The Age Of Warming

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
link1

Asked what that would mean for coastal areas around the world, Mayewski tells Pelley, ?If sea level were to rise like that, that would be tremendous changes. Immense migrations.?

"It would be the largest catastrophe that the modern world would have experienced," he adds.

That rise in sea level would play out over decades. Some of it may be inevitable. It turns out that many greenhouse gases last a long time in the atmosphere?there?s a lot up there already.

"If we stopped every automobile every factory, every emission of a greenhouse gas, would the world continue to warm?" Pelley asks Mayewski.

"It would certainly for a while. And I think that?s one of the important thing for people to understand," Mayewski says. "It is important that everybody really begins to make reductions in greenhouse gases all the toxic elements that go along with it in order to impact or to have a change in the future. And once we start it?s not going to be an immediate solution. We?re going to have to pay for a while for what we?ve done."

Anyone catch 60 minutes this week?

A real eye opener. From the nay sayers ... it's getting very very difficult to say no to global warming. This is something the USA is going to have to do better. As we have basically been denying the whole thing exists lately. Sad what our government knows and yet does nothing about it. Way to go!!!

Krill grow beneath the sea ice, but in the warming ocean, the sea ice is melting away.

"So the penguins have been going to sea and starving to death?" Pelley asks.

"The chicks are declining and we think they just can?t find the krill," Sue Trivelpiece says.

"When you can link a change in warming in air temperature to ice to krill to penguins and show a 50 percent reduction in the penguin population here and connect all the dots you really can?t make it any clearer than that,"

link2
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Watched a show on Dire Wolves lastnight. The suspected killer of that species is global warming and the climate change that came with it.

Oh, they died out 10,000 years ago. Damn automobiles!

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,621
6,184
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Watched a show on Dire Wolves lastnight. The suspected killer of that species is global warming and the climate change that came with it.

Oh, they died out 10,000 years ago. Damn automobiles!

entirely moot
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Genx87
Watched a show on Dire Wolves lastnight. The suspected killer of that species is global warming and the climate change that came with it.

Oh, they died out 10,000 years ago. Damn automobiles!

entirely moot

Entirely expected reply.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,621
6,184
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Genx87
Watched a show on Dire Wolves lastnight. The suspected killer of that species is global warming and the climate change that came with it.

Oh, they died out 10,000 years ago. Damn automobiles!

entirely moot

Entirely deserved reply.

fixed
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
If we stopped every automobile every factory, every emission of a greenhouse gas, would the world continue to warm?" Pelley asks Mayewski.

"It would certainly for a while. And I think that?s one of the important thing for people to understand,"
Uh, actually it might for a long time ANYWAY because nobody has a sweet clue how much the warming is being caused by us..
entirely moot
How? Because it doesn't fit the simple cause and effect of man = global warming so reduce man = reduction in warming?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,621
6,184
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If we stopped every automobile every factory, every emission of a greenhouse gas, would the world continue to warm?" Pelley asks Mayewski.

"It would certainly for a while. And I think that?s one of the important thing for people to understand,"
Uh, actually it might for a long time ANYWAY because nobody has a sweet clue how much the warming is being caused by us..
entirely moot
How? Because it doesn't fit the simple cause and effect of man = global warming so reduce man = reduction in warming?

Because this is not 10,000 years ago. Because what causes Global Warming has found a new source that is not Natural. Because we have a very good grasp on how much we are causing Warming.

Genx87 merely spewed the tired rhetoric and strawman that assumes that GW advocates don't know that Temperature variance and Change has happened before. They fully know it and in fact count on past changes to estimate what Current Change might bring.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
I don't care if global warming is happening or not. It's just not a big deal to me.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Watched a show on Dire Wolves lastnight. The suspected killer of that species is global warming and the climate change that came with it.

Oh, they died out 10,000 years ago. Damn automobiles!

Originally posted by: Nebor
I don't care if global warming is happening or not. It's just not a big deal to me.


Stop hurting America. Please.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
entirely moot
How? Because it doesn't fit the simple cause and effect of man = global warming so reduce man = reduction in warming?

You aren't that naive. Its moot because the current warming trend started during the Industrial Revolution, not 10,000 years ago.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Genx87
Watched a show on Dire Wolves lastnight. The suspected killer of that species is global warming and the climate change that came with it.

Oh, they died out 10,000 years ago. Damn automobiles!

