PDA

View Full Version : Should we be worried about climate change?



Contrails
10-10-2013, 07:41 AM
This new study shows that significant climate changes will happen within our lifetime. At what point do we take the problem seriously and start discussing how we can reduce our influence on the planet?


The study found that the overarching global effect of climate change on biodiversity will occur not only as a result of the largest absolute changes at the poles, but also, perhaps more urgently, from small but rapid changes in the tropics.
Tropical species are unaccustomed to climate variability and are therefore more vulnerable to relatively small changes. The tropics hold the world's greatest diversity of marine and terrestrial species and will experience unprecedented climates some 10 years earlier than anywhere else on Earth. Previous studies have already shown that corals and other tropical species are currently living in areas near their physiological limits.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131009133216.htm

countryboy
10-10-2013, 07:55 AM
AGW has been thoroughly debunked. So no, we shouldn't be worried about man made global warming. We should be prepared for global cooling though, because winter is coming.

Cigar
10-10-2013, 08:04 AM
Study: Temperatures go off the charts around 2047
Starting in about a decade, Kingston, Jamaica, will probably be off-the-charts hot — permanently. Other places will soon follow. Singapore in 2028. Mexico City in 2031. Cairo in 2036. Phoenix and Honolulu in 2043.

And eventually the whole world in 2047.

A new study on global warming pinpoints the probable dates for when cities and ecosystems around the world will regularly experience hotter environments the likes of which they have never seen before.

And for dozens of cities, mostly in the tropics, those dates are a generation or less away.

"This paper is both innovative and sobering," said Oregon State University professor Jane Lubchenco, former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who was not involved in the study.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/study-temperatures-go-charts-around-2047

Chris
10-10-2013, 09:09 AM
This new study shows that significant climate changes will happen within our lifetime. At what point do we take the problem seriously and start discussing how we can reduce our influence on the planet?



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131009133216.htm


We should be concerned enough to stop and think what economically can be done to improve our environment.

One study is not however alarming.

nic34
10-10-2013, 09:36 AM
Should we be worried about climate change?

Only if we care about our kids and grandkids....

By the time today's babies graduate college there's a very good chance they could celebrate with a cruise across the North Pole.
That's according to the latest study on Arctic summer sea ice the frozen pack that lingers through the Northern Hemisphere summer. In past decades, there's been less summer ice, and it's growing thinner.

The research, published online Feb. 21 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, says major sea ice loss could come within a decade or two, though some ice will stick around near Greenland and Canada's Arctic islands.

http://www.livescience.com/28691-arctic-summer-ice-disappearing.html

nic34
10-10-2013, 09:38 AM
We should be concerned enough to stop and think what economically can be done to improve our environment.



Chris, I'm impressed...:smiley:

Chris
10-10-2013, 10:00 AM
Chris, I'm impressed...:smiley:

Why, this has always been my position as a skeptic between the shouting of alarmists and deniers.

Contrails
10-10-2013, 12:11 PM
We should be prepared for global cooling though, because winter is coming.

Try telling that to the Australians...

Chloe
10-10-2013, 01:42 PM
Yes we should be worried in my opinion. People tend to look at climate change through local lenses in my opinion, meaning that they look around their communities, the work, their home, the drive to school, and so on as their own personal barometer of what goes into the atmosphere every day. The problem with that type of thinking is that it ignores the millions upon millions upon millions of tons of greenhouse type gases being pumped into the sky every single day across the globe. Billions of cars, hundreds of thousands of power plants, smokestacks, millions of airplanes, thousands of military vehicles all producing millions of tons of CO2 and NO2, millions of cattle and other factory animals producing methane, and so on and so on, all while natural Earth elements do the same thing adding to the excess millions of tons we produce on our own. To ignore our impact is basically condemning our future in my opinion.

It frustrates me when people latch onto a data point or a new study that shows that the Earth is cooling or that man-made climate change is a fraud because last summer wasn't as hot or that hurricane didn't kill a thousand people because all it does is create even more apathy among people towards fixing the problem and fixing the way we interact with the planet that we DO NOT own or rule over. You don't need to read an article in the New York Times to tell you one way or the other just look at the way society functions on a daily basis and you can see our negative impact. To say that we don't impact this planet is asking for trouble. To say that the millions of cars at a standstill in downtowns across the country during rush hour isn't resulting in tons of excess greenhouse gases being pumped into the air (excluding every thing else) is just painful to hear.

We should be worried, concerned, angry, optimistic, energized, selfless, and a whole bunch of other things when it comes to climate change in my opinion, because apathy is certainly not going to help anything at all.

Oh and think of this too please. If there are charts showing that climate change has plateaued some in the last like 15 years or so then it could be easily argued that the plateauing of the rise in temperature is not because of natural cycles but because of the efforts society has made over the last number of years to address the issue and in trying to affect change for the betterment of the planet. Cars have gotten more fuel efficient, people are using public transportation more, bikes, and so on, new rules on emissions have been put in place, new renewable energy sources have been increased around the country and the world, and so on. All of those things could and probably have caused a reduction in the amount of increases, which means that an even greater and more robust effort could make huge impacts in the near future.

Codename Section
10-10-2013, 04:28 PM
The Russians believe that the inactivity of the sun will cause dangerous cooling.

Peter1469
10-10-2013, 06:22 PM
The climate has been changing since the earth formed. It shouldn't be turned into a political issue. Likely we are due for an ice age based on the historical record.

Venus
10-10-2013, 06:38 PM
The climate has been changing since the earth formed. It shouldn't be turned into a political issue. Likely we are due for an ice age based on the historical record.

I agree but would add as humans we can all make a difference with how we treat the world we live in.

And

Focus on what works rather than on what feels good.

Peter1469
10-10-2013, 06:44 PM
I agree but would add as humans we can all make a difference with how we treat the world we live in.

And

Focus on what works rather than on what feels good.

Right, there are plenty of real pollution issues to worry about. Even if man is making a small contribution to global warming, it still is a low priority compared to the other issues.

Contrails
10-10-2013, 08:10 PM
The Russians believe that the inactivity of the sun will cause dangerous cooling.
They've been saying that for years, and not only has there been no cooling, the ocean's heat content has continued to rise unabated. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf).


The climate has been changing since the earth formed. It shouldn't be turned into a political issue. Likely we are due for an ice age based on the historical record.
How can we even hope to address an problem like global warming without turning it into a political issue? Do you think companies here and in other countries are going to voluntarily reduce their CO2 emissions?


Right, there are plenty of real pollution issues to worry about. Even if man is making a small contribution to global warming, it still is a low priority compared to the other issues.
How many of those other pollution issues have the potential to change our way of life as much as global warming?

Chris
10-10-2013, 08:27 PM
How can we even hope to address an problem like global warming without turning it into a political issue?

Why are you asking for certain failure?

Peter1469
10-10-2013, 08:38 PM
They've been saying that for years, and not only has there been no cooling, the ocean's heat content has continued to rise unabated. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf).


How can we even hope to address an problem like global warming without turning it into a political issue? Do you think companies here and in other countries are going to voluntarily reduce their CO2 emissions?


How many of those other pollution issues have the potential to change our way of life as much as global warming?

The poisoning of our water supply with the mass use of pesticides, herbicides, and the mass poisoning of our food with the same as well has unneeded antibiotics and GMO experimentation.

We will not be using carbon fuels in 100 years. They are not a long term or immediate threat. They are, however, a tool to increase the power of the state.

Contrails
10-11-2013, 03:02 PM
Why are you asking for certain failure?

Was the Acid Rain Program established by the EPA in 1995 a "certain failure" even though it cut sulfure dioxide emissions in half?

Contrails
10-11-2013, 03:21 PM
[/B]

The poisoning of our water supply with the mass use of pesticides, herbicides, and the mass poisoning of our food with the same as well has unneeded antibiotics and GMO experimentation.
While their effectiveness may be questionable, don't we already have regulations dealing with these issues? How many regulations do we have limiting CO2 emissions?


We will not be using carbon fuels in 100 years. They are not a long term or immediate threat. They are, however, a tool to increase the power of the state.
According to the experts quoted in the OP, we don't have 100 years to reduce our CO2 emissions. And your optimistic projection on carbon fuel use is not shared by those who actually study the industry.

http://www.ogfj.com/articles/print/volume-6/issue-12/features/the-future_of_fossil.html

Chris
10-11-2013, 03:23 PM
Was the Acid Rain Program established by the EPA in 1995 a "certain failure" even though it cut sulfure dioxide emissions in half?

1/2 is success? I call it half-assed.

Contrails
10-11-2013, 03:26 PM
1/2 is success? I call it half-assed.

Since that was the intended goal, I call it right on the mark.

Chris
10-11-2013, 03:59 PM
Since that was the intended goal, I call it right on the mark.

So you misrepresented it. You're an alarmist, figures.

What you need to argue is why government would solve this better then the private sector. I'll wait....

ptif219
10-11-2013, 04:32 PM
This new study shows that significant climate changes will happen within our lifetime. At what point do we take the problem seriously and start discussing how we can reduce our influence on the planet?



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131009133216.htm

More of the same doom and gloom of the last 30 years that produced nothing. Just stop the lies you can do nothing to change climate or control nature.

Contrails
10-11-2013, 05:43 PM
So you misrepresented it. You're an alarmist, figures.
How exactly did I misrepresent anything? And the proper label for my position is realist. Everything I've posted about climate change has been backed up by scientific literature.


What you need to argue is why government would solve this better then the private sector. I'll wait....
We'll discuss it right after you answer my question in Post #14 and explain how the private sector can do anything. I'm still waiting....

Contrails
10-11-2013, 06:06 PM
More of the same doom and gloom of the last 30 years that produced nothing. Just stop the lies you can do nothing to change climate or control nature.

Suggesting that changes projected over a century or more that haven't materialized in 30 years are a failure shows just how little you understand about the subject. Global climate models have been shown to be very good at predicting long-term climate patterns.

http://uanews.org/story/ua-climate-scientists-put-predictions-test

Chris
10-11-2013, 06:27 PM
How exactly did I misrepresent anything? And the proper label for my position is realist. Everything I've posted about climate change has been backed up by scientific literature.


We'll discuss it right after you answer my question in Post #14 and explain how the private sector can do anything. I'm still waiting....


What, you really think a bunch of bureaucrats are going to roll up their sleeves and get dirty doing work?

ptif219
10-11-2013, 10:30 PM
Suggesting that changes projected over a century or more that haven't materialized in 30 years are a failure shows just how little you understand about the subject. Global climate models have been shown to be very good at predicting long-term climate patterns.

http://uanews.org/story/ua-climate-scientists-put-predictions-test

They show no predictions that happened. More lies from Global Warming propagandists

bobgnote
11-20-2013, 02:09 PM
Shucks, just all 5 previous mass extinction events followed a drastic rise in atmospheric and aqueous CO2.

No gloom needed, but unless heavy-breathing vampires are purged, DOOM is coming.

Mass Extinction Event 6 features the fastest rise, of CO2, in geologic history, already accompanied by a drastic upturn, in extinctions.

But then the DOOM gets worse; you know, like a hockey stick? Go Sharkies . . .

Captain Obvious
11-20-2013, 02:35 PM
Shucks, just all 5 previous mass extinction events followed a drastic rise in atmospheric and aqueous CO2.

No gloom needed, but unless heavy-breathing vampires are purged, DOOM is coming.

Mass Extinction Event 6 features the fastest rise, of CO2, in geologic history, already accompanied by a drastic upturn, in extinctions.

But then the DOOM gets worse; you know, like a hockey stick? Go Sharkies . . .

You're wasting your time, zombies brains have already been devoured.

ptif219
11-20-2013, 02:51 PM
You're wasting your time, zombies brains have already been devoured.

You mean the global warming lies are being seen

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/19/climate-depot-special-report-on-typhoon-haiyan-presented-at-un-climate-summit-in-warsaw/


UN head Ban Ki-moon says Typhoon Haiyan due to climate change - 'We have seen now what has happened in the Philippines. It is an urgent warning. An example of changed weather and how climate change is affecting all of us on Earth.'
Philippines lead negotiator Yeb Sano at UN climate summit in Warsaw 'announces he will not eat during the conference, until a meaningful agreement has been achieved’
Jeffrey Sachs Special Advisor to UN Sec.-General Ban Ki-moon, 'Climate liars like Rupert Murdoch & Koch Brothers have more & more blood on their hands as climate disasters claim lives across the world.'
Typhoon Fuels Call for Global Warming Compensation Funds At UN Climate Summit – Poor nations ‘blame countries that industrialized 200 years ago for damaging the atmosphere’
Scientific Reality Check:
As Scientists Reject Climate Link – Claim of ‘strongest storm ever’ refuted
Storm expert Brian McNoldy of U. of Miami: ‘We don’t get to pick and choose which storms are enhanced by a warmer climate and which ones aren’t’
Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue: 'Over past 1,000 years, Philippines have been hit by 10-20 thousand tropical cyclones. Don't be so arrogant to believe man caused Haiyan.'
Maue demolishes claims that Typhoon Haiyan was ‘strongest storm ever’ – ‘Fact: Haiyan is 58th Super Typhoon since 1950 to reach central pressure of 900 mb or lower from historical records’ -- Maue: '50 of 58 Super Typhoons with pressure of 900 mb or lower occurred from 1950-1987 -- only 8 in past 25 years'
Strongest storm ever? ‘Haiyan ranks at number 7 among the strongest storms ever to have hit the Philippines’
UN IPCC: 'There is low confidence in any observed long-term (40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (ie intensity, frequency, duration).' Its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report added in September 2013 there have been 'no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century'.
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘The scientific evidence does not presently support claims of attribution of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on tropical cyclone behavior with respect to century-long trends ‘much less the behavior of individual storms’ - "In practical terms, on timescales of decision making a signal that cannot be seen is indistinguishable from a signal that does not exist - 'I am not convinced that 3 mm/year of sea level rise is a big issue in the magnitude of disaster losses'
Gabe Vecchi, a research oceanographer with NOAA, said that if global warming altered Haiyan, it did not do so to a significant extent. 'I expect that the contribution of global warming to Haiyan's extreme intensity is likely to have been small, relative to other factors like weather fluctuations and climate variability.'
Pielke Jr.: 'Given this data, substantial research on it and a strong IPCC consensus does anyone really want to debate that typhoon disasters have become more common?'
Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Facts don’t support climate-change-caused-typhoon-Haiyan. Strong typhoons declining 1950-10.
Real Science website: ‘There have been 35 cyclones in the last 800 years that have killed more than 10,000 people. Thirty-three occurred with CO2 below 350 PPM. The deadliest one in 1970 was blamed on global cooling at the time’

Contrails
11-20-2013, 08:22 PM
You mean the global warming lies are being seen

Because when all you have are dramatic headlines, who needs actual science.

Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.full)

Tropical cyclones and climate change (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo779.html)

Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/full/nature03906.html)

ptif219
11-20-2013, 10:25 PM
Because when all you have are dramatic headlines, who needs actual science.

Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.full)

Tropical cyclones and climate change (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo779.html)

Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/full/nature03906.html)

Climate change causing this is as believable as Harp causing it.

Contrails
11-21-2013, 09:39 PM
Climate change causing this is as believable as Harp causing it.

You can believe all of the conspiracy theories you choose. I'll believe what the science says.

lynn
11-22-2013, 10:25 AM
At the point that climate change is creating severe weather anomalies on a regular basis that finally provide us proof that it is occurring, it is at that point that it is now too late to alter our destructive behavior towards the planet.

The Sage of Main Street
11-22-2013, 03:55 PM
Climate change causing this is as believable as Harp causing it.

Don't you believe Art Bell or the Unabomber? Didn't you see Men in Black, which proved that the National Enquirer is the only newspaper that tells the truth?

Polecat
11-22-2013, 04:27 PM
Our impact on global climate is so insignificant (compared to volcanic activity and solar orbit) that the only reason I can see for making an issue of it is to create substantial wealth for those among us that have no issue with defrauding the ignorant & gullible.

ptif219
11-22-2013, 06:10 PM
You can believe all of the conspiracy theories you choose. I'll believe what the science says.

You are believing the lies of governments and not science. Data manipulation is not science

ptif219
11-22-2013, 06:12 PM
Don't you believe Art Bell or the Unabomber? Didn't you see Men in Black, which proved that the National Enquirer is the only newspaper that tells the truth?

Not at all. Coast to Coast is stupid whackoes. Much like the Global warming propagandists

Contrails
11-22-2013, 07:05 PM
Our impact on global climate is so insignificant (compared to volcanic activity and solar orbit) that the only reason I can see for making an issue of it is to create substantial wealth for those among us that have no issue with defrauding the ignorant & gullible.

Humans produce 150 times more atmospheric CO2 than volcanos, hardly insignificant. And while solar cycles are significant, they don't explain the last century of increasing temperatures.

Contrails
11-22-2013, 07:06 PM
You are believing the lies of governments and not science. Data manipulation is not science

Your arguments would make some sense if you actually presented some science to back them up.

lynn
11-22-2013, 08:37 PM
Humans produce 150 times more atmospheric CO2 than volcanos, hardly insignificant. And while solar cycles are significant, they don't explain the last century of increasing temperatures.


Okay if that is true, why are we still alive and not subject to mass extinctions just like the life that lived before us?

Contrails
11-23-2013, 11:04 AM
Okay if that is true, why are we still alive and not subject to mass extinctions just like the life that lived before us?

Atmospheric CO2 would have to be in the 2000 to 3000 ppm range before we would see significant mass extinctions. But by the time you get there, it's way too late to do anything about it. We're already past 400 ppm and likely to see 1,000 ppm by the end of this century.

bobgnote
11-23-2013, 12:38 PM
Atmospheric CO2 would have to be in the 2000 to 3000 ppm range before we would see significant mass extinctions. But by the time you get there, it's way too late to do anything about it. We're already past 400 ppm and likely to see 1,000 ppm by the end of this century.

Mass extinction is getting going, never fear.

http://library.thinkquest.org/28343/extinct.html

The estimated modern extinction rate is many thousands the background rate.

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/

The industrial revolution CO2-spike is the fastest ever rise, in CO2. Since perennial ice is melting and CH4 is out-gassing, while industrial GHGs are also kicking in doomsday effects, WE HAVE ONLY JUST BEGUN MASS EXTINCTION EVENT 6, eh?

When you have questions or comments, look this thread right up:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19008-Say-hello-to-MASS-EXTINCTION-EVENT-6-everyone!

We don't know how fast vulcanism will increase, or what its exact effects will be, but when glaciers melt, to release standing pressure, on magma chambers, or when sea level rises, making heavy tides massage undersea magma chambers, KA-BOOOOMMMMM is on the way.

Then we get more CO2, SO2, and NO2, while ice gets dusted and foliage is disrupted, further, including by nastier oceanic acidification, before hot-house conditions cause natural re-forestation, or Milankovitch cycles have their way, and the Earth re-glaciates.

We won't all make it, yo. Humans will be endangered, soon enough.

Hot-house Earth will need hundreds of thousands of years, to clear the air, of not only CO2, but a myriad, of spiking GHGs.