Is Global Warming A Thing? (Hurricane Sandy Spinoff)

Re: Hurricane Sandy

Chris Johnson said:
I think that given the general trend of environmental destruction that us humans are well known for, I find it not a ridiculous leap to assume that our polluting ways will inevitably have an effect on our atmosphere and therefore, by extension, alter the climate to some degree.

I also think that there is much evidence to support the fact that the climate of our planet goes through many changes of its own accord.

However, I think that the question surely has to be 'to what degree do we effect our climate?'. I believe it is abundantly clear that our actions have an effect on our environment. The question is what is this doing, and if it is bad, then what is the most effective way to reduce the negative effects.

I'm not sure how anyone could honestly believe that industrialisation doesn't effect the climate at all?
Click to expand...

I agree that probably it has an effect. So how do we turn that into policy that actually benefits people? I am assuming we want policies that actually improve living standards not just fulfill a well intentioned agenda.
Since we have no "control" earth to compare to how do we gauge our success? No medical approval would ever be granted without this kind of testing..and with good reason.. it would probably hurt/kill people.
So we find ourselves in a sticky situation...making policy based on science that cannot be held to the testing standards that we can verify with normal scientific method. I am perplexed by this. Seems like making a decision while entwined in a Catch 22. So, what do we do?
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

John Chiara said:
I agree that probably it has an effect. So how do we turn that into policy that actually benefits people? I am assuming we want policies that actually improve living standards not just fulfill a well intentioned agenda.
Since we have no "control" earth to compare to how do we gauge our success? No medical approval would ever be granted without this kind of testing..and with good reason.. it would probably hurt/kill people.
So we find ourselves in a sticky situation...making policy based on science that cannot be held to the testing standards that we can verify with normal scientific method. I am perplexed by this. Seems like making a decision while entwined in a Catch 22. So, what do we do?
Click to expand...

Unless you buy into the tipping point theory that we need to immediately stop any warming trend to prevent a chaotic shift (like in the bad sci-fi movies), we have time to collect data, and learn more about the science. I find it kind of arrogant and arbitrary that some UN agency has already published an ideal target temperature to set the global thermostat at.

This should be a slow moving phenomenon that we can thoughtfully inspect and react to, as appropriate. The past arm waving looks like a raw power grab, and not really addressing any real issue. Actually that is probably good, since giving government an effective lever to change global temperature is scary to me, because of potential for unintended consequences.

JR
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

This has got to be the saddest, most pathetic "global warming" thread on the internets. Especially from a site made up of "thinkers", "mathers", and college gradiates.

1) Your doing it wrong. It's now called climate change. (spelling intentional to add to thread patheticness.)

2) Just for fun, why don't each one of you argue the other side for one post? You know, parrot the other side like you are doing the one you are now.
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

Jack Arnott said:
This has got to be the saddest, most pathetic "global warming" thread on the internets. Especially from a site made up of "thinkers", "mathers", and college gradiates.

1) Your doing it wrong. It's now called climate change. (spelling intentional to add to thread patheticness.)

2) Just for fun, why don't each one of you argue the other side for one post? You know, parrot the other side like you are doing the one you are now.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's it.. I am not a college graduate. :-(

Um, lets see if I can argue the opposite of what I believe (for fun).

The global temperature would be constant and unchanging, if we pathetic loser humans, didn't selfishly burn limited fossil fuels and release carbon into the atmosphere, causing the globe to warm up and destroy life as we know it.

We need to immediately stop using fossil fuels, which will concurrently stop this warming trend and put a smilie on mother natures face.

The international and government organizations taxing carbon or trying to, have no personal agenda and are only thinking of us since we are not smart enough to act in our own best interest. We can't possible be as smart as they are.

==============

Seriously now, no need for name calling. There is no debate that global temperature is changing. It has before and will again.

There are multiple questions and issues surrounding this topic, and the reality of recent temperature rise, does not prove all the corollary thesis associated with that rise. This oversimplification of the subject into, "if this is true, then all else is true", works very well for political argument, to convince those who cannot grasp multiple thoughts simultaneously, but not for a site made up of "thinkers, mathers (?), and (even) college graduates".

Of course opinions vary...

Right now I am more worried about driving the economy off an actual man-made fiscal cliff.

Why not add a tax on carbon based energy too, what is the worst that could do (just kidding there). The recent discovery of domestic energy reserves of fossil fuels is one bright light that might help us out if our economic morass. Lets not screw that up too.

JR

PS: I hope I do not need to repeat or reargue the entire scope of this subject, in all it's sundry parts. I don't claim complete perfect knowledge of everything, but I know enough to question opinion leaders with sweeping simplistic claims. Measure twice cut once. We need to be damn sure before we seriously mess with global phenomenon. If we are not serious why spend the time and effort?
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

All the research I can find states that the actual surface temperature has plateaued for the last over 15 years. Other things might come into play but just speaking of surface temperature doesn't seem to cut it.
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

I believe there is a warming trend, but am unclear about strict cause and effect, and remedy.

But little details like that haven't stopped CA, who just had their first carbon allowance auction under the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,". A portion of the money raised is allocated to the states general fund (?), and a portion to green house gas reduction fund.

We can all sleep a little better now.

JR

PS: Sorry I don't mean to belittle this. This is important and requires thoughtful inspection. What CA is doing is pretty much harmless to the environment and people who don't live in CA.
 
Re: Hurricane Sandy

I just heard a guy on NPR today that has a company that has mimicked a certain beetle's ability to draw water out of air, and will have a self refilling water bottle by 2014. I believe water vapor is also a greenhouse gas? The fans needed can run on solar cells. So, fresh water for Africa, a market for solar cells and less greenhouse gas.
Win,win,win... And without any gov't interference.
 
Top Bottom