Bioalchemist wrote:
why you disappoint? i actually have said nothing that contradicts your viewpoint.
@searz. of course we contribute. i would love to hear an argument that suggests that we don't contribute to climate change. but 100%...meh...not there yet...need to read more of the report i suppose.
There are actual nature factors that affect the climate aswell indeed (including cowfarts), however, if it was for nature, the climate change would go veeeeeeeeeeery slowly, it would be hardly noticable.
By human hands it still isn't going THAT fast either, but the speed is increasing nevertheless. Humanity is definately the main cause of the climate changes happening, but in what percentage, I do not dare to say.
Change is gooooood
Picture by: MrMad2000
Want to advertise your guide, but don't know where? Click here for an opportunity of a lifetime!
Bioalchemist wrote:
why you disappoint? i actually have said nothing that contradicts your viewpoint.
I'm aware that you're somewhat of my viewpoint(i assume i'm more on the ignore the hippies side of the issue, but whatever)
"a) don't listen to the weather channel...they are awful..and will sensationalize the smallest temperature changes....just think to yourself...was it 40 oC last october? how many tornadoes occurred last years and where? was it 10 oC in june last year? etc."
Is some real ****ty populist opinionated ******** that i wouldn't expect a scientist to ever say since there are a lot of factors that affect the weather on a yearly/10yearly/decadely basis(ever heard of el nino and the likes of it?)
Ty MM and Blood for the sigs :3 | Rammus is comming back - heard it here first!
"Carrying"-guide | My reviewservice
"Carrying"-guide | My reviewservice
Quoted:
So what exactly is bad about it? The fact that we're proffitting from it at the moment? The part where the weather is warmer? The part where it's saving old peoples lives?
Your view of global warming as an urgent issue is very narrow minded, sadly it's the one that most people have because chaotic news sell far more newspapers than "in fact, we're all fine for now".
I'm not saying that there are no downsides of global warming, i'm not saying that it's good forever, i'm just saying that the conventional view of global warming as something extremely dangerous and something that will kill you in your sleep is stupid.
there is a problem of shortsightedness about this issue, in my opinion, besides the fact that the problem is not really in getting warmer, it is how fast it is getting warmer.
many species are not adapted to sudden changes, one of them is the human being. I live on southern europe and summer is unbearable for some already, who knows how bad it will be in the future: how much energy will you have to spend to keep temperature and humidity in your home, how water will be expensive (imagine water costs in Saudi Arabia or somewhere like that, now expand that to 1/3 of the globe), how much food can you actually produce with such heat, and how many cities and other infrastructures we have to abbandon if the sea level rises to the extrapolated numbers (btw, bigger water mass=bigger waves and the pacific ocean already hosts 30m waves that are not a result of an earthquake or meteor impact).
y so angry?
of course there are factors such as el nino...i was suggesting that the weather channel sensationalizes weather factors...and says the earth is about to explode when the temperature for the day is 5 degrees above average..i was saying not to listen to this...which i am pretty sure agrees 100% with the article you posted.
that statement was to say not to listen to the sensationalization of the media and think for yourself in regards to the changes in weather patterns.
there are plenty of factors but the majority of instances that occur over either a small or large range of time occur in trends...these trends are predictive though they may not be 100% predictive...also typically changes in trends occur gradually not abruptly.
in any case for me thinking about the changes in seasonal shifts and such is what started to get me thinking about climate change. it got me to look into the facts/data surrounding climate change...i was suggesting that this personal examination of your own areas climate change might help people who refuse to accept that there is climate change look at things differently.
deep breath polse.
of course there are factors such as el nino...i was suggesting that the weather channel sensationalizes weather factors...and says the earth is about to explode when the temperature for the day is 5 degrees above average..i was saying not to listen to this...which i am pretty sure agrees 100% with the article you posted.
that statement was to say not to listen to the sensationalization of the media and think for yourself in regards to the changes in weather patterns.
there are plenty of factors but the majority of instances that occur over either a small or large range of time occur in trends...these trends are predictive though they may not be 100% predictive...also typically changes in trends occur gradually not abruptly.
in any case for me thinking about the changes in seasonal shifts and such is what started to get me thinking about climate change. it got me to look into the facts/data surrounding climate change...i was suggesting that this personal examination of your own areas climate change might help people who refuse to accept that there is climate change look at things differently.
deep breath polse.
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!
Pheyniex wrote:
there is a problem of shortsightedness about this issue, in my opinion, besides the fact that the problem is not really in getting warmer, it is how fast it is getting warmer.
many species are not adapted to sudden changes, one of them is the human being. I live on southern europe and summer is unbearable for some already, who knows how bad it will be in the future: how much energy will you have to spend to keep temperature and humidity in your home, how water will be expensive (imagine water costs in Saudi Arabia or somewhere like that, now expand that to 1/3 of the globe), how much food can you actually produce with such heat, and how many cities and other infrastructures we have to abbandon if the sea level rises to the extrapolated numbers (btw, bigger water mass=bigger waves and the pacific ocean already hosts 30m waves that are not a result of an earthquake or meteor impact).
What you are describing here is very very long-term. It will be a few centuries untill **** like this is going down :P
Temperature right now is also increasing very slowly by around roughly 1 Kelvin/degrees Celsius per 40 years (source IPCC report 2013). Of course, temperature is increasing more and more rapid, but nothing unmanagable for humanity for at least a century or 5. This pretty much counts for the most climate changes that are related to the temperature (sea level rise, weather changes and stuff like that).
