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.
You're talking about weather, not climate. They aren't the same. Climate change may increase the amount of severe weather. You could have more ice storms and hale (instead of dry snowfall), severe thunderstorms, and droughts, for instance, depending on the location.
So? Climate change may decrease the amount of severe weather, depending on the location.
My point is that any change has results that are just as likely to be positive as negative.
changes NOW are seeming to be potentially quite worthy of concern and attributable to human activity. natural? good? if things change quickly, can you imagine what some of the political and economic ramifications might be? maybe consider climate change along with war. how much does the US spend per day on war and the military now? where are the tradeoffs in terms of what is given up in order to fund the military and wars (there is NOT an unlimited supply of cash, after all)? education? is there some siphoning of social security or social programs? transportation and infrastructure? now, throw perhaps more war over quickly shifting resources (agricultural, water, energy for desalinization or "alternative fuels" - which require energy to produce- etc.), or throw in remuneration to those that lose their property along coasts (or the insurance industry that lobbies for federal help, e.g.).
I agree that things are worthy of concern. I'm just hypothesizing that some of those concerns may be offset by benefits. Isn't that a logical consideration? I'm not quite clear on the relevance of juxtapositoning of military action with shifting resources, and how those things relate to climate change, but I can repeat my hypothesis that the climate effects on those phenomena may just as likey turn out to be beneficial as nugatory.
how about the possibilities that human beings are inducing change that has never been seen in human history (or, perhaps, history of the planet) - whether or not you believe that we "know" what that change will be, don't you consider it cause for concern that WE are inducing global change that is significant, never before seen, and so perhaps drastic? (there is evidence that all of this is likely, btw)
I'm not sure if you're asking me a queston or simply stating your own opinion. I suspect the latter, so -- yes, you may be right. But so might I.
in other words, here's an analogy: you're on a wavy sea in a canoe, and a storm is clearly on it's way. you don't know how severe, and you don't know whether the waters are hungry shark infested. you do know that there is a chance that the boat will tip if you keep leaning to one side. would you rock the boat as the waves mount? or would you do what you could to not tempt fate?
Again, I don't see the connection between fate and the rational consideration that any change may bring positive, as well as negative, effects. What if the sharks turned out to be bonito, in other words? Or mermaids? Who wants to pass up a chance to meet the girl of one's dreams?
Again, I don't see the connection between fate and the rational consideration that any change may bring positive, as well as negative, effects. What if the sharks turned out to be bonito, in other words? Or mermaids? Who wants to pass up a chance to meet the girl of one's dreams?
you're willing to, in the face of warnings, proceed with abandon without knowing the risks because "it could be mermaids", while people with expertise are saying it may very well not be mermaids, and whatever it is, it is seeming more and more likely to happen so quickly that you might not be able to adapt if it's dangerous while you can, if you so choose, probably slow the change enough to get a look at the risk and hedge it?
the military comment concerns the biggest expenditure that the US has these days (and for decades, actually) which is already becoming a stretch without any more perceived "requirement" for it or additional, perhaps equivalent, expense.
i am very familiar with both sides of the argument, and i regret that the evidence is such that the likelihood is we'd better proceed with some caution. it would be wonderful if we hadn't a worry in the world, but in this case, i am confident that we have a significant cause for worry in the world, unfortunately.
So? Climate change may decrease the amount of severe weather, depending on the location.
My point is that any change has results that are just as likely to be positive as negative.
here's my humble suggestion... look closely at this thread. look closely at the links. the plots of emissions. the plots of populations. the plots of greenhouse gas concentrations. the plots of temperatures. over the recent past. over the distant past. the timing of these things. the history of significant climate shifts and the consequences for lifeforms on Earth. the model projections given various forcings ("natural" and "human" influences). the behavior of nonlinear systems. assessments of "likelihood". the character defamation. the name calling. the information and disinformation. the likely biases of all involved in the debate. continue to look into to the furthest extend you can. regardless of what opinion evolves within you or your society. just one humble suggestion...
Seems to me that the world's temperature is tracking the CO2 concentration with about a fifty-year lag. This observation leads me to conclude that it would not be a real good idea to invest in seacoast property. It also leads me to conclude that, as warmer systems are more energetic in an exponential manner, we should expect much more severe weather and substantial redistribution of rainfall. The latter will be a boon to some locations and a bane to others.
Seems to me that the world's temperature is tracking the CO2 concentration with about a fifty-year lag. This observation leads me to conclude that it would not be a real good idea to invest in seacoast property. It also leads me to conclude that, as warmer systems are more energetic in an exponential manner, we should expect much more severe weather and substantial redistribution of rainfall. The latter will be a boon to some locations and a bane to others.
and as that boon and bane occur, as that redistribution of resources occurs, how might you guess people could respond?
and if the rest of us do, too, do you think the former soviet union, canada, scandinavia, north korea, the united kingdom, and/or the US are/is going to welcome that kind of exodus without any "strain" or "resistence"? or what about the same thing in the southern hemisphere? will that kind of thing likely occur without any strain or strife in places like south africa? chile?
here's my humble suggestion... look closely at this thread. look closely at the links. the plots of emissions. the plots of populations. the plots of greenhouse gas concentrations. the plots of temperatures. over the recent past. over the distant past. the timing of these things. the history of significant climate shifts and the consequences for lifeforms on Earth. the model projections given various forcings ("natural" and "human" influences). the behavior of nonlinear systems. assessments of "likelihood". the character defamation. the name calling. the information and disinformation. the likely biases of all involved in the debate. continue to look into to the furthest extend you can. regardless of what opinion evolves within you or your society. just one humble suggestion...
I've looked at lots of threads. I'm just asking you to consider the possibility that climate change -- like any change -- will have positive effects as well as negative ones. No charcter defamation or name-calling need be involved. Just a little non-linear imgaination.
I found this article to be pretty interesting, a good read for anyone who wants to see some scientific evidence over time. I found it pretty fascinating, especially this paragraph:
Passive microwave satellite data reveal that, since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 3.6 percent per decade (Meier et al. 2006). Antarctic ice extent is increasing (Cavalieri et al. 2003), but the trend is small.
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.
