NationStates Jolt Archive

The Global warming debate has been simmering for the last couple of months with new developments and some freak bouts of cold weather that seem to disprove every single theory that the current Global Warming pushers have been putting forth.

Take for example the recent "Mini-cyclone" that hit Eastern Australia, or the enormous blizards and mudlsides that have ravaged America.
These incidents of extreme cold weather, occuring with more frequence over the last five years, go against the enviromentalists theories of the entire planet heating up and undergoing extreme drought.

Even if the entire globe is heating up rapidly, there's still a major doubt on whether or not Global warming is actually caused by man or simply part of the planet's natural system.

Take a look at how modern life works.

Every 100,000 years (This started after the dinosaur era as that was the age of volcanic activity) the planet has had an ice age, causing most of the planet to freeze over before warming up again, and every time it has left a massive polar ice cap. This slowly melts away over the 100,000 years... and the cold water of the arctic meets the warm water of the south... and freezes. Most of both hemispheres of the planet are frozen from the pole to a few hundred miles from the equator. Slowly the planet warms back up, after a few thousand years the ice melts back to the poles and the cycle begins again.

I believe it is a natural occurence, but sped up by global warming. But remember the golden rules:

1. Life finds a way.
2. The Earth always balances out it's indifferences.
3. Mankind survived the last Ice age, we'll certainly get through this one. It will merely be "Population control."

It is estimated that the ice age will begin around 2050, so start getting those warm clothes in...

The Global warming debate has been simmering for the last couple of months with new developments and some freak bouts of cold weather that seem to disprove every single theory that the current Global Warming pushers have been putting forth.

Eeehm, no. Those freak bouts of cold weather actually fit global warming theories. Do note the bolded word here. According to those theories Europe will even get a lot colder if the gulfstream changes and if the icecaps melt things will also get a lot wetter and colder in many regions of the world.
Unfortunately many people seem to think that global warming means 'it will get hotter everywhere', instead of 'the earth is losing less heat to space than it did'.

Even if the entire globe is heating up rapidly, there's still a major doubt on whether or not Global warming is actually caused by man or simply part of the planet's natural system.

Do understand that a rise of only a few degrees is enough to kill most sealife. But you are right: it has not been proven that humans are responsible. But even if it is natural.. it might not be unwise to try to stop it.

i think its a combination of both

i think its a combination of both

Anyone who reads my post will get the idea. It is natural, but Global warming is speeding it up.

Eeehm, no. Those freak bouts of cold weather actually fit global warming theories. Do note the bolded word here. According to those theories Europe will even get a lot colder if the gulfstream changes and if the icecaps melt things will also get a lot wetter and colder in many regions of the world.
Unfortunately many people seem to think that global warming means 'it will get hotter everywhere', instead of 'the earth is losing less heat to space than it did'.



Do understand that a rise of only a few degrees is enough to kill most sealife. But you are right: it has not been proven that humans are responsible. But even if it is natural.. it might not be unwise to try to stop it.

Wasn't that Gulf Stream idea the whole premise behind that ridculus Day after Tomorrow movie? The definition of what you said is "Climate Change" Notice how several years ago, all the environmentalists say that the Earth will definitely get hotter and the droughts will get longer, when now they are saying that there will be more bouts of extreme storms and cold weather.
And as for stopping Global warming, you do understand the enormous financial cost of trying to cut down pollution that big countries like the US will be put through?

Wasn't that Gulf Stream idea the whole premise behind that ridculus Day after Tomorrow movie?

Possibly - I haven't seen it.

The definition of what you said is "Climate Change"

Climate change as result of global warming to be exact. Or if you prefer "as a result of an increased greenhouse effect", which indeed is more accurate.

Notice how several years ago, all the environmentalists say that the Earth will definitely get hotter and the droughts will get longer, when now they are saying that there will be more bouts of extreme storms and cold weather.
According to some theories *eventually* the average temperature everywhere on the world would indeed be higher. But there are intermediate stages, where in some places it will get colder, some places it will get wetter etc.
And that people yelled one thing a few years ago and another thing now does not automatically mean the things they say now are invalid (though I admit the "crying wolf" tale comes to mind)

And as for stopping Global warming, you do understand the enormous financial cost of trying to cut down pollution that big countries like the US will be put through?

Yes. Your point ?

Take a look at how modern life works.

Every 100,000 years (This started after the dinosaur era as that was the age of volcanic activity) the planet has had an ice age, causing most of the planet to freeze over before warming up again, and every time it has left a massive polar ice cap. This slowly melts away over the 100,000 years... and the cold water of the arctic meets the warm water of the south... and freezes. Most of both hemispheres of the planet are frozen from the pole to a few hundred miles from the equator. Slowly the planet warms back up, after a few thousand years the ice melts back to the poles and the cycle begins again.

I believe it is a natural occurence, but sped up by global warming. But remember the golden rules:

1. Life finds a way.
2. The Earth always balances out it's indifferences.
3. Mankind survived the last Ice age, we'll certainly get through this one. It will merely be "Population control."

It is estimated that the ice age will begin around 2050, so start getting those warm clothes in...

You've forgotten that the world will end on December 11, 2012. The Mayans said so. :D

You've forgotten that the world will end on December 11, 2012. The Mayans said so. :D

Ah yes... by Earthquakes I understand... Better get some asprin. That's gonna cause quite a headache with all that shaking...

I think it doesn't matter is it man made or natural... Or perhaps natural and mankind is speeding it up... But I believe those scientict who say that it's going
to have a huge impact on the near future... (Not sure thou) :(

Wasn't that Gulf Stream idea the whole premise behind that ridculus Day after Tomorrow movie? The definition of what you said is "Climate Change" Notice how several years ago, all the environmentalists say that the Earth will definitely get hotter and the droughts will get longer, when now they are saying that there will be more bouts of extreme storms and cold weather.
And as for stopping Global warming, you do understand the enormous financial cost of trying to cut down pollution that big countries like the US will be put through?

Yes, it was the premise behind DAT. However, Hollywood can exaggerate anything, not just global warming theories. Most scientists who study global warming said DAT was waaaaaaaaay over the top. I don't know of a single reputable scientist who said global warming was going to occur with a single OMGub3rstorm--that was Hollywood, not science.

As for the inconsistencies that you point out, ultra-long range forcasting (like over a period of years) is still in its infancy. And worldwide climate shifts are not uniform--take El Nino patterns for example. Some parts of the world get hotter/drier during an El Nino year, and others get cooler/wetter. Global warming will not affect every square inch of the planet in the same way.

As my (Republican) grandmother put it, "You can't expect to put billions of tons of stuff in the atmosphere that doesn't belong there and expect it to remain the same."

Regarding the economic costs, there are benefits to addressing the problem to offset the costs. The most obvious being that if the predicted sea level rise is stemmed, we won't have to worry about trillions in economic damages worldwide because of loss of coastline. There are other benefits to environmentalism, too, such as a reduced strain on the healthcare system (a tenth of our GDP goes to healthcare, which is obscene, and breathing pollutants isn't good for your lungs at all), and added tourism might actually be a bonus. :)

Doing nothing will hurt our economy too, as oil becomes scarcer and therefore more expensive. No, it won't run out tomorrow, but geologists pretty much expect the world's oil production to peak within the next ten years or so. The US government, not wanting to alarm its complacent citizens, puts this production peak far later, in the 2040's, I think. National Geographic ran an article (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/) on Peak Oil a few months back. If nothing else, Peak Oil will force us to address global warming issues---or our economy crashes when oil goes into the hundreds of dollars per barrel. And don't think it won't happen when oil becomes scarce enough.

Wasn't that Gulf Stream idea the whole premise behind that ridculus Day after Tomorrow movie? The definition of what you said is "Climate Change" Notice how several years ago, all the environmentalists say that the Earth will definitely get hotter and the droughts will get longer, when now they are saying that there will be more bouts of extreme storms and cold weather.


So, if theories were not entirely correct when first put forth, is that some sort of proof that further studies and research which have corrected them must also be wrong?

Or is it an indication that people looked into a subject seriously and developed a better theoretical model of the ongoing environmental changes.

Frankly, in the 70s when the theories were first really comming out the average researcher didn't have the computing horsepower to model the environment properly. Now they have a much better understanding and much better access to systems to let them test their threories.


And as for stopping Global warming, you do understand the enormous financial cost of trying to cut down pollution that big countries like the US will be put through?

Well, if it's all about money, then I suppose everything should be Okey-dokey. Damn the environment as long as corporations make as much cash as possible before the poop hits the rotating blades. After all, that is MUCH more important than people.

BTW, has it occurred to you that these costs are a non-issue from an overal standpoint if you also lead the way in developing the technologies to deal with the problems? Forcing a factory to put emmissions controls on their smokestack is a cost to them, but it is also revenue to the factory down the road who builds the emmisssions control equipment. As long as you buy domestic, it is an economically neutral issue from a GDP standpoint, and has the added bonus of creating jobs in the field of environmental systems which then actually boosts your bottom line as these newly employed people boost their consumption.