Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Big Storms and Droughts, are we to blame?

Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 7:01:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hurricane Sandy raises questions about climate change, we are seeing a rise in Droughts and Big Storms, and the questions become is this a result of human induced global warming or is it just a natural fluctuation in climate. Sea levels have risen and the oceans are a up degree, we did that. The consensus opinion of the science community is "We don't know".

http://www.nytimes.com...

So what do you think? The main questions are, are we to blame, and where is it headed? Runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus, another ice age, something else? And how will we cope with such extremes?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 12:06:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My thought is that it is much over politicized and as a result it has stopped all discussion on what to do about it. We are just priming ourselves to get caught with our pants down.

Just like many issues, it seems to be ruled by the extremes. Either it is conservatives denying that burning of fossil fuels has contributed significantly to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and will spite the entire scientific process to argue that it is not even conceivable that humans could cause global warming.

On the other hand there is Al Gore who proclaimed the world would end without doing anything.

The only silver lining in this is that climate change is not instantaneous. If there is a long term trend of warming that is not reversed in the next century, there will be an increase of happenings in undesirable areas. If that means storms or drought or what ever, private insurance will figure out pricing that increased risk and people over time will migrate to where it is cheaper and sustainable to live.

On a gut level, it just does not make sense to me to have any situation where humans don't impact the environment in negative ways. Whether it is taking a #2 or burning carbon, there will be repercussions. In the former we have built technology and sanitation to minimize the impact. Thank goodness we don't have to worry about dysentery. It surprises me that we don't have more focus on reducing or containing the carbon we release in the atmosphere.

I guarantee it is a lot cheaper spending $2 Trillion on public research to find out later it was not needed than it is to resettle all the people on the US coast line or handle a situation where the food supply is seriously disrupted. In other terms I don't trust that most people including our leaders are measuring the risk/reward of the situation correctly.

We just don't have the luxury of waiting another 500 years to measure things to validate the data to understand whether the confirmed warming is a blip or a long term trend.
JrRepublican
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 11:44:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, we aren't. Greenhouse warming theory, by nature, would impact the polar regions more than the equatorial regions. Since the cold polar air would warm faster than the southern air, the temperature difference between warm and cold fronts would decrease, leading to milder weather on average. This is the opinion of most hurricane experts.
Incidentally, we are seeing little or no warming at the poles, which tends to disprove the greenhouse theory altogether.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:01:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 12:06:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
My thought is that it is much over politicized and as a result it has stopped all discussion on what to do about it. We are just priming ourselves to get caught with our pants down.

Agreed; it's kind of like abortion now. Can a Republican and a Democrat sit down for coffee and work out how to deal with abortion or global warming? There's really nothing for them to even discuss, other than calling each other names.

Just like many issues, it seems to be ruled by the extremes. Either it is conservatives denying that burning of fossil fuels has contributed significantly to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and will spite the entire scientific process to argue that it is not even conceivable that humans could cause global warming.

On the other hand there is Al Gore who proclaimed the world would end without doing anything.

The only silver lining in this is that climate change is not instantaneous. If there is a long term trend of warming that is not reversed in the next century, there will be an increase of happenings in undesirable areas. If that means storms or drought or what ever, private insurance will figure out pricing that increased risk and people over time will migrate to where it is cheaper and sustainable to live.

Well there are those who say we've already tipped the scales and at this point it wouldn't matter if we cleaned up or not. Anything short of completely reversing our direction and CLEANING UP the excess carbon, as of like ten years ago, is not going to save us. The science is too complex and that's not my specialty so I don't know if that's correct or not, but it seems as though we're going to take the risk whether we want to or not. Given the time-scales involved, It seems as though the extremists like Al Gore may be right. Earth sciences change over thousands of years, while we are changing them at orders of magnitude much lower (centuries, perhaps decades). It's sort of like balancing a unicycle on a string, and making course corrections in the area of a tenth of a millimeter at a time, and then suddenly increasing to centimeters - after the first one, you will begin to fall, and for the first few seconds you won't notice much different.

On a gut level, it just does not make sense to me to have any situation where humans don't impact the environment in negative ways. Whether it is taking a #2 or burning carbon, there will be repercussions. In the former we have built technology and sanitation to minimize the impact. Thank goodness we don't have to worry about dysentery. It surprises me that we don't have more focus on reducing or containing the carbon we release in the atmosphere.

You are listening to what my father used to tell me was "the little voice inside my head" that told me when I was doing something wrong. If I say, got the urge to do something mischievous, he would tell me that it wasn't the case that I just "didn't know" it was wrong, it was instead something I knew was wrong but made an excuse to do anyway. In the same sense, we are doing something we know is wrong and making excuses.

There are natural drawbacks to everything we do in terms of taking our ecosystems and changing them to fit our needs without any respect to natural resources. Instead of accepting that, we instead turn to short-range economics and completely ignore 75% of the factors involved in our long-term sustainability.

I guarantee it is a lot cheaper spending $2 Trillion on public research to find out later it was not needed than it is to resettle all the people on the US coast line or handle a situation where the food supply is seriously disrupted. In other terms I don't trust that most people including our leaders are measuring the risk/reward of the situation correctly.

