Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Daily climate change - the forgotten terror

gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 2:09:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Over the next 24 hours the temperature around the world will rise and fall by up to 50 degrees F (28 degrees C) whilst the ocean will also rise and fall by up to 53 feet (16 metres).

Should we be more concerned about this massive daily climate change and our ability to cope with this variation, more than a few degrees over many many decades?
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Subutai
Posts: 3,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:45:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 2:09:42 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Over the next 24 hours the temperature around the world will rise and fall by up to 50 degrees F (28 degrees C) whilst the ocean will also rise and fall by up to 53 feet (16 metres).

Should we be more concerned about this massive daily climate change and our ability to cope with this variation, more than a few degrees over many many decades?

lol - I love the headline. The forgotten terror!
This space for rent.
Subutai
Posts: 3,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 3:23:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Things are catostrophic when you have a big change in a short time period...the longer the lead time, the ample room we have to manouver. Ice Age equals better skiing, more land...global warming means warmer weather and beach holdiays. Why are we all focused on the down side. We could spend bajillions on trying to stop something that is that is out of our control rather than spending it on ways to better faciliatate our adaptation
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 3:32:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 12:46:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 3:32:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 4:10:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 12:46:44 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 3:32:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.

Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina was managed....??
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 4:36:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 4:10:07 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 12:46:44 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 3:32:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.

Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina was managed....??

Again....no one is saying that short term disasters aren't terrible. No one is saying they can't be prevented. But tell me, how do you not get the concept that whole Island nations being swallowed is a lot more disastrous than an Isolated storm hitting one city? How is it so hard to understand that droughts caused by climate change are going to cause more harm than an isolated event? Are you really so ignorant of the consequences that you think Isolated events, in isolated areas, are more devastating than global food shortages? It seems like you don't actually understand the scale of this issue.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 4:51:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 4:36:47 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:10:07 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 12:46:44 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 3:32:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.

Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina was managed....??

Again....no one is saying that short term disasters aren't terrible. No one is saying they can't be prevented. But tell me, how do you not get the concept that whole Island nations being swallowed is a lot more disastrous than an Isolated storm hitting one city? How is it so hard to understand that droughts caused by climate change are going to cause more harm than an isolated event? Are you really so ignorant of the consequences that you think Isolated events, in isolated areas, are more devastating than global food shortages? It seems like you don't actually understand the scale of this issue.

Silly mistake...."No one is saying that they [natural disasters like hurricane Katrina] can be prevented". Predictive text can suck sometimes. Sorry for any confusion.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 4:57:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 4:36:47 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:10:07 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 12:46:44 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 3:32:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.

Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina was managed....??

Again....no one is saying that short term disasters aren't terrible. No one is saying they can't be prevented. But tell me, how do you not get the concept that whole Island nations being swallowed is a lot more disastrous than an Isolated storm hitting one city? How is it so hard to understand that droughts caused by climate change are going to cause more harm than an isolated event? Are you really so ignorant of the consequences that you think Isolated events, in isolated areas, are more devastating than global food shortages? It seems like you don't actually understand the scale of this issue.

The Dutch live in a country which is quite a little bit below sea level and they seem to cope pretty well and aren't starving terribly much. They have super cool floating houses and are doing great work in flood plain management that also acts as environmental reserves. I just don't get the irrational fear and talk of global food shortages. Iceland is rising so there are winners too
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 5:08:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 4:51:37 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:36:47 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:10:07 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 12:46:44 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 3:32:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.

Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina was managed....??

Again....no one is saying that short term disasters aren't terrible. No one is saying they can't be prevented. But tell me, how do you not get the concept that whole Island nations being swallowed is a lot more disastrous than an Isolated storm hitting one city? How is it so hard to understand that droughts caused by climate change are going to cause more harm than an isolated event? Are you really so ignorant of the consequences that you think Isolated events, in isolated areas, are more devastating than global food shortages? It seems like you don't actually understand the scale of this issue.

Silly mistake...."No one is saying that they [natural disasters like hurricane Katrina] can be prevented". Predictive text can suck sometimes. Sorry for any confusion.

If Tuvala got hit by a huge storm surge or tidal wave, much of the population would be killed - that is more devastating than if they have to relocate to New Zealand. Its pretty nice there this time of year. Half of them are probably living there already
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 5:14:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 4:57:12 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:36:47 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:10:07 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 12:46:44 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 3:32:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.

Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina was managed....??

Again....no one is saying that short term disasters aren't terrible. No one is saying they can't be prevented. But tell me, how do you not get the concept that whole Island nations being swallowed is a lot more disastrous than an Isolated storm hitting one city? How is it so hard to understand that droughts caused by climate change are going to cause more harm than an isolated event? Are you really so ignorant of the consequences that you think Isolated events, in isolated areas, are more devastating than global food shortages? It seems like you don't actually understand the scale of this issue.

The Dutch live in a country which is quite a little bit below sea level and they seem to cope pretty well and aren't starving terribly much. They have super cool floating houses and are doing great work in flood plain management that also acts as environmental reserves. I just don't get the irrational fear and talk of global food shortages. Iceland is rising so there are winners too

Iceland is rising due rebounding. The problem is that they're not really "winning" as you said. Volcanic eruptions are the likely result as pressure is reduced. I don't know if I'd call that "winning".

The dutch are coping with climate change. However, they are being very proactive. They realize the danger they're in. If you want to use them as an example of how climate change should be handled, then you should be arguing for immediate, proactive actions to deal with the long term and immediate consequences of climate change. They are worried that the Netherlands will be uninhabitable, that's why they are dealing with it now.

Most scientific articles aren't warning about food shortages in the immediate future. However, most are predicting global food shortages by 2030....

Obviously it's not irrational to be scared of Volcanic eruptions that can cause global travel to be impacted again (as they were with the last Icelandic eruption). Is it that irrational to be proactive when dealing with food shortages?

Fear is a poor way of dealing with any issue. However, ignoring it and dismissing it as "not a big deal" is akin to sticking your head in the sand and hoping for the problem to just disappear. That seem much more irrational.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 5:23:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 5:08:40 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:51:37 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:36:47 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:10:07 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 12:46:44 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 3:32:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.

Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina was managed....??

Again....no one is saying that short term disasters aren't terrible. No one is saying they can't be prevented. But tell me, how do you not get the concept that whole Island nations being swallowed is a lot more disastrous than an Isolated storm hitting one city? How is it so hard to understand that droughts caused by climate change are going to cause more harm than an isolated event? Are you really so ignorant of the consequences that you think Isolated events, in isolated areas, are more devastating than global food shortages? It seems like you don't actually understand the scale of this issue.

Silly mistake...."No one is saying that they [natural disasters like hurricane Katrina] can be prevented". Predictive text can suck sometimes. Sorry for any confusion.

If Tuvala got hit by a huge storm surge or tidal wave, much of the population would be killed - that is more devastating than if they have to relocate to New Zealand. Its pretty nice there this time of year. Half of them are probably living there already

If Tuvala was hit by a huge natural disaster, at the very least, their country could recover. How do you propose they do that if their Island is lost forever? Relocating to New Zealand would mean that those who do relocate would have to accept living in a foreign country without the ability to govern themselves, to loose their national identity forever. And while New Zealand is beautiful (I've seen the "The Lord of the Rings) it's still means a foreign government gets to dictate your fate.

Also, who is to say that New Zealand will actually accept climate change refugees in large numbers? The initial reports of "Climate change refugees" were dismissed by New Zealand as being refugees based on humanitarian grounds. They are very cautious about this subject so that they may revisit the issue and perhaps deny refugee status to individuals seeking that status due to climate change.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 5:29:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 5:14:44 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:57:12 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:36:47 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:10:07 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 12:46:44 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 3:32:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.

Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina was managed....??

Again....no one is saying that short term disasters aren't terrible. No one is saying they can't be prevented. But tell me, how do you not get the concept that whole Island nations being swallowed is a lot more disastrous than an Isolated storm hitting one city? How is it so hard to understand that droughts caused by climate change are going to cause more harm than an isolated event? Are you really so ignorant of the consequences that you think Isolated events, in isolated areas, are more devastating than global food shortages? It seems like you don't actually understand the scale of this issue.

The Dutch live in a country which is quite a little bit below sea level and they seem to cope pretty well and aren't starving terribly much. They have super cool floating houses and are doing great work in flood plain management that also acts as environmental reserves. I just don't get the irrational fear and talk of global food shortages. Iceland is rising so there are winners too

Iceland is rising due rebounding. The problem is that they're not really "winning" as you said. Volcanic eruptions are the likely result as pressure is reduced. I don't know if I'd call that "winning".

