Climate change

1,967 posts in this topic

eh? I said there was an effect with acid rain and still is , but that at the time, the subject was surrounded by hysteria, and now it's forgotten about.

 

I think just about anyone with half a brain can see that global warming is going on, but whether man causes it more drastically than normal ice cap cycles is up in the air, and in thhe meantime I reckon everyone's getting a bit carried away with all the doom and gloom stuff

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but whether man causes it more drastically than normal ice cap cycles is up in the air,

Not according to the UN and the heavy majority of scientists in this field.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everyone wants to get their knickers in a twist over it then fine, but I certainly wont be losing any sleep over it, because Im a selfish prick who gets annoyed with only reading about stupid polar bears drowning every day of the week.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No...no...no! It's Global Cooling that we should all be worried about!

 

 

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it...

 

...To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didnt say that acid rain never existed, but as far as I remember we were bombarded with images of it daily, trees dying etc, same with the ozone hole, Im sure its still there, and technically it must still be getting bigger right? but no one talks about it any more, as with sub-saharan population explosion

 

none of these things are 'fixed', they've just been neatly forgotten by people as they move onto their next fix of self- flagellation

 

none of these things was false, my point is more about mankind's cyclical hysteria over various subjects.

 

eh? I said there was an effect with acid rain and still is , but that at the time, the subject was surrounded by hysteria, and now it's forgotten about.

 

I think just about anyone with half a brain can see that global warming is going on, but whether man causes it more drastically than normal ice cap cycles is up in the air, and in thhe meantime I reckon everyone's getting a bit carried away with all the doom and gloom stuff

No you moron. did you even read the links? In Western world we cleaned up our act and acid rain is not so much of a problem. In the East poolution has gotten worse and acid rain has gotten worse. There was no "hysteria". People were concerned, took action, the problem was lessend , people became less concerned.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, but just to repeat in case Worm still doesn't get it: Industry ENORMOUSLY cleaned up its act and as a result acid rain is now much less of a problem in western Europe. The problem didn't disappear – it was solved.

 

No-one can be 100% certain that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans. However the evidence is strong enough that to do nothing would be both stupid and irresponsible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He doesn’t know much about climate change but he does know it isn’t happening and if it is then it doesn’t matter and if it does then it’s not our fault and if it is then there’s nothing we can do." - Daniel Rutter

 

Less than 1%* of climate experts dispute the fact that global warming is occurring. If that hasn't come across yet, maybe you should should stop watching FOX, or mistaking Jeremy Clarkson as an authority when he says "I've been to the Arctic and there's still lots of ice there".

 

( * - I must admit, that "less than 1%" fact is about 2 years old now - it's probably less now.)

 

You're an idiot if:

 

- You say "The changes might be natural - let's just keep on going the way we are now and see what happens".

 

- You place more faith in authorities subsidised by energy companies than those at public universities.

 

- You believe that a cold spell in any particular place in the world disproves global warming.

 

- You say "I live 500m above sea level - rising sea-levels aren't going to affect me!"

 

- You think "I'm a selfish prick" is some sort of adequate argument.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

- You think "I'm a selfish prick" is some sort of adequate argument.

strangely I do. Something to do with the patronising tone people take when talking about global warming, it just naturally makes me want to disagree with them, even if I actually agree with them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

- You say "I live 500m above sea level - rising sea-levels aren't going to affect me!"

Bit of perspective: sea levels are predicted to rise at 1mm per year. Even if that turns out to be an 1,000% underestimate there won't be anything to worry about for a very long time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That figure is the absolute minimum figure predicted by the IPCC. The maximum possible figure is nearly ten times that. Given that two-thirds of the world's population live in coastal plains, sea level rise is the single most worrying aspect of climate change. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, climate change isn't really so much an environmental issue as a human welfare issue.

 

You're right, however, when you say that we don't need to worry about it now. What we need to do now is something to stop it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, isn't it a bit bizarre that they've been rising on average 3.3mm per year for the last 13 years? Anyway, you certainly will be affected before the water level gets anywhere near you 500m asl.

 

 

With sea-level rise, however, the researchers found that the range of 2001 predictions were lower than the actual rise. Satellite data shows that levels have rose by an average of 3.3 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2006

 

 

"Previous projections, as summarised by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have underestimated the change, in particular for sea level," conclude the scientists, writing in Science.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is Kylie.Dürr's authoritative thoughts on this when you need them.

 

He is the only scientist I will listen to.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the 1 mm p.a. figure from a radio interview with a climatologist the other day.

 

At 10 mm p.a. for 100 years, how many will die? Not many. In the same time scale many thousands will die as a result of tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes etc. etc..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

eh? I said there was an effect with acid rain and still is , but that at the time, the subject was surrounded by hysteria, and now it's forgotten about.

 

I think just about anyone with half a brain can see that global warming is going on, but whether man causes it more drastically than normal ice cap cycles is up in the air, and in thhe meantime I reckon everyone's getting a bit carried away with all the doom and gloom stuff

You're a dab hand at the old patronising tone yourself there

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many will die if sea levels rise by 100cm over the next century? Well, given that the developing world is already enormously overpopulated and a 100cm sea-level rise will massively reduce the amount of land that can be lived on and harvested, I would guess that we are looking at a "population drop" of hundreds of millions. Or the population stays the same or continues increasing, but disease, starvation and poverty go through the roof. Pick whichever you prefer!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hundreds of millions? Unless you can provide evidence that's pure hysteria. Think of the world's great cities - how many of them would be threatened by a rise of 1 m? Even London would only be at slightly increased risk of flooding. Nothing catastrophic.

 

Also, if the global warming hypothesis is correct we are too late to stop the majority of this rise already.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right, bury your head in the sand – it's not a problem and if it is it's too late to do anything about it.

 

Most of London is AT sea level so clearly any rises in that level is bad news. The Thames Barrier is already activated several times a year. Bangladesh, meanwhile, has a population of 150 million, and 50% of the land area is expected to be flooded with a sea level rise of one metre.

 

We're not only talking here about areas that will in a century's time be sitting under water, we're talking about the areas prone to flooding, which will clearly increase as sea levels rise. Norwich may not sit under water all year round, but if it floods several times a year then it becomes uninhabitable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

strangely I do. Something to do with the patronising tone people take when talking about global warming, it just naturally makes me want to disagree with them, even if I actually agree with them.

I like this philosophy, and shall now adopt it.

 

"Duh, obviously eating lead is bad for you"

"I don't like your tone, I'll now eat some"

 

"of course 1+1=2"

"Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant, I will disagree!"

 

Sorry, the reason we have science is because the world exists in cold un-emotional facts. Things will still happen regardless of how you learned about it, and the biggest asshole in the world can still be factually correct (As I often am) and you still have to concede that.

 

It is called reality, and it doesn’t care about your feelings.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now