Global Warming and UK, Europe Travelers

Jul 24th, 2007, 11:52 AM
  #21  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,322
smueller - i think many scientists would debate you vigorously on this

yes there have been cycles but scientists have measured the rates of various past warming and cooling cycles and today's - and there is no parallel in today's rate of increase - in 100 years they predict a warming increase that normally due to cycles would take a few thousand years.

The facts are nearly 100% clear on man's effects on climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions. That many folk don't buy is about as mystifying to me as to why so many believe in God or other baseless foolish myths.

Or be like the Oceania islander on NPR the other day who when asked if global warming would basically flood his tiny barely above sea level island - he said that he wasn't worried because God would not let that happen.

Heads in the sands IMO
PalenQ is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 11:58 AM
  #22  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,873
It's not just about what happens in countries like mine. We may face massive displacements of people as "climate refugees" and such economic pressures that we can't afford to travel so much anyway.
PatrickLondon is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 11:59 AM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 65,771
in 1973 they were warning about Global cooling and the new Ice Age. What short memories folks have . . . . .
janisj is online now  
Jul 24th, 2007, 12:06 PM
  #24  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,322
think of all the leaps in knowledge since 1973 - more i think than in any similar period in history - Internet, communications, weather satellites.

In 1973 Lymphoma for one thing was nearly always deadly - now one of the highest cure rates. Science does advance.

Comparisons to what scientists were saying in 1973 have absolutely no relevance to what many know now - atmospheric science like other sciences has had lots of progress since then.

I am truly amazed by the skepticism that many here show - i have not studied it much but read a lot of what reputable scientists feel - not blow holeing politicians.
PalenQ is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 12:12 PM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 65,771
By what you are saying, what scientists say 25 years from now will have no bearing on what they say now . . .
janisj is online now  
Jul 24th, 2007, 12:24 PM
  #26  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 677
During the past decade, the phenomenon of abrupt climate change has become accepted by both geologists and climatologists. It is no longer even controversial.

Google search on "Abrupt Climate Change" and you will find numerous references such as the following from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute - "recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future."

As far as the role of humans is concerned, I don't doubt that there is a contribution. It is quite possibly even the dominate contribution. That doesn't make the process of climate change any more reversible on a short timescale. Even if we completely ceased carbon emissions immediately, the atmosphere and surface would continue to warm due to the "excess" of greenhouse gases that currently exists. There is a lag effect associated with greenhouse gas concentrations. It may be decades before the full heating potential of an existing concentrations is manifest. Complex physical systems do not attain equilibrium instantaneously.

The solution to climate change is adaptation, not a Quixotic attempt to "repair" the planet.
smueller is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 12:29 PM
  #27  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,322
no not necessarily though i see how you could jump to that conclusion.

In 25 years lymphoma will still be treated successfully but probably more effectively even

Science of course builds on knowledge and if in 25 years they change their tune it will be because somehow man changed their emissions.

It's not phony science as some claim.

What scientists know in 2007 is leaps and leaps above 1973 - so today's predictions are thus based on much more probably certain science at this point.

Again i'm not knowlegeable much about the actual science but you deniers will be arguing with the world's top scientists who i think know a whole lot more than me or you.

again the alarming thing is that the change in climate over the Earth's history has always taken a few thousand years and in this century alone the change will be tremendously greater than any period on record - not even close - thus the natural cycle theory is rubbish - that stat alone convinced me.

Science versus knee-jerk skeptics, it's an old story. Do you also believe the Earth is flat? Or we the Sun revolves around us. This debate reminds me of those long struggles when science had it right but folk myths delayed us realizing that.
PalenQ is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 12:30 PM
  #28  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,322
Actually the flat earth analogy is appropo to this

500 years ago many people though the Earth was flat

Now we think it's not

Under your theory perhaps in another 500 years we will think it flat again.

Nope knowledge doesn't work that way.
PalenQ is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 12:45 PM
  #29  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,647
PalenQ it was your theory

"Comparisons to what scientists were saying in XXXX have absolutely no relevance to what many know now"
frank_and_beans is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 01:07 PM
  #30  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,844
Adaptation is one strategy.

How about not continue with the same level of emissions to exacerbate the problem further?
scrb is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 01:12 PM
  #31  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 959
The year 1973 refers to a NEWSWEEK article that talked about the coming ice age. It was overwhelmingly criticized and the author recanted.

Is that really where you are getting your scientific information? From Newsweek?

Around that same time, by the way, greenhouse gases were becoming a major topic in science journals, and the mechanism would soon become verified. It has been around as a postulation since the 19th century. Global warming may be new to you, but not to those studying climate.

Please...drop the 1973 reference to a popular magazine article once and for all.
christycruz is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 01:26 PM
  #32  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,008
Gee, it's actually not that hot here in Houston but it has been very rainy in Texas. However, no hurricanes so far this season!
bettyk is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 02:16 PM
  #33  
ira
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,414
>Climate is changing. It's happened before and it's happening again.

Remember the Sahara Forest?
ira is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 02:20 PM
  #34  
ira
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,414
>there is no parallel in today's rate of increase ...

I respectfully rise to disagree.

It was once possible to walk on dry land from the north of England to Denmark. In less than 100 years the North Sea intruded.



ira is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 02:26 PM
  #35  
ira
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,414
>...the change in climate over the Earth's history has always taken a few thousand years...<

The mini ice age lasted for about 300 years - 1500+ to about 1850. It's why the Vikings abandoned Greenland.


ira is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 03:50 PM
  #36  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,579
I'm glad you mentioned Greenland, ira. Gives me the opening to again reference this research - not from 1973.

A report published in the journal Science concludes that Greenland was once green. The researchers, led by Eske Willersly of the University of Copenhagen, say the findings from core samples recovered from 1.2 mile thick ice contain DNA from butterflies, moths, flies and beetles in addition to the presence of pine, yew and alder trees.

I wonder if the scientists of the day (approximtely half a million years ago) were warning the populace to change their lifestyle or their island would soon be encased in ice.

You an find more about the Greenland study at this BBC site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6276576.stm
jsmith is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 05:19 PM
  #37  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 677
How many of the US members of this forum are willing to give up their European travels to alleviate climate change? I doubt very many.

Mile for mile, air travel carbon emissions, on a per passenger basis, are comparable (within a factor of two) of emissions produced by automobile travel. According to Greenpeace, one of the most environmentally "unfriendly" acts one can commit is air travel.

One roundtrip flight from Denver to Paris can counteract an entire year of riding your bike to work.

Perhaps we should return to a way of life that was common a century ago, when private automobiles and foreign travel were only for the wealthy elite.
smueller is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 05:36 PM
  #38  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,458
Go ahead and keep pretending nothing's happening.

Southern Europe is burning, with the highest temperatures ever recorded in Serbia. 30% of their annual harvest is lost to heat. Greece has declared a state of emergency. 500 people have died in Hungary, 30 in Romania. Tourists are being evacuated in Puglia. Temps as high as 45 degrees C (113 degrees F). Forest fires are raging out of control in all of these countries.
fnarf999 is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 05:49 PM
  #39  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,901
I always wondered why, thousands of years ago, man migrated from Africa (where it was nice and warm) to places like Finland, Siberia, Alaska, etc.

Now I know. They had global warming then, too.
tomboy is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 07:12 PM
  #40  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,322
Deniers of global warming like Ira should be 100% sure of their 'phony science' or else even a 10% or so chance that it may indeed be true ot then would be apolceptic. (sp?)

I'm sorry Ira unless you have data to support your charges about the alarming rate of global warming - to many scientist totally unparelled in Earth's history - yes TOTALLY unparalled - even a 10% chance of being true with its deleterious effects on human life, then you should support all efforts to curb this at least this alarming trend might at even 5% or olwer - and even the most obivous bloke can not say it's totally phony - yet you seem to say so - this is so totally head in the sand that i hope our government leaders would not be so delusinary.

I may be perceived by denier folks like you to be 'smart ass' if you really look at the recent science i'm sure you would agree with me.

Study it a bit and i'm sure you'll have a more enlightened and not knee jerk reaction.
Get ready for that peanut farm in Georgia to suffer from disastrous storms or absurd heat.

Sorry though i respect you a whole lot in this insatncw i think you have your head in the sand - been watching perhaps Gosx News too mcuh.
PalenQ is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:36 PM.