On matters of scale
Jan. 11th, 2009 01:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumHad our 12th night party last night. A good time was had by all, but I was hard pressed to hold my tongue when one of the guests was explaining to Maia why "global warming" is both a "myth" (because we can't be sure that people burning billions of tons of sequestered hydrocarbons is any different from previously occurring rises in CO2 levels), and no big deal, even if so.
What we have to worry about, per him, is glaciation.
It's not that I've not heard such nonsense before. It's that he uses (without real intent) his skillset as a rocket scientist (he does fuels, and stuff relating to electronics hardning against solar radiation and flares). He made reference to graphs, and curves, of previous CO2/Methane increases. He trotted out the reveresal of glaciation 12,000 years ago, and how that affected the spread of mankind, etc. He said the coral had to deal with changes in sea level in the past (after all, at the height of the last glaciation the sea level was hundreds of feet below what it is now).
All of that makes it hard (apart from not wanting to start a row, near midnight, at the end of a pretty good party), to refute him in conversation. I don't have the reference materials ready to hand (nor, to be honest does he, but he made reference to them, and absent knowing just what they were how could one really address them?)
He also made some hard claims to substantiate. He blamed the expansion of the ice with the demise of Clovis Culture, and the death of the megagfauna on it (not pondering the idea that perhaps the predations of man, on apex species with slow reproduction rates might have been contributory, and the loss of such megafauna might have been both self-induced, and contributory to the lack of need for the tools to kill them).
He said aridity, qua aridity, did the Anasazi in, when the climate cooled (that they'd deforested their surroundings, which probably had a big effect on the water cycle in their area... not important).
What all of his arguments (which he summed up with the, facile, "People don't seem to realise there are worse fates than having to turn the air conditioning on more often"), boiled down to were, "people aren't able to make this sort of change, and the planet will survive."
He is right about the last part. But the first part is patently false. There are enough examples of people managing to so disturb the ecology which sustains them that they are, at best, displaced; and forced to change (the Dustbowl of the 1930 in the US is a recent example).
What he (and others like him) fail to consider is scale. On the timeline geologists ponder, he's right. There have been such swings in temperature (though oddly, and he didn't mention it, one of the things which the glaciations [perhaps his coming from the frozen portion of middle america also affects how he views cold, but I digress] were usually preceded by was a period of warming. I suspect the deep-cycle of the ocean currents gets disturbed and that cools Europe, which is the sort of thing he's glad isn't happening). The planet has survived.
Life was not eliminated. It may have been really hard for a lot of species (and fatal for some) but the earth wasn't sterilised (not gonna happen, "life" is tough, and some bacterium, if nothing else, will hang on; somehow, and the whole thing will start again. That's pretty much a given until the sun heats up enough to heat the planet to the point the water cycle is broken. I won't even bet against something adapting to survive in a venusian steam bath; only to die out when the sun heats enough to boil off the atmosphere, again I digress).
But if the seas pop up enough to drown the coral we have today, it's going to take some time for them to reestablish themselves (and this is where the plankton phase, and millions of offspring to get a couple of descendants pays off). Because animals don't live on the geologic scale. Mice get 1-6 years (and that six is coddled life in captivity). People get "threescore and ten", if they make out of puberty.
We have billions of people, most of whom are dependant on a whole bunch of steps to get from field to table. Break that cycle, and most of them are going to die.
Do I think climate change is going to wipe people out? No. There are too many of us. We are too adaptable, and we are in place to find the niche which is capable of sustaining us until the equilibrium of the weather system is reestablished. We've survived at least one bottleneck, where we may have been down to as few as 100 people.
It's not a given. Too many people fighting for too few resources (or making a mistake, a la the Easter Islanders who wiped out the trees they later needed to leave when the people outstripped the available food supply) could put the final nail in the coffin.
But to say, "the planet is really big, and people are really small, and warming isn't going to wipe out the planet is daft."
Because you know what... "The Earth" doesn't need us. It's not "the planet" we need to save. It's us I am fond of being alive. I am fond of the human race (some of the members... enh!). It may be we are it. The only bit of life to move from sentience to sapience.
Doesn't matter. We've done great things. We can (I hope) stave off the sort of catastrophe which massive changes in the weather cycle would cause. Beethoven is dead if the people who know how to read the music go away. He just as dead if the recording are all that's left (assuming they can be played), and no one knows how to make the instruments to play the music.
All of the good things people have done are additive. We are standing on the shoulders of the people before us, and it's shoulders all the way down. Climate change can destroy that stack of shoulders. Is is worth a bit of dislocation to prevent that?
Yes.
Is it worth assuming people can cause that kind of strife? Yes.
If I'm wrong, and there is nothing people can do to upset the weather cycle... well it will be annoying getting used to the new ways of doing things.
