Climate Change cost 60 billion ? Wow
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.
Since most pollution will be curbed by the time greenhouse gases could rise global temperature by 1-3 degrees F climate change to anything warmer could be slowed dramatically. Yes I think globam warming to some extent is a reality since we have put a lot of CO2 into the air. Who can deny that? We also know that extensive levels of CO2 will cause warmer temps.
What I don't understand is how global warming could override the fact that we're in an interglacial period, or even though it could affect global temperatures by 1-3 degrees over the next 100 years how will it override solar input and orbit changes which dictate changes in climate much more dramatically.
Even if there was global warming it won't outshine the fact that we will be headed into an Ice Age in the next several thousand years. And, in several thousand years we may not even be here to see it
As to global climate change, expect the costs to rise dramatically over the next few years. A global climate change of only 2 degrees F either way could cost a trillion dollars in damage. Imagine if crops in much of the midwest could not be grown anymore if it was too warm or too cold, for example.
Small changes do make some difference... hopefully humans can adapt.
What I don't understand is how global warming could override the fact that we're in an interglacial period, or even though it could affect global temperatures by 1-3 degrees over the next 100 years how will it override solar input and orbit changes which dictate changes in climate much more dramatically.
Even if there was global warming it won't outshine the fact that we will be headed into an Ice Age in the next several thousand years. And, in several thousand years we may not even be here to see it
As to global climate change, expect the costs to rise dramatically over the next few years. A global climate change of only 2 degrees F either way could cost a trillion dollars in damage. Imagine if crops in much of the midwest could not be grown anymore if it was too warm or too cold, for example.
Small changes do make some difference... hopefully humans can adapt.
0 likes
-
roarusdogus
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:04 pm
"We also know that extensive levels of CO2 will cause warmer temps."
No we don't. We know in a controlled enviorment such as a laboratory experiment that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is no proof of what it will do in our atmosphere. Again, this is typical underestimating the powers of out atmosphere. It isn't a simple machine, you don't add CO2 and say, well, it's going to warm up now. There are MANY more factors that play a role in our atmosphere. The sun is probably the biggest factor, the ocean are definitely next. Hardly if ever are any of these other factors factored in when talking about global warming. It's always the simple minded, add CO2, the planet will warm. To think that the sun, the ocean, the ocean cycles, etc won't play a part in our future climate is ignorant at best.
No we don't. We know in a controlled enviorment such as a laboratory experiment that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is no proof of what it will do in our atmosphere. Again, this is typical underestimating the powers of out atmosphere. It isn't a simple machine, you don't add CO2 and say, well, it's going to warm up now. There are MANY more factors that play a role in our atmosphere. The sun is probably the biggest factor, the ocean are definitely next. Hardly if ever are any of these other factors factored in when talking about global warming. It's always the simple minded, add CO2, the planet will warm. To think that the sun, the ocean, the ocean cycles, etc won't play a part in our future climate is ignorant at best.
0 likes
Uh-huh... not to start a flame war or anything but you know nothing about science. Some things about global warming are very valid and have been proven in the laboratory.
Yes the Earth is not a closed system, but if you throw out some lab findings, why don't you throw out some others like Newton's Laws of Physics or the concept of Gravity. Claiming I broad-brush it is silly when you could easily broad brush the opposite to and claim ignorance.
We do know some things about the atmosphere you know. Certain gases do effect thermal transfer and heat input. That is a fact.
Think about it - Venus has a pretty much constant global temperature. Also it is very hot for it's proximity to the Sun. It also has a very thick CO2 layer - this is plenty of evidence for you outside of our own Earth. If Earth didn't have an atmosphere we would be like Mercury - very hot on the side facing the sun, and very cold on the side away from the sun. Our atmosphere (and atmospheric content) are a crucial balance to why we are here today.
Without adequate or proper levels of ozone, life would not have evolved like it did over the course of 4 billion years. However we _are_ changing the balance drastically. Think about it - CO2 levels are skyrocketing and that is a fact.
