Global Warming Has Accelerated and Will Go On for Centuries

[Strazdas]

You deny that the vast majority of them do these things? OK, bro.

Yes i do. Have any proof to the contrary?

Facebook, infamous environmentalist "scandals" (having a private jet plane is just asking for all of the trouble), failed searching for consistent environmentalists. I literally can't find any. I can't even find any active hippie communes.

I have absolutely no reason to believe they don't do what everyone else does any more than I have reason to believe a yeti is stalking me.

If you're going to be one of those insipid contrarians who expects my "proof" to be an account for literally every environmentalist, please don't. You convince no one if you do that and only further alienate me.

saying "FAcebook" is not proof. do better. Yes, there are some enviromentalist hypocrites. that does not prove that "Vast majority" of them are however. Hippies are not the same as enviromentalist. I am not a hippy, yet i would probably be lumped into enviromentalist type.
Well, if you do not have the proof that most enviromentalists, then maybe you should say things like you know all of them do it?

And since the other guy started listing things about his life i will put myself into the "one of a few million" camp as well.
I do not drive a car. Even though i technically own one, it hasnt left the garage in years. I do use electric tram to get to work. It is run by electricity that was made in nuclear plant. Well, at least till EU forced us to shut it down, and it will again once we Finnish building a replacement. At that point, the electricity running it is completely green. I dont use places. i used places twice in my life. I do use computers. that is because they are more efficient way of doing things and produce no waste. they are also run on electricity, electricity that CAN be made in a green way. Not sure what animal products have to do with enviromentalism. not drinking milk wont magically stop making Co2 or replant oru forests, ect. While i am aware of what happens in slaughterhouses, which is why i often chose my food that come from sources i know when possible. I do not build with lumber. There is very little lumber in my house. Perhpas if you count that wooden spoon i have... I use cement and its variation as well as recycled paper furniture. My heating is centralized and they do use hard fuel for it, which sucks. however that is the only legal way of heating here and is still better than heating locally. I wish they would move to other ways, but i can only do so much in changing the whole countries heating system around. I do advocate alternative energy sources when i can, but im not an eco-terrorist and dont go blowing up their plants. If by chance you meant the cooking place for heaters, then i use electric stove and electric oven, a lot of which is powered by hydro power plant in neighboring city. (i know hydro plants arent enviromentally friendly but its better than hard fuel)

And I usually use blankets or jumpers instead of heaters.

I do use this to a point as well. Usually i try to keep my house at around 18C unless outside is warmer. However if you go into the low temperatures bellow 15C, dont. it starts creating condensation and mold which destroys buildings. its also very unhealthy to inhale. Id rather waste a bit more energy on heating than have to waste far more energy having to rebuild the house in 10 years.

I hear a lot about climate change and how its all our fault, and maybe it is. What can we do? Well put in perspective there's one thing I can think of and thats stop using it as a political weapon.

politics is the only thing that can force everyone to polute less, therefore it being politically involved is important. and we can do a lot. for starters, change the msot poluting sources into less poluting sources, like coal plants into nuclear plants.

For those who don't know, we're currently in a phase called an "icehouse earth." Were it not for anthropogenic global warming, we were due for another glacial period to begin in as little as 50k years. Also, fun fact, Earth, at the moment, is colder than it has been for about 80% of its history. Historically, for most of its existence, it has been MUCH hotter on average than it is now.

what you forget to mention that that 80% of history, earth had no life on it either. so unless your okay with all life goign extinct there is a reason to try and change that.

Yes, it has accelerated. There won't be any "disastrous" consequences. Some fish will migrate and/or die off, same with some animal species. People buying multimillion dollar beach houses will find themselves underwater in a century or less, and people in KNOWN flood plains will also find themselves underwater more frequently. What about this is disastrous? The earth will not explode, we won't all get obliterated by an asteroid because of global warming. So much sensationalism

is extinction of human life "diastrous" enough for you?

Yeah, about that...

- Climate is stable for 15 years now

Yeah, about that, any proof to show all those thousands of scientists that disagree?

It will continue on with or without us, and we will never be able to affect more than the smallest fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the universe in any meaningful way.
When it becomes a problem, we'll either die or solve it and then start freaking out about the next looming and implacably advancing problem.

That is a very long time. I wouldnt be so brave to as to try and predict that. While obviuosly fiction, its a nice depiction of just how different humans may one day be. and its a very good read if you havent. The Last Question by Asimov [https://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm]

And it already is a problem.

