Global warming 'past the point of no return'

Mad one. is it all floating in that first pic or just the foreground.?
Do people live on it or are they just shops? Come to think of it my mum went to a floating market in japan i think last year.

Id get seasick

 

It's an actual village (community). It's anchored to the limestone rock behind it.

 

In a word... yes! A universe devoid of intelligence (or a solar system in our particular case, anyway) would, it seems to me, be the very definition of pointless

Four billion years ago, there was only potential, not purpose. Let's not be too eager to reset the clock by removing ourselves from the stage; who knows how long another sentient species would take to develop, or whether it would happen at all during the remaining few billion years the planet still has to live. After all, a disaster that could entirely kill off humanity would likely take care of the other higher forms of life as well.

Frankly, I'd rather humanity survive and wreck the Earth beyond recognition, than the other way around. Of course, better yet if there's no need to wreck the Earth, but that doesn't seem likely, does it...

 

Thats quite cool, bit unhyginic. I wonder how their sanitation works etc

 

Man its things like this that make the move to Chicago a toughy.

 

That's Koh Sireh, right?

 

That actually may be (I just found it while searching Google). The ones in my pictures are of Phang Nga which is also near Phuket./

 

Tommy D wrote

Tommy D still has not answered my question. His reply to my initial query

What this page says is that there was an abnormal warm period in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, but says nothing about the extent of Clacier Melting, and says nothing about Permafrost levels. It draws into question the veracity of claims to any more than surface temperatures, and even the accuracy and reliability of this is questioned.

In other words, an abnormal warm period over the North Sea looks fairly certain, but beyond that, it seems there was not much of consequence.

This is also on the page you refernced:

In other words, although you point out, Tommy, that there were warm periods where there was implied melting of ice coverage (obviously, specifically the sea was open to exploration in a way that wasn't previously, or hasn't been available since 1400 either), this is a very far cry from actual evidence or support for dramatic temperature variation that leads to the sort of degradation of glacial coverage, and especially permafrost melting, that is ongoing these days.

Like this says:

This would hardly describe CO2 levels, migrating climatic zones, extinctions, oceanic warming, increased storm severity, loss of fisheries (both from temperature change and overfishing), desertification, and on, and on.

Unfortunately, even though I read stuff like this weekly:

, I've read that California has added emission standards that will increase the avg. price of a new car $1,000 - $3,000 voluntarily, 9 states in the US have already passed anti-pollution laws dealing with CO2 emmisions...

even though dire consequences have been forecast, and these are based on models and research that continue to bear out and prove accurate... Tommy trots out 'evidence' that doesn't even address my point: The degradation of the ice caps and permafroat is worse than it has been for 450, 000 years.

 

Hey just becasue that study was funded by coal and oil companies doesn't mean that it be biased

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html

Big business is trying to do whats best for us, and these communist homesexuals are trying to get in the way. What do you want government to try to step in and push a clean air agenda, WTF clean air is just code for communist homeosexual orgies.

What you need to do is stop listening to these "scientists" with their so called "theorys" and just get in line with president, who says there is no global warming (and just because he and his family have been up to thier necks in oil for generations, doesn't mean he is biased) . Does it seem warmer to YOU? See if you can't tell its warmer then how are you going to say there is global warming?

Those communist "scientists" also beleive we descended from "monkeys" , how can you believe anyone who says stuff like that?

 

I walk to work and use public transport...

I feel like I do my bit...

Ferret - You're cracking me up...

 

'Past the point of no return' as far as you and I are concerned yes. But people and even these so-called scientists, forget to put this into the billion years of perspective the earth knows. 'No return' my ass. Ice ages and warmer periods happen as regularly as your heart beat, it's just on a larger scale. Ice will be back, just not when we're here.

 

If you do some research you will find that the Global Warming craze actually started in the 1930s when the world was experiencing similar erratic weather patterns. Remember the "dust bowl" days that turned much of the Midwestern USA in to a wasteland? About 15 years ago I was staying at a hunting cabin and the guy had a collection of old magazines. I think I may have been reading an old Popular Mechanics magazine or something similar from the 1930s that talked about global warming and how the process was going to be irreversible if we don't get it under control by 1950.

