Global warming

[hoho]

Oh I'm just saying the environment was more capable of handling high CO2 levels.

Yes, in the past there was hotter climate and likely more plantmass on Earth but those plants died out. Why? Because of climate changed. I'm sure there would be still life on earth even if global averages would go up or down some 40 degrees, just that it won't be anything like it is today. If climate changes too rapidly then a lot of species will die out due to not being able to adapt fast enough.

If the US could be entirely self-sustaining with biofuels at $5/gallon, I'd prefer that to the current situation.

How would those be grown? Growing it on fields is not sustainable and will be polluting quite a bit. Only theoretically viable way would be to grow algae in the oceans but that still needs some research

 

[KimB]

The Earth and its climate are constantly changing and there isn't a single correct climate or temperature for our planet.

Fine. But in case you didn't notice, humans are not the planet. Life on Earth will adapt to whatever changes we make. Granted, millions of species will go extinct in the interim, but the adaptation will come.

This doesn't, however, mean that humans won't have a very hard time with the changes that occur as a result of climate change. Because we will. There really isn't any significant doubt about this any longer: the effects of human-caused climate change are significant and painful for humans.

Those of you who worry about AGW, there are thousands of things that are more disruptive to human life that we need to worry about before we even get to AGW.

Pretty sure that isn't remotely true.

 

[Ty]

Fine. But in case you didn't notice, humans are not the planet. Life on Earth will adapt to whatever changes we make. Granted, millions of species will go extinct in the interim, but the adaptation will come.

This doesn't, however, mean that humans won't have a very hard time with the changes that occur as a result of climate change. Because we will. There really isn't any significant doubt about this any longer: the effects of human-caused climate change are significant and painful for humans.

Yes, those that doubt the impact of climate change (regardless if you believe Humans are a cause or not) should at least read the following article.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/cl...global-cooling-ancient-past/story?id=12822254

By the time it ended, 75 percent of the world's marine organisms were extinct. But very slowly the planet began to warm, gradually eroding the mega-continent of ice around the South Pole, and many of the tiny creatures and plants that had died out were replaced by new organisms. Life began anew on planet Earth.

"We are looking at a time when the climate change was rapid, at least on the geologic time scale we can measure, but it still may not have been anything near the pace that we see in climate change today. None the less, the biology felt this climate change" 440 million years ago.

Far from the polar ice sheet, in a relatively warm area near the equator, the temperature plunged several degrees. That may have taken several hundred thousand years, but it was enough to wipe out most marine organisms.

We're not heading for another snowball earth. But wherever we're going, it isn't going to take several hundred thousand years. And if a faster pace means greater impact, the consequences of the current warming trend could be severe.

 

[hoho]

I'd say this little video sums up pretty well the people that only care what's happening here and now and not what happens in future

Nothing personal, I'd even say that video describes the humanity in general

 

[KimB]

I'd say this little video sums up pretty well the people that only care what's happening here and now and not what happens in future
Nothing personal, I'd even say that video describes the humanity in general

You have to cut out the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= part, leaving only the video identifier

 

[corduroygt]

Yes, those that doubt the impact of climate change (regardless if you believe Humans are a cause or not) should at least read the following article.

A change in climate towards colder temperatures is worse than a change in climate towards hotter temperatures though. There's more landmass that's unusable due to cold than hot.

 

[KimB]

A change in climate towards colder temperatures is worse than a change in climate towards hotter temperatures though. There's more landmass that's unusable due to cold than hot.

What does it matter? The change is towards warmer temperatures.

Edit: Here I imagine you looking at some flood victims drowning, nodding your head sagely and stating, "You know what? It's worse to die in fire than it is to drown."

 

[hoho]

What does it matter? The change is towards warmer temperatures.

Actually the change will make some areas colder and others hotter. For example most of EU will be significantly colder while already hot deserts near equator will be even hotter than today. You could say that temperature extremes increase but overall average will be slight temperature increase.

 

[KimB]

Actually the change will make some areas colder and others hotter. For example most of EU will be significantly colder

Well, this doesn't appear to be the case. The model where this happens involves the shutdown of the gulf stream. This shutdown is proposed to happen as a result of changes in the salinity of the water. If the upper levels of the ocean become less salty than the deeper levels, it can kill the forces that keep the gulf stream going.

The problem is that ocean water does tend to mix over time, so to get the required salinity change, you have to dump a huge amount of fresh water into the ocean in a very short time. For example, you could do this if all of Greenland were to melt instantly. But this is highly, highly unlikely, so it's more probable that Europe will continue to warm up as it has been.

That said, it is true that some areas are expected to get somewhat cooler, but the vast majority of areas are going to be getting warmer.

 

[corduroygt]

What does it matter? The change is towards warmer temperatures.

Edit: Here I imagine you looking at some flood victims drowning, nodding your head sagely and stating, "You know what? It's worse to die in fire than it is to drown."

If climate "science" is so damn accurate and they know it's going to flood exactly where with 100% confidence, why not start building barriers or evacuating such settlements today?
For the flood victims, I'd have told them that it's their fault for settling in a place with flood risks.

