Global warming- past point of no return

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, August 31, 2008 19:16
VIEWED: 7063
PAGE 7 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CITIZEN

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Ooops, I was referring to the 20th Century...or maybe the 19th...hmmm, could have been the 18th...nope, definately the 17th, yep...wait, forgot the 16th...no, no definately the 15th...damn those 14th century storms was sumtin fierce they were...and Sygny, remember the mid 13th Century, those were wild times...but nothing compared to the 12th...now the 11th was nothing special...not at all like the 10th, what being the turn of the millenium, now that was the end of the world for you....but then there was...

In Ohio it rained all day today. God help us all.

Ich hoffe, wann Sie kommen, das Wetter bin mild.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

RUE

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 2:38 AM

Quote:
IF the global temperature is as high now, as it was during the mideival (sic) warming period

Big if.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

BARNSTORMER

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
IF the global temperature is as high now, as it was during the mideival (sic) warming period
Big if.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

No, not so big. It's born of the same data that is used to show that Global warming is happening.

Can't have it both ways. To even try is to undermine your whole point.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

HANS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Call me a skeptic, but I'm still not buying this 'Global warming ' bit as being anything more than the Earth's natural cycle. We might not understand it or how it all works, but there's a history of the Earth that predates man. Virtually all of it,actually. The Mesozoic inland sea which covered the interior of the United States...you think they got lots of water in New Orleans after Katrina!

This is one of the arguments I hear most from global warming nay-sayers, and it's one of the ones that frustrates me more than anything.

Yes, there has always been a variation in temperature over time on the earth. But it's always been gradual changes over a period of thousands of years. What we are noticing now is a rapid, noticeable, unprecedented change that's taking place at exactly the same time as a huge increase in industrial output. Look at a graph, and the correlation between the two is undeniable.

And note that I said correlation, not causation. The environment is an extremely complicated system, and "proving" that one thing causes another is essentially impossible. It's the old "butterfly flaps it's wings in Tokyo, causing a hurricane in Mexico" thing - you'd never be able to track your way backwards from the hurricane to the butterfly and prove that it caused the event. Likewise, you'd never be able to "prove" that Katrina (or the recent droughts in Europe, or the other examples of extreme weather we've seen) had anything to do with global warming and human activity, so nay-sayers like you can always shrug their shoulders, hop into their SUV, and drive away.

(And no, I'm not saying that Katrina specifically had anything to do with global warming. I'm saying it's possible there's some relation between the two, and even if there isn't, Katrina is a perfect example of what will be happening if we don't take action now.)

So if you can't prove a connection between human activity and environmental change, what's left? All you can do is make reasonable guesses about what's happening and go with the most likely answer. The simple fact is that there's near consensus in the scientific community (if you leave out those scientists who work directly for big oil, or are in the pocket of the Republican party) that human activity is having a negative effect on our environment. Is it provable, in an absolute sense? No. Is it a reasonable conclusion based on what we've observed? Absolutely, yes.

I'm curious if the anti-environmentalists think that human-caused global warming is a complete fiction, or if they just think it is simply unlikely? The reason I ask is, most people take reasonable precautions to avoid a disater even when they think a disaster is unlikely. Almost everyone who owns a house has fire insurance, yet the chance of your house burning down is extremely low (1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? Lower?). So why do people own house insurance? Because the consequences of your house burning down are so horrific, it's better to take precautions. So, global warming sceptics, what do you think the odd are that the environmentalists are right? 1 in 100? 1 in 20? At what point are the odds high enough that you think it's worth taking precautions?

Last, but not least, just because there's been ice ages and other examples of extreme weather in pre-history is no reason to think that it's something that it would be easy to survive this time. Yes, the Earth itself might survive, but that doesn't mean we will. If global warming is inevitable and has nothing to do with human activity, all we can do is hunker down and get ready for some miserable decades ahead. But if there's even the tiniest chance that it's human caused, shouldn't we try to do something before it's too late?

Hans

CITIZEN

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
Yes, there has always been a variation in temperature over time on the earth. But it's always been gradual changes over a period of thousands of years. What we are noticing now is a rapid, noticeable, unprecedented change that's taking place at exactly the same time as a huge increase in industrial output. Look at a graph, and the correlation between the two is undeniable.

Thank you, that is a point I tried to raise earlier on, but unfortunately it was ignored.
The Earth's temperature and environment have changed constantly over the years; in fact we are still cooler than the Earths average temperature. The thing is these temperature changes have always been gradual, allowing all the various environmental mechanisms and eco-systems to adapt. The current change is happening much faster.

Whether or not the warming trend is caused by Human activity is irrelevant. The fact is this is the fastest it has ever happened according to all available data. So what’s the variable added to the mix that wasn't there before? Human activity...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

ECLIPTIC

Monday, October 17, 2005 1:24 PM

On the note of the hurricane caused by global warming. That is outright wrong.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/13/Worldandnation/Storm_frenzy_is_not_a
.shtml

Quote:
Now climatologists say frenzied hurricane seasons will be a fact of life for the next 10 to 20 years, part of a lengthy cycle of stormy eras followed by calmer ones.

Quote:
At a time when some are theorizing that global warming may be the reason for more intense hurricane seasons, climatologists say the AMO is the real culprit.

"The consensus among hurricane researchers and forecasters is that the hurricane landfalls of 2004 resulted from the AMO, a natural cycle of hurricane activity, combined with a lapse in the incredibly good fortune of the previous 35 years," Hugh Willoughby, a hurricane researcher at Miami's Florida International University, wrote in an essay last fall.

"The effect of global warming was at most second order," he wrote, "and probably not present at all."

Also to those that think natural global climate changes happen slowly, have you never heard of the Little Ice Age of Europe?

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

Quote:
1595: Gietroz (Switzerland) glacier advances, dammed Dranse River, and caused flooding of Bagne with 70 deaths.
1600-10: Advances by Chamonix (France) glaciers cause massive floods which destroyed three villages and severely damaged a fourth. One village had stood since the 1200's.
1670-80's: Maximum historical advances by glaciers in eastern Alps. Noticeable decline of human population by this time in areas close to glaciers, whereas population elsewhere in Europe had risen.
1695-1709: Iceland glaciers advance dramatically, destroying farms.
1710-1735: A glacier in Norway was advancing at a rate of 100 m per year for 25 years.
1748-50: Norwegian glaciers achieved their historical maximum LIA positions.

CITIZEN

Monday, October 17, 2005 4:44 PM

So a global temperature change is explained away by short term local fluctuations?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:16 PM

Arctic sea ice drops to 2nd lowest level on record

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5io8-mhR216BbP-65r8IrK1C6y8ZQD92QRQD
81

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7