Global warming mod

[twjr]

Also warming does not need lead to sea level rising. While a warmer ocean will expand due to thermal expansion there may actually be less mass in the ocean.

So long as Antarctica remains isolated it will remain cold. Warmer temperatures will not get above the melting point in Antarctica and if they do then the rest of the planet would be so hot it would be uninhabitable. Warmer temperatures allow the air to hold more moisture. More moisture means more precipitation. More precipitation means more snow. So long as that snow does not melt it contributes to loss of mass in the ocean. There are a number of modelling studies which show that with an increase in temperature you lose ice mass in all parts of the globe except Antarctica where there is enough of an increase to off set the other loses. However, there may be time offsets for the loses and gains so for periods there could be either land flooded or new land exposed.

I agree that on the whole warming will be more beneficial than cooling. However, warming will mean that tropical diseases and pests will be able to spread to a greater area. I for one don't want malaria.

 

[soup567]

And all the glaciers are melting

 

[Hroth]

Well technically you can it just eats away at the o-zone. When a major volcano erupts, one of the main chemicals in it (I forgot which) averagely cools down the earth by 1 degree F the year it happens. Just do that yearly and you could stop it. Except it would probably kill the o-zone and we'd be worse off than ever

It's Sulfur Dioxide. When it mixes with rain water, it forms Sulfuric Acid (acid rain) which is not good for plant or animal life.

 

[twjr]

SO2 is also quite a common pollutant in coal smoke. In terms of direct health problems it is probably more concerning and maybe easier to control than CO2. When I was in China last the amount of acrid smoke in some cities actually begins to hurt your lungs after a couple of hours. I can't imagine how much damage it does to people who spend years breathing it in.

And all the glaciers are melting

If you are referring to non-polar glaciers then it isn't so much of a problem if they melt. They are but a tiny fraction of all entrained water.

They are a greater problem for humans and ecosystems downriver of them that rely on glacial melts. However, so long as the catchments continue to receive similar volumes of precipitation (just as rain instead of snow) there will just have to be a temporal shift in how the people use the water.

 

[Lawrie]

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

Pfft, i don't know, i mean no offence, but if its regular joe in the lumberjack coat saying 'well i don't see nuthing melting' and a general consensus of the top scientific institutes of the Western World... then hmm....

This is particularly an issue in the USA... similarly with evolution...

 

[Afforess]

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

Consensus is meaningless in the scientific world. It's useful for politics, especially elections; but if science was consensus-based, the world would still be flat.

if its regular joe in the lumberjack coat saying 'well i don't see nuthing melting' and a general consensus of the top scientific institutes of the Western World... then hmm....

Yah! Stereotypes!

 

[Lawrie]

Your proving the significance of your Voltaire quote with that dismissal of the magical coincidence perhaps? Of the Wests top scientific institutes.

Perhaps your gut knows better then?

 

[Afforess]

Your proving the significance of your Voltaire quote with that dismissal of the magical coincidence perhaps? Of the Wests top scientific institutes.

The Voltaire quote proves nothing.

Perhaps your gut knows better then?

Right, because that is what I said. No strawmen, please.

 

[Lawrie]

Consensus is meaningless in the scientific world. It's useful for politics, especially elections; but if science was consensus-based, the world would still be flat.

Yah - that is a strawman argument.

Perhaps your gut knows better then?

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

No need to thank me

 

[Afforess]

Yah - that is a strawman argument.

And this is a red-herring.

 

[Lawrie]

Muhahahaha

Just wait till you see the whole new set of green energy civic icons hehe

 

[civ_king]

Consensus is meaningless in the scientific world. It's useful for politics, especially elections; but if science was consensus-based, the world would still be flat.



Yah! Stereotypes!

People knew in the middle ages that the Earth was round

 

[os79]

People knew in the middle ages that the Earth was round

Scholars, yes. People in general, no. Be careful with word "people" please.

 

[civ_king]

Scholars, yes. People in general, no. Be careful with word "people" please.

I didn't say all or even most!

 

[Afforess]

Can't this debate just die in peace?

 

[Lawrie]

For goodness sake how silly is that hehe...

3 - Sounds like someone who has read absolutely nothing on the subject contrary to their own belief. Some areas flood? The issue isn't flooding aloney, but lets just take that as one example... People lose there homes? How about hundreds of thousands of refugees, in for example Bangladesh alone... spread of disease, failure of countries to 'adapt' that just don't happen to have the resources of well er say... Michigan. While the 1900s remark sounds like a kid crying over a broken ipod, im afraid there are just bigger issues at stake.

Funnily enough when it comes to Cancer/medical treatment - discerning patients aren't half as scrutinising of such... scientific consensus when it comes to treating their ass. Yet on the issue of climate change, every hick is suddenly an expert and could it be because environmentalists are seen as liberal tree hugging hippies imposing something...

The sceptism to climate change as expressed in the 'just dont make sense to me belly scratching brigade' is the same espoused towards evolution. Seen with peculiar and amusing clarity in the USA with such expert advocates as... Sarah Palin, or the fractional number of shrills hired from oil companies.

 

[Afforess]

How about hundreds of thousands of refugees, in for example Bangladesh alone... spread of disease, failure of countries

At the risk of sounding heartless... so what? How is that different from what happens every day. People die, and it's a cruel fact of life for a cruel world. Some people have the bad luck to be born in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Good people die, innocent people die. Heck, Jack the Ripper was never even caught, but millions of children die each year in Africa.

From a purely statistical, pragmatic viewpoint, the means justify the ends, and humanity will still be better off, even if Global Warming occurs. Liberals, of all people, should see that the needs of the many outweigh those of the few. I don't like it, but there is nothing I can do to change it. Humanity will adapt, and eventually prosper again, more advanced than before.

After all, what is the alternative? To scuttle all industries? Realistically, to cut emissions at this point, we would have to completely end all manufacturing of any goods, and stop all power generation. Some even think it's too late now, even if we did all of that. And that isn't a feasible option. India, China, and South America won't go along with it. So it's pointless to try. Would turning the titanic 1 degree to the left, a minute before it hit the iceberg have saved any of the passengers? Probably Not.

Note: Any views expressed at ~2am are not representative of my actual opinions, and are a product of looming final exams and sleep deprivation.

Funnily enough when it comes to Cancer/medical treatment - discerning patients aren't half as scrutinising of such... scientific consensus when it comes to treating their ass. Yet on the issue of climate change, every hick is suddenly an expert and could it be because environmentalists are seen as liberal tree hugging hippies imposing something...

The sceptism to climate change as expressed in the 'just dont make sense to me belly scratching brigade' is the same espoused towards evolution. Seen with peculiar and amusing clarity in the USA with such expert advocates as... Sarah Palin, or the fractional number of shrills hired from oil companies.

Way OT, and the very definition of a strawman argument.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Replace Bangladesh with Florida and that delta nearby (can't remember how to spell the river's name). Also there is less tundra land area becoming ariable than temperate farmlands becoming desert. Even though most maps show it different - its just very difficult to represent a sphere on a flat piece of paper. Here, what with the restart of the monsoon after 40,000 years, the jungle is pushing south but the desert is pushing outward.

 

[Killtech]

the more die today the less are left that can suffer tomorrow. and if all die then nothing bad can happen to anyone anymore. there will be no evil in the world, no injustice and all that stuff... ah never mind... just forget that... i'm already half asleep.


global warming is like civilization battle system: global warming is as likely to happen as a spearman winning against a fortified archer in a hill city. trieng to do something against global warming will result in our spearmen gaining a cover I promotion.

and as to skepticism: form a scientific point of view it's very unreasonable to state clear predictions about a such complex system. we can just measure that something is changing but not what it will exactly cause and how to contract it. best thing we can do is making vague assumptions.

all we can say is: earth seems to warm up, like it did before often enough. the consequences of such change will be grave as we know form research on earth climate history. is that a bad thing anyway? hell yeah! have we caused it? hard to say if our influence was strong enough or if it just added up to a natural process. can we stop it? ...we are not powerful enough most likely but considering how much climate change will cost us... every chance is good enough to take it.

 

[Lawrie]

At the risk of sounding heartless... so what?

Um if the circumstances for other countries worsen - environmentally speaking, because of our countries contributing the most towards climate change, then we have a direct responsibility to help. It's also in our self interest to help. This is obvious, the kind of macho so what line is bs anyway. Take how conflicts over oil and other traditional resources have stretched to the limits, the power of countries such as the USA. As the fight for remaining resources causes 'regional instability' so will the changing environment. The USA of all countries should know how devastating the consequences of its actions abroad can be back home. Likewise a failure to grasp this issue would return to haunt the USA.

Scientists don't argue that the climate doesnt change naturally... but it is the type of change, that our effect on the environment, and the rate of change, which has the potential to cause enormous and potentially irreversible damage. Even with natural variances such as the so called Medieval Warm Period, there is none that compares with the demonstrative effects of the last fifty years or even hundred years.We have already seen for example our direct effect on the environment before in for example the depletion of the ozone layer.

Way OT, and the very definition of a strawman argument.

What by comparing one branch of science that has an almost complete consensus in the Western World in our scientists and institutes with *breathes deep* another... People don't feel the temptation to dip there toe into ideological arguments about say, the efficiency of a nuclear reactor, the process of mitosis or say chemotherapy.

But... behold... suddenly regular joe knows best on the environment. It's ideological, and your remarks show clearly that your concern is more on a political basis than a scientific one.

The entire world is moving to invest in renewable energy for example and are not doing so because they make more money than traditional forms of energy. The only folks dragging there feet on this are really politically motivated sceptics, who are often 'humoured in words' but not by actions too of some conservative politicians.