 

[KimB]

If climate "science" is so damn accurate and they know it's going to flood exactly where with 100% confidence, why not start building barriers or evacuating such settlements today?

Um, because most of us would rather not have to deal with the flooding in the first place, hence the focus on limiting CO2 emissions.

 

[corduroygt]

Um, because most of us would rather not have to deal with the flooding in the first place, hence the focus on limiting CO2 emissions.

Trying to convince people who are not in any danger from AGW to give up the standard of living they've gotten used to is futile, whereas convincing those who'd suffer the most to move or get prepared is a much easier task.

By the way, you've got me wrong, here's where I work lol:

 

[Blazkowicz]

If climate "science" is so damn accurate and they know it's going to flood exactly where with 100% confidence, why not start building barriers or evacuating such settlements today?

that would cost trillions, and asking countries to take in tens of millions people is as much a problem as asking them to reduce their economic output and discourage the use of cars/trucsks/planes.

 

[KimB]

Trying to convince people who are not in any danger from AGW to give up the standard of living they've gotten used to is futile, whereas convincing those who'd suffer the most to move or get prepared is a much easier task.

Everybody's going to have a hard time, to one degree or another. Yes, even you. But we all know you're heartless. You've made that abundantly clear over and over in this thread.

 

[rpg.314]

If climate "science" is so damn accurate and they know it's going to flood exactly where with 100% confidence, why not start building barriers or evacuating such settlements today?

Geez, you want to evacuate all of sw coast of usa? Ohh wait, you don't live there, so you don't care.

And how do you propose funding such an enterprise? Ohh wait, you won't give a penny to help those people who adopted you as a compatriot. My bad, I needn't have asked that...

Trying to convince people who are not in any danger from AGW to give up the standard of living they've gotten used to is futile, whereas convincing those who'd suffer the most to move or get prepared is a much easier task.

So those in florida can come and bunk with you, pal?

 

[Ty]

A change in climate towards colder temperatures is worse than a change in climate towards hotter temperatures though. There's more landmass that's unusable due to cold than hot.

This seems to be way too simplistic and completely contradictory to your stance about how complex understanding climate is.

In other words, you have been arguing that climate is so complex, the science is uncertain, etc but yet here you are saying warmer is better without any sort of justification other than some comparison based only on landmass. You haven't considered mass extinctions in the ocean, weather patterns, how MUCH climate change, how fast (did you read the article I linked to?).

Also did you read my previous reply to you about admitting that some deniers could be financially motivated?

If climate "science" is so damn accurate and they know it's going to flood exactly where with 100% confidence, why not start building barriers or evacuating such settlements today?

Err, it's much more than just flooding. I think part of the gap here is that your understanding of the problem is incorrect.

Trying to convince people who are not in any danger from AGW to give up the standard of living they've gotten used to is futile, whereas convincing those who'd suffer the most to move or get prepared is a much easier task.

But folks are affected in different ways, some more directly than others certainly.

Funny pic BTW.

 

[corduroygt]

Geez, you want to evacuate all of sw coast of usa? Ohh wait, you don't live there, so you don't care.

And how do you propose funding such an enterprise? Ohh wait, you won't give a penny to help those people who adopted you as a compatriot. My bad, I needn't have asked that...

Well, they chose to settle where they did, so it's up to them to move. People move all around the US without too many issues for jobs, etc.

So those in florida can come and bunk with you, pal?

Sure, it'll make property values go up here. They shouldn't have settled in a place with flooding risks without taking any precautions.

 

[corduroygt]

This seems to be way too simplistic and completely contradictory to your stance about how complex understanding climate is.

In other words, you have been arguing that climate is so complex, the science is uncertain, etc but yet here you are saying warmer is better without any sort of justification other than some comparison based only on landmass. You haven't considered mass extinctions in the ocean, weather patterns, how MUCH climate change, how fast (did you read the article I linked to?).

Well I'm going by links given to me here, which shows a majority of the Earth will warm up. Of course it's more complicated than that, but according to the leading experts, we'll have more land that's warmer than now.

Also did you read my previous reply to you about admitting that some deniers could be financially motivated?

Of course! I agree with you 100%. For example I am financially motivated to deny AGW. I'd rather have more money than save someone I don't know in Africa/Asia, and I am not an extra heartless anomaly, most people are like that when it comes down to it.

Err, it's much more than just flooding. I think part of the gap here is that your understanding of the problem is incorrect.

If people in Africa are having droughts, why should this be my problem? Why should I care? Most people don't care but don't admit this to themselves.

 

[FUDie]

If people in Africa are having droughts, why should this be my problem? Why should I care? Most people don't care but don't admit this to themselves.

So you don't care if your actions affect other people? So I suppose driving drunk is okay, right? I mean, what do you care if someone else gets hurt? It's their fault for being in your away.

Here's to hoping people drive you out of here the way _xxx_ was.

-FUDie

 

[AlphaWolf]

If people in Africa are having droughts, why should this be my problem? Why should I care? Most people don't care but don't admit this to themselves.

African droughts would only be a problem for you if you happen to want to eat. It would drive the price of your food up.