There is no difference whatsoever. What you are advocating may win the battle, but it is absolutely, positively guaranteed to lose the war (unless the opposition is just as blinkered as you): it shifts the conversation towards the opposition, giving them all of the power in future discussions.
Global warming
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
According to Arstechnica global CO2 output increased 5% in 2010 over 2009. CO2 levels are increasing at a rate of 1% per year.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20284-worlds-wind-and-waves-have-been-rising-for-decades.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=environment
FWIW warmest may ever in NZ, 0.7 degrees warmer than the last record, its winter & Im in tshirt & shorts
FWIW warmest may ever in NZ, 0.7 degrees warmer than the last record, its winter & Im in tshirt & shorts
FWIW we had the coldest May in California since I've been here. Barely got to 70F most of the month, one day had a high of 57F even...http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20284-worlds-wind-and-waves-have-been-rising-for-decades.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=environment
FWIW warmest may ever in NZ, 0.7 degrees warmer than the last record, its winter & Im in tshirt & shorts
Plus, we've had rain in May (and now June!) which is quite unusual.
Clearly, global warming is a myth
-FUDie
Blazkowicz
Legend
this gives a sense of scale. 1% total atmospheric CO2 increase per year, that's huge.
imagine if the sun's output was to increase 1% per year, we'd be all toast real soon
or what if oceans gained 1% in volume.
people by large don't have much a sense of scale. and the scale to consider depends on the phenomenon. such as, 40°C is less than 15% higher than 0°C, but 70dB is 900% higher than 60dB.
likewise, we're running a good chance of ending with a +4°C warning towards the end of century. people don't quite fathom how huge that is and how major the consequences are (major starvation and water shortages. a catastrophe that will dwarf WW2 or even Black Death)
I guess the greater the energy in the environment the greater the energy of things like wind and wave heights, I guess you could say it's all just the wind as waves are formed from the action of wind. I think this has also got something to do with dead zones around the world as the winds encourage nutrient rich water up from the depths.
Oh and I guess it'll help your wind-farms around New Zealand be profitable and consistent?
FWIW warmest may ever in NZ, 0.7 degrees warmer than the last record, its winter & Im in tshirt & shorts
[/QUOTE]Im in shorts and T-Shirts as well! Wanna make it naked June?
this gives a sense of scale. 1% total atmospheric CO2 increase per year, that's huge.
imagine if the sun's output was to increase 1% per year, we'd be all toast real soon
or what if oceans gained 1% in volume.
people by large don't have much a sense of scale. and the scale to consider depends on the phenomenon. such as, 40°C is less than 15% higher than 0°C, but 70dB is 900% higher than 60dB.
It's funny how you never get such clarification from the media. You never get told things which would make things simple like a 2 degree increase in temperature is less than a 1% increase. You also never get told things like the fact that the human habitable range of comfort is less than 10% of temperature shift away from being nearly uninhabitable.
I think one significant issue is that the media just reports on what the politicians are doing and not the basic science. Im pretty sure that half of the reason why people haven't done more is because temperatures aren't reported in Kelvin on the daily news.
In the end I don't really think anything will get done in the next 10 years. We're going to miss the targets because everyone is going to miss the targets and noone wants to blaze a trail when the pricetag is huge. They may be sure it's happening but they aren't billions sure yet.
I don't think this is the problem at all. The pricetag on real climate change action is modest at worst, and there are a number of side benefits. The real problem is that real climate change action will create a number of winners and losers, but nearly all of the losers are rich, established interests, while the winners are not. And so, due to massive political corruption, we languish.
They have that option no matter what you say.
While true, giving up on pointing out the full nastiness of the cold, hard facts just shifts the conversation away from those facts, making it easier for them to ignore them.
If it was 1% total atmospheric CO2 increase per year that would indeed be huge. That's not what's happening though, CO2 contents is thankfully still in the PPM range or we'd all suffocate in short order.
Err, on what scale? If you mean Kelvin, then I'd be inclined to agree, but Celsius then 2 degrees is a lot more than less than 1%...
They don't do that because most people are quite ignorant, not to mention disinterested. They wouldn't understand said basic science, and/or would switch channel to something more easily digestible like sitcoms or sport or whatever.
An open-minded person will ask for the cold, hard facts when presented with a credible theory. A close-minded person would simply choose not to believe the cold, hard facts that go against their worldview. They'll only change their mind in the face of a demonstration, or when it benefits them. But you cannot demonstrate AGW.
Besides, the important thing to discuss aren't the facts but the actions.
I don't see what difference it would make. People know what temperature corresponds to a cold, mild, hot day, and they know that e.g. a 1°C difference has relatively little impact to their perception of the weather on any specific day. That doesn't change if you add 273.15 to the number.
If everyone was using Kelvin on a daily basis then everyone would be aware of how minor a change it is going from 15 to 20 degrees C because they'd be aware of how little the difference is in absolute terms.
Exactly. And that open-minded person, who is trying to make up his own mind, will be suspicious when everyone is repeating a few facts that are plastered all over the media.
They might be right, but the journalists and other spokespersons ventilating those "facts", are the first ones to tell us that nowadays it doesn't matter if those facts are actually true, but only that they're the first to air them, or that they support the majority viewpoint.
Sales matter.
I don't know about you, but I do like to get my facts straight before acting on them, thank you very much.
Unless it's immediately life-threatening, of course. But if it's going to take centuries, I'll take my time.
Well, to my knowledge, people don't spontaneously combust or die if they go to the tropics.
Mintmaster
Veteran
Going to the tropics is a much larger change in average temperature than the IPCC predicts from 100 years of global warming, so they don't care very much.
Even I think air pollution and energy independence is a much bigger reason to switch away from fossil fuels than AGW.
And why haven't you been paying attention to what a small change in global temperature brings? The overwhelming difference that people will feel is not the average temperature, but the secondary effects of said temperature. Things like growing seasons, sea level rise, storm and drought frequency, decrease in water supplies, and many more are the primary things that will affect people, not feeling a bit warmer when stepping outside.
In absolute terms the difference is still 5 K. I don't understand why you think people would do more if they thought the difference was quite small. Is that some kind of reverse psychology?
I might not have been entirely clear. What I meant is that you want to get the facts settled and then move the discussion on. There's no point in dwelling on established facts. Unless we're talking about assumptions and not facts at all.
- Status
Similar threads