Originally posted by: Nebor
I don't care if global warming is happening or not. It's just not a big deal to me.


Stop hurting America. Please.

Sounds like a bumper sticker reply.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Some what of an oh no, not another thread on global warming. The point is, we simply don't know too many things. Right now, any answer science now gives us comes with the baggage of a explosion of other questions as we realize that we know almost nothing about climate cause and effect. And without clear science between cause and effect, we can't make rational predictions, and in that environment, only the most blind but passionate idiots get listened to.

But given what we do know now the only question is.

Do we say we don't know which means that we can safely keep on pumping up greenhouse gases like in the past?

or

Do we do something now even if we are not sure exactly what we should be doing?

Sorry, I favor the latter course.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,826
3,776
136
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Skoorb
entirely moot
How? Because it doesn't fit the simple cause and effect of man = global warming so reduce man = reduction in warming?

You aren't that naive. Its moot because the current warming trend started at the end of the Little Ice Age, not 10,000 years ago.

Fixed!
 

Toastedlightly

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2004
7,213
6
81
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Skoorb
entirely moot
How? Because it doesn't fit the simple cause and effect of man = global warming so reduce man = reduction in warming?

You aren't that naive. Its moot because the current warming trend started during the Industrial Revolution, not 10,000 years ago.

Well, we were in a minor ice age right abound the 1780s era, so yes, we have warmed up since then. Solar cycle? Carbon dioxide? Dihydrogen monoxide? We may never know, but don't just throw money at the problem.
 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
There are those in this world that get all of their news and opinions from conservative talk show hosts. Why they choose to get their science from these radio personalities is beyond me. The VAST majority of scientific opinion (the percentage is so great that if it were the lottery, you'd play every day) indicates that this cycle of global warming is caused by man. I figure it is because the deny'ers have all of their investments in the energy sector.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Better safe than sorry. Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today. Etc.

Even if humans are not the sole cause of global warming (and we aren't), or even a major part of global warming (which most scientists and climatologists will argue we are), isn't reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we expel into the atmosphere a noble goal? Even if they have absolutely no effect on global warming, they are still harmful substances to be pumping into the atmosphere. How can you scoff at people who want to curb pollution?
 

Toastedlightly

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2004
7,213
6
81
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Better safe than sorry. Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today. Etc.

Even if humans are not the sole cause of global warming (and we aren't), or even a major part of global warming (which most scientists and climatologists will argue we are), isn't reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we expel into the atmosphere a noble goal? Even if they have absolutely no effect on global warming, they are still harmful substances to be pumping into the atmosphere. How can you scoff at people who want to curb pollution?


I don't scoff at stopping pollution, but there /is/ an economical limit. Hell, my intended major is chemical engineering w/ emphasis in bio-based products. Sure, limiting pollution is a good thing, but if we shoot our economy in the kneecaps what use will it truely be?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
1. The earth is always either warming or cooling. It is the nature of the universe and its physical laws that nothing remains static.
2. Human intervention is rarely beneficial to the environment.
3. Basing a premise of an if/then speculation is not logical. For example, from the OP, IF "the sea level were to rise like that," THEN "it would be the largest catastrophe that the modern world would have experienced," THEREFORE "it is important that everybody really begins to make reductions in greenhouse gases all the toxic elements that go along with it in order to impact or to have a change in the future."

It is #3 IMO that is most grevious to actual scientific thought. It's the kind of "logic" one would expect from a religious scholar (i.e. Pascal's wager) than from science. Which is why IMO the alarmists always refer to any who questions their worst-case scenario of human-caused global warming as being a "naysayer." My issue, the issue of global warming entirely aside, is that people like the OP are deluded. Global warming is entirely real, but you are using religious-like thought, logic, and action, and pretending to call it science, in order to push through an agenda. That is unforgiveable. You are taking a real threat to humanity and abusing it for the sake of your own desire for control and authority. Worse yet, you're in complete and total ignorant denial of that, just like any faithful should be.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Genx87
Watched a show on Dire Wolves lastnight. The suspected killer of that species is global warming and the climate change that came with it.

Oh, they died out 10,000 years ago. Damn automobiles!

entirely moot

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
There are those in this world that get all of their news and opinions from conservative talk show hosts. Why they choose to get their science from these radio personalities is beyond me. The VAST majority of scientific opinion (the percentage is so great that if it were the lottery, you'd play every day) indicates that this cycle of global warming is caused by man. I figure it is because the deny'ers have all of their investments in the energy sector.

