Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I may not be the brightest one here, so please point out the racist remark so I can see where it was. I read some remarks that some might view as cynical, but I didn't get the racism and I am usually sensitive to it. Thanks.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Disruption: will billions starve as Mountains suggest? Positing where and what impact this event might have : canada gain and texas loses, is profound supposition. I do not suggest move of whole island, only those people directly affected by sea water. Tuvalu economy is in a mess unrelated to climate issues. So too Bangladesh. As much as I feel for those poor unfortunates, their lives have been miserable for as long as I can remember... That they must move back from the encroaching water would be evident to all as it will occur (if it does ) slowly. The responsibility to help them will, as it has in the past, fall on the world community. They were starving thirty years ago, they are starving now, and with or with out climate change , they will stare in the future. I did my part to help in the past and will continue in the future but do not need climate change as rallying cry.
I got caught up in details. My point in the Canada/Texas thing was to try to make some example.
Humans are intelligent and highly adaptable. We can easily live in a world thats on average 5-10 degrees warmer. The issue, as I see it, is that our current economic and social systems are built upon patterns of our current climate and a dramatic change in those patterns over a few generations is more than our governments and societies can probably handle. Its not about whether those poor people over there or elsewhere have a hard time or not its about the ability of our institutions to deal with the increased hardship on such a broad scale without collapsing.
In 1974, Time magazine reported that humans were responsible for the crazy weather patterns, and the humans were bringing the world into an ice age.
Same cry now, but it's global warming... There are clear indications that we are in a warming trend, but the question is, how much are we contributing. No one really really knows the answer. Humans are responsible for 3 percent of the carbon production, most of it produced by decaying vegetation and volcanoes, but again, how much difference does that 3 percent make? We don't know, and we don't know how much of that we can reduce if we could prove it's making a difference.
Global warming has happened before, ice ages have happened before, the universe, the world, you are in constant change, and yes global warming is happening. Look at the dramatic changes in weather patterns across the world. Now is man to blame souely, no, but I am pretty sure we are just contributing factors to the matter. It is quite simple, so I do not know why there is such a big debate about it. Furthermore, so what... you yourself cannot change anything that happens on such a vast magnitude, yes if nearly the entire population of the world would then ok, but I think there is more chance of me becomming the president of the US
As the OP, I would like to ask the Mod's if they could please close this thread. I feel somewhat responsible now that such a discussion has created such heated debate amongst my friends (I consider all of you my friends).
May we all live in peace and harmony, mixing like milk and water, with feelings of Metta for one another.
At the end of the day: Do what you think is right, try to live as harmless a life as possible. As Buddhist practitioners, we should learn to let go of conflicts even when we know we're right and even when we have convinced ourselves that our motivation for continuing to debate is compassion.
Let's not let a worldly issue divide us.
I am the first to admit that, upon reflection, my true motivation was probably not compassion. Maybe I just wanted to stir up a hornet's nest.
I'm curious, sndymorn, just what benefit do you think climate scientists are personally getting from all this? Money? Power? Fame? Groupies? What?
As the global warming threat has been played up, a cottage industry of scientist has arisen to stoke the fear. From the smallest university to the world stage, scientists many with questionable credentials (on both sides of the debate) have arisen as they are called upon for opinion and the creation of studies. They are in the limelight, their jobs are secure, money is coming in to fund studies, to pay for lectures, to attend symposiums; chairs are being established at universities, companies are hiring their "experts ' (on both sides); local news stations call them up when a storm threatens to create, often out of whole clothe, the connection to global warming. This is heady stuff: they are put in the position, in my opinion , of new age oracle. Tell ordinary people they have fifty years till an earthly disaster (thanks AL Gore) and we seek out "experts" to guide us. That these experts have little idea what they are talking about is of small concern to the frightened. Respectfully.
As the OP, I would like to ask the Mod's if they could please close this thread. I feel somewhat responsible now that such a discussion has created such heated debate amongst my friends (I consider all of you my friends).
May we all live in peace and harmony, mixing like milk and water, with feelings of Metta for one another.
At the end of the day: Do what you think is right, try to live as harmless a life as possible. As Buddhist practitioners, we should learn to let go of conflicts even when we know we're right and even when we have convinced ourselves that our motivation for continuing to debate is compassion.
Let's not let a worldly issue divide us.
I am the first to admit that, upon reflection, my true motivation was probably not compassion. Maybe I just wanted to stir up a hornet's nest.
Sorry all.
Metta,
Guy
You are a cool dude guy
Perhaps , however, I am the one doing the most stirring....
It took a while lol, I have watched this thread for sometime, there is no point in getting so heated about anything really, so kudos guy, you came to the answer in the end.
In 1974, Time magazine reported that humans were responsible for the crazy weather patterns, and the humans were bringing the world into an ice age.