Does anyone remember the ozone holes? According to scientists, the damage already caused by CFCs was going to take at least 50 years to correct. The real truth is that scientists only learned to measure the ozone hole in the 1980s, so they did not have enough data to know whether or not a periodic ozone hole is a naturally occurring event.

Factoid: Scientists still do not know why the Earth goes into an Ice Age every 100,000 years. It's been about 10,000 years since the last Ice Age, so technically speaking, we're in a warming trend.

Nothing in nature is constant or stable over the long term. Volcanoes throw ash and dust into the atmosphere that can stay there for many years and affect climate. The sun "pulses" in an approximate 11 year cycle. The peak is called the solar max and it just occurred in 2000 or 2001. At the peak, the sun puts out much more radiation. There are several articles on science sites that claim that this last solar max put out more solar radiation that has ever been measured. Scientists still cannot explain why this happens, or how it happens, given the fairly constant amount of energy the sun has to burn. Why isn't this being connected to the global warming debate? It appears to me that when the sun puts out more radiation, it gets hotter on the third rock from the sun, which can dramatically affect weather.

I think there is some evidence that you Earthlings may be contributing to global warming, but the overall cause is most likely a naturally occurring event. I would just like to see some evidence that says we are the cause of global warming that is not developed by a radical group or a group of scientists who survive based upon government research grants. If you can't stir up panic, you can't stir up a government grant.

 

What would be a good example then? There are thousands of papers and they are not all funded by whoever you think would have a vendeta..

Technically speaking, we are warming up. It is proven fast that we are warming up faster than ever before, with more dramatic consequences.

Like I said, almost all nattions of the planet, even George Bush has said that global warming is occuring because of manmade changes to the enviornment.

Look at everything at a whole. This or that, many single observations are not proof, they all put together are not 100% proof.

Let me ask you this, if you think science is so dubious and easy to fidge, how can such rock solid predictions be made about hurricanes?

How come predictions are coming true that were made 50 and 100 years ago, if this is not science, not rigourous and accurate science?

So, you go ahead and tell me exactly what reasearch you would repect, and I will get dozens of examples.


Yours is another example of pure opinion based on not a shred of deduction, or any proper reasoning.

Is it prudent to just ignore this? Is it really smart to just say, "oh well, all this overwhelming amount of evidence, from every which type of science, and institution, points to global warming creating a catastrophe, but we shouldn't care"?

Is it ???

There was no 'craze' that has anything to do with anything. It is irrelevent what a bunch of kukes thought then, it is an improper analogy. Are you trying to tell me that it can never be, because someone (you claim only) was wrong about something 75 years ago? That is the stupidist arguement I have ever heard.

I just don't understand, I really, really don't, and I feel almost despair sometimes. Human beings are supposed to be able foresee the future, and to plan for consequeses. We survive by anticipating difficulties so we can deal with them before they become devastating.

But instead of even caution, you and other 'anti-science, anti-common sense' (yup, my words) would not even to play it catious, even though the consequences could be devastating to your own family.

Do you think there will be no economic penalty to having a damaged enviornment? When crop failure becomes the norm, when drought and flooding start costing 100s of billions of dollars every year, in many countries, when you middle class can no longer afford to drive vehicles, or run electricity 24 hrs a day?

That is a very bad case scenario, and not the worst case, and it probably won't get that bad for a while, like 50 to 100 years, but somewhere in between, you will most likely be feeling it in the next ten, at least.

Tell me how you can just ignore so much evidence and opinion, tell me how you can live on the few 'loopholes' in face of all the knowledge, and how you can say 'to hell with it, I will continue to make garbage and pollute'?

You cannot be defending that it is good to pollute, and create waste to the point that communities are getting poisoned, and our fish are dying and becoming poisoned?

Tell me you at least think that is wrong.


And while you are at it, tell me what makes a report, scientific, or otherwise, valid, in your opinion.