While i do believe it's real, i've yet to see any impact where i live in NY state.. in fact it seems colder, not warmer. it's spring and right was a high of 24 degrees today where i live.. where's this warmer i keep hearing about?

Actually, climat warming likely make palces like New York COLDER first. that is because the GULF current is warming your coast and as a result the weather is warmer. however the melting icecaps are slowing down the current due to clear water entering the stream, which means your coast is heated less and the effects are higher than average world temperature change. however once the current stops the cold peak will happen and it will continue going warmer. this sudden shift up and down will leave plenty of plant life dead as well as animals not used to sudden change.

Hmm... Okay, point taken. <link=http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/2326.html>I found this link a to be fairly useful perspective on Agriculture, although I have no idea on where they got their figures. Looks like beef is the main offender - poultry barely registers.

So on the plus side, I do eat poultry more often than beef. On the downside... beef is probably about one meal a week. Damn. Might put some work into reducing that...

that was... interesting. I eat pig mostly so that seems to be on the low offenders list too. A bit offtopic about poultry though. Your profile does not state your gender. If you are a male you may want to rethink that eating habbit though. That is because poultry meat has a lot of female hormones that dont react with male hormones that well. it resuts in low testosterone levels and other chemical unbalances and arent very healthy. For females there is no reaction like that due to both the meat and females having female hormones already. Thats why i moved mostly to pig now when i learn about this. As much as i dont like testosterone effects, i dont like poisoning myself even more.

ok global warming is a thing, its real, and it will effect everyone. That said all we humans have done is accelerated the process by ,I believe the last figure thrown out was 100 thousand years. This has happened many times in the past and will happen again and again over our planets life. Now should we start preparing for what's to come now? most defiantly. Should we try to fix it? maybe if we can prepare at the same time.

Now just want to share why I think most people say its a myth and why people don't seem to care.

1. the idiots that say "we are killing the earth!" we are not, we cant, and to think we could with anything short of just destroying the whole dam thing by blowing it up deathstar style is foolish.
2. people calling for us to dismantle our current energy structure to use alternatives that are still in the infancy. Now to clarify we should and infact are looking at new energy sources to stop our adding to global warming, but they are far from perfect and many wont show any progress for another 20 or so years not the best thing to just switch to.

If we managed to acellerate it by 100.000 years in the short span of less than 100 years, who is to say we cannot do the opposite and decelerate it by god knows how long in those 100.000 we would win? And while its not going to kill "Earth" it could definatelly kill "life" on it. As far as alternatives, sorry, but nuclear power is not in its infancy. its the safest and most powerful energy source we know. its been used for over 60 years now. Or, say, the well used wind power. I can udnerstand the toxicity of solar panels and the untested tidal wave power arguments. but there are much less emission alternatives, especially compared to hard fuel which is the most harmful (coal, wood, ect). Hell, how about we go around getting some H3 off the moon and do that reaction. Or Thorium reactors? yet those are ignored ideas it seems.

Sure, if the world warms up life will be harder, but at least there will still be food.

granted, some food may be found in the desert too, but i doubt you can sustain human population on that.

 

[the doom cannon]

is extinction of human life "diastrous" enough for you?

This is exactly what I mean by "so much sensationalism"

 

[tangoprime]

For those who don't know, we're currently in a phase called an "icehouse earth." Were it not for anthropogenic global warming, we were due for another glacial period to begin in as little as 50k years. Also, fun fact, Earth, at the moment, is colder than it has been for about 80% of its history. Historically, for most of its existence, it has been MUCH hotter on average than it is now.

what you forget to mention that that 80% of history, earth had no life on it either. so unless your okay with all life goign extinct there is a reason to try and change that.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that were it not for anthropogenic global warming, we were due for another glacial period to begin? So, changing it means heading towards a greenhouse earth, which is a period where life tends to flourish, and letting it run its course prior to anthropogenic contribution means we have another glacial period, where life tends to get weeded down a bit. Which one of these is better?

Also "try to change that." Lol, if you're talking about stopping the global climate from changing ever, and keeping it right here at it's happy temperature that we like, that's incredibly naive. Maybe, with our best efforts, we get a few thousand years at the current status quo, but it's changing one way or the other, and thinking we can stop it from doing so is like shooting a bb gun at a freight train.

 

[lacktheknack]

Yeah, about that...

- Climate is stable for 15 years now

Yeah, about that, any proof to show all those thousands of scientists that disagree?

