Global cooling

fucking bullshit aint it.
The latest buzzword shit I heard was "global weirding"...
Saying "you're all gonna die from hurricanes if u dont drive these shitty electric cars that look like disabled scooters.."

These clowns are like the boy who kept crying wolf. "Its getting hotter, youre gonna drown as well..."

Oh no we're not.

"OK then, its gonna be an earthquake.. caused by CO2".

Bellends!

I live in England, on a hill. Why the fuck should I give a shit if it gets warmer?
Its not exactly fucking St Tropez at the moment...

 

So is it cool if the Maldives crashes on your couch for a while while they look for a new place to stay? :biggrin:

You're right, potentially all the affects of climate change won't be negative. I suspect countries like Russia and Canada would see an advantage to global warming, and in 100 years it would be interesting to look at who benefited from a warming planet.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/growth-shift.html

But considering 80% of the human population lives by the coast, I don't think it's likely to say that it would have a net benefit to all people, and the fact that it's happening in such a drastic way, would give people little time to prepare for such changes, such as being displaced by a rising ocean.

 

Hey if this Maldives girl is hot.. maybe she wont need to sleep on the couch.. ; )

But more seriously, I think a lot of it is fashions and agendas. The taxation agenda is definitely one. The anti-industrialisation agenda is another.

I'm much more concerned about carcinogens, GM poison and deforestation than I am about some dodgy global warming theories. Some of the worlds top experts have said global warming is a bit of bollocks.

Biomass fuels have been an utter disaster- deforestation, starving and all that. And they STILL give off CO2.

My view is that u could have a zero emmission fossil fuel engine. The soot then gets recycled as fuel. We ARE wrecking the world. But CO2 isnt the biggest problem, IMO.

 

I just don't have the energy at the moment to take on some of these arguments about climate change, but I'll just say that if the climate continues to get warmer here in Canada, I'm going to have to bail. Ski season is already too damned short. *grumbles*

 

So...at least a couple of people came close to articulating a point I'm going to reiterate...perhaps annoyingly.

Whether the temperatures are cooler or warmer than usual from one year to the next is absolutely irrelevant and is not evidence for either global warming or cooling.

Yes, climate naturally changes and cycles over the long term and in the earth's history there have been many periods where temperatures have dropped significantly and glaciers advanced over much of the land mass and other periods of extreme warming where formerly chilly places have become tropical or temperate. Such natural cycles tend to happen slowly over very long periods of time though there have been a couple of instances that I'm aware of that have happened over shorter periods...but we're still talking a thousand years or more. It's the rate of change that's important.

The warming trend scientists refer to as global warming is what has happened in the past 50 years. The rate of change is unprecedented and there is a strong positive correlation between the increase in the global production and use of fossil fuels (as well as deforestation) and the steep and rapid incline of average global temperature. Correlation is not the same as causation, of course, but until the global warming deniers come up with a viable and falsifiable alternative explanation for this unprecedented change, I'll continue to accept the consensus of the majority of scientists in this matter, that global warming is indeed occurring and it is probably caused by human activity of various sorts.

Of course what we can and should do about it is a separate question.

 

Intentional burning of biomass by people is another issue that doesn't get discussed much in the mainstream media, which usually concentrates more on the subject of the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.ghgonline.org/co2bioburn.htm

 

Ice core samples from Antarctica are harvested from a particular location. That location is not necessarily representative of the overall average global temperature of the earth. Depending on how air and ocean currents behaved at the end of the last ice age, the temperature at the location of the Antarctica samples may have risen earlier than that of the average global temperature, giving the impression that a climate temperature rise occurred before the CO2 increase. It can give the mistaken impression that CO2 is a lagging, passive, resulting phenomenon that has little or nothing to do with climate warming.

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archi...inked-global-warming-during-last-deglaciation

 

Another possible reason for the lag is that the air bubbles trapped in the Antartic ice cores may take hundreds of years to become buried deep enough such that they no longer interacts with air contained in freshly deposited snow. The interaction can create an apparent lag between the observed CO2 content in the ice sample and temperature, which isn't a real lag.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/319783/fresh-data-supports-carbon-warming.html

Some opponents of global warming theory are quick to jump on such interpretation issues and claim that global warming isn't happening and that, even if warming is occurring, it has nothing to do with CO2. Such contentions ignore the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that its concentration in the atmosphere has a strong correlation with average global temperature.. By the same token, it's also easy for proponents of global warming theory to immediately claim that warming is due to CO2 without considering alternative interpretations.

What is unique today is that human activity is introducing CO2 at a rate on a hundred-year timescale that nature did in the past over much longer time periods, and it's being done during a warm interglacial period. No one knows for sure what its effects will be on climate over the next few hundred years.

 

I agree. I think it's quite a bit more complex than groups who have a political axe to grind are willing to admit.

 

everyone knows oil and coal are bad for the very web of life our own life depends upon. even the most ardent deniers are aware they are lying to themselves. yet they also know, and not everyone else does, that as long as the automobile remains the holy god of transportation, almost anything else that is done about it, remains penny wise and dollar foolish.

there are still places where the car, preferable in the form of a light truck, or vehicle equally at home on road and off, is practical, useful, and in rare instances, even necessary. 95% of today's human population, even in large countries that still have a lot of open space, do not actually live in such places.

also energy can be collected rather then converted from the matter of fuel. this requires a large area and for this reason does not favor hierarchal monopoly, and for that reason alone, energy policy has not favored it.

there will come a decade or two, when everyone who lives through it, or is born during it, is going to hate everyone who is alive now, for our selfish indifference to the suffering they are going to experience.

 

And here it is still snowing...

 

If Climate is changing............what is it changing into?

and is there anything we can do to stop it?

 

If it gets any warmer in Canada, then they will not need The Keystone Pipeline; the oil could be transshipped from say : Churchill on Hudson's Bay and through The Artic Sea.

 

It's already happening. The goal is to mitigate it, and yes, there are things that can be done to that effect. Like all things, the first step is education, because as this thread shows, there's a lot of misinformation.

The next step would be the most wrenching, which is to support candidates committed to fighting climate change with public research and funding for alternative energies, as the transition to alternative fuels will take one of two things. One is we use up all our hydrocarbons and the planet heats up four degrees, the second being a directed public policy toward making a gradual shift toward alternative energies.

There are other things which contribute to global warming, cement plants, agriculture. It will take a focused effort.

As for something you can do today, you can contribute your spare CPU cycles to mapping global warming patterns and effectiveness of mitigation policies.

http://climateprediction.net/