Global warming occuring faster than predicted (2 Viewers)

[Rockyroad]

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.

I never said it is our responsibilty to babysit animals, but it's different when humans are basically directly killing them through global warming etc. It's not just a cycle of nature - it's human intervention eradicating species.
Seems to me that we should try and stop it happening rather than try and deal with the consequences, because species might not die off without us later and there are more effects of global warming than the extinction of animals.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I never said it is our responsibilty to babysit animals, but it's different when humans are basically directly killing them through global warming etc. It's not just a cycle of nature - it's human intervention eradicating species.
Seems to me that we should try and stop it happening rather than try and deal with the consequences, because species might not die off without us later and there are more effects of global warming than the extinction of animals.

So what if we are eradicating species? They aren't going to be there forever. How many different species have gone extinct in the history of the planet... fucking heaps. If polar bears can't survive a small rise in temperature they have no business being alive.

Stopping it from happening is not an option. Assuming we are the cause of the warming that is happening now we can theoretically stop it from happening now... but in the long term it is going to happen either way. If we start going into a cooling period it's not like we can deliberately generate emissions to drive up temperatures. Learning to deal with the consequences is at least feasible.

 

[chicky_pie]

Venus is shrouded in CO2 which is why it keeps getting hotter. Mmmmm you're tears are so yummy.

Yes, lets make babies together.

 

[chicky_pie]

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'

I applaud you, and salute you too!

 

[A High Way Man]

I hav no opinion since i have not studied the matter personally.

 

[jb_nc]

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

lol, please school me with your deep understanding of the science behind it and your knowledge of wikipedia

alternatively, don't pretend to understand the science behind global warming

 

[boris]

Rockyroad fucking irritates me. Weighs into discussions without a single fact to back herself up. "there are hundreds of bad impacts" fucking thank you that sounds like a kid doing their school cert science exam and not knowing the answer.

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

Science is a testing tool used by God so that He can find His true believers.

 

[Dora Explorer]

Jeez.
All you guys do is talk the talk like 'OMG, global warming!'
Well, why don't you do anything about it huh?!
Sitting like potatoes in front of the computer? Is that all you could do!
You should all be ashamed of youRselves! FOR SHAME!
lOLLIES
BTW, you can help save the environment by:
turning unnecsssary lgith OFF!
ANNND getting off the computer - excess electricity!

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

Jeez.
All you guys do is talk the talk like 'OMG, global warming!'
Well, why don't you do anything about it huh?!
Sitting like potatoes in front of the computer? Is that all you could do!
You should all be ashamed of youRselves! FOR SHAME!
lOLLIES
BTW, you can help save the environment by:
turning unnecsssary lgith OFF!
ANNND getting off the computer - excess electricity!

09...thank god

 

[boris]

lol "injected with stupid"


Dora the explorer is right. I read (will provide evidence later) yesterday that 5% of the worlds electricity/power (cant remember) is used by the internet. Im assuming that is, used to run the internet plus all the computers using it etc?

Edit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/09/prweb555778.htm

wow evidence, its amazing what i can do for your arguments. Like sometimes it actually makes them vaild.

 

[Kwayera]

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.

Yes, they underestimated it. Pissed me off because I had to change all my figures and calculations in an assignment. Besides, even if it was only 54cm, do you know how significant that is?

They predicted that the temperature would continue to rise, where it has decreased since 1998.

False.

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.

False.

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.

I don't listen to Al Gore, so kindly stop bringing him up. You're embarrassing yourself.

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.

54cm, as based on the underestimated figures (admittedly bad science there - damage forecasts should really be overestimated), is a fucktonne of SLR.

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.

Not necessarily an acid rain problem, and while it's technologically unfeasible, it's hypothetically sound.

Oh, but you don't know the difference between theory, hypothesis and what both actually mean, do you?

Theory: That word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

science is based upon faith. much like religion. personally i'd prefer to put my faith in God than in some quack science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

 

[Rockyroad]

lol, please school me with your deep understanding of the science behind it and your knowledge of wikipedia

alternatively, don't pretend to understand the science behind global warming

I never pretended to understand the science behind global warming. I didn't even talk about the science behind global warming. So what are you talking about? You didn't understand why global warming is bad and I listed like 10 bad impacts that I know of and then I cited a wiki article. woopee. Try reading it, wiki's not always unreliable, stop jumping to conclusions. I never said I had a deep understanding but I'l school you if you want.

 

[Silver Persian]

science is based upon faith. much like religion. personally i'd prefer to put my faith in God than in some quack science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Nebs, is Lord Iron controlling you with that arm up your butt?

 

[Rockyroad]

Rockyroad fucking irritates me. Weighs into discussions without a single fact to back herself up. "there are hundreds of bad impacts" fucking thank you that sounds like a kid doing their school cert science exam and not knowing the answer.

Ha yea whatever. I gave my opinion'/broad statement (hundreds of bad impacts), then I gave 10 impacts. Not a single fact? I even cited where there are even more impacts than the ones I gave. wow evidence. and at the bottom of every wiki article there are even more citations. shock. It's amazing what evidence can do for your argument. Don't you think your opinion of me from other threads influenced your attack? You jumped at the opportunity to criticize rockyroad (who you don't like) too bad it's so invalid. Your post was a generalisation with no true evidence. So ironic.

 

[jb_nc]

I never pretended to understand the science behind global warming.

Oh, ok.

I didn't even talk about the science behind global warming.

Um, pretty sure the impacts, bad or not, stem from the science behind climate change.

So what are you talking about?

Omg! I can repost a Wikipedia article. Surely no one has read that before.

You didn't understand why global warming is bad

No, I said why is it [that specific impact] bad...

and I listed like 10 bad impacts that I know of

Cool, you're obviously knowledgeable. Ten is one more than nine, after all.

and then I cited a wiki article. woopee.

Even better! I love wikipedia!

Try reading it,

No.

wiki's not always unreliable,

It is not a proper source.

stop jumping to conclusions.

Stop posting.

I never said I had a deep understanding

No, you just pretended you did.

but I'l school you if you want.

Oh, ok gb2yr12.

 

[boris]

Learn source evaluation lol.

Prweb.

lollin

Seriously though lets turn off the whole internet and go back to the stone age

they taught me that at the unisverstiy


Thats the best i could do because i cant get hold of the actual published report because it is 9yrs old.

would energy consumption by computers have increased since then? not overall, just on a per computer basis?

 

[boris]

Ha yea whatever. I gave my opinion'/broad statement (hundreds of bad impacts), then I gave 10 impacts. Not a single fact? I even cited where there are even more impacts than the ones I gave. wow evidence. and at the bottom of every wiki article there are even more citations. shock. It's amazing what evidence can do for your argument. Don't you think your opinion of me from other threads influenced your attack? You jumped at the opportunity to criticize rockyroad (who you don't like) too bad it's so invalid. Your post was a generalisation with no true evidence. So ironic.

Should change your name to Rockyretard. So ironic.

 

[boris]

Quite possibly. Up till about 2005 we were moving for more pure power, fuck the energy costs. Now we're measuring based on power per watt and the draw is reducing slightly. Keep in mind most of the computer equipment in the world is hell old. My new Macbook has a 75W draw, my old one had a 120W draw. New PC has a 520W max draw, old one was like 600W.

Stuff is getting less power hungry, which is good.

Yeah so overall computer/internet power usage would have increased a fuckload due to the fact that there were only 200million computers in 1999.