He's referring to this.

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png

It'll be interesting to see if this turns into a sine wave.

 

[ecoho]

You deny that the vast majority of them do these things? OK, bro.

Yes i do. Have any proof to the contrary?

Facebook, infamous environmentalist "scandals" (having a private jet plane is just asking for all of the trouble), failed searching for consistent environmentalists. I literally can't find any. I can't even find any active hippie communes.

I have absolutely no reason to believe they don't do what everyone else does any more than I have reason to believe a yeti is stalking me.

If you're going to be one of those insipid contrarians who expects my "proof" to be an account for literally every environmentalist, please don't. You convince no one if you do that and only further alienate me.

saying "FAcebook" is not proof. do better. Yes, there are some enviromentalist hypocrites. that does not prove that "Vast majority" of them are however. Hippies are not the same as enviromentalist. I am not a hippy, yet i would probably be lumped into enviromentalist type.
Well, if you do not have the proof that most enviromentalists, then maybe you should say things like you know all of them do it?

And since the other guy started listing things about his life i will put myself into the "one of a few million" camp as well.
I do not drive a car. Even though i technically own one, it hasnt left the garage in years. I do use electric tram to get to work. It is run by electricity that was made in nuclear plant. Well, at least till EU forced us to shut it down, and it will again once we Finnish building a replacement. At that point, the electricity running it is completely green. I dont use places. i used places twice in my life. I do use computers. that is because they are more efficient way of doing things and produce no waste. they are also run on electricity, electricity that CAN be made in a green way. Not sure what animal products have to do with enviromentalism. not drinking milk wont magically stop making Co2 or replant oru forests, ect. While i am aware of what happens in slaughterhouses, which is why i often chose my food that come from sources i know when possible. I do not build with lumber. There is very little lumber in my house. Perhpas if you count that wooden spoon i have... I use cement and its variation as well as recycled paper furniture. My heating is centralized and they do use hard fuel for it, which sucks. however that is the only legal way of heating here and is still better than heating locally. I wish they would move to other ways, but i can only do so much in changing the whole countries heating system around. I do advocate alternative energy sources when i can, but im not an eco-terrorist and dont go blowing up their plants. If by chance you meant the cooking place for heaters, then i use electric stove and electric oven, a lot of which is powered by hydro power plant in neighboring city. (i know hydro plants arent enviromentally friendly but its better than hard fuel)

And I usually use blankets or jumpers instead of heaters.

I do use this to a point as well. Usually i try to keep my house at around 18C unless outside is warmer. However if you go into the low temperatures bellow 15C, dont. it starts creating condensation and mold which destroys buildings. its also very unhealthy to inhale. Id rather waste a bit more energy on heating than have to waste far more energy having to rebuild the house in 10 years.

I hear a lot about climate change and how its all our fault, and maybe it is. What can we do? Well put in perspective there's one thing I can think of and thats stop using it as a political weapon.

politics is the only thing that can force everyone to polute less, therefore it being politically involved is important. and we can do a lot. for starters, change the msot poluting sources into less poluting sources, like coal plants into nuclear plants.

For those who don't know, we're currently in a phase called an "icehouse earth." Were it not for anthropogenic global warming, we were due for another glacial period to begin in as little as 50k years. Also, fun fact, Earth, at the moment, is colder than it has been for about 80% of its history. Historically, for most of its existence, it has been MUCH hotter on average than it is now.

what you forget to mention that that 80% of history, earth had no life on it either. so unless your okay with all life goign extinct there is a reason to try and change that.

Yes, it has accelerated. There won't be any "disastrous" consequences. Some fish will migrate and/or die off, same with some animal species. People buying multimillion dollar beach houses will find themselves underwater in a century or less, and people in KNOWN flood plains will also find themselves underwater more frequently. What about this is disastrous? The earth will not explode, we won't all get obliterated by an asteroid because of global warming. So much sensationalism

is extinction of human life "diastrous" enough for you?

Yeah, about that...

- Climate is stable for 15 years now

Yeah, about that, any proof to show all those thousands of scientists that disagree?

It will continue on with or without us, and we will never be able to affect more than the smallest fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the universe in any meaningful way.
When it becomes a problem, we'll either die or solve it and then start freaking out about the next looming and implacably advancing problem.

That is a very long time. I wouldnt be so brave to as to try and predict that. While obviuosly fiction, its a nice depiction of just how different humans may one day be. and its a very good read if you havent. The Last Question by Asimov [https://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm]

And it already is a problem.

While i do believe it's real, i've yet to see any impact where i live in NY state.. in fact it seems colder, not warmer. it's spring and right was a high of 24 degrees today where i live.. where's this warmer i keep hearing about?

Actually, climat warming likely make palces like New York COLDER first. that is because the GULF current is warming your coast and as a result the weather is warmer. however the melting icecaps are slowing down the current due to clear water entering the stream, which means your coast is heated less and the effects are higher than average world temperature change. however once the current stops the cold peak will happen and it will continue going warmer. this sudden shift up and down will leave plenty of plant life dead as well as animals not used to sudden change.

Hmm... Okay, point taken. <link=http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/2326.html>I found this link a to be fairly useful perspective on Agriculture, although I have no idea on where they got their figures. Looks like beef is the main offender - poultry barely registers.

So on the plus side, I do eat poultry more often than beef. On the downside... beef is probably about one meal a week. Damn. Might put some work into reducing that...

that was... interesting. I eat pig mostly so that seems to be on the low offenders list too. A bit offtopic about poultry though. Your profile does not state your gender. If you are a male you may want to rethink that eating habbit though. That is because poultry meat has a lot of female hormones that dont react with male hormones that well. it resuts in low testosterone levels and other chemical unbalances and arent very healthy. For females there is no reaction like that due to both the meat and females having female hormones already. Thats why i moved mostly to pig now when i learn about this. As much as i dont like testosterone effects, i dont like poisoning myself even more.

ok global warming is a thing, its real, and it will effect everyone. That said all we humans have done is accelerated the process by ,I believe the last figure thrown out was 100 thousand years. This has happened many times in the past and will happen again and again over our planets life. Now should we start preparing for what's to come now? most defiantly. Should we try to fix it? maybe if we can prepare at the same time.

Now just want to share why I think most people say its a myth and why people don't seem to care.

1. the idiots that say "we are killing the earth!" we are not, we cant, and to think we could with anything short of just destroying the whole dam thing by blowing it up deathstar style is foolish.
2. people calling for us to dismantle our current energy structure to use alternatives that are still in the infancy. Now to clarify we should and infact are looking at new energy sources to stop our adding to global warming, but they are far from perfect and many wont show any progress for another 20 or so years not the best thing to just switch to.

If we managed to acellerate it by 100.000 years in the short span of less than 100 years, who is to say we cannot do the opposite and decelerate it by god knows how long in those 100.000 we would win? And while its not going to kill "Earth" it could definatelly kill "life" on it. As far as alternatives, sorry, but nuclear power is not in its infancy. its the safest and most powerful energy source we know. its been used for over 60 years now. Or, say, the well used wind power. I can udnerstand the toxicity of solar panels and the untested tidal wave power arguments. but there are much less emission alternatives, especially compared to hard fuel which is the most harmful (coal, wood, ect). Hell, how about we go around getting some H3 off the moon and do that reaction. Or Thorium reactors? yet those are ignored ideas it seems.

Sure, if the world warms up life will be harder, but at least there will still be food.

granted, some food may be found in the desert too, but i doubt you can sustain human population on that.

nuclear power is pretty risky and you need not look farther then japan to see why. As for wind power its a great source of supplemental power but cant sustain the power needs of most cities, I should know we have one of the largest wind farms right outside of town.
Last but not least to your we can kill all life comment, just no its not actually possible. We can only destroy all life as we know it, to quote DR. Malcome from Jurassic park "life will find a way".

 

[HalfTangible]

granted, some food may be found in the desert too, but i doubt you can sustain human population on that.

1) See: Icecaps. If the world warms up it's far more likely we'd flood than we'd turn into a desert world.

2) When was the last time you grew food on a glacier?

3) Ancient Egypt. (granted, nile river, but again, there'd be MORE water in a warmer world if it was still cool enough for the question 'can we survive it' to matter - see 1)

 

[JazzJack2]

The "climate change" is a hell of a business. As long as gullible people fund their pseudo-research, these "climate experts" will come up with one doomsday scenario after another.

Yeah remember kids, people who rationally analyze the evidence given to them and who understand basic physics and chemistry are gullible, but people who simply believe news pundits or lobbyists who tell them what they want to hear and then cherry pick evidence (or simply lie) are 'skeptics'.

 

[AgedGrunt]

I said this the better part of ten years ago, but apparently no one was listening to me so I'm going to have to say it again. We are not going to stop climate change; everything we do is going to be too little too late. What we can do is start to plan for it.

In my country "plan for it" means a complete overhaul of flood defence. Unfortunately this won't happen because to many civil servants need to cover their arse (see river dredging). Also we could start planting some vineyards, maybe some olives.

I think a lot more people would be on board with this settled science if projects and proposals were for things that would protect against these doomsday scenarios like defense again chaotic weather, alternative agriculture and overhauling infrastructure rather than running rackets such as carbon offsets, subsidies for failed solar companies and requiring ethanol to be in US vehicles, burning our food supply and further exhausting freshwater aquifers to fuel polluting cars.

Or, you know, if all of these smart scientists who see it coming would tell us these people are doing everything wrong and should be put in jail for endangering the planet. That might be a bit more encouraging than complacency and responsibility science seems comfortable leaving on the table.

 

[JazzJack2]

http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm

Most of the claims they are 'disproving' seem to be anecdotes quoted from newspapers/magazine articles or pop science books (it's of no consequence to me if the claims of sensationalist journalists appear to be in disagreement with each other), it appears to have very few references to actual scientific journals and so is not relevant to actual scientific discussion.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17

Given the article repeats one of the most easily refuted myths in it's title (the idea that global warming has slowed/stopped [https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm]) I really can't be bothered to read it further, perhaps you could link works from scientists that show failures in IPCC predictions instead of this trash you've given me.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/30/new-paper-finds-the-majority-of-east-antarctic-glaciers-have-advanced-in-size-since-1990/

Oh look a website that immediately brings up a fuck-off massive pop up, yeah I can't even be arsed with that. Although, again judging from the title, it jut seems to be another one of those articles that trot out one of the most common Denialist misrepresentations, I.E cherry pick glaciers that are growing while ignoring the fact that the majority of glaciers across the world are shrinking.

An entire century of false predictions, the proof that the glaciers are growing

*cough* they aren't [http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/mbb11/wgms_2011_gmbb11.pdf] *cough*

and you can't deny that it has become an industry of its own.

Again that isn't relevant to the actual science of the matter.

Let me ask like this: how many of these predictions have turned out to be true so far? I have already provided a list of bullshit predictions, now it's your turn.

Well how much time do you have? it's quite a lot so perhaps it would be best to stick to the big things like Temprature rises [http://web.archive.org/web/20100322194954/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2/] or Sea level rises [http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf].

 

[Strazdas]

is extinction of human life "diastrous" enough for you?

This is exactly what I mean by "so much sensationalism"

Its not sensationalism if its true.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that were it not for anthropogenic global warming, we were due for another glacial period to begin? So, changing it means heading towards a greenhouse earth, which is a period where life tends to flourish, and letting it run its course prior to anthropogenic contribution means we have another glacial period, where life tends to get weeded down a bit. Which one of these is better?

Also "try to change that." Lol, if you're talking about stopping the global climate from changing ever, and keeping it right here at it's happy temperature that we like, that's incredibly naive. Maybe, with our best efforts, we get a few thousand years at the current status quo, but it's changing one way or the other, and thinking we can stop it from doing so is like shooting a bb gun at a freight train.

Except that we were not going into glacier period before that. and we so far managed to speed global warming by 100.000 years, so yes, we can do have massive impact.

He's referring to this.

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png

It'll be interesting to see if this turns into a sine wave.

Spoiler: hes still wrong though

And in the very long scale (millions of years) it is a sine curve, not that humans can survive either of the peaks.

You mean the same scientists that said there will be no oil left in the year 2000?

What about the growing glaciers? I guess those don't really fit the global warming hype:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/30/new-paper-finds-the-majority-of-east-antarctic-glaciers-have-advanced-in-size-since-1990/

And as I said, the folks who went out to prove global warming froze stuck. Which, of course, is just another proof that earth is getting warmer to them.

The "climate change" is a hell of a business. As long as gullible people fund their pseudo-research, these "climate experts" will come up with one doomsday scenario after another.

no scientists said that. What scientists said, that if no new reserves were found the oil would run out in 2020. New reserves were found, which prolonged the oil death. However we are past the oil peak (in 2008 or so if i remember correctly) and there is less oil being extracted now. As oil price rises the places like antarctica will become more and more attractive, that wouldnt be profitable before, so it will drag for a but, but oil is definatelly running out.

so i tracebacked the original paper through 3 links from that blogpost. sciencedaily, that not-peer-reviewd site that was known to post falsified "Research" before. but ok, lets look at it.

However, he added that the changes observed in glaciers in East Antarctica needed further investigation against the backdrop of likely increases in both atmospheric and ocean temperatures caused by climate change.

Dr Stokes said: "If the climate is going to warm in the future, our study shows that large parts of the margins of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet are vulnerable to the kinds of changes that are worrying us in Greenland and West Antarctica -- acceleration, thinning and retreat.

"When temperatures warm in the air or ocean, glaciers respond by retreating and this can have knock-on effects further inland, where more and more ice is drawn-down towards the coast.

Yaeh, so maybe next time provide more than something misinterpreted by a blogpost?

Oh, and yeah, getting stuck in polar axes defnatelly proves it wrong. because global warming means instant tropics everywhere. riiiiight.

You do know that everyone in scientific community thinks global warming exists and the only discussion is not if its real but what caused it?

nuclear power is pretty risky and you need not look farther then japan to see why. As for wind power its a great source of supplemental power but cant sustain the power needs of most cities, I should know we have one of the largest wind farms right outside of town.
Last but not least to your we can kill all life comment, just no its not actually possible. We can only destroy all life as we know it, to quote DR. Malcome from Jurassic park "life will find a way".

No it is not. Nuclear power has had less deaths in its entire history than other power industries have in a year. nuclear power has only had a single real accident in entire history, and that one was caused by intentional human interference removing safety (im talking about chernobyl). Fukushima was outdated reactor that, gasp, didnt actually melt or explode. There are no reactors of that design left. the new reactors are so safe its impossible for them to explode - the fuel they use does not do that. even if people stopped interfering AND all safety would fail the reactors would cement itself in due how its built. Nuclear power is anything but risky.

You are correct that there isnt enough wind power to satisfy our needs, which is why it cannot be there alone.

Well, true, there are some bacterial that live 2 kilometers under the ground and can survive enviroments deadly to everything else. but thats not the kind of life we want to inherit our earth now is it.

granted, some food may be found in the desert too, but i doubt you can sustain human population on that.

1) See: Icecaps. If the world warms up it's far more likely we'd flood than we'd turn into a desert world.

2) When was the last time you grew food on a glacier?

3) Ancient Egypt. (granted, nile river, but again, there'd be MORE water in a warmer world if it was still cool enough for the question 'can we survive it' to matter - see 1)

1) as far as i know you cant grow trees in salt water.

2) ive never been on a glacier. food can be grown in multitude ways.

3) ancient egypt relied on its food sources around Nile. they did not grow food in desert. There were animals in steppes, granted. however sachara is actually expanding now dispalcing many inhabitants in that region because their wells dry out and they either move or die of starvation. this has caused some north-ward migration in sachara, causing a lot of disputes of local tribes coming into modern towns and not acting how others want them to act.

I think a lot more people would be on board with this settled science if projects and proposals were for things that would protect against these doomsday scenarios like defense again chaotic weather, alternative agriculture and overhauling infrastructure rather than running rackets such as carbon offsets, subsidies for failed solar companies and requiring ethanol to be in US vehicles, burning our food supply and further exhausting freshwater aquifers to fuel polluting cars.

Or, you know, if all of these smart scientists who see it coming would tell us these people are doing everything wrong and should be put in jail for endangering the planet. That might be a bit more encouraging than complacency and responsibility science seems comfortable leaving on the table.

Ever heard of Project Venus. it has a lot of amazing proposals for agriculture change. is anyone listening? of course not. and "Defence agaisnt weather" wont work unless we all go live deep in udnerground caves and find ways to stop earthquakes from happening - aka not gona happen.

Carbon taxing is good. it has pushed companies to create filtering systems that allow them to burn as much and waste less. and less waste was the whole point. I do agree with you about ethanol and water supplies problem. Ethanol wont work in cars anyway (that is, they can drive on it, i mean its too dangerous to have it around).

Oh, and there are plenty of people who do state that people killing the planet should stop doing it (or be stopped), but as long as politicians are in the pockets of the polluters and not the scientists its not going anywhere.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Ever heard of Project Venus.

No, actually; it has no publicity. As with politics people focus on the problems, not solutions. Solutions can be rejected, but when you focus on the diagnosis you can prescribe whatever you want.

