26 Jan 2015, 4:07 pm
26 Jan 2015, 4:12 pm
26 Jan 2015, 4:43 pm
Climate change is honestly a fact, any debate about it is entirely political or economical rubbish. Climate change is in itself a neutral thing, but in the short term on the scale we have accelerated it to it could be pretty devastating, especially to economies and political entities around the world in the next century or so. You would think that they would be more worried, but screw our children and their children I want this bigger house and new car NOW! GOD will interject and protect Murica because we're so special. I can't wait for WW3 
when we start fighting over resources.
As long as nuclear warfare doesn't happen the human species will most likely survive, hopefully civilization won't crash again.
26 Jan 2015, 7:06 pm
Feyokien wrote:
Climate change is honestly a fact, any debate about it is entirely political or economical rubbish. Climate change is in itself a neutral thing, but in the short term on the scale we have accelerated it to it could be pretty devastating, especially to economies and political entities around the world in the next century or so. You would think that they would be more worried, but screw our children and their children I want this bigger house and new car NOW! GOD will interject and protect Murica because we're so special. I can't wait for WW3 when we start fighting over resources.
As long as nuclear warfare doesn't happen the human species will most likely survive, hopefully civilization won't crash again.
when we start fighting over resources.As long as nuclear warfare doesn't happen the human species will most likely survive, hopefully civilization won't crash again.
The claims of how the climate reacts to our activities seem to be way overblown. The reality is that very little has changed over the last twenty or thirty years that can be attributed to a warmer climate.
Sure, there have been reports that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Never mind that it was considerably cooler than eight or nine thousand years ago and noticeably cooler than a couple thousand of years ago. The difference between 2014 and the second warmest year was apparently .01 degrees. That is so small that it is well within the expected error that it is meaningless.
27 Jan 2015, 12:23 am
eric76 wrote:
Feyokien wrote:
Climate change is honestly a fact, any debate about it is entirely political or economical rubbish. Climate change is in itself a neutral thing, but in the short term on the scale we have accelerated it to it could be pretty devastating, especially to economies and political entities around the world in the next century or so. You would think that they would be more worried, but screw our children and their children I want this bigger house and new car NOW! GOD will interject and protect Murica because we're so special. I can't wait for WW3 when we start fighting over resources.
As long as nuclear warfare doesn't happen the human species will most likely survive, hopefully civilization won't crash again.
when we start fighting over resources.As long as nuclear warfare doesn't happen the human species will most likely survive, hopefully civilization won't crash again.
The claims of how the climate reacts to our activities seem to be way overblown. The reality is that very little has changed over the last twenty or thirty years that can be attributed to a warmer climate.
Sure, there have been reports that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Never mind that it was considerably cooler than eight or nine thousand years ago and noticeably cooler than a couple thousand of years ago. The difference between 2014 and the second warmest year was apparently .01 degrees. That is so small that it is well within the expected error that it is meaningless.
I'm not even going to argue the specifics, take a college level Geology course if you want to know the facts or at least buy a textbook and read that. The temperature in 2014 doesn't really matter, climate change doesn't happen overnight, to see the full effects of what we're doing you're going to have to be alive in about a hundred years or so, when my children and their children will be alive along with everyone else's who have to deal with our petty short sighted policies of today. It's going to mess with a lot of crops, which is going to cause problems for everyone starving. Sea levels are projected to rise by at least 2 feet or more, this is going to screw with a lot of coastlines, where a lot of people live. Countries are going to lose territory, people are going to be slowly displaced and this could cause war and further the problems of overpopulation. I don't want future generations to have to inherit war from our band decisions. Some if not a lot of species will go extinct, 200 years isn't enough time to cope and adapt, but humans will survive. In the long run life will go on and it wont be the end of the world, what matters is if we can keep our current civilization and technology alive. We are not as immortal as we like to think.
