil's advocate....so what?

Why do we have an attachment to what is current? Do we mourn the passing of the dinosaurs? The myriad life-forms that existed before any of the previous mass extinctions? Why should we be so concerned about the current mass extinction or the likelihood that our own species will suffer population collapse at some future date?

Change is inevitable. Why fight it?

BoE

[UncleEbenezer]

Playing devil's advocate....so what?

Why do we have an attachment to what is current? Do we mourn the passing of the dinosaurs? The myriad life-forms that existed before any of the previous mass extinctions? Why should we be so concerned about the current mass extinction or the likelihood that our own species will suffer population collapse at some future date?

Change is inevitable. Why fight it?

BoE

On a purely selfish note ...

The big unknown now is the timing of collapse. If it were to happen within my own natural lifetime then I'm personally affected. And there are people younger than me on whom I wouldn't wish famine.

[vrdiver]

Change is inevitable. Why fight it?

So is death. Why bother to see a doctor?

Change is inevitable, but what that change looks like is in some respects up to us. Will we turn the planet into a slightly cooler version of Venus, a runaway heat engine for an atmosphere, or will we "manage" our impact on the atmosphere, on sea levels and on how much space we leave for non-human life? Will we create a minor extinction event, or a major one? Will we create millions of man-years of misery, or billions?

With so much future containing so many possibilities, why not fight for it?

VRD

[scrumpyjack]

Playing devil's advocate....so what?

Why do we have an attachment to what is current? Do we mourn the passing of the dinosaurs? The myriad life-forms that existed before any of the previous mass extinctions? Why should we be so concerned about the current mass extinction or the likelihood that our own species will suffer population collapse at some future date?

Change is inevitable. Why fight it?

BoE

Yes change is inevitable and there is absolutely no reason to try to preserve things as they are just for the sake of it. However we might as well try to improve things where we can, so getting rid of smog in cities and reducing CO2, if there is a significant risk it may be making the climate worse, is worth doing.

We can console ourselves that it seems highly probable there are billions of earth like planets in our and other galaxies so hopefully the natives won't all be trashing them! We won't be visiting them any time soon, but I won't be visiting Australia either!

[tjh290633]

What everyone seems to ignore, is that our main source of energy, the sun, is variable and that it's output of energy is cyclical. As a result we swing between warming and cooling periods, hence the "Little ice age" of relatively recent times.

There is debate about the possibility of a new cooling phase beginning soon, which all the warmists confidently assume will never happen. The climate has changed continually over the millennia. It will continue to do so. We cannot control nor can we predict the sun's behaviour, except for what we know about its cyclical behaviour.

Let us not lose sight of that.

TJH

[XFool]

What everyone seems to ignore, is that our main source of energy, the sun, is variable and that it's output of energy is cyclical. As a result we swing between warming and cooling periods, hence the "Little ice age" of relatively recent times.

There is debate about the possibility of a new cooling phase beginning soon, which all the warmists confidently assume will never happen. The climate has changed continually over the millennia. It will continue to do so. We cannot control nor can we predict the sun's behaviour, except for what we know about its cyclical behaviour.

Let us not lose sight of that.

TJH

All very interesting...

Unfortunately, it has absolutely nothing to do with any sensible understanding of what is meant by "climate change" in the current context.
This is certainly something we should "not lose sight of".

[redsturgeon]

A child and their potential children and so on and all of their potential for consumption is the significant intellectual leap.
I do not have any children and consider myself to be in the clear on this one.
Life is a massive anti climax for the most part and the big parental lie about how 'amazing' it all is once they are through the one way door just looks laughable from the outside.

W.

Life may not be much but it's all we have!

John

[kiloran]

Life may not be much but it's all we have!

John

Certainly far superior to the alternative (or so I am led to believe )

--kiloran

[Sussexlad]

I got quite grumpy watching the program, because it seems nobody was prepared to talk about the elephant in the room. To my mind, most of the program was about solving the problems of excess human population and populatio growth, without stopping the exponential growth of humans on the planet.

Even if we addressed all the issues which the program raised, in 30 or so years, when the global population of humans has increased by anther 50%, Sir David Attenborough will be back on television at the age of 125, still not talking about the elephant in the room.

... and of course those additional people will naturally want the same standards of the developed world, which makes it a double whammy.

[Bubblesofearth]

Change is inevitable. Why fight it?

So is death. Why bother to see a doctor?

Change is inevitable, but what that change looks like is in some respects up to us. Will we turn the planet into a slightly cooler version of Venus, a runaway heat engine for an atmosphere, or will we "manage" our impact on the atmosphere, on sea levels and on how much space we leave for non-human life? Will we create a minor extinction event, or a major one? Will we create millions of man-years of misery, or billions?

With so much future containing so many possibilities, why not fight for it?