Same cry now, but it's global warming...
In 1974 we drove cars that got 11 miles per gallon. We used telephones with round dials. We (in my household) used TVs with vacuum tubes. We thought strict bed rest was the best way to heal a body after surgery. Shall I go on?
This is not 1974. I hope to *god* science has advanced a little bit since then. Your argument means that the earth really is flat, since that's what we knew in 1450. And illness is caused by evil spirits and bad air.
This is not 1974. I hope to *god* science has advanced a little bit since then. Your argument means that the earth really is flat, since that's what we knew in 1450. And illness is caused by evil spirits and bad air.
Also, very importantly, since then with the NASA Viking missions and research on Venus' atmosphere, etc. --this has had a lot to do with the current understanding of greenhouse emissions and so on.
You need to get over that one. If you say racist things (which you did), you'll be called out on it by me. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Go back and look at your comments. And even if not racist per se, they were **extremely** inappropriate and heartless, bordering on mean-spiritied.
In 1974, Time magazine reported that humans were responsible for the crazy weather patterns, and the humans were bringing the world into an ice age.
Same cry now, but it's global warming...
In 1974 we drove cars that got 11 miles per gallon. We used telephones with round dials. We (in my household) used TVs with vacuum tubes. We thought strict bed rest was the best way to heal a body after surgery. Shall I go on?
This is not 1974. I hope to *god* science has advanced a little bit since then. Your argument means that the earth really is flat, since that's what we knew in 1450. And illness is caused by evil spirits and bad air.
It wasn't an argument, just a fun fact
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
The hypothesis that global cooling might be occuring was a small part of the scientific thinking at the time. It may have seemed more significant because the media picked up on it and played it up some. Here's a little pie chart showing that onloy 10% of the global cooling articles from 1965-1979 thought cooling was actually taking place.
Well there are some theories that persist in that warming will cease the ocean currents, increasing ice caps and plunge us into an ice age. Or that solar decline could also send us the big chill. I'm not arguing that we are experiencing warming, and it all points to devestation whatever the outcome, cold or hot, but since 97% of the carbon produced is out of our hands, what can we really do about it, besides brace and adapt.
100% of climate scientists believe global warming is happening. Something like 98% of them believe that it’s mostly caused by humans.
Yes this is a very troubling statistic Lincoln: lock- step consensus in such complicated matters- almost Orwellian. But , like you suggested, climate scientists are only people, and people tend to believe and expound anything if it is in their best interest.
The idea (myth) that global warming could causes an ice age comes from the fact that, due to warming, snowfall actually increases in some areas! This is because more water evaporates and falls - usually as rain, but in cold climates it means more snow.
That is not the theory at all, and it really is a theory vice a myth as much as any other theory. The theory has nothing to do with the amount of snow in the already cold regions... the theory, which has modeling to back it, is that the fresh water from the melting ice caps and glaciers would shut down the Gulf streams which are responsible for keeping Europe and N. America warm, sending us into an ice age.
I have nothing invested into any of these theories... matters not to me. I was just sharing a theory that I was aware of, not to argue about it as if I believed any other theory was wrong or a myth, because frankly we can't be sure of anything until it happens.
Hmm, so global warming causes global cooling? :scratch:
Well there are some theories that persist in that warming will cease the ocean currents, increasing ice caps and plunge us into an ice age. Or that solar decline could also send us the big chill. I'm not arguing that we are experiencing warming, and it all points to devestation whatever the outcome, cold or hot,
OK so I read this article (the only credible looking one), and noticed the following points:
* Prediction of 'mini ice age' only applies to Europe, not the world * Although most of changes were estimated to have happened between 1992-98, and "the changes are so big they should have cut oceanic heating of Europe by about one-fifth - enough to cool the British Isles by 1°C and Scandinavia by 2°C ... average European temperatures have been rising". * Crucially, there is a LOT of ifs and buts and qualifications here. "Some (ie: a minority) climate models predict that global warming could (ie: or may not) lead to such a shutdown later this century (ie: or never).
Of course the most obvious point about this warming-causes-cooling in Europe theory is that, if it's true, then it's *another* great reason to do something about global warming!
but since 97% of the carbon produced is out of our hands, what can we really do about it, besides brace and adapt.
That's definitely a misnomer (that fact that it is out of our hands, not that 97% is not produced by us).