Carbon taxing is good. it has pushed companies to create filtering systems that allow them to burn as much and waste less. and less waste was the whole point.

Waste is not the whole point; the whole point is humans are blamed for rising temperatures and, supposing we do nothing, we'll all be in a Hollywood doomsday film.

There's no serious global commitment to taxing and reducing emissions because taxing is bad. Pretty sure Europe and Australia are pulling back on the stick. Economies are not doing well and would still be hurting even without the burden of complying with future environmental regs.

Meanwhile some of the biggest polluters in the world make the US and Europe look like an Apple store; they don't meet basic health standards. Their economies would be destroyed if they had to meet the stiff requirements necessary to allegedly combat CC.

 

[Strazdas]

No, actually; it has no publicity. As with politics people focus on the problems, not solutions. Solutions can be rejected, but when you focus on the diagnosis you can prescribe whatever you want.

Waste is not the whole point; the whole point is humans are blamed for rising temperatures and, supposing we do nothing, we'll all be in a Hollywood doomsday film.

There's no serious global commitment to taxing and reducing emissions because taxing is bad. Pretty sure Europe and Australia are pulling back on the stick. Economies are not doing well and would still be hurting even without the burden of complying with future environmental regs.

Meanwhile some of the biggest polluters in the world make the US and Europe look like an Apple store; they don't meet basic health standards. Their economies would be destroyed if they had to meet the stiff requirements necessary to allegedly combat CC.

yeah, hence why we need publicity for these things.

Taxing is not bad. You just have to be consistent and stop being corrupt for it to work. you know, like not allow them to trade their emission rights for one (who thought that was a good idea). poluttion taxing is such a small margin of all taxes that its effects on economy can be easily ignored. if you want taxes affecting economy VAT is your main target. Economies are doing well though. well, except US economy. the crysis is over. stop using it as excuse.

It makes us look like an apple store? so overpriced junk produced by child labour? i beg to differ. BUt i do agree that the effort needs to be united and not from few countries. Which is why we need to change UN with something that actually has a power to enforce policies, something like EU.

Oh, and boho about their economies. if they created economy based on polution then its a bad economy to begin with.

 

[PinkiePyro]

WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED!

seriously if anyone here in Chicago still doubts global climate change despite the fact we had winter well in to March I will beat them with a waffle maker >:[

 

[sumanoskae]

One more reason to never have kids.

Everything ends, 10 or 10'000 years from now.

Frodo: "I wish none of this had happened."

Gandalf: "So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

 

[Atmos Duality]

What??
We have nowhere near the climatological data to even begin to make claims like that with any confidence.
Historic observations for the globe only date back some 60-70 years (some countries took observations before that, but upper-air analysis and "global" collaborative soundings didn't really begin until the 1950s).

It sounds like a UN scare tactic, but one that has some logic.

Namely, that by the time we do have enough global observations (another 30 years will give us a confidence interval that isn't "skeptical") the potential damage we've done will be even more severe.

So, it depends on what school of logic you subscribe to.
Do you assume we aren't front-loading the atmosphere so much that it's increasing the magnitude of weather events (at all scales) and scare?

Or do you wait for the facts? "Hard" objective science suggests the latter, but the fact is we are only just now becoming aware of the nature of these larger issues (meteorology and climatology as a science has scarcely existed for a century now).

While there is irrefutable evidence that mankind can and has altered weather patterns before (Urban Heat Island being the most obvious example) how far does the phenomenon go? What time scale does it work at? Is it irreversible? Are there external contributing sources (sun activity can influence our weather in ENORMOUS ways)?

FYI: I am a meteorologist approaching grad school, so these are questions I have to ask myself.

What I do know, is that the UN official has no scientific proof for his claim; or if he does, I don't know (based on what I know, he would have to be a time traveler since we don't have enough data yet).
Climate Change is happening, and there are many reasonable hypothesis based on trends, but hard proof and real understanding does not yet exist.

I don't really believe global warming, not because of idealogy, but rather I don't trust scientists who only stand to gain from panic, with research grants and publicity, with pretty much every bizzare weather being claimed as global warming.

Depends on which branch of the field you're in.
Operational meteorologists (currently like what I do) do not benefit at ALL from public panic; in fact, it's an uphill struggle to remain objective and present forecasts in a manner that retains the public trust AND ensures their safety.
Stochastic methods require some assumption for error, but most of the public does not seem to recognize this (or it does with a degree of cynicism).

What is certain is that we need to investigate this.