How Conservatives Destroyed the Environment

[Naked Gents Rut]

Nothing wrong with the Guardian so long as you factor in their ideological tilt. Same thing goes for the NYT.

[Berzerker]

of course there could be runaway effect and we turn into Venus, in that case we don't survive. Oh well. I think it's fruitless to think you can control the desires of almost 7 billion people. Good luck with that.

Venus is upside down, not spinning with no magnetic field to protect surface rocks from solar leeching.

[Berzerker]

The team warned that, if carbon levels in the atmosphere continued to rise, there would be less rainfall in already dry areas of southern Europe, North America, parts of Africa and Australia.

but one of the ways the oceans release heat is thru evaporation which increases rain and snow fall. How do they know where droughts will occur or if rainfall will increase or decrease?

[Agathon]

Nothing wrong with the Guardian so long as you factor in their ideological tilt. Same thing goes for the NYT.

The only serious ideological tilt the Guardian has is Zionism. They'll pretty much print editorials from any point of view (especially on the CIF site), but the only hardcore anti-Israel stuff they tend to print is reprints of Hamas and Bin Laden speeches, which aren't taken seriously because of their sources.

That's to say that the only political view the Guardian won't give serious air time to is the political elimination of Israel. Anything else, they'll permit editorials from opponents.

[RGBVideo]

4.6/10

the correct term to use these days is "climate change"; that way, you can use it even when the climate is getting colder.

[Unimatrix11]

The BBC's science reporter Matt McGrath says the most recent data is also worrying because it threatens to kick-start what climate scientists call negative feedback effects.

Who said they're negative?

-20c here today.

Well, they ARE actually called positive feedback cycles - the reporter is a moron. The positive feedbacks are those that amplify themselves and thus get out of control rather soon. The negative ones are those that transquilize by their own effects and thus subside or at least stay on a certain level after some time. Climate models are rather concerned about the former, not the later.

[Unimatrix11]

To a European, Democrats are still conservatives...

Actually, republicans are liberals, just like the democrats, social-democrates, green party.... anyone who thinks only in the categories of capitalism is, and they all do.

[Unimatrix11]

but one of the ways the oceans release heat is thru evaporation which increases rain and snow fall. How do they know where droughts will occur or if rainfall will increase or decrease?

Evaporation also enhances the green house effect. Positive feedback with delay - those are always nasty ones...

[Felch]

but one of the ways the oceans release heat is thru evaporation which increases rain and snow fall. How do they know where droughts will occur or if rainfall will increase or decrease?

Droughts are bad. Global warming makes bad things happen. Therefore, global warming causes droughts.

Haven't you been paying attention? It's the same damn argument. Whatever you bring up, the hens all start clucking about how it doesn't work that way, and there won't be any benefits at all, and only horrible things will happen, and it's all our fault.

My understanding is that the poles are supposed to warm the most, while the equatorial regions will have the least change. The overall globe will warm, but the changes in temperature between latitudes will decrease. If that's true, wouldn't it diminish cyclonic storms?

[Unimatrix11]

Wether or not such a result would diminish cyclonic storms, is exactly what those climate models are made for. Same with the evaporation effect. Those use the most poweful computers on earth, because they do take everything known to man about the climate into account. I think you can rest pretty assured: It´s a climate phenomonon you can name ? It has been taken into account.

[Kuciwalker]

The science behind the climate models is in its infancy; you have no idea how many assumptions they make and whether those assumptions are justified.

[Felch]

I just wonder what Feynman would have said about the certainty of the alarmists. It's one thing to say, "This is the most likely outcome based on our understanding." It's something else entirely to say, "We have complete understanding of the science, and we are absolutely sure that we are right." Too many alarmists sound like the second statement. I trust science, not pseudo-science.

Everything that I've heard and read seems to be based in emotions, principally fear. Are you afraid of creepy crawly bugs? Well guess what, all those gigantic tropical monsters are going to be crawling all over you in your sleep. Are you afraid of drought? Say goodbye to rain. Are you afraid of hurricanes? They're gonna be coming at you one after another, no matter the season. You afraid of hajis coming to behead your family? Global Climate Change is gonna start wars all over the world.

You want people like me to take this seriously? Quit pissing your pants and start thinking realistically. Victor pointed out that it would probably have some benefits for Canada and Russia. That's one thing. Longer growing seasons, more water in the atmosphere, more CO2 for crops, these are all good things. I have yet to see a thorough analysis of the benefits of climate change versus the problems. Instead it's all hype and hysteria.

[Zkribbler]

You seem to assume all change will be negative.

The NW Passage opening up would be a boon to trade between Europe and Asia. I'm sure there are other possible positive effects, like longer growing seasons over large amounts of the Earth's surface in Northern Canada and Russia.

The last time there was such an influx of fresh water into the North Atlantic was 30,000 years ago. It ushered in a mini-Ice Age into Europe, which was the golden age of the Neanderthals. We're now fresh out of Neanderthals, so having continental Europe covered in snow is not a good thing.

And if oceans continue to rise at the current rate, by the end of the century, Manhattan, Venice, Shanghai, Calcutta and numerous other cities will be under water.

[notyoueither]

The last time there was such an influx of fresh water into the North Atlantic was 30,000 years ago. It ushered in a mini-Ice Age into Europe, which was the golden age of the Neanderthals. We're now fresh out of Neanderthals, so having continental Europe covered in snow is not a good thing.

And if oceans continue to rise at the current rate, by the end of the century, Manhattan, Venice, Shanghai, Calcutta and numerous other cities will be under water.

Venice was doing just fine when temperatures in the northern hemisphere led to conditions where Scandinavians would colonise Greenland.

[Felch]

And if oceans continue to rise at the current rate, by the end of the century, Manhattan, Venice, Shanghai, Calcutta and numerous other cities will be under water.

So build a big wall. Lots of coastal cities and regions are below sea level. Aren't you guys in favor of stimulative public works projects? Build the Manhattan dike. Make New Amsterdam more like Old Amsterdam. It makes more sense to fix a problem when it arises than it does to imagine problems that don't exist and pushing through insanely expensive programs to fix what ain't even broken.