Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2014, 03:03:25 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderator: Beet)
| | |-+  Motives behind global warming skepticism
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Motives behind global warming skepticism  (Read 10591 times)
David S
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5257


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2007, 05:41:33 pm »
Ignore



Long story short, warming can actually result in eventual cooling.



The more immediate concern is sea level rise. What happens when a couple of billion Chinamen are looking for a new home - and the like.

Nim you're doing a bit of fear mongering.  The UN says sea levels might rise something like 1 or 2 feet. Most of China is well above  sea level. And there aren't a couple billion Chinamen in all of China let alone in low areas that might be affected by a 2' rise.

No, no. The UN projections are based on current melt rates. They do not account for the possible lose of a major ice sheet. If we lose the Greenland ice sheet or the Lawance ice shelf sea levels will increrase by over 21 feet, if we lose them both sea levels will increase by over 42 feet. I'm not saying we are going to - but the sub glacial water flows beneath both make it an mmediate concern.
"If we lose the Greenland ice sheet ..."    That's speculation. Who said those things are going to happen?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26969


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2007, 06:40:14 am »
Ignore

Also, David S, while most of China area-wise is inland most of the population lives close to the sea. In fact, most of people everywhere live close to the sea. Bangladesh would probably be flooded in its entirety (it almost is as it is NOW) and that's more than 100 million people in itself.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
nlm
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1245
View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2007, 07:47:56 am »
Ignore



Long story short, warming can actually result in eventual cooling.



The more immediate concern is sea level rise. What happens when a couple of billion Chinamen are looking for a new home - and the like.

Nim you're doing a bit of fear mongering.  The UN says sea levels might rise something like 1 or 2 feet. Most of China is well above  sea level. And there aren't a couple billion Chinamen in all of China let alone in low areas that might be affected by a 2' rise.

No, no. The UN projections are based on current melt rates. They do not account for the possible lose of a major ice sheet. If we lose the Greenland ice sheet or the Lawance ice shelf sea levels will increrase by over 21 feet, if we lose them both sea levels will increase by over 42 feet. I'm not saying we are going to - but the sub glacial water flows beneath both make it an mmediate concern.
"If we lose the Greenland ice sheet ..."    That's speculation. Who said those things are going to happen?

Read a bit about sub glacial water flow under the greenland ice sheet - how those flows affect the ice above them and how they are increasing. Those flows and the changes in them are not a matter of speculation. the ice sheet is already moving at a rate of 1.6 meters an hour into the sea - which is 3 times faster than it was moving just a few years ago.

I would also note that the UN projection doesn't account for any major ice break up - regardless of if we lose an entire shelf or sheet, those shelves and sheets are currently breaking up.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2007, 07:56:04 am by nlm »Logged

Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when clinging to power is the only idea left.
David S
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5257


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2007, 11:05:37 am »
Ignore



Long story short, warming can actually result in eventual cooling.



The more immediate concern is sea level rise. What happens when a couple of billion Chinamen are looking for a new home - and the like.

Nim you're doing a bit of fear mongering.  The UN says sea levels might rise something like 1 or 2 feet. Most of China is well above  sea level. And there aren't a couple billion Chinamen in all of China let alone in low areas that might be affected by a 2' rise.

No, no. The UN projections are based on current melt rates. They do not account for the possible lose of a major ice sheet. If we lose the Greenland ice sheet or the Lawance ice shelf sea levels will increrase by over 21 feet, if we lose them both sea levels will increase by over 42 feet. I'm not saying we are going to - but the sub glacial water flows beneath both make it an mmediate concern.
"If we lose the Greenland ice sheet ..."    That's speculation. Who said those things are going to happen?

Read a bit about sub glacial water flow under the greenland ice sheet - how those flows affect the ice above them and how they are increasing. Those flows and the changes in them are not a matter of speculation. the ice sheet is already moving at a rate of 1.6 meters an hour into the sea - which is 3 times faster than it was moving just a few years ago.

I would also note that the UN projection doesn't account for any major ice break up - regardless of if we lose an entire shelf or sheet, those shelves and sheets are currently breaking up.

OK several things. First I could say that if the earth suddenly stops spinning the oceans will flood over the land, people, buildings, trees and everthing else will be hurled horizontally at 1000 mph and all life will die. That's scary and everthing I said is true. The zinger is that big if. But the earth is not going to stop spinning so none of those things will happen. Now who said the greenland ice sheet will fall into the ocean? What are the odds of that happening? 90%? 50%? 10%? 1%?

From what I have been able to find of the current IPCC report the maximum expected sea level rise is about 3 feet. The mean would be more like 16 inches. And this is not going to happen tomorrow. They have 100 years to adapt. China built the great wall thousands of years ago. Its 4000 miles long and they built it without modern construction equipment. Can they build dykes to protect important areas today? Holland has done that for years.

