< 1 2 3 4 > 
 
   
 

Some funny climatic shit happening. Should we worry?

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15909
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
10 December 2012 03:44
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 09 December 2012 04:09 PM

Warning: serious question coming soon - OK, we had a bunch of Ice Ages, in at least one of which there was a two mile thick sheet of ice over Canada and the north USA. Then the earth warmed and it melted.  I’ve read that this had to do with the earth’s “wobble” on it’s axis, which it still has.  Obviously, humans didn’t cause it, since the most we could do back then was build a few wood fires.  So, if natural conditions caused those climate changes, why can’t that be at least part of the cause of the current warming?  Please explain.  I’m not denying warming or that we contributed.  Just want to know how to distinguish between natural and man-made causes for the current situation.

Here’s a little lite reading on the wobble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_wobble

 
 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
10 December 2012 09:10
 

The Wiki article is not a bad summary of the science.

I think the bottom line is that “no declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause a glacial period, are expected in the next 50,000 years”. Thus, the current warm climate may be expected to last another 50,000 years.  And this takes no account of anthropomorphic forcing. In other words if we do nothing we can add up to another 6 degrees C to current global temperature and all thedislocation and misery that will entail for billions.

Those who think that global warming is a piddling affair that will not affect them or humanity generally need a wake up call. Obviously Katrina and Sandy were not equal to the task. I guess we’ll have to wait until next years hurricane season in America, or perhaps the one after, because weird things happening elsewhere seem to be meaningless to some.

 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19785
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
10 December 2012 14:37
 

Epaminodas is an absolutist thinker. His religion is whatever he reads in the books of his popes. He’s never had an original thought in his life. He channels the thoughts of others.

Agree.  Had that strong impression years back.

Re climate change, it is changing, rapidly.  The question is how to adopt or adapt to it, what can be done in the short term that might mitigate it.  Using this forum as an example, we do not have a consensus that might lead to some coherent world-wide effort, so that seems unlikely.  At best, I’d guess any effort would take decades to have an impact, but maybe I’m wrong.  Wisconsin might not be a bad place to live.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19535
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
10 December 2012 14:39
 

My general thought is that, irrespective of the amount that humans contribute to the current global warming, it is in our best interests to make the switch to renewable energy sources as soon as possible. It will promote economic independence and security, keep the air clean, and reduce our carbon footprint. This won’t happen overnight, so for the time being we need to continue using carbon fuels.  Hopefully, the energy companies will be wise enough to use their enormous profits to fund research into more renewable energy resources, and I think there is evidence of this happening.

 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
10 December 2012 14:58
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 10 December 2012 01:39 PM

My general thought is that, irrespective of the amount that humans contribute to the current global warming, it is in our best interests to make the switch to renewable energy sources as soon as possible. It will promote economic independence and security, keep the air clean, and reduce our carbon footprint. This won’t happen overnight, so for the time being we need to continue using carbon fuels.  Hopefully, the energy companies will be wise enough to use their enormous profits to fund research into more renewable energy resources, and I think there is evidence of this happening.

Denial is when we blame greenies for global warming, just as faith is not wanting to know what is true. In both cases, reason is shat upon. That is never healthy.

[ Edited: 10 December 2012 15:20 by robbrownsyd]
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  8646
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
10 December 2012 15:15
 
Dennis Campbell - 10 December 2012 01:37 PM

Re climate change, it is changing, rapidly.  The question is how to adopt or adapt to it. . .

Yep.  The problem with the climate models is the scientists don’t know HOW the climate will change.  For example, will Wisconsin turn into a desert?  Will the Mojave become a rain forest?  And as far as life on the planet is concerned it will go on, just not in the way we know it today, but since when is life required to meet our expectations?

All the hand-wringing is due to uncertainty.  If the climate scientists were able to say how and when the climate change will affect the planet then we could plan and reduce the uncertainty, but so far all we hear from them is rising sea levels, and while we know that’s not good for life on the coast we also know that’s not the whole story.  Humans value stability.  I think I’ll belly up to the bar and have another drink while the band plays as the ship sinks.

 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
10 December 2012 15:30
 

I think I’ll belly up to the bar and have another drink while the band plays as the ship sinks.

Hell, yeah! Why not?

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19535
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
10 December 2012 15:50
 
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 10 December 2012 01:58 PM

Denial is when we blame greenies for global warming, just as faith is not wanting to know what is true. In both cases, reason is shat upon. That is never healthy.

Well, shat. I’m certainly not blaming the greenies.

[ Edited: 10 December 2012 16:02 by EN]
 
Jezuz_Alrighty
 
Avatar
 
 
Jezuz_Alrighty
Total Posts:  322
Joined  30-11-2011
 
 
 
10 December 2012 16:03
 
Skipshot - 10 December 2012 02:15 PM
Dennis Campbell - 10 December 2012 01:37 PM

Re climate change, it is changing, rapidly.  The question is how to adopt or adapt to it. . .

Yep.  The problem with the climate models is the scientists don’t know HOW the climate will change.  For example, will Wisconsin turn into a desert?  Will the Mojave become a rain forest?  And as far as life on the planet is concerned it will go on, just not in the way we know it today, but since when is life required to meet our expectations?