If he's wrong, and people are able to "break" the weather cycle... we're all fucked.
I know which of those two outcomes is the more rational one to plan against.
What we have to worry about, per him, is glaciation.
It's not that I've not heard such nonsense before. It's that he uses (without real intent) his skillset as a rocket scientist (he does fuels, and stuff relating to electronics hardning against solar radiation and flares). He made reference to graphs, and curves, of previous CO2/Methane increases. He trotted out the reveresal of glaciation 12,000 years ago, and how that affected the spread of mankind, etc. He said the coral had to deal with changes in sea level in the past (after all, at the height of the last glaciation the sea level was hundreds of feet below what it is now).
All of that makes it hard (apart from not wanting to start a row, near midnight, at the end of a pretty good party), to refute him in conversation. I don't have the reference materials ready to hand (nor, to be honest does he, but he made reference to them, and absent knowing just what they were how could one really address them?)
He also made some hard claims to substantiate. He blamed the expansion of the ice with the demise of Clovis Culture, and the death of the megagfauna on it (not pondering the idea that perhaps the predations of man, on apex species with slow reproduction rates might have been contributory, and the loss of such megafauna might have been both self-induced, and contributory to the lack of need for the tools to kill them).
He said aridity, qua aridity, did the Anasazi in, when the climate cooled (that they'd deforested their surroundings, which probably had a big effect on the water cycle in their area... not important).
What all of his arguments (which he summed up with the, facile, "People don't seem to realise there are worse fates than having to turn the air conditioning on more often"), boiled down to were, "people aren't able to make this sort of change, and the planet will survive."
He is right about the last part. But the first part is patently false. There are enough examples of people managing to so disturb the ecology which sustains them that they are, at best, displaced; and forced to change (the Dustbowl of the 1930 in the US is a recent example).
What he (and others like him) fail to consider is scale. On the timeline geologists ponder, he's right. There have been such swings in temperature (though oddly, and he didn't mention it, one of the things which the glaciations [perhaps his coming from the frozen portion of middle america also affects how he views cold, but I digress] were usually preceded by was a period of warming. I suspect the deep-cycle of the ocean currents gets disturbed and that cools Europe, which is the sort of thing he's glad isn't happening). The planet has survived.
Life was not eliminated. It may have been really hard for a lot of species (and fatal for some) but the earth wasn't sterilised (not gonna happen, "life" is tough, and some bacterium, if nothing else, will hang on; somehow, and the whole thing will start again. That's pretty much a given until the sun heats up enough to heat the planet to the point the water cycle is broken. I won't even bet against something adapting to survive in a venusian steam bath; only to die out when the sun heats enough to boil off the atmosphere, again I digress).
But if the seas pop up enough to drown the coral we have today, it's going to take some time for them to reestablish themselves (and this is where the plankton phase, and millions of offspring to get a couple of descendants pays off). Because animals don't live on the geologic scale. Mice get 1-6 years (and that six is coddled life in captivity). People get "threescore and ten", if they make out of puberty.
We have billions of people, most of whom are dependant on a whole bunch of steps to get from field to table. Break that cycle, and most of them are going to die.
Do I think climate change is going to wipe people out? No. There are too many of us. We are too adaptable, and we are in place to find the niche which is capable of sustaining us until the equilibrium of the weather system is reestablished. We've survived at least one bottleneck, where we may have been down to as few as 100 people.
It's not a given. Too many people fighting for too few resources (or making a mistake, a la the Easter Islanders who wiped out the trees they later needed to leave when the people outstripped the available food supply) could put the final nail in the coffin.
But to say, "the planet is really big, and people are really small, and warming isn't going to wipe out the planet is daft."
Because you know what... "The Earth" doesn't need us. It's not "the planet" we need to save. It's us I am fond of being alive. I am fond of the human race (some of the members... enh!). It may be we are it. The only bit of life to move from sentience to sapience.
Doesn't matter. We've done great things. We can (I hope) stave off the sort of catastrophe which massive changes in the weather cycle would cause. Beethoven is dead if the people who know how to read the music go away. He just as dead if the recording are all that's left (assuming they can be played), and no one knows how to make the instruments to play the music.
All of the good things people have done are additive. We are standing on the shoulders of the people before us, and it's shoulders all the way down. Climate change can destroy that stack of shoulders. Is is worth a bit of dislocation to prevent that?
Yes.
Is it worth assuming people can cause that kind of strife? Yes.
If I'm wrong, and there is nothing people can do to upset the weather cycle... well it will be annoying getting used to the new ways of doing things.
If he's wrong, and people are able to "break" the weather cycle... we're all fucked.
I know which of those two outcomes is the more rational one to plan against.
