|
Your thoughts on Global Warming . . . (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Clovis |
| It is also estimated that due to the higher amount of CO2 taken in by the ocean, by 2075 there will be no more coral reef systems, thus elminating about 9 million species from the ocean. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by DarkAngel
Been there, done that. Doesn't seem to work. :( |
off. Thats not something you with. |
|
|
| dallastar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
See ya later Florida. |
For real, I know!
I saw this show on the New york Education TV show, that if this little piece of ice is to fall the sea level around the world would raise 20 feet!:eyes: that's what worries me! I live close to the shore of Lake Ontario, enough to be swept away! |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
It's not supposed to be representative of what has happened over the past 50 years. Whether we have accelerated the process or not cannot be established with a high degree of scientific certainty since no experiment can be created to test the hypothesis (what would the control be? Earth #2, now with no humans?)
The reality is that the globe is going to get warmer whether we do anything or not, so we would better focus our efforts towards becoming more dynamic and adaptable towards changing climates than trying to avert climate change entirely. |
Well the graph that you just showed is also a hypothesis. No one was around to check the temperature 570 million years ago. The temperatures were inferred indirectly from other observations. People will find ways to test their theories, even if they cannot perform actual experiments. A model can be developed based on past observations, and predictions can be made based on the model, which eventually will get tested when new data arrives.
The current debate in the scientific community is centered around our contribution to the global warming. A large proportion of the community believes that we have contributed in a positive way (even though Bush and the American Petroleum Institute makes us believe otherwise)
So the accelerated global warming will determine when we face the floods or what measures we need to take to prevent them. If on the other hand, it is proved that the current global warming is part of the natural process, then we need not worry at all, since a rise in the temperature by 5 degrees over one million years will amount to an insignificant increase over the next 50 or 100 years. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
Well the graph that you just showed is also a hypothesis. No one was around to check the temperature 570 million years ago. The temperatures were inferred indirectly from other observations. People will find ways to test their theories, even if they cannot perform actual experiments. A model can be developed based on past observations, and predictions can be made based on the model, which eventually will get tested when new data arrives.
The current debate in the scientific community is centered around our contribution to the global warming. A large proportion of the community believes that we have contributed in a positive way (even though Bush and the American Petroleum Institute makes us believe otherwise)
So the accelerated global warming will determine when we face the floods or what measures we need to take to prevent them. If on the other hand, it is proved that the current global warming is part of the natural process, then we need not worry at all, since a rise in the temperature by 5 degrees over one million years will amount to an insignificant increase over the next 50 or 100 years. |
I don't disagree with any of that, I just believe that we should focus on being prepared for major climate change if and when it does occur. Instead of asking: why is the climate changing? We should be asking: how are we going to adapt to it? I understand the debate, but I think we are debating the wrong question. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I don't disagree with any of that, I just believe that we should focus on being prepared for major climate change if and when it does occur. Instead of asking: why is the climate changing? We should be asking: how are we going to adapt to it? I understand the debate, but I think we are debating the wrong question. |
You dont think we should do anything to maybe limit the damage we are currently doing? Yeah alot of the effects are already irreversible but does that mean we should just keep going untill it all goes to complete ? |
|
|
| dallastar |
thanks for all this information guys and gals!
you tha best!:eyespop: |
|
|
| Vlad |
| Global Warming is bull. If you look at record temperatures for the states, and Im sure its the same for Canada, most of them occurred during periods of history when there wasnt much around... hardly any factories and cars, if any at all. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
You dont think we should do anything to maybe limit the damage we are currently doing? Yeah alot of the effects are already irreversible but does that mean we should just keep going untill it all goes to complete ? |
I really don't believe things will get so bad that we will not be able to cope with them. I mean, even at the rate that greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere have gone up in the last hundred years, we'd have to continue the trend for several more centuries to begin to get them up to the level that they have been in the distant past (by which point we'll be seriously hurting for fuels to burn to produce more CO2), and there's no evidence of global temperatures being so high during those periods that it would be a significant detriment to our ability to survive.
The biggest problems would be rising sea levels and likely some dramatic changes in regional weather patterns... but I think those are things we ought to be able to adapt to. And personally, I think we as a people would benefit from having to face a little more adversity, so I don't see it as entirely negative.
I guess it's hard for me to answer because it's so speculative when it comes to how to balance the detriments of the problem itself against the benefits we stand to gain from the process of learning to deal with it. I mean, on the surface a lot of people would say it's good not to have any problems and for everything in your life to always go smoothly... but at the same time, it is by dealing with problems and adversity that we grow as individuals - and as a society as well. |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
you cannot put down one year's bad snow show to global warming. The effects of global warming are not yet as drastic and apparent. Quite a few short term effects can be attributed to temperature fluctuations due to El Nino which is currently active. |
i dunnmo abt that did u here abt the iceberg in alaska that last week broke apart and is floating away?
the thing is the size of 11 football fields.
tho i do agree u cant blame one year of no snow on global warming
but my take on it is, bring global warming on. sure florida and the southern countries will be ed, but toronto will be the new south beach and im all down for that |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vlad
Global Warming is bull. If you look at record temperatures for the states, and Im sure its the same for Canada, most of them occurred during periods of history when there wasnt much around... hardly any factories and cars, if any at all. |
wow. vlad knows more about global conditions than all the dissenting scientific minds of the 21st century! good thinking there vlad. |
|
|
| dallastar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vivid Boy
but my take on it is, bring global warming on. sure florida and the southern countries will be ed, but toronto will be the new south beach and im all down for that |
HAHA!
I'm all for that too! *crossing fingers!* |
|
|
|
|
