We're all doomed, (probably)!!

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Over the past 100 years the average global temperature increased by 0.6 degrees C. Climate models (which I know may not be reliable) indicate an increase anywhere between 1.5 and 6 dergees C over the next 100 years. The general concensus within meteorological circles is an increase of 3 degrees C. Whichever way you look at it we are probably in for a huge increase!!

Climate change occurs naturally (every 100,000 years and 20,000 years there are changes in the earths tilt and orbit). There is very stronge evidence however (though not proof) that the latest change is driven by human activity.

Leaving causation aside for the moment (as I know it will cause disagreements) it looks like we are in for some serious climate change. Can nature/man adapt to such a rapid change in environment? In the long term (hundreds/thousands of years) I suppose it/we can but what about the short term and what affect will it have upon humans? Such a huge rise in temperature in a short time span will affect climate, which in turn will affect animals, insects, crops etc. Will we be able to adapt so rapidly? Will we be affected by crop failures due to droughts, floods, storms, temperature and humidity changes?

Are we reacting too slowely to the threat of global climate change? There is much debate about alternative fuel sources but shouldn't we concentrate more on how our climate will actually change and investigate ways of coping with the change? E.g. will there be global food shortages due to sudden changes in climate and if so how the hell are we going to cope with that?

[pajarito 0]

You must have watched Al Gore's video.

[markd_nscr986 0]

Hell, I'm planning to be off planet WAY before that...

So many planets to trash, so little time

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[billvon 2,454]

>Can nature/man adapt to such a rapid change in environment?

Both man and nature can adapt - the issue is that we may not like the form that adaptation takes. Perhaps it will mean that the human carrying capacity of the planet is cut in half; or perhaps it will mean that certain funguses take the ecological niche that grass now occupies. That's the big issue; we don't know.

>Are we reacting too slowely to the threat of global climate change?

Yes.

>There is much debate about alternative fuel sources but shouldn't we
> concentrate more on how our climate will actually change and
> investigate ways of coping with the change?

We should do both. Reduce our CO2 output to reduce the rate of change, and prepare for the changes that are now inevitable.

>E.g. will there be global food shortages due to sudden changes in
>climate and if so how the hell are we going to cope with that?

I suspect we will let millions die and blame someone else, or claim "well, no one could have seen that coming!"

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Sounds like we are in agreement on those issues then.... it just seems a bit odd that nobody is taking it more seriously. If the climate models prove correct I will see some major changes in the environment during my lifetime..... and I suspect that many millions/billions will die....... scary stuff when we all quibble about the price and availability of gas etc.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

You must have watched Al Gore's video.

I'm in the UK and haven't a clue what you're referring to I'm afraid......

[rushmc 18]

And 30 years ago the scientist said the world would be frozen by now

This crap is preached like there is no dissenting view. Well there is, and for good reason........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Royd 0]

I also heard that there was global warming on Mars.
Could it be that the sun is just having a bad day, or few years, and every planet in our solar system is being affected?
I agree that we do not do enough to keep forests restored.
Here, in America, we think nothing of bulldozing a square mile of trees in order to convienently build an ugly housing development, and I do mean UGLY!
Eighty years ago, we could build beautiful neighborhoods with sewers, streets, and electricity, and leave trees that had been standing for a couple hundred years. No more. Too much trouble, and not enough profit.

[penniless 0]

Quote

And 30 years ago the scientist said the world would be frozen by now

This crap is preached like there is no dissenting view. Well there is, and for good reason........

Who is "The Scientist"?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

And 30 years ago the scientists said the world would be frozen by now

This crap is preached like there is no dissenting view. Well there is, and for good reason........

Who is "The Scientist"?

Probably the same one(s) that say now we are going to die from the oposite

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[speedy 0]

Quote

Reduce our CO2 output to reduce the rate of change,

Reducing our CO2 output is will not affect the rate of change in any noticable way. This is why

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[niolosoiale 0]

The good news is, all the christians will be raptured before then.

[billvon 2,454]

>This is why

I liked the "carbon dioxide is an essential gas!" part. Reminds me of this ad:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/18/new-ads-funded-by-big-oil-portray-global-warming-science-as-smear-campaign-against-carbon-dioxide/

A note on websites purporting to discuss science impartially - if they use phrases like "activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide" they probably have a political mission in mind.

[vortexring 0]

likewise

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[speedy 0]

Quote

A note on websites purporting to discuss science impartially - if they use phrases like "activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide" they probably have a political mission in mind.

So rather than explaining why the analysis is wrong you merely point out a sentence at the very bottom of the article in an attempt to discredit the author. Why should I believe you over Steve Milloy?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

The good news is, all the christians will be raptured before then.

Thank God!

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,454]

>So rather than explaining why the analysis is wrong you merely point out
>a sentence at the very bottom of the article in an attempt to discredit the
>author.

I've previously posted multiple pages on why his conclusions aren't supportable. (Note that much of what he says is correct; it's just his conclusions I disagree with.) Feel free to do a search to check out those posts.

The last line is simply an explanation of what his political motivation is for that post. There are people who want global warming to be this big disaster for political purposes; there are people who desperately need climate change to be false so they can 'beat' their political enemies. Most scientists are simply working on the science. You can tell if you're reading something from a scientist or a political activist by looking for phrases like "activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide" or "an imminent calamity of biblical proportions that the GOP is trying to cover up."

Once identified, you can decide on your own whether you want to believe scientists or politicians on science issues.

>Why should I believe you over Steve Milloy?

You shouldn't. Do your own research. Don't trust me OR Steve Milloy.