27 Jan 2015, 12:50 am
27 Jan 2015, 1:00 am
27 Jan 2015, 4:14 am
Feyokien wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Feyokien wrote:
Climate change is honestly a fact, any debate about it is entirely political or economical rubbish. Climate change is in itself a neutral thing, but in the short term on the scale we have accelerated it to it could be pretty devastating, especially to economies and political entities around the world in the next century or so. You would think that they would be more worried, but screw our children and their children I want this bigger house and new car NOW! GOD will interject and protect Murica because we're so special. I can't wait for WW3 when we start fighting over resources.
As long as nuclear warfare doesn't happen the human species will most likely survive, hopefully civilization won't crash again.
when we start fighting over resources.As long as nuclear warfare doesn't happen the human species will most likely survive, hopefully civilization won't crash again.
The claims of how the climate reacts to our activities seem to be way overblown. The reality is that very little has changed over the last twenty or thirty years that can be attributed to a warmer climate.
Sure, there have been reports that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Never mind that it was considerably cooler than eight or nine thousand years ago and noticeably cooler than a couple thousand of years ago. The difference between 2014 and the second warmest year was apparently .01 degrees. That is so small that it is well within the expected error that it is meaningless.
I'm not even going to argue the specifics,
Obviously, the first thing that you would need to argue is why I should listen to your opinions on the subject.
Perhaps you can begin by explaining to us the cause of ice ages.
Quote:
take a college level Geology course if you want to know the facts or at least buy a textbook and read that. The temperature in 2014 doesn't really matter, climate change doesn't happen overnight, to see the full effects of what we're doing you're going to have to be alive in about a hundred years or so, when my children and their children will be alive along with everyone else's who have to deal with our petty short sighted policies of today. It's going to mess with a lot of crops, which is going to cause problems for everyone starving. Sea levels are projected to rise by at least 2 feet or more, this is going to screw with a lot of coastlines, where a lot of people live. Countries are going to lose territory, people are going to be slowly displaced and this could cause war and further the problems of overpopulation. I don't want future generations to have to inherit war from our band decisions. Some if not a lot of species will go extinct, 200 years isn't enough time to cope and adapt, but humans will survive. In the long run life will go on and it wont be the end of the world, what matters is if we can keep our current civilization and technology alive. We are not as immortal as we like to think.
More like a foot per century -- something that we would hardly even noticed. There are far more serious concerns.
By the way, how far do you think that sea level has risen since the end of the last glaciation? Approximately 300 feet. Anyone who thinks that there is some natural level for sea level to be clearly knows nothing about the real world. There is nothing magic about the current sea level.
But there is one thing about the current sea level that you can be absolutely sure of. If it does not rise higher than it is, we are in serious trouble. If it does not rise higher, then that effectively means that there will be no signifficant warming and it will be a matter of time for it to start cooling. Instead of rising, as the cooler weather deposits more and more of the water as snow to add to the glaciers covering the higher latitudes as well as create far more new glaciers in the higher latitudes as well as in higher altitudes. The carrying capacity of the Earth would decline dramatically and famine would become the rule.
If the ice cap over Greenland melts, expect far more than two feet of sea level rises. I think the projections are on the order of about 180 feet. Over the course of an expected 20,000 years or so, we can deal with foot or so per century.
Melt Antarctica and it will be far higher than that.
There is one very important thing to remember -- if it doesn't warm, then it is going to cool and therein lies the true disaster.
27 Jan 2015, 12:27 pm
The climate DOES change and has been doing so since this planet has had what can be called a climate. It will keep changing no matter what. The question is whether or not human habitation plays a significant role in those changes that have historically happened even without us.
This whole "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!! !" alarmist BS is driven by the left, a demographic that hates the human species and thinks we are some kind of blight upon the planet. Not to mention their deep love of regulation (except for the things they like).
Go figure.....
27 Jan 2015, 12:42 pm
27 Jan 2015, 1:38 pm
Inventor wrote:
Since the last ice age, sea level has risen 450 foot, with 60 foot happening in one year.
You are using "ice age" to mean "period of glaciation". Many people use the term like that, but it is rather confusing.
