Climate change Global warming, where are we heading to ?

Maciamo said:
You do not seem to realise that climate change as we are starting to experience it will mean the extinction of thousands of species due to the upset of the ecosystem.
It's not like it has never occured before. Species have been going extinct for millions of years. Old species die out and others are reborn. It is a fact of life.

One eruption of a major volcano is said to put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of mankind has done since the beginning of the industrial revolution. To say that man, and man alone, is the cause of global warming is arrogant and shows complete misunderstanding of the earth and her cycles.

As a living organism, Mother Earth will right things as she has always done in the past. A balance will be reached weather it be by climate changes and rising temperatures or a reversal of the earths poles as occurs, according to scientists, every 15,000 yrs or so. What was above will go below and what is below will come to the surface again and things will balance out.

If this cannot be believed than how does one explain sea shells and fish fossils on top of the Rocky Mountains and in the Andes? It is said that the Andes mountains rose to their enormous heights in a matter of hours!

Therefore, I believe that the earth goes through constant changes and the changes we are experiencing today are an example of those changes.
 
It's official, now the Artic ice in the North of Canada has melted enough to allow ships to cross from the Atlantic to the Pacific for the first time in human history.
 
It's not like it has never occured before. Species have been going extinct for millions of years. Old species die out and others are reborn. It is a fact of life.
One eruption of a major volcano is said to put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of mankind has done since the beginning of the industrial revolution. To say that man, and man alone, is the cause of global warming is arrogant and shows complete misunderstanding of the earth and her cycles.
Or it shows your misunderstanding of the scale and speed of the previous global warming compared to this one. It normally takes thousands of years for the Earth to warm up the way it has in the last 100 years. Before species had the time to migrate or adapt to the change. Now they don't.

Just look at the graphs I posted above (post #18). The current phenomenon has no previous equivalent.
 
Between the impact of the human race (unsustainable consumption of the Earth's resources) and natural cycles, the planet will be very different by the end of the century. I think our generations will have little to be proud of in hindsight.
 
Science survives by doing an experiment and then repeating that experiment over and over and over again and obtaining the same results. That's why we believe our scientists when they tell us many, many, many things. We trust they have spent a lifetime proving that what they are telling us is scientific evidence.


Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and, “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”


Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?”


Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
 
It's easy for me to believe that there are dishonest and biased scientists pushing their own agenda any way they can. It's much harder to believe how easily public, politicians, many scientists are duped by "green agenda" based on incomplete data, alarmist politics, and mass-media that thrives on selling bad news mostly.
Climate is so complicated and we just started understanding it, that it will take many more years of research, data verification, and best scientific minds to analyze it well.
 
Just read the whole thread. Maciamo, looks like you were a bit paranoid about global warming 3 year ago. I hope you had time to read the other side of the story.
 
IMO, what we're currently seeing could be the result of a combination of things. There isn't much doubt that so called greenhouse gasses are impacting on the earths ozone layer, helped along by the destruction of millions of hectares of natural forest. But no one seems to want to talk about the movement of earth Tectonic Plates. The one on which Australia is situated is apparently moving in a north easterly direction at about 7cm per year (at least I think it was per year). This being the case, in time all of the Tectonic Plates will move to accommodate each other, causing earth quakes and volcanic eruptions. It stands to reason that some plates which currently house the coldest areas on earth are likely to move south and become warmer etc. Of course this will mean the extinction of many species, but also some will adapt, and new ones will be created.
 
Of course this will mean the extinction of many species, but also some will adapt, and new ones will be created.
Yep, pretty much a history of earth again and again. Life is ever changing.
 
I started this thread 13 years ago and the signs of global warming have only accelerated since then. LeBrok said I was paranoid about global warming in 2010, but 2013 to 2019 were the hottest years ever recorded.

20202019EOYGlobalTemps_Top10_en_title_lg_900_506_s_c1_c_c.jpg


For the last two years grass in normally cool and rainy Belgium became completely desiccated in summer due to exceptional heat and drought, more typical of Spain than Belgium. This had never been seen before, not just in Belgium but in the northern half of Europe (above the 45th parallel). It feels like we already have a Mediterranean climate here now!

This year cherry trees and forthysia in Brussels are in full bloom now from late February/early March instead of mid April. Some started blossoming at the beginning of February already. That's crazy! Overall we almost haven't had any frost all winter, even at night. The average temperatures have been hovering around 5 to 15°C, which is indeed more like a regular month of April than winter.
 
I started this thread 13 years ago and the signs of global warming have only accelerated since then. LeBrok said I was paranoid about global warming in 2010, but 2013 to 2019 were the hottest years ever recorded.

