Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With all due respect you haven’t been around long enough to realize a lot of this is political fear mongering. I’m all for the EPA, not burning coal and leaded gas, etc, but those are for health reasons.
If a fraction of what the “experts” in the scientific community said back when I was a kid in the 1970’s & 80’s ever came true life as we know it today would be unrecognizable. You don’t even need to go back that far, just watch Al Gore’s movie from a dozen years ago and look at all the misinformation and inaccuracies used, and predictions that came up short.
First it was global cooling, then global warming, now they just hedged their bets and call it climate change. The climate has been changing long before man ever started mucking things up, and will continue to long after we’re gone.
Like I said I’m all for protecting the earth, I’m just not gonna lose sleep over life drastically changing, or the world coming to its end. They already got me once with that.
I recommend you take a step back and look at both sides of the argument objectively. Just like most things in life you’ll find the truth somewhere in the middle.
Yup, I grew up in 70s and 80s and I remember all of what you cited. From a new ice age to having to wear a mask to go outside, I remember all of it. They told us by this time that stuff was going to happen. Many of these young people have been fed this nonsense in a much more forceful way than we were. We rejected it then as nonsense and it was dismissed. Today you are chastised for not believing it (if your young) and it is now their generational dogma. I wonder if in 30 years they will question it, time will tell.
So you're a psychic and you KNOW what will happen in the future? Maybe these projections are not absurd ..
We are already seeing signs of global warming … especially in the polar icecaps. Sea levels are also rising and some could be completely under water … 60 years is not that long of a time … I could still be alive by then
What actually happens with global warming depends on changes in the prevailing patterns of the jet stream and other wind belts. So some of these projections are certainly feasible, others are nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speagles84
The average temperature change from 1951-80 to 1991-2018 of those cities is +0.8F over 40 years. So magically ita going to go to +11.4 in those same cities in the next 80? Yes it's an absurd projection that not many will believe and pushes the center away from believing in climate change.
True, though there are suggestions that the climate change process is naturally non-linear.
I think this map is nothing but conjecture. I mean, as someone else pointed out, look at the 60 year projection for Dallas, and then for Denton, TX. These two cities are close together. And yet one is going to be 33 percent drier and like an area of Mexico and the other is going to be more humid and like an area of south Louisiana? And yet, right down the road, in Tyler, TX it's back like Mexico again? Sorry, not buying it.
So what causes the mid evil warm period? The little ice age? Human activity did all this? The industrial revolution had not even happened so you cannot blame human actiyfor these long term climate events. How can you prove humans are responsible for the warming we see now? I don’t believe you can, other than to cite biased studies on the subject. Global warming is a political fear tactic used to advance a certain political agenda.
You keep citing this one example, so I'll engage. You did not reply to my last post, so I hope you are actually reading these.
1) The Medieval Warm Period was not uniformly warm across the world. The Northern Atlantic was much warmer (see: Viking Exploration), while other parts of the world were cooler, namely the tropical pacific. Averaging these out, the warming is similar to the warming we saw in the early 20th century.
3) The causes of the Medieval Warm Period were higher levels of solar radiation and less volcanic activity, as well as ocean circulation moving warmer water to the North Atlantic.
4) Your argument is inherently flawed. The theory of anthropogenic global warming in not invalidated by other natural phenomena. The logic behind my prior argument (humans spike CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels, leading to worsened greenhouse effect) is very simple and proven with prior historical events, such as the Permian Mass Extinction. No, there were no European empires pumping out CO2 back then, but there were massive volcanic eruptions that spiked CO2 levels, leading to a sharply worsened greenhouse effect. The aforementioned information also coincides with the greenhouse effect, as increased solar radiation on the earth would bring more initial heat in, regardless of how much CO2 was in the atmosphere to trap it.
5) Saying "everything is politically biased!" is not an argument. I find it funny you keep yelling about biased influence, when you are clearly using arguments that would save major industries from further environmental oversight.
Much of this can be explained with science. Regardless of what is said here, I will be, quite unfortunately, vindicated with time. As I said in my previous post, mankind should have began to act 50 years ago. It is too late, in my opinion. Even if the US is somehow able to get on the same page as the entire rest of the planet on this issue in the next few years (lol, we will need a few decades and a few punishing storm seasons for that), there is no way the US, China, India, and other major polluters can cut down in time. Maybe the EU's 1 trillion dollar pledge will off something amazing, and I hope tree-planting efforts in South Asia intensify even further to stave off desertification, but I am not holding my breath.
Last edited by sad_hotline; 02-26-2019 at 10:16 AM..
Minneapolis in 2080 will climatologically feel like Lansing, Kansas, which means significantly warmer winters with little to no snow.
This is worrisome because it's going to radically change the nature of the ecosystem here. A lot of Minnesota's beautiful North Woods flora and fauna will be too stressed to survive, and invading species from the south will wreak havoc in native landscapes.
A lot of people seem to be of the impression that climate change could be "beneficial" for colder climates, but it's actually going to be devastating.
Exactly. Agriculture is going to take devastating blows. This is a national security risk and a large portion of the population (including many in power) are still blinded by the propaganda of denialism.
Exactly. Agriculture is going to take devastating blows. This is a national security risk and a large portion of the population (including many in power) are still blinded by the propaganda of denialism.
The American Farmland Trust has reported a 3.2% loss of total farmland in from 1992-2012. I imagine it's not going to improve. Canada will see more arable land though, so I imagine we will import a bit more from them. (EDIT: See TacoSoup's post below. The land lost is due to urbanization, and this would worsen climate change by lessening carbon sequestration, as per the American Farmland Trust).
Deniers are irksome, but most everyone is moving past them. I'm usually doom & gloom, but there are plenty of examples of organizations taking action. The US Department of Defense has projection reports on how its bases will be affected, as well as the larger issues that will emerge (https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ort-01-19.html). Many corporations and cities alike are building storm barriers, including petroleum refineries especially along the Gulf Coast. The EU has pledged 1 trillion in support of climate change efforts. China, most heavily affected by pollution, is striving to take the technological lead from the US/West and make a massive "green push". There are many places, like India, that are planting trees en masse, which will aid in carbon sequestration and prevention of further desertification.
We, the world, face many challenges. When I say "we won't act in time", I mean we will certainly get hit by it hard in one way or another, but I don't think it will totally catastrophic with so many people across the world taking action, so don't be disheartened.
Last edited by sad_hotline; 02-26-2019 at 02:32 PM..
The American Farmland Trust has reported a 3.2% loss of total farmland in from 1992-2012. I imagine it's not going to improve.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, lol. You do realize that the farmland lost in question was due to development and not climate change as you’re trying to suggest. Or did you purposely leave that tidbit out to make a point? Whether you were told that without knowing, or deceitfully left it out, it’s misinformation for this discussion.
I went to the American Farmland Trust’s website and read the report. Here it is.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, lol. You do realize that the farmland lost in question was due to development and not climate change as you’re trying to suggest. Or did you purposely leave that tidbit out to make a point? Whether you were told that without knowing, or deceitfully left it out, it’s misinformation for this discussion.
I went to the American Farmland Trust’s website and read the report. Here it is.
I appreciate you source-checking me, I had my argument formed backwards. The American Farmland Trust contends that this would worsen climate change (decreased carbon sequestration), rather than the land lost being due to climate change. Apologies for this mis-characterization of information.
They state that "In New York, if the annual loss of farmland were reduced by 80 percent, that could reduce emissions equal to removing one million cars from the road. Yet, we continue to pave over our productive farmland at rate of more than 40 acres every hour." So they do support the idea that climate change is due to human emission, but you are right that I leapt to the data without understanding it fully. By mis-attributing the cause to data I saw, I ironically committed the same fallacy as those I was arguing against.
They still support my overall argument, however, and the link you provided is actually extremely relevant to the topic at hand, but requires another page from their site (below) for it to connect. Thank you for the link. Misinterpreted information into relevant information.
I have edited my prior post accordingly, directing towards your correction of me. I sincerely appreciate it. It strengthens and grows one's knowledge to be rebuked. I must exercise even intenser scrutiny in the future!
Last edited by sad_hotline; 02-26-2019 at 02:48 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