From http://www.universetoday.com/74714/what-is-an-ice-age/:
Quote:
The most accurate use for Ice Age is geologic period of time that spans millions of years. As a matter of fact it is believed that Earth is in the middle of an Ice Age right now. You might think that is certainly doesn’t feel like one. That is because an Ice Age is more a relative term. It basically means it is much cooler now than in previous times in Earth’s geologic history.
We are approximately 2.6 million years into the current ice age.
Quote:
The last interglacial lasted from 28,000 to 23,000 years ago. Humans had nothing to do with it, or the following three miles of ice that appeared.
Actually, the last interglacial period was the Eemian. It lasted about 15,000 years and ended about 115,000 years ago.During the last interglacial, there were some warm periods, but nothing approaching an interglacial.
This is from the NOAA:
27 Jan 2015, 11:09 pm
28 Jan 2015, 2:09 am
Inventor wrote:
True, the whole can be called an ice age, and an interglacial the periods between ice ages.
An interglacial is the period between glaciations in an ice age, not between ice ages. The Holocene and the Eemian are two such interglacials.
Quote:
Other usage, within an ice age there are periods when the ice recedes, such as the current Holocene. This is the third warm phase within the ice age. This warm phase is as long as the last two combined.
Using the term "ice age" to refer to an interglacial is a popular use of the term, i.e. by the less informed who tend to see the climate as either warm or cold.
There have been a number of interglacial periods - five in the last 450,000 years.
The current interglacial period is the Holocene and has has lasted roughly 12,000 years. Prior to that was the Eemian that lasted about 15,000 years. Before that was the Holstein that is believed to have lasted about 30,000 to 50,000 years. I don't know if the previous interglacials have been given names.
I don't know when it changed, but some time before half a million years ago, the glacials were shorter than the glacials of the last half million years and the interglacials were longer, but cooler.
Quote:
We are still in an ice age, and the trend since Rome has been cooling.
Yes.
28 Jan 2015, 2:49 am
Raptor wrote:
The climate DOES change and has been doing so since this planet has had what can be called a climate. It will keep changing no matter what. The question is whether or not human habitation plays a significant role in those changes that have historically happened even without us.
This whole "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!! !" alarmist BS is driven by the left, a demographic that hates the human species and thinks we are some kind of blight upon the planet. Not to mention their deep love of regulation (except for the things they like).
Go figure.....
This whole "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!! !" alarmist BS is driven by the left, a demographic that hates the human species and thinks we are some kind of blight upon the planet. Not to mention their deep love of regulation (except for the things they like).
Go figure.....
Mostly, though not always, it takes a long time for changes to occur. It's gradual. So, one human might not experience any in their lifetime.
And keep in mind, the human population will keep getting larger and larger with every passing year. More places around the globe will be developed. More will be consumed. As humans, we should try to live as close to nature as possible for our own success. Right now we are so far away from how we are supposed to live, we will have a difficult time adjusting to anything. We do not exist in an ecosystem, we simply tear it apart. How can we exist more as a part of it?
28 Jan 2015, 3:11 am
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Raptor wrote:
The climate DOES change and has been doing so since this planet has had what can be called a climate. It will keep changing no matter what. The question is whether or not human habitation plays a significant role in those changes that have historically happened even without us.
This whole "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!! !" alarmist BS is driven by the left, a demographic that hates the human species and thinks we are some kind of blight upon the planet. Not to mention their deep love of regulation (except for the things they like).
Go figure.....
This whole "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!! !" alarmist BS is driven by the left, a demographic that hates the human species and thinks we are some kind of blight upon the planet. Not to mention their deep love of regulation (except for the things they like).
Go figure.....
Mostly, though not always, it takes a long time for changes to occur. It's gradual. So, one human might not experience any in their lifetime.
In the past, there have been extremely major changes in climate in short periods of time.
For example, the Younger Dryas, a period within the Holocene Interglacial Period, with a plunge in temperature of about 15 degrees is thought to have come about in as little as ten years.
The previous interglacial period, the Eemian, is thought to have ended in as little as 400 years which is pretty much about the limits in time of what we can detect. It might easily have been in as little as ten years.