20202019EOYGlobalTemps_Top10_en_title_lg_900_506_s_c1_c_c.jpg


For the last two years grass in normally cool and rainy Belgium became completely desiccated in summer due to exceptional heat and drought, more typical of Spain than Belgium. This had never been seen before, not just in Belgium but in the northern half of Europe (above the 45th parallel). It feels like we already have a Mediterranean climate here now!

This year cherry trees and forthysia in Brussels are in full bloom now from late February/early March instead of mid April. Some started blossoming at the beginning of February already. That's crazy! Overall we almost haven't had any frost all winter, even at night. The average temperatures have been hovering around 5 to 15°C, which is indeed more like a regular month of April than winter.

Being an ignorant about climate forecasts, what surprises me is that there are so many people using a "scandalized" tone of writing about feeling warmer than in the past, but then when you read what they write dispassionately, it seems clearly they are usually describing a "positive" process for them. But emotionally, it reads as if it were a disaster.

I am really amazed by this cognitive dissonance.
 
Being an ignorant about climate forecasts, what surprises me is that there are so many people using a "scandalized" tone of writing about feeling warmer than in the past, but then when you read what they write dispassionately, it seems clearly they are usually describing a "positive" process for them. But emotionally, it reads as if it were a disaster.

I am really amazed by this cognitive dissonance.

I am not sure what you mean.

Personally I am glad that the weather is warmer in Belgium and I think that applies to most people in northern Europe. We are less cold in winter, save money on heating, etc. But the problem is not our own selfish personal comfort in the present. Considering how fast this change has happened and how it seems to be accelerating, the worry is about the future. And not just the future where I live, but the future of the Earth. Global warming is bad for many reasons:

- It will cause the rise of sea levels that will flood a lot of coastal cities worldwide, including many very large ones (New York, Boston, Washington, Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Rio, Sao Paulo, London, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Lisbon, Barcelona, Dubai, Lagos, Bombay, Chennai, Calcutta, Dhaka, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Osaka, Tokyo, Yokohama, Sydney, Melbourne and so on). If I was only concerned about myself I wouldn't care. I live 80 metres above sea level.

- Dry regions will become even drier, leading to further expansion of current deserts (Gobi is going to reach Beijing soon) and the creation of new ones.

- People displaced by rising sea levels and desertification are going to cause massive immigration problems elsewhere.

- More forest fires every summer are destroying the environment and people's homes, especially in regions with a Mediterranean climate like southern Europe, California and southern Australia.

- Many species are disappearing due to climate change, especially those that cannot migrate easily elsewhere (e.g. amphibians).

- And last but not least, there are major concerns that the melting of the Arctic ice will shift the Gulf Stream southward, which would cause a significant cooling of Europe, so that it's climate would become more alike to Siberia (despite global warming, ironically).


So, as you can see, my concern is not that cherry trees are blossoming sooner and that we get to enjoy Spring one month earlier. It is what it means for our future. Think about the long-term implications.
 
I am not sure what you mean.

Personally I am glad that the weather is warmer in Belgium and I think that applies to most people in northern Europe. We are less cold in winter, save money on heating, etc. But the problem is not our own selfish personal comfort in the present. Considering how fast this change has happened and how it seems to be accelerating, the worry is about the future. And not just the future where I live, but the future of the Earth. Global warming is bad for many reasons:

- It will cause the rise of sea levels that will flood a lot of coastal cities worldwide, including many very large ones (New York, Boston, Washington, Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Rio, Sao Paulo, London, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Lisbon, Barcelona, Dubai, Lagos, Bombay, Chennai, Calcutta, Dhaka, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Osaka, Tokyo, Yokohama, Sydney, Melbourne and so on). If I was only concerned about myself I wouldn't care. I live 80 metres above sea level.

- Dry regions will become even drier, leading to further expansion of current deserts (Gobi is going to reach Beijing soon) and the creation of new ones.

- People displaced by rising sea levels and desertification are going to cause massive immigration problems elsewhere.

- More forest fires every summer are destroying the environment and people's homes, especially in regions with a Mediterranean climate like southern Europe, California and southern Australia.

- Many species are disappearing due to climate change, especially those that cannot migrate easily elsewhere (e.g. amphibians).

- And last but not least, there are major concerns that the melting of the Arctic ice will shift the Gulf Stream southward, which would cause a significant cooling of Europe, so that it's climate would become more alike to Siberia (despite global warming, ironically).


So, as you can see, my concern is not that cherry trees are blossoming sooner and that we get to enjoy Spring one month earlier. It is what it means for our future. Think about the long-term implications.

What we need to look is pros and cons. For sure there will be some cons. Water level will increase in some places. I believe the Dutch are pretty good at building dykes, so I guess we can quantify this a bit. Less people will die, since people die less of heat than from cold. We should quantify that. The impact on GDP of natural disasters is going down over time a lot, due to better quality construction, Bjorn Lomborg has reported a lot on that.

