Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[Tifone]

Explaining that one would be welcome instead I think

[Edi]

If we intend to be serious about stopping the man-made effect that contributes to (as opposed to being the sole cause of) global warming, all of us would have to take a massive hit into our lifestyles, is what he means, I suspect.

It just so happens that the 650 skeptics are a drop in a bucket compared to the larger body of climate scientists who have achieved a consensus that humans have a significant effect on global warming, increasing it. That's comparable to some intelligent design proponents who made a lo tof hay about some Steve somebody who was a scientist and backed their crazy ideas. An Australian organization of scientists signed up 700 scientists from that same field whose first name was Steve to refute his bull**** and in the glkobal warming discussion, the 650 denier scientists are a comparable example.

The primary cause of global warming is build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably CO2. The amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased fivefold in the last 150 years and almost all of that carbon has a radiological footprint of being millions or tens or hundreds of millions of years in age. That means that nearly all of it is of fossil origin, i.e. coal. Unless that is taken out of the atmosphere by some means, there is no way to return to the same mechanisms that caused the early medieval warm bump and the mini ice age in the 1600s.

The increase of the greenhouse gases leads to less reradiation of heat into space, so the earth absorbs more from the sun than it emits back out on the night side. Increase of temperature causes the ice caps to melt, which reduces albedo, which again reduces the amount reflected and reradiated out.

If there are slight dips and and bumps in a curve that overall has an upward trend, the individual dips and bumps don't mean much. Likewise, a transitory local weather phenomenon does not mean much, because the heat distribution throughout the world is not even by a long shot and local variation can be significant without impacting the overall trends at all.

There are also some other factors that cause variation. Large volcanic eruptions cool temperatures because of the obscuring effect the ash has on the sun, causing less heat to reach the ground. Another factor on the geological timescales is continental placement. The earth has been much warmer at some points, because during those periods there was no Central American isthmus to block the warm equatorial current that would have counteracted the effect of the cold currents circling Antarctica and some other continents were likewise in other places.

The fact that things have been warmer in the past is also not at all an argument for why warming back up to those temperatures would be beneficial for humankind as a whole, because our current societies were built during a colder period and the warming is causing a LOT of damage to the environment. That is an undisputed fact and only a fool would argue nothing should be done to mitigate that damage.

[Endoperez]

I'd just like to mention that Edi's post on page 5 was the most impressive thing I've seen today.

Edi is Finnish, ergo, not a native English speaker.

He just argued using scientific English. I can understand it, but using it? Way above my level of comfort.


Salute!

[lch]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

He just argued using scientific English. I can understand it, but using it? Way above my level of comfort.

copypasta!

[Edi]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

I'd just like to mention that Edi's post on page 5 was the most impressive thing I've seen today.

Edi is Finnish, ergo, not a native English speaker.

He just argued using scientific English. I can understand it, but using it? Way above my level of comfort.


Salute!

Thanks for the compliment.

I've read so much English down the years that I speak it at a native level unless we're talking about some very specific fields like medicine, advanced math, cooking and similar areas that I have not been exposed to that much.

I didn't even consider my post to be anything special, as about the only complex term it contains is 'albedo' (i.e. reflective capability).

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Edi

If we intend to be serious about stopping the man-made effect that contributes to (as opposed to being the sole cause of) global warming, all of us would have to take a massive hit into our lifestyles, is what he means, I suspect.

It just so happens that the 650 skeptics are a drop in a bucket compared to the larger body of climate scientists who have achieved a consensus that humans have a significant effect on global warming, increasing it. That's comparable to some intelligent design proponents who made a lo tof hay about some Steve somebody who was a scientist and backed their crazy ideas. An Australian organization of scientists signed up 700 scientists from that same field whose first name was Steve to refute his bull**** and in the glkobal warming discussion, the 650 denier scientists are a comparable example.

