Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?  (Read 53982 times)

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #40 on: January 22, 2017, 09:29:26 pm »

So I state, essentially, that a climate change of plus one or two degrees (which is all anyone is actually predicting) will have little effect on the location I live in and you say:

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

Why unbelievable? Let's say its 3 degrees warmer, on average, every winter and summer here in the mid-Atlantic. From your response you suggest that there will be a huge negative impact. Why? What will it be? You must know since you brand my assessment as "unbelievable". So tell me how you know that on balance the negative effects of such a change will, on balance, outweigh the good effects?

Of course you can't. And neither can any climatologist. And if you find the suggestion that the effect might be neutral or even good, on balance, so unbelievable, then you are exposing far less understanding of the science you so fervently believe in than anyone else who is skeptical about climate change prognostications.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #41 on: January 22, 2017, 10:57:38 pm »

You can actually see that warming climate changes are increasing the amount of populations.  As it warms up in the north countries, the tree line moves up the mountain.  Grasses grow and subsequently insects, small mammals followed by more birds of prey and other animals move up the mountain as well.   The same is true as the tundra melts year around in greater areas. These areas get populated by increasing numbers of animals and plants.   But you never read about these things.  Only how the polar bear is decreasing.  Science and the media should present all sides and facts,  not just the effects that support their arguments.  When they provide weighted info to support their views and objectives, they lose people because there is a sense of dishonesty in the advocates of climate change.

Well expressed, Alan. These are the sorts of reasons why I became skeptical about the claimed dangers of rising CO2 levels. However, I wasn't always skeptical. If one knows nothing, or very little about a subject, it's quite natural to accept a 'consensus' view from so-called experts in the field.

About 20 years ago when the concern about global warming escalated, with constant coverage by the media all singing the same tune, I tended to assume that the problem must be serious.

However, 20 years ago I was quite ignorant on the subject of climate change. I'd never even heard of terms such as the Medieval Warm Period, and The Little Ice Age.
Of course, I'd heard of the (big) Ice Age, more correctly referred to as the last glacial period which ended about 10,000 years ago, but I wasn't aware of the historical record of numerous cold and warm periods in the recent past which had lasted for just 3 or 4 hundred years, and of course which had nothing to do with human-caused CO2 emissions.

Around 20 years ago I also recall listening to an interview of James Lovelock on the subject of human-induced climate change, which he thought at the time was a serious threat, in accordance with his theory of Gaia.

I find it revealing that today, James Lovelock, with his greater wisdom and the honesty to admit his past mistakes, has changed his position on human-induced climate change.
He now claims, “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.”

Check out the following article.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/03/green-guru-james-lovelock-on-climate-change-i-dont-think-anybody-really-knows-whats-happening-they-just-guess-lovelock-reverses-himself-on-global-warming/
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #42 on: January 22, 2017, 11:18:44 pm »

This line of thought has so many problems. First, we are animals, right? Evolved just like all the rest. There are limited resources. We grow, others decline. If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species. Survival of the fittest. We are stronger. We win. For now.

Second, we only want to talk about polar bears and animals that are furry and cute. Pretty trees and woodlands. That is a fetish. It is a desire. It has nothing to do with the evolution of life on the planet. In a world view in which all this happened by accident a slug has no more or less value than a polar bear. Just because we 'like' polar bears is hardly cause to buck the evolutionary order. From that standpoint we are only obligated, evolutionarily, to preserve that which preserves us.

Third, there is no evidence that human expansion, global warming or anything else has produced less life on this planet. Bacteria are by far and away the most successful life form. They are doing just fine and in great diversity. Sure, we can't see them, they don't have big sad eyes, but they are life and they are thriving.

Fourth, so much of the climate argument hinges on having things a certain way, typically the way they are now, or were 20 years ago. Why? Things change. If we are changing them, so what?

So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.

Jeez! And I thought that I was the only truly objective poster on this forum, George.  ;D
Logged

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #43 on: January 22, 2017, 11:33:26 pm »

This line of thought has so many problems. First, we are animals, right? Evolved just like all the rest. There are limited resources. We grow, others decline. If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species. Survival of the fittest. We are stronger. We win. For now.

Second, we only want to talk about polar bears and animals that are furry and cute. Pretty trees and woodlands. That is a fetish. It is a desire. It has nothing to do with the evolution of life on the planet. In a world view in which all this happened by accident a slug has no more or less value than a polar bear. Just because we 'like' polar bears is hardly cause to buck the evolutionary order. From that standpoint we are only obligated, evolutionarily, to preserve that which preserves us.

Third, there is no evidence that human expansion, global warming or anything else has produced less life on this planet. Bacteria are by far and away the most successful life form. They are doing just fine and in great diversity. Sure, we can't see them, they don't have big sad eyes, but they are life and they are thriving.

Fourth, so much of the climate argument hinges on having things a certain way, typically the way they are now, or were 20 years ago. Why? Things change. If we are changing them, so what?

So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.

Well said.  I've always wondered how a purely scientific statement of facts-on-the-ground can take someone from the "is" of the data to the "ought" of what "someone" thinks should be done about it, if anything.  All the "oughts" are philosophical ponderings, and therefore statements of worldview and not in any way scientific, per se. 

I believe that we should be good stewards of the planet, but that comes from philosophical and worldview convictions, not from scientific data.  The data is viewed and evaluated by my worldview and therefore drives an "ought" from the "is" of the data. 

I also have a hard time with the "time, plus chance, plus nothing gets us to where we are" worldview proponents looking at the data and coming up with any kind of altruistic "ought" from the data.  It strikes me as rationally incoherent.  It is perfectly fine for those individuals to express their personal preference in terms of action based on the data - but that's all it is, personal preference and has no foundational basis for any appeal to anyone else vis-a-vis their own preferences.

Rand
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 11:39:08 pm by Rand47 »
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #44 on: January 22, 2017, 11:40:18 pm »

I was curious as to what was really happening with polar bear population due to climate change and the lessening of arctic sea ice.  So it turns out that the bears are doing just fine.  Strange I haven't seen this news in local media.  I wonder why?    What's interesting is that the biggest danger to these bears are thicker ice in the Spring due to colder temperatures.  Apparently when the ice is thicker, seals leave the area because they can't find air holes to breathe.  So the bears can't get the food they need after the winter to support their cubs.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/23/as-the-arctic-shrinks-norways-polar-bear-population-booms-grows-30-in-11-years/

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2017, 04:20:36 am »

So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.

That is true, as far as it goes - nature red in tooth and claw, que sera sera. Strange argument for a Christian to make, but there ya go. I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason - just one race stronger than another - get rid of the Jews - no big deal in evolutionary terms, the human species keeps on truckin'.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2017, 04:30:50 am »

So I state, essentially, that a climate change of plus one or two degrees (which is all anyone is actually predicting) will have little effect on the location I live in and you say:

Why unbelievable? Let's say its 3 degrees warmer, on average, every winter and summer here in the mid-Atlantic. From your response you suggest that there will be a huge negative impact. Why? What will it be? You must know since you brand my assessment as "unbelievable". So tell me how you know that on balance the negative effects of such a change will, on balance, outweigh the good effects?

Of course you can't. And neither can any climatologist. And if you find the suggestion that the effect might be neutral or even good, on balance, so unbelievable, then you are exposing far less understanding of the science you so fervently believe in than anyone else who is skeptical about climate change prognostications.

What is unbelievable is that someone is so impervious to the nature of the debate on climate change that they think it is about the impact of a few sunny days in their backyard. What will the wider negative effects be? Inundation of coastal areas of the US? Desertification of other areas of the US and other parts of the world (seen any news from Syria lately?) Problems with water supply (California?) Will it happen for sure? No of course not for sure, but according to the best estimates of people who have actually worked on the issue, and not just internet keyboard warriors who put their faith in "alternative facts", it's the likeliest outcome. That's cause for concern.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #47 on: January 23, 2017, 04:35:40 am »

I was curious as to what was really happening with polar bear population due to climate change and the lessening of arctic sea ice.  So it turns out that the bears are doing just fine.  Strange I haven't seen this news in local media.  I wonder why?    What's interesting is that the biggest danger to these bears are thicker ice in the Spring due to colder temperatures.  Apparently when the ice is thicker, seals leave the area because they can't find air holes to breathe.  So the bears can't get the food they need after the winter to support their cubs.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/23/as-the-arctic-shrinks-norways-polar-bear-population-booms-grows-30-in-11-years/

From the article:
"The fact of the matter is, globally, polar bear numbers are much greater than they were 40 years ago — largely thanks to restrictions on hunting."

and, why do you imagine that the thicker spring ice is not also an outcome of climate change?

