the Amish will survive....
Its a pretty heavy subject for this thread..
Originally Posted by FloridaOrange
and its comming about much faster than they predict......
when you think that we could be slammed dunked back into the stone age....literally overnight...
and very few of us would know how to survive the hardships......
except for maybe the Amish....or is that spelled Omish??
I just got to keep plumbing onward..
and pay my bills.........
Supposedly apolitical views of climate change
Here's the start of the European Commission's summary:
Climate change is one of the greatest environmental, social and economic threats facing the planet.
The warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level. The Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 0.76° C since 1850. Most of the warming that has occurred over the last 50 years is very likely to have been caused by human activities. In its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published on 2 February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that, without further action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the global average surface temperature is likely to rise by a further 1.8-4.0°C this century. Even the lower end of this range would take the temperature increase since pre-industrial times above 2°C, the threshold beyond which irreversible and possibly catastrophic changes become far more likely.
The Working Group II "Summary for Policymakers" at http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf is well worth a read.
There's a decent DVD-based overview course given by a Dartmouth PhD reviewing the basic science, but it's $40:
Are we having fun yet?
Global Warming is Religion, not Science
I respectfully disagree. There is simply no compelling evidence that actions by humans are causing global warming. Frankly, the evidence for global warming is fairly sketchy, but the evidence linking human activity to it is absent.
Is the polar ice cap melting? You bet. But this is part of a long term trend that's been occurring over the past 10,000 years, with a little break most recently during the "little ice age" in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Are temperature measurements increasing? It's hard to know with certainty. Most temperature measuring stations that have been around for a long time are located in areas which have been exposed to increasing urbanity, i.e. they used to be far outside the city, but the city - with its heat island effect - has been encroaching on them. Many temperature sensors are in places that render them completely unreliable, e.g. the thermometer positioned directly over the steam pipe at Rochester, NY's airport.
The evidence linking CO2 and temperature is retrospective, which can demonstrate correlation, but NOT CAUSALITY. Does higher CO2 cause higher temperatures? Does higher temperatures cause higher CO2? You can't know based on the data, but you can know if you take a bottle of soda out of the fridge and put it in the sun. Raising the temperature of a liquid (soda, the oceans) causes CO2 to be less soluble, and forces it out of solution (the air above the soda, the atmosphere). So it's no surprise that high atmospheric CO2 and high temperatures go together.
Finally, those data indicating that the 1990s were the hottest decade since we've been collecting data? They were erroneous. The hottest decade was the 1930s, when population was lower, and industrial output was waaay lower (remember the depression?).
So is it arrogant to take highly questionable data, misinterpret them, concoct an unlikely hypothesis, and then insist on policy changes while the hypothesis is far from proven - policy changes which will result in severe economic dislocations? Or is it arrogant to question whether we know enough to forge ahead with the gutting of the economy?