It has taken 4 billion years for all the fossil fuels we have in storage to form. In the space of 100 years we have burned a good 30-50% of it. Don't you think that that would effect something? It is a gas, don't you think it would change something in the atmosphere?
The facts:
CO2 levels are dramatically larger than 100 or 10,000 years ago (proven with air samples).
CFCs react with ozone (proven in the lab) and have been emitted in great quantities over the last 50 or so years.
Ozone levels have been depleting around the poles.
We do have a record of climate that spans back thousands of years - it is in our tree rings and ice core data and even isotope levels of other things give us clues.
You can't simply play the invalid logic of claiming ignorance. We have plenty of data to support this. It is obvious pollution is not good (do you want to breathe it in all day?). It is obvious that we should stop. I don' t see how you could argue with at least those two statements. So, regardless of whether or not you think global warming is false (it is scientific theory) any ideas that we are harming the environment must be taken seriously.
Humans aren't the only important life forms on this planet. We do share it with millions of species you know, so what gives us the right to destroy their homes or their lives?
Oh yes and look "scientific theory" up... you might be surprised. The very reason it is a theory is the very reason why we call evolution a theory. A theory is a scientific principle which explains how things work but only is called a theory after it is supported by hard research and facts. Scientists aren't just making this stuff up you know.
Yes the Earth is not a closed system, but if you throw out some lab findings, why don't you throw out some others like Newton's Laws of Physics or the concept of Gravity. Claiming I broad-brush it is silly when you could easily broad brush the opposite to and claim ignorance.
We do know some things about the atmosphere you know. Certain gases do effect thermal transfer and heat input. That is a fact.
Think about it - Venus has a pretty much constant global temperature. Also it is very hot for it's proximity to the Sun. It also has a very thick CO2 layer - this is plenty of evidence for you outside of our own Earth. If Earth didn't have an atmosphere we would be like Mercury - very hot on the side facing the sun, and very cold on the side away from the sun. Our atmosphere (and atmospheric content) are a crucial balance to why we are here today.
Without adequate or proper levels of ozone, life would not have evolved like it did over the course of 4 billion years. However we _are_ changing the balance drastically. Think about it - CO2 levels are skyrocketing and that is a fact.
It has taken 4 billion years for all the fossil fuels we have in storage to form. In the space of 100 years we have burned a good 30-50% of it. Don't you think that that would effect something? It is a gas, don't you think it would change something in the atmosphere?
The facts:
CO2 levels are dramatically larger than 100 or 10,000 years ago (proven with air samples).
CFCs react with ozone (proven in the lab) and have been emitted in great quantities over the last 50 or so years.
Ozone levels have been depleting around the poles.
We do have a record of climate that spans back thousands of years - it is in our tree rings and ice core data and even isotope levels of other things give us clues.
You can't simply play the invalid logic of claiming ignorance. We have plenty of data to support this. It is obvious pollution is not good (do you want to breathe it in all day?). It is obvious that we should stop. I don' t see how you could argue with at least those two statements. So, regardless of whether or not you think global warming is false (it is scientific theory) any ideas that we are harming the environment must be taken seriously.
Humans aren't the only important life forms on this planet. We do share it with millions of species you know, so what gives us the right to destroy their homes or their lives?
Oh yes and look "scientific theory" up... you might be surprised. The very reason it is a theory is the very reason why we call evolution a theory. A theory is a scientific principle which explains how things work but only is called a theory after it is supported by hard research and facts. Scientists aren't just making this stuff up you know.
0 likes
-
roarusdogus
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:04 pm
The facts you listed are correct without a doubt but that still doesn't change the idea of what adding CO2 into our atmopshere will do. Yes, I agree that pollution is bad and I also agree that we should do what we can to reduce polution of our planet. What I don't agree with is your thinking that by adding CO2 into the atmosphere that it automatically means it will warm the planet. Using Venus as an example means nothing. Venus is in a different proximaty to the sun, doesn't have the same features as the earth, etc. I fully understand what you are saying and I'm not challenging the validity of CO2 being a greenhouse gas, I agree it is. You are as I said before, oversimplifying the earth's atmosphere. You just don't add CO2 and say the earth is going to warm, it doesn't work that way. Lets use a very simple example. Lets say the earth does begin warming due to CO2. This in turns gradually results in more moisture in the atmosphere(I think we will agree that warm air holds more moisture than cold air). This in turn causes more snow to fall in the arctic regions and other higher latitude areas. Even if the earth does warm slightly, it will still be far cold enough for snow in the northern latitudes during the cold season. With all the deep and extensive snowpack, the sun obviously reflects more light and heat, this in turn causes very cold temps across the high latitudes, especially late winter and spring when normally the higher sun angle would start warming it up. It stays much cooler however due to the snowpack and therefore the spring is very cool and it lasts through part of the summer.
This is a very basic example of ONE possible outcome of a slight warming of the planet. This is also I believe an example of how the earth's atmosphere is very complex. You try to warm it up, it naturally resists by adding snowpack. Of course, you also have the ocean streams and what not. The Gulf Stream for example. If you warm the planet slightly, more snow will melt into the ocean from the arctic regions, this could alter or possibly even stop the flow of the Gulf Stream. This would of course most likely send parts of the world into similar conditons to what was seen during the little ice age. This is a well published theory and can be read in lots of places on the internet, so I won't go into detail on it. As a matter of fact, looking at climate records, we know that during the medival warm period that settlers had farms on Greenland. In other words it was much warmer than today. Immediately following that, the little ice age took over for a few hundered years, around 300 years or so if I remember correctly. What caused this sudden shift in climate? Well, research has discovered that the Gulf Stream slowed down considerably after the medival warm period, possibly due to arctic snow and ice pack melting during this period. The slowing of the Gulf Stream in turn could have caused the dramatic shift in climate which allowed for winter festivals on the Thames River in England which never freezes today.
So, ironically whatever caused the warm period around 1100-1300 could have also caused the little ice age because of the earth's natural ability to balance itself out.
This is why it is ignorant to assume that adding CO2 will simply cause a warmer earth. Nobody knows what our complex planet is capable of and anyone that says they know for sure is a liar. We add CO2 to the atmosphere, how does this effect the oceans and what effect will the oceans have on the climate? What effect will it have on snowfall/snowcover and albeido, how will this effect the climate? What if CO2 causes warmer oceans? What will the warmer oceans do? Will it cause more precip and clouds? How will the extra precip and clouds effect the climate? etc, etc, etc. This is why you simply cannot say, CO2 will warm the earth, there are waaaaaaay to many variables to consider.
This is a very basic example of ONE possible outcome of a slight warming of the planet. This is also I believe an example of how the earth's atmosphere is very complex. You try to warm it up, it naturally resists by adding snowpack. Of course, you also have the ocean streams and what not. The Gulf Stream for example. If you warm the planet slightly, more snow will melt into the ocean from the arctic regions, this could alter or possibly even stop the flow of the Gulf Stream. This would of course most likely send parts of the world into similar conditons to what was seen during the little ice age. This is a well published theory and can be read in lots of places on the internet, so I won't go into detail on it. As a matter of fact, looking at climate records, we know that during the medival warm period that settlers had farms on Greenland. In other words it was much warmer than today. Immediately following that, the little ice age took over for a few hundered years, around 300 years or so if I remember correctly. What caused this sudden shift in climate? Well, research has discovered that the Gulf Stream slowed down considerably after the medival warm period, possibly due to arctic snow and ice pack melting during this period. The slowing of the Gulf Stream in turn could have caused the dramatic shift in climate which allowed for winter festivals on the Thames River in England which never freezes today.
So, ironically whatever caused the warm period around 1100-1300 could have also caused the little ice age because of the earth's natural ability to balance itself out.
This is why it is ignorant to assume that adding CO2 will simply cause a warmer earth. Nobody knows what our complex planet is capable of and anyone that says they know for sure is a liar. We add CO2 to the atmosphere, how does this effect the oceans and what effect will the oceans have on the climate? What effect will it have on snowfall/snowcover and albeido, how will this effect the climate? What if CO2 causes warmer oceans? What will the warmer oceans do? Will it cause more precip and clouds? How will the extra precip and clouds effect the climate? etc, etc, etc. This is why you simply cannot say, CO2 will warm the earth, there are waaaaaaay to many variables to consider.
0 likes
-
CaptinCrunch
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 8728
- Age: 57
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 4:33 pm
- Location: Kennedale, TX (Tarrant Co.)
I think I will just wait for the movie to come out.......then we will have a better idea on what to expect in the far future. 
http://www.thedayaftertomorrowmovie.com/
:popcorn: :TV:
http://www.thedayaftertomorrowmovie.com/
:popcorn: :TV:
0 likes
-
roarusdogus
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:04 pm
An interesting tidbit of climate came in the winter of 01-02. a very mild winter for sure. A reasonable and quite accepted explanation of the warm weather is from the highly active sun during the period of time. How can the sun have such an impact on our temps? An impact which indirectly could have caused temps to be in the mid 60s for several days in December here in Mich and then another 60 degree day in Jan? Well, one thing is during the winter, very little and at times no sun shines on the high latitudes, this will cause temps to drop as you would expect during any given cold season. However, with high solar activity, the lower latitudes get more heating from the sun than usual, this in turn causes a much stronger jet as the strength of the jet is determined by the difference in the cold to the north and the warmth to the south. This is why the jet is so much stronger in the winter than in the summer. During the cold season of 01-02, the pacific jet was roaring, sending lots of Pacific air not only into the U.S. but also into Canada, causing all around mild times. Canada later got cold in late Jan but the jet never allowed it to come south until March here in the U.S. So, the question is, what caused such a strong pacific jet that season? As I stated earlier, the solar activity is a very reasonable explanation. Now, if this truly is the reason for our mild winter, then it makes a great point. In the aspect of the sun, the higher solar activity during that time wasn't a big deal, it happens. But just look how much different a season can turn out with the smallest change in the sun. Now, imagine what a long term change in the sun, big or small could do to our planet. Yet, most of the scientists studying global warming say the sun has little impact. How can something that is the basis of life on our planet have little impact on the climate? It is pure ignorance, lack of understanding or simply agenda driven.
0 likes
I don't know how it could be economically driven, because it ends up costing more.
As to being agenda driven, so are most things in this world. Creation science is agenda driven. Politics are agenda driven. Companies are agenda driven (money).
Science though is not agenda driven, despite what people think. There is scientific evidence to support a greenhouse effect idea though. Thus we can base possible ideas from that.
Back to agendas, if having a greener and cleaner planet is an agenda, then I'm all for it
As to being agenda driven, so are most things in this world. Creation science is agenda driven. Politics are agenda driven. Companies are agenda driven (money).
Science though is not agenda driven, despite what people think. There is scientific evidence to support a greenhouse effect idea though. Thus we can base possible ideas from that.
Back to agendas, if having a greener and cleaner planet is an agenda, then I'm all for it
0 likes
-
roarusdogus
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:04 pm
Valkhorn wrote:I don't know how it could be economically driven, because it ends up costing more.
As to being agenda driven, so are most things in this world. Creation science is agenda driven. Politics are agenda driven. Companies are agenda driven (money).
Science though is not agenda driven, despite what people think. There is scientific evidence to support a greenhouse effect idea though. Thus we can base possible ideas from that.
Back to agendas, if having a greener and cleaner planet is an agenda, then I'm all for it
The UN would love to tax our companies. Do you ever wonder why the UN is so eager to prove global warming to be true? $$ ching ching
Science is not agenda driven but scientific theories certainly can be. I'll bet there are many scientists out there being payed by the big poluting companies to come up with theories as to why the pollution isn't hurting the planet. On the othe hand, I bet organizations such as the UN have paid scientists to make sure that studies go the way they want them to in order to make the $$.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests