Global warming
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,478
Likes: 0
So the question of whether we should worry or not is the relevant one. Like a famous movie cop said: How lucky do you feel?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 0
From: EstesPark/BocaRaton
Well, expertise and all, I just moved to hurricane alley three weeks before it got hit by a major storm (they're talking about the third or fourth most costly storm ever, strangely enough). So I may not be representative of people generally in the level of risk I'm willing to invite into my life.
On the other hand, I use expensive PC virus and spy-ware search-and-destroy software that most people just blow off. So I guess it's all in whatever your personal priorities are. HPH
On the other hand, I use expensive PC virus and spy-ware search-and-destroy software that most people just blow off. So I guess it's all in whatever your personal priorities are. HPH
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,868
Likes: 1,058
I would bet the Earth is always changing it's temperature, it would be unusual if it was constant. The issue is are we as a species either causing or affecting the temperature swing.
In some way we probably are but I don't think there's enough evidence to state forthright that human civilization is the cause. We are just a nanosecond on world clock or less. Our overall knowledge of climatic history is still pretty much a guess. Our accurate weather data is less than a century old.
I think there's a lot of Chicken Littles out there. Either way, I'm not going to worry about it.
fltsfshr
In some way we probably are but I don't think there's enough evidence to state forthright that human civilization is the cause. We are just a nanosecond on world clock or less. Our overall knowledge of climatic history is still pretty much a guess. Our accurate weather data is less than a century old.
I think there's a lot of Chicken Littles out there. Either way, I'm not going to worry about it.
fltsfshr
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,130
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Nov 10 2005, 12:13 AM
That's fine. Don't take my word for it. Do the research yourself.
There is enough data out here now to have a definite answer. I can understand you not just taking me as an authority, especially since I'm a secondary authority at best. But I'm personally convinced by the preponderance of data I have seen. I encourage you to look at the data and decide for yourself.
There is enough data out here now to have a definite answer. I can understand you not just taking me as an authority, especially since I'm a secondary authority at best. But I'm personally convinced by the preponderance of data I have seen. I encourage you to look at the data and decide for yourself.
I guess what I am saying is, tell me what is about what you have read or heard that convinces you on a scientific level. Some here (and I'm not saying you Mike)are throwing in some ad-hominem comments about those who don't agree with the theory. I don't find those comments very helpful, and they are certainly not persuasive. While it is fine to comment about someone's bias, I prefer to look at the data, compare the conclusions, and then make up my mind.
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,130
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Originally Posted by fltsfshr,Nov 10 2005, 01:58 PM
I would bet the Earth is always changing it's temperature, it would be unusual if it was constant. The issue is are we as a species either causing or affecting the temperature swing.
In some way we probably are but I don't think there's enough evidence to state forthright that human civilization is the cause. We are just a nanosecond on world clock or less. Our overall knowledge of climatic history is still pretty much a guess. Our accurate weather data is less than a century old.
I think there's a lot of Chicken Littles out there. Either way, I'm not going to worry about it.
fltsfshr
In some way we probably are but I don't think there's enough evidence to state forthright that human civilization is the cause. We are just a nanosecond on world clock or less. Our overall knowledge of climatic history is still pretty much a guess. Our accurate weather data is less than a century old.
I think there's a lot of Chicken Littles out there. Either way, I'm not going to worry about it.
fltsfshr
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
From: Fair Oaks
I believe that the average global temperature is increasing and that we are contributing to the increase. I too, however, wonder if our contribution is only a little "static" on what might be a larger natural phenomena.
As I understand, we are in an inter-glacial period and are over-due for a change. If that were the case, a little global warming might be a good thing.
This link contains some graphs depicting climatic changes over the distant past.
[URL=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/072.htm]
As I understand, we are in an inter-glacial period and are over-due for a change. If that were the case, a little global warming might be a good thing.
This link contains some graphs depicting climatic changes over the distant past.
[URL=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/072.htm]
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 20
From: Arlington Heights, IL
Coupla thoughts:
-My understanding was that when people talk about "Global Warming," they were talking about pollution causing the hole in the ozone to heat up the earth, etc etc. They weren't talking about the earth's natural climactic cycles. So when a guy like me questions global warming, I am questioning man's effects on climactic changes, not climactic change as a whole.
