You're pretty dumb, who the fuck is going to go to the ocean and swim when the so called "beach" is underwater and all that is left is a rocky coastline.-Sh1fty- wrote:
That's the most retarded thing I've seen you say Dilbert.
Ok so, the SAND beach would be under water...big deal.
The French, Europeans. They don't know what sand is.UnkleRukus wrote:
You're pretty dumb, who the fuck is going to go to the ocean and swim when the so called "beach" is underwater and all that is left is a rocky coastline.-Sh1fty- wrote:
That's the most retarded thing I've seen you say Dilbert.
Ok so, the SAND beach would be under water...big deal.
been to maine ?UnkleRukus wrote:
You're pretty dumb, who the fuck is going to go to the ocean and swim when the so called "beach" is underwater and all that is left is a rocky coastline.-Sh1fty- wrote:
That's the most retarded thing I've seen you say Dilbert.
Ok so, the SAND beach would be under water...big deal.
Yes I have, Water is freezing, why would you swim in it.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
been to maine ?UnkleRukus wrote:
You're pretty dumb, who the fuck is going to go to the ocean and swim when the so called "beach" is underwater and all that is left is a rocky coastline.-Sh1fty- wrote:
That's the most retarded thing I've seen you say Dilbert.
Ok so, the SAND beach would be under water...big deal.
Gonna bite my tongue.-Sh1fty- wrote:
That's the most retarded thing I've seen you say Dilbert.
Ok so, the SAND beach would be under water...big deal.
UnkleRukus wrote:
You people have yet to produce evidence of global warming.
Just one of the more recent bits of evidence.According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
The maps above show temperature anomalies, or changes, for 2000-2009 (top) and 1970-1979. The maps do not depict absolute temperature, but how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that same region from 1951-1980. That period was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years were 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today’s adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.
To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from 6,300 meteorological stations around the world; ship-based and satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer analysis program—available for public download from the GISS web site—that calculates trends in temperature anomalies relative to the average temperature for the same month during 1951-1980.
The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability, thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
- Mike Carlowicz, on the NASA Earth Observatory site
The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns. But the global temperature mainly depends on how much energy the planet receives from the Sun and how much it radiates back into space—quantities that change very little. The amount of energy emitted by the Earth depends significantly on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, particularly the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
You're a stronger man than me.Kmar wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/CZgfl.jpgUnkleRukus wrote:
You people have yet to produce evidence of global warming.Just one of the more recent bits of evidence.According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
The maps above show temperature anomalies, or changes, for 2000-2009 (top) and 1970-1979. The maps do not depict absolute temperature, but how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that same region from 1951-1980. That period was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years were 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today’s adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.
To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from 6,300 meteorological stations around the world; ship-based and satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer analysis program—available for public download from the GISS web site—that calculates trends in temperature anomalies relative to the average temperature for the same month during 1951-1980.
The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability, thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
- Mike Carlowicz, on the NASA Earth Observatory site
The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns. But the global temperature mainly depends on how much energy the planet receives from the Sun and how much it radiates back into space—quantities that change very little. The amount of energy emitted by the Earth depends significantly on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, particularly the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
This question almost always goes unanswered. You didn't even touch on the need for sovereign nation states to be independent with energy.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
So what's the big fight against making these changes, if they seem to be a win-win-win-win scenario?
quite. simply put even if say, car emmissions aren't killing polar bears do we really think it's a great idea to pump them into the air we breathe?-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
If we, the one species on Earth that can craft amazingly complex technology through the use of science, can utilize all of the best and latest technology to (not conclusively, mind you, but very convincingly...) determine that climate change is in fact occurring...regardless of whether or not it's "man-made" or "natural", shouldn't we be taking steps and making changes now, to better prepare for the future effects that may occur?
(or in Palinese..."Even if it ain't our fault, shouldn't we still be thinkin' about how to deal with it since it seems to be happenin'?")
I don't see why people are so eager to focus on who or what is to blame, as opposed to what we should be doing to fix or prepare for the issue at hand...(well, I do see why...something is wrong with society...).
I mean, if we found out that another ice age was naturally beginning to set in, wouldn't we want to start taking measures to prepare as soon as possible, even if it wasn't a man-made issue?
This should be no different..."hey, the earth is getting warmer...let's not add more greenhouse gas than we have to since we don't want to fry ourselves in the long run..."