How do we measure the increase in happiness for say Russians, and the decrease in happiness to say Sahara desert inhabitants?

Shouldn't Russians congratulate global warming? Shouldn't people preferring to be hot congratulate global warming? Shouldn't we have a discussion between pros and cons? You only highlight negatives, you do not describe the clear positives that warming will have.

Also, where do we leave uncertainty in our knowledge? Waiting to have more data would allow us to act more precisely and with less costs.

What about the costs to society of reducing economic growth? What about the probability increase of new wars, due to lack of economic growth? How should we price these risks?

In fact, Western Europe was cleaner than Communist Europe. This was due to capitalism and better technology. But now, instead of better technology, Left Wingers tell us that we should become closer to Communism (more centralized control, more taxes) to combat warming. Really?

We need a cost / benefit analysis on global warming, instead of religious-led bigotry by Collectivists and other Left Wingers.
 
What we need to look is pros and cons. For sure there will be some cons. Water level will increase in some places. I believe the Dutch are pretty good at building dykes, so I guess we can quantify this a bit. Less people will die, since people die less of heat than from cold. We should quantify that. The impact on GDP of natural disasters is going down over time a lot, due to better quality construction, Bjorn Lomborg has reported a lot on that.

How do we measure the increase in happiness for say Russians, and the decrease in happiness to say Sahara desert inhabitants?

Shouldn't Russians congratulate global warming? Shouldn't people preferring to be hot congratulate global warming? Shouldn't we have a discussion between pros and cons? You only highlight negatives, you do not describe the clear positives that warming will have.

Also, where do we leave uncertainty in our knowledge? Waiting to have more data would allow us to act more precisely and with less costs.

What about the costs to society of reducing economic growth? What about the probability increase of new wars, due to lack of economic growth? How should we price these risks?

Ok, let's discuss the pros and cons of global warming. I am really interested to see your list of pros, apart from Northerners feel more comfy.

Here is a page comparing the positives and negatives of global warming. The negatives overwhelm the positives.

For me this is one of the most terrifying consequence of global warming: CNN - Climate change may doom 1 in 3 species of plants and animals in the next 50 years

In fact, Western Europe was cleaner than Communist Europe. This was due to capitalism and better technology. But now, instead of better technology, Left Wingers tell us that we should become closer to Communism (more centralized control, more taxes) to combat warming. Really?

I am, and have always been since my teens, a right-wing ecologist. You won't find more anti-communist than me. I am all for capitalism, but a respectful and sustainable capitalism, not a free-for-all devil-may-care let's-destroy-the-planet capitalism.

We need a cost / benefit analysis on global warming, instead of religious-led bigotry by Collectivists and other Left Wingers.

Actually the religious bigots are more often than not anti-environment Right Wingers. You can see it for yourself in these PewResearch articles on how Americans see climate change and U.S. concern about climate change is rising, but mainly among Democrats. Republicans, who are far more religious than Democrats, are the least concerned about climate change and environmental issues.

In Europe, the most eco-conscious nations (UK, Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, Belgium, France, etc.) are also the least religious. Very religious countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria or Greece almost don't recycle and generally aren't much concerned about ecology.
 
The best thinking about this, IMHO, is by Bjorn Lomborg, see starting at 5:00 approx.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otsJno55J0g

He gives a nuanced and rational argumentation. He agrees there is global warming, and that global warming will probably result in some damage. But he quantifies that damage. And it results that the best we can do is a very light regulation. Instead, he shows that a forceful regulation will be very damaging, much more damaging that global warming itself.

The religiousness about global warming has nothing to do with traditional religiousness. In fact, probably it is the opposite: people that have abandoned Christianity, they need to fill their soul with something else, and global warming, and in general the Woke movement, is probably the best they can find.
 
The best thinking about this, IMHO, is by Bjorn Lomborg, see starting at 5:00 approx.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otsJno55J0g

He gives a nuanced and rational argumentation. He agrees there is global warming, and that global warming will probably result in some damage. But he quantifies that damage. And it results that the best we can do is a very light regulation. Instead, he shows that a forceful regulation will be very damaging, much more damaging that global warming itself.

I agree that not all policies about global warming are enlightened or properly directed. But that doesn't mean that nothing should be done.

Regarding Bjorn Lombord's points:

1. Droughts : I never really considered whether temporary periods of droughts are getting more common. What is sure is that desertification is getting worse. It's not the same thing. Droughts are just short periods with less rain than usual. Desertification is a relatively permanent advance of the desert. Just look at this map to see the areas in orange and red where the situation is getting worse.

1024px-Desertification_map.png

2. Floods : his arguments that floods are not more common with global warming, but less common, is based entirely on the costs of flood damages in the US! Talk about misleading the audience. Infrastructure has greatly improved over the last 100 years to prevent floods, notably with channelization (concrete embankments), dams, coastal defences, self-closing flood barrier and retention basins.

3. Hurricanes : again, he picks and chooses his data and limits it to the USA to claim that there hasn't been much change over the past century. It's wrong as explained here.

4. Wildfires : ditto. There are plenty of scientific studies that show that wildfires are on the rise globally. This article from the NASA has a satellite video showing the increase in CO2 emissions from wildfires from 2003 to 2018 in case you doubt things that you cannot see with your own eyes.

The religiousness about global warming has nothing to do with traditional religiousness. In fact, probably it is the opposite: people that have abandoned Christianity, they need to fill their soul with something else, and global warming, and in general the Woke movement, is probably the best they can find.

The Woke movement is an African-American movement concerning social justice and racial justice, like Black Lives Matter. What does that have to do with climate change or this discussion?
 
The data Lomborg gives is based on the IPCC results and on Nordhaus work (Nobel Prize). No distorted data, being shouted by ideologues completely dominated by hatred and ideology, can be compared to that.

Let us stick to good quality data: IPCC, Nordhaus. The rest is (worse than) noise.

The Woke movement is much more than BLM. In Europe, there is a lot of Woke movement, but no BLM per se. Please.
 
Ok, let's discuss the pros and cons of global warming. I am really interested to see your list of pros, apart from Northerners feel more comfy.

Here is a page comparing the positives and negatives of global warming. The negatives overwhelm the positives.

For me this is one of the most terrifying consequence of global warming: CNN - Climate change may doom 1 in 3 species of plants and animals in the next 50 years



I am, and have always been since my teens, a right-wing ecologist. You won't find more anti-communist than me. I am all for capitalism, but a respectful and sustainable capitalism, not a free-for-all devil-may-care let's-destroy-the-planet capitalism.



Actually the religious bigots are more often than not anti-environment Right Wingers. You can see it for yourself in these PewResearch articles on how Americans see climate change and U.S. concern about climate change is rising, but mainly among Democrats. Republicans, who are far more religious than Democrats, are the least concerned about climate change and environmental issues.

In Europe, the most eco-conscious nations (UK, Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, Belgium, France, etc.) are also the least religious. Very religious countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria or Greece almost don't recycle and generally aren't much concerned about ecology.

Greeks are not very religious.
 
Greeks are not very religious.

Based on what? Your personal opinion?

PewResearch conducted several surveys of religiosity in Europe, including one specifically about the Greeks. 76% of Greeks said that it was important to be Christian to be truly Greek. 59% believe in God with absolute certainty (against 15% in average for Western Europe). 55% say that religion is important in their lives (against 11% in average for Western Europe). In fact the religiosity of the Greeks is almost as strong as that of American Christians, and that says a lot.

FT_18.10.24_Greece.png


PF_05.29.18_religion.western.europe-00-23-.png
 
Based on what? Your personal opinion?

PewResearch conducted several surveys of religiosity in Europe, including one specifically about the Greeks. 76% of Greeks said that it was important to be Christian to be truly Greek. 59% believe in God with absolute certainty (against 15% in average for Western Europe). 55% say that religion is important in their lives (against 11% in average for Western Europe). In fact the religiosity of the Greeks is almost as strong as that of American Christians, and that says a lot.

FT_18.10.24_Greece.png


PF_05.29.18_religion.western.europe-00-23-.png

Not my opinion, my observations over the last 50 years. While religion might be important as part of the national identity to be a Greek, actively believing and practicing religion has gone way way down. Going to church once a year for Easter does not make one religious. If you go to a church on any given Sunday, you will see very few people there and then 95% old people. . Religiosity increases among rural areas, less educated and older folks. Even in the US, where the Greek churches have more active participation than in Greece, the interest is more cultural and social than religious. Did Pew ask their respondents how often they pray? That will give you an indication of how religious they are. When I was a young lad the state forced us to go to church every Sunday and they would take absences. Is that being religious? In small towns there was societal pressure to show up at church. Is that being religious?

Remember that Greece during the exchange of populations in 1922 with Turkey received all groups that were religiously aligned with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Those included Turcophones and Arvanites, not strictly Greek speakers. So Christianity was a unifying factor even if genetics or language was not. For my father's generation it was important to be identified as a Greek Orthodox (although there are some minority Greek Catholics in some of the islands). It is still important as part of the identity it is still part of "us" vs "them" but being born in Greece and speaking Greek is now more important. We don't consider the Turkish speaking Muslim minority in Western Thrace as Greeks we consider them as Turks.
 

This thread has been viewed 42818 times.

Back
Top