The primary cause of global warming is build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably CO2. The amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased fivefold in the last 150 years and almost all of that carbon has a radiological footprint of being millions or tens or hundreds of millions of years in age. That means that nearly all of it is of fossil origin, i.e. coal. Unless that is taken out of the atmosphere by some means, there is no way to return to the same mechanisms that caused the early medieval warm bump and the mini ice age in the 1600s.

The increase of the greenhouse gases leads to less reradiation of heat into space, so the earth absorbs more from the sun than it emits back out on the night side. Increase of temperature causes the ice caps to melt, which reduces albedo, which again reduces the amount reflected and reradiated out.

If there are slight dips and and bumps in a curve that overall has an upward trend, the individual dips and bumps don't mean much. Likewise, a transitory local weather phenomenon does not mean much, because the heat distribution throughout the world is not even by a long shot and local variation can be significant without impacting the overall trends at all.

There are also some other factors that cause variation. Large volcanic eruptions cool temperatures because of the obscuring effect the ash has on the sun, causing less heat to reach the ground. Another factor on the geological timescales is continental placement. The earth has been much warmer at some points, because during those periods there was no Central American isthmus to block the warm equatorial current that would have counteracted the effect of the cold currents circling Antarctica and some other continents were likewise in other places.

The fact that things have been warmer in the past is also not at all an argument for why warming back up to those temperatures would be beneficial for humankind as a whole, because our current societies were built during a colder period and the warming is causing a LOT of damage to the environment. That is an undisputed fact and only a fool would argue nothing should be done to mitigate that damage.

There are more than 11,000 sceptics, not 650.

I tend to agree carbon emissions ahve increased temperatures. However, I by no means accept it as fact.

Kind of doesn't matter, does it? We have to go on the best guess we have. Lots of scientists think CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming, then perhaps it behooves us to adopt nuclear energy.

[Tifone]

Lol, I knew Edi was about to arrive in the thread (I remember a previous discussion on the topic)

[licker]

The fact that things have been warmer in the past is also not at all an argument for why warming back up to those temperatures would be beneficial for humankind as a whole, because our current societies were built during a colder period and the warming is causing a LOT of damage to the environment. That is an undisputed fact and only a fool would argue nothing should be done to mitigate that damage.

This is funny. Our societies may have been built during colder times (I assume you are talking about 5-10k years ago?) , but proliferated as the temperatures got warmer.

Warm is better than cold for crops, for animals, for people (as a general statement). As you say, only a fool would argue the contrary.

[sum1lost]

Originally Posted by licker

This is funny. Our societies may have been built during colder times (I assume you are talking about 5-10k years ago?) , but proliferated as the temperatures got warmer.

Warm is better than cold for crops, for animals, for people (as a general statement). As you say, only a fool would argue the contrary.

Warm is not always better for crops, animals and people. You'd have to be a fool to argue that it is. Most animals will not find it easier to survive in warmer climates, as many animals and plants are adapted to a specfic range of temperatures. The ones that will are usually endotherms, and a few other larger species. The one's you are familiar with. The animals and plants they eat are somewhat more fragile, and will collapse in the face of rapid climate change. Someone already mentioned coral reefs- they have already reached their threshold. Something fun? Coral reefs recycle a significant amount of C02 back into oxygen, and support a huge number of species. When they die, an appreciable amount of animals will go with them.

A number of animals and plants in various areas live in what, until now, was a remarkably stable climate- equatorial climates, usually. They can't migrate readily and those that normally would are in many cases trapped due to development of surrounding land. There are a huge number of animal and plant species that are likely to go extinct because it will get warmer.

Evolution isn't going to save anything's bacon that doesn't reproduce faster than fruitflies, as a lot of this is happening too quickly.

Speaking of fruitflies, a trait has been spreading in more northern flies that until recently was only found in flies from southern climates, and that trait was linked to climate. They are winning the race against climate change, but fruitflies are incredibly mobile and have a remarkable level of gene diversity and cross populaiton breeding due to human transportation of them. Most species that have been looked at are not nearly so likely to take it in stride.

[cleveland]