It's not like it's that hard to make the requisite changes, either. Gas spiked to over $3/gallon for what, a year? Two? And look how many companies jumped on the green bandwagon. Look how many cars and trucks with big, inefficient engines all of the sudden manage to produce the same power and get 50% better efficiency. With a little impetus, a lot is possible.
And have the associated products jumped in price dramatically, or become unaffordable? Not really.
So what's the big fight against making these changes, if they seem to be a win-win-win-win scenario?
Because throwing money at, and planning for, something that may not even occur, is folly. Most of what people understand about global warming is what they've seen in disaster shows and movies. Pure hyperbole.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
If we, the one species on Earth that can craft amazingly complex technology through the use of science, can utilize all of the best and latest technology to (not conclusively, mind you, but very convincingly...) determine that climate change is in fact occurring...regardless of whether or not it's "man-made" or "natural", shouldn't we be taking steps and making changes now, to better prepare for the future effects that may occur?
(or in Palinese..."Even if it ain't our fault, shouldn't we still be thinkin' about how to deal with it since it seems to be happenin'?")
I don't see why people are so eager to focus on who or what is to blame, as opposed to what we should be doing to fix or prepare for the issue at hand...(well, I do see why...something is wrong with society...).
I mean, if we found out that another ice age was naturally beginning to set in, wouldn't we want to start taking measures to prepare as soon as possible, even if it wasn't a man-made issue?
This should be no different..."hey, the earth is getting warmer...let's not add more greenhouse gas than we have to since we don't want to fry ourselves in the long run..."
It's not like it's that hard to make the requisite changes, either. Gas spiked to over $3/gallon for what, a year? Two? And look how many companies jumped on the green bandwagon. Look how many cars and trucks with big, inefficient engines all of the sudden manage to produce the same power and get 50% better efficiency. With a little impetus, a lot is possible.
And have the associated products jumped in price dramatically, or become unaffordable? Not really.
So what's the big fight against making these changes, if they seem to be a win-win-win-win scenario?
Ignoring something which may occur is folly.Because throwing money at, and planning for, something that may not even occur, is folly.
He did not define a timetable or the scope of planning. Climate isn't something we can immediately impact. Yes it takes awhile to see the signs, but it also takes awhile to deal with. Once the wheels are rolling it gets harder and harder to get in front of. Massive populations are slow to react, and to assume that on a whim we will deal with it is dangerous. The problem is particularly worrisome when people refuse to even accept that the earth is indeed getting warmer.JohnG@lt wrote:
Because throwing money at, and planning for, something that may not even occur, is folly. Most of what people understand about global warming is what they've seen in disaster shows and movies. Pure hyperbole.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
If we, the one species on Earth that can craft amazingly complex technology through the use of science, can utilize all of the best and latest technology to (not conclusively, mind you, but very convincingly...) determine that climate change is in fact occurring...regardless of whether or not it's "man-made" or "natural", shouldn't we be taking steps and making changes now, to better prepare for the future effects that may occur?
(or in Palinese..."Even if it ain't our fault, shouldn't we still be thinkin' about how to deal with it since it seems to be happenin'?")
I don't see why people are so eager to focus on who or what is to blame, as opposed to what we should be doing to fix or prepare for the issue at hand...(well, I do see why...something is wrong with society...).
I mean, if we found out that another ice age was naturally beginning to set in, wouldn't we want to start taking measures to prepare as soon as possible, even if it wasn't a man-made issue?
This should be no different..."hey, the earth is getting warmer...let's not add more greenhouse gas than we have to since we don't want to fry ourselves in the long run..."
It's not like it's that hard to make the requisite changes, either. Gas spiked to over $3/gallon for what, a year? Two? And look how many companies jumped on the green bandwagon. Look how many cars and trucks with big, inefficient engines all of the sudden manage to produce the same power and get 50% better efficiency. With a little impetus, a lot is possible.
And have the associated products jumped in price dramatically, or become unaffordable? Not really.
So what's the big fight against making these changes, if they seem to be a win-win-win-win scenario?
It's the kind of shit you deal with as it comes. New York City possibly underwater in fifty years? Ok, you start building retaining walls after the first issues with floods. Crops failing in a certain area? You won't have famine with entire populations dying overnight. They'll have years to relocate. Slow process, years to react. Not "The Day After Tomorrow".
"In trying to defend everything, he defended nothing"Dilbert_X wrote:
Ignoring something which may occur is folly.Because throwing money at, and planning for, something that may not even occur, is folly.