For a slightly more authoritative view you might like to consult:
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roybiolett/12/12/20160556.full.pdf
« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 05:44:08 am by jeremyrh »
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2017, 06:18:47 am »

I was curious as to what was really happening with polar bear population due to climate change and the lessening of arctic sea ice.  So it turns out that the bears are doing just fine.  Strange I haven't seen this news in local media.  I wonder why?    What's interesting is that the biggest danger to these bears are thicker ice in the Spring due to colder temperatures.  Apparently when the ice is thicker, seals leave the area because they can't find air holes to breathe.  So the bears can't get the food they need after the winter to support their cubs.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/23/as-the-arctic-shrinks-norways-polar-bear-population-booms-grows-30-in-11-years/

Hi Alan,

I'm glad you seem to be so optimistic, but do face the real facts (not 'alternative facts', but a more complete overview) as well. The Polar bear population's growth is mainly due to the fact that there is less hunting than some 40 years ago. This has allowed the bears to recover despite the shrinking extent and overall thickness of the ice, and the increasing level of pollutants (top of the foodchain animals suffer most due to accumulation effects). Also the disturbance by snow scooters has been reduced by regulation. Studies show significant geographic variability in densities of bears across different types of habitats in the study area (much denser populations on land-fast ice and pack ice areas in the Russian regions than in sea ice regions).

Sure there may be years that the sea spring ice is thicker, but it cycles from year to year and the trend is down. The thickness as such is also not the same as the extent. Bears are also not stationary, at least most of them aren't, and they migrate and they need ice on certain routes to do that. Without proper tracking/tagging, it is also hard to make meaningful statistical estimates and predictions. For example, the population (people, not bears ;) ) of my home country has lately (also?) grown more by immigration than by childbirth and despite medical interventions, but does that mean that the native population is thriving?

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 06:22:09 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2017, 08:14:37 am »

Regarding consensus on the human effect on climate change here are a couple of links to look at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

We are right now at a stage where renewable energy is crossing fossil energy market prices. The transport sector is right in front of a fundamental change. What this all means is that the price of energy is going down and this will drive the change so that over time the fossil fuel burning does much less damage. This change will happen no matter who believes in the human effect on climate change. That's a huge bonus! It will take quite some time, but I think it will be much quicker than most believe today. It will have a huge impact on the world and change current world powers and politics. Some countries may go bankrupt.

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2017, 08:55:24 am »

That is true, as far as it goes - nature red in tooth and claw, que sera sera. Strange argument for a Christian to make, but there ya go. I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason - just one race stronger than another - get rid of the Jews - no big deal in evolutionary terms, the human species keeps on truckin'.

"That is true, as far as it goes - ..."  Interesting comment.  I would sincerely ask, "How far does it go?"

I'm guessing that the argument isn't a Christian position, rather, an eloquent presentation of the materialist position - given to make a point. And, I think you've put your finger squarely on the difficulty in trying to remain consistent with a materialist worldview by making reference to the Holocaust.  It is quite obviously a great evil that a materialist may only object to based upon personal preference, not upon any objective transcendent morality.

Rand
« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 09:04:01 am by Rand47 »
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2017, 08:57:52 am »

From the article:
"The fact of the matter is, globally, polar bear numbers are much greater than they were 40 years ago — largely thanks to restrictions on hunting."

and, why do you imagine that the thicker spring ice is not also an outcome of climate change?

For a slightly more authoritative view you might like to consult:
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roybiolett/12/12/20160556.full.pdf

You're picking the parts to support your argument.  Sure hunting has effected the populations.  But the article also stated:"“The evidence is now very strong that recent declines in summer/fall sea ice have little to no negative impact on polar bear populations: the real threat to polar bears is thick spring ice,” Crockford said.

Also the  study you quoted in that link is based on modeling not actual counts which are difficult to do. 

The overall point is polar bear population is expanding not declining.  However, you wouldn't know that by listening to the media which is distorting the news to make it seem like they are on their last legs.  The full story is not being told.  The media is biasing the news which is what they seem to do the best.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #52 on: January 23, 2017, 09:18:47 am »

There are, I guess, two broad themes running through this topic: the effect of pollution on the Earth; the effect of pollution on people and upon other innocent animals, of which we are not part.

In the case of the former, any decrease in the white coverage of this oblate spheroid we call home will result in an unavoidable amount of solar heat being absorbed. If you question that - as photographers - it amazes me. If photographic experience isn't enough, I'd advise a trip to Spain where the vast majority of cars bought are white. No, it's not a colour that matches the fiery Latin temperament at all well, but it does serve to keep the people inside the cars from boiling in summer. So, conserve the north and south regions as well as is possible. If you live in some deserts you experience roasting days followed by freezing nights, illustrating the fact that where there is no cloud cover, the extremes of light (heating/cooling)are magnified. So, should we welcome perpetual clouds? Hardly: everything on the surface of Earth needs adequate sunlight to survive, including us. We don't need extended rainy periods, which our current excesses are encouraging, unless we all prepare for a sole diet of rice with rice. Oh, possibly with some remaining fish, too, if there was any left for you to buy, Chef!

Dealing with the population, on the other hand, pollution from exhausts of cars, aircraft, factories, power stations, all of those things that emit it, has never been shown to have a beneficial side. I remember well the days in the UK when coal was used for domestic heating. The results of that were terrible, with huge problems for movement of vehicles and even walking people. Not being able to see one's feet is not a geat exaggeration. That vanished almost the moment that controls were introduced; yes, fog still arrives as usual, but that is moisture, not lung-destroying carbon and sulphur chemistry. I can remember schools being closed early to save kids from the dangers of being killed by lost vehicles, and even when I was working it wasn't unknown for some of our departments to be let out early because of weather. Apart from the dangers to people, those disruptions affect profit.

In conclusion, it seems fairly obvious to me that even if a sound argument could be engineered to disclaim the effects of global warming on life, there is no sound reason to deny that lowering the pollution levels drastically helps people live healthier lives. As for smoking... no, that takes me into the health-care debate and I might find myself stating that smokers should be denied state medical aid along with habitual drunks.

;-)

Rob

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #53 on: January 23, 2017, 09:47:57 am »

So I state, essentially, that a climate change of plus one or two degrees (which is all anyone is actually predicting) will have little effect on the location I live in and you say:

Why unbelievable? Let's say its 3 degrees warmer, on average, every winter and summer here in the mid-Atlantic. From your response you suggest that there will be a huge negative impact. Why? What will it be? You must know since you brand my assessment as "unbelievable". So tell me how you know that on balance the negative effects of such a change will, on balance, outweigh the good effects?

Of course you can't. And neither can any climatologist. And if you find the suggestion that the effect might be neutral or even good, on balance, so unbelievable, then you are exposing far less understanding of the science you so fervently believe in than anyone else who is skeptical about climate change prognostications.
I guess you don't feel that the melting arctic ice cap, the melting glaciers in Greenland, or the breaking up of ice shelves in the Antarctic don't affect you in the mid-Altantic region where you live.  Well I hope you don't live in Norfolk VA or some other area that is now subject to flooding because of increasing sea levels.  Look at the concern about the Navy's huge installation in that area which is already being impacted.  Climate science, just as with many other areas, is observational in nature.  Huge strides have been made in recent years, witness the improved ability to predict sever weather and understand changing patterns.  Now you might want to hold to the view that this is not causative proof for anything and that's your right.  there are a bunch of us who take a contrary view and argue that some steps must be taken to address this.  That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not the subject of any controversy I'm aware of.  The same is true for all the methane that escapes from oil and gas drilling efforts world wide (or worse flared off when it could be captured and used for energy production).  Is it not a good idea to take some precautionary action?
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #54 on: January 23, 2017, 09:53:53 am »

You're picking the parts to support your argument.  Sure hunting has effected the populations.  But the article also stated:"“The evidence is now very strong that recent declines in summer/fall sea ice have little to no negative impact on polar bear populations: the real threat to polar bears is thick spring ice,” Crockford said.

Also the  study you quoted in that link is based on modeling not actual counts which are difficult to do. 

