Global warming occuring faster than predicted (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

THey should search their hearts for the truth
We are all born ignorant, but science redeems!

 

[abbeyroad]

oh noes, we're all gonna die.

 

[philosopher23]

So, how long have we got till the effects of global warming set in?

 

[Kwayera]

Anywhere from now to 500 years. Climate is seriously hard to predict, which is why most of our estimates have turned out to be underestimates so far.

Significant effects, however, will be seen in the next 100 years.

 

[Wheelbarrows]

Significant effects, however, will be seen in the next 100 years.

my sentiments exactly. why exactly are we worried again? i'm pretty sure we'll all be dead. fuck the next generation.

 

[Trefoil]

my sentiments exactly. why exactly are we worried again? i'm pretty sure we'll all be dead. fuck the next generation.

Can you even fucking read? "In the next hundred years" means our lifetimes.

 

[impervious182]

Yeah, they'll have to move.

Some scientists believe, that the Maldives, for example, will be under water with a one meter sea rise sometime during the next century (after 2100). They're currently attempting to make long-term plans with Australia to migrate here (this is in like 2050 or 2100) by renting/buying a small portion of Australia.

In bold are the adaptions I made.
It should be noted, that even the IPCC predicts only a 54 cm sea level rise by 2100 and their model was based on faulty evidence. They predicted that the temperature would continue to rise, where it has decreased since 1998.

Also they based their models on the theoretical (but incorrect, based on measurements in the stratosphere, carbon dioxide in ice samples etc.) idea that heating follows increased concentrations of carbon dioxide. This has been shown to be false. Yet still the IPCC purport this lie - they were after all created to show the link.

This isn't cyclical climate change. Sea levels don't rise 1 to 10 metres in 50 years under "cyclical climate change".

Correct. So it's lucky for us deniers that they won't be rising 1 to 10 metres. You say you don't follow Al Gore, but that is a typical Al Gore statistic, supported by not even the most extreme scientists.

The IPCC, which has done so much to spread alarmism only predicts a 54cm sea level rise in a whole century! That's much less than the '1 to 10 metres' you suggest, within half that time.

There's some coverage of that here: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-22-02.asp

Basically: dry areas turn into mega-droughts and deserts, wet areas get flooded and battered by super-storms and hurricanes, lots of coastal places world-wide sink, lots of plantlife and animal life dies out (including crops), and there's a high chance of a triggering a run-away greenhouse effect similar to the conditions that made the dinosaurs extinct.

And last time I checked there was no definitive evidence, as to why the dinosaurs became extinct... congratulations on solving it. (All those believers in the asteroid theory, volcanic activity theory, ice age theory etc. will sure be upset.)

As to the rest of the post.... Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It's that simple. Even the IPCC doesn't predict this - someone's being listening to Tim Flannery and Al Gore too much.... The former, who is a scientist, suggested this year that sulfur dioxide should be injected in massive quantities into the stratosphere which would make the sky yellow, to slow global warming. What... an... idiot.

I might add, probably needlessly, that if that SO2 were to diffuse into the troposphere we would have a MASSIVE acid rain problem.

 

[impervious182]

Basically you're a retard if you don't accept the science. The science says it's a bad thing; it doesn't say what to do about it.

We in agreement? You can be anti doing anything about it and still accept that the science says it's happening.

For fuck's sake, the science is SOLID. It's not like science is an institution you idiots, it's a METHOD.

There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the THEORY of anthropogenic climate change.

IN FACT, the climate has not warmed since 1998. Explain that.

IN FACT, the IPCC report is fraudulent for the simple fact that it was not properly peer-reviewed. Many contributers of the IPCC report, including Emeritus Proffessor Dr Lindzen, had their names added because they contributed to a small section on a very specialised area. However they did not agree to the findings of the report.

THE IPCC refused to take their names off and only after the threat of legal action have some scientists had their names taken off.

IN FACT, the IPCC predictions are also incorrect and have not correctly modelled the climate. Current measurements have highlighted this - the model has to be constantly readjusted because it is constantly shown to be WRONG. These people couldn't even predict the climate accurately 3 years down the track because of the many different factors which effect climate change, let alone 100 years!

So please, do us all a favour and stop claiming consensus on this issue amongst the scientific community. It is very frustrating. It is very wrong.

I think that's the key point - they don't want to understand the science behind global warming, because it would threaten their denial stance.

That made me laugh. It's YOU who obviously doesn't understand even the most basic science behind the theoretical anthropogenic 'global warming'. You're the person who claims a 1 - 10 metre sea rise in 50 years, a 2 degree temperature increase and you're the person who presented to us a source which claims 'carbon dioxide' is the 'main greenhouse gas'

 

[Trefoil]

It doesn't surprise me that you think global warming is a conspiracy theory, alexdores, considering you think Obama is a communist, the LHC is going to destroy the world, and evolution is a lie.

I'm noticing a trend, but I'm certainly not going to stop you sticking your head in the sand if that is what you wish.

 

[jb_nc]

lol its hilarious that even on here if you dare show one iota of scepticism you are lauded a heretic

 

[ccc123]

There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the THEORY of anthropogenic climate change.

IN FACT, the climate has not warmed since 1998. Explain that.

IN FACT, the IPCC report is fraudulent for the simple fact that it was not properly peer-reviewed. Many contributers of the IPCC report, including Emeritus Proffessor Dr Lindzen, had their names added because they contributed to a small section on a very specialised area. However they did not agree to the findings of the report.

THE IPCC refused to take their names off and only after the threat of legal action have some scientists had their names taken off.

IN FACT, the IPCC predictions are also incorrect and have not correctly modelled the climate. Current measurements have highlighted this - the model has to be constantly readjusted because it is constantly shown to be WRONG. These people couldn't even predict the climate accurately 3 years down the track because of the many different factors which effect climate change, let alone 100 years!

So please, do us all a favour and stop claiming consensus on this issue amongst the scientific community. It is very frustrating. It is very wrong.



That made me laugh. It's YOU who obviously doesn't understand even the most basic science behind the theoretical anthropogenic 'global warming'. You're the person who claims a 1 - 10 metre sea rise in 50 years, a 2 degree temperature increase and you're the person who presented to us a source which claims 'carbon dioxide' is the 'main greenhouse gas'

QFT.

But...I've debated this ad naseum, with those same arguments--to no avail. This issue will always polarise. The divide between the believers and the non-believers can not be reconciled. Its therefore futile arguing.

 

[Trefoil]

lol its hilarious that even on here if you dare show one iota of scepticism you are lauded a heretic

There's a difference between skepticism and conspiracy theories. Alexdores is that difference.

 

[impervious182]

Wow. Thanks for that great, factual rebuttal Trefoil. Erm... though next time, maybe you want to actually address the science which you so fervently claim a monopoly in.

I suggest actually reading over my posts and then writing a reply.

 

[Rafy]

Clearly out of touch with mainstream Australia.

 

[impervious182]

A bunch of batshit insane psuedo-libertarians, wacky commies, muslim extremists, some psychotic neoconservatives - altogether degenerates. Sounds like a standard internet community to me.

Hmm... I don't think anyone here is that extreme. How does that relate to global warming again?

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

Global warming has been diagnosed by staged scientists for monetary benefits.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

This isn't cyclical climate change. Sea levels don't rise 1 to 10 metres in 50 years under "cyclical climate change".

It might be. I am not persuaded by the existing evidence, but either way....

He said he didn't care if it was cyclical or not, he just likes the temperature the way it is. So even if it is not cyclical now climate change will eventually occur that is cyclical and we will not be able to prevent it.

 

[Rockyroad]

Yes, but why is that bad?

You need to do some research. It's bad alright. Imo we're destroying the planet. There are hundreds of bad impacts it will have (not just in the short term). As other people have already said, it will destroy the coral reefs. More extinct species and ecosystems. There will be an increase in tropical diseases. It will also affect the fresh water shortage, food shortage. There will be more natural disasters eg tornados. Less rainfall, more drought, more fire and many more. It is inevitable that our way of living is going to adversely impact the environment. The way we are living is unsustainable.

Read this - I think it answers your question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

 

[iamsickofyear12]

You need to do some research. It's bad alright. Imo we're destroying the planet. There are hundreds of bad impacts it will have (not just in the short term). As other people have already said, it will destroy the coral reefs. More extinct species and ecosystems. There will be an increase in tropical diseases. It will also affect the fresh water shortage, food shortage. There will be more natural disasters eg tornados. Less rainfall, more drought, more fire and many more. It is inevitable that our way of living is going to adversely impact the environment. The way we are living is unsustainable.

So we stop all that from happening now (because we are apparently the cause) but then sometime in the future it happens anyway because of the natural cycle of the earth... what do we do about it then? It seems to me it is going to happen either way. We are better of learning to deal with the consequences rather than trying to stop them.

It especially irritates me when people talk about coral reefs and polar bears. Since when was it our responsibility to babysit them. At some point they are going to die/go extinct. That is how nature works, get over it.

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

We are supposed to be sympathetic about the bears drowning etc. and to gain an international movement whose aim will be to stop all forms of pollution and to generate on clean air, whilst there are millions of people fucking starving through exploitation despite us being in a 21st C.
We need to focus on predominating issues that are clearly occurring instead of issues that many are still debating on whether it even fucking exists.