August 15, 2011
– Comments (10)
I know, some of you still disagree.
Well Dev, you love the controversy. We've been down this road before, and nothing really has changed. You might want to take a look at movie reels from the "Dust Bowl" years of the 1930's. Pretty severe stuff but oil use back then was still in its infancy.
The weather is the weather. Since global warming began about 14,000 years ago, mankind has basically thrived as a result. Temperatures really only have 2 directions to go, warmer or colder.
Your clip shows how water current changes can impact weather. Should the North Atlantic current "turn off" you could see a tremendous drop in temperatures in Europe for example. Should Massive volcanic eruptions occur in Yosemite (which some experts predict will happen eventually) you would see a covering of the atmosphere which could reverse the warming and move us back into an ice age. As tectonic plate shifting occurs you will see major climatic changes.
Mankind simply can't stop this. So please make the REAL argument, an argument environmentalists are trying to hide, namely it really is all about pollution. But as I said elsewhere, crying stop pollution because it is bad is not as moving as crying stop pollution or you will all die a horrible death.
2 cents from someone who worked with this data in a summer job:
1) Over the past 50 years severe weather events have certainly increased in frequency, although not necessarily severity.
1a) Those increases could easily be caused by global warming, but in the case of some events (ie tornadoes) it could also be caused by more frequent reporting due to more interest (and specifally for tonadoes: more tornado chasers).
It is my guess based on the data that the increase is due to both.
2) The intensity of some types of severe storms have not increased substantially since about 1980, although pretty much all have since 1950. I suspect the lack of increase since 1980 is due to increased reporting smaller events (hence dropping the overall average).
It is my guess that overall intensity is indeed increasing still, and that global warming might well be to blame.
I don't think the data is entirely conclusive, but I do think it suggests that we are warming, and that is causing problems.
please start thinking before typing. Of course the earth has been warming since the end of the Pleistocene (which was actually 10k years ago; the warming started at the end of the younger dryas, about 11k ago) but WE WERE COMING OUT OF AN ICE AGE THEN. The problem isn't that we are warming, but that the temperature is going out of the normal ranges experienced in our tertiary history. We did this once before, and the world didn't die, but alligators did live in siberia. Yeah it gets bad. This may or may not be something we can control (we can, at ther very least help control it and IMO it is something we can control) but it is a problem. Not just one green nuts discuss.
The events you talk about would not put us back in an ice age, but would make us a bit cooler, at least for several years. We could, however put N Europe in an ice age if we stop the gulf stream.
If you think im wrong I would appreciate seeing some mainsteam sources.
Point here: is is difficult to compare forces of nature as sun, vulcanic and tectonic activity with humahs impact. Till now, and probably for next 200 years, we are just local thin mold on surface of the planet
I think you underestimate our power. We are single handedly creating the 6th mass extinction in history. Id say thats pretty major. Not even a volcano can do that (nor can the sun, for another couple billion years)
do you mean reduction of number of species? If yes, how you know it is result of human activities? Humans most fight with insects (pesticides and so on), but in line with my information no single insect was destroyed by this.
Its clear to me, being a former religious person in a fundamentalist church, you could be the most knowledgeable person about the religion and even elegantly make a case for an extreme point of view.
Humans are too small to cause a change in the environement: REALLY? We are still on this one?
Read Guns, Germs and Steel and 1493.
Both these books show how a few hundred conquisators, starting with COlumbus brought about the buggest changes to some of the largest land masses.
95% of the indigenous populations in South and Central America dissappeared.
Hispanola reported an ant outbreak of biblical proportions due to a little bug that lived in plantains and excreted sugary waste. The insect exploded in population and ants did too.
Whole forests changed their canopies because earthworms made it into the Old World forests. These forests were used to having specialized animals and bacteria destroy the organic waste. Some of the plants habituated to this cycle died when the good ole earthworm showed up and ate up everything that these specialized creatures consumed. Now our forests of made of pine, sure, but it wasnt that way before.
Hard to imagine, just a few thousand europeans and the Americas along with 95% of the population died off and two massive continents changed forever.
When the indians died off, the returning conquerers and others though that indians were good stewards of the land, nope they werent, Just a bunch of them died.
In the Americas, man had already killed off, the American Camel, the American Lion, and other Native species because they were hungry. We are alone the greatest causers of animals and plants to dissappear.
We are large enough as a society to cause any change we so desire.
It doesnt matter how many talking heads are saying the data is wrong. If global warming finished melting all the ice into water, there will be periods of rapid cooling, duh, Melt ice quickly and you will have cold water.
Now what happens once that cold ice is gone and not ready to release in case it does get too hot?
Try this out. Fill a cup of with ice, and pour hot water into it. The water gets very cold very fast. But then all the ice melts, then the water warms up. No more ice to get it cold again. If we are smart enough to realize that the principle of physics applies at every level, then we will realize that what happened in the glass of warm water and cold ice will happen here.
Eventually also, the tipping scale will go back to normal. Increased humidity in the environment will cause additional probems and the earth will find its balance. But not until after there have been some really catastrophic changes.
For an ant, a 5 inch shoe is a mortal enemy
There are a bunch of good opinions on both sides in this thread.
Yes, the globe is warming and it's been doing so for 10,000 years.
Yes, I think that man is accelerating warming but it has nothing to do with CO2. It has more to do with massive reproduction, a command of our environment and asphalt more than anything.
Cows farts warm the Earth more than CO2.
If you really want to solve global warming, you'll have to kill off a large part of the population. Some of you are willing to do that. I'm not that partial to that solution.
My bigger worry is if man is capable enough to combat the next Ice Age. It will come, despite our excesses, because of most of these liberal morons will try to fight it by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
That won't do anything. When we pump in water vapor and some paticulates into the atmosphere, we might live a while longer. I'm not that sure that we can fight the climate cycle enough though.
We weren't ever meant to live forever. We are just another species on the planet. We were lucky enough to get in on the warm part of the climate cycle. Odds are that we go the way of the dinosaur. We are smart enough to adapt, but we are dumb enough to follow politicians off the edge of a cliff. Politicians run everything. big government kills.
Might have to say the same about you sock. You arguing that tectonic plate movement won't change climate? You arguing that any major volcanic eruption clouding the atmosphere won't reverse temperature movement since sunlight won't be absorbed? No need to put a ton of links since just google it if you will. I once read that mankind's contribution to global warming actually may have delayed the next ice age by 500,000 years. But of course this is all surmise since in the end, as I said, the weather is the weather.
Thank you all for watching and replying.
Thank you for replying. Munich re has documented increasing severity and frequency of severe weather events.
Yes it seems to be difficult, and yet connecting CO2 to temperature has been done with tremendous accuracy. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/12/286706/wallace-broecwallace-broecker-1975-global-warming-prediction/#more-286706 As the article says he got lucky to some degree, but he got it right by modeling CO2, not volcanic activity, sunspots, milankovitch cycles, or other events that impact climate.
Estimating temperatures impact on the environment we live in has been more difficult and most climate scientists agree that impacts were estimated to conservatively which means that environmental impacts will come sooner and be worse than people described as "fearmongers" have warned us.
As you said, the weather is the weather. As ChrisGraley has told me, climate is not weather. Climate scientists in the video seem to believe that climate inpacts weather. Every climate scientist I read seems to agree with you that volcanic eruptions can impact climate. I do not know of any who believe that is what is happening now.
Show me data that says cowfarts have caused more warming than CO2. I know it is a contributor, but not the major one. Seems like more bs from the ABC (Anything But Co2) climate club to me. However if you are making the case that reducing consumption of beef will help reduce Co2 and methane in the atmosphere we would be in agreement. Concentrated Animal feedlots are a very Co2 consumptive way of providing calories.
Of course methane is only one greenhouse gas caused by livestock. This report focuses on your concern, methane.
Increasingly, countries around the world are recognizing that global warming, brought on by increased concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, poses a serious threat to their development. Approximately 40 percent of anthropogenic methane emissions come from the four sources targeted by the Global Methane Initiative:8