Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"
Options
Comments
-
-
Population growth itself, that is the actual people ourselves aren't a problem, the planet is big enough to fit many many more of us. Population growth results in problems like water and food shortages, and the demand for energy results in guess what? You got it climate change.allibastor wrote: »If I were you I would not worry about global warming, population growth will affect us first.
What you said there is like saying, Don't worry about the food shortage, population growth will get us first.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Unfortunately, Fukushima as bad as it is, is nothing compared to what will happen with climate change.
Fukushima has resulted in some nuclear contamination and will probably leave a part of Japanese coastline uninhabitable
Global warming could raise global sea levels by up to 1 metre by the end of the century.
This will devastate coastal cities all around the world. Even with ridiculously expensive coastal defences, there will be huge consequences for many of the most densely populated places on earth. This is the prediction if global temperatures increase by 2 degrees from the 1900 average temperature. If increases are higher than all bets are off. We could see ocean rises of 2 metres or more within the lifetimes of children that are alive today. And sea levels will continue to rise into the 22nd century. To ignore this problem is absolutely insanely short sighted.
take up weather forecasting bud
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Where to begin?
Climate and weather are different things. Weather is the day to day and short term events. Climate is the statistical average of the weather of a region over a long duration. It's like the difference between predicting a the exact swirling pattern of cigarette smoke in a room versus analysing the likelihood of the end position of the smoke spiral in the room. If the experiment was repeated for several days with the room conditions being identical. Estimating the weather is like trying to model in real-time where exactly the particles of smoke are. Estimating the climate is just analysing the frequency of distributions of various smoke spirals.
Soon's paper should never have been published. It showed several misunderstandings of basic climate science and proxies. Not only that but several people he referenced were peeved at how he was misrepresenting their work The paper has been thoroughly thrashed and should be forgotten about. But yet, like that hockey stick, it keeps getting dragged up and I don't know why. I really don't.
Finally, someone remarked about if there being refutable evidence why is there a debate? The thing is as hard as it is to say there isn't really a debate. There's a consensus. However, being pedantic for a second a quick look at human history and the nature of people around you will tell you that humans are more likely to believe what they wish regardless of the actual facts. That's why we have science in the first place. The beauty of science, is that even in climate science you must assume every conclusion to be flawed and wrong. That's why I love reading papers actually challenging our current models. A distinction needs to be drawn though between challenging stuff and just cherry picking crap for the sake of it. The latter is generally frowned upon. Put simply, if the tactic is what you see in creationism and tobacco denial then it's not generally good science. John Christy is some I like. Last I checked he didn't agree with AGW hypothesis either.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
So you align yourself with one mans opinions over the 95% of actual climate scientists who tell you otherwise? That's just crazy.
I respect Bellamy, but he's not a climate scientist . . .
Think Darwin, and his rediculous theory of evolution which totally went against the grain of thinking of the time.
Then think of those who dared to argue that the earth was indeed round (and not flat) :eek:
Ballamy and his ilk dare to suggest that global warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet, and for this, he and his like have been sidetracked (for the moment) . . .
May I suggest that his day will come, and that attitudes will change in favour of a global warming which is occuring as part of the planet's natural cycle (possibly with a little help from mankind)? < questionmark.
I say this, as a member of the 5% of heritics) 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Think Darwin, and his rediculous theory of evolution which totally went against the grain of thinking of the time.
Then think of those who dared to argue that the earth was indeed round (and not flat) :eek:
Ballamy and his ilk dare to suggest that global warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet, and for this, he and his like have been sidetracked (for the moment) . . .
May I suggest that his day will come, and that attitudes will change in favour of a global warming which is occuring as part of the planet's natural cycle (possibly with a little help from mankind)? < questionmark.
I say this, as a member of the 5% of heritics)
Darwin had extensive proof and observations. Bellamy has no legitimate evidence that the climate change today is part of the natural cycle. None of the natural causes of climate change can explain the rapid rate of the changing climate today. There is nothing that indicates Earth should be warming now due to natural causes. According to historical trends, Earth should be in a cooling period right now, but because humans have taken over as the dominant forcing of the climate, Earth is warming.0 -
-
-
-
-
Think Darwin, and his rediculous theory of evolution which totally went against the grain of thinking of the time.
Then think of those who dared to argue that the earth was indeed round (and not flat) :eek:
Ballamy and his ilk dare to suggest that global warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet, and for this, he and his like have been sidetracked (for the moment) . . .
May I suggest that his day will come, and that attitudes will change in favour of a global warming which is occuring as part of the planet's natural cycle (possibly with a little help from mankind)? < questionmark.
I say this, as a member of the 5% of heritics)
Evolution still has a "Debate" it's called creationism. Climate science is around with almost a century. There was the scientific debate a consensus was reached, like in the case of evolution. That consensus may be wrong but Bellamy is never going to be the one prove it. Svensmark, Christy? Maybe but they need to be given credit they're going about it right way. Simply crying from the high heavens that something is wrong is what the Church did on Galileo and Darwin - and that's what Bellamy, Creationists and "hollow earthists" and several others do. There isn't a debate in science because it's really difficult to have one because there is little suggest natural variation can account for the current observed rates of warming.
Earth's orbit? Nope that's stable.
Cosmic Rays? Not enough.
Volcanic eruptions? Not significant enough.
Cloud dispersal? Controversial but no indication as of yet that's it significant. Current thinking is leading towards clouds contributing to warming.
Earth's tilt? Precession is occurring but won't impact climate for at least another 10,000 years.
Solar Cycle? Even if we get a solar minimum for the next century the current projection is it's not going to be enough to stop the planet warming. It may however slow it a bit.
Natural Greenhouse cycle? When compared to the aeons before the industrial age these shouldn't give rise to variation and rapidity of warming we're observing at the moment.
Ocean currents and tectonic plate movements? Currents have changed slightly and plates movement's are a difficult area to analyse that a currently being looked at. Purely from the standpoint of warming, no matter what's causing it, is imparting more energy on the earth and it's not quite clear what impact this may have on earthquake sensitive zones. Currently the hypothesis is that volcanic eruptions will become more likely and frequency of earthquakes will increase but these will be minor earthquakes leading to one ponder if higher magnitude quakes will actually decrease.
As Sherlock would say once you've eliminated all the factors whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is probably the truth? Again the consensus could be wrong but every facet of our climate has been analysed in detail for almost a century now. And the picture that's emerged is that the climate is warming and currently we can't seem to find a fingerprint that implicates that natural variation is the driving factor.0 -
Advertisement
-
The skeptics here are the ones who would be arguing against Darwin, with the attitude " I don't like it, it must be wrong".Think Darwin, and his rediculous theory of evolution which totally went against the grain of thinking of the time.
Then think of those who dared to argue that the earth was indeed round (and not flat) :eek:
Nobody argued the Earth was flat (the Greeks accurately measured the circumference 1000's of years ago), the only people who might have thought that would have been the "less enlightened" (think peasant playing in the mud a-la Monty Python).
You are a skeptic not because there is evidence to back up your point (there isn't any), but because you don't like the idea, it is yourself who has attitudes in common with the Church during Galileo's time or Fundie Christians today.Ballamy and his ilk dare to suggest that global warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet, and for this, he and his like have been sidetracked (for the moment) . . .
May I suggest that his day will come, and that attitudes will change in favour of a global warming which is occuring as part of the planet's natural cycle (possibly with a little help from mankind)? < questionmark.
I say this, as a member of the 5% of heritics)
You are the "dissenting voice" alright but not the one you think, you are the voice opposing rationality. That is how you will go down in history, as one of them. 0
Advertisement