The dutch are coping with climate change. However, they are being very proactive. They realize the danger they're in. If you want to use them as an example of how climate change should be handled, then you should be arguing for immediate, proactive actions to deal with the long term and immediate consequences of climate change. They are worried that the Netherlands will be uninhabitable, that's why they are dealing with it now.

Most scientific articles aren't warning about food shortages in the immediate future. However, most are predicting global food shortages by 2030....

Obviously it's not irrational to be scared of Volcanic eruptions that can cause global travel to be impacted again (as they were with the last Icelandic eruption). Is it that irrational to be proactive when dealing with food shortages?

Fear is a poor way of dealing with any issue. However, ignoring it and dismissing it as "not a big deal" is akin to sticking your head in the sand and hoping for the problem to just disappear. That seem much more irrational.

Well more volcanos will cool things down a bit.

H:aving much of northern Europe, Asia and North America a liitle bit toastier could very well give us higher yeilds and longer growing seasons in warmer weather. I never suggested sticking our heads in the sand, but instead accept that with or without human intervention the climate does change considerably, and considering we manage to cope on a daily and yearly basis with climate change, we just have to arrange our lives a little better. We could start with the simple things....like not building houses on flood plains...that kind of thing.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 5:42:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 5:23:44 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 5:08:40 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:51:37 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:36:47 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 4:10:07 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/4/2015 12:46:44 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 3:32:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:54:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.

Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina was managed....??

Again....no one is saying that short term disasters aren't terrible. No one is saying they can't be prevented. But tell me, how do you not get the concept that whole Island nations being swallowed is a lot more disastrous than an Isolated storm hitting one city? How is it so hard to understand that droughts caused by climate change are going to cause more harm than an isolated event? Are you really so ignorant of the consequences that you think Isolated events, in isolated areas, are more devastating than global food shortages? It seems like you don't actually understand the scale of this issue.

Silly mistake...."No one is saying that they [natural disasters like hurricane Katrina] can be prevented". Predictive text can suck sometimes. Sorry for any confusion.

If Tuvala got hit by a huge storm surge or tidal wave, much of the population would be killed - that is more devastating than if they have to relocate to New Zealand. Its pretty nice there this time of year. Half of them are probably living there already


If Tuvala was hit by a huge natural disaster, at the very least, their country could recover. How do you propose they do that if their Island is lost forever? Relocating to New Zealand would mean that those who do relocate would have to accept living in a foreign country without the ability to govern themselves, to loose their national identity forever. And while New Zealand is beautiful (I've seen the "The Lord of the Rings) it's still means a foreign government gets to dictate your fate.

Also, who is to say that New Zealand will actually accept climate change refugees in large numbers? The initial reports of "Climate change refugees" were dismissed by New Zealand as being refugees based on humanitarian grounds. They are very cautious about this subject so that they may revisit the issue and perhaps deny refugee status to individuals seeking that status due to climate change.

If I had a choice between a ten metre wall of water and a very slowly incremental rise in the wtaer level - I'd take the later, as although the country might survive the former, I won't - I'm a little inconventional I suppose. I'd rather in Middle Earth than under earth.

NZ would be cautious as they do not want Climate change to be an abused reason for a flood of Sth Pacific refugees. Plus the white kids will find it even harder to get picked onto the rugby team.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 6:01:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.

Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina was managed....??

Again....no one is saying that short term disasters aren't terrible. No one is saying they can't be prevented. But tell me, how do you not get the concept that whole Island nations being swallowed is a lot more disastrous than an Isolated storm hitting one city? How is it so hard to understand that droughts caused by climate change are going to cause more harm than an isolated event? Are you really so ignorant of the consequences that you think Isolated events, in isolated areas, are more devastating than global food shortages? It seems like you don't actually understand the scale of this issue.

Silly mistake...."No one is saying that they [natural disasters like hurricane Katrina] can be prevented". Predictive text can suck sometimes. Sorry for any confusion.

If Tuvala got hit by a huge storm surge or tidal wave, much of the population would be killed - that is more devastating than if they have to relocate to New Zealand. Its pretty nice there this time of year. Half of them are probably living there already


If Tuvala was hit by a huge natural disaster, at the very least, their country could recover. How do you propose they do that if their Island is lost forever? Relocating to New Zealand would mean that those who do relocate would have to accept living in a foreign country without the ability to govern themselves, to loose their national identity forever. And while New Zealand is beautiful (I've seen the "The Lord of the Rings) it's still means a foreign government gets to dictate your fate.

Also, who is to say that New Zealand will actually accept climate change refugees in large numbers? The initial reports of "Climate change refugees" were dismissed by New Zealand as being refugees based on humanitarian grounds. They are very cautious about this subject so that they may revisit the issue and perhaps deny refugee status to individuals seeking that status due to climate change.

If I had a choice between a ten metre wall of water and a very slowly incremental rise in the wtaer level - I'd take the later, as although the country might survive the former, I won't - I'm a little inconventional I suppose. I'd rather in Middle Earth than under earth.

NZ would be cautious as they do not want Climate change to be an abused reason for a flood of Sth Pacific refugees. Plus the white kids will find it even harder to get picked onto the rugby team.

Natural disasters and climate change are not disjointed. There is, in fact, a very strong positive correlation between the two. Hurricanes/Typhoons, etc... are predicted in increase DUE to climate change. So worrying about one does not preclude you from worrying about the other.

Addressing the climate change issues is therefore not disjointed from addressing natural disasters.

Growing seasons will unfortunately be affected negatively by climate change. Droughts will cause crop failure, so whatever extended growing season we might have will be for not. Also, climate change is defined as creating bigger swings in seasons, so you will also see harsher and longer winters in some parts of the world....

The problem is also that the volcanic eruptions are part of a positive feedback loop that accelerates climate change at an increased rate. (human CO2 release causes warming, causes ice to melt, causes frozen organic material to release CO2, causes more warming, causes freeing of more organic material, causes more ice to melt, causes more volcanic activity, causes more co2 in the atmosphere, causes more heat, etc....)

I agree with you that a complete overhaul of our energy infrastructure is not possible and that small steps are the first step, but a more long term solution is needed and simply kicking the proverbial "can" on this issue only serves to exacerbate the problem (along with natural disasters)....
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 3:46:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 6:01:24 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Subutai is correct. A 24 hour change is nothing. However, Subutai, am I still more of a skeptic than you? I don't support AGW mitigation XD

I would think a tidal surge would cause more death than an incremental increase over many decades or centuries. I'm sure those that live in Boston wouldn't mind Florida temperatures - they old folk are sure to enjoy it.

A tidal wave causes short term damage. The problem with climate change is that those flood waters don't recede. This is why Island nations around the world are worried. They will be swallowed up, and they won't resurface. Florida will also be mostly underwater.....Boston won't care how nice their temps are when they're underwater. The short term kind of events are manageable.

Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina was managed....??

Again....no one is saying that short term disasters aren't terrible. No one is saying they can't be prevented. But tell me, how do you not get the concept that whole Island nations being swallowed is a lot more disastrous than an Isolated storm hitting one city? How is it so hard to understand that droughts caused by climate change are going to cause more harm than an isolated event? Are you really so ignorant of the consequences that you think Isolated events, in isolated areas, are more devastating than global food shortages? It seems like you don't actually understand the scale of this issue.

Silly mistake...."No one is saying that they [natural disasters like hurricane Katrina] can be prevented". Predictive text can suck sometimes. Sorry for any confusion.

If Tuvala got hit by a huge storm surge or tidal wave, much of the population would be killed - that is more devastating than if they have to relocate to New Zealand. Its pretty nice there this time of year. Half of them are probably living there already


If Tuvala was hit by a huge natural disaster, at the very least, their country could recover. How do you propose they do that if their Island is lost forever? Relocating to New Zealand would mean that those who do relocate would have to accept living in a foreign country without the ability to govern themselves, to loose their national identity forever. And while New Zealand is beautiful (I've seen the "The Lord of the Rings) it's still means a foreign government gets to dictate your fate.

Also, who is to say that New Zealand will actually accept climate change refugees in large numbers? The initial reports of "Climate change refugees" were dismissed by New Zealand as being refugees based on humanitarian grounds. They are very cautious about this subject so that they may revisit the issue and perhaps deny refugee status to individuals seeking that status due to climate change.

If I had a choice between a ten metre wall of water and a very slowly incremental rise in the wtaer level - I'd take the later, as although the country might survive the former, I won't - I'm a little inconventional I suppose. I'd rather in Middle Earth than under earth.

NZ would be cautious as they do not want Climate change to be an abused reason for a flood of Sth Pacific refugees. Plus the white kids will find it even harder to get picked onto the rugby team.


Natural disasters and climate change are not disjointed. There is, in fact, a very strong positive correlation between the two. Hurricanes/Typhoons, etc... are predicted in increase DUE to climate change. So worrying about one does not preclude you from worrying about the other.

Addressing the climate change issues is therefore not disjointed from addressing natural disasters.

Growing seasons will unfortunately be affected negatively by climate change. Droughts will cause crop failure, so whatever extended growing season we might have will be for not. Also, climate change is defined as creating bigger swings in seasons, so you will also see harsher and longer winters in some parts of the world....

The problem is also that the volcanic eruptions are part of a positive feedback loop that accelerates climate change at an increased rate. (human CO2 release causes warming, causes ice to melt, causes frozen organic material to release CO2, causes more warming, causes freeing of more organic material, causes more ice to melt, causes more volcanic activity, causes more co2 in the atmosphere, causes more heat, etc....)

I agree with you that a complete overhaul of our energy infrastructure is not possible and that small steps are the first step, but a more long term solution is needed and simply kicking the proverbial "can" on this issue only serves to exacerbate the problem (along with natural disasters)..

Just like we don't get hysterical when the sun sets each night, and when we realise that Winter is coming and accept these natural earthly rhythms and prepare for them we need to realise that we view our existence in very human time scales and should accept that climate change is inevitable - whether man made or not - and take the appropriate measures without all the drama and wild speculation. The only constant in life is change, and we seem to be surprised by this fact.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 5:57:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 2:09:42 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Over the next 24 hours the temperature around the world will rise and fall by up to 50 degrees F (28 degrees C) whilst the ocean will also rise and fall by up to 53 feet (16 metres).

Should we be more concerned about this massive daily climate change and our ability to cope with this variation, more than a few degrees over many many decades?

There isn't even any proof that things like global warming are even happening.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 6:52:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 5:57:54 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/31/2015 2:09:42 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Over the next 24 hours the temperature around the world will rise and fall by up to 50 degrees F (28 degrees C) whilst the ocean will also rise and fall by up to 53 feet (16 metres).

Should we be more concerned about this massive daily climate change and our ability to cope with this variation, more than a few degrees over many many decades?

There isn't even any proof that things like global warming are even happening.

.....
......
.......
.....
Even the freaking GOP has abandoned this stance.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 7:03:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 6:52:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/5/2015 5:57:54 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/31/2015 2:09:42 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Over the next 24 hours the temperature around the world will rise and fall by up to 50 degrees F (28 degrees C) whilst the ocean will also rise and fall by up to 53 feet (16 metres).

Should we be more concerned about this massive daily climate change and our ability to cope with this variation, more than a few degrees over many many decades?

There isn't even any proof that things like global warming are even happening.

.....
......
.......
.....
Even the freaking GOP has abandoned this stance.

Give me one proof
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 7:08:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 7:03:30 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/5/2015 6:52:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/5/2015 5:57:54 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 1/31/2015 2:09:42 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Over the next 24 hours the temperature around the world will rise and fall by up to 50 degrees F (28 degrees C) whilst the ocean will also rise and fall by up to 53 feet (16 metres).

Should we be more concerned about this massive daily climate change and our ability to cope with this variation, more than a few degrees over many many decades?

There isn't even any proof that things like global warming are even happening.

.....
......
.......
.....
Even the freaking GOP has abandoned this stance.

Give me one proof

The Keeling Curve
The consensus of 98% of the scientific community
The Seuss Effect
The fact that Earth's climate has always changed naturally - you have denied all global warming, so go are denying this.
The EPA http://www.epa.gov...
The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com...
The IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 8:16:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, who is to say that New Zealand will actually accept climate change refugees in large numbers? The initial reports of "Climate change refugees" were dismissed by New Zealand as being refugees based on humanitarian grounds. They are very cautious about this subject so that they may revisit the issue and perhaps deny refugee status to individuals seeking that status due to climate change.

If I had a choice between a ten metre wall of water and a very slowly incremental rise in the wtaer level - I'd take the later, as although the country might survive the former, I won't - I'm a little inconventional I suppose. I'd rather in Middle Earth than under earth.

NZ would be cautious as they do not want Climate change to be an abused reason for a flood of Sth Pacific refugees. Plus the white kids will find it even harder to get picked onto the rugby team.


Natural disasters and climate change are not disjointed. There is, in fact, a very strong positive correlation between the two. Hurricanes/Typhoons, etc... are predicted in increase DUE to climate change. So worrying about one does not preclude you from worrying about the other.