The overall point is polar bear population is expanding not declining.  However, you wouldn't know that by listening to the media which is distorting the news to make it seem like they are on their last legs.  The full story is not being told.  The media is biasing the news which is what they seem to do the best.

I'm pointing out the parts of the article that you forgot to mention because it doesn't suit YOUR story!!

Here is a study of population numbers that again doesn't suit your story:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/14-1129.1/abstract
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #55 on: January 23, 2017, 09:58:02 am »

Regarding consensus on the human effect on climate change here are a couple of links to look at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

We are right now at a stage where renewable energy is crossing fossil energy market prices. The transport sector is right in front of a fundamental change. What this all means is that the price of energy is going down and this will drive the change so that over time the fossil fuel burning does much less damage. This change will happen no matter who believes in the human effect on climate change. That's a huge bonus! It will take quite some time, but I think it will be much quicker than most believe today. It will have a huge impact on the world and change current world powers and politics. Some countries may go bankrupt.

Hopefully you are right, Hans, but it is estimated that even burning a fraction (a third, from memory) of hydrocarbons that HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCOVERED will lead to change in climate, so it may not be enough to rely on market forces to keep them in the ground.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #56 on: January 23, 2017, 10:06:09 am »

Rob, no one wants to breathe polluted air.  And I think we've done a pretty good job here in America to reduce pollution and lower energy use and attendant CO2 production by increasing the efficiencies of engine, motor, heating equipment and systems.     The company I started in the 1970's provided energy management control to reduce usage.  So I'm familiar with the industry.    This is not an all or nothing scenario.  We've been lowering per capita energy use for years.

The question regarding climate change  is how much money do we want to spend to "prevent" global warming assuming we can even do that?   Arguing that we should spend the money "just in case" is not a very good argument.  There's only so much money to go around.  Will the money we spend to reduce fossil fuel use be better used on other things such as for medicine for people who can't afford it, improving living conditions like providing water, heating and other basic services to people who don't have that presently?   

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #57 on: January 23, 2017, 10:17:25 am »

Strange argument for a Christian to make, but there ya go.

Not at all. It was not an expression of what I believe. It is the logical conclusion for those who believe in unguided evolution.

Quote
I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason - just one race stronger than another - get rid of the Jews - no big deal in evolutionary terms, the human species keeps on truckin'.

Wow. Really? Again, I do not believe in unguided evolution or the logical consequences of believing it. But yes, for those who have no moral basis for their beliefs one would see the Holocaust as just once group making its evolutionary way and nothing more. You have to be a theist for any other conclusion.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #58 on: January 23, 2017, 10:22:17 am »

What is unbelievable is that someone is so impervious to the nature of the debate on climate change that they think it is about the impact of a few sunny days in their backyard. What will the wider negative effects be? Inundation of coastal areas of the US? Desertification of other areas of the US and other parts of the world (seen any news from Syria lately?) Problems with water supply (California?) Will it happen for sure? No of course not for sure, but according to the best estimates of people who have actually worked on the issue, and not just internet keyboard warriors who put their faith in "alternative facts", it's the likeliest outcome. That's cause for concern.

You are not paying attention. I said in my local area. Right here where I live. Now, I know, in my heart, why I should be concerned about people elsewhere who might suffer from climate change (and I do). But on what basis do YOU assert that I should care about them? And if you can't make a case for why I should care, then global warming is not relevant to me.

And let's be clear about California's water supply. That's about population and waste. Not global warming. Not yet anyway.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?
« Reply #59 on: January 23, 2017, 10:26:57 am »

I guess you don't feel that the melting arctic ice cap, the melting glaciers in Greenland, or the breaking up of ice shelves in the Antarctic don't affect you in the mid-Altantic region where you live.  Well I hope you don't live in Norfolk VA or some other area that is now subject to flooding because of increasing sea levels.  Look at the concern about the Navy's huge installation in that area which is already being impacted.

These are some of the most dynamic coastlines in the world. They literally change daily. I have personally witnessed a 40 year cycle on the South Carolina coast in which a barrier island lost 100 yards of beach and then regained 150 yards. At high tide the water level is lower than anyone can remember. One island below this one is losing beach at a rapid rate.  The tidal activity on these adjacent islands have nothing to do with sea level change. I suspect the same is true for Norfolk.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 10:51:11 am by N80 »
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13   Go Up