So we slow down our greenhouse gas emission and the greenhouse effects slows down? whats next on the news? water is wet? We have effectively banned the most dangerous gases that eroded ozone and created other problems in the 90s. as old machines with those get retired, the effect of their damage slows down. this is expected. this is why we did it to begin with. if anything, you should call it success.
Remus said:
I'm not looking forward to seeing what happens when the effects of the melting icecaps and the grimy surface of what remains really set in.
We already know what wonders avaits us. Giant black holes [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136207-Giant-Mystery-Hole-Opens-in-Siberian-Region-Named-End-of-the-World-Update]
hentropy said:
Before anyone claims that this lends proof that global warming itself is nothing more than the result of natural fluctuations in climate, Lovejoy's previous paper, which employed the same statistical methodology, "rejected [this hypothesis] with 99.9% confidence."
So you're saying there's a chance?
99.9% confidence is pretty massive as far as statistics go. this is a rare find beside the very obviuos dependancies. the thing is they checked for 99.9%, not for more, so they reported on what they checked. the good thing about science is that there is ALWAYS a chance it can be wrong, and it accepts that. This however should not be confused with "its a chance ergo its all lies". The chance exists if you can prove them wrong, else, they are correct as far as the world is concerned.
Boris Goodenough said:
The suns reduced solar activity is one of the reasons. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html
wait what? wasnt the suns activity cycle at its peak last year? or am i mixing it up with solar flair activity?
faefrost said:
Or, and this is just a wild assed conjecture on my part, who certainly knows far far less than all of the brilliant scientists competing for federal research welfare, the truth is the same one we have known all along. That man has far far less impact on the climate than basic regular cyclical fluctuations of the Sun. So much less that mans actual impact on climate is below the effective level of perception.
while im not a scientist either, i disagree and provide a counterclaim that earths hot core heat radiation (the thing that does not allow underground to freeze bellow certaindepth and is used for geothermal energy production provides a counterbalance to suns outside heat and makes suns effect less effective than you claim. there is also a thing that eaths core is constantly cooling (very slowly), but the core itself is actually hotter than suns surface, its just that this heat is trapped in the middle of earth and can only go out very slowly.
ultreos2 said:
But shouldn't we be looking for methods to be reversing the process instead of constantly re declaring we're done for?
if you throw a snowball off a mountain and see it rolling, then you see a town bellow it, do you run after it trying to stop it? no, you warn the town to watch out because your not going to catch that snowball running after it. we have reached a treshold where the effects of global warming is causing other effects of global warming (the methane reserves being released in syberia especially). Its not a question of should we reverse it, but a question of whether we can. and it very much looks like we cant.
Also to actually do something about it we need more than just scientists. we need actual political support for that. and that is nowhere to be found, because thats expenses with no profit, and why would corporations that buy politicians spend money on that right?
humans are extremely shortsighted. the rich will only start caring when their villas on the beach start flooding. and the poor are too poor to do anything about it.
