Global Climate Disruption.

[CBR]

1. Adapt. Find better and more sustainable ways of cooling ourselves, growing more resilient crops and irrigation measures, preserving drinking water and pushing de-desalinization methods.
2. Alter our methods of powering our civilization. More for cost saving, pollution reduction, national security, and grid stabilization reasons than limiting carbon emissions; we need to develop more sustainable and varied ways of powering our lives. The increased global temperatures will put greater strain on our current networks. Correcting our current usage issues will have the added benefit of reducing carbon emissions which will satisfy the people who are obsessed with that stuff just to get them off of our backs.
3. Colonize other planets. Push the development of the moon and mars and eventually actualize Wall-E/Cowboy Bebop type stuff. For some reason preservation of the species is something that we care about, so we should be trying to do that long after the sun burns out or we collide with another galaxy.

Any thoughts?

#3 is pretty fanciful and is gonna cost a helluva lot of money and will be for a few people only. Might as well build big domes in the deserts here on Earth.

Both #1 and #2 are needed. We have not seen the end of increasing temperatures, even if we were to stop pumping out CO2 tomorrow.

In the US the GOP seems to be on a collision course with reason and science, but at least some seems to be getting it: http://energyandenterprise.com/

[Furunculus]

worth another look:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...ible-solution/

iron fertilisation

[Papewaio]

http://m.smh.com.au/environment/clim...730-23769.html

Skeptic think tank now agree that the globe has warmed over the last 250 years and that carbon is the most likely reason likely reason for this.

THE Earth's land has warmed by 1.5 degrees Celsius in the past 250 years and ''humans are almost entirely the cause'', according to a scientific study set up to address climate sceptic concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.
Richard Muller, a climate sceptic physicist who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, said he was ''surprised'' by the findings. ''We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds.''

[CBR]

worth another look:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...ible-solution/

iron fertilisation

The author of the blog seems to be pretty harsh on the inactivity of governments. Considering that the research results have just been published, so maybe let science do its thing and let them digest it first.

[Fragony]

Oops http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml

[Ironside]

Oops http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml

I've been mentioning that over a year ago. It's not hard to find out. Now it's worth remembering that they are a bit devious with the data, since it's only really working on year 1997. 1998 is too hot, any year before 1997 and 1999, 2000 too cold. The 0 line on that graph is also the 1901-2000 average. So it haven't been a warming up, but it's been consistantly warm.

I'll even admit that if the trend of stable (but still very warm temperature) temperatures continues or there's a significant cooling, you are right on this matter.

That's a problem with multifactor systems. It takes a long time to figure them out. You can easily have a mostly linear manmade global warming with a cyclic natural system. It would have fairly stable peroids combined with temperature bursts.

[InsaneApache]

This is why I changed my mind. I'm not hidebound by dogma.

[Fragony]

This is why I changed my mind. I'm not hidebound by dogma.

You mean you had one ;) manmade global warming is so utterly rediculous that it baffles me this religion could ever get a hold on things. It's a friggin planet ffs. You can't just change climate and you especially can't change it in a century. Be ashamed, feel bad. Now.

[Furunculus]

Oops http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml

still feeling remarkably confident about my stated opinion on catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change:

a) the IPCC has thus far failed to conclusively demonstrate that anthropogenic CO2 is principally responsible for what will be catastrophic climate change in the near future, or that the many claimed impacts which justify the title “catastrophe” are based on solid and sound science.

b) the IPCC climate change models that underpin this conclusion have insufficient data for long term projections, do not properly account for feedback mechanisms and thus fail to produce accurate projections, and contain too many errors to produce truthful projections.

c) the political solutions to the problem as presented by the IPCC are both staggeringly expensive for human society, and highly inefficient as a method achieving a non-catastrophic outcome, and thus require a large amount of certainty in (a) and (b) before implementing (c) becomes a sensible idea.

[InsaneApache]

What's that sound?

http://www.principia-scientific.org/...-collapse.html

Is it wheels falling off a bandwagon?

[HoreTore]

Fallacy fallacy.

[Husar]

What's that sound?

http://www.principia-scientific.org/...-collapse.html

Is it wheels falling off a bandwagon?

I don't care who is right, I just like the idea of scientists suing eachother over who is right.
And yes, it seems like the pro-climate guy was the first to do it.

Principia scientific is also a horrible website that's incredibly biased, in case you did not know this.
The only website I trust is wikipedia.