-Furthermore, I question the relevance, impact, and extent of the changes we may be making. One post above discussed the effects of the entire Arctic melting. That is not a likely occurance in the next 200 years at the rate we are currently moving, so while it may be interesting in a scientific discussion sense, it is not relevant in a policy-making sense. We need to look at the realistic outcomes and base our reactions on those outcomes. Just as I don't believe in restricting the use of 10 miles of waterfront to protect one turtle that may or may not inhabit that coast, I don't believe in spending billions upon billions of dollars to prevent a climate change of 1 or 2 degrees over multiple decades. In my personal Risk/Benefit evaluations, that does not make sense nor is it a reasonable reaction.
-My understanding was that when people talk about "Global Warming," they were talking about pollution causing the hole in the ozone to heat up the earth, etc etc. They weren't talking about the earth's natural climactic cycles. So when a guy like me questions global warming, I am questioning man's effects on climactic changes, not climactic change as a whole.
-Furthermore, I question the relevance, impact, and extent of the changes we may be making. One post above discussed the effects of the entire Arctic melting. That is not a likely occurance in the next 200 years at the rate we are currently moving, so while it may be interesting in a scientific discussion sense, it is not relevant in a policy-making sense. We need to look at the realistic outcomes and base our reactions on those outcomes. Just as I don't believe in restricting the use of 10 miles of waterfront to protect one turtle that may or may not inhabit that coast, I don't believe in spending billions upon billions of dollars to prevent a climate change of 1 or 2 degrees over multiple decades. In my personal Risk/Benefit evaluations, that does not make sense nor is it a reasonable reaction.
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,130
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Originally Posted by FO2K,Nov 10 2005, 02:49 PM
I believe that the average global temperature is increasing and that we are contributing to the increase. I too, however, wonder if our contribution is only a little "static" on what might be a larger natural phenomena.
As I understand, we are in an inter-glacial period and are over-due for a change. If that were the case, a little global warming might be a good thing.
This link contains some graphs depicting climatic changes over the distant past.
[URL=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/072.htm]
As I understand, we are in an inter-glacial period and are over-due for a change. If that were the case, a little global warming might be a good thing.
This link contains some graphs depicting climatic changes over the distant past.
[URL=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/072.htm]
I guess my real problem is I read the text and conclusions in some of the reports, but then the accompanying graphs and data don't seem to provide the level of support for the text that I would have suspected. I'll admit I'm no expert, and I really don't understand some of the technical references. That said, I'm guessing I could learn enough to figure this out.
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,130
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Originally Posted by Chris Stack,Nov 10 2005, 03:08 PM
Coupla thoughts:
-My understanding was that when people talk about "Global Warming," they were talking about pollution causing the hole in the ozone to heat up the earth, etc etc. They weren't talking about the earth's natural climactic cycles. So when a guy like me questions global warming, I am questioning man's effects on climactic changes, not climactic change as a whole.
-Furthermore, I question the relevance, impact, and extent of the changes we may be making. One post above discussed the effects of the entire Arctic melting. That is not a likely occurance in the next 200 years at the rate we are currently moving, so while it may be interesting in a scientific discussion sense, it is not relevant in a policy-making sense. We need to look at the realistic outcomes and base our reactions on those outcomes. Just as I don't believe in restricting the use of 10 miles of waterfront to protect one turtle that may or may not inhabit that coast, I don't believe in spending billions upon billions of dollars to prevent a climate change of 1 or 2 degrees over multiple decades. In my personal Risk/Benefit evaluations, that does not make sense nor is it a reasonable reaction.
-My understanding was that when people talk about "Global Warming," they were talking about pollution causing the hole in the ozone to heat up the earth, etc etc. They weren't talking about the earth's natural climactic cycles. So when a guy like me questions global warming, I am questioning man's effects on climactic changes, not climactic change as a whole.
-Furthermore, I question the relevance, impact, and extent of the changes we may be making. One post above discussed the effects of the entire Arctic melting. That is not a likely occurance in the next 200 years at the rate we are currently moving, so while it may be interesting in a scientific discussion sense, it is not relevant in a policy-making sense. We need to look at the realistic outcomes and base our reactions on those outcomes. Just as I don't believe in restricting the use of 10 miles of waterfront to protect one turtle that may or may not inhabit that coast, I don't believe in spending billions upon billions of dollars to prevent a climate change of 1 or 2 degrees over multiple decades. In my personal Risk/Benefit evaluations, that does not make sense nor is it a reasonable reaction.