Fixed for troofiness.Kmar wrote:
He did not define a timetable or the scope of planning. Climate isn't something we can immediately impact. Yes it takes awhile to see the signs, but it also takes awhile to deal with. Once the wheels are rolling it gets harder and harder to get in front of. Massive populations are slow to react, and to assume that on a whim we will deal with it is dangerous. The problem is particularly worrisome when people refuse to even accept that the earth is indeed getting warmer.
.. and again, there are plenty of reasons to get off of oil. It's a commodity that dictates the way we deal with national threats. There is also money to be madelost in alternative energy.
Money to be saved would have been troofiness. You say we can't predict weather Climate 50 years in advance despite having evidence of a pattern, but you think you've got a bead on the economics of the energy 50 years from now? The technology and cost of these alternative fuels are emerging and changing as we speak.JohnG@lt wrote:
Fixed for troofiness.Kmar wrote:
He did not define a timetable or the scope of planning. Climate isn't something we can immediately impact. Yes it takes awhile to see the signs, but it also takes awhile to deal with. Once the wheels are rolling it gets harder and harder to get in front of. Massive populations are slow to react, and to assume that on a whim we will deal with it is dangerous. The problem is particularly worrisome when people refuse to even accept that the earth is indeed getting warmer.
.. and again, there are plenty of reasons to get off of oil. It's a commodity that dictates the way we deal with national threats. There is also money to be madelost in alternative energy.
Solar and wind suck. Build a bunch of nuke plants, convert all vehicles to electricity, convert all homes off of gas, wood and coal, and be done with it. No more CO2 emissions. Ta da!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_sal … advantages
Sadly this is true. The fact that it isn't in our DNA doesn't mean there wont be hell to deal with later.JohnG@lt wrote:
Humans do not plan long term. It's just not in our DNA. Sure, we might plan for our own retirement, but in fifty years, the people in charge now, the Baby Boomers, they'll all be dead. Do you really think they care about leaving a mess behind? Of course not. They spend all their time bitching about taxes while we have a ridiculous national debt to pay off and they're about to saunter off into retirement leaving people like me holding the bag.
To be clear, I'm not a climate change denialist, I just disagree vehemently with the path that people would have us take. Paying reparations to third world countries for climate change? Please. Signing an agreement to lower carbon emissions? That's fine, but how are you going to enforce it? You can't unless you're willing to go to war over it.Kmar wrote:
I'm also with you on the scaring people point. It will almost always generate a contrarian reaction (which I think we see a lot of with this topic). .. and so debate will only serve to embed people stronger in their opinion.
Well that sounds nice but firstly, there's a lack of data so the possible consequences and in what timeframe they might occur are still topics of debate, which leads to uncertainty.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
If we, the one species on Earth that can craft amazingly complex technology through the use of science, can utilize all of the best and latest technology to (not conclusively, mind you, but very convincingly...) determine that climate change is in fact occurring...regardless of whether or not it's "man-made" or "natural", shouldn't we be taking steps and making changes now, to better prepare for the future effects that may occur?
(or in Palinese..."Even if it ain't our fault, shouldn't we still be thinkin' about how to deal with it since it seems to be happenin'?")
I don't see why people are so eager to focus on who or what is to blame, as opposed to what we should be doing to fix or prepare for the issue at hand...(well, I do see why...something is wrong with society...).
I mean, if we found out that another ice age was naturally beginning to set in, wouldn't we want to start taking measures to prepare as soon as possible, even if it wasn't a man-made issue?
This should be no different..."hey, the earth is getting warmer...let's not add more greenhouse gas than we have to since we don't want to fry ourselves in the long run..."
It's not like it's that hard to make the requisite changes, either. Gas spiked to over $3/gallon for what, a year? Two? And look how many companies jumped on the green bandwagon. Look how many cars and trucks with big, inefficient engines all of the sudden manage to produce the same power and get 50% better efficiency. With a little impetus, a lot is possible.
And have the associated products jumped in price dramatically, or become unaffordable? Not really.
So what's the big fight against making these changes, if they seem to be a win-win-win-win scenario?
Wtf? You're acting like this is a science problem or something.dayarath wrote:
Well that sounds nice but firstly, there's a lack of data so the possible consequences and in what timeframe they might occur are still topics of debate, which leads to uncertainty.
Secondly, if you can't accurately pinpoint the cause of a problem, how can you work towards a solution efficiently?