Think of it like this: there's a bathtub with a tap running and a plughole to let water out. The water is CO2, the tap is CO2 emissions, the plughole is CO2 re-absorption (by plants, oceans etc), and the level of the water in the bath is the CO2 stored in the atmosphere. Now, assume that the amount of water flowing out the tap equals the water flowing out the plughole: this means that the level of the bathwater will remain constant (ie, CO2 re-absorbption matches emissions, meaning the atmospheric levels stay contant). BUT NOW, increase the tap flow by just a fraction of a percent (ie increase CO2 emissions by humans) AND/OR decrease the size of the plughole by just a fraction of a percent (ie decrease re-absorption rates by cutting down forests etc) and what you will soon find is that the bath is overflowing! And that's exactly what we are doing right now. A small change to a system can make a huge cumulative impact.
Published January 11, 2010 "From Miami to Maine, Savannah to Seattle, America is caught in an icy grip that one of the U.N.'s top global warming proponents says could mark the beginning of a mini ice age.
Oranges are freezing and millions of tropical fish are dying in Florida, and it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze, says Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modelers.
Latif thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we're in for 30 years of cooler temperatures -- a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world's oceans.
Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany's Kiel University and an author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, believes the lengthy cold weather is merely a pause -- a 30-years-long blip -- in the larger cycle of global warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.
At a U.N. conference in September, Latif said that changes in ocean currents known as the North Atlantic Oscillation could dominate over manmade global warming for the next few decades. Latif said the fluctuations in these currents could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.
Latif is a key member of the UN's climate research arm, which has long promoted the concept of global warming. He told the Daily Mail that "a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles -- perhaps as much as 50 percent."
The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSICD) agrees that the cold temperatures are unusual, and that the world's oceans may play a part in temperatures on land.
"Has ocean variability contributed to variations in surface temperature? Absolutely, no one's denying that," said Mark Serreze, senior research scientist with NSIDC. But the Center disagrees with Latif's conclusions, instead arguing that the cold snap is still another sign of global warming.
"We are indeed starting to see the effects of the rise in greenhouse gases," he said.
Many parts of the world have been suffering through record-setting snowfalls and arctic temperatures. The Midwest saw wind chills as low as 49 degrees below zero last week, while Europe saw snows so heavy that Eurostar train service and air travel were canceled across much of the continent. In Asia, Beijing was hit by its heaviest snowfall in 60 years.
And as for the cold weather?
"This is just the roll of the dice, the natural variability inherent to the system," explained Serreze. "
Editor's note: An earlier version of this article erroneously reported that the NSIDC reports concluded that the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles.
Comments
Humans are intelligent and highly adaptable. We can easily live in a world thats on average 5-10 degrees warmer. The issue, as I see it, is that our current economic and social systems are built upon patterns of our current climate and a dramatic change in those patterns over a few generations is more than our governments and societies can probably handle. Its not about whether those poor people over there or elsewhere have a hard time or not its about the ability of our institutions to deal with the increased hardship on such a broad scale without collapsing.
Same cry now, but it's global warming... There are clear indications that we are in a warming trend, but the question is, how much are we contributing. No one really really knows the answer. Humans are responsible for 3 percent of the carbon production, most of it produced by decaying vegetation and volcanoes, but again, how much difference does that 3 percent make? We don't know, and we don't know how much of that we can reduce if we could prove it's making a difference.
Now is man to blame souely, no, but I am pretty sure we are just contributing factors to the matter. It is quite simple, so I do not know why there is such a big debate about it. Furthermore, so what... you yourself cannot change anything that happens on such a vast magnitude, yes if nearly the entire population of the world would then ok, but I think there is more chance of me becomming the president of the US
As the OP, I would like to ask the Mod's if they could please close this thread. I feel somewhat responsible now that such a discussion has created such heated debate amongst my friends (I consider all of you my friends).
May we all live in peace and harmony, mixing like milk and water, with feelings of Metta for one another.
At the end of the day: Do what you think is right, try to live as harmless a life as possible. As Buddhist practitioners, we should learn to let go of conflicts even when we know we're right and even when we have convinced ourselves that our motivation for continuing to debate is compassion.
Let's not let a worldly issue divide us.
I am the first to admit that, upon reflection, my true motivation was probably not compassion. Maybe I just wanted to stir up a hornet's nest.
Sorry all.
Metta,
Guy
Tell ordinary people they have fifty years till an earthly disaster (thanks AL Gore) and we seek out "experts" to guide us. That these experts have little idea what they are talking about is of small concern to the frightened.
Respectfully.
As the OP, I would like to ask the Mod's if they could please close this thread. I feel somewhat responsible now that such a discussion has created such heated debate amongst my friends (I consider all of you my friends).
May we all live in peace and harmony, mixing like milk and water, with feelings of Metta for one another.
At the end of the day: Do what you think is right, try to live as harmless a life as possible. As Buddhist practitioners, we should learn to let go of conflicts even when we know we're right and even when we have convinced ourselves that our motivation for continuing to debate is compassion.
Let's not let a worldly issue divide us.
I am the first to admit that, upon reflection, my true motivation was probably not compassion. Maybe I just wanted to stir up a hornet's nest.
Sorry all.
Metta,
Guy
You are a cool dude guy
Perhaps , however, I am the one doing the most stirring....
This is not 1974. I hope to *god* science has advanced a little bit since then. Your argument means that the earth really is flat, since that's what we knew in 1450. And illness is caused by evil spirits and bad air.
There are who people who will believe anything. That doesn't mean you should humor them.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/Looming_Threat_of_Global_Cooling.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8398
http://ffh.films.com/id/11398/FFHCollections.aspx
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6574/Geologist-Declares-global-warming-is-over--Warns-US-Climate-Conference-of-Looming-Threat-of-Global-Cooling
http://poppypundit.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/the-looming-ice-age/
I have a new goal... find something that Mountains and I agree on.
That is not the theory at all, and it really is a theory vice a myth as much as any other theory. The theory has nothing to do with the amount of snow in the already cold regions... the theory, which has modeling to back it, is that the fresh water from the melting ice caps and glaciers would shut down the Gulf streams which are responsible for keeping Europe and N. America warm, sending us into an ice age.
I have nothing invested into any of these theories... matters not to me. I was just sharing a theory that I was aware of, not to argue about it as if I believed any other theory was wrong or a myth, because frankly we can't be sure of anything until it happens.
Hmm, so global warming causes global cooling? :scratch: OK so I read this article (the only credible looking one), and noticed the following points:
* Prediction of 'mini ice age' only applies to Europe, not the world
* Although most of changes were estimated to have happened between 1992-98, and "the changes are so big they should have cut oceanic heating of Europe by about one-fifth - enough to cool the British Isles by 1°C and Scandinavia by 2°C ... average European temperatures have been rising".
* Crucially, there is a LOT of ifs and buts and qualifications here. "Some (ie: a minority) climate models predict that global warming could (ie: or may not) lead to such a shutdown later this century (ie: or never).
Of course the most obvious point about this warming-causes-cooling in Europe theory is that, if it's true, then it's *another* great reason to do something about global warming! That's definitely a misnomer (that fact that it is out of our hands, not that 97% is not produced by us).
Think of it like this: there's a bathtub with a tap running and a plughole to let water out. The water is CO2, the tap is CO2 emissions, the plughole is CO2 re-absorption (by plants, oceans etc), and the level of the water in the bath is the CO2 stored in the atmosphere. Now, assume that the amount of water flowing out the tap equals the water flowing out the plughole: this means that the level of the bathwater will remain constant (ie, CO2 re-absorbption matches emissions, meaning the atmospheric levels stay contant). BUT NOW, increase the tap flow by just a fraction of a percent (ie increase CO2 emissions by humans) AND/OR decrease the size of the plughole by just a fraction of a percent (ie decrease re-absorption rates by cutting down forests etc) and what you will soon find is that the bath is overflowing! And that's exactly what we are doing right now. A small change to a system can make a huge cumulative impact.
Namaste
Published January 11, 2010 "From Miami to Maine, Savannah to Seattle, America is caught in an icy grip that one of the U.N.'s top global warming proponents says could mark the beginning of a mini ice age.
Oranges are freezing and millions of tropical fish are dying in Florida, and it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze, says Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modelers.
Latif thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we're in for 30 years of cooler temperatures -- a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world's oceans.
Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany's Kiel University and an author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, believes the lengthy cold weather is merely a pause -- a 30-years-long blip -- in the larger cycle of global warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.
At a U.N. conference in September, Latif said that changes in ocean currents known as the North Atlantic Oscillation could dominate over manmade global warming for the next few decades. Latif said the fluctuations in these currents could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.
Latif is a key member of the UN's climate research arm, which has long promoted the concept of global warming. He told the Daily Mail that "a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles -- perhaps as much as 50 percent."
The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSICD) agrees that the cold temperatures are unusual, and that the world's oceans may play a part in temperatures on land.
"Has ocean variability contributed to variations in surface temperature? Absolutely, no one's denying that," said Mark Serreze, senior research scientist with NSIDC. But the Center disagrees with Latif's conclusions, instead arguing that the cold snap is still another sign of global warming.
"We are indeed starting to see the effects of the rise in greenhouse gases," he said.
Many parts of the world have been suffering through record-setting snowfalls and arctic temperatures. The Midwest saw wind chills as low as 49 degrees below zero last week, while Europe saw snows so heavy that Eurostar train service and air travel were canceled across much of the continent. In Asia, Beijing was hit by its heaviest snowfall in 60 years.
And as for the cold weather?
"This is just the roll of the dice, the natural variability inherent to the system," explained Serreze. "
Editor's note: An earlier version of this article erroneously reported that the NSIDC reports concluded that the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles.
Namaste