Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

And, its correlation of the rise in mean ocean temperatures.

0 Replies

The default argument against Global Warming seems to be: Temperature fluctuations occur all the time, so why be bothered right now?

Am I summing it up correctly, nay sayers? Because you'll have a lot to answer for if you're wrong.

0 Replies

I suppose THIS is the United States fault too.

0 Replies

Perhaps all we need to do is look at the problem from a different perspective:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,854050,00.html

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Perhaps all we need to do is look at the problem from a different perspective:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,854050,00.html

That's at least a calming thought: "Global warming, then, is great because it protects us from the unpredictable big freeze that would be far, far worse."

Space researcher Dr. Duncan Steel had some more good but controversial thoughts:
- in 1999 he argued that Stonehenge was built to predict meteor showers,
- in 2005 he suggested that the next target for manned space flight should be asteriods and rather than the moon or Mars.

Feed for thoughts.

0 Replies

He's correct about the next target for space flight. There's zero point in flying such a long distance just to dive into another gravity well when there is so much useful raw material just floating around in space.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

The default argument against Global Warming seems to be: Temperature fluctuations occur all the time, so why be bothered right now?

Am I summing it up correctly, nay sayers? Because you'll have a lot to answer for if you're wrong.

Close. My thought is that if temperature fluctuations occur all the time, both on a macro and micro scale, then when our measurements show a fluctuation, it is not time to believe anything is awry, then to panic and franticly look for a reason that is man-caused. This leads to inaccurate conclusions. I am willing to admit some warming might be occurring, but I am not even sure of that because of the inequity of ground conditions where those measurements are being taken now, versus in history. Measurements in the atmosphere do not seem to show the same degree of warming, if any at all. And even if warming is occurring, our studies and computer models are not proven to be even close to being sure about the cause. And even if the cause was known, perhaps a very slight increase in temperature is not even bad, perhaps it would be beneficial to the globe.

There are too many "ifs" in the equation at this point, and the problem is not by any means catastrophic. If we do not even know if there is a problem, and if there is a problem, we don't know what caused it or if the problem is a bad one, then why would it make sense to come up with a solution that may be worse than the problem? This is pretty much my take on the subject.

0 Replies

How can the solution be worse than the problem? It costs money? It reduces profits for big business? Sorry, but that doesnt' seem to be worse than potential screwing up the atmosphere.

I'll ask again: what would you Righties consider a signal or sign that our climate is changing? What signs can be seen before hand in order to prevent it? Do you believe there is ANY way to tell beforehand, or is there no point in trying?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How can the solution be worse than the problem? It costs money? It reduces profits for big business? Sorry, but that doesnt' seem to be worse than potential screwing up the atmosphere.

A major, unwarranted altering and stifling of efficiency, in the way of excessively burdensome, unwarranted, and impractical regulations, can lead to a major disruption of the economy, thus leading to widespread suffering, even starvation.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

And even if warming is occurring, our studies and computer models are not proven to be even close to being sure about the cause. And even if the cause was known, perhaps a very slight increase in temperature is not even bad, perhaps it would be beneficial to the globe.

There are too many "ifs" in the equation at this point, and the problem is not by any means catastrophic. If we do not even know if there is a problem, and if there is a problem, we don't know what caused it or if the problem is a bad one, then why would it make sense to come up with a solution that may be worse than the problem? This is pretty much my take on the subject.

Warming is a fact. And its cause is anthropogenic.

0 Replies

I see it. You're right. So simple, I don't know why I never figured it out before.

0 Replies

well good, we are making progress.

Now how serious is it going to be?
Is there anything we can do to ward off the worst effects?
If so what and how much will it cost?
How long have we got?

Those are the questions we need to address now.

0 Replies

Quote:

A major, unwarranted altering and stifling of efficiency, in the way of excessively burdensome, unwarranted, and impractical regulations, can lead to a major disruption of the economy, thus leading to widespread suffering, even starvation.

What a load of horse crap. 'disrupting of the economy' is worse than destroying our ecosystem??

Let's think about this for a second.

The consequences of one is a tough time for our society as we re-adjust to new economic rules.

The consequences of the OTHER is a tough time for the ENTIRE WORLD as they struggle to survive through drought, flood, and climate change.

You really must have written this in jest. Do you seriously believe that a little economic difficulty is more important to avoid than harming our environment?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It depends on how much difficulty is required to avoid how much harm. It also depends on just what you mean by harm. Change is not necessarily harm.

0 Replies

Quote:

Rapidly shrinking Arctic ice could spell trouble for the rest of the worldBy Robert S. BoydKnight Ridder NewspapersWASHINGTON - Alarmed by an accelerating loss of ice in the Arctic Ocean, scientists are striving to understand why the speedup is happening and what it means for humankind.
If present trends continue, as seems likely, the sea surrounding the North Pole will be completely free of ice in the summertime within the lifetime of a child born today. The loss could point the way to radical changes in the Earth's climate and weather systems.
Some researchers, such as Ron Lindsay, an Arctic scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, fear that the polar region already may have passed a "tipping point" from which it can't recover in the foreseeable future.
Others, such as Jonathan Overpeck, the director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona in Tucson, think the Arctic ice pack is nearing a point of no return but hasn't reached it yet.

more

0 Replies

We now know the ecosystem is definitely beginning to collapse. But Kyoto people only stipulates some measly progress in reducing CO2 by 5% or some token percentage in 5 or 10 years or more. I'd say thats nothing. What are we going to do? If we do nothing, we will all die by that time?

0 Replies

If the arctic is going to go then its going to go. I really dont think there is anything we can do to stop or reverse this trend. Just think of the advantages easy sea routes from Europe to Japan. Its the Greenland iceshelf and the Antarctic we have to worry about. That could swamp up pretty quickly.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

What are we going to do? If we do nothing, we will all die by that time?

Some people work on the basis that we dont inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children.

0 Replies

Then I guess its over. The only hope we have is to stop everything now and I don't see that happening. Any suggestions out there?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Then I guess its over. The only hope we have is to stop everything now and I don't see that happening. Any suggestions out there?

No again you go from one extreme to the other. Just because we cant come up with a really effective solution, doesnt mean we cant do something. Even if that something is see your children buy property on higher ground. Its not all over. We can do lots of things, including educating people as to ways of life that reduce dependency on fossil fuel. I've said before I look at this whole problem from the other direction. What is actually more serious than global warming in the short to mid-term is the fact that conventional oil is peaking. Reduce our dependency on oil and gas in line with depletion of reserves and you dont have to worry about cutting carbon emissions, it takes care of itself.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know