The Sahara, Climate Change, and Predicting the Future

[JohnStOnge]

As you may know, if what is believed is correct, what is now the Sahara desert was once an arid area, then was lush and fertile during the early days of civilization, then went to be the barren desert it is today. All due to climate change that, of course, the industrial age had nothing to do with (http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara- ... lated.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Here is a link to an article on two guys who think they know why it happened (though I don't think we can ever know): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 080500.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

I bring up the story of the Sahara for the purpose of discussing one of the things that bugs me most about the "global warming" movement. They presume, or think they know, that the way the climate would be without human activity is just PERFECT and anything else is bad. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a whole big report devoted to that.

But we don't know what the climate would do without us here. We don't know that there aren't scenarios in which what we do might cause something "bad" not to happen. We don't know, for instance, that our activity won't prevent something like the desertification of a region. No, we don't know that it would. But we don't know that it won't either. And if you think that such statements are totally off the wall, read the article at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ahara.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

One thing I've thought of in the past is: Suppose we would be destined for the start of an Ice Age if it weren't for our carbon dioxide emissions? The problem I have with the global warmists I've discussed most is the way in which they create the impression that a cause and effect relationship between human activity and certain characteristics of climate change has been established at the highest level of certainty. But I also very much disagree with the idea that, under the assumption that humans are affecting the climate (which is an assumption I do personally make), we know the effects will make things worse on balance.

[BlueHen86]

Saw a show on the Sahara a few weeks ago . Parts of the Sahara were under water and there are areas that hve lots of whale bones.

One hypothesis was that the sahara was underwater but was pushed up to a higher elevation by tectonic movement.

[expandspanos]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ[/youtube]

[Gil Dobie]

[JohnStOnge]

Saw a show on the Sahara a few weeks ago . Parts of the Sahara were under water and there are areas that hve lots of whale bones.

One hypothesis was that the sahara was underwater but was pushed up to a higher elevation by tectonic movement.

Yeah I think I have a dim memory of hearing or reading about that too. But it's amazing that what we're talking about here happened within "only" about the last 15,000 years. The area we call the Sahara is believed to have gone from being bone dry to being a lush, fertile area characterized by monsoon rains for about 1,700 years then went back to being bone dry; all thousands of years before fossil fuels were discovered and, according to a quick search of estimates I did, world human population is believed to have been somewhere in the range of 5 to 20 million people.

What I'm getting at is that, all other things aside, a lot of people appear to proceed under the assumption that we know what will happen if we do or don't do X. They think we KNOW that if we do X things will be better than if we don't. The scientists involved in one of the linked stories think the dramatic climate change affecting the Sahara may have been initiated by "subtle changes in the Earth's orbit."

So are we confident that we can predict, say something like a hundred years ahead of time, that something like "subtle changes in the Earth's orbit" of the sort that might cause some dramatic climate change will or will not happen? Or something else nobody has even thought about yet? We have no way of knowing, for sure, that we couldn't end up in a situation where having a higher concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere makes things better instead of worse.

But there are many people who nevertheless want to impose draconian measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Stuff like categorizing carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory purposes and running the coal industry out of business while depriving the country of full use of one of its most valuable natural resources.

[BlueHen86]

Saw a show on the Sahara a few weeks ago . Parts of the Sahara were under water and there are areas that hve lots of whale bones.

One hypothesis was that the sahara was underwater but was pushed up to a higher elevation by tectonic movement.

Yeah I think I have a dim memory of hearing or reading about that too. But it's amazing that what we're talking about here happened within "only" about the last 15,000 years. The area we call the Sahara is believed to have gone from being bone dry to being a lush, fertile area characterized by monsoon rains for about 1,700 years then went back to being bone dry; all thousands of years before fossil fuels were discovered and, according to a quick search of estimates I did, world human population is believed to have been somewhere in the range of 5 to 20 million people.

What I'm getting at is that, all other things aside, a lot of people appear to proceed under the assumption that we know what will happen if we do or don't do X. They think we KNOW that if we do X things will be better than if we don't. The scientists involved in one of the linked stories think the dramatic climate change affecting the Sahara may have been initiated by "subtle changes in the Earth's orbit."

So are we confident that we can predict, say something like a hundred years ahead of time, that something like "subtle changes in the Earth's orbit" of the sort that might cause some dramatic climate change will or will not happen? Or something else nobody has even thought about yet? We have no way of knowing, for sure, that we couldn't end up in a situation where having a higher concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere makes things better instead of worse.

But there are many people who nevertheless want to impose draconian measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Stuff like categorizing carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory purposes and running the coal industry out of business while depriving the country of full use of one of its most valuable natural resources.

There is a theory that the Sahara climate change is tied to the earths wobble (precession). It's a 20,000 year cycle that's been in place a lot longer than man has been here.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's something that bears upon something else I've thought about:

http://www.plospathogens.org/article/in ... at.0030151" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I must admit that I haven't read much of the IPCC report on the effects of climate change...where the conclusion is that it'll make things worse. But I know one thing they're reported to have concluded is that it'll make things worse in terms of disease. And in scanning some of their report at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... n/ch8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; it looks like much of their focus is on vector borne disease.

But there are a number of viral pathogens that cause diseases that are transmitted from person to person, on foods, or in water that do better in colder conditions. Influenza is one. Norovirus is another. Hepatitis A persists for longer in the environment in colder conditions. So on and so forth.

Think about it. When is "flu season?"

[BlueHen86]

Here's something that bears upon something else I've thought about:

http://www.plospathogens.org/article/in ... at.0030151" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I must admit that I haven't read much of the IPCC report on the effects of climate change...where the conclusion is that it'll make things worse. But I know one thing they're reported to have concluded is that it'll make things worse in terms of disease. And in scanning some of their report at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... n/ch8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; it looks like much of their focus is on vector borne disease.

But there are a number of viral pathogens that cause diseases that are transmitted from person to person, on foods, or in water that do better in colder conditions. Influenza is one. Norovirus is another. Hepatitis A persists for longer in the environment in colder conditions. So on and so forth.

Think about it. When is "flu season?"

Maybe you should contact the IPCC, they might never have considered "flu season".

[JohnStOnge]

Maybe you should contact the IPCC, they might never have considered "flu season".

No need to call. All I have to do is look at the report some more. And I'll probably do that at some point.

But if you are making light of the flu you should not. The CDC has estimated that it is a contributing factor in about 36,000 deaths per year in the United States. Don't know how close to accurate that estimate is. But if it's anywhere close that makes it a factor in a lot more deaths than, say, the number of deaths in the United States per year in which AIDS is a factor (estimated 18,234 in 2008). Much lower mortality rate, of course. But a factor in more deaths because it is so much more common.

Plus, as they say, at any time we could experience the evolution of a strain of flu that is far more severe than what we are accustomed to. And, who knows? By making things cooler we might even increase the likelihood of the evolution of such a strain. Not saying we would. Just saying we don't know that we wouldn't.

The point, again, is that they're acting like things are so predictable when they're not. They're acting like there is reason to have high confidence in their educated speculation about what would happen in terms of whether things would end up better or worse on average when there isn't.

[Pwns]

Nonsense. Observational studies with one experimental unit, no control group, and measurements that have not been validated are EVERY BIT as valid as experiments. Denying human activity is responsible for climate change is like saying gravity doesn't exist!