Change is gooooood
Picture by: VirusNG1
Want to advertise your guide, but don't know where? Click here for an opportunity of a lifetime!
Meiyjhe wrote:
What you are describing here is very very long-term. It will be a few centuries untill **** like this is going down :P
Temperature right now is also increasing very slowly by around roughly 1 Kelvin/degrees Celsius per 40 years (source IPCC report 2013). Of course, temperature is increasing more and more rapid, but nothing unmanagable for humanity for at least a century or 5. This pretty much counts for the most climate changes that are related to the temperature (sea level rise, weather changes and stuff like that).
i think you are being naïve about the numbers.
if i accept as true the info in wiki that the atmosphere has 5×10^18 kg, the total energy gathered from these 40 years is rather large, as you might imagine. (5x 10^18 kJ, wiich equates to a hefty ammount of space shuttles into orbit).
nevermind the value, no matter how small the temperature gain, this is already a huge heat content. yes, this means the earthe can take a bit more and the effect is slow, but that doesn't mean this will not take a hit on us, and one century is probably your best bet.
either way, spaning anything in between 100 or 500 years is a bit of a mistake. it makes too much of a difference.
you live in a comfortable latitude, many people don't. 38ºC and 80% humidity daily is already a lot in case that slips your mind, I won't even mention the huge landmass that crosses Iran up to Mongolia (sorry, I did).
there is a thin balance and you missed the original point of may statement. the deal is not only that might be health issues, there will certainly be economic ones, earlier and more impactful.
Pheyniex wrote:
i think you are being naïve about the numbers.
if i accept as true the info in wiki that the atmosphere has 5×10^18 kg, the total energy gathered from these 40 years is rather large, as you might imagine. (5x 10^18 kJ, wiich equates to a hefty ammount of space shuttles into orbit).
nevermind the value, no matter how small the temperature gain, this is already a huge heat content.
These values actually don't matter, you knew enough already with the average increase of 1 K or 1 degrees C per 40 years.
Quoted:
yes, this means the earthe can take a bit more and the effect is slow, but that doesn't mean this will not take a hit on us, and one century is probably your best bet.
Yep, it will hit on us, no, 1 century is an underestemation. Temperature will increase on average 5 K at most in this century (unless we do some real crazy ****). People are surviving in temperature zones of 50 degrees Celcius at this moment, why wouldn't they be able to later on? Not saying it would be comfortable, not at all, but we will be able to deal with it.
Quoted:
either way, spaning anything in between 100 or 500 years is a bit of a mistake. it makes too much of a difference.
Keep in mind that fossil fuels are also in decrease, that will also be in 1 or 3 centuries (unless nuclear fusion). Once the fossil fuels are in rare amounts, then the greenhouse gas releases will also massively decrease. Temperature will still increase however due to the greenhouse gasses that are already existent in the atmosphere, but not as dramatic as you think. 500 years might be an overestemation though.
Quoted:
you live in a comfortable latitude, many people don't. 38ºC and 80% humidity daily is already a lot in case that slips your mind, I won't even mention the huge landmass that crosses Iran up to Mongolia (sorry, I did).
Yep it will suck there, and I am very happy that I live where I do. Like I said, just because it will be worse in those areas doesn't mean people cannot survive in such an environment.
Quoted:
there is a thin balance and you missed the original point of may statement. the deal is not only that might be health issues, there will certainly be economic ones, earlier and more impactful.
There already are. One of the reasons that big companies go to third world countries is because there are less to none environmental laws in those countries. It might get worse, it probably get worse, but that still isn't the end of humanity.
Change is gooooood
Picture by: Janitsudude
Want to advertise your guide, but don't know where? Click here for an opportunity of a lifetime!
1. temperature is used because other properties are assumed constant and this won't hold true because there will be higher water content in the atmosphere, therefore more heat. and the point is that: heat content. temperature is just a measurement of energy state, not heat capacity.
2. new deposits are being found in coutries like Nigeria, Angola and Brazil every year. oil won't really run out that soon and there are other non-renewable sources being explored, like coal in China and USA, and gas all over the world with new extraction methods.
3. you are still ignoring my argument of the economical cost of a single degree in everyday life? have you accounted for how much will you spend just to keep your frigde working? air conditioning (in homes, offices and transportation). Water pumping, not to mention probable need of desalting? who cares about the laws in place X? that will always be flawed. Money is a language everyone speaks. So, tell me, people have been asking (dumb question, imo), if economic growth (and i have my opinions on this) is not hindered by "going green", i ask you, is economic growth not hindered by what we are already witnessing?
2. new deposits are being found in coutries like Nigeria, Angola and Brazil every year. oil won't really run out that soon and there are other non-renewable sources being explored, like coal in China and USA, and gas all over the world with new extraction methods.
3. you are still ignoring my argument of the economical cost of a single degree in everyday life? have you accounted for how much will you spend just to keep your frigde working? air conditioning (in homes, offices and transportation). Water pumping, not to mention probable need of desalting? who cares about the laws in place X? that will always be flawed. Money is a language everyone speaks. So, tell me, people have been asking (dumb question, imo), if economic growth (and i have my opinions on this) is not hindered by "going green", i ask you, is economic growth not hindered by what we are already witnessing?
You need to log in before commenting.
@Bioalchemist, i am disappoint.
why you disappoint? i actually have said nothing that contradicts your viewpoint.
@searz. of course we contribute. i would love to hear an argument that suggests that we don't contribute to climate change. but 100%...meh...not there yet...need to read more of the report i suppose.