All the hand-wringing is due to uncertainty.  If the climate scientists were able to say how and when the climate change will affect the planet then we could plan and reduce the uncertainty, but so far all we hear from them is rising sea levels, and while we know that’s not good for life on the coast we also know that’s not the whole story.  Humans value stability.  I think I’ll belly up to the bar and have another drink while the band plays as the ship sinks.

I’ll drink to that! A toast, to how awesome, the world once was.
I know there are a lot of opinions and differences on this subject, but I see a pattern. Yet another partisan issue. Its becoming easier to see the lines being drawn and the right and left picking a side.
Reality aside, global warming is a political issue, with a substantial voice. No one can deny that. Who benefits from the fear it generates and who will be asked to suffer because of it? I have trouble bowing to any line of thinking, that contemporary pundits seem to steer. When it smells as bad as the whole global warming idea, I really step back. No, surfing one website is not how to make up your mind.  There are huge amounts of information on the subject and ideas of what can be done, the cost and effects of said remedies.  I think those who expect and demand a consensus, will be sorely disappointed, no matter what side they take.  Further still, those who think things will never change, will be doubly disappointed.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15909
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
10 December 2012 16:21
 
Jezuz_Alrighty - 10 December 2012 03:03 PM
Skipshot - 10 December 2012 02:15 PM
Dennis Campbell - 10 December 2012 01:37 PM

Re climate change, it is changing, rapidly.  The question is how to adopt or adapt to it. . .

Yep.  The problem with the climate models is the scientists don’t know HOW the climate will change.  For example, will Wisconsin turn into a desert?  Will the Mojave become a rain forest?  And as far as life on the planet is concerned it will go on, just not in the way we know it today, but since when is life required to meet our expectations?

All the hand-wringing is due to uncertainty.  If the climate scientists were able to say how and when the climate change will affect the planet then we could plan and reduce the uncertainty, but so far all we hear from them is rising sea levels, and while we know that’s not good for life on the coast we also know that’s not the whole story.  Humans value stability.  I think I’ll belly up to the bar and have another drink while the band plays as the ship sinks.

I’ll drink to that! A toast, to how awesome, the world once was.
I know there are a lot of opinions and differences on this subject, but I see a pattern. Yet another partisan issue. Its becoming easier to see the lines being drawn and the right and left picking a side.
Reality aside, global warming is a political issue, with a substantial voice. No one can deny that. Who benefits from the fear it generates and who will be asked to suffer because of it? I have trouble bowing to any line of thinking, that contemporary pundits seem to steer. When it smells as bad as the whole global warming idea, I really step back. No, surfing one website is not how to make up your mind.  There are huge amounts of information on the subject and ideas of what can be done, the cost and effects of said remedies.  I think those who expect and demand a consensus, will be sorely disappointed, no matter what side they take.  Further still, those who think things will never change, will be doubly disappointed.

We have consensus, global warming is happening and man is driving it. The part that isn’t settled, and where all the fear comes in, is it what to do about it. If we went back to the stone age today there would be a lot of human suffering but really little affect on climate which doesn’t turn on a dime. My advice, buy property a block from and 10 feet above where the current beaches are.

 
 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
10 December 2012 16:32
 

GAD, your a man to whom those with an interest in their financial future should take heed, whether they live atop the Tibetan plateau or on the Ganges delta in Bangladesh. (Or in much of Florida for that matter) How stupid are people for buying so little above current sea level? Some folks just have no idea! I guess we can’t legislate for stupidity,hey?

[ Edited: 10 December 2012 16:37 by robbrownsyd]
 
Jezuz_Alrighty
 
Avatar
 
 
Jezuz_Alrighty
Total Posts:  322
Joined  30-11-2011
 
 
 
10 December 2012 16:36
 
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 10 December 2012 03:32 PM

GAD, your a man to whom those with an interest in their financial future should take heed, whether they live atop the Tibetan plateau or in Bangladesh. (Or in much of Florida for that matter) How stupid are people for buying so little above current sea level? Some folks just have no idea! I guess we can’t legislate for stupidity,hey?

That’s why insurance was invented.

 
 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
10 December 2012 16:42
 

Yes, I suppose we should tell those eking out an existence on the Ganges delta about insurance. Obviously they are pig ignorant. I guess that’s their own fault but I suppose we should tell them about insurance anyway. That would be the moral thing to do, wouldn’t it?

 
Jezuz_Alrighty
 
Avatar
 
 
Jezuz_Alrighty
Total Posts:  322
Joined  30-11-2011
 
 
 
10 December 2012 16:54
 
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 10 December 2012 03:42 PM

Yes, I suppose we should tell those eking out an existence on the Ganges delta about insurance. Obviously they are pig ignorant. I guess that’s their own fault but I suppose we should tell them about insurance anyway. That would be the moral thing to do, wouldn’t it?

Don’t sell em short m8. I bet they are smart enough to move there huts out of the water. More than I can say for some so called, developed, countries. I imagine my insurance will go up, to help rebuild on Manhattan Island.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7306
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
10 December 2012 18:11
 

‘OCEANS’ RISING ACIDITY THREAT TO SHELLFISH, HUMANS’

“By the end of the century,” said French biological oceanographer Jean-Pierre Gattuso, “the oceans will become hot, sour and breathless.”

The end of shellfish, coral reefs and the bottom of the food chain?

http://www.weather.com/news/ocean-acidity-shellfish-humans-20121008

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >