Global warming

(1/4) > >>

GCG (January 17, 2011, 17:28:21 PM):
there is a new buzzword, and its global warming.
but, how much of this, is just natural fluctuations in global climate, and how much is us pumping carbon into the atmosphere.
yes, we are killing off trees and decimating natural resources daily. yes, we are polluting everything we touch.
but, on a global scale, how much difference could we make?
i have read, and heard, we are still coming out of the last ice age. and i think, to me anyway, that seems viable.
maybe, we are helping the natural way of things along with out evil ways.

but i found some info which makes me think, this is just nature going through her thousand year motions.

these graph shows the rise of sea levels since the 1800's, from data gotten from tidal stations.



i think, in general, climates rise and fall, and the dynamics around it, is bigger and more intensive than we would like to think.
maybe it's a sign of modern times, we are rushed, so nature must allso be rushed. accurate global accounts of floods and temperatures isnt there, so we cant make educated estimates, and have to rely on varying levels of accuracy of the last 200 odd years of science and observation.

i think too, that rivers and water-prone areas are more likely to have more poplution, so when the paw-paw hits the fan, then more people are affected, as, say, a hectic sand storm in the stix, or an earthquake in the bush somewhere. and the more people are pressing in on cities. the cities are reaching up as quickly as out, and where hundreds might have been affected by a flood in 1920, thousands are displaced now.

i dont believe climate change will be catastrophic within our lifetime, and the change will be slow and gradual, the way it allways was. and people and plant and animal will adapt as they allways did.

different story if you destroy the natural resources though. if water is ruined, its ruined. whether its in a flood, or sitting quietly in its river.

Benjammin (January 17, 2011, 22:33:02 PM):
Global warming is not a new buzzword, it has been around for a while, and the term really should be global climate change. However leave that aside. You are presenting this as a fair and balanced argument between two sides of contradictory conclusions, it isn't. The argument is over, humans are affecting the planet. On one side you have an ever increasing mountain of evidence and almost all the scientists (especially the ones who's field is specifically climate) and on the other side, a small percentage of deniers. Graphically it looks something like this (from information is beautiful):


If you want some evidence, here is a good start http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/ .

The final point is one of game theory. There are two possibilities and two possible courses of actions, giving us four possible outcomes:

1. 99% of scientists are wrong, climate change isn't happening and we do nothing. Result: nothing happens.
2. 99% of scientists are wrong, climate change isn't happening and we do something. Result: we waste some money on programs cleaning up our energy consumption.
3. 99% of scientists are right, climate change is happening and we do something. Result: we might turn the Titanic around, and avoid the worst of climate change.
4. 99% of scientists are right, climate change is happening and we do nothing. Result: we destroy the earth as a human habitable planet, mass death.

Not sure about you, but I am willing to risk a little economic hardship to avoid the real possibility of mass death.
Rigil Kent (January 17, 2011, 23:04:01 PM):
1. 99% of scientists are wrong, climate change isn't happening and we do nothing. Result: nothing happens.
2. 99% of scientists are wrong, climate change isn't happening and we do something. Result: we waste some money on programs cleaning up our energy consumption.
3. 99% of scientists are right, climate change is happening and we do something. Result: we might turn the Titanic around, and avoid the worst of climate change.
4. 99% of scientists are right, climate change is happening and we do nothing. Result: we destroy the earth as a human habitable planet, mass death.
Man, this looks familiar.... where the blaises have I seen it before? Oh, never mind, I wager it'll come to me eventually, no pressure. ::)
To me, the question is not so much whether or not to embark on cleaner living, which is a good idea in itself, but rather if our cleaner living could turn the Titanic around at all. If man’s impact is merely the tip of the naturally defrosting iceberg (to torture the Titanic metaphor even further), then there is little we can do except to wait out yet another global cycle. Just like our ancestors did a couple of times.

Mintaka
st0nes (January 18, 2011, 06:51:29 AM):
Climate change is not a problem--it is a symptom of a problem, i.e. overpopulation. If we don't fix the underlying problem, we have no chance of reversing climate change.
cyghost (January 18, 2011, 07:17:17 AM):
Man, this looks familiar.... where the blaises have I seen it before? Oh, never mind, I wager it'll come to me eventually, no pressure. ::)
I'll wager you have!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page