As I said, we'll see how it is in 50 years...or sooner.
I just love reading all the naysayers on this subject anymore, and wondering what it is going to sound like when they say "Oops!".
However, I will only post this...I have learned it is pointless to try to discuss this issue with people who consider it politically motivated. Like someone would WELCOME it or something.
To say it's not a "myth" doesn't answer all questions.
For example: Al Gore says we will have 40 foot floods in NYC in the imminent future. The UN report says 3-16 inches. How one prepares for the former differs from how one prepares for the latter.
There is also an important time variable: A 40 foot flood in NYC within the next year is a horrible tragedy. A 40 foot rise in the sea level in the NYC area over the next 100 years is a fairly minor economics problem, as people gradually adjust their actions and expectations to gradually changing conditions.
There is also the issue of intergenerational transfer. Some things we do may leave our descendants worse off. Other (most) things we do leave them better off. People 100 years ago had less (of some kinds of) pollution. They engaged in activities that have created a pollution problem for us. But we still have a life-expectancy twice theirs and a standard of living that dwarfs theirs. All economic models expect 100 years from now people will be much richer, which among other things means they'll have more resources to solve problems than we have. Should the people 100 years ago have sacrificed their 40 year $1,000/year lives to make things better for us? Wouldn't that be selfish of us to wish that, we who are so better off than they, wishing that they had given up things that made their lives better so we could be even better off? Then why should we eagerly sacrifice our standard of living (and not just our great standard of living in the USA, but sacrifice the standard of living of the Chinese and others just beginning to rise out of poverty) in order to make those living in the future, who by all predictions will be better off than us, in order that they be even better off? Why should we think our descendants would be so selfish as to ask that of us?
It's not a matter of future generations being selfish...it is a matter of looking mounting evidence in the eye and realizing that time to actually effect change in this disastrous course we are on is slipping away while most countries (and individuals) in the world do a "Thirtysomething" and say "What about my needs?!"
I know that it is human nature for people to not let go of something until they HAVE to, and it is obvious in the discussions from around the world to on this forum that people aren't going to sacrifice until they HAVE to, so we had just better hope that when it becomes obvious that we HAVE to, the change won't be as immense as it is looking like it might have to be, or that all you optimists or religious types are right and some "magic bullet" will save the day in the nick of time.
Because if you are wrong, the progress of our species will change like never before.
In the meantime...tick...tick...tick...
This subject reminds me of lyrics from "Dancing With The Moonlit Knight" by Genesis (circa 1973, with Peter Gabriel)...
"Citizens of hope & glory
Time goes by - its the time of your life
Easy now, sit you down
Chewing through your wimpey dreams
They eat without a sound
Digesting England by the pound
Young man says you are what you eat - eat well
Old man says you are what you wear - wear well
You know what you are, you dont give a damn
Bursting your belt that is your homemade sham"
And speaking of old Genesis, check out this video from 1973 with them playing this song...ah, those were the days when rock and roll was art...
(And if Garbiel isn't enough, check out a young Phil Collins on drums...great video, except that they show every other bandmember but Steve Hackett when he is playing his guitar solo...sigh)
-- Modified on 11/17/2007 8:23:22 PM
I remember that one... talk about Classic Rock
The article stated:
“In the best-case scenario, temperatures will keep rising from carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Even if factories were shut down today and cars taken off the roads, the average sea level will gradually rise over the next 1,000 years to reach as high as 4.6 feet above that in the preindustrial period, or about 1850.”
How in the heck some scientists make a statement like that. Do they think they are so smart that they can make a forecast a 1000 year away!! Give me a break.
30 years ago some scientists forecast a coming ice age. Which one is it? Should I buy shorts or coats?
As for man made global warming, think about the money trail. It will give people the motivation for some scientist and professors views on man made global warming.
As I said, we'll see how it is in 50 years...or sooner.
But I will admit, a "climate" forecast has really never been done before. It's based on running simulation after simulation and taking statistics. It is a process that wasn't possible before the computer age.
-- Modified on 11/18/2007 1:46:46 PM
how accurately the various climate computer models have been at predicting the past.
...means that those models are based upon less data, more hypotheticals, more interpolations.
So, testing it against past data does not prove them inaccurate, though I concede that means we literally cannot know how accurate climate predictions based on models with solid data really are. You could run them thousands of times for statistical predictions.
Where are any claims whatsoever that they do?
So there's no way to know most of it.
Open the link and read this is an easy-to-understand booklet on the issue of climate change.
For one thing, the temperature given for the different geological periods from the Cambrian to the present period, is very sketchy-- as the flat graphs imply. Another thing, the comparison omits important data about the heat of the sun. And of course, a hotter sun could overwhelm any greenhouse gas accumulation. The "little ice age" several centuries ago was likely caused by a cooler sun.
That high CO2 during the Cambrian meant far less because the sun was half as hot as it is today.
The slide show is a primer-- but as a primer, it's supposed to be the beginning of what you learn, not all you need to know.
Many scientists are predicting different weather patterns once Global warming is in full gear 5 years from now..Places such as Bangladesh will have the typical weather of Kentucky and what once was oceanfront property on Americas Coasts will be flooded for many miles inland ..Many of the poor people who don't own oceanfront homes will finally realize that dream..
Well, quad, I must assume you're a scientist with expertise in global warming that exceeds that of the IPCC committee. Here's a summary of what they're saying (it's on the web; read it yourself):
the IPCC is now hedging its sea level predictions--in part by pointing out the uncertainty, in part by saying what might happen over THOUSANDS of years and adding that they can't be certain it won't happen over MERE CENTURIES. But the six scenarios they provide numbers for give predictions ranging from a low of .18 meters to a high of .59 meters--about two feet.
Is "two feet" over centuries or longer what you had in mind when you spoke about "5 years from now... oceanfront property on Americas Coasts will be flooded for many miles inland"? Because clearly modern technology can do nothing to stem the relentless advance of a 2 foot sea rise bearing down upon us over centuries to millenia? (Ever been to Holland?)
Actually I have been to Netherlands many times ..To tell the truth I am Dutch..And to tell the truth again I don't care if the Earth warms up a few degrees in the next 5 years although it will probably take another hundred to raise three degrees ..or maybe go down a degree.Some people will like the extra heat or cold and some won't ..It doesn't take a scientist to tell that much of this bunk rolling out the mouths of the town criers is politically and economically designed for the easily led.
Sorry. Seems I confused satire with a mixture of stupidity and sincerity. Tin ear on my part. Funny about you being Dutch, given my Holland question.