AGW is not inherently a bad thing for us

[ronburgundy]

Note: I accept the scientific consensus of human influenced climate change and current warming, and the scientific projections of plausible outcomes that could be catastrophic for modern civilization. Below is more of an observation/thought experiment that I am putting forth for scientific scrutiny, because my knowledge is that of an educated non-expert on the subject.

To my understanding, the various negatives (mostly for human civilization) of climate change stem not merely from the natural cycle being affected, but from the particular point that the natural cycle was already at when human impact began its exponential influence. Specifically, the CO2 and temp levels were already near their historical max points in the cycle around the year 1900, and by now should have begun a decline toward an eventual ice age. Human impact has meant that temps are higher rather than lower, and at a high point for a longer period than past high points.

So, this implies that if in 1900, the Earth had just happened to be well into a downward slope toward an ice age with temps well below averages, then our impact would be slowing that decline and staving off an ice age that would otherwise cause as much or more harm to civilization as any projected impact of the current warming. IOW, it isn't that what have done and are doing is inherently bad for us, but rather an interaction between where the natural processes where at and when we did what we did. IT is possible that those same actions could have saved our asses and those of many other species if the natural cycle happened to be at a different point.

 

[rjh01]

If what you are saying is true then it is worse than if it was not true. It is a fact that the climate is warming up. If it would have cooled down naturally without human interference then the planet would have adapt easily like it has in the past as the change would be slow. The problem at the moment is not that it is warming up it is the rate of change. This is far too fast for the environment to adapt.

Even worse if the natural trend to an ice age reverses that would mean that the earth heats up even more quickly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Without human intervention we probably would have slipped into another ice age eventually. It's a slow process, though, and something we easily could have averted.

 

[dystopian]

So, this implies that if in 1900, the Earth had just happened to be well into a downward slope toward an ice age with temps well below averages, then our impact would be slowing that decline and staving off an ice age that would otherwise cause as much or more harm to civilization as any projected impact of the current warming.

No. not even close. There is no evidence whatsoever that we'd be entering a new ice age right now without global warming. This idea is based on the cycle of glacials and interglacials, which appear for the past half a million or so years to have followed a rough cycle of around 11,500 years spent in an interglacial. People assume that since we've been in the current interglacial for around 12,000 years that we'd be heading into a glacial period without global warming... but this ignores the fact that the conditions of the current interglacial are quite different from those of the previous interglacials even without our intervention. Glacial periods are caused by the interaction of changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt. But orbit and tilt are not in sync, and they're about 10,000 years out of phase from each other. The last time conditions during an interglacial were similar to today was 460,000 years ago, and that interglacial lasted 30,000 years. Some recent work predicts that our current interglacial could last as much as 50,000years even without global warming.

Now, that's not to say it wouldn't get colder, indeed we've been in a relative cooling period for the past 2000 years; but we're talking about a gradual cooling over the next 18,000 - 50,000 years until we enter a new ice age. That's hardly problematic.

What we *might* be entering is a new maunder minimum, which coincides with the middle of the 'little ice age', a period which wasn't a true ice age. However, crop failure is likely to be far worse (not to mention global) for global warming than for the harsh winters that occur during a little ice age. Plus, a little ice age doesn't threaten to redefine the coastline quite the way global warming does. And counteracting the maunder minimum by maintaining our current CO2 output will cause us to severely overshoot when the maunder minimum ends. Which is bad.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, this implies that if in 1900, the Earth had just happened to be well into a downward slope toward an ice age with temps well below averages, then our impact would be slowing that decline and staving off an ice age that would otherwise cause as much or more harm to civilization as any projected impact of the current warming. IOW, it isn't that what have done and are doing is inherently bad for us, but rather an interaction between where the natural processes where at and when we did what we did. IT is possible that those same actions could have saved our asses and those of many other species if the natural cycle happened to be at a different point.

That is possible. Anything, I suppose could be possible. Affecting the climate and the changes that brings are likely unknown and screwing around with it could be extremely stupid. Don't try to manipulate massive processes you don't completely understand.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That is possible. Anything, I suppose could be possible. Affecting the climate and the changes that brings are likely unknown and screwing around with it could be extremely stupid. Don't try to manipulate massive processes you don't completely understand.

well said.
I mean, it'd be one thing if we anticipated an ice age and set up a global industry to combat it, and it worked. That'd be fucking impressive. Don't fuck with humanity, we'll mobilize fossil fuels to END you!
That's right up there with that movie on how the cold war gave us the missiles we needed to team up with the Russians and stem the asteroid threat.


If we just don't understand what we're doing and refuse to change because we're stupid, then any benefit from the stupidity is only 'good' for us out of undeserved luck and is inherently a bad thing because we can't even pretend that it's under our control.