VRD

Some interesting hyperbole. Slightly cooler than Venus? Not sure where you are getting this from but Venus is 26 million miles closer to the sun than the Earth and with a massively thicker atmosphere. Changing the level of CO2 isn't going to get anywhere close to that. In fact it's unlikely to get close to the CO2 levels seen in the Earths atmosphere in previous geological eras - eras in which life was abundant.

As for millions of man-years of misery I would argue that the best way to avoid that would be to reduce the human population to maybe 1 billion. Pain for those involved in the collapse but a massive plus for the millions or billions of man-years to follow. Unless you have some irrational attachment to the current population?

BoE

[vrdiver]

Change is inevitable. Why fight it?

So is death. Why bother to see a doctor?

Change is inevitable, but what that change looks like is in some respects up to us. Will we turn the planet into a slightly cooler version of Venus, a runaway heat engine for an atmosphere, or will we "manage" our impact on the atmosphere, on sea levels and on how much space we leave for non-human life? Will we create a minor extinction event, or a major one? Will we create millions of man-years of misery, or billions?

With so much future containing so many possibilities, why not fight for it?

VRD

Some interesting hyperbole.

I'll give you that point!

But you didn't answer the actual question...

VRD

[Bubblesofearth]

But you didn't answer the actual question...

VRD

Which one?

BoE

[Mike4]

What everyone seems to ignore, is that our main source of energy, the sun, is variable and that it's output of energy is cyclical. As a result we swing between warming and cooling periods, hence the "Little ice age" of relatively recent times.

There is debate about the possibility of a new cooling phase beginning soon, which all the warmists confidently assume will never happen. The climate has changed continually over the millennia. It will continue to do so. We cannot control nor can we predict the sun's behaviour, except for what we know about its cyclical behaviour.

Let us not lose sight of that.

TJH

So the burning question in my mind is, how long is the cycle?

[scrumpyjack]

https://www.livescience.com/58407-how-o ... appen.html

Over a very long period, making the time that humans have existed a mere blip.

During the age of the dinosaurs the average global temperature was much much warmer than now - mid 30s celsius

We are in an ice age at present!

[Mike4]

https://www.livescience.com/58407-how-often-do-ice-ages-happen.html

Over a very long period, making the time that humans have existed a mere blip.

During the age of the dinosaurs the average global temperature was much much warmer than now - mid 30s celsius

We are in an ice age at present!

Ok thanks.

So there are big'uns with little'uns superimposed on top. The little'uns have a frequency of about 100,000 years per cycle. This makes TJH's assertion that the current warming is happening as part of the cycle seem a little unlikely, dunnit!

[Nimrod103]

https://www.livescience.com/58407-how-often-do-ice-ages-happen.html

Over a very long period, making the time that humans have existed a mere blip.

During the age of the dinosaurs the average global temperature was much much warmer than now - mid 30s celsius

We are in an ice age at present!

Ok thanks.

So there are big'uns with little'uns superimposed on top. The little'uns have a frequency of about 100,000 years per cycle. This makes TJH's assertion that the current warming is happening as part of the cycle seem a little unlikely, dunnit!

Even since the dinosaurs there have been considerable ups and downs in the Earth's temperature. The last Ice Age lasted from 115,000 to 11,700 years ago, when the Earth rapidly warmed. It is generally accepted that it warmed to higher temperatures than today, and climates were very different. The Sahara between 11,000 and 5,000 years ago was wet and fertile, with extensive lakes. This wet Sahara period is attributed to it being hotter than today. Early people carved huge drawings of typical African fauna on the wadi sides in what is now lifeless dry desert. I have seen many examples myself. Cooling of the Sahara created the vast desert we see today. So warming might make the Sahara bloom again.

[tjh290633]

What everyone seems to ignore, is that our main source of energy, the sun, is variable and that it's output of energy is cyclical. As a result we swing between warming and cooling periods, hence the "Little ice age" of relatively recent times.

There is debate about the possibility of a new cooling phase beginning soon, which all the warmists confidently assume will never happen. The climate has changed continually over the millennia. It will continue to do so. We cannot control nor can we predict the sun's behaviour, except for what we know about its cyclical behaviour.

Let us not lose sight of that.

TJH

So the burning question in my mind is, how long is the cycle?

There are several superimposed cycles, and a 7 year cycle for sunspot activity is well known, I believe. Looking at my own local temperatures for average annual temperature, average temperature peaked in 1990 and fell to a low in 2010, since when it has risen again. There actually was a minimum in 1998, and a peak in 2006 before the hard winter which led to the 2010 low. That implies a cycle of about 16 years. We no doubt all recall the hard winters of 1961-3, and before that 1947. By that reckoning I expect the current cycle to reach a peak around 2022, after which we shall get cooling again.

But will we see another little ice age? Who knows.

TJH

[Leothebear]

Article here:

https://www.whatsorb.com/news/global-wa ... gK_bPD_BwE

[vrdiver]

But you didn't answer the actual question...

VRD

Which one?

BoE

So is death. Why bother to see a doctor?