You are assuming you have captured all the externalities involved. Once things start going bad, there are likely going to be lots of "surprise" factors that we didn't consider. How will it affect our food supply? The weather? Our culture? Nobody can say for sure.

We just don't have the luxury of waiting another 500 years to measure things to validate the data to understand whether the confirmed warming is a blip or a long term trend.

In 500 years this problem will have solved itself. By that time our population will cover every square foot of land. Our electricity usage will make the Earth's surface glow red-hot, making Earth resemble a star more than a planet. Obviously, things will change well before our current trends reach those levels, and just how is that change going to occur? By economics slowly guiding us away from it as our resources become more expensive? Insurance companies slowly corralling us away from once-hospitable regions? Or are we going to lose control of this train and realize nobody ever installed breaks, because it wasn't economically viable at the time?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 1:04:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 11:44:46 AM, JrRepublican wrote:
No, we aren't. Greenhouse warming theory, by nature, would impact the polar regions more than the equatorial regions. Since the cold polar air would warm faster than the southern air, the temperature difference between warm and cold fronts would decrease, leading to milder weather on average. This is the opinion of most hurricane experts.
Incidentally, we are seeing little or no warming at the poles, which tends to disprove the greenhouse theory altogether.

Tell that to him:

http://www.google.com...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 3:03:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 1:04:37 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/11/2012 11:44:46 AM, JrRepublican wrote:
No, we aren't. Greenhouse warming theory, by nature, would impact the polar regions more than the equatorial regions. Since the cold polar air would warm faster than the southern air, the temperature difference between warm and cold fronts would decrease, leading to milder weather on average. This is the opinion of most hurricane experts.
Incidentally, we are seeing little or no warming at the poles, which tends to disprove the greenhouse theory altogether.

Tell that to him:

http://www.google.com...

You know, rather than a politicized picture that doesn't really mean anything, you could post actual data and facts.

Like these...

http://www.chrisbeales.net...
http://www.gophoto.it...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 10:04:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Hadley Climate Research Unit, famous for the climategate scandal in which their e-mail expressed the desire to punch out skeptics, recently announced that there has been no global warming since 1997. It has stayed warm, but with no increase. The "crisis" was spawned by rapid warming in the 15 years before 1997, now matched by an equal period since then with no warming.

A major factor that was overlooked by alarmists is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a climate cycle of about 60 or 70 years. Arctic ice melted in the 1930s and before that in the 1880s. The pattern of large hurricanes runs with the cycle as well, with large storms in the Atlantic last appearing in the 1950s. Hurricanes Carol and Donna were Cat 3, whereas Sandy was a Cat 1. An unusual combination of storms made Sandy geographically large so the storm surge matched that of Donna and Carol. There will probably be more large storms in the Atlantic as the hurricane cycle progresses over the next few years.

There is near-universal agreement that greenhouse gases cause some global warming. The dispute is over how much. The Hockey Stick predicted in the late 1990s is now completely disproved. Climate is yet to be accurately predicted.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 1:50:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 10:04:41 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The Hadley Climate Research Unit, famous for the climategate scandal in which their e-mail expressed the desire to punch out skeptics, recently announced that there has been no global warming since 1997. It has stayed warm, but with no increase. The "crisis" was spawned by rapid warming in the 15 years before 1997, now matched by an equal period since then with no warming.

Do you have a link to their statement on that? I've found a few news articles on the subject, but while one news article affirms what you've said, another says the opposite. I've also found a graph showing a constant temperature since around 2000, but allegedly the plateau doesn't disprove global warming and the global temperature has still increased.

Thanks
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 5:52:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 10:04:41 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The Hadley Climate Research Unit, famous for the climategate scandal in which their e-mail expressed the desire to punch out skeptics, recently announced that there has been no global warming since 1997. It has stayed warm, but with no increase. The "crisis" was spawned by rapid warming in the 15 years before 1997, now matched by an equal period since then with no warming.

A major factor that was overlooked by alarmists is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a climate cycle of about 60 or 70 years. Arctic ice melted in the 1930s and before that in the 1880s. The pattern of large hurricanes runs with the cycle as well, with large storms in the Atlantic last appearing in the 1950s. Hurricanes Carol and Donna were Cat 3, whereas Sandy was a Cat 1. An unusual combination of storms made Sandy geographically large so the storm surge matched that of Donna and Carol. There will probably be more large storms in the Atlantic as the hurricane cycle progresses over the next few years.

There is near-universal agreement that greenhouse gases cause some global warming. The dispute is over how much. The Hockey Stick predicted in the late 1990s is now completely disproved. Climate is yet to be accurately predicted.

Great post, Roy.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 9:52:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Standard response to anything having to do with weather of climate: According to recent studies, it has been found that man's activity is responsible. So yes, we are responsible.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2012 9:54:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/13/2012 9:52:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
Standard response to anything having to do with weather of climate: According to recent studies, it has been found that man's activity is responsible. So yes, we are responsible.

Oh and no need to second guess the studies, this is settled science.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%