Popular science news will sometimes highlight catastrophes that may have happened because of climate change, and this has penetrated into academic research as well. PhD dissertations and research topics have to be approved, and these days they have to have some modern popular hook, so environmental concerns get shoved in there.
If you look just a bit beneath the surface, you will see that warming was seldom the issue. Warmer periods were often a good thing, in fact. No, the catastrophes were most prominently from cooling, and next after that, from drought. Thus it is technically true, but functionally deceptive, to keep referring to these events as "climate change" as a general category.
8 comments:
As I keep saying, out planet has had "Climate Change" ever since our planet has had an atmosphere. It happens. We can adapt, or move...
"our", not "out". Fingers failed me; BAD fingers!!!! BAD!!!!! No soup for you!
Climate is an abstraction (definition) based upon data/facts (weather, geography, biosphere) over a specified period of time. Part of Science is cataloging (creating logical categories) out of the data/facts available. For climate to change the weather data has to be trending up or down. Change is the only constant in the Universe. To say that climate change is helpful or harmful for survival (good and bad are moral terms) one must propose an optimum data point and optimum for who or what; individuals or populations or species? AND one must defend their choice of a climate optimum point from which change should not occur. (environmental change is one spur of evolutionary adaptation) To propose a climate optimum for humans, minimizes the optimums for other species in the eco-system.
And, in modern argot, climate change was Eurocentric and is always [something]-centric. The warm period about 2,000 years ago which a allowed grapes to flourish in England was better for Europe, but not uniformly better across the whole Earth.
The warm period 15 KYA(?) that allowed tropical animals in England was better. For them.
The higher oxygen content of the atmosphere 50MYA allowed animals to flourish. As some cost, of course: runaway fires. Now max O2 might make industrial civilization impossible. I think this was also when the poles were ice-free. Plants and animals prospered at the poles.
Sam L: ou{r} planet has had "Climate Change" ever since our planet has had an atmosphere. It happens.
Sure. However, the current problem is the artificial and anomalous changing of the climate.
Sam L: We can adapt,
Humans are highly intelligent, albeit somewhat shortsighted. Humans can and will adapt. Some anthropogenic climate change is inevitable. The question is how much damage there will be to human civilization, as well as the degree of permanent loss of humanity's natural inheritance.
Sam L: or move...
Good point. The world's political and social structures can barely absorb current levels of immigration. For instance, the U.S. is in political turmoil because of a few thousand people immigrating from Central America. Millions of people live in coastal areas, or agricultural areas that will be subject to climate shocks. The political repurcussion will be immense.
Blick: Climate is an abstraction (definition) based upon data/facts (weather, geography, biosphere) over a specified period of time.
So are air pressure and planetary orbits.
Sam L: To say that climate change is helpful or harmful for survival (good and bad are moral terms) one must propose an optimum data point and optimum for who or what; individuals or populations or species?
Civilized humans have vast infrastructure which depends on a relatively stable environment. For instance, millions of people live in cities near the coast, which will be threatened by sea level rise. Some change is natural, but an artificially-induced high-rate of warming is a threat to human civilization and their environment.
ErisGuy: I think this was also when the poles were ice-free.
Good point. Human civilization did not evolve in such a world, and to suddenly thrust the world into such a state would be detrimental to humanity and the environment upon which they depend.
Fixing attribution.
Blick: To say that climate change is helpful...
To Z. Humans are an evolved species with environmental manipulation (fire, shelter, clothing, industry, etc) as a survival strategy. Therefore, everything Humans do is natural -- even pollution -- even climate change. There is nothing artificial about humans. To say humans create an artificial situation is to class Humans as different and outside of Nature and evolution. All life uses other life as a resource and competes for space, resources, food, partners, etc. If Humans can out compete other species, that is Nature -- brutal.
Blick: Therefore, everything Humans do is natural -- even pollution -- even climate change.
Semantics doesn't make for an empirical argument. There are two dichotomies: natural-supernatural and natural-artificial. We were clearly using the latter distinction.
When we speak of, for instance, lead leaching into the water supply, we are talking about an artificial problem, that is, one created by humans using lead pipes to transport water. When we speak of anthropogenic global warming, we are referring to warming that is caused by human industrial activity.
Blick: All life uses other life as a resource and competes for space, resources, food, partners, etc.
Human science allows humans to reasonable predict outcomes, including noting degradation of the environment and climate due to industrial activity, and then avoid the worst results by changing their behavior. Kinda like putting in a sewer to avoid disease rather than allowing waste to pollute the streets.
Post a Comment