Addressing the climate change issues is therefore not disjointed from addressing natural disasters.

Growing seasons will unfortunately be affected negatively by climate change. Droughts will cause crop failure, so whatever extended growing season we might have will be for not. Also, climate change is defined as creating bigger swings in seasons, so you will also see harsher and longer winters in some parts of the world....

The problem is also that the volcanic eruptions are part of a positive feedback loop that accelerates climate change at an increased rate. (human CO2 release causes warming, causes ice to melt, causes frozen organic material to release CO2, causes more warming, causes freeing of more organic material, causes more ice to melt, causes more volcanic activity, causes more co2 in the atmosphere, causes more heat, etc....)

I agree with you that a complete overhaul of our energy infrastructure is not possible and that small steps are the first step, but a more long term solution is needed and simply kicking the proverbial "can" on this issue only serves to exacerbate the problem (along with natural disasters)..

Just like we don't get hysterical when the sun sets each night, and when we realise that Winter is coming and accept these natural earthly rhythms and prepare for them we need to realise that we view our existence in very human time scales and should accept that climate change is inevitable - whether man made or not - and take the appropriate measures without all the drama and wild speculation. The only constant in life is change, and we seem to be surprised by this fact.

While change is constant, the rate at which it's accelerating currently is anything but natural. While I agree that the sensationalism isn't productive in the sense of a solution, it's not about that. As you see, there are people who don't even acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence behind climate change.

The panic, in my opinion, is more of a "conversion" tool if you will. It's a pressing matter that we need to address rather than ignore. We can debate the way to address the issue, sure. That's a debate worth having, but the panic associated with the issue let's us bypass those who distrust science and at least move on to a debate worth having. The existence of climate change isn't one worth having anymore.
Subutai
Posts: 3,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:47:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 3:23:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Things are catostrophic when you have a big change in a short time period...the longer the lead time, the ample room we have to manouver. Ice Age equals better skiing, more land...global warming means warmer weather and beach holdiays. Why are we all focused on the down side. We could spend bajillions on trying to stop something that is that is out of our control rather than spending it on ways to better faciliatate our adaptation

A rise of 5 degrees C over two centuries is tremendous on even large time scales. Normal fluctuations in the climate would never be this large. Further, if the trend was more flat (i.e. 5 degrees over 100,000 years or so), plants and animals could evolve to the changes, but with a change this quick, plants and animals don't have time to evolve. If the current climactic trends continue, millions of animal species will go extinct and that food supply will be thrown off. You're only looking at the positive of a climactic change, which are far outweighed by the negatives.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 4:34:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:47:08 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/3/2015 3:23:19 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/2/2015 9:51:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 2/2/2015 3:13:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/1/2015 2:24:03 PM, Subutai wrote:
Short term weather trends have a much less effect on the environment than long term climate trends. For example, the arctic does get above freezing, but during the winter, the water that melted refreezes. If the average temperature increases, more will melt than can freeze back again. There are a plethora of other examples, but your analogy is wrong.

So if we widen it to between summer and winter, there is still a huge temperature differential between winter and summer, but we still all adapt quite nicely. Why are a few degrees over a much longer time period such a disaster as we cope with these differentials day in, day out and year in, year out.

I just told you - because seemingly small climactic temperature differences can be catastrophic over time. The typical ice age was only 10 degrees C colder everywhere, and you see how different the climate was then. Even a moderate 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years would be very bad for the climate. Sure, we'd cope, but the cost of coping is much greater than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

Things are catostrophic when you have a big change in a short time period...the longer the lead time, the ample room we have to manouver. Ice Age equals better skiing, more land...global warming means warmer weather and beach holdiays. Why are we all focused on the down side. We could spend bajillions on trying to stop something that is that is out of our control rather than spending it on ways to better faciliatate our adaptation

A rise of 5 degrees C over two centuries is tremendous on even large time scales. Normal fluctuations in the climate would never be this large. Further, if the trend was more flat (i.e. 5 degrees over 100,000 years or so), plants and animals could evolve to the changes, but with a change this quick, plants and animals don't have time to evolve. If the current climactic trends continue, millions of animal species will go extinct and that food supply will be thrown off. You're only looking at the positive of a climactic change, which are far outweighed by the negatives.

They can just move a little further north where it is a little cooler and plants will establish themselves via bird droppings to places they are better suited. If they can cope between summer and winter, they will be able to cope with a few hot days.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...