I promise you I will get 12 for each point you mention.

 

This type of arguement:

Is a blanket statement that says you must stir up panic to get a government grant, which is demonstrateably false,
immplies the only way to do reasearch is if you have a government grant
I guess the internet is not really here, being debveloped with a government grant which Timm Werthers-Lee had to create panic to get.


I really wish I had the time to go through your post, word for word, and do a proper and thorough job of invalidating almost every single word you say, Tommy. Your logic and reasoning is that bad and is typical.

How about this, your next reply, I will do it. So, you can be forewarned, study up on critical thinking, logic, inductive and deductive reasoning, whatever you need to do.

 

I am not arguing that global warming is not happening, or that humans are not damaging the environment. The argument is whether or not humans are responsible for the current global warming trend and what--if anything--we can do about it. NASA scientists claimed for years that their satellite surveillance showed no overall change in global warming. Yeah, there were hotter regions on the planet that were offset by colder regions. It's only very recently that they do see some evidence, but they say it cannot be fully explained by human activities. My point is that the explanation may be related to the solar max, increased volcanic activity in the past 20 or so years, or other factors that are not being focused on because there is nothing we can do about it.

You have not proven a single point that I made to be wrong. You did what most environmentalists do and used your opinion and beliefs to dispel evidence that you do not agree with. Critical thinking requires that you take all of the alternatives into consideration.

Personally, I think that it would be wonderful if we could eliminate the use of oil altogether so that we can tell all of the Mideast powers where to go. But I don't see a viable, cost-effective alternative on the market as yet. What is Canada doing about this? In this case, you can't eliminate the problem without an alternative solution. I'll be the first, followed by the vast majority of Americans, when we see a potential solution.

By the way, if you do some research regarding the Internet, you will find that it was started in the 1960s as a US government military project that was later expanded to include the academic world. It was fully funded by US government research grants, initially as a way to build a communications network that could not be disabled by any one nuclear attack. I'd say it was--at least initially--fully funded through panic. The internet wasn't turned over to the general public until the 1990s.

 

Scientists just don't know what's up, eh (It is a pun)
I also saw this on BBC and yahoo
Ozone Hole Healing Gradually

I guess everyone get's a lucky guess once in a while. I have also been seeing reports put out by Congress, The Whitehouse administration, international coalitions of research scientists (on global warming, not ozone, but that too), ... How do they all exist on government grants?

 

Those environmentalist and so called scientists just make up whatever to get rich, everyone who goes into those research feilds is just a money grubbing whore, scientists are scamming there way to buy yahcts and sportscars.

 

I never stated that there wasn't an ozone hole. My statement is that they do not have enough evidence to determine whether or not it is a naturally occurring event. Have you ever asked yourself why probably 90% of the CFCs were used in the Northern hemisphere, but the ozone hole occurred in the Southern hemisphere?

The operative word here is "solutions". When people see viable and credible solutions to problems, they will support those initiatives. Pointing out the problem is the easy part. We all hear a lot of complaining and see an overabundance of hand-wringing, but where are the viable solutions to the global warming issues? The Kyoto agreement won't do it. Both China and India are exempt from any penalties and they are the largest growing purchasers of oil, and the primary reason that the price of fuel has gone up so much over the past few years (Katrina issues set aside). A report I heard last week indicates that not a single country that signed on to the Kyoto agreement is on track to meet their goals. Ultimately, it may end up being nothing more than political fluff. By the way, the Kyoto agreement was viewed as so detrimental to the US economy that the vote in our Senate was 96 to 0. Not a single Senator agreed with it--not even the "environmental" Senators.

We need viable alternatives and solutions that work. The Monteal Protocol was signed because there were viable alternatives.

Hey ferret, where can I get a job that is funded by taxpayers, that does not require me to produce any income or economic benefit, and allows me the freedom to pursue the things that I find really interesting? Like they say, always "follow the money" and you will see what really drives things.

 

God I hate hippies.

 

I know all those global warming people are getting rich as hell of this,