Reply With Quote
If the Darwinist religion of all you liberals were correct, shouldn't we be growing gills to deal with the sea level rise? This proves global warming is just a Marxist lie.
Maybe it was all the Woolly Mammoth farts.
Seriously, aren't we still warming from the little ice age?
NOTE: The vertical axis in this graph is in METERS. All this change took place before fossil fuel burning.
If the Darwinist religion of all you liberals were correct, shouldn't we be growing gills to deal with the sea level rise? This proves global warming is just a Marxist lie.
Can anyone tell me what the optimal temperature of the Earth is supposed to be? I lost my owner's manual.
One of the keys to robust process operation is not to manipulate inputs too quickly. For example, the process may run just fine at a wide range of concentrations for a particular reactant; however, if this concentration is changed abruptly rather than gradually, this can result in significant upsets in the reaction which could even lead to a shutdown.
so, a trickle would be prudent as opposed to an overload?
Produce a report that says sea levels have risen in a particular geographic location due to global warming and let's discuss, shall we?
Not some predictive model report but, real observations.
True that.
It depends; will anyone to that point have proven that a trace gas is the culprit THIS time for something that has happened pretty much continually throughout history?If it does happen, would you admit you were wrong?
That big, bright, Nuclear ORB in the sky would be my starting point.If it does happen, how would you explain it?
Move further inland.What would you do to fix/allevaite the problem?
More proof you don't read anything.You're an idiot.
You seriously think that folks never thought to measure the sea levels?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-rsl031009.php
Now what did you want to debate again?
Ah, but you never PROVED it was due to global warming! HA! I WIN!!
Yeah. I got pretty lucky. I was trying to get stationed somewhere in Europe, but I'll definitely take Hawaii.
Chump, why even post this info? They'll just turn it into the game of, "Sure, sea levels are rising, but it doesn't mean it's because of CO2; the earth is on a warming cycle".
It's just too easy to show what an idiot Yoni is.
Why do you think rising sea levels are because of CO2? Be specific.
To be honest, I haven't done enough research to determine strongly whether it's manmade or natural warming. However, I do recognize how often people who are on the 'global warming doesn't exist or it isn't a problem' side move the goalposts.
Even if it IS natural warming, if the pattern maintains, it will have numerous wide-reaching effects, on agriculture, infrastructure, and various other aspects. Which is not ideal, to say the least.
If I produced a paper, you wouldn't believe it, because it would challenge your pre-existing beliefs, why should I bother looking? You would automatically assign it, no matter how credible or good the science was, as "unreliable".
You and all of the critics are very rightly questioning the CO2 causality of observed warming trends, and of those observed warming trends causing sea levels to rise.
Proving causality is indeed the burden of those who claim that CO2 and other GHG are 1) causing warming and 2) causing ice to melt and raising sea levels.
We have observed a lot of ice melts. That has been an observed fact, as the report in the OP will attest.
WC would say it is soot, and that has the effect of increasing surface temperatures by increasing the amount of energy absorbed, and there is some evidence to support this to what I understand.
One thing that is also not in question is that CO2 levels are rising at a rate faster than at ANY time in history, as far as we can tell. In absolute terms they are not entirely out of the norm, but one can claim that the rate of increase in CO2 concentration is beyond anything the earth has ever seen.
Since the people who are alleging that the temperature increases are very likely due to this increase in concentration, it seems to me that the best way to test whether the increases really are due to CO2 is to simply wait.
The sun really doesn't vary that much in the total amount of energy imparted to the earth, and sunlight trends are easy to track.
We are also getting sensor nets and new measuring capability coming on line on a yearly basis.
The data going forward will be better and better and more comprehensive each year.
Ultimately, we will be able to better understand how the CO2 increases are affecting changes in our climate.
Time will out, one way or another.
Do me a favor.
Assume, just for the sake of argument, you are wrong.
When/how will you/we know? Assuming of course our knowledge base on the issue continues to get better every year.
There would also be wide-reaching effects if the Earth becomes colder.
Agreed. If the Earth were getting colder for some reason, I'd be highly concerned as well. Anything that would greatly affect current agrarian areas would stress me.
The biggest weakness in their position is that one of the key arguments they invariably make about a course of action based on the existing science is that changing to a low CO2 economy would entail massive economic disruptions.
Ask any of them to prove THAT, and you are met with, "well this paper from 12 years ago says it would cost $300bn or something".
I might not be an expert on global climate, but economics and money I understand very well. I read that paper, and it seemed to have some SERIOUS flaws. From what I have been able to gather, that paper is the sum total of support for the "if we go to a low CO2 economy, we will all be poor" claim.
There is actually a good argument to be made that going now to a low CO2 economy would be better for us in the long run. Not only are they at least probably wrong about the exact economic effects, there is a good possibility that the reality is completely the opposite of what they claim.
The science could go either way ultimately. By the time we really know for sure, we might just be in the worse-case scenario predicted by the "alarmists".
We can't change whether or not CO2 will f*** up the climate. We can change how we react to the possibility.
If you want to avoid the worst of the known risks, i.e. total global disasters from massive climate disruptions, we should act to mitigate that risk first, especially given that the ultimate costs are quite possibly nil to us in the long run.
Cost.
to.
Benefit.
What really cracks me up about this is twofold.
1) Conservatives, who are so quick to lay out the worst case scenario of a terrorist attack unless billions are spent trying to defend it, are quick to decry liberals who portend doom over global warming as quacks and loonies.
2) Reducing our dependence on oil would also increase national security, as we would have less necessary ties to rather unscrupulous countries. You'd think it'd be something that conservatives and liberals alike could agree on.
One would think so, until you watch Republican rallying cries of "drill baby drill".
Conservatives, who are supposedly free market advocates, don't seem to understand it.
Long story short: the more you drill domestically, the more you are STILL dependent on foreign oil producers, if not more so than when you began. Counter-intuitive on its face, but that is how the free market works. (yes, I can and have explained this at length)
As much as many decry "knee-jerk" irrational environmentalism, many of those same people are just as guilty as "knee-jerk" irrational anti-environmentalism.
So, do you think cap and trade is a good policy, given our current economic situation?
If it does happen, how would you explain it?
What if the data showed a slowdown in solar radiation, and temperatures still went up along with CO2 concentrations?
Would such an explanation still be a good one?
Terrorists attacks HAVE ALREADY occurred. Environmental catastrophes have not.
I agree with that, only I think it will be a very long process to wean us off of fossil fuel.
Right... and thousands of Americans die in car accidents. Does that mean we should spend billions developing crash proof cars?
The odds of dying or being injured in a terrorist accident are miniscule. But it can garner alot of money/attention because it's sensational.
I think the overall point is the same, that sensational tactics are used on both sides (TERRORISTS ARE COMING TO KILL YOU! GLOBAL WARMING WILL DESTROY ALL OF US!) to the same effect. Both can be justified to some extent, but neither side will recognize that the other is using the same type of argument.
Agreed. But it will be better in the long run.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