The picture nim paints is China being flooded out.  But that will not happen. Most of China is way above sea level. Even Beijing which is near the coast is at 120 feet above sea level.

But if you want to get past the issue of whether warming is anthropogenic or not then come up with a plan which will actually work (Unlike Kyoto) and which won't destroy the economy, or create hardships on people.
Logged
nlm
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1245
View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2007, 05:47:18 pm »
Ignore

If the greenland ice sheet continue to accelerate at it's current rate - it will be gone by 2060, 100% chance. The IF here is if it continues to accelerate at its present rate. The concerning thing is that there is no evidence that suggests it will not.

If you want economic hardships - that will provide them in spades. The lose of infastructure alone would bring the global economy to its knees.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Logged

Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when clinging to power is the only idea left.
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32090
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2007, 06:09:16 pm »
Ignore

If the greenland ice sheet continue to accelerate at it's current rate - it will be gone by 2060, 100% chance. The IF here is if it continues to accelerate at its present rate. The concerning thing is that there is no evidence that suggests it will not.

If you want economic hardships - that will provide them in spades. The lose of infastructure alone would bring the global economy to its knees.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Oh is it?  We don't know how much of global warming is due to human activity and how much is natural.  Even if we assume the 2060 number is correct, curtailing human contributions to it much drive the date back to 2085.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
nlm
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1245
View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2007, 07:03:26 pm »
Ignore

If the greenland ice sheet continue to accelerate at it's current rate - it will be gone by 2060, 100% chance. The IF here is if it continues to accelerate at its present rate. The concerning thing is that there is no evidence that suggests it will not.

If you want economic hardships - that will provide them in spades. The lose of infastructure alone would bring the global economy to its knees.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Oh is it?  We don't know how much of global warming is due to human activity and how much is natural.  Even if we assume the 2060 number is correct, curtailing human contributions to it much drive the date back to 2085.

It wasn't that long ago that people thought they could throw raw sewage into their streets without paying a price. It took 100% conclusive evidence for them to stop - that evidence came in the form of wide spread disease and plague. I suspect history will repeat itself due to willful ignorance again.

You are correct in saying that we don't know what cutting man made CO2 will do. But the bottom line on this is that we have a government filled with people that don't even want to look at the problem - it's kind of difficult to find a solution to a problem that isn't even being looked at. The resources of the government are not even being brought to bear on this problem at an intellectual level - that's just disgraceful.

But then, if a person belives it is in their best interest to not understand an issue, they will not understand it - which seems to be the case with some of our GOP Senators and Congressmen.

We either have all the answers today or we give up? That's BS if you ask me.

So again -

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2007, 07:06:56 pm by nlm »Logged

Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when clinging to power is the only idea left.
David S
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5257


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2007, 07:14:30 pm »
Ignore

If the greenland ice sheet continue to accelerate at it's current rate - it will be gone by 2060, 100% chance. The IF here is if it continues to accelerate at its present rate. The concerning thing is that there is no evidence that suggests it will not.

If you want economic hardships - that will provide them in spades. The lose of infastructure alone would bring the global economy to its knees.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. That's why everything depends on what you plan to do. If it results in shortages of electricity, natural gas or gasoline then it will cause great hardships and in some cases will cause loss of life. Rationing or extreme taxes might do the same. They will also piss off the people so much that Al Gore will go from being a celebrity to a persona non grata.

So what is your proposed solution?
Logged
nlm
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1245
View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2007, 07:35:02 pm »
Ignore

If the greenland ice sheet continue to accelerate at it's current rate - it will be gone by 2060, 100% chance. The IF here is if it continues to accelerate at its present rate. The concerning thing is that there is no evidence that suggests it will not.

If you want economic hardships - that will provide them in spades. The lose of infastructure alone would bring the global economy to its knees.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. That's why everything depends on what you plan to do. If it results in shortages of electricity, natural gas or gasoline then it will cause great hardships and in some cases will cause loss of life. Rationing or extreme taxes might do the same. They will also piss off the people so much that Al Gore will go from being a celebrity to a persona non grata.

So what is your proposed solution?

What I'm willing to do doesn't really matter. The point I made to JJ above is the critical point in this entire debate - is our government even willing to look at the problem? Are they willing to put the best and brightest minds to work looking for a solution (I hardly consider myself the best and the brightest) or are they going to keep the EPA putting out ridiculous reports on the topic? Are we going to have a Senate loaded with individuals that don't even recognize global warming as a reality - man made or otherwise - or are we going to get serious about it?

That's really all I ask at this point - let's be serious about it as a nation and a government. Let's take an an honest look at the problem and the possible solutions. By 2060 I'll be long dead - but my kids and grandkids will not be. I owe it to them to at least make the case that our government should be looking at this in a much more serious fashion than they are currently. The drivel the EPA is putting out on the topic is beyond unacceptable.
Logged

Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when clinging to power is the only idea left.
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines