Cooling to be Only Temporary in a Warming World, According to New Climate Model (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 29, 2024, 11:54:57 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Cooling to be Only Temporary in a Warming World, According to New Climate Model (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Cooling to be Only Temporary in a Warming World, According to New Climate Model  (Read 1760 times)
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,317


« on: May 01, 2008, 10:28:34 AM »

Yup climate change is not our biggest threat in the next 20 years, peak oil is. But by investing more in green technologies we will not only solve the oil crisis, but get a headstart on climate change. Now you guys that heard the explanation of the oscillation and decided that climate change was not human caused, do you guys understand what will happen 20 years from now when the oscillation comes the other way. Our planet will probably warm to an extent we cannot predict because it will be caused by multiple factors. And if in those warm summers, all the ice melts, we are in big trouble. Better to be safe than sorry yeah?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,317


« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2008, 11:28:34 AM »

I've become convince that scientists really don't have enough data to accurately assess man's influence on the global climate.  Our planet has experienced several major climate shifts over its lifetime which are caused by an almost infinite number of variables that all intertwine and affect each other.  There is simply no way for us to be able to discern what affect man is having on the global climate because we are just one of those variables.

I am note refuting the fact that the global climate is changing but for scientists to continue claiming that man is the major contributing factor to this change is not something I'm willing to buy into.  Environmentalists should focus more on the negative affects pollution has on people in the short term and at the local level.  Talking about global warming makes you look as ridiculous as The Day After Tomorrow.  Talking about how the local coal plant or car emissions are causing an increase in major health problems gets people's attention and makes them more likely to side with you.
These major climate shifts happened over a very long period of time, while this is happening very quickly. Scientists have come a long way in understanding the variables which affect the climate and these are not idle claims. It's you who look ridiculous by denying something that is becoming universally accepted.

Wasn't the cool down that killed the dinosaurs pretty quick?

Umm do believe that was caused by a meteor which cut out sunlight for a significant amount of time. Ice fields probably grew at the poles and earth has its own feedback loops which make it colder than you would think it would be. Such as more Ice means more sunlight reflected back and so forth. And the thing is that there are ways the earth can warm up on its own, say if lots of volcanoes and forest fires belch carbon into the environment. That has happened in the past and no doubt those processes occur in the present but they cannot account for the rapid temperature increase we saw these last 20 years. It will be interesting to see if the earth actually cools down in the next few years. I doubt it.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,317


« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2008, 09:17:09 PM »

MODU, to claim that there is this "divide" among scientists implies that it is split 50/50.  It's not.  The vast majority (a larger margin than any presidential candidate in our history) are part of the consensus, which states that our activities are causing the planet to warm... not climate change... GLOBAL WARMING.

No, a divide just means that there is a significant proportion that disagrees with the other.  Doesn't mean it's 50/50.

What would you define as a significant proportion?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,317


« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2008, 10:41:37 PM »

Yeah i seriously doubt 20% of CLIMATOLOGISTS do not think humans contribute to global warming.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 12 queries.