And from what propaganda source are you getting your science then to make these broad, generalizing, black-and-white statements? Where did you get that word, "deny'er"(sic)? Certainly not from science. That word, along with heretic and infidel, is a religious word.

Scientific opinion is never in complete agreement. They might agree that this cycle of global warming is caused by man, but to what extent? They might agree that it is mostly caused by man, but not on the best solution for combatting it. Etc etc.

That's what makes your post so ironic. You're accusing some of being brainwashed by one source, when it is OBVIOUS that you yourself have been brainwashed by another, that you are just regurgitating what you've been fed, and making broad trollish accusations of "shill" to all the infidels. It is sad IMO that some people can be so stupid and ignorant as to be so lacking in independent thought of their own that they automatically assume that everyone else must be the same.

BTW, I'm sure this is way over your head, but global warming is good for the energy companies' profits. An artificial reduction of supply with no let-up in demand equals higher prices and fat profits. Econ 101 right there.
 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
1. The earth is always either warming or cooling. It is the nature of the universe and its physical laws that nothing remains static.
2. Human intervention is rarely beneficial to the environment.
3. Basing a premise of an if/then speculation is not logical. For example, from the OP, IF "the sea level were to rise like that," THEN "it would be the largest catastrophe that the modern world would have experienced," THEREFORE "it is important that everybody really begins to make reductions in greenhouse gases all the toxic elements that go along with it in order to impact or to have a change in the future."

It is #3 IMO that is most grevious to actual scientific thought. It's the kind of "logic" one would expect from a religious scholar (i.e. Pascal's wager) than from science. Which is why IMO the alarmists always refer to any who questions their worst-case scenario of human-caused global warming as being a "naysayer." My issue, the issue of global warming entirely aside, is that people like the OP are deluded. Global warming is entirely real, but you are using religious-like thought, logic, and action, and pretending to call it science, in order to push through an agenda. That is unforgiveable. You are taking a real threat to humanity and abusing it for the sake of your own desire for control and authority. Worse yet, you're in complete and total ignorant denial of that, just like any faithful should be.

The shocking thing here is that all of these peer reviewed SCIENTISTS can't seem to follow the scientific method.
 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
There are those in this world that get all of their news and opinions from conservative talk show hosts. Why they choose to get their science from these radio personalities is beyond me. The VAST majority of scientific opinion (the percentage is so great that if it were the lottery, you'd play every day) indicates that this cycle of global warming is caused by man. I figure it is because the deny'ers have all of their investments in the energy sector.

And from what propaganda source are you getting your science then to make these broad, generalizing, black-and-white statements? Where did you get that word, "deny'er"(sic)? Certainly not from science. That word, along with heretic and infidel, is a religious word.

Scientific opinion is never in complete agreement. They might agree that this cycle of global warming is caused by man, but to what extent? They might agree that it is mostly caused by man, but not on the best solution for combatting it. Etc etc.

That's what makes your post so ironic. You're accusing some of being brainwashed by one source, when it is OBVIOUS that you yourself have been brainwashed by another, that you are just regurgitating what you've been fed, and making broad trollish accusations of "shill" to all the infidels. It is sad IMO that some people can be so stupid and ignorant as to be so lacking in independent thought of their own that they automatically assume that everyone else must be the same.

BTW, I'm sure this is way over your head, but global warming is good for the energy companies' profits. An artificial reduction of supply with no let-up in demand equals higher prices and fat profits. Econ 101 right there.

Sigh. How you aren't President Bush's scientific advisor is beyond me. Your spew has no basis in science whatsoever. You throw out half statements and try and convince yourself and others that these half-truths are evidence that the scientific community is full of morons.

While it is way over my head, renewable energy sources are the enemy of the energy companies, as you are a far superior person to me, I'm sure you knew that. Econ 201.

That I am not a climatologist nor have any training in climatology, I must take my evidence and knowledge from those that are experts. I just wish there was some talking head on the radio that could filter out all of those hard words and give me the air of superiority I so richly deserve. I finally understand what it must be like to have 5000 posts a year compared to 500. Seeing your words in print and therefore thinking that your ideas are THE ideas is a powerful feeling.

Can I have my elite tag now?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Who do you thik is going to develope and deploy many of these renewable energy sources?
I know BP has advertisements about their renewable resource programs, sure others do as well.

 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |