jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (42 posts)

Global Warming and its effects.

  1. peoplepower73 profile image86
    peoplepower73posted 3 years ago

    Do you believe global warming is causing the extreme weather conditions we are experiencing in the U.S?  Please watch this video and then comment.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7EHvfaY8Zs

  2. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    The global average temperature sure is rising far faster than it naturally would. Take, for instance, the famous "hockey stick" graph of the Northern Hemisphere where, to be fair, most people live:

    http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/CIS/houghton/images/fig2.jpg

    Where the warming should be a nice gradual hill (as would've started by the mid 2100s based on the curve), it instead becomes a sheer cliff face. The effects will be slow to take shape, but they'll suck hard for anyone who lives within 20 miles of the ocean.

    As for people who are like, "But it's so cold right now! Global Warming must be a myth!", you can't dismiss 140 years of warming because "It's cold! Today! Where I live!" as that's just plain stupid.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I strongly suspect that if you go back a few million years you will find quite a few of those "sheer cliff faces" - all before man existed, let alone caused them.

      So why do you say the "natural" thing is a gradual hill?  And why do you say it is rising "far faster than it naturally would."?

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The Earth does go through natural warm and cool periods, but when the temperature changes so radically and so quickly as it did several million years ago, it is often due to some kind of natural disaster (usually a volcano--it's always a frickin' volcano). The fact that one of those sheer-cliff rises is happening in the absence of a cataclysm (and suspiciously arising after industrialization) is telling.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh absolutely suspicious - to the point that I'm certain that man is affecting the climate.  The question is "how much" and I've seen nothing to indicate that man is causing that cliff.  Or that the cliff is anything more than a very temporary jog, over in just a few hundred years or so.

          Because part of the key is that "often" due to natural disaster.  It always is, of course, but we don't know what "natural disasters" might cause it.  Certainly a volcano, or an asteroid but what about a solar flare?  One from another star?  An overabundance of cows or specific bacteria?  The axis is changing; will a specific tilt give rise to a cliff?  What about the magnetic poles - they're changing, too?  Lots and lots of possibilities, and we just don't know enough yet to put the bulk of the blame on man.

      2. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Who could definitively prove anything a few million years ago so your suspicion will have to remain a suspicion as improvable or provable? What's the point then?

        The graft clearly shows a steep rise around the industrial period in history from the 1800's on. Without anything definitive in your former statement and the obvious evidence of modern differences in the climate as shown in the graft should we just dismiss the phenomena? It doesn't prove anything as an answer to the question? Maybe we can hope and pray it will return to normal if not soon eventually as the answer?

        I kind of like asking the questions just for information and I think I prefer Zelkiiro science a little more than yours.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Are you aware that correlation in time does NOT indicate a causal effect?

          We've seen these steep cliffs before, without man causing them.  Why is this one automatically man's fault?  Because thousands of people get paid to say so?

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't disagree with your questions. Just your dismissive attitude to find out. What is your explanation other than "It Happens"? That has no reassuring tone in it at all.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It is not intended to be reassuring.  It is intended to indicate that the idea that man is causing global warming is unwarranted. 

              We hear that because man is here he is causing the earth to warm.  We hear that because it warms now instead of tomorrow or yesterday that man is causing it.  We hear from you that because it is a steep rise it is man's fault.  We hear that because it has been rising for 100 years it is man's fault.  Now we hear that because the steep rise began with the industrial revolution, before any but a tiny percentage of humanity was producing anything that might cause global warming, it is man's fault.  Everything we hear is that man is causing it, but nowhere do we hear anything showing that nothing else is doing it.  Just that man is, and without sufficient evidence to make the claim that the root cause is man.

              There is little doubt that temperatures are rising.  There is little doubt that man is a contributing factor - one campfire does that  What is in great doubt is that man is the major contributor.

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                These assertions are not mine and the question still is being asked to what extent man is contributing to the warming. Your assertion is that it is not due to man in any major way. What is your proof? What actions should be taken to find out? Should we begin looking when the oceans start claiming shoreline? Or should we wait until huge storms wipe out thousands of people at a single occurrence? What prudence suggests is that we may want to move on the things science now says we can do and continue to investigate as to whether our actions make a difference and if something else is the culprit in the process and act on that when it is apparent. Your "do nothing" because a few scientist either misread or lied about a few growth rings on an ancient tree is just frivolous. Or is the expense just too much to consider possibly saving our environment?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You ask :"Your assertion is that it is not due to man in any major way. What is your proof?"

                  From the post you replied to: "What is in great doubt is that man is the major contributor.", which pretty much answered it before you asked it.  Please do not put words in my mouth.

                  And you demonstrate the problem very well, asking what we should do to find out and then giving possibilities.  Possibilities such as watching the ocean rise (proves man did it), seeing big storms kill people (proves man did it), and say we should move now, spending trillions of dollars because man did it. 

                  Yes - the expense is too much, considering that there is little indication it will "save our environment".  Especially considering that the best answer (nuclear) has been virtually shut down by the greenies crying global warming and making their living from it.

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I have not put any words in your mouth. You just have no proof either way. The problem remains the same. What is causing the warming? You say it is a cyclical thing with no proof to accurately ascertain that it is so. With your assumption nothing should be done. Or are you saying it needs further study or your statement is proof enough to forget about it? My position is one of let us do what we can to cut back on the pollution that contributes to it while continuing studies as to their effectiveness and longevity. My position is one of erring on the side of caution while yours is one of erring on the side of catastrophe. My way harms no one, your way kills the earth. The funny thing about the expense is that the thousands of jobs that can be created to monitor and test as well as design are something the economy could really use now.

  3. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I think it is contributing, yes.

  4. junkseller profile image89
    junksellerposted 3 years ago

    if you go to 20 doctors and they all say that they strongly suspect that you have cancer, then there is a good chance you have cancer, but not an absolute chance. The body is complex and our understanding imperfect, so they may be wrong, yet most reasonable people would without hesitation accept the expert consensus about their condition. Doing otherwise is foolish.

    Where it gets messy is with solutions proffered by third parties (such as politicians), which at times can be like a shady character coming up to you and saying "give me all your money and I'll give you a magic brew that will cure your cancer". We can and should be wary about solutions offered and solutions enacted, especially if they are the product of non-experts or people who have alternative agendas.

    But third party solutions have nothing to do with the science of the problem. The science is clear and equivalent to 20 doctors telling you that you have cancer and ignoring it is equivalently foolish.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sure.  And if you go to 20 doctors and they all tell you it isn't cancer do you accept that?  Because you can find not 20, but 100+ scientists that will tell you it is absolutely man caused and another 100+ that will tell you either it isn't rising at all (long term) or that man is a very minor contributor.

      So you take the word of that politician that wants your money, I guess.  Although when people start saying "the science is clear" as if they haven't heard the naysayers or as if using the word "science" makes it all true somehow, well, I kind of take it with a grain of salt.  Because there IS reputable people on both sides.  Plus quite a few total frauds on the "man is doing it" side.  Haven't heard of any on the naysayer side (complete and total, proven, liars and frauds), have you?

      1. junkseller profile image89
        junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I pretty much specifically said NOT to trust the politician who wants your money, so I am not sure who you are talking to. I don't know a single legitimate denier. Defining legitimate to be someone who has scientific training in the field of climate science, works in the field, and contributes peer reviewed work to the body of knowledge. There are some legitimate strong skeptics, but not too many, and skeptics are not deniers (technically, all scientists are skeptics). I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing claims by deniers and have yet to find one that would really pass 8th grade science. If that is good enough for you, than that is your business. As it is, almost every single scientific body on the planet agrees, or partially agrees with the consensus, and again, I know of none who flat out deny it.

        For the more visually oriented, here is what consensus looks like:
        http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8656315_f248.jpg
        In case it is hard to read it says: "13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012: 24 reject global warming". http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent- … -2013.html

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I know you said not to listen to politicians.  I just assume you did because the field is balanced.

          Of course if you decide that anyone disagreeing with the concept that man is solely responsible for heating the globe up is not "legitimate" it becomes easier to make a decision, doesn't it? 

          Does it make it easier to provide pictures like that when you change the subject from man made global warming to global warming?  It actually is difficult to find very many that think the globe is not warming, but to put the cause to man is a little different story.

          1. junkseller profile image89
            junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I did provide a definition of legitimate and it had nothing to do with rejecting/not rejecting. I think it is a fair definition, and in evaluating experts, we do need some criteria. I evaluate anyone the same way (which is why I don't pay attention to someone like Al Gore). That, of course, doesn't mean it is the only criteria to use or anyone else has to use it. I was merely putting forward my rationale.

            And I imagine the graphic said "global warming" rather than "man-made global warming" because that is what the term, to most, now means. It doesn't really need to be said. Articles with "explicit rejections of human-caused global warming" is what the study was looking for (and only found 24).

          2. Silverspeeder profile image60
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/a … consensus/

            Government pays for climate science study.
            Government then taxes on the findings of climate science study.
            Government then doesn't do anything about the findings of climate change study.

            Were all going to die.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image88
              jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Terrible thought isn't it!   110 years from now, every person who is alive today will be dead!  And not one thing any of us here can do about it...... Go pray that it won't happen!

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The problem with our government is us.

                1. jonnycomelately profile image88
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  True! We get the Government we deserve.

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image88
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I might add :  "...in a truly democratic government."

  5. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    You two can sit back and do nothing while the world moves forward.  Don't worry, we've figured you out.  The problem solvers are using science of all types to reduce our impact on the environment in general and global climate change in particular.  Yes, it is happening without you.  Sure, we'll listen to you because once in awhile you have a valid criticism to be addressed.  Eventually, though, we move forward and move on without you.  That is how progress happens, imperfect as it might be.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah - my local power company is fighting that "forward" motion as the greenies get laws passed to benefit them at the cost of everyone else.  As our power rates skyrocket to build wind farms that supply nothing but higher prices (and profits to the greenies) and the continued need for more power plants.  As our taxes go up to help build plants to build solar cells that never open.  We sure are going forward, right enough.  Would that you can move right on without me and leave me alone with my cheap power in the limited amounts I use.

    2. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I will stand up and take notice when the government actually put a plan into action. Reducing carbon emissions and then selling the savings to the polluters is not actually doing anything.
      If humans are causing climate change why hasn't one government proposed population control?
      I have a particular distrust of governments who tax us on the say of climate scientist who are in the pay of the very governments.
      There is climate change and possibly humans have added to its effects but don't tell me the government is trying to slow it or even change it's outcome because it's not, it's just another funding stream for them.
      Our city has implemented the electric car scheme with charging points around the city, what they don't tell you is that it isn't free and that most of the charging points are in some of the councils most expensive car parks ( how convenient ). Green is a very good moneymaker at the moment an will continue to be so for the government while they continue to follow their non existent plan.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

        Every scheme I've seen depends on someone other than the one proposing it to make the sacrifices or pay the bill, and benefits someone one other than me.  The maker of the power plant, the government collect more taxes, the polluter buying credits.

        You're absolutely right - green is a money-maker at the moment.  When it falls from that exalted tower it will also fall from government's graces and either survive on it's own without all the hoorah and subsidies or die off.  Personally, my bet is on surviving, but not in the form it is now.

    3. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      + 1000000000000000000000000000

 
working