With the collapse of the Copenhagen talks, the presumption of the developing nations that they have the right to burn as much carbon per capita as the developed nations, and the dismal failure of existing carbon reduction schemes to reduce output by any more than a token, the reality is that rising CO2 levels may only be slowed not stopped.

The question is then, what would the world look like, and what can we do to survive it? To prompt this discussion I have included below a graph of CO2 levels over the millennia:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Notice that about 300m BC the CO2 levels were about where they are now (300ppm), and 150m BC they were at 2000ppm.

Did temperatures rise?
Did Sea levels rise?
Was life extinguished?

Yes, the whole climate change, global warming, call it what you like, is so confusing it is little wonder there are so many sitting on the fence.

If only they could predict the future, rather than map the past.

"Was life extinguished?"

Obviously "life" wasn't extinguished, but conditions that bring about the flourishing of one form of life, may decimate another.

Here's the wiki page on the Carboniferous Period. It's helpful to compare the conditions at the time when amphibians were the dominant terrestrial species (before the evolution of reptiles) Sea levels were also affected by major tectonic movement...so a whole lot of factors which differentiate that time of earth's evolution with the present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous.

http://vimeo.com/16219493 'What in the World are thet Spraying' There is now solid evidence that the US Military is conducting experiments that affect weather.They are spraying nano sizes compounds of Aluminium, Boron and Strontium to change the weather under the guise of reducing global warming.

All these intense storms in the USA may not be to due to natural weather but weather manipulation by man.The evidence is extensive and Obama's science Tzar John Holdren, is on record saying that this type of climate/weather interference is a serious consideration.

The Military have interest in weather manipulation because this can have a huge effect on the battle field.

There being no provision for inserting GIFs... this will have to do:

http://s577.beta.photobucket.com/user/fortworthmama/media/computers/headbanger.gif.html

SM,

Interestingly, something termed the Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse occurred late in the Carboniferous period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous_Rainforest_Collapse

I would have given it some credence if it wasn't for the fact the biggest pusher "Al Gore" stands to make Billions of dollars.
Others as well but they are in the background.
The big problem is Over population.

>>There is now solid evidence that the US Military is conducting experiments that affect weather.<<

In other concerning news it turns out that the AFDB's - http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ - that the Arjays of this world have been protecting themselves with may have been worse than useless!

http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/

We should believe the opposite of anything Arjay says because he's probably been mind-controlled to say those things by government and military satellites.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis ,if you took the time the view the doucmentary,you would see scientific evidence both in the sky and on the ground.The Geo-enineers themselves involved in these experiments admit experiments are being done but won't reveal how extensive they are.Aluminium levels where they've been spraying,are thousands of times higher than they should be.

Man has been manipulating weather by cloud seeding for many decades.They seem to have a got a lot better at it.Poisoning the environment to stop perceived global warming is not very smart.

Most of the arguments I have seen have been whether human induced climate change is real or imagined. My personal views are that climate change is real, and I feel that some action needs to be taken.

I do however, oppose the carbon tax on three grounds:
1) Unilateral action is pointless with the developing world insisting on the right to match consumption in the 1st world. At worst our lack of consumption of fossil fuels lowers the price for our competitors and accelerates their consumption.
2) A tax on 100% of the generation output increases the cost of power while not making any more incentive to reduce emissions than a tax on the top 10%.
3) Imposing a tax whilst prohibiting the proven single safest and most effective zero emission technology (nuclear) is blocking any serious effort to reduce emissions.

Based on the above, I don't see any hope of reducing global emissions, and thus posed the "SO WHAT" question.

As shown historically, the climate change will be significant, but the world will not become a hot lifeless rock as some green idiots claim. Are our efforts better spent preparing for the inevitable?

SM,

Of course the earth will continue to team with "life" as long as it can be sustained.....humans will probably be around for a while longer, but we've already used up a good portion of the average span for a species. Our "intelligence" + our "greed" are more likely to be agents which hasten our exit, I'm sure.

As for species survival, it's better to stupid than smart.

The bacteria and beetles will still be around when we're long gone.

The worst outcome of climate change –and, as SM points out the climate changes all the time –is likely to be what it spooks us into doing and accepting.

It is the perfect pretext for groups on the left to cede more sovereignty to the UN and its affiliates. A process that is likely to see us all become willing little players in a massive Simon Says game (though, of course, it wont be called “Simon Says”, since “Simon” has too many associations with “old white men” –and the world will have outlawed any reference to such , it is much more likely to called Pachauri or Ban-Ki Says).

And in this UN administered game the majority will spent most of their time doing much as they do now: dancing, which is code for popping out more babies, hunting more monkeys to extinction for bush meat, draining more aquifers and clearing more mangrove swamps for new settlements.

The only real difference will be that whenever there is a plague, famine or flood, Simon will shout: “STOP! this was all due to AGW. To prevent future AGW disasters all those standing on the western side of the room will now have to hop on one foot while they dance.

And after that’s been aranged Simon will say “ Ok players, all is now well, you can all go back to dancing", which as we have read above is code for popping out babies, hunting more monkeys to extinction, draining aquifers and clearing more mangrove swamps. And the majority will happily oblige.Till the next “AGW” disaster, where upon, Simon will shout “All those on the west of the room now have to levitate”.

The most recent predictions are that temperatures will rise by 4C and sea levels by 1m by 2100. That's nearly 5 generations from now and our grand children will be grand parents. Can you look back to the beginning of the 20th century and say that all the change is bad? Would anyone 1920 have foreseen where we are now? The truth is that what we envision for 2100 may be too high, too low, or irrelevant.

I have a much more optimistic outlook for mankind than Poirot, and see us here for many more millennia irrespective of what one generation leaves for the next. The green vision of leaving the planet as it is for the next generation is unlikely, climate change or not.

SM,

You may be interested in the following brief overview:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html

You may be right - who knows? Man is both a master at adaptation and manipulation - but he is enthrall to his baser instincts as much as his intellectual prowess.....an intelligent species that fails to respect its position in the scheme of things and act accordingly will see its intelligence count for little in the long run.

Interesting article.

I believe that man is the cause of the mass extinction rate, and that this is unlikely to change for a while until the population stabilises.

I do however, believe that